After Tucson, Getting Involuntary Commitment Right
Mental hospitals were closed with the promise of more local, mental health “centers,” but states only too glad to shutter large facilities as a cost-saving measure tended not to establish the plethora of smaller centers that would likely cost even more. Many of those that were established in intervening years focused as much — even more — on social issues than the less glamorous and socially conscious treatment of the mentally ill. Perhaps the most dangerous effect was the watering down of involuntary commitment laws, which almost uniformly tilted toward empowering the individual and restricting the power of the state. One result is the relatively well-known fact that a great many of the “homeless” (who tend to disappear when Democrats hold the White House) owe that condition primarily to their mental illness rather than the cruelty of uncaring conservatives.
And here is the root of the problem. The issue of involuntary commitment (or IC) has always been one of balancing the need of society to protect the innocent against the right of the individual to avoid unnecessary, unconstitutional confinement. In order to construct an IC law that achieves the correct balance, two elements are essential: the law must allow the immediate IC of those who, due to mental illness, (1) pose a substantial (not imminent) danger to themselves or others, or (2) cannot, due to their condition, care for their own essential needs.
Let’s examine the current IC laws of Arizona. AZ statute 36-524 requires a written application for IC and may be made by a relative or friend, “a peace officer, the admitting officer” [commonly a doctor] or “another responsible person.” The application is made on a standardized form, and must include the following:
1. A statement by the applicant that he believes on the basis of personal observation that the person is, as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to self or others, and that during the time necessary to complete the prepetition screening procedures set forth in sections 36-520 and 36-521 the person is likely without immediate hospitalization to suffer serious physical harm or serious illness or is likely to inflict serious physical harm upon another person.
2. The specific nature of the danger.
3. A summary of the observations upon which the statement of danger is based.
The statue goes on to authorize a telephonic application to be followed within 24 hours by a written application, which essentially allows a doctor, on the notification of a police officer, to authorize an IC. Statute 26-525 is essentially an emergency provision that gives the police the power to make an on-the-spot IC when it wouldn’t be practical to obtain a doctor’s permission first. It also absolves officers of civil liability if they make “a good faith effort to follow the requirements of this section [.]”
The Arizona law does include the two elements I consider necessary for a rational IC law, but here is where unintended consequences come into play. With nearly two decades of experience in civilian police work, I can attest that police officers are averse to making mistakes. They are, in essence, expected to make decisions that would have caused Solomon to sweat, to make them in seconds, and to be 100% correct. And they are held accountable to those expectations. As a result, officers tend to enforce only those laws with which they are familiar.
Those who are tempted to look up the related Arizona statutes might well find them confusing. They might not know exactly what they, as police officers, are allowed to do, or how and when. In addition, contrary to popular mythology, most police officers are careful not to make false arrests. Such mistakes can not only be professionally embarrassing but costly. Most officers avoid dealing with IC laws accordingly. It’s true that the AZ statute offers immunity from civil liability, but even so, police officers hate to make mistakes, and in using unfamiliar forms (which they probably don’t have or have no idea where to find — you’d be surprised at the profusion of forms officers have to use, all of which must be perfectly completed), making arrests according to highly specialized and seldom used statutes is something most simply choose to avoid.
Scene 1: the mid-1980s in a western boom town. By the time citizens are ready to call the police about a given person, things have usually deteriorated to the point that an IC is usually necessary. As I am well acquainted with the law and the necessary paperwork, I carry copies with me (as all officers routinely do with the paperwork they commonly use).
Take the case of “Karen” (not, of course, her real name). The incident that resulted in my making a successful and relatively routine IC occurred one bright day with a call about Karen wandering around in the downtown area with a bow and arrow, taking random potshots. Fortunately, she didn’t hit anyone. Taking her into custody was anti-climactic, too. It was off to the state mental hospital for Karen.
But within a week, Karen was back on the street in our little community — which was literally across the state from the hospital. This time, she was removing her clothing from the waist up and standing on a street corner smearing mud on her breasts. (Don’t get excited. Police officers and doctors will tell you that most people look best with clothes on.) Of course, I got the call and made a rapid IC. That’s when things got interesting. I called the state mental hospital and had the following conversation:
Me: “This is Officer McDaniel of the **** Police Department. May I speak to the doctor who most recently treated Karen **** please?”
