# Conservative policies, not rhetoric, are responsible for the tragedy in Tucson **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 13, 2011, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466 "2011-01-13T16:15:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Sateryn76](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Sateryn76](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sateryn76)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/21 "2011-01-13T18:40:53Z")
Honestly, I am floored by the reaction to this shooting. Yes, it was tragic and horrible. Yes, we should be making sure we are going what we can to address this kind of problem. But Shodan’s argument about cost vs. benefit is right on target. Several people were shot by a crazed lunatic. How common is this? I don’t even need to do a risk assessment on this this to know that it is not something we need to spend more resources on. Do you have any idea how many children are killed every year in street violence? In crimes that have clear answers? We can’t get women to stop having children when they have no visible means of support. We can’t convenience teenagers that street violence is wrong. We can’t convenience parents to put the effort in to raise their children properly. This goes on with all races and classes, and we haven’t found any solution to it yet. The idea that we can now move on to “solving” the problem of crazed lunatics and are willing to debate forced psychiatric screening once a year is mind boggling. It seems like a lot of people are more comfortable debating something like this because it’s so uncommon, there’s nothing real at stake. The hand-up versus and-out debate is too scary, so let’s spend resources dealing with a once in a lifetime event. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/22 "2011-01-13T18:42:06Z")
I think you mean convince. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/23 "2011-01-13T18:47:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Is it really conservative policies that make it difficult to involuntarily commit someone? I have to side with Bricker and Shodan. I would love to see some true genius come up with a good solution that has no risk of incarcerating, committing or drugging anyone who should not be, and yet “catches” all those who really do need all that. I don’t think there will be a good answer in our lifetimes, or ever. If involuntary commitment becomes too easy, that is a whole new bunch of horror stories waiting to happen. Conservative or liberal has nothing to do with it. Then there will always be That Guy. "He was such a nice friendly man, polite, cheerful, helpful. Right up until he snapped and killed the entire village. " How do you catch him? You can’t. You can never have a way to catch all the dangerous crazies, and still guarantee the rights of all the rest of the people. You just can’t. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/24 "2011-01-13T18:51:26Z")
Since we’re theorizing on who’s really to blame let’s add: Pima County Sheriff’s Dept. that had numerous interactions with Loughner over the last several years, and failed to see the signs. Loughner’s parents, who can’t possibly just write-off their son’s behavior as wacky teen stuff. Teachers, administrators, and classmates of Loughner’s at Pima Community College that saw his deteriation first hand but apparently didn’t do enough. Any more? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/25 "2011-01-13T19:01:52Z")
That’s a good post and they’re all good arguments, although the benefits are not just ‘if we do this, crazy people won’t shoot up grocery stores.’ That’s like the argument you sometimes see that the U.S. should commit more aid to developing countries because otherwise poor countries will produce terrorists. It’s an oversimplification and a bad argument; the poor and the mentally ill are not holding everybody else hostage with the threat of becoming terrorists or mass shooters. We do know this guy was going off the rails for a long time, to the point people were aware of it, and nothing of consequence happened. We know that’s not a unique situation. So what could realistically be done about that? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/26 "2011-01-13T19:06:18Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > Pima County Sheriff’s Dept. that had numerous interactions with Loughner over the last several years, and failed to see the signs. We don’t know what signs there were to see from their perspective. He was arrested for having drug paraphernalia in 2007 but it was a misdemeanor and not a sign of mental illness. They reportedly were sent to the family home on other occasions, but we don’t know why or if he was involved. > [@](#): > > Loughner’s parents, who can’t possibly just write-off their son’s behavior as wacky teen stuff. Noted a couple of times in this thread. > [@](#): > > Teachers, administrators, and classmates of Loughner’s at Pima Community College that saw his deteriation first hand but apparently didn’t do enough. Do you know what their other options were? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/27 "2011-01-13T19:09:58Z")
Have a police officer (whose job it is to protect), a judge (whose job it is apply the law), and a mental health professional (whose has the professional credentials to determine the necessity of further examination/committment) examine the cases and all three sign off on involuntarily committing someone (or holding them for examination). That way you don’t just have one person making such a decision. You’d have a person answering the question “Is this individual a threat to himself or others;” you have a person answering the question “Is this being done within the law;” and you have a person answering the question “Does this individual display signs of mental illness or distress.” Unless all three of those questions come back “Yes,” no involuntary committment. That’s just a hypothetical solution to how you could determine the who and how of involuntary committments. And I’m not saying this will catch everyone; but an incident like we had on Saturday shines a light on a problem. Even if people aren’t acting out with such drama and causing international headlines because of their mental illness, that doesn’t mean we don’t owe them the dignity of a mental health system that works. For their own safety, their family’s safety, for the safety of others, and for the sake of being humane. $50 billion might not make it seem cost effective to prevent one child’s death, but how about for getting people off of the streets? Running a government isn’t a for-profit business. Our current mental healthcare system isn’t working, espeically for people that don’t have family, friends, money, insurance, or “involuntary evaluation” laws on their side. Are we supposed to not do anything about them just because they’re the “have-nots?” ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/28 "2011-01-13T19:29:53Z")
