4 ms·
Completely. But pre-existing (or developed, since some don't turn up until one's 20's) mental health problems are a bit different now, aren't they? I'm not com
by Broken_Hippo 10y ago
Completely. But pre-existing (or developed, since some don't turn up until one's 20's) mental health problems are a bit different now, aren't they?
I'm not comfortable with these folks being in prison before they've had proper mental health care, honestly. Most folks with mental disorders are OK once they are stable with medication and sometimes need support to make sure they take such medication. We should more likely require by court order they stay their course and continue to receive proper help than try solitary first. This is how you treat the same folks as neighbors.
If this fails, prison is still not the proper environment - a live-in mental health hospital is much more appropriate.
- ekianjo 10y ago> a live-in mental health hospital Much more expensive and there are much less investors for such facilities. So it's not going to be a solution anytime soon.
- kazagistar 10y agoRight, so let's torture the mentally ill patients to save a bit of tax money. Seems like the right solution.
- techthroway443 10y agoNah you're right, let's just make you pay for it all. Much better solution.
- kazagistar 10y agoIf you want to deny someone freedoms for whatevery reason, the least you can do is pay for it properly.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y agoThere are less investors because it's not a growth sector, because America increasingly criminalizes mental illness, so the mentally unwell end up in jail far more often than in mental hospitals. It could easily be a solution if we switched away from a mass-incarceration, punishment above rehabilitation regime like in Norway as described towards the top of this thread.