Doctor: “This is Doctor Screwluse” (no, not his real name).
Me: “Doctor, last week we sent Karen **** to you on an IC. Today I find her back on the street, half naked in public, smearing mud on her breasts. Why isn’t she still there with you?”
Doctor: “We can’t handle her. She’s crazy.”
Me: “You’re the state mental hospital!”
Doctor: “Well, she has a character disorder, and our programs really aren’t set up to treat character disorders, and…”
The conversation went downhill from there. From that point on, Karen became our local problem until we were able to put her on a bus to another city (another common police tactic) in a distant state where an apparently uninformed relative expressed a willingness to be a good Samaritan.
Scene 2: the late 1990s in a Midwestern city of 50,000, which serves as a regional hub for medicine, shopping, and entertainment. The IC laws were also similar to Arizona’s current law. While police officers could make an IC without the permission of a medical professional, protocol (not required by statute) dictated that they make a good faith attempt to contact them before taking matters into their own hands.
Unfortunately, there were two psychologists on the on-call list afflicted by a pathological hatred of the establishment — and particularly of those evil shock troops of the establishment, the police. Any officer calling them — and because I was also the go-to-guy on this police force, I often did — got an earful of crude abuse ending in an inevitable refusal to authorize an IC regardless of the circumstances.
At that point, I and any officer had two choices: ignore someone who desperately needed to be taken into custody for treatment, or ignore the cop-hating shrink who would testify at the commitment hearing of his refusal to authorize an IC. Prosecutors hated to pursue cases where the presumed expert’s opinion was the exact opposite of that of the police. The protocol was eventually changed and officers made ICs without calling rabid cop-haters first, but for years, the good intentions of legislators and others were routinely thwarted.
It would appear that the legislature of Arizona has written a well-intentioned set of statutes that balance the two competing concerns relating to an IC. Yet there are a variety of reasons why the local police may not have taken the killer into custody:
- Local agencies, in an effort to avoid bad publicity or civil liability, may have adopted over-restrictive procedures that dissuade officers from acting in all but the worst circumstances.
- Local agencies may have dysfunctional working relationships that make an IC excessively time-consuming, difficult, or practically impossible.
- The police may have had the oft-repeated experience of seeing people who are obviously, dangerously mentally ill released back to the street as if through a revolving door.
- Officers may have not been properly trained on all aspects of dealing with the statutes, causing cop psychology to take over. Most could have chosen to avoid IC situations or didn’t know enough to take the correct actions. Perhaps their go-to-guy — if they had one — was simply off duty when needed. (College police forces, under normal circumstances, have even less training and experience with such matters than the regular police.)
- Perhaps the killer, in his several encounters with college and regular officers, was able to appear to be sufficiently normal such that an IC was not a reasonable option. There is some evidence, particularly in the case of the wildlife officer who stopped him for a traffic violation some three hours before his attack, that this was the case. Remember that no statute allows an IC for someone who is merely socially awkward, odd, or behaving unusually, regardless of how uncomfortable his behavior makes some people feel.
The lesson to be learned is that the right legislation, no matter how brilliantly written or well intentioned, always has unintended consequences. All the more reason why it’s time to retire the tragic, misbegotten view of mental illness that took root so many decades ago.
You mean to tell me that, once again, liberal attempts to solve a social problem have backfired, as in the 1960s with mental illness? No, say it ain’t so. Funny how that always works out. That’s why I guess ObamaCare, which is the liberal’s way of trying to solve the health care problem, is going to be such a smashing success, right? Lord save us from liberals trying to help us. It always turns out to be an expensive, and sometimes deadly, disaster.
In my experience, a “mental health professional” is more likely to view a police officer as crazy and dangerous- for wanting a job that involves the possession of firearms. (I have met few such “experts” who do not have a visceral fear, and hatred, of guns.)
