How can we strengthen our laws.to have severely mentally ill in the District committed?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Too many articles to count this year about severely mentally ill people - mostly homeless or itinerant and often drawn from outside our city- victimizing OR being victimized in the District. How do we change our laws to treat them, even involuntarily, or have them sent back to their state for treatment? The latest victim of our inaction is a man from KY who spent his time cursing at people and trashcans, and was beaten so badly outside an Adam's Morgan bar that his brain spun around in his skull , as per Metro Section. Neither he nor his family, who had been trying to reconnect for years deserved this fate- all due to weak American protections for the mentally ill (and the public). |
Anonymous
| Are you on the same metro train as me? Because this guy ranting this morning is in rare form... |
Anonymous
| The biggest problem is money not laws. No one wants to pay for their care and treatment. |
Anonymous
| We can’t send people back to their state because people are allowed to move. As far as committing people, sadly, no one want to pay for it. I don’t know about this person or the crime, but cursing doesn’t seem worthy of commitment, as it’s not dangerous. Help, yes, but not commitment. Seems like the bigger problem was the murderer? |
Anonymous
I think this type of thinking is a huge part of the problem. One he is just cursing, nbd. We can’t commit him/bus him back because democracy. Next thing you know, we have ppl sh*tting and shooting up in public. I think not wanting to pay is only part of the problem. Not having political will to do anything is. I mean, in theory, opening a rehab where the land is cheap and the area is remote and just keeping those people there, providing minimal room and board and services will not be THAT expensive. But imagine the outcry. |
Anonymous
| So you want to imprison people based on the possibility that they might commit a crime? |
Anonymous
No they want to imprison people who make them uncomfortable. |
Anonymous
How about we start by actually imprisoning people who DO commit crimes? DC doesn’t even do that. |
Anonymous
| Commit them where? You know we don't have insane asylums, right? |
Anonymous
|
"Sent back to their state for treatment?"
What kind of authoritarian craziness is that? |
Anonymous
When we did, they were frequently horrific places rife with abuse and outright torture. |
Anonymous
|
People can't be committed against their will and this right extends to the mentally ill.
The issue isn't so much the lack of mental care or support but the willingness to force the mentally ill to stay with the support functions. We can't lock them up. Many if not most also have drug habits that keeps them on the streets. There was a big movement against state mental institutions for a range of reasons, mostly led by liberals, but we can't go back to those days for the aforementioned reasons. Most of the homeless are mentally ill but what to do? |
Anonymous
Um yes, people are committed against their will all the time if they meet the criteria for being a "danger to self or others." |
Anonymous
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1980
The Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 (MHSA) was United States legislation signed by President Jimmy Carter which provided grants to community mental health centers. In 1981 President Ronald Reagan and the <Republican> U.S. Congress repealed most of the law.[1] The MHSA was considered landmark legislation in mental health care policy. https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/08/u01-ronald-reagan-and-the-federal-deinstitutionalization-of-mentally-ill-patients/comment-page-1/ |
Anonymous
| http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/09/andrew-goldstein-release-kendras-law.html - fascinating account of the events behind Kendra's Law (mandatory out-patient treatment) |