3 ms·

> Forced institutionalization is plainly unconstitutional It is not illegal to arrest someone for stealing/drug use/etc. and then have a psychiatrist examine t

> Forced institutionalization is plainly unconstitutional It is not illegal to arrest someone for stealing/drug use/etc. and then have a psychiatrist examine them to determine whether they should go to jail or be institutionalized. Courts regularly examine criminals for mental fitness to stand trial already. > no particular evidence that you can disappear whichever group of undesirables you see fit and guarantee that more won't appear Funny, because that's exactly what lots of cities do and it works pretty well. Take a look at any wealthy SoCal city and you'll find no homeless. > a universal housing mandate, and adequate social services (including harm reduction) So, spending more than the median American makes per year on tents? Or allowing crazy drug addicts to trash temporary housing and hotels? Because that's what happens in SF. From the SF Chronicle, which is a super left leaning publication: "Residents have threatened to kill staff members, chased them with metal pipes and lit fires inside rooms, incident reports show. At the Henry Hotel on Sixth Street, a tenant was hospitalized after a neighbor, for a second time, streamed bug spray into their eyes, public records show. Last May, less than a mile away at the Winton Hotel, a resident slashed another tenant’s face with a knife, leaving a trail of blood out of the building" [1] And from the director running one of these programs: "“We throw all these people into our hotels who have no demonstrated ability to live independently, who have severe problems and need to be elsewhere,” Shaw said" Clearly the problem is not housing, it's the lack of support around getting mentally ill people the treatment (i.e. institutionalization) they need. And obviously, a crazy person is not going to consent to treatment for their craziness, so you need to force them into institutionalization. [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/san-francisco-sros/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/san-francisco-sros...

solardev 4y ago
I'm all for forced institutionalization, as long as we start with our politicians.
woodruffw 4y ago
> It is not illegal to arrest someone for stealing/drug use/etc. and then have a psychiatrist examine them to determine whether they should go to jail or be institutionalized. Courts regularly examine criminals for mental fitness to stand trial already. It is if the arrest is pretextual; that’s functionally no different from rounding up whichever group you think is bad and working backwards to disappear them. In any case, nobody who lives in a van, tent, or even on the street meets the standard for forced institutionalization by those conditions alone. See the other thread. > Funny, because that's exactly what lots of cities do and it works pretty well. Take a look at any wealthy SoCal city and you'll find no homeless. I was under the impression that Los Angeles is both extremely wealthy and has lots of homeless. I’ve only visited once, however. Either way: you surely understand that “move them somewhere else” is not a sustainable solution. You can’t sweep human lives under the rug in a country that has due process, as threadbare as ours might be. The rest of the comment ignores what “housing mandate” really means: it means a combination of shelters, supported living (including mental institutions), and independent living based on the needs and capabilities of the individual.
- pandaman 4y ago
  LA itself is not extremely wealthy with the median household income less than national according to a quick search. There are rich cities that people consider "LA" but actually separate cities with own government: Santa Monica,Malibu, Beverly Hills, Calabasas etc.
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  > It is if the arrest is pretextual I wasn't aware that arresting someone for stealing or illegal drug use was pretextual. Oh wait, it isn't. People committed a legitimate crime. > nobody who lives in a van, tent, or even on the street meets the standard for forced institutionalization by those conditions alone Then you give them a choice: go to treatment or go to jail. It is a strictly better outcome than only giving them the choice to go to jail. > “move them somewhere else” is not a sustainable solution It's a fully sustainable solution for many cities in SoCal, like I've said. Go to Newport Beach some time and you'll see. If you want your city to spend billions supporting people who don't want to be supported, you can do that with your own money and vote. > due process You're not entitled to violate local laws without consequences. Notice I never said to specifically go after people for being homeless, but to go after people for violating actual laws. Illegal drug use, illegal trash dumping, stealing, etc. Just because those actions are associated with homeless people does not make them any less illegal. > supported living (including mental institutions) The entire point is that the political will does not exist to force people who should be in mental institutions but don't want to be, into those institutions. If you steam bug spray into someone's eyes or chase them with a metal pipe, you are a danger to others around you.

solardev 4y ago

I'm all for forced institutionalization, as long as we start with our politicians.

woodruffw 4y ago

> It is not illegal to arrest someone for stealing/drug use/etc. and then have a psychiatrist examine them to determine whether they should go to jail or be institutionalized. Courts regularly examine criminals for mental fitness to stand trial already. It is if the arrest is pretextual; that’s functionally no different from rounding up whichever group you think is bad and working backwards to disappear them. In any case, nobody who lives in a van, tent, or even on the street meets the standard for forced institutionalization by those conditions alone. See the other thread. > Funny, because that's exactly what lots of cities do and it works pretty well. Take a look at any wealthy SoCal city and you'll find no homeless. I was under the impression that Los Angeles is both extremely wealthy and has lots of homeless. I’ve only visited once, however. Either way: you surely understand that “move them somewhere else” is not a sustainable solution. You can’t sweep human lives under the rug in a country that has due process, as threadbare as ours might be. The rest of the comment ignores what “housing mandate” really means: it means a combination of shelters, supported living (including mental institutions), and independent living based on the needs and capabilities of the individual.

pandaman 4y ago
LA itself is not extremely wealthy with the median household income less than national according to a quick search. There are rich cities that people consider "LA" but actually separate cities with own government: Santa Monica,Malibu, Beverly Hills, Calabasas etc.
ceeplusplus 4y ago
> It is if the arrest is pretextual I wasn't aware that arresting someone for stealing or illegal drug use was pretextual. Oh wait, it isn't. People committed a legitimate crime. > nobody who lives in a van, tent, or even on the street meets the standard for forced institutionalization by those conditions alone Then you give them a choice: go to treatment or go to jail. It is a strictly better outcome than only giving them the choice to go to jail. > “move them somewhere else” is not a sustainable solution It's a fully sustainable solution for many cities in SoCal, like I've said. Go to Newport Beach some time and you'll see. If you want your city to spend billions supporting people who don't want to be supported, you can do that with your own money and vote. > due process You're not entitled to violate local laws without consequences. Notice I never said to specifically go after people for being homeless, but to go after people for violating actual laws. Illegal drug use, illegal trash dumping, stealing, etc. Just because those actions are associated with homeless people does not make them any less illegal. > supported living (including mental institutions) The entire point is that the political will does not exist to force people who should be in mental institutions but don't want to be, into those institutions. If you steam bug spray into someone's eyes or chase them with a metal pipe, you are a danger to others around you.