Jackson Demands Accuser get Head Examined
In an interesting turn of events, Michael Jackson, whose sanity has seemed somewhat tenuous to me, is demanding that his teenage accuser have a mental competency exam. This leads to something that has always bothered me ... the use of mental health status and experts in the legal system.
On the one hand it is legally clear why Jackson should be allowed to have the accuser examined - the boy's psychiatrist is going to testify in the case, so Jackson has a right to have his expert examine the boy and testify as well. Legally, we're clear. Ugh, but the civil rights implications are explosive.
Let's say the boy was found to have some mental illness - let's say he was depressed. Does that make it any less likely that he was molested? Is his testimony less valid? I think that in the eyes of too many jurors, it would be.
And if someone was very seriously ill, let's say schizophrenic, does that mean that they can never testify convincingly in court? I know that when Tucker Carlson (the baby-faced bow tie guy on one of those silly cable news argument shows) was accused of rape, his attorney jumped on the fact that the accuser had a history of treatment for mental illness. This alone is what impeached her testimony. However, there was tons of other proof that her accusation was false. For one thing, the woman claimed the rape happened in a city that Carlson could prove he had never even visited. He also had a soild alibi for the time in question. But instead of relying on the usual kind of proof of innocence, his legal team chose for whatever reason to go after her mental treatment history.
So it seems to me that it's easier to rape a mentally ill woman than a non-ill one - no one will believe the ill one. It's also easier to rape a woman who has been through mental health treatment as her testimony will be in doubt. If this is really the case, perhaps women (and men for that matter) would be better off if they stay away from mental health treatment. It turns them into a second-class legal citizen.
This also has interesting legal implications when you consider the new plans to test all citizens for mental illness. Will their findings cause thousands maybe millions to lose their legal rights because of a mental health diagnosis that may or may not be accurate?
On the one hand it is legally clear why Jackson should be allowed to have the accuser examined - the boy's psychiatrist is going to testify in the case, so Jackson has a right to have his expert examine the boy and testify as well. Legally, we're clear. Ugh, but the civil rights implications are explosive.
Let's say the boy was found to have some mental illness - let's say he was depressed. Does that make it any less likely that he was molested? Is his testimony less valid? I think that in the eyes of too many jurors, it would be.
And if someone was very seriously ill, let's say schizophrenic, does that mean that they can never testify convincingly in court? I know that when Tucker Carlson (the baby-faced bow tie guy on one of those silly cable news argument shows) was accused of rape, his attorney jumped on the fact that the accuser had a history of treatment for mental illness. This alone is what impeached her testimony. However, there was tons of other proof that her accusation was false. For one thing, the woman claimed the rape happened in a city that Carlson could prove he had never even visited. He also had a soild alibi for the time in question. But instead of relying on the usual kind of proof of innocence, his legal team chose for whatever reason to go after her mental treatment history.
So it seems to me that it's easier to rape a mentally ill woman than a non-ill one - no one will believe the ill one. It's also easier to rape a woman who has been through mental health treatment as her testimony will be in doubt. If this is really the case, perhaps women (and men for that matter) would be better off if they stay away from mental health treatment. It turns them into a second-class legal citizen.
This also has interesting legal implications when you consider the new plans to test all citizens for mental illness. Will their findings cause thousands maybe millions to lose their legal rights because of a mental health diagnosis that may or may not be accurate?
posted by Christine at Tuesday, December 07, 2004
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home