Similarly, in college I encountered both psych professors and students who had romanticized views of the “mentally challenged”, ranging from seeing them as simple, harmless souls who were essentially angelic (see “Forrest Gump”), to regarding them as possessing “valuable insights” that the rest of society did not. I once had a professor tell me, in all seriousness, that a schizophrenic (IIA type) was able to perceive the world “more accurately” routinely, whereas he (the professor) require chemical assistance (i.e. LSD) to achieve the same level of “expanded consciousness”.
When dealing with the psychiatric profession today, a police officer, or the next of kin of a disturbed person, may as well be dealing with an alien from Zeta Reticuli. As with an ET, the reasoning processes involved on the part of the “expert” will not be recognizable as such by the average, “unenlightened” human.
clear ether
eon
Mr. McDaniel, you are playing with fire.
“The right of the individual to avoid unnecessary, unconstitutional confinement” remains the issue, and always will. To deprive a citizen of his life, liberty, or property has always been the sole prerogative of a jury of his peers. To vest that power in State-licensed functionaries, unchecked by a gimlet-eyed civilian jury unanswerable to the State, is to undo the one and only protection Americans have against totalitarianism.
Yes, yes, we’re talking here about the “mentally ill,” who “pose a danger to themselves or to others.” By whose judgment? And who will answer for his sins should he prove to be wrong, or vindictive, or merely drunk with power?
Involuntary psychiatric commitment was how the Soviet Union used to deal with its dissidents. Keep that in mind. And remember always: Nothing is without its costs. The costs of a regime of involuntary commitment on the say-so of a sheriff or a couple of State-licensed psychiatrists might prove to be a lot higher than the well-intentioned types “horrified” by the deeds of Jared Lee Loughner would like us to imagine.
And precisely how would you have handled Jared Lee Loughner, short of shooting him before he actually pulled the trigger?
Perfection is not possible in this life. It is still preferable to presume innocence than give the state unlimited power. And juries are indeed the proper vehicle to commit a person based on their actions – along with safeguards such as the right of appeal. Meanwhile defend yourself. The world is not a completely safe place nor could we make it one if we wanted to. Dare I mention Harrison Bergeron? The police can’t be everywhere all the time and I wouldn’t want them to be in any case.
Actually, “armed citizens” is one of the best way to deal with violent mentally ill, and still have people free when not acting violently.
The problem here is eerily the same as what preceded the Virginia Tech tragedy. A mentally disturbed person is identified, ignored and then allowed to buy firearms under the laws the left has demanded.
It does no good to interdict the sales of arms and ammo to mentally disturbed people when the government refuses to identify them.
In the Virginia case, it may have been simple malfeasance or even afear of being charged with racism. In the Tuscon case, it appears there is a good possibility the mother working for the county may have been the inhibiting factor.
In both cases, had the maniacs been identified to the “system” the sale would have been blocked.
Now, could they have circumvented that? We don’t know. What we do know is that the Tuscon nut purchased things very close to the date of the crime – leading some hoplophobes to lament over the lack of waiting periods. So clearly at least some agree that an interdiction would have some effect.
Under the idiotic Brady law, of course, there were existing, harsh, federal penalties for felons attempting to purchase firearms. In fact, Bill Clinton and the simian Reno both crowed over the “hundreds of thousands” of potential purchases stopped by “Brady.”
Hmmmmm, how many of those were prosecuted and jailed?????? Not so much. Which then led to the “gun show” loophole to direct attention away from federal and local malfeasance.
1. This is not the Soviet Union. I don’t mean to say that our government is perfectly angelic, but it is not even remotely comparable.
2. Someone who smears mud on their breasts in public is quite clearly mentally ill. Your comment “by whose judgement” simply goes back to the same problem of treating the mentally ill as having a different perception of life, rather than actually being ill. Throughout my life I’ve been close friends with quite a number of mentally ill people, some of them quite seriously; every one of them thought it was absolute hell, and not an alternate view of reality.
