Therein lies the problem with me, families I would trust. Doctors and judges not so much.
There is too much corruption and to many agendas being pushed these days.
Again, what would the criteria be? How do you know which person is going to snap? Do we incarcerate them because some one decide they MIGHT commit a crime?
It's a difficult dilemma to be sure, but I'm not ready to let bureaucrats decide peoples fates based on their whims and public pressures.
JMHO.
Well, if they are trying to push Granny into the home to get her money or something, I think that could be a problem. There has to be a professional opinion soewhere in the mix.
I don’t think doctors or judges should be able to initiate the process though
You make a valid point. Who gets to decide?
Is Alex Jones crazy? Pam Geller? Jeff Rense? Rush Limbaugh?
Who makes that call? We’ve all seen here, and other places, conspiracy theories. Sure, we chuckle about it, but there are people who seriously believe these conspiracy theories. Things like HAARP, the whole “truther” movement.
I’m sure that many on the left of the political spectrum would say that a fairly high percentage of Freepers exhibit paranoid tendencies and delusions of persecution. And many Freepers would argue that DUers are as loony as bedbugs.
In regard to the idea of involuntary commitment, it should only be a family member who makes the final call.
The same as it is right now, and has been for years -- the likelihood that people are a danger to themselves or others. The problem at present is that even if mentally ill individuals fit the criteria, there really isn't any place to put them, since the states closed down most of the mental hospitals. So it's not likely that they'll be declared a danger, even if they obviously are because of the potential for lawsuits. And they can't be forced to be treated, so it's a futile effort in any case. Classic "Catch 22". No matter what, everyone loses.