Was she already diagnosed with a mental disability?

 

If she does have a mental disability, would that give her the inability to decide between right and wrong? I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just curious.

 

To answer the first question I have no idea. Hypothetically if she does have a diagnosable mental disorder it would likely not prevent her from knowing right from wrong. However that's not really the issue for myself and others calling for compassion. I wasn't saying she shouldn't be held responsible because she absolutely should. I'm saying she should receive mental health treatment in addition to her punishment and some love and support from the community rather than outrage and ostracism.

This thread continuously brings me to this thought. This young lady did something pretty bad that affected many people. Nobody knew of her mental disorder. She was in a college environment co-existing with other people. Then BAM. She pulls this stunt.

1. Is she a criminal? If yes, check this box and she takes the full heat of the law.

2. Or is she mentally ill? Is this is an attention seeking disorder or a Munchhausen disorder that cannot be cured? If yes, then check this box and let her have the considerations given to people with mental disorders.

3. If this is #2, then ..........what comes to mind is a way to protect others in the future. I mean, it seems like there is no outward appearance of her "disease/disability" yet, she is capable of causing harm to others without knowing right from wrong.

4. And---you can't have it both ways. If she is recognized as a person with a mental disease, then by all means, lets support her, and rally around her and provide treatment. However, lets also make sure that this is on her record so that future employers and schools can proceed with caution, knowing that she is capable of devising a master plan for her benefit, carrying on this plan for months, and deceiving hundreds of people in the process, all the while having no "Jiminy Cricket" conscience to be her guide.

Two things to point out that the news got wrong:

 

1) Kelly is 18 years old, not 20.

 

2) When police arrived at the Linden Center for Hope to confiscate her cell phone, she was NOT being treated for cancer as reported.

Kelly's family is now receiving threatening hate mail.

Kelly's family is now receiving threatening hate mail.

 

That is terrible. No one knows all the facts yet. The family is going through enough already.

First and foremost, BGP IS a great place... So let's begin there.

 

It is a place to share opinions,ideas, suggestions, etc. on the topics that are posted.

 

As for being anonymous, there are A LOT of posters here that know who others are. I'm fairly confident when I say that most of the people here would have no problem saying what they do in a public setting with full disclosure. I know I would. I don't post anything here that I wouldn't say somewhere else.

 

Agree with this 100%.

 

Chris Burkart aka Lawnboy13

From experience of sitting on committees that reveiwed ACT scores for high school seniors while working for NKU, I'd say that isnt accurate.

 

A lot has changed since say 2004 in regards to NKU's admissions standards.

 

Admission Standards are not mutually exclusive as it relates to certain mental disorders. Think the difference between academic deficit and emotional / mental deficit. One is not dependent upon the other to be admitted to a university

This thread continuously brings me to this thought. This young lady did something pretty bad that affected many people. Nobody knew of her mental disorder. She was in a college environment co-existing with other people. Then BAM. She pulls this stunt.

1. Is she a criminal? If yes, check this box and she takes the full heat of the law.

2. Or is she mentally ill? Is this is an attention seeking disorder or a Munchhausen disorder that cannot be cured? If yes, then check this box and let her have the considerations given to people with mental disorders.

3. If this is #2, then ..........what comes to mind is a way to protect others in the future. I mean, it seems like there is no outward appearance of her "disease/disability" yet, she is capable of causing harm to others without knowing right from wrong.

4. And---you can't have it both ways. If she is recognized as a person with a mental disease, then by all means, lets support her, and rally around her and provide treatment. However, lets also make sure that this is on her record so that future employers and schools can proceed with caution, knowing that she is capable of devising a master plan for her benefit, carrying on this plan for months, and deceiving hundreds of people in the process, all the while having no "Jiminy Cricket" conscience to be her guide.

 

You really want to go down this road of permanent label and notification ? This is a huge step into a police state mentality.

 

My question for you: Let's say you have a serious disease, it's debilitating over time, but not yet manifesting itself so that everyone can tell you have this disease...you go to the doctor, get diagnosed and know you have it.

 

By your logic, that doctor would be required to notify your employer you have said disease, even though you are still working and have no outward symptoms.

 

And you think that public notification of an individual's medical history is still a good idea ?

You really want to go down this road of permanent label and notification ? This is a huge step into a police state mentality.

