U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-04-2018, 06:45 AM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
4,376 posts, read 1,815,052 times
Reputation: 3301

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
And the Liberal solution is to waste valuable money, time and resources in a losing effort.


Thanks for being honest about your beliefs. The reason I am not a conservative is I don't have a burning hatred of the poor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-04-2018, 08:35 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,085 posts, read 13,614,329 times
Reputation: 22147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
That is not what the Supreme Court said.
If you had bothered to read and understand O'Connor v. Donaldson 422 US 563 (1975), what the Supreme Court actually said is:

"Now, the purpose of involuntary hospitalization is treatment, and not mere custodial care or punishment if a patient is not a danger to himself or others. Without such treatment, there is no justification from a constitutional standpoint for continued confinement unless you should also find that [Donaldson] was dangerous to either himself or others."

So long as you provide treatment, you can confine people who are not a danger to themselves or others.
The evidence showed that Donaldson's confinement was a simple regime of enforced custodial care, not a program designed to alleviate or cure his supposed illness. Numerous witnesses, including one of O'Connor's codefendants, testified that Donaldson had received nothing but custodial care while at the hospital. O'Connor described Donaldson's treatment as "milieu therapy." But witnesses from the hospital staff conceded that, in the context of this case, "milieu therapy" was a euphemism for confinement in the "milieu" of a mental hospital.
Donaldson was not provided with any treatment whatsoever.
This thread is about the "homeless". Any person who loses their home and job due to substance abuse is clearly both an incompetent substance abuser and incompetent to play the game of Life.
If you intend to hide behind a Supreme Court ruling you don't even understand, then you'll never resolve the problem of homelessness, but you will waste lots of money, time and resources attempting to win a game that you cannot win.
I understand Donaldson. Maybe you missed this part of the decision:

"Where "treatment" is the sole asserted ground for depriving a person of liberty, it is plainly unacceptable to suggest that the courts are powerless to determine whether the asserted ground is present. See Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 . Neither party objected to the jury instruction defining treatment. There is, accordingly, no occasion in this case to decide whether the provision of treatment, standing alone, can ever constitutionally justify involuntary confinement or, if it can, how much or what kind of treatment would suffice for that purpose. In its present posture this case involves not involuntary treatment but simply involuntary custodial confinement."

In other words, you can't keep someone confined simply by providing treatment because The Court, held that the finding of "mental illness" alone is not justification for continued confinement in a mental institution. Without the necessary prerequisite of "dangerousness", a mentally ill person has the same right as a physically ill person to decide whether he wishes to remain hospitalized or be released from a hospital.

Consider this, if a person attempts suicide they can be confined because they pose an immediate danger to themself. Whether they are treated or not, if in the future they no longer meet the criteria of "dangerousness" you can't confine them just in case they might become suicidal at some time in the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:25 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top