SuppliedIn 2016, Matthew de Grood, the man who killed five people at a house party in Calgary, was found to be not criminally responsible for his actions.
Now, in 2019, there is a hearing to determine whether or not he should be allowed more freedoms, such as unsupervised outings. The decision won’t come for a few more weeks, so in the meantime we’re left to wonder whether or not this is a good idea. There are two sides to this: one citing his violent behaviour in the past, calling to prevent it from happening again, and the other side which believes in the power of change and rehabilitation.
First, let’s examine the more pessimistic side. De Grood did stab and kill five people during a psychotic break. It was a violent and unpredictable attack. He suffers from schizophrenia, which is why he was found not criminally responsible, but has since been seeing a psychiatrist and taking his medication. His psychiatrist, Dr. Santoch Rai, has said in front of the review board that “if Matthew de Grood were to commit another offence, it would be severe.” Despite his perceived improvement, there is still risk of re-offense. But is this reason enough to remain afraid? Is it enough to keep de Grood locked up?
As long as de Grood continues to take his medication, there isn’t a huge risk of reoffense, so why are people so concerned? I believe the stigma surrounding people with mental illness, particularly those with schizophrenia, largely influences this fear. Certain mental illnesses have become less stigmatized, such as mood and anxiety disorders. But others, including schizophrenia, remain highly stigmatized. This is in large part due to numerous portrayals of schizophrenics as dangerous people with voices in their heads telling them to kill people.
That was the case in this situation, but these instances are rare, and that’s perhaps why we remember them so well when they occur. In fact, the majority of schizophrenic individuals are nonviolent, and are more likely to be the victims rather than the perpetrators of crime or violence. In light of this, it seems unreasonable to insist that de Grood be denied certain freedoms when the fear of re-offense is based more on a prejudiced attitude towards people with schizophrenia than actual likelihood.
I don’t believe de Grood should ever be unsupervised permanently. A parole-like system where he has to check in to make sure he’s still taking his medication could work well. Arguing that he or other mentally ill people remain institutionalized unless absolutely necessary is a form of segregation. It perpetuates the idea that mentally ill people, those with schizophrenia in particular, cannot ever mesh with society; thus continuing the stigma and perpetuating the idea that they are dangerous criminals. He was found not criminally responsible by a court of law, so why should he be treated like a prisoner instead of someone who was ill and is now better?
