Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One is one incarcerated if they commit a crime. A specific law was broken which led to specific due process for the person to be imprisoned. I completely agree that better health services should be made available in prison and out of prison.
Where you and I differ is I don't want anyone to be forced to receive treatment if they don't want to be. If someone is not a danger to themselves or others as determined by a court of law they should be free to determine what treatment they receive and have all the same rights as anyone else.
Because someone is different, doesn't make them dangerious; it also doesn't mean they are only afforded partial rights as determine by some administrator.
Shifting back to a forced system that led to rampant abuse and human experimentation doesn't sound like the best idea to me.
All too often the crime committed was DUE to the lack of cognizant reasoning skills among the mentally impaired.
I agree with the non-threat people maintaining their absolute rights. Otherwise, anyone deemed "merely eccentric" would be easy pickings. I think we both know we're not talking about these types though. The suicidal have their rights curtailed right out of the box.
I do not believe anyone is petitioning for a rebirth of a system already proven abhorrent. Discussion needs to take place on the issue and part of that discussion should be devoted to individual rights and protections.
I am well aware that even in existing systems like senior assisted care facilities you will have a range of care from outright '24 hour in restraints with full diaper' abuse to 'Cadillac leather and surround sound seating'.
Part of the problem with such a proposed measure is HIPPA laws regarding patient confidentiality. What if instead of reporting the exact nature of the problem, the person diagnosing/treating the patient enters a generic code that puts a red flag on his or her name making them an automatic deny if they apply for a gun permit? Another problem is this would require the person to either seek treatment or be ordered by the court to treatment for the diagnosis to be made. I know I suffer from PTSD and depression and so I choose to not own a gun. But in the case of someone with paranoia or other types of mental problems, they don't think they're crazy. They think only they can see what's really going on in their world and so they're not crazy.
sounds like a catch 22. In most cases getting gun permit is a sign of mental issues so why give anyone a gun permit.
All too often the crime committed was DUE to the lack of cognizant reasoning skills among the mentally impaired.
I agree with the non-threat people maintaining their absolute rights. Otherwise, anyone deemed "merely eccentric" would be easy pickings. I think we both know we're not talking about these types though. The suicidal have their rights curtailed right out of the box.
I do not believe anyone is petitioning for a rebirth of a system already proven abhorrent. Discussion needs to take place on the issue and part of that discussion should be devoted to individual rights and protections.
I am well aware that even in existing systems like senior assisted care facilities you will have a range of care from outright '24 hour in restraints with full diaper' abuse to 'Cadillac leather and surround sound seating'.
That is exactly the problem, anything beyond our current system is a rebirth of our past system that was struck down by scotus.
Removing the rights of large groups because of the potential actions of a small amount of people in that group is not something I can support. Imagine instead of talking about mentally ill we are talking about black males between 18-35 who statistically are more likely to commit a crime than someone with mental illness and then proposing taking some of their civil rights away because of the higher probability they are a danger to others.
Living in a country based on freedom and liberty has some inherent risks, this is one of them. Any attempt of government to start punishing/force medicating based on the potential of one committing a future crime is scary.
That is exactly the problem, anything beyond our current system is a rebirth of our past system that was struck down by scotus.
Removing the rights of large groups because of the potential actions of a small amount of people in that group is not something I can support. Imagine instead of talking about mentally ill we are talking about black males between 18-35 who statistically are more likely to commit a crime than someone with mental illness and then proposing taking some of their civil rights away because of the higher probability they are a danger to others.
Living in a country based on freedom and liberty has some inherent risks, this is one of them. Any attempt of government to start punishing/force medicating based on the potential of one committing a future crime is scary.
I agree with this and have said so more than once before. Of course it's more complicated than your one sentence but the conversation needs to include this idea.
Liberty and Freedom have risks. One of the liberties is having citizens being personally armed, in some cases, any place or time the desire. The risk of this is some of those people may be deranges enough to think that killing a bunch of other citizens will solve all the shooter's problems or make some kind of political statement. Personally I will keep my freedom of to carry a gun or not and take my chances with the crazies.
Another point is the concept of taking guns away from people that have violent backgrounds and histories. That would logically result in disarming every veteran that ever saw combat and survived as well as any that were in a combat zone. Just being under the threat of being shot changes people forever. I feel safer with these people around me because they are paying attention and most have no desire to shoot anyone. It's the gang of teen age wanna be thugs that frighten me so I avoid them rather then have to explain my response to being threatened.
That is exactly the problem, anything beyond our current system is a rebirth of our past system that was struck down by scotus.
Removing the rights of large groups because of the potential actions of a small amount of people in that group is not something I can support. Imagine instead of talking about mentally ill we are talking about black males between 18-35 who statistically are more likely to commit a crime than someone with mental illness and then proposing taking some of their civil rights away because of the higher probability they are a danger to others.
Living in a country based on freedom and liberty has some inherent risks, this is one of them. Any attempt of government to start punishing/force medicating based on the potential of one committing a future crime is scary.
Adjusting the rights of society has been done since the constitution signatures were still wet. Laws are crafted by which a civilized society governs it's behaviour.
We are not talking about a demographic profile defined by race. Mental illness does not discriminate by race.
A country "based on freedom" should not be filled with citizens carrying weapons due to fearing their fellow citizens. That is not indicative of any definition of freedom I'm familiar with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
