4 ms·

In an interview at the time, Holmes said, "What we're really talking about is to say, 'Just put 'em in jail. And at least that offender will be out of sight and

In an interview at the time, Holmes said, "What we're really talking about is to say, 'Just put 'em in jail. And at least that offender will be out of sight and out of mind for a defined period of time. Not receiving treatment, but at least out of the public view.'" I'm not sure whether he's criticizing this thought or not, but if he IS, why? Having these people out of the public is obviously better than having them attempt to throw people off bridges or scream incoherent nonsense at random bystanders, regardless of whether they receive treatment.

Analemma_ 7y ago
I think the point he's trying to get across is this: First we had institutions for the mentally ill. Then we closed them all down, with the promise that they'd be replaced by community mental health care. But since that care never showed up, all those people just starting going to jail instead. This is no better than the institutions, but they were "out of sight, out of mind", so no one cared. What Holmes is saying is, since we're not going to put these people in jail anymore, we're now forced to really deal with the problem, instead of just shuffling them somewhere so we can pretend they don't exist. Either we get real mental health care, or they stay on the streets screaming at people. The choice is yours!
- olliej 7y ago
  Yup, save money by cutting down services, knowing that people always vote for increased prison spending. It costs more to keep someone in prison than in a mental health facility, and the latter has the chance of assisting recovery, but yay prisons!
- booboolayla 7y ago
  Did I miss something here, did we invent cures for mental illnesses recently? There's no other way of dealing with it other than "shuffling them somewhere", be it a prison or a mental institution (which is also a prison of sorts)
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  Is this an actual choice one gets to make, though? Most mental health programs were funded (and then defunded) at the federal level with some state money. The prosecutor in question is local. And the problem is that even if the locality were to somehow raise all that money to launch comprehensive mental healthcare on its own, it would basically be a clarion call across the land for all the other cities to buy a one-way bus ticket for their homeless there, because now that one place has solved it why do they have to? Busing the homeless out to other places is a common occurrence: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/20/bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...
- LordHumungous 7y ago
  We still have institutions for the mentally ill, but Pete Holmes refuses to send people to them.
olliej 7y ago
No, locking people up in prison does not make them better when they’re released, and often results in them coming out worse than when they went in. Also, putting someone with mental health problems in prison costs more than a real treatment facility, where at least there’s the possibly for them to get better. Here’s a clearer way to describe it: If putting people with mental health problems in prison is better than having them on the street, why are they being let out again? You’ve already decided that they’re not going to receive any treatment or assistance, so they’re going to hit the streets, commit some crime (violent or otherwise) and then go back to jail. So why let them out? Prison sentences are intended to be “long enough to correct or discourage future criminal acts”, with life sentences for people we don’t believe can be released safely. Given that we know that people with mental health problem but no treatment or support will reoffend, that seems (by your assessment) like a prime candidate for permanent incarceration.
- djohnston 7y ago
  it's certainly better to keep violent crazy people off the streets. i would like them to be in a treatment facility, where they have the opportunity to be helped and can be let back out as healthy members of society. that doesn't exist. so, yeah, they shouldn't just be out and about harassing everyone else, right?

Analemma_ 7y ago

I think the point he's trying to get across is this: First we had institutions for the mentally ill. Then we closed them all down, with the promise that they'd be replaced by community mental health care. But since that care never showed up, all those people just starting going to jail instead. This is no better than the institutions, but they were "out of sight, out of mind", so no one cared. What Holmes is saying is, since we're not going to put these people in jail anymore, we're now forced to really deal with the problem, instead of just shuffling them somewhere so we can pretend they don't exist. Either we get real mental health care, or they stay on the streets screaming at people. The choice is yours!

olliej 7y ago
Yup, save money by cutting down services, knowing that people always vote for increased prison spending. It costs more to keep someone in prison than in a mental health facility, and the latter has the chance of assisting recovery, but yay prisons!
booboolayla 7y ago
Did I miss something here, did we invent cures for mental illnesses recently? There's no other way of dealing with it other than "shuffling them somewhere", be it a prison or a mental institution (which is also a prison of sorts)
bobthepanda 7y ago
Is this an actual choice one gets to make, though? Most mental health programs were funded (and then defunded) at the federal level with some state money. The prosecutor in question is local. And the problem is that even if the locality were to somehow raise all that money to launch comprehensive mental healthcare on its own, it would basically be a clarion call across the land for all the other cities to buy a one-way bus ticket for their homeless there, because now that one place has solved it why do they have to? Busing the homeless out to other places is a common occurrence: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/20/bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...
LordHumungous 7y ago
We still have institutions for the mentally ill, but Pete Holmes refuses to send people to them.

olliej 7y ago

No, locking people up in prison does not make them better when they’re released, and often results in them coming out worse than when they went in. Also, putting someone with mental health problems in prison costs more than a real treatment facility, where at least there’s the possibly for them to get better. Here’s a clearer way to describe it: If putting people with mental health problems in prison is better than having them on the street, why are they being let out again? You’ve already decided that they’re not going to receive any treatment or assistance, so they’re going to hit the streets, commit some crime (violent or otherwise) and then go back to jail. So why let them out? Prison sentences are intended to be “long enough to correct or discourage future criminal acts”, with life sentences for people we don’t believe can be released safely. Given that we know that people with mental health problem but no treatment or support will reoffend, that seems (by your assessment) like a prime candidate for permanent incarceration.

djohnston 7y ago
it's certainly better to keep violent crazy people off the streets. i would like them to be in a treatment facility, where they have the opportunity to be helped and can be let back out as healthy members of society. that doesn't exist. so, yeah, they shouldn't just be out and about harassing everyone else, right?