3. When dealing with such individuals, there can be any number of unknown factors that the police have to take into consideration, such as “is that person hiding a weapon somewhere that is going to be used against bystanders?” In an extreme case, I think it would be justified to require regular drug tests to make sure that a certain patient is still taking his medication. Several years ago near where I live, a seriously ill man who had stopped taking his antipsychotic medication went into a grocery store and attacked shoppers with a samurai sword; he was eventually shot dead by the responding police officers. This could have been avoided.
Was there no one in the store carrying a handgun? Or possessed of enough wit to ram the fellow with a shopping cart or two? I don’t have the words for what your tale makes me think of the people in that neighborhood.
It would seem that no one wants to talk about the costs of involuntary psychiatric commitment, and how they compare to the costs of a regime without it. Both will be “imperfect” by any standard one cares to apply. Which will be better, and by what measures?
Remember: Any power you give the State will eventually be wielded by people who disagree with you — indeed, by people whose values are the opposite of yours. Try to envision what they would do with it before you grant it your approval.
In case you haven’t noticed, Mr. Porretto, samurai swords can reach over shopping carts. Your ignorance on this subject only highlights your other opinions.
A “samurai sword” is roughly 3′. Which is, at worst, the same length as a typical shopping cart.
Question: would you rather have a shopping cart between you and the weilder, or nothing at all?
This is suburban Orange County, California. Even though there are lots of gun dealers here (three within a ten minute drive from my home), concealed carry permits are next to impossible to get, and anybody carrying openly faces serious harassment from the police. Besides, women in a grocery store with children are unlikely to attack a madman wielding a samurai sword.
I agree absolutely with this post no triumvirate or whatever appointed authority should have that power of “IC” involuntary confinement. That’s a scary proposition to make it easy to confine someone, just imagine the abuse field day the left would have with this easement!!!
“By Whose Judgment?” The answer, dear Francis, is by a trained mental health professional. That may be a Masters or Doctoral degree level counselor or psychologist whose job it is to interview persons brought to the mental health center and then to diagnose and recommend or not recommend commitment to a Community Mental Health Center (CMHC) or state hospital for involuntary treatment, to be determined by a judge at a hearing. I’ve interviewed several hundreds of such persons, finding most of them not diagnosable, but also finding many who were diagnosable but not at risk to harm themselves or others, and finding many others who were diagnosable and at such risk. Those, if a County Judge so determined, went to a hospital. In only the clearest of cases was state hospital treatment recommended, and only in the clearest of cases did a judge recommend commitment. (It was fruitless to recommend CMHC treatment and I soon quit doing it.) In the case of Loughner, if he had come before me, I would have recommended commitment. His illness is clear, although whether treatment would help is unclear. However, the sheriff of Pima County did not do the job he ought to have done and brought Loughner to the mental health authority of Pima County.
My own experience was unique because I worked in a state hospital before the Community Mental Health Centers Act and observed a few (certainly not many) abuses. In those days a family member could go to a judge and get someone committed with no examination at all until he or she arrived at the state hospital, and the people at the hospital took their own good time “examining” the new patient. I remember one kid of twenty who was so railroaded by his attorney father. It took the hospital two or three months to examine him, which meant breaking his spirit, but it eventually did break his spirit and when he was discharged I drove him home. I asked him what he was going to do in life now, and he said, go to college, go to law school, and keep what happened to me from happening to anyone else.
The laws of all states are generally the same, and are not bad laws. If they are observed, as they were not in Arizona, both the people and the mentally ill are protected.
Liberals believe that society can be structured so as to solve every problem and correct every flaw. It’s always about more money and more laws. Geraldo Rivera lamented the AZ shooting was a failure of the mental health system failing to recognize that no system can stop every tragedy and prevent every crime. In the case of IC, we often ignore the fact that agencies happily assign mental illness to troubled people or offenders of the law because such individuals provide such a rich funding source. Even hardened criminals with severe personality disorders will be diagnosed with Axis 1 mental illnesses (considered dually diagnosed) just to have a way to keep them in the funding loop. On one hand the liberals would have mildly disturbed people being committed and on the other, hardened criminals getting access to benefits and services. Always remember the unintended consequences of well meaning laws.
Likewise, those who suffer from mental illness (not all of them severe enough to grab headlines) who deserve the same civil rights afforded to all citizens, are much less likely to fight for them when abused, due to the stigma and legal costs involved, further guaranteeing the flow of such funds.
