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 Yesterday, 04:43 PM
 
5,386 posts, read 3,368,041 times
Reputation: 6551

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog View Post
We set up a dangerous precedent when we start blaming words spoken by others or tweeted out by others as the reason why entirely different people shoot up a church, school or Walmart.
While I agree with your statement, don't forget Charles Manson also didn't kill anyone, but got the death penalty, later changed to life in prison for telling people to kill other people. And a woman who encouraged her boyfriend to kill himself via text (which he did) was recently sentenced to 15 months in jail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 06:06 PM
 
Location: Houston
22,691 posts, read 11,684,764 times
Reputation: 9208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Dont forget the grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins... it takes a villiage, right?
Nuke the whole town.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:11 PM
 
10,192 posts, read 6,372,138 times
Reputation: 8494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog View Post
Simple question, what mentally illness gets people "locked up"?


National Institute of Mental Health
Only those that are a physical danger to others. They would be referred by a family member, law enforcement, counselors and go through a court process. I would like to see numerous steps in order to prevent any mistakes. We need to do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:33 PM
 
Location: SGV
25,064 posts, read 9,769,702 times
Reputation: 9782
Quote:
Originally Posted by elan View Post
Only those that are a physical danger to others. They would be referred by a family member, law enforcement, counselors and go through a court process. I would like to see numerous steps in order to prevent any mistakes. We need to do it.
Yes, trust the criminal justice system. 25ish years in the field (public and private sector)...nope...never saw one outcome influenced by nefarious motives.

Honest to God. True story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:47 PM
 
21,063 posts, read 13,955,563 times
Reputation: 14690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
Another Uncomfortable Truth: We need the Mental Hospitals opened up again


It used to be that a citizen could petition a court to have someone committed to a mental institution, and the court could grant such committment if enough valid evidence was presented.

This changed in the 1960s and 70s.

In 1967 two Democrats and a Republican in California's state legislature came up with the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, designed to end INVOLUNTARY commitments of mentally ill, alcoholic, etc. people into large mental institutions. The LPS Act was hailed by liberals all over the country as putting an end to eeevil government practices of dictating to helpless victims where they would go and what treatments they would get whether they liked it or not. It was overwhelmingly passed by California's Assembly and Senate, and finally signed by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1967. Similar laws were quickly passed all over the country, advocated mostly by liberal groups and do-gooders.

The liberal ACLU kept pushing this agenda to get these patients out of mental institutions, and finally resulted in 1975 (coincidentally Reagans' last year as Governor) in the U.S. Supreme Court handing down a decision in O'Connor vs. Donaldson (422 US 563). This Court decision announced a new Constitutional right: The mentally ill could not be forced to stay in such institutions if they were not an actual threat to others. This opened the floodgates and let huge numbers of patients, in various degrees of helplessness, out of the institutions.

When it was discovered that these laws and court decisions had the effect of putting many people who could not, in fact, take care of themselves out on the street, the liberals did a fast 180, hastily forgot about their long, enthusiastic nationwide advocacy and support of the agenda, and invented a completely new accusation: That it was Ronald Reagan alone who had "kicked all those poor people out of their nice, safe hospitals and made them homeless".

snipped for brevity purposes only.

You do realize that LPS Act only applies to California, you know that don't you?

What is the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act? - Mental Health Division - LA Court

You do also realize that LPS came about to curb some of the worst abuses of the mental health system. To wit people being confined against their will for vague reasons, and or just because a family member, guardian, spouse, and or even the state had their own reasons for wanting someone put away.

https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/s.../560801Ch2.pdf

A list by state of involuntary committment and other mental health laws: https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/browse-by-state

Most if not all of these laws were updated, ammened, or whatever in the 1960's or 1970's to reflect wave of deinstitutionalization that was coming from both Washington, D.C. and via courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinst...#North_America

Court cases:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addington_v._Texas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Okin

The last is important because it established the right of mentally ill to refuse medication/treatment.


Another nail in coffin came when Geraldo Rivera did an expose news story on conditions at Willowbrook State School on Staten Island, NY. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willowbrook_State_School

While Mr. Rivera focused on one particular mental institution, conditions and whatever weren't that much better ( sometimes even worse) at state schools/mental hospitals all over USA from Maine to California.

The resulting outcry from all this scandal was what we have today. By court and federal laws mentally ill have rights, or more to the point just because they are *off* or disabled, does not mean they no longer have the same rights written in USC as anyone else.

Physicians and hospitals are reluctant to sign off/request even a 72 hour commitment for observation. They fear once "sane" or whatever the patient and or family will sue for malpractice and or otherwise violation of constitutional rights. Judges today are extremely reluctant to sign off on temporary mental health holds, and even more so on having someone committed against their will for longer periods.

Even when they were open large mental health hospitals/asylums were expensive to run. States and others (private institutions like healthcare) often welcomed their being shut down because it saved huge sums of money. Not that these places were ever given sums needed on average to administer proper and humane care.

On that note you're going to fight an uphill battle to get states to reopen or build new mental health hospitals. Trend for past fifty years has been to decrease mental health beds, not build new.

