3 ms·

> Forced institutionalization is plainly unconstitutional False. If you are a danger to yourself or others, then you can be involuntarily committed after a he

> Forced institutionalization is plainly unconstitutional False. If you are a danger to yourself or others, then you can be involuntarily committed after a hearing with a judge, and it's completely constitutional. https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/civil-commitment-continuum-of-care.pdf https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/civil-commitment-... When you start with an immediate falsehood, why read further? The italics don't help your argument either.

woodruffw 4y ago
The context here is homeless or parking encampments. The standard for institutionalization is established in Donaldson, which requires that the state demonstrate that you’re either incapable of surviving on your own or are a danger to yourself or others (like you said). “Danger,” in turn, has been narrowly interpreted by the courts to steer clear of obvious due process concerns: the state generally needs to show than danger is imminent and unavoidable, rather than merely plausible or even likely. In other words: people living in RVs or tents do not prima facie meet either condition for forced institutionalization. People living on the street don’t even meet the conditions necessarily, since there’s no test for “quality of life.” And that’s the way it should be, unless you think that your civil liberties evaporate as soon as you cease to own property.
- solardev 4y ago
  It's weird to see this sort of legal analysis in this day and age. It feels like a relic of the 90s, when the supreme court was still considered somewhat legitimate, vs the political puppets they are today. The Constitution itself is pretty worthless when it's subject to the whims of a bunch of corrupt asshats. It doesn't really matter what is or isn't constitutional anymore. If any appeal makes it to the court, it's just gonna be a red blue split anyway, and largely ignored or maliciously complied with by agencies leaning the other way. You might as well make it a system based on Facebook likes. That would at least be more democratic and just than what we have today, lol.

woodruffw 4y ago

The context here is homeless or parking encampments. The standard for institutionalization is established in Donaldson, which requires that the state demonstrate that you’re either incapable of surviving on your own or are a danger to yourself or others (like you said). “Danger,” in turn, has been narrowly interpreted by the courts to steer clear of obvious due process concerns: the state generally needs to show than danger is imminent and unavoidable, rather than merely plausible or even likely. In other words: people living in RVs or tents do not prima facie meet either condition for forced institutionalization. People living on the street don’t even meet the conditions necessarily, since there’s no test for “quality of life.” And that’s the way it should be, unless you think that your civil liberties evaporate as soon as you cease to own property.

solardev 4y ago
It's weird to see this sort of legal analysis in this day and age. It feels like a relic of the 90s, when the supreme court was still considered somewhat legitimate, vs the political puppets they are today. The Constitution itself is pretty worthless when it's subject to the whims of a bunch of corrupt asshats. It doesn't really matter what is or isn't constitutional anymore. If any appeal makes it to the court, it's just gonna be a red blue split anyway, and largely ignored or maliciously complied with by agencies leaning the other way. You might as well make it a system based on Facebook likes. That would at least be more democratic and just than what we have today, lol.