4 ms·

Fine. In the meantime, any objection to taking billions from a program that has dubious outcomes and involves violence and a permanent criminal record, and shif

Fine. In the meantime, any objection to taking billions from a program that has dubious outcomes and involves violence and a permanent criminal record, and shifting it toward one that has dubious outcomes but doesn't?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
artificialLimbs 6y ago
Most 'permanent' criminal records can be expunged. When you are incarcerated against your will in a mental institute, you lose firearm privileges permanently (for real), deservedly or not. Seems like a great avenue for disarming the populace if the government needed to turn dictatorship.
- hattar 6y ago
  Consider how many people would need to be incarcerated against their will to make this work. Disarming the American populace would be nearly impossible by far more effective means. Taking this approach would be incredibly ineffective.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  You still seem to be missing the fact that there is no additionality here. If the current system would put you in a psych ward, the prior system would arrest you then put you in a psych ward, which most folks would agree is strictly worse.
- danShumway 6y ago
  And what are the actual stats on that? I'm willing to make a pretty safe bet that there are far more people in the US who have criminal records than have been committed to institutions against their will. I doubt it's even a contest, I'm seeing rough estimations online as high as 1/4 of the entire adult male population in the US. And I'm also willing to make a pretty safe bet that the proportion of those criminal records that actually get expunged is a lot lower than you're making it sound like. And lastly, I'm willing to make a bet that overall, the long-term effects of even a short criminal record are roughly comparable to the long-term effects of involuntary commitment. Yes, we can have a conversation about firearm privileges, that's worth talking about. But let's also not forget that the most immediate effects of a criminal record are things like loss of income, housing, and the ability to find employment, which can have an extremely significant effect on your entire future. In comparison, most employers will not ask you questions about your mental history. And again -- you can still get involuntarily committed to an institution after you're arrested. The only difference is that now you have two problems instead of one, both a mental health record and a criminal record.
  - edbob 6y ago
    > And again -- you can still get involuntarily committed to an institution after you're arrested. The only difference is that now you have two problems instead of one, both a mental health record and a criminal record. There are tens of thousands of serious sex offenders who, after serving their prison terms, are civilly committed to a prison-like treatment facility until the state decides they are safe. Only the most dangerous 2-4% of sex offenders are committed, and in some states it's rare that anyone is fully released. (Minnesota didn't fully release a single person in a two-decade period[0] In Texas, "only one person has been released from the program on a provisional basis since it was created 16 years ago."[1]). It's very expensive because the states do have to provide professional treatment, but apparently the states feel that the cost is worth it. In many cases being convicted of murder would be better than being civilly committed, since one would have a much better chance of eventually seeing freedom. [0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/inside-minnesotas-sex-offender-facility-where-no-one-has-ever-been-released https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/inside-minnesotas-sex-of... [1] https://texasvoices.org/judge-plans-to-release-texas-sex-offender-from-civil-commitment/ https://texasvoices.org/judge-plans-to-release-texas-sex-off...
    - danShumway 6y ago
