Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Commentary: Garry David, psychiatry, and the discourse of dangerousness

Commentary: Garry David, psychiatry, and the discourse of dangerousness Commentary: Garry David, psychiatry, and the discourse of dangerousness William Glaser * The many people who mourned Garry David's death in June 1993 were not necessarily naive or hypocritical. Even the most sympathetic commentator would have to accept that his problems involved something more than martyrdom to state-inspired persecution. Rather, the sadness of David's death lies in its symbolism. Craze and Moynihan have demonstrated that the ultimate failure of a society to deal with one of its more unhappy citizens arose not so much from a lack of resources or even of good intentions (although certainly much more could have been done in these areas) but rather because of a fundamental inability to define conceptual boundaries. Hysterical fears were c()nfused with hard science; gross infringements of civil liberties were represented as well-intentioned pragnlatism and uninformed prejudice was held up as a model of rational decision·-making. It is this seemingly deliherate attempt by the state to massively shift the powerlknowledge balance in its favour which is the most frightening aspect of the Garry David saga. There is ample evidence that the relevant government departments were prepared to use extensive social and political influence in order not only to justify the http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology SAGE

Commentary: Garry David, psychiatry, and the discourse of dangerousness

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/commentary-garry-david-psychiatry-and-the-discourse-of-dangerousness-WjvPZz986s

References (1)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© The Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology and Authors, 1994
ISSN
0004-8658
eISSN
1837-9273
DOI
10.1177/000486589402700107
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Commentary: Garry David, psychiatry, and the discourse of dangerousness William Glaser * The many people who mourned Garry David's death in June 1993 were not necessarily naive or hypocritical. Even the most sympathetic commentator would have to accept that his problems involved something more than martyrdom to state-inspired persecution. Rather, the sadness of David's death lies in its symbolism. Craze and Moynihan have demonstrated that the ultimate failure of a society to deal with one of its more unhappy citizens arose not so much from a lack of resources or even of good intentions (although certainly much more could have been done in these areas) but rather because of a fundamental inability to define conceptual boundaries. Hysterical fears were c()nfused with hard science; gross infringements of civil liberties were represented as well-intentioned pragnlatism and uninformed prejudice was held up as a model of rational decision·-making. It is this seemingly deliherate attempt by the state to massively shift the powerlknowledge balance in its favour which is the most frightening aspect of the Garry David saga. There is ample evidence that the relevant government departments were prepared to use extensive social and political influence in order not only to justify the

Journal

Australian & New Zealand Journal of CriminologySAGE

Published: Jun 1, 1994

There are no references for this article.