5 ms·

Asylums are prison type 2, and I am already subjected to the possibility of prison for crimes. Most arguments against asylums is an argument against criminal p

by novok 3y ago

Asylums are prison type 2, and I am already subjected to the possibility of prison for crimes. Most arguments against asylums is an argument against criminal prosecution, police and prisons in general. Make the standards the same then and only subject to committing an actual crime in the first place?

danShumway 3y ago
I frankly don't believe that the majority of people advocating for forced institutionalization are going to be satisfied by waiting for someone to commit a crime. I think the majority of people advocating for the return of asylums want the State to be able to commit citizens to asylums before they do anything criminal. Like you said, prison exists. And I will happily advocate for prison reforms within the existing legal system that allow for better rehabilitation of prisoners, particularly better rehabilitation for prisoners who suffer from mental disabilities or illnesses. Prisoners should have more access to mental health services, and prisons should be focused on treating and caring for prisoners who are struggling with mental health issues. And of course, prosecution already exists today, so prison reform changes nothing about prosecution, it would merely improve conditions for people forced into that system who have mental disabilities. Call it what it is -- prison, and then lets make prisons better. Sure, I'm on board. But wait. Is that what people are calling for, even in this thread? People here are advocating that the government should have the ability to forcibly commit someone to an asylum. Well, wait a second, don't they already have that ability? What ability are workers currently lacking? They can forcibly commit someone to a prison once they've committed a crime and have been prosecuted. That system already exists, we have sentencing for crimes. So what do they want? The fact that people are talking primarily about needing the ability to forcibly commit people indicates that they don't believe that police or judges or the legal system has that ability right now. They are arguing that current abilities to imprison people are not enough. They believe the State should have more power to forcibly imprison people than it currently does and that under certain situations the State should have the ability to expand prison sentences, possibly even indefinitely. Otherwise they'd just be talking about prison reform and this wouldn't be a debate at all. Nobody is against prison reform[0]. ---- [0]: Well, okay, many many people are against prison reform, but nobody who is worth paying attention to when they talk about justice or human rights or care for the mentally ill is against prison reform.
- bobsmooth 3y ago
  >People here are advocating that the government should have the ability to forcibly commit someone to an asylum. The state already has the ability to forcibly confine people. We just think that some people would do better in a hospital than a prison.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    I think you should be honest that you're talking about putting people into a prison and then calling that prison a hospital. And given the state of prisons in the US, I know what that "hospital" would end up looking like. And I think it's kind of weird and very vaguely gross to try and distinguish. There really aren't many reforms or programs for an asylum that aren't applicable to existing prisons -- normal prisoners deserve mental health services. That people so intuitively understand that prisons are horrible places for people with mental disabilities should not spark you to try and create Prison 2.0 Deluxe Hospital Edition, it should spark you to try and make Prison 1.0 less horrible for everyone.
    - novok 3y ago
      Politically it's much easier to sell "prison type 2: mental hospital edition" than it is to make "global prison: sweden edition", much like they have low security / high security prisons. It's a classic case of perfect being the enemy of good, and it's a major reason why the USA has problems like this, because of it's vetocracy structure. IMO the first step to prison type sweden would probably be getting rid of the drug war and dismantling the DEA, much of the 'load' comes from that.
      - danShumway 3y ago
        > Politically it's much easier to sell "prison type 2: mental hospital edition" than it is to make "global prison: sweden edition", much like they have low security / high security prisons. On one hand I agree that it would be a lot easier initially to sell the idea; on the other hand the public sentiment around prisons as they exist today and the unwillingness to treat prison residents as if they are human beings is a fundamental social problem that will corrupt attempts to build compassionate and helpful asylums. I don't believe there's a shortcut; our prisons are horrible in part because society tolerates that. They will also tolerate abuse in mental hospitals, they will also very quickly dehumanize people who are committed to mental institutions. And very quickly you will find yourself in the position of needing to argue for basic human rights inside mental institutions and realizing that the same people who are antagonistic to prison reform are also going to be antagonistic to treating the mentally ill with dignity and respect. That you feel that you can't really effectively argue for general prison reform to the general public is the canary in the coal mine. Your instincts are correct, you do not live in a society that cares about the rights of prisoners. Attempting to trick that society into caring about some of those rights by renaming prisons to hospitals... it's not going to work. The same people will vote and will have the same attitudes about segments of society that they would prefer please go exist someplace else where they can be ignored. It's just going to be prison 1.0 with a different name on it. If you can't convince people to care about prison 1.0, you also will not have a defense when those same people stop caring about prison 2.0 for the same reasons. Honestly, if anything having a different name on it will make it easier for the general public to ignore abuses in both asylums and regular prisons. The sentiment will be that asylums are "nice" so they're obviously caring for the sick people who don't know better, and mental health in prisons isn't a problem, those people go to asylums. And since asylums are nice, why do we have to wait for people to commit crimes? It's not like we're sending them to prison. And on and on... I just don't think there's a marketing trick that can be done to get around that problem; it's reinforcing delusions people have about the justice system rather than correcting them. We have to actually do the work to change social views on prison. And I think the distinction itself is kind of unhelpful for that effort. To be very clear, mental institutions and asylums are prisons. If saying that out loud rubs people the wrong way, it's because we know deep down that our current prisons are awful places and we all (myself included) desperately want to figure out some excuse to use so we can say that sympathetic human beings don't go there. Telling the general public "they don't deserve to be in prison, they deserve to be in a hospital" is in many ways just allowing people to feel less bad about the people who are in prison, it's a way to allow the general public to continue clinging to the idea that prison isn't about rehabilitation or treatment or safety. It's a way to allow the general public to shrug when people are sent to prisons because "it's just a hospital." But calling prisons a different word doesn't make them not prisons, it just makes us feel better about putting people into them.