      How would this program make that problem worse? You're talking about a situation that is almost always going to be accompanied by jail time. Even under this program, the top 2-4% of sex offenders are going to go through the justice system and see jail time. Look at the stuff you're citing (emphasis mine): > This type of law grants Minnesota courts the ability to deem someone an ongoing threat > here are tens of thousands of serious sex offenders who, after serving their prison terms, are civilly committed If anything, this seems to lend credence to the idea that having more police officers is not a deterrent for involuntary commitment. Literally all of these people were committed after being arrested and going through the justice system. ---- Add to that the fact that you're talking about a relatively tiny proportion of a very specific crime. Doesn't mean that it's not a problem, but as a point of comparison, there are currently ~200,000 people in the US serving lifetime sentences in prison. So I still don't see how I'm expected to treat those numbers like they're the same. Of course treatment facilities can be problematic, but I'm not seeing numbers that make me think they're a worse problem than our current incarceration system. And I especially don't see how the current initiative is going to affect the numbers you're talking about. Is Denver planning to stop prosecuting sex offenders? Why does the first responder being a mental health professional or a police officer matter in that instance? I mean, on both sides here it's wild to be talking about the top 2-4% of sex offenders or prison life sentences in regards to a program that is bragging in press releases about how they handled a low-level trespassing case. You're looking at a different category of crime than this program is designed to address.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > Seems like a great avenue for disarming the populace Doesn't seem like it would scale, tbh. You could disarm a few troublesome people, but not "the populace".
- bigiain 6y ago
  > Seems like a great avenue for disarming the populace You say that like it's a priori a bad thing? Coming from a county where the populace was never as heavily armed as yours, and in which we did "disarm the populace" fairly severely in response to a mass shooting, your gun violence problem is certainly one of the big big downsides to "living in America" for people I know. > ... if the government needed to turn dictatorship. And even this "reason we all need to own guns" seems kinda pointless? Do you honestly think what passes for "a well armed militia" in the United States these days stands _any_ chance of prevailing against the American Military and Law Enforcement? Your _cops_ drive tanks!!! I totally get that America has a level of gun ownership and a legal marketer and blackmarket for guns that we in Australia don't even comprehend, and that any attempt to change that is not only seemingly politically impossible but that even if the political will to change it existed it'd be a multi generation program to reduce the sheer number of guns in circulation. But I'm nt at all convinced by any of the arguments claiming it would be a bad thing for sociality...
Daho0n 6y ago
You seriously cannot neither compare the two or shift calls from one to another. They should live in their own sphere like they do in many countries. There are problems in both (massively so in the US) but if you look in journals, books and magazine-articles by well respected psychiatrists you will see many saying that what we do today with medicine will likely be seen in the future as a medicinal/chemical lobotomy. People's lives aren't just ruined but people are ruined permanently by treatments. Luckily I don't live in the US where there's a high risk of being shot by police if you call for help for mental problems or getting put away because of good insurance, but if I did I would pick the police over the risk of getting medicated by overworked and poorly educated hospital-workers. The police might pass you on but that is still a risk I'd willingly take if I had to pick Police or direct to the social-system in the US. Of course I would rather take a loved one to someone I knew would give them proper care in the first place but most that call the police does not have that option or we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. In other words, the problem isn't as black and white as you appear to make it. The solution is educated police working with a better social system, not sending social-workers to do a job they aren't educated or prepared for. If you look at much better (but still not perfect) systems you will mostly see that even when mentally sick people that are already in the hospital get violent they still call the police as it isn't their job to pacify dangerous individuals. That is the job of a well educated, not over-worked, police-force. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201603/chemical-lobotomy https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