How comfortable are we, as a society, with the idea that we are going to lock someone up indefinitely, and administer psychoactive drugs to them that are designed to alter their thinking, based on the idea that we are pretty sure he might commit a crime sometime in the future? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/29 "2011-01-13T19:39:21Z")
We’re comfortable with doing it on the grounds that the might commit _another_ crime in the future, so it’s not that big a stretch. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/30 "2011-01-13T19:56:29Z")
If you mean Loughner, what was he convicted of? If you mean something else, I disagree that this is not a stretch - there is (in my view) a huge difference between being convicted and not being convicted, when dealing with the court system and especially with incarceration of any sort. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/31 "2011-01-13T20:31:26Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > We’re comfortable with doing it on the grounds that the might commit _another_ crime in the future, so it’s not that big a stretch. I remember some debates on this, in regards to pedophiliacs, and preventive incarceration or chemical (anit-viagra?) treatments. The main argument was that you can’t punish someone for something they _might_ do. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/32 "2011-01-13T20:42:33Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > I remember some debates on this, in regards to pedophiliacs, and preventive incarceration or chemical (anit-viagra?) treatments. The main argument was that you can’t punish someone for something they _might_ do. And response is you’re not punishing them. You’re confining them for their safety and that of others but the goal is theraputic, not punitive. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/33 "2011-01-13T20:42:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If you mean Loughner, what was he convicted of? > > If you mean something else, I disagree that this is not a stretch - there is (in my view) a huge difference between being convicted and not being convicted, when dealing with the court system and especially with incarceration of any sort. Nothing, as far as I know. My point is that people here and elsewhere view the penal system, at least in part, as a means of preventing crime. Clearly, there’s a difference between people convicted of crimes and people who aren’t, but if some part of a convict’s sentence is to keep him from committing more crimes… ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/34 "2011-01-13T20:47:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And response is you’re not punishing them. You’re confining them for their safety and that of others but the goal is theraputic, not punitive. A response which was rejected by those opposing the (involuntary) preventive measures. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/35 "2011-01-13T20:50:18Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Nothing, as far as I know. > > My point is that people here and elsewhere view the penal system, at least in part, as a means of preventing crime. > > Clearly, there’s a difference between people convicted of crimes and people who aren’t, but if some part of a convict’s sentence is to keep him from committing more crimes… Again, think child molesters. They get put on a “list” for life. (And law enforcement is supposed to keep track of them.) Some folks used to argue that once these guys serve their sentence they should be free of any more “punishment”. (And the lists were seen as an unfair Scarlet Letter type of situation.) ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/36 "2011-01-13T21:02:18Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > A response which was rejected by those opposing the (involuntary) preventive measures. And was accepted by those supporting involuntary commitments. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/37 "2011-01-13T21:20:46Z")
I don’t know enough about the disease; does a person with untreated schizophrenia have any periods of lucidity? Are there times when he would potentially be sufficiently receptive to persuasion that something along the lines of an addiction-related intervention might reach him, and convince him to consent to treatment? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/38 "2011-01-13T21:23:40Z")
They must have such periods, otherwise I’d assume they would not be left completely untreated or undiagnosed…even in the howling wilderness that is the US. By the same token, if they have periods where they are lucid and, presumably act ‘normal’, this might account for how they could get their hot little hands on a gun. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/39 "2011-01-13T21:29:27Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Clearly, there’s a difference between people convicted of crimes and people who aren’t, but if some part of a convict’s sentence is to keep him from committing more crimes… The key word being “convict”. The idea of locking people up to prevent crime they may commit in the future rather plays hell with the American concept of “innocent until proven guilty”. Unless you adopt some minimalist standard such as “posing an immediate danger to self or others”, in which case, here we are. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466/40 "2011-01-13T21:34:07Z")
How about not doing it for crime prevention, per se, but rather for treating a sick person. We quarantine people all the time with diseases that might create a negative affect on society. This is similar. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-policies-not-rhetoric-are-responsible-for-the-tragedy-in-tucson/567466.md?page=3)