As a wise man once quipped, “How long is one mentally ill? Twenty eight days. That is, until the insurance runs out…”
(Please note that this comment is not meant as a singular reply to any other herein; but I cannot find such category…)
Having been physically and verbally assaulted by two former “neighbors” [incidents totally unrelated], as well as witnessing the aftermath of a murder-suicide by a psychotic individual in Eastchester, New York–over a decade ago: my conclusion is basically in agreemwnt with this writer.
Legislation must be prudently prepared; however, a 72 hour involuntary commitment should be granted via court order–EVEN WHEN THE COMPLAINT IS REGISTERED BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO CLAIMS TO BE VICTIMIZED BY ANOTHER! No one
party or legal entity need by “blamed”, should an error in judgment be rendered…To avoid travesty; the original complainant, police, psychological and/or medical professional, and the court–should cooperate in the decision process…Furthermore, the institution that evaluates the temporarily incarcerated individual–should be equipped with the best evaluation systems in our modern world.
Following the 72 hour evaluation, rendered by an impartial body of professionals–the decision would be made to release the incarcerated individual, or provide further involuntary commitment. (This writer has been striving for legal attention to this vital matter, since the murder-suicide in Eastchester, New York–during Mayor Giuliani’s governance of New York City…Mayor Giuliani immediately sent the New York City Police to our little suburban neighborhood–which was an exceptional deed.)
When you empower Officials with the ability to lock up folks who “act crazy” you’ve created the ability to lock anyone up for anything that’s considered crazy by anyone.
Neighbors find a fellow talking to himself or a pet and away they go to the mental health ward. Fail to cut your lawn or your hair and away you go. Make a habit of rooting for the visitors instead of the home team and zoom it’s off to a Psychiatrist.
Perhaps you cannot hear well and respond to queries from the sane with words that don’t fit the conversation and here comes the Cops.
it’s a slippery slope to vigilante justice.
“When you empower Officials with the ability to lock up folks who “act crazy” you’ve created the ability to lock anyone up for anything that’s considered crazy by anyone.”
Not true. Professional guides such as DSM-IV define what is “crazy”. The normal 72 hour mandated limit works against incorrect application of professional guidance.
“Professional guides such as DSM-IV define what is ‘crazy’”.
“Not true”.
I am certified by the State. You’re in denial. You will locked up and drugged.
And DSM V will be written by the left wing of the psychologists and psychiatrists activist groups.
Not thinking that Social Security with its 1% lifetime average return (not 1% a year, 1% total) is worthwhile will be there.
Not thinking that psychologists hired by the government will be there.
All under some jargon as “irrational paranoic process”.
Unless a political decision has been made to send YOU to the gulag.
In little Kalamazoo, MI a few years back a student riding the train home got off here at the station to go to the bathroom. A local mentally ill fellow was also in the bathroom and beat him to death as 30 people in the lobby listened to the student scream for help. No one did anything that I know of.
A year or so ago a mentally ill fellow beat, nearly to death with a lead pipe, an elderly couple in downtown Kazoo who were leaving a movie theater.
The mental hospital on the hill that once housed hundreds of souls is mostly empty except for a few of the truly insane. I am sure in its’ day it was a horrible place to be. I know as I made visits as part of a group to interact with the ‘inmates’.
Yes the ‘homeless’ of the Reagan era that the left raged about were largely the result of emptying the asylums. No, I understand,,,,the asylums were hell, I know, I get it. The ‘homeless’ are everywhere in downtown Kazoo. Most mean no harm.
I am a surety agent (bail bondsman)/bounty hunter. I run into mentally disturbed people in jail, ALL THE TIME, and jail is not a pretty place for these folks.
Families often ask me where can we take him/her if we bond him/her out. I reply. No where that I know of. Every place that I know of requires an appointment. I believe that the mentally ill are NOT treated very well in the jails and in prison. But HEY, that’s where we have decided to drop them off.
As my wife (32 years as a Special Ed administrator) often says, “”Good law gone bad” and NO we won’t live in downtown Kazoo, thank you.
