6 ms·

> especially in San Francisco we'd rather they be out walking around It's not a question of preference. Our constitution is incompatible with treatment program

> especially in San Francisco we'd rather they be out walking around It's not a question of preference. Our constitution is incompatible with treatment programs that involve indefinite imprisonment when the individual is not a serious threat to himself or others. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addington_v._Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addington_v._Texas

ben_w 8y ago
I think (2) is the more important of those two, as it increased the burden of proof. After all, narrator wrote “people who regularly randomly assault people for no reason“, which doesn’t sound like a mere harmless delusion.
scottlocklin 8y ago
Funny how it wasn't a problem in America until they made "One flew over the cuckoos nest."
- Moru 8y ago
  I'm guessing it wasn't a problem that you talked about, just like everywhere else.
Carpetsmoker 8y ago
I'm not sure if laws in Western Europe are fundamentally different. In the Netherlands the law[1][2] states you can only be involuntarily committed if you're a danger for themselves or others and if this is the only remaining solution. It seems roughly analogous to those two SCOTUS cases, although details and/or practical implementations may differ. [1]: https://www.ggznederland.nl/themas/gedwongen-civiel https://www.ggznederland.nl/themas/gedwongen-civiel [2]: https://www.dwangindezorg.nl/rechten/wetten/wet-bopz https://www.dwangindezorg.nl/rechten/wetten/wet-bopz
- stefanfisk 8y ago
  It’s the same in Sweden, I think most of Europe is like this since at least 30 years.
- dr_dshiv 8y ago
  Any other refs on how the Netherlands deals with homeless? I am shocked by how few homeless there are.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - chronogram 8y ago
    I think it's just that you're not allowed to be sleeping outside. There are still about 200 actively homeless people (as in, sleeping outside) in Amsterdam, which isn't much for a city of around 1 million people. There are shelters, and there's the social net to fall in, in case you cannot afford to live or get medical help. If you get cancer it won't mean you'll have so many bills you'll have to live outside. If you have disability, mental or otherwise, it doesn't mean you'll have to rely on the generosity of your family to be able to survive. And if you do sleep outside the police will likely make you not is my understanding.
    - mcguire 8y ago
      Doesn't Amsterdam have a number of "squatters" living semiofficially in otherwise abandoned buildings?
      - rogerb 8y ago
        That was a thing for a while to protest real estate speculators, but its considerable less now.
      - chronogram 8y ago
        Wasn’t that in the ‘80s?
jopsen 8y ago
Offering treatment for free is a good first step..
- mac01021 8y ago
  Do such people tend to believe they would benefit from treatment?
lostmyoldone 8y ago
Not arguing, but I find it somewhat strange that living - often in atrocious squalor - on the streets isn't seen as causing serious harm to oneself? It certainly isn't harmless, not even close. Further, If your actions as a semi-coherent group are enough to cause PTSD in library personnel, how can that not be considered as being dangerous to others? PTSD is no joke, it can easily lead to life long suffering. With that said. Assuming the constitution really disallows all forms of "closed" psychiatric care and it's not only a convenient interpretation.Then the lack of, or reduction in other kinds of care still points to the actual reasons for effective care being something different than simply an issue of law. It might in addition be a matter of law, but certainly not only a matter of law. If it were then somehow a way to work with/around that would have been found, as always happens. The will of a significant majority has never been stopped by what's written in in any law ever. There is a fair number of homeless that would voluntarily get treatment/help/support if it was readily available, of high quality, and safe. But. Care for homeless is almost universally terribly underfunded, and this is clearly a willful act of society.
- luckylion 8y ago
  > It certainly isn't harmless, not even close. True, but it's usually not an immediate threat, and that's the one where people get hospitalized. Living on the streets certainly isn't good for your health, but it's closer to "smoking, drinking and unhealthy diet" than to "putting a razor to your throat" in terms of immediacy, and it's the latter part where most people agree that the state can and should act against your "will".
  - shmageggy 8y ago
    The article mentions a scenario in which someone was "throwing books, newspapers and plastic sign holders at us, screaming that he would kill every one of us." This is not about living unhealthily.
    - luckylion 8y ago
      And an example like that isn't what "the homeless population" in general does on a daily basis. That's where the state can interfere, but it's the large majority that doesn't snap that live unhealthily but aren't an acute danger to themselves or others.
Broken_Hippo 8y ago
But there are so many other options we aren't doing either! We aren't offering treatment for free or even making sure there is enough treatment available. We are more likely to put them in jail for a small crime instead. Same with drug addiction: We tend not to offer free, medical based care and instead refer folks to AA or NA. I understand that some folks are helped by these organizations, but many are not. We don't make sure folks have homes. Sometimes, simple solutions like driving a person to their home over and over is enough of a solution. If someone really wants to life outdoors, we could make room for such things while making sure things look nice and are secure. We could have an actual safety net too keep folks from homelessness in the first place. We can invest more in group homes as well, since some folks need help with everyday tasks. Some folks need this long term and some are just short term. Have enough shelters for the folks that slip through the cracks. Make sure these shelters are safe for disabled folks, children, and everyone in between. I know all this stuff costs money, and I'm more than willing to pay more in taxes so that folks are being fed and housed and have medical care and things like that. Honestly, we are paying for this stuff in one way or another anyway through our jail system, public services, and so on, so I'm not convinced it would have been that much mroe than it was when I was living in the US anyway.
- luckylion 8y ago
  > I'm more than willing to pay more in taxes How much more? I'm not trying to argue against what you're saying, but I believe that many Americans don't have a good idea of what it costs to run a Western European welfare state. What's the pain maximum for you? 10% more taxes? 50% more? 100% more?
  - rutierut 8y ago
    Americans are currently paying more for an inferior product for no good reason at all.
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      That's because we'll gladly be gouged on prices as long as it's not called a tax. Internet? No problem there having zero alternatives in your area. Healthcare? Nightmare inducing and literally bankrupts people that even barely touch it, but it's not a tax.

ben_w 8y ago

I think (2) is the more important of those two, as it increased the burden of proof. After all, narrator wrote “people who regularly randomly assault people for no reason“, which doesn’t sound like a mere harmless delusion.

scottlocklin 8y ago

Funny how it wasn't a problem in America until they made "One flew over the cuckoos nest."