 

My question for you: Let's say you have a serious disease, it's debilitating over time, but not yet manifesting itself so that everyone can tell you have this disease...you go to the doctor, get diagnosed and know you have it.

 

By your logic, that doctor would be required to notify your employer you have said disease, even though you are still working and have no outward symptoms.

 

And you think that public notification of an individual's medical history is still a good idea ?

 

I would think future employers would want to know that she's cunning enough to deceive hundreds of people of thousands of dollars. I think they have a right to know about how dishonest she is, don't you? What she did is a felony, right? That'll stick with her on any and all background checks, won't it?

Admission Standards are not mutually exclusive as it relates to certain mental disorders. Think the difference between academic deficit and emotional / mental deficit. One is not dependent upon the other to be admitted to a university

 

Agreed. My post in post #120 had nothing to do with admission of a student with mental disabilities. Was more in reference to how easy it is to get into NKU, which is inaccurate. Their admission standards are much tougher than in 2004.

She could have a mental illness or a personality disorder. Based only on what I have read here, seen in the papers, and heard locally, I would bet she has some type of attention seeking personality disorder. Either way she needs to be held legally responsible. The vast magority of mentaly ill people know right from wrong. People with personality disorders most certainly do.

 

One thing that I have learned working is this field is that people will get away with things if they think they can. For years we did nothing when patients attacked staff, threw items (like computers) and broke them. We had some horrific things happen, but did not press charges, "because they were sick" We then started pressing charges and guess what? Those behaviors significantly declined when patients started getting arrested. One of our people, a frequent flyer, was very difficult to control every time he came in. He got arrested, and now he comes in a much better behaved person. He even laughs and says "remember when you guys had me arrested?, that was wild."

 

In many ways, it was good to have them arrested as it sometimes makes them realize their need to take treatment seriously.

 

 

In truth, the most severely mentally ill people we work with would not harm a fly. When they do, they are so paranoid and delusional they strike out in real fear. We would never have them arrested. From what I have heard, this girl does not fall in this category.

 

To say that people who are mentally ill are not responsible for their actions is an insult to people suffering from mental illness.

 

Get this lady the help she needs, face the concequences of her actions, and then let her move on with her life. It should be a huge wake up call for her to get her act together. Hopefully, she will get the counseling she needs on an on going basis.

She deserves a second chance, as we all do.

You really want to go down this road of permanent label and notification ? This is a huge step into a police state mentality.

 

My question for you: Let's say you have a serious disease, it's debilitating over time, but not yet manifesting itself so that everyone can tell you have this disease...you go to the doctor, get diagnosed and know you have it.

 

By your logic, that doctor would be required to notify your employer you have said disease, even though you are still working and have no outward symptoms.

 

And you think that public notification of an individual's medical history is still a good idea ?

 

Medical diagnosis and criminal record are two very different things.

I would think future employers would want to know that she's cunning enough to deceive hundreds of people of thousands of dollars. I think they have a right to know about how dishonest she is, don't you? What she did is a felony, right? That'll stick with her on any and all background checks, won't it?

 

Future employers may want to know, but do not have a right to know a person's medical history...that is the law.

 

Employers do not have a right to know anything except what they are entitled to, which would be some felony convictions, in some cases.

 

If she is convicted of a felony, yes, but she is not likely to be. Additionally, a felony should not be a permanent bar to employment...that is part of the problem with our criminal justice system today.

 

Dishonesty is not a bar to employment, in this case, you have a perception of dishonesty, others have a perception of illness causality....there is definitely a distinction between the two

Medical diagnosis and criminal record are two very different things.

 

Exactly correct, and rarely should the two be mutually paired to arrive at a conclusion about a person's ability to perform work...very rarely.

Future employers may want to know, but do not have a right to know a person's medical history...that is the law.

 

Employers do not have a right to know anything except what they are entitled to, which would be some felony convictions, in some cases.

 

If she is convicted of a felony, yes, but she is not likely to be. Additionally, a felony should not be a permanent bar to employment...that is part of the problem with our criminal justice system today.

 

Dishonesty is not a bar to employment, in this case, you have a perception of dishonesty, others have a perception of illness causality....there is definitely a distinction between the two

 

I never said anything about her medical history.

 

Why would you think she won't be convicted of a felony?

 

If you were hiring someone don't you think you have the right to know that they defrauded people of thousands of dollars by lying and running a scam?