If patients were to be confined again, the streets of the District of Columbia would be virtually free of street people. I think all the regulations regarding the definition and identification of those who are mentally ill should be revised. When I was teaching, the requirement that parents must agree to psychological evaluation could endanger the lives of classmates. Even when their child leaped around on top of desks, brandishing scissors in an unusual “test the substitute” activity, one set of parents refused. Several years later I learned that the child was in a class for the mentally disturbed. This sort of screening or lack thereof continues. Much emphasis is placed on the sanctity of patient or personal rights and little on public safety.
In the heyday of the Soviet Union, as much as ten percent of its population at any one time was “in mental institutions”, which were a combination of slave labor sources and political punishment machines. After a certain length of time had passed, it was not uncommon for the government to visit the spouse and family and tell them to move along, he’ll never be the same, he doesn’t want to see you anymore, find a nice man, we’ll make the divorce easy, etc. Then they would go to the prisoner and tell him that his wife had remarried and he would not be having any visitors. The mental cruelty was absolutely SATANIC, and it was normal government policy for those people.
Where the potential for abuse exists by tyrannical types, all caution should be used. I cannot imagine living in a country where a quick signature by a nameless bureaucrat is all it takes to be put in a mental institution.
Child protective services works so well, let’s just expand the ability of the government to deprive you of liberty without due process. What could possibly go wrong?
A good law must have a deep consideration of the unintended consequences, which is always difficult and seldom occurs. But a law in which a person can be put away for observation for acting legally but not meeting someone else’s concept of normal is extremely dangerous to everyone’s freedom. The fact that we can make a law to handle past events such as Virginia Tech or Tucson does not mean that we know enough to incarcerate people before they commit a crime.
That is what gun control is supposedly all about, taking all guns away from everyone except a few good guys in the government who will protect us from the bad guys. Most of us know the fallacies in that, one of which is there can not be enough government good guys right there when you need them, and with the same incentive as you have to save yourself. You are the only one who can save you and yours. As FDR sort of said, the only thing we have to protect is protection itself.
But the real problem is that we turn these people who have not broken a law yet, over to a group of psychiatrists to decide on incarceration, and if so their treatment, and determination of their success at being reeducated. The psychiatrists did not do justice for someone who is guilty of breaking the law, such as Hinkley, and it will likely be worse for those who did not yet break the law.
There are a number of medical doctors in Congress, and they are bringing in refreshing new views. How many psychiatrists are there in Congress, and how many would the public like to see there? I certainly don’t have a lot of faith in turning over all our freedoms to the doctors who have invented so many metal illnesses for them to treat and us pay for.
No the only answer is to determine new laws of what you can do, or say or type so anyone who may be a problem can be put away because they did break the law. Of course it will be hard to tell which institution is worse, the one for those put away or the one for the rest of us who sold our freedom for a false sense of protection.
Rightgunner, very often a law is broken i.e. walking around exposed smearing mud on yourself, taking pot shots on a public street etc.
Some of the things Loughner was doing in the months leading up to the shooting could be considered making terroristic threats or at least disorderly conduct.
I’ll grant you that talking to a friendly invisible rabbit shouldn’t be grounds for IC.
Believe me, none ya’ll would want m blogging replies from the nut-house. I have my own little sanctified world I live in and I’d kindly thank ya to leave me the frick alone unless I be a dailin’ 911 or yellin’ fer my neighbors to put out a fire.
Seriously, people. Nuts is nuts and we all visit there occasionally whether by imbibing in too much of the Jesus-Juice or smokin’ too much of the “sticky bud” or taking to many prescription pain-killers or being heart-broken by someone who kicked you to the curb.
Not to mention…
I DON’T trust Psychiatrists. PERIOD.