Mind you much of this hot mess regarding mentally would be different if state and local governments did what they were supposed to do as part of deinstitutionalization. Fund and build out a vast and strong network of community based supportive mental healthcare.

Going back to warehousing the mentally ill where they can't be seen and forgotten isn't the answer. Providing the funds so these people can receive treatment, housing and support they require is however.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:51 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
11,935 posts, read 4,077,760 times
Reputation: 7381
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Japan does a mental health evaluation as a part of an exstensive background check for gun ownership.

It’s costly and time consuming and most people don’t have an interest in gun ownership.

Israel does something similar and repeats it every 3-5 years.

The big diff is that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right in most countries.
The UK does something similar in relation to those who apply for a licence, there are two basic types of licence, a shotgun licence which is easier to get, especially in relation to farmers and rural communities. The shotguns are the traditiona type and can not have a capacity of more than three cartridges (in magazine plus the breech).

The second type of license if a firearms licece, for which you need to give a good reason to have the firearm (that can not be self defence) and you need an even more extensive background check.

Fitness to be Entrusted with Firearms - Durham Constabulary (UK)

Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post

It’s cheaper to house mentally ill with the General prison population.
I think the whole point of mental health services was to try and preven these individuals from committing crimes in the first place and ending up in prison.

In terms of those involved in the criminal justice system most countries have secure foresnsic mental health units and high security hospitals, as well as services in prisons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:36 AM
 
19,504 posts, read 17,577,242 times
Reputation: 10668
I know about 20 that we could send in to be evaluated right now.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:14 AM
 
21,063 posts, read 13,955,563 times
Reputation: 14690
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
I am talking the type that used to commonly house thousands.

If people like the Wal Mart killer were in one, 20 innocent people would be alive.

There are people that cannot safely walk amongst civilized society.

These hospitals provided a useful option for society to maintain safety for the civilized.
Let me tell you a few things.

The person you see raving in the streets, holding entire conversations with themselves and several unseen persons aren't anything to worry about on average.

It is those with ongoing, untreated and or not addressed serious mental issues we all have to worry about.

While horrible the one off mass shooter as in recent events cannot be reasonably prevented by the mental health system. Again what do you propose locking someone away at five, six or 14 years old just because the exhibit some sort of "odd" behavior.

Ted Bundy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy

Obviously a *VERY* sick individual who never fell under the gaze of needing mental healthcare, yet murdered > 30 young women and girls. TB isn't alone either as history is filled with male and female serial murders and otherwise twisted and sadistic SOBs.

In such instances what would you have modern court/healthcare systems do? Go back to the old days when the mere whiff of being "not right" could have someone put away for the rest of their natural life?

Personally believe many throw around "mental health" issues as it relates to these mass shootings far to loosely. IMHO many of these criminals are just twisted mean SOBs looking to take innocent people out, and maybe score themselves some infamy in the process.

Problem as it relates to United States and all these mass shootings is just that; far too many persons have easy (legal or illegal) access to firearms and ammunition. Unless or until that changes all this hand wringing and wailing about these short of things isn't going to change things much.

Other countries don't have same problems with gun violence because you can't lay hands on such weapons easily as going down to local store.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:15 AM
 
84 posts, read 10,476 times
Reputation: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
I am talking the type that used to commonly house thousands.

If people like the Wal Mart killer were in one, 20 innocent people would be alive.

There are people that cannot safely walk amongst civilized society.

These hospitals provided a useful option for society to maintain safety for the civilized.
Yalls Ronald Reagan is responsible for defunding mental health.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:26 AM
 
485 posts, read 87,716 times
Reputation: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog View Post
This makes no sense. On one hand in this thread, folks are saying mental illness is the cause of many of these shootings. I have always felt like folks never really thought this through, but by definition under the law, folks who are found mentally ill are often found not responsible for their actions. I doubt a lot of the right wingers proclaiming this is because of mental illness really feel the shooters are not responsible fo their actions

Now we have someone saying we should put the parents in jail for mass shooters, which in essence takes even nore responsibility off of the actual shooters. But you only say the parents of mass shooters. What about parents of people who only shoot one or two people? And is it only mass shooters you are talking about? What if someone bombs a place? Runs over folks with their cars? Knives people?

Just likke the folks who are blaming Trump's rhetoric, people should be more careful. Because when you start placing responsibility on their parents, right wing or left wing web sites or whoever happens to be president at that moment, you're taking some of te responsibility away from the actual murderer.
The monster who killed is 100% responsible for his actions. However, you need to realize that people like him are not concerned about the consequences of killing. I would argue the threat of Jail/Death doesn’t phase these people, so they really don’t have a reason to not go on a killing spree if they’ve decided one is desired.

The parents on the other hand are likely to be terrified of Jail/Death and will therefore be motivated to put forth effort to avoid this from occurring. This will cause them to be more involved in monitoring and reporting the behavior of their defective spawn that THEY decided to create.

There are practically zero consequences in this country for being a horrible, lazy parent and it results in things like this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

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.

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