Posted on 09/26/2015 9:34:38 AM PDT by rktman
Wait...Lonnie is 71 and her daughter is 24...
Something isn’t adding up...
..
I do not think that removing dangerously mentally ill people from the streets is more dangerous than waiting until they act out on their violent tendencies.
Once upon a time, mentally ill people could be confined to hospitals indefinitely if their illness warranted. Which pretty much means they stayed for life, since true mental illnesses cannot be cured. "Civil rights" groups have successfully stopped the practice of institutionalization, and the results are not good.
It isn't just the dangerously mentally ill people who were thrown out on the streets to prey on others, but non-dangerous ones, those we now call the "homeless." The homeless cannot take care of themselves; throwing them out on the street is just plain cruel. But society does not really suffer when the homeless are thrown out to fend for themselves, not the way it does when the psychotic mentally ill are thrown out.
Whenever there is a highly publicized case of a mass murder, it seems that the murderer was giving clues all over the place that he was about to do something. And no one acted to stop the murders. In today's reality, it is nearly impossible to do anything--the mentally ill, dangerous or otherwise--cannot be institutionalized. And once the psychotic ones commit a crime, then they end up in the prison system, which really is not set up to handle the mentally ill.
Well said.
I agree on most points, actually.
It’s just that assessing mental illness, and locking people up for it, is inherently dangerous as a political reality.
Your homeless example is a case in point. Many homeless people are indeed mentally ill. However, it’s all to easy to use that to throw all homeless people into insane asylums, which would be an atrocity and a crime against humanity. Nevertheless, history has shown the reality and ease of such things.
Life is inherently messy. Making things too neat means discarding humanity for totalitarianism, every time.
Precrime prevention is very dangerous. It doesn’t mean letting the insane run wild, but it must be severely limited in application, otherwise we turn out own society into a prison camp, similar to the USSR.
Next time better call Saul.
I don't think it is. To me, it is sheer cruelty to throw the mentally ill homeless out on the streets, where they are filthy, hungry, and have no respite from the elements. It's far better for them to be in an institution where they are bathed and have clean clothes, and receive whatever medications they need.
I'm well aware that some abuses have occurred in mental hospitals. The answer to that is not to throw their helpless patients into the streets, but to get rid of the abusive "caretakers."
The fact is that any system can be abused. Yes, I am well aware that the USSR and PRC deemed dissenters as "mentally ill" in order to imprison them. And I know that there are plenty of liberals who would love to imprison anyone who doesn't toe their socialist line. It is impossible to devise any system that cannot be abused by those who would exercise power for the sake of power. That fact does not change the fact that psychotic, potentially murderous, mentally ill persons *should* be confined to asylums, preferably *before* they kill.
Yes, but people who have merely run out of money, should not.
Notice how many lies they have to pack into this article to make it seem like they’re the victims. Just another example of how much the gun control crowd has to ignore reality to make even a lick of sense.
It’s outrageous that the movie theater let a madman in without first performing a background check on him. /s
Or a psychological test on him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.