3 ms·
It is real and relevant, and already accounted for in the concerts about limiting personal liberty. The usual mechanism to address this is to require more than
by phren0logy 8y ago
It is real and relevant, and already accounted for in the concerts about limiting personal liberty. The usual mechanism to address this is to require more than one clinically trained person to agree, which holds them for a few days until it can be heard in court and decided by a judge. This requires it only illness but immediate danger to self or others. This has had the unintended consequence of conflating mental illness with violence. Always trade offs...
- 75dvtwin 8y agoWRT > The usual mechanism to address this is to require more than one clinically trained person to agree, which holds them for a few days until it can be heard in court and decided by a judge. It seems the above would only work (meaning that it would prevent abuse) if: a) the 'clinically trained persons' affiliate with different political fractions b) there is no 'federal-level' oversight hammer that can strip them of their credentials for testifying against the wants of the currently ruling political fractions c) The judiciary system overall is free from 'selective-outrage' ( Which is, unfortunately, some would say, not the case for US, Canada, France, UK, Australia, not even mentioning known oligarch/dictatorships countries out there )