Moru 8y ago
I'm guessing it wasn't a problem that you talked about, just like everywhere else.

Carpetsmoker 8y ago

I'm not sure if laws in Western Europe are fundamentally different. In the Netherlands the law[1][2] states you can only be involuntarily committed if you're a danger for themselves or others and if this is the only remaining solution. It seems roughly analogous to those two SCOTUS cases, although details and/or practical implementations may differ. [1]: https://www.ggznederland.nl/themas/gedwongen-civiel https://www.ggznederland.nl/themas/gedwongen-civiel [2]: https://www.dwangindezorg.nl/rechten/wetten/wet-bopz https://www.dwangindezorg.nl/rechten/wetten/wet-bopz

stefanfisk 8y ago
It’s the same in Sweden, I think most of Europe is like this since at least 30 years.
dr_dshiv 8y ago
Any other refs on how the Netherlands deals with homeless? I am shocked by how few homeless there are.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- chronogram 8y ago
  I think it's just that you're not allowed to be sleeping outside. There are still about 200 actively homeless people (as in, sleeping outside) in Amsterdam, which isn't much for a city of around 1 million people. There are shelters, and there's the social net to fall in, in case you cannot afford to live or get medical help. If you get cancer it won't mean you'll have so many bills you'll have to live outside. If you have disability, mental or otherwise, it doesn't mean you'll have to rely on the generosity of your family to be able to survive. And if you do sleep outside the police will likely make you not is my understanding.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    Doesn't Amsterdam have a number of "squatters" living semiofficially in otherwise abandoned buildings?
    - rogerb 8y ago
      That was a thing for a while to protest real estate speculators, but its considerable less now.
    - chronogram 8y ago
      Wasn’t that in the ‘80s?

jopsen 8y ago

Offering treatment for free is a good first step..

mac01021 8y ago
Do such people tend to believe they would benefit from treatment?

lostmyoldone 8y ago

Not arguing, but I find it somewhat strange that living - often in atrocious squalor - on the streets isn't seen as causing serious harm to oneself? It certainly isn't harmless, not even close. Further, If your actions as a semi-coherent group are enough to cause PTSD in library personnel, how can that not be considered as being dangerous to others? PTSD is no joke, it can easily lead to life long suffering. With that said. Assuming the constitution really disallows all forms of "closed" psychiatric care and it's not only a convenient interpretation.Then the lack of, or reduction in other kinds of care still points to the actual reasons for effective care being something different than simply an issue of law. It might in addition be a matter of law, but certainly not only a matter of law. If it were then somehow a way to work with/around that would have been found, as always happens. The will of a significant majority has never been stopped by what's written in in any law ever. There is a fair number of homeless that would voluntarily get treatment/help/support if it was readily available, of high quality, and safe. But. Care for homeless is almost universally terribly underfunded, and this is clearly a willful act of society.

luckylion 8y ago
> It certainly isn't harmless, not even close. True, but it's usually not an immediate threat, and that's the one where people get hospitalized. Living on the streets certainly isn't good for your health, but it's closer to "smoking, drinking and unhealthy diet" than to "putting a razor to your throat" in terms of immediacy, and it's the latter part where most people agree that the state can and should act against your "will".
- shmageggy 8y ago
  The article mentions a scenario in which someone was "throwing books, newspapers and plastic sign holders at us, screaming that he would kill every one of us." This is not about living unhealthily.
  - luckylion 8y ago
    And an example like that isn't what "the homeless population" in general does on a daily basis. That's where the state can interfere, but it's the large majority that doesn't snap that live unhealthily but aren't an acute danger to themselves or others.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago

But there are so many other options we aren't doing either! We aren't offering treatment for free or even making sure there is enough treatment available. We are more likely to put them in jail for a small crime instead. Same with drug addiction: We tend not to offer free, medical based care and instead refer folks to AA or NA. I understand that some folks are helped by these organizations, but many are not. We don't make sure folks have homes. Sometimes, simple solutions like driving a person to their home over and over is enough of a solution. If someone really wants to life outdoors, we could make room for such things while making sure things look nice and are secure. We could have an actual safety net too keep folks from homelessness in the first place. We can invest more in group homes as well, since some folks need help with everyday tasks. Some folks need this long term and some are just short term. Have enough shelters for the folks that slip through the cracks. Make sure these shelters are safe for disabled folks, children, and everyone in between. I know all this stuff costs money, and I'm more than willing to pay more in taxes so that folks are being fed and housed and have medical care and things like that. Honestly, we are paying for this stuff in one way or another anyway through our jail system, public services, and so on, so I'm not convinced it would have been that much mroe than it was when I was living in the US anyway.

luckylion 8y ago
> I'm more than willing to pay more in taxes How much more? I'm not trying to argue against what you're saying, but I believe that many Americans don't have a good idea of what it costs to run a Western European welfare state. What's the pain maximum for you? 10% more taxes? 50% more? 100% more?
- rutierut 8y ago
  Americans are currently paying more for an inferior product for no good reason at all.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    That's because we'll gladly be gouged on prices as long as it's not called a tax. Internet? No problem there having zero alternatives in your area. Healthcare? Nightmare inducing and literally bankrupts people that even barely touch it, but it's not a tax.