How can we strengthen our laws.to have severely mentally ill in the District committed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not that we need to have them committed -- it's that we have to pay for them. When Reagan was elected president, the streets became flooded with the mentally ill that society no longer wanted to pay for. You can thank Ronald Regan for ruining our society by pretending that NOT caring about others was a virtue rather than the other way around.

Yes, we need to have them committed. Sometimes families beg for this, but the state institutions closed under pressure by the ACLU. Each person could be appointed a guardian to watch out for abuse, etc. but it is not compassion to leave people in this state. And, yes, I'll say it... the needs of neighbors and society should be a factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the problem with red flag laws.

How do you define mental illness? And who is making this judgement call? Civil rights?
What are the checks and balances? You cant just go around arbitrarily plucking out people whom you deem are crazy....and if that was the case 2/3 of people posting in dcum would be committed.

Courts do this, all the time. There's a mental health court located right inside Bellevue in NYC.

But a "mental" person has to commit a crime first or be a threat to himself or others.

If we are talking about the ubiquitous homeless folks, odd ball neighbors, and the like than there is no way to get them committed and if the streets pre-emptively.

Well that's ok with me, because I don't think "ubiquitous homeless folks" and "odd ball neighbors" should be deprived of their liberty!

Our laws are fine. What we need is more resources to identify the people who need more support, including legal intervention and institutionalization (or court-mandated outpatient treatment).

Sleeping out in the elements, suffering from diseases of the developing world, being constantly high... those things ARE a threat to themselves by my definition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the problem with red flag laws.

How do you define mental illness? And who is making this judgement call? Civil rights?
What are the checks and balances? You cant just go around arbitrarily plucking out people whom you deem are crazy....and if that was the case 2/3 of people posting in dcum would be committed.

Courts do this, all the time. There's a mental health court located right inside Bellevue in NYC.

But a "mental" person has to commit a crime first or be a threat to himself or others.

If we are talking about the ubiquitous homeless folks, odd ball neighbors, and the like than there is no way to get them committed and if the streets pre-emptively.

Well that's ok with me, because I don't think "ubiquitous homeless folks" and "odd ball neighbors" should be deprived of their liberty!

Our laws are fine. What we need is more resources to identify the people who need more support, including legal intervention and institutionalization (or court-mandated outpatient treatment).

Sleeping out in the elements, suffering from diseases of the developing world, being constantly high... those things ARE a threat to themselves by my definition.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the problem with red flag laws.

How do you define mental illness? And who is making this judgement call? Civil rights?
What are the checks and balances? You cant just go around arbitrarily plucking out people whom you deem are crazy....and if that was the case 2/3 of people posting in dcum would be committed.

Courts do this, all the time. There's a mental health court located right inside Bellevue in NYC.

But a "mental" person has to commit a crime first or be a threat to himself or others.

If we are talking about the ubiquitous homeless folks, odd ball neighbors, and the like than there is no way to get them committed and if the streets pre-emptively.

Well that's ok with me, because I don't think "ubiquitous homeless folks" and "odd ball neighbors" should be deprived of their liberty!

Our laws are fine. What we need is more resources to identify the people who need more support, including legal intervention and institutionalization (or court-mandated outpatient treatment).

Sleeping out in the elements, suffering from diseases of the developing world, being constantly high... those things ARE a threat to themselves by my definition.

Exactly.

So are road rage, excessive drinking, jaywalking, and eating junk food. But we're not trying to commit those people, are we?

[Anonymous]

If you did most of those in a way that impacted society, you could get ticketed or arrested actually. And our city council is constantly trying to legislate junk food - you werent here when Mary cheh banned bake sales with foods like cupcakes? What about soda taxes??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not that we need to have them committed -- it's that we have to pay for them. When Reagan was elected president, the streets became flooded with the mentally ill that society no longer wanted to pay for. You can thank Ronald Regan for ruining our society by pretending that NOT caring about others was a virtue rather than the other way around.

Yes, we need to have them committed. Sometimes families beg for this, but the state institutions closed under pressure by the ACLU. Each person could be appointed a guardian to watch out for abuse, etc. but it is not compassion to leave people in this state. And, yes, I'll say it... the needs of neighbors and society should be a factor.

Agreed.