The Canadian Press ran a story today about an Ontario judge releasing several accused individuals because the prosecuting attorney was absent. While reading the story today, one thing stuck out. Here is an excerpt from the Toronto Star (other newspapers copied and pasted the same article);
The accused included a man deemed to be a violent schizophrenic, a spouse charged in a domestic abuse case, a disbarred lawyer charged with fraud and a robbery suspect.
I get why the original writer said â€œspouse charged in a domestic abuse case,â€ â€œdisbarred lawyer charged with fraud,â€ and â€œrobbery suspect.â€ The writer was trying to show the types of crimes committed, and who they are (lawyer and spouse) also says something about their crime (spousalÂ abuseÂ and fraud while practising law).
But the first example he gives is lacking any actual context. No crime is mentioned, no charge is mentioned. All that is mentioned is that the person has schizophrenia and that the person has been violent.
The writer implies (probably not intentionally) that being schizophrenic is the crime.
Is it any wonder people with schizophrenia are portrayed as psychotic in movies when prejudice like this still exists in news media?