by novok 3y ago

danShumway 3y ago

I frankly don't believe that the majority of people advocating for forced institutionalization are going to be satisfied by waiting for someone to commit a crime. I think the majority of people advocating for the return of asylums want the State to be able to commit citizens to asylums before they do anything criminal. Like you said, prison exists. And I will happily advocate for prison reforms within the existing legal system that allow for better rehabilitation of prisoners, particularly better rehabilitation for prisoners who suffer from mental disabilities or illnesses. Prisoners should have more access to mental health services, and prisons should be focused on treating and caring for prisoners who are struggling with mental health issues. And of course, prosecution already exists today, so prison reform changes nothing about prosecution, it would merely improve conditions for people forced into that system who have mental disabilities. Call it what it is -- prison, and then lets make prisons better. Sure, I'm on board. But wait. Is that what people are calling for, even in this thread? People here are advocating that the government should have the ability to forcibly commit someone to an asylum. Well, wait a second, don't they already have that ability? What ability are workers currently lacking? They can forcibly commit someone to a prison once they've committed a crime and have been prosecuted. That system already exists, we have sentencing for crimes. So what do they want? The fact that people are talking primarily about needing the ability to forcibly commit people indicates that they don't believe that police or judges or the legal system has that ability right now. They are arguing that current abilities to imprison people are not enough. They believe the State should have more power to forcibly imprison people than it currently does and that under certain situations the State should have the ability to expand prison sentences, possibly even indefinitely. Otherwise they'd just be talking about prison reform and this wouldn't be a debate at all. Nobody is against prison reform[0]. ---- [0]: Well, okay, many many people are against prison reform, but nobody who is worth paying attention to when they talk about justice or human rights or care for the mentally ill is against prison reform.

bobsmooth 3y ago
>People here are advocating that the government should have the ability to forcibly commit someone to an asylum. The state already has the ability to forcibly confine people. We just think that some people would do better in a hospital than a prison.
- danShumway 3y ago
  I think you should be honest that you're talking about putting people into a prison and then calling that prison a hospital. And given the state of prisons in the US, I know what that "hospital" would end up looking like. And I think it's kind of weird and very vaguely gross to try and distinguish. There really aren't many reforms or programs for an asylum that aren't applicable to existing prisons -- normal prisoners deserve mental health services. That people so intuitively understand that prisons are horrible places for people with mental disabilities should not spark you to try and create Prison 2.0 Deluxe Hospital Edition, it should spark you to try and make Prison 1.0 less horrible for everyone.
  - novok 3y ago
    Politically it's much easier to sell "prison type 2: mental hospital edition" than it is to make "global prison: sweden edition", much like they have low security / high security prisons. It's a classic case of perfect being the enemy of good, and it's a major reason why the USA has problems like this, because of it's vetocracy structure. IMO the first step to prison type sweden would probably be getting rid of the drug war and dismantling the DEA, much of the 'load' comes from that.
    - danShumway 3y ago
      > Politically it's much easier to sell "prison type 2: mental hospital edition" than it is to make "global prison: sweden edition", much like they have low security / high security prisons. On one hand I agree that it would be a lot easier initially to sell the idea; on the other hand the public sentiment around prisons as they exist today and the unwillingness to treat prison residents as if they are human beings is a fundamental social problem that will corrupt attempts to build compassionate and helpful asylums. I don't believe there's a shortcut; our prisons are horrible in part because society tolerates that. They will also tolerate abuse in mental hospitals, they will also very quickly dehumanize people who are committed to mental institutions. And very quickly you will find yourself in the position of needing to argue for basic human rights inside mental institutions and realizing that the same people who are antagonistic to prison reform are also going to be antagonistic to treating the mentally ill with dignity and respect. That you feel that you can't really effectively argue for general prison reform to the general public is the canary in the coal mine. Your instincts are correct, you do not live in a society that cares about the rights of prisoners. Attempting to trick that society into caring about some of those rights by renaming prisons to hospitals... it's not going to work. The same people will vote and will have the same attitudes about segments of society that they would prefer please go exist someplace else where they can be ignored. It's just going to be prison 1.0 with a different name on it. If you can't convince people to care about prison 1.0, you also will not have a defense when those same people stop caring about prison 2.0 for the same reasons. Honestly, if anything having a different name on it will make it easier for the general public to ignore abuses in both asylums and regular prisons. The sentiment will be that asylums are "nice" so they're obviously caring for the sick people who don't know better, and mental health in prisons isn't a problem, those people go to asylums. And since asylums are nice, why do we have to wait for people to commit crimes? It's not like we're sending them to prison. And on and on... I just don't think there's a marketing trick that can be done to get around that problem; it's reinforcing delusions people have about the justice system rather than correcting them. We have to actually do the work to change social views on prison. And I think the distinction itself is kind of unhelpful for that effort. To be very clear, mental institutions and asylums are prisons. If saying that out loud rubs people the wrong way, it's because we know deep down that our current prisons are awful places and we all (myself included) desperately want to figure out some excuse to use so we can say that sympathetic human beings don't go there. Telling the general public "they don't deserve to be in prison, they deserve to be in a hospital" is in many ways just allowing people to feel less bad about the people who are in prison, it's a way to allow the general public to continue clinging to the idea that prison isn't about rehabilitation or treatment or safety. It's a way to allow the general public to shrug when people are sent to prisons because "it's just a hospital." But calling prisons a different word doesn't make them not prisons, it just makes us feel better about putting people into them.