In my career as an ED doc, I’ve had to commit a lot of people. I’ll return to post shortly, but just popped in to make the observation that committing potentially violent folks involuntarily is a lot like sending them to Gitmo, and it’s just as tough to decide what to do with them long-term once they get there.
I’m looking forward to hearing from someone else with first hand experience - thanks. Especially about long-term.
Because I think that is an important part of the discussion. Is is OK for the government to lock someone up indefinitely who has not committed any crime, because the government decided he presented a danger?
Even when we lock them up, put them on meds, and they stabilize, it may not last if they don’t consistently take medication and endure the side effects. That’s a problem I have heard about before - Suzy may be brought into the psych ward on Friday night screaming that snakes are crawling around in her head, but a whack of Thorazine, her first shower and change of clothes in a month, and Monday morning she can look presentable enough for the judge to say she can be released to her home support system. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - thanks, Maeglin.
It’s easy to identify after the fact who should have been locked up for being a danger to others. That’s what we all do when one of these nutcases goes on a killing spree. Why didn’t we see it coming? Why didn’t we help when they reached out? Why didn’t we do anything when the signs of impending violence were so obvious?
The answer is twofold: First, it’s a pretty large number of people who show mental “signs” of potential violence. Even me, when I get an unfair ticket. Turns out it’s fairly common to have thoughts about killin’. Second, it’s a big deal to lock someone up for their thought processes and words instead of their actions.
And, as mentioned above, what then? Keep 'em locked up?
Wow, the last thing I expected from this thread was civil discourse. Awesome.
I think loosening the requirements for involuntary commitment would be a wild overreaction to this incident. As Shodan notes, the tradeoff is involuntarily committing people who shouldn’t be locked up in order to prevent the very rare mass shooting involving someone who might have been committed. It’s not worth the trade-off. I can add that the ACLU and allied groups played a significant role in making involuntary commitment harder to do. I don’t think it’s really a left-right issue, but it certainly isn’t a conservative issue.
I keep thinking this must be a reference to something. Or a joke?
Nobody is really so partisan that they become this unfeeling-- and unthinking-- are they?