artificialLimbs 6y ago

Most 'permanent' criminal records can be expunged. When you are incarcerated against your will in a mental institute, you lose firearm privileges permanently (for real), deservedly or not. Seems like a great avenue for disarming the populace if the government needed to turn dictatorship.

hattar 6y ago
Consider how many people would need to be incarcerated against their will to make this work. Disarming the American populace would be nearly impossible by far more effective means. Taking this approach would be incredibly ineffective.
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
You still seem to be missing the fact that there is no additionality here. If the current system would put you in a psych ward, the prior system would arrest you then put you in a psych ward, which most folks would agree is strictly worse.
danShumway 6y ago
And what are the actual stats on that? I'm willing to make a pretty safe bet that there are far more people in the US who have criminal records than have been committed to institutions against their will. I doubt it's even a contest, I'm seeing rough estimations online as high as 1/4 of the entire adult male population in the US. And I'm also willing to make a pretty safe bet that the proportion of those criminal records that actually get expunged is a lot lower than you're making it sound like. And lastly, I'm willing to make a bet that overall, the long-term effects of even a short criminal record are roughly comparable to the long-term effects of involuntary commitment. Yes, we can have a conversation about firearm privileges, that's worth talking about. But let's also not forget that the most immediate effects of a criminal record are things like loss of income, housing, and the ability to find employment, which can have an extremely significant effect on your entire future. In comparison, most employers will not ask you questions about your mental history. And again -- you can still get involuntarily committed to an institution after you're arrested. The only difference is that now you have two problems instead of one, both a mental health record and a criminal record.
- edbob 6y ago
  > And again -- you can still get involuntarily committed to an institution after you're arrested. The only difference is that now you have two problems instead of one, both a mental health record and a criminal record. There are tens of thousands of serious sex offenders who, after serving their prison terms, are civilly committed to a prison-like treatment facility until the state decides they are safe. Only the most dangerous 2-4% of sex offenders are committed, and in some states it's rare that anyone is fully released. (Minnesota didn't fully release a single person in a two-decade period[0] In Texas, "only one person has been released from the program on a provisional basis since it was created 16 years ago."[1]). It's very expensive because the states do have to provide professional treatment, but apparently the states feel that the cost is worth it. In many cases being convicted of murder would be better than being civilly committed, since one would have a much better chance of eventually seeing freedom. [0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/inside-minnesotas-sex-offender-facility-where-no-one-has-ever-been-released https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/inside-minnesotas-sex-of... [1] https://texasvoices.org/judge-plans-to-release-texas-sex-offender-from-civil-commitment/ https://texasvoices.org/judge-plans-to-release-texas-sex-off...
  - danShumway 6y ago
    How would this program make that problem worse? You're talking about a situation that is almost always going to be accompanied by jail time. Even under this program, the top 2-4% of sex offenders are going to go through the justice system and see jail time. Look at the stuff you're citing (emphasis mine): > This type of law grants Minnesota courts the ability to deem someone an ongoing threat > here are tens of thousands of serious sex offenders who, after serving their prison terms, are civilly committed If anything, this seems to lend credence to the idea that having more police officers is not a deterrent for involuntary commitment. Literally all of these people were committed after being arrested and going through the justice system. ---- Add to that the fact that you're talking about a relatively tiny proportion of a very specific crime. Doesn't mean that it's not a problem, but as a point of comparison, there are currently ~200,000 people in the US serving lifetime sentences in prison. So I still don't see how I'm expected to treat those numbers like they're the same. Of course treatment facilities can be problematic, but I'm not seeing numbers that make me think they're a worse problem than our current incarceration system. And I especially don't see how the current initiative is going to affect the numbers you're talking about. Is Denver planning to stop prosecuting sex offenders? Why does the first responder being a mental health professional or a police officer matter in that instance? I mean, on both sides here it's wild to be talking about the top 2-4% of sex offenders or prison life sentences in regards to a program that is bragging in press releases about how they handled a low-level trespassing case. You're looking at a different category of crime than this program is designed to address.
triceratops 6y ago
> Seems like a great avenue for disarming the populace Doesn't seem like it would scale, tbh. You could disarm a few troublesome people, but not "the populace".
bigiain 6y ago
> Seems like a great avenue for disarming the populace You say that like it's a priori a bad thing? Coming from a county where the populace was never as heavily armed as yours, and in which we did "disarm the populace" fairly severely in response to a mass shooting, your gun violence problem is certainly one of the big big downsides to "living in America" for people I know. > ... if the government needed to turn dictatorship. And even this "reason we all need to own guns" seems kinda pointless? Do you honestly think what passes for "a well armed militia" in the United States these days stands _any_ chance of prevailing against the American Military and Law Enforcement? Your _cops_ drive tanks!!! I totally get that America has a level of gun ownership and a legal marketer and blackmarket for guns that we in Australia don't even comprehend, and that any attempt to change that is not only seemingly politically impossible but that even if the political will to change it existed it'd be a multi generation program to reduce the sheer number of guns in circulation. But I'm nt at all convinced by any of the arguments claiming it would be a bad thing for sociality...

Daho0n 6y ago

You seriously cannot neither compare the two or shift calls from one to another. They should live in their own sphere like they do in many countries. There are problems in both (massively so in the US) but if you look in journals, books and magazine-articles by well respected psychiatrists you will see many saying that what we do today with medicine will likely be seen in the future as a medicinal/chemical lobotomy. People's lives aren't just ruined but people are ruined permanently by treatments. Luckily I don't live in the US where there's a high risk of being shot by police if you call for help for mental problems or getting put away because of good insurance, but if I did I would pick the police over the risk of getting medicated by overworked and poorly educated hospital-workers. The police might pass you on but that is still a risk I'd willingly take if I had to pick Police or direct to the social-system in the US. Of course I would rather take a loved one to someone I knew would give them proper care in the first place but most that call the police does not have that option or we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. In other words, the problem isn't as black and white as you appear to make it. The solution is educated police working with a better social system, not sending social-workers to do a job they aren't educated or prepared for. If you look at much better (but still not perfect) systems you will mostly see that even when mentally sick people that are already in the hospital get violent they still call the police as it isn't their job to pacify dangerous individuals. That is the job of a well educated, not over-worked, police-force. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201603/chemical-lobotomy https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201...