Mental Health - Devlin Live, Radio Live, 10/03/2006

Right. Last post for a while on talkback. Martin Devlin's breakfast show on Friday however deserves comment. The issue of the day on Friday was the resignation of a census worker in the Hamilton area, after it was discovered that he had previously escaped a murder charge on the grounds of insanity - he had killed three of his family members. He has since had rehabilitation over 13 years. First point then, he was not convicted of murder. Why? Because the terrible actions he took were influenced by his mental condition. (Less than 1% of individuals who claim insanity in murder cases successfully escape conviction on this basis). Second, he was rehabilitated and deemed safe to enter the public sphere. Yet, on Devlin's breakfast show mental patients were equated with dangerous murderers. He suggested throughout his show that the individual in question couldn't possibly be rehabilitated after committing such an atrocious act, and further it was in the interests of safety that he remain without work and hence workmates. This particular instance isn't the only time he's articulated what can only be described as objectively false analysis (or lack thereof) and conclusion. Devlin often makes the assumption that mental patients are intrinsically morally corrupt. In his eyes, mental health patients are 'bad eggs', and should be stripped of basic human rights. He willingly ignores evidence which illustrates mental patients too, are victims of their illness. That they can be rehabilitated. And they are no more likely than anyone else to commit an act of violence in the first place. Instead, he maintains a bigotry which perpetuates a sceptical untrustworthy view of individuals with mental illness. He backs this view with an objectively false set of propositions and facts. When I tried to point this out to him in an e-mail, all I got was this response: ---- Hmmm Somewhere in the middle lies the answer? I actually think we almost agree.. Thanks for your mail son... ---- Devlin, among many others in the media, need to ensure they have a correct set of facts when it comes to mental health issues. Mental health problems could afflict any of us, and I wonder if Devlin would continue to maintain a blinded ignorance if someone he knew were affected. My main point here is simply that media need to rely on truthful facts. Broadcasting falsities prevents good intelligent debate and encourages irrational prejudice. (On a more positive note, many media outlets have taken a reasonably objective stance on the above issue. Stuff has a well-balanced report. National Radio also took an intelligent approach. This article in the Herald was unfortunately a bit sensational and the debate was from the beginning framed with an emotional perspective).