I don’t know about Arizona, but in liberal California it’s rather easy to get an involuntary commitment under the 5150 W&I code: any peace officer, as defined by the California Penal Code, can do a 72 hour psych commitment for anyone who is a danger to self or others, in the eyes for of the peace officer as a reasonable person. And most reasonable persons as peace officers learn the principle of CYA: cover your ass. When in doubt, 5150 the person and let the “professionals” and the courts sort out the psychiatric subtleties. I’m surprised that with all the prior police contacts, five six or so with the shooter regarding his strange behavior, that something similar to a 5150 didn’t occur–which may explain the sheriff’s political show boating to deflect liability over the shooting. The only issue is whether such a psychiatric incident as a 5150 commitment would preclude future legal gun ownership; and given the black market in weapons, whether, that would have made any difference with someone, such as the Arizona shooter, who is bound and determined to go for the gusto.
Good article. It seems one obvious thing to push for is to make it so that the mentally unstable are incarcerated until they are no long a threat to themselves and others.
One the mental facility releases someone back to the street because “she’s crazy” part of the solution really does become obvious.
I’m in agreement with the other people who are mentioning that forced mental warding of people is a bad idea to give in to the hands of the establishment, Loughner might not have even done the shooting (for how controlled the media is and how much political gold his actions were for tightening controls. Too many coincidences were there, a girl born on 9/11 that socially involved at 9, her parents saying (paraphrased) “this isn’t about gun control {which would be tackled by many others} this is about people needing mental medical help”. Have you looked at what is considered a mental disorder now requiring medication? Wanting to eat healthily now is a disorder, as in NOT OBEYING AUTHORITIES. Loughner was set up is my hunch, a guy on the street with a gun didn’t shoot him even though he was there AND ARMED. Now why wouldn’t you shoot? Why kill a judge who rules in favor of illegal immigrants as well as send a senator in for brain surgery? With how skilled a shot he was and the speed he took them down with a RECENTLY purchased weapon, someone trained him IF he really is the killer, and not some shumck they chose off the street. His youtube page was faked, the Senator’s was altered as well, and no one smart enough to not talk to the cops (pleading the 5th), would leave evidence behind in easily accessible places. Anyone see Wag the Dog? They have ways of getting people’s compliance with their official story, many would take the ‘being a hero’ to being a dead witness of a political assassination is my hunch. Total totalitarian set up. My predictions the first time I heard it were all true (Guns and security forces for politicians being made a ‘necessity’, trying to tighten gun regulations, calling for forced internment camps for Mexican illegal immigrants {why they needed the judge dead} to provided free/cheap labor for the various wars, and pushing mandatory psyche tests/getting the clearance to shove dissidents into internment camps- because psychiatrists think they are ‘unwell’. Honestly, if people have guns or other weapons, they could have stopped this kid after he first started shooting, pulled their guns when he pulled his, which is better than having the state have the power to throw people in internment camps where no one will believe a word they say for having been in a psych-ward for something like oppositional defiant disorder, which seriously is what every activist that doesn’t obey authority could be labeled with.
The problem with letting licensed professionals take away liberty instead of jurys is that they are liability conscious. They worry about their liability if they release the subject so consequently they tend to err on the side of locking them up. They aren’t worried about false imprisonment liability because in my state Maryland, as in most states, they have a statutory presumption of reasonableness. The wrongly committed must first prove “unreasonableness” before ther suit can proceed. This is a tall order, and only mental health professionals enjoy this protection from liability.
There have been many positive changes in America because of the 60′s. We are now ‘living’ in all the ‘Harm’ the 60′s created as well.
Now, with ‘Political Correctness’ (aka hiding our heads in the sand) we are further harming ourselves. Time to start calling it as we see it. The Truth hurts sometimes but it will also set you free…
What everyone fails to address, is the consequence of an involuntary hold.
Unlike a criminal offence, where you have a right to defence and representation, and cannot be convicted without due process, a right to bail, et al, an involuntary hold is essentially conviction at the time of implimentation; and it stays on your records for the rest of your life–and very few employers will hire with that on your record, even if upon examination you are found to be sane. So its possible to have a unqualified social worker write 2 sentences and have someone commited, who is later released after a through evaluation by a compentent authority–but the ‘conviction’ stays on your record forever–there is no mechinism for review or removal.
The dr gives you a drug with a bad interaction, that lands on a hold? You are defined as crazy for the rest of your life–