86 y/o with dementia faces felony for voting 2x

[tyroneweaver]

86-year-old woman with dementia faces felony voting fraud charge for voting twice | Fox News


Must of voted republican.

 

[JoeB131]

Hey, the right finally found proof of voting fraud...

 

[LoneLaugher]

must have

 

[Truthmatters]

86-year-old St. Peter woman charged with voter fraud » Local News » The Free Press, Mankato, MN


see how dumb the republican charges of voter fraud are

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says ya gotta do somethin' or Granny'd be votin' both Republican an' Democrat inna `lections...

Majority of 'deprivation of liberty' cases unreported, says report
6 April 2013 - Limits placed on the freedom of people with dementia or brain injuries are not being properly recorded, according to a healthcare regulator.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) said almost two-thirds of applications to restrict a person's liberty were not reported to it, as required by law. The CQC said it could signal a lack of understanding or compliance with the Mental Capacity Act. In some cases, patients had their freedom removed for months at a time. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) are used when someone lacks the capacity to make decisions for themselves. Often, the safeguards allow a care worker to prevent someone with a mental disability or injury from leaving their care home, or to restrain them. Almost 12,000 applications were made to restrict people's liberty between April 2011 and March 2012, an increase of 57% in two years.

Visits 'restricted'

Frida Sullivan was moved by her daughter, Jayne, into a care home in Cheam, south-west London, in 2009. She hoped to be able to take her mother out on visits, sometimes back to her old house. "In less than a week of her being there, I was told visits had to be severely restricted because she was causing problems," Jayne Sullivan said. "The home blamed the outings and the visits, which I thought was ridiculous - they accepted her on those grounds. They said if I didn't do what I was told, they would kick her out." Ms Sullivan said the health trust and social workers took the side of the care home. "I had to do what I was told. I didn't know about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, nor the Court of Protection. I suspect most people don't," she said. Three years after Frida was put in the home, the local government ombudsman found proper procedure - the DoLS - had not been followed. The care home declined to comment.

Regional variations 'concerning'

When a care home or hospital applies to use the safeguards, the outcome must be reported to the healthcare regulator so it can ensure they are being applied appropriately. But in England the CQC found only 37% of cases were properly recorded last year. As a result, around 7,000 people were deprived of their liberty in a way that did not follow procedure. The Welsh regulator is to start calculating a comparable figure from this year. Lawyers representing people with mental disabilities suspect the numbers may be far higher because some care homes and hospitals are restraining people without using the safeguards. Michael Furminger, a barrister specialising in community care law, said the possibility of people being deprived of their liberty without proper authority was worrying. He said: "There are probably thousands of cases where either the care home do not know what they are doing, or do know but still do not make the application. "At least if there is an application and a family is not happy, they can challenge it. But if there is a deprivation of liberty without authority, there is nothing to challenge."

Analysis by 5 live Investigates suggests someone in Leicestershire is more than 40 times more likely to be deprived of their liberty using the safeguards in the Mental Capacity Act than someone in Tower Hamlets. A spokesman for Tower Hamlets council, which made four applications, said it was reviewing its use of the safeguards in recognition of its low figures. Leicestershire County Council, which made 463 applications, said it was "proactive" in its safeguarding work. A spokesman for the authority said: "We see these figures as a validation of good practice being in place, with care home managers, hospital staff and other professionals." The Alzheimer's Society said the safeguards help protect human rights, but that it was concerned about the uneven use of them across the country.

More BBC News - Majority of 'deprivation of liberty' cases unreported, says report

 

[hoosier88]

Fox & the Right in general have been up in arms recently - the last 3 or 4 general elections - about the question of people voting who shouldn't, although usually it's in terms of people who have no right to vote @ all (undocumented immigrants, convincted felons whose franchise has not been restored, etc.) That clamor & claims of hundred or thousands or "billions upon billions" of illegal vote/voters is one reason that this poor woman will have to show up in court & throw herself upon the mercy of the court.

I expect that the charge will be quashed, as she apparently didn't intend to defraud anyone, not vote illegally. Yah, the judges (& or party reps - one each from Democratic & Republic, & others, if any) could have simply noted she'd already voted & sent her back home. But if the statute requires she be charged, then it's out of everybody's hands.

We can hope that every consideration will be given seniors & people suffering from CNS diseases, in these cases, in the pending legislation there.

I don't quite follow Fox's tone in the OP - are they sorry that they've helped whip up voter outrage to the point that this old sick woman has to leap through legal hoops? Or do they feel that her treatment - @ least she wasn't required to do a perp walk for the cameras, shawl over her head, cuffed behind her waist - is more than justified by even the whiff of voter fraud?

 

[Noomi]

She seems to have the very early stages of dementia - the fact she can remember voting twice says that her memory isn't that bad.
It also sounds like a simple mistake, which wouldn't have occurred had the election judge seen the A.B next to her name, and stopped her from voting.

I think the fault here lies with the judge.

 

[bucs90]

Justice is blind, right?

Right wingers would cheer and hold a pep rally if the "Obamaphone" woman in Ohio was locked up for the very same charge.

 

[tinydancer]

Bi partisanship gone wild.....granny says.....

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yeah we need voter ID, it slows the process down and makes sure it's legit.....but if she made a mistake and turned herself in, then just give her a slap.....it was twice, she has dementia, so I'll cut her a break, since it seems like an honest mistake....but voter ID and better record keeping can prevent this.

 

[Noomi]

Justice is blind, right?

Right wingers would cheer and hold a pep rally if the "Obamaphone" woman in Ohio was locked up for the very same charge.

Oh, of course!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yeah we need voter ID, it slows the process down and makes sure it's legit.....but if she made a mistake and turned herself in, then just give her a slap.....it was twice, she has dementia, so I'll cut her a break, since it seems like an honest mistake....but voter ID and better record keeping can prevent this.

Pretty much that. Fine her $50 or something.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nutters love being judges. Who needs laws when you have so many wise and fair-minded nutters to render decisions?

 

[Seawytch]

She seems to have the very early stages of dementia - the fact she can remember voting twice says that her memory isn't that bad.
It also sounds like a simple mistake, which wouldn't have occurred had the election judge seen the A.B next to her name, and stopped her from voting.

I think the fault here lies with the judge.

Bingo! If proper procedures had been followed, she wouldn't have been able to vote twice.

This sort of thing happens all the time. We mail out ballots 29 days before an election. Countless times people have forgotten that they had mailed their ballot in weeks before the election. Election day rolls around and they try vote again. These voters should be required to vote a provisional ballot because their eligibility to cast the vote is in question.