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.
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".
From Wikipedia:
The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act (Cal. Welf & Inst. Code, sec. 5000 et seq.) concerns the involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the State of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:
•To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities;
•To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism;
•To guarantee and protect public safety;
•To safeguard individual rights through judicial review;
•To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons;
•To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures;
•To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal acts.
The Act in effect ended all hospital commitments by the judiciary system, except in the case of criminal sentencing, e.g., convicted sexual offenders, and those who were "gravely disabled", defined as unable to obtain food, clothing, or housing [Conservatorship of Susan T., 8 Cal. 4th 1005 (1994)]. It did not, however, impede the right of voluntary commitments. It expanded the evaluative power of psychiatrists and created provisions and criteria for holds.
Many of them used to live in a place called jail. We all know what has happened since. This is the sort of decay that occurs when laws aren't enforced and even the most basic societal norms of how to conduct themselves are tossed aside.
Sure, the conservatives wanted to save money and the liberals wanted their self righteous perch to be elevated to the stars.
We’re a rich, expensive, capitalist country and there will always be those who cannot function in such a society. So let’s let them out in the street to shoot up drugs, assault people and defecate in public view and activity.
I know it's not politically correct to say but I don't care and will say it anyway. It's time to bring back the mental hospitals. Not nice ones where patients can come and go as they please but rather the ones with bars on the windows and their outside place being all closed in with 12' high concrete walls topped with barbed wire.
It's time to start protecting the innocent people and lock up the dangerous ones whether they want it or not.
Funny enough, Tucker Carlson had a great piece about this just last night - with a real answer for you.
Some of it, of course, supplements your OP.
The video is 15 minutes long, and I've been scolded for posting shorter videos. People's attention span ain't what it used to be I guess - but if you want a comprehensive explanation - here ya go:
Almost all homeless people suffer from drugs or mental illness. Both need to taken off the street and given help.
I agree. These people need help but help is expensive and ripe with all kinds of issues.
The overflowing prisons are being opened to let out the lesser criminals to make room for the worse of the worse. It is expensive to house someone and then add in the threat of Covid running rampant and suddenly the image of dead prisoners is not a positive and lawsuits are possible so it is best to let them go.
Of course the murderers are put away (in most cases) but the armed thugs that beat up, rob and rape people are often let go putting us all at risk.
The homeless are a growing problem that is always talked about (around election time) but real solutions are seldom enacted which puts us all at risk and leery of walking down a city street.
This of course leads to the question as to why we pay taxes if we don't feel safe walking down the street?
Almost all homeless people suffer from drugs or mental illness. Both need to taken off the street and given help.
You are assuming that the problem is that these people want help, and are willing to accept help if it is offered. Locking someone away isn't all that easy, and it shouldn't be.
"Mental illness is one of the most common causes of homelessness, especially among single people. With a whopping quarter of the homeless population struggling with mental health, there is no doubt that mental illness and homelessness are connected."
The article goes on to say that 38% is alcohol abuse, and 26% drug abuse, and that 48% of the homeless are in CA.
Seriously, not all of these people want help or to stop what they are doing.
I don't know about other places, but when we lived in the southern AZ, many people came for the "weather" and didn't think about getting a job. Also, those states that offer the best public assistance deal often draw not the most desirable people.
So, where do these people get the money for their alcohol and drugs? I understand that some choose alcohol and drugs to deal with their mental health issues. You know, it isn't that easy to get some people to accept rules or giving up addictions.
The more tax money that doesn't have to go to mental health facilities, prisons, roads etc.. that can go to purchase votes / propeganda.... the better.
I agree. These people need help but help is expensive and ripe with all kinds of issues.
The overflowing prisons are being opened to let out the lesser criminals to make room for the worse of the worse. It is expensive to house someone and then add in the threat of Covid running rampant and suddenly the image of dead prisoners is not a positive and lawsuits are possible so it is best to let them go.
Of course the murderers are put away (in most cases) but the armed thugs that beat up, rob and rape people are often let go putting us all at risk.
The homeless are a growing problem that is always talked about (around election time) but real solutions are seldom enacted which puts us all at risk and leery of walking down a city street.
This of course leads to the question as to why we pay taxes if we don't feel safe walking down the street?
If the government would stop wasting money, there would be plenty to care for those who can’t care for themselves. I believe it’s Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, who can be thanked for creating cradle to grave welfare, while at the same time closing down all the institutions for the mentally ill. It’s against their rights, you know. Enter have the freedom to freeze to death on the sidewalk.
When I was a kid, we went downtown on weekends to shop, and the state mental hospital patients who were able were allowed to come downtown. You could tell who they were. They lived among us, but still had a warm bed and hot meals. It’s shameful that we dont take care of the helpless now.
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.
