forums

Off-Topic Crime 2.0

Advertisement
hotshot said:
Tough issue between getting dangerous people committed/off the street while trying to avoid the inhumane "snake pit" mental hospital environments of earlier times.
Click to expand...
Looking at how the VA, Indian Health Services, and assisted living facilities treat patients gives every cause for concern.
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
Looking at how the VA, Indian Health Services, and assisted living facilities treat patients gives every cause for concern.
Click to expand...
Yep. Right now we don't have anywhere near enough "beds" in existing mental health facilities to house the population that needs to be afforded that type of care. As usual, comes down to money and politics.
 
hotshot said:
Tough issue between getting dangerous people committed/off the street while trying to avoid the inhumane "snake pit" mental hospital environments of earlier times.
Click to expand...
Yeah... but look what's happened in San Fran, LA, NYC, and other big cities. That experiment has also failed miserably
 
SpikeUM said:
I would be ok with the death penalty for attempted murder.
Click to expand...
To me it all depends on the situation and it there is irrefutable proof. But in cases with special needs and mental handicaps, my blood boils when people torture or hurt or kill them. That reminds me... I wonder what happened to all those people that killed a special needs person including 1 juvenile. Anyone remember or have a link to that? I'd like to keep track of that and not let it fall through the cracks
 
Advertisement
ithacane said:
Yeah... but look what's happened in San Fran, LA, NYC, and other big cities. That experiment has also failed miserably
Click to expand...
No question about it failing.

How do you feel, as a conservative interested in individual rights when the Gov't wants to abridge those rights (as with, say, Covid vaccines), about involuntary commitments? A slippery slope, or an easy call in the name of public safety?
 
hotshot said:
No question about it failing.

How do you feel, as a conservative interested in individual rights when the Gov't wants to abridge those rights (as with, say, Covid vaccines), about involuntary commitments? A slippery slope, or an easy call in the name of public safety?
Click to expand...
What do u mean, involuntary commitments though?

Are u talking about the government trying to force people into mental institutions? I’m not for that… but that’s not how u put them in institutions.

But feel free to explain if I didn’t understand your question correctly
 
ithacane said:
What do u mean, involuntary commitments though?

Are u talking about the government trying to force people into mental institutions? I’m not for that… but that’s not how u put them in institutions.

But feel free to explain if I didn’t understand your question correctly
Click to expand...
Maybe someone else here can help us both out.

I said "government," but maybe it's the court system. Whatever, involuntary means the individual does not want to be placed in a mental health facility. That being the case, some "authority" obviously would have to step in and forcefully ensure commitment for some set period of time, against their will.

In my understanding of Conservative principles, couldn't that be problematic in regard to the "state" abridging individual freedom? In the NYC case, seems we're talking involuntarily committing "troubled" folks who are not known to have been involved in any criminal activity. Yet, anyway.
 
hotshot said:
Maybe someone else here can help us both out.

I said "government," but maybe it's the court system. Whatever, involuntary means the individual does not want to be placed in a mental health facility. That being the case, some "authority" obviously would have to step in and forcefully ensure commitment for some set period of time, against their will.

In my understanding of Conservative principles, couldn't that be problematic in regard to the "state" abridging individual freedom? In the NYC case, seems we're talking involuntarily committing "troubled" folks who are not known to have been involved in any criminal activity. Yet, anyway.
Click to expand...
It is more of a libertarian issue than a conservative or progressive. Just right now the conservative side overlaps a lot with libertarian. Truly it is ripe for that platform to take hold into it for a while. Just have to get the big government leaders out.
 
Advertisement
hotshot said:
Maybe someone else here can help us both out.

I said "government," but maybe it's the court system. Whatever, involuntary means the individual does not want to be placed in a mental health facility. That being the case, some "authority" obviously would have to step in and forcefully ensure commitment for some set period of time, against their will.

In my understanding of Conservative principles, couldn't that be problematic in regard to the "state" abridging individual freedom? In the NYC case, seems we're talking involuntarily committing "troubled" folks who are not known to have been involved in any criminal activity. Yet, anyway.
Click to expand...
So I don’t want government making anyone go to institutions. However most of the mentally unstable don’t need to be forced by government… cause they are the ones currently committing crimes and being no cash bailed out the same day.

Now (if things are changed to bring back facilities for mentally challenged individuals) they bring them in, finger print and check their records. Then instead of going back on the streets… they go see a psychologist and are evaluated. Once it’s confirmed they are coo coo for coco puffs… they go to the mental institution

I don’t see where the government needs to get involved in this… but let me know if you have a scenario
 
ithacane said:
So I don’t want government making anyone go to institutions. However most of the mentally unstable don’t need to be forced by government… cause they are the ones currently committing crimes and being no cash bailed out the same day.

Now (if things are changed to bring back facilities for mentally challenged individuals) they bring them in, finger print and check their records. Then instead of going back on the streets… they go see a psychologist and are evaluated. Once it’s confirmed they are coo coo for coco puffs… they go to the mental institution

I don’t see where the government needs to get involved in this… but let me know if you have a scenario
Click to expand...
Who do you think pays for and provides the psychologist to evaluate those who go to the mental institution in that scenario?
 

HHS Whistleblower Says Government Complicit in Trafficking; Child Admits Being ‘Pimped’ by Sponsor​

 
Advertisement
CaneinBroward said:
Who do you think pays for and provides the psychologist to evaluate those who go to the mental institution in that scenario?
Click to expand...
Joe Q Taypayer... just like who pays for the Jan 6 show trial, the war in Ukraine, all the illegals that come across the border, all the drugs that come across the border, the Wall that Brandon built around his vacation home in Rehoboth and all the security detail around all the lawmakers who are for Defunding the Police.

Why do you ask?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top