3 ms·

Why are we acting like there aren’t objective evaluations for “dangerously mentally ill?” Everyone here is talking about how the justice system fails at this. W

Why are we acting like there aren’t objective evaluations for “dangerously mentally ill?” Everyone here is talking about how the justice system fails at this. Well yeah, it’s the justice system. They shouldn’t (and wouldn’t) be there in the first place. This is a psychological problem and it would be dealt with by people who have domain knowledge. We’re not talking about hungry DAs with a political agenda or overworked public defenders not doing their job. We can and should evaluate people to determine the extent of mental illness and mandatorily treat them. Anything outside of that is passive misanthropy.

woeirua 4y ago
As the article makes so plainly clear though, we cannot wait until someone is objectively dangerous for two reasons: 1 - it leaves very little time to actually intervene before something bad happens, and 2 - it removes our best chance to actually help someone. The mentally ill need to be treated when symptoms first start manifesting if we want to actually solve this problem.
- Pet_Ant 4y ago
  > we cannot wait until someone is objectively dangerous ... it leaves very little time to actually intervene before something bad happens I mean that feels like it's dangerously treading close to "pre-crime". I feel like it doesn't take much to extend that logic to poor rural children whose mothers are raising them in urban gang-run areas. I mean I can see the germ of the idea, but it's ripe for abuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-crime
  - woeirua 4y ago
    CPS can already take children out of homes in spite of the fact that no one has died yet in said situation. That is for good reason. Failing to act before a crime has actually been committed in many of those situations would lead to unnecessary deaths.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > CPS already takes children away from their families in spite of the fact that no child has yet died in their home, for good reason. It does so, in theory, based on indicia of objective danger (and is not without deep and serious problems in when it does act, as well as when it does not.) It very much does not support the position of taking action when there is neither crime nor objective danger.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > we cannot wait until someone is objectively dangerous for two reasons We cannot not wait until someone is objectively dangerous before using state power to constrain their liberty in the interests of other people’s security, because any other course of action is arbitrary tyranny. > The mentally ill need to be treated when symptoms first start manifesting if we want to actually solve this problem. If we need to force people into treatment at the moment symptoms of what might or might not be mental illness that may or may not eventually lead to objective danger to other people start manifesting to solve the problem, then the cost is simply too high and we shouldn’t solve the problem. Not all dangers in society have a mitigation that is a net benefit. Just because it would be beneficial in hindsight in the specific cases where we know from later events that it would have developed into a manifest harm does not mean that you can ignore the cost of all the cases where that isn’t the case that you would have to sweep into the dragnet in order to apply a “when symptoms first start manifesting” rule as opposed to a “objective danger” rule.
  - Jiro 4y ago
    >We cannot not wait until someone is objectively dangerous before using state power to constrain their liberty in the interests of other people’s security, because any other course of action is arbitrary tyranny Not true. There are nonviolent crimes that are still crimes and that you can still jail people for, and which the homeless commit lots of.
  - woeirua 4y ago
    You're going to have tyranny either way. Either you have oppression of the mentally ill by the government, or oppression of society as a whole by the severely mentally ill who takeover public places when they become homeless, commit murders etc. The rights of a few do not always supersede the rights of the many. I'm not saying we should involuntarily commit everyone who shows some symptoms of mental illness. I'm saying we should aim to treat those people before it becomes necessary to commit them.
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
Some cases are easier than others. A guy shouts a list of conspiracies at a passing cars is probably not as dangerous as a guy who talks about thinking of hurting himself and others. Key word is probably. As I understand it, there are guidelines. << We can and should evaluate people to determine the extent of mental illness and mandatorily treat them. Risky business man. I think you would need to lock up 100% of human population, because the question is always about the line of where they fall on the 'unacceptable' spectrum, who is making the decision and the societal impact of 'mandatory'. As always, the devil is in the details.

woeirua 4y ago

As the article makes so plainly clear though, we cannot wait until someone is objectively dangerous for two reasons: 1 - it leaves very little time to actually intervene before something bad happens, and 2 - it removes our best chance to actually help someone. The mentally ill need to be treated when symptoms first start manifesting if we want to actually solve this problem.

Pet_Ant 4y ago
> we cannot wait until someone is objectively dangerous ... it leaves very little time to actually intervene before something bad happens I mean that feels like it's dangerously treading close to "pre-crime". I feel like it doesn't take much to extend that logic to poor rural children whose mothers are raising them in urban gang-run areas. I mean I can see the germ of the idea, but it's ripe for abuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-crime
- woeirua 4y ago
  CPS can already take children out of homes in spite of the fact that no one has died yet in said situation. That is for good reason. Failing to act before a crime has actually been committed in many of those situations would lead to unnecessary deaths.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > CPS already takes children away from their families in spite of the fact that no child has yet died in their home, for good reason. It does so, in theory, based on indicia of objective danger (and is not without deep and serious problems in when it does act, as well as when it does not.) It very much does not support the position of taking action when there is neither crime nor objective danger.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> we cannot wait until someone is objectively dangerous for two reasons We cannot not wait until someone is objectively dangerous before using state power to constrain their liberty in the interests of other people’s security, because any other course of action is arbitrary tyranny. > The mentally ill need to be treated when symptoms first start manifesting if we want to actually solve this problem. If we need to force people into treatment at the moment symptoms of what might or might not be mental illness that may or may not eventually lead to objective danger to other people start manifesting to solve the problem, then the cost is simply too high and we shouldn’t solve the problem. Not all dangers in society have a mitigation that is a net benefit. Just because it would be beneficial in hindsight in the specific cases where we know from later events that it would have developed into a manifest harm does not mean that you can ignore the cost of all the cases where that isn’t the case that you would have to sweep into the dragnet in order to apply a “when symptoms first start manifesting” rule as opposed to a “objective danger” rule.
- Jiro 4y ago
  >We cannot not wait until someone is objectively dangerous before using state power to constrain their liberty in the interests of other people’s security, because any other course of action is arbitrary tyranny Not true. There are nonviolent crimes that are still crimes and that you can still jail people for, and which the homeless commit lots of.
- woeirua 4y ago
  You're going to have tyranny either way. Either you have oppression of the mentally ill by the government, or oppression of society as a whole by the severely mentally ill who takeover public places when they become homeless, commit murders etc. The rights of a few do not always supersede the rights of the many. I'm not saying we should involuntarily commit everyone who shows some symptoms of mental illness. I'm saying we should aim to treat those people before it becomes necessary to commit them.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

Some cases are easier than others. A guy shouts a list of conspiracies at a passing cars is probably not as dangerous as a guy who talks about thinking of hurting himself and others. Key word is probably. As I understand it, there are guidelines. << We can and should evaluate people to determine the extent of mental illness and mandatorily treat them. Risky business man. I think you would need to lock up 100% of human population, because the question is always about the line of where they fall on the 'unacceptable' spectrum, who is making the decision and the societal impact of 'mandatory'. As always, the devil is in the details.