Should the mentally ill be committed by force?

[jay gw]

If the resources are available, should people diagnosed with or suspected of having mental illness be forcibly committed by family members? What about the state?

If not, why not? If yes, under what circumstances and for what purpose?

By what principles are you deciding?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I think only if the person is at risk of harming themself or others. And, this should be very carefully evaluated (and not up to the sole judgement of, say, a family member).

But I'm not going to answer the poll because I hate binary answers to complex issues.

 

[jay gw]

But I'm not going to answer the poll because I hate binary answers to complex issues.

Most people do. But when things come for votes, its either aye or nay. That's it.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Most people do. But when things come for votes, its either aye or nay. That's it.

Perhaps, but my understanding is that when a Bill is before congress, it is first drafted, and usually after some sort of community consultation. I doubt a Bill that simply says 'Should people diagnosed with or suspected of having mental illness be forcibly committed by family members?' would ever be seriously submitted.

 

[jay gw]

Now you're being silly.

 

[RPG Advocate]

That poll is badly constructed. My answer is "only under one circumstance", so voting yes or no would be stupid.

The only time I think the mentally ill should be forcibly committed is as part of a sentence for a criminal offense. Civil commitment is an affront to liberty, in my opinion.

 

[jj]

Most people do. But when things come for votes, its either aye or nay. That's it.

You left out the 'egregious oversimplification' option, then. Let me vote for that.

You IMPOSED a "yes/no" property. Don't claim it's general, because you imposed it.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

That poll is badly constructed. My answer is "only under one circumstance", so voting yes or no would be stupid.

The only time I think the mentally ill should be forcibly committed is as part of a sentence for a criminal offense. Civil commitment is an affront to liberty, in my opinion.

That's an interesting point, but what do you do in the case of a coprophagic, for example? A person continuing to eat their own faeces runs the risk of serious illness. Yet, technically, no crime is committed. Do we let this person continue to act this way, or should they be committed until they are more stable?

Take it to other extremes, such as self-harmers, or people who suffer from paranoia to the point that it seems obvious they may harm someone, even though they have taken care not to explicitly say so (in order to keep 'them' from 'getting them').

Just issues that should be discussed.

 

[Luke T.]

Does it make sense to think a physically healthy person should be allowed to commit suicide and yet think a feces-eater should be locked up?

(edited to subtly modify question)

 

[Luke T.]

If someone should be locked up for wanting to harm another person, should a nine-month pregnant woman be locked up for wanting an abortion?

 

[RPG Advocate]

That's an interesting point, but what do you do in the case of a coprophagic, for example? A person continuing to eat their own faeces runs the risk of serious illness. Yet, technically, no crime is committed. Do we let this person continue to act this way, or should they be committed until they are more stable?

Take it to other extremes, such as self-harmers, or people who suffer from paranoia to the point that it seems obvious they may harm someone, even though they have taken care not to explicitly say so (in order to keep 'them' from 'getting them').

Just issues that should be discussed.

In both of these cases, the people involved must be allowed to go about their business. Even though people with illnesses like this are obviously detrimental to society, giving the state the power to lock someone up on such a low level of proof is far, far more detrimental. My view is that if you give the state an inch, it will take a mile.

 

[toddjh]

Does it make sense to think a physically healthy person should be allowed to commit suicide and yet think a feces-eater should be locked up?

That depends. Can you think of no circumstances under which a reasonable person would want to commit suicide?

To address the obvious response, no, I don't think suicide should be condoned for people with mental problems, or those facing temporary hardships.

If someone should be locked up for wanting to harm another person, should a nine-month pregnant woman be locked up for wanting an abortion?

Well, the issue should be whether they are likely to harm another person, not whether they want to. And yes, I think a nine-month pregnant woman who tries to get an abortion should be punished.

Jeremy

 

[jay gw]

My answer is "only under one circumstance", so voting yes or no would be stupid.

Sorry. The individually tailored poll.... is that way ----->

You IMPOSED a "yes/no" property.

Most polls require you to make a choice.

I don't think any of you have lived with a mentally ill person. It's pretty apparent that you have little clue about how much harm is done to communities by the mentally ill. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

No one has brought up the fact that 70 percent of crimes are committed by 10 percent of criminals.

 

[kittynh]

I think there need to be more safe places for the mentally ill that they can be protected from the rest of the world. I think we forget that the mentally ill are often targets for abuse and being taken advantage of. It's really hard to see people with severe mental illnesses just being abused by the rest of the world. There is a saying that they don't lock the doors and windows at the mental hospital to keep the inmates in, it's to keep the rest of the world out.

 

[SlippyToad]

No one has brought up the fact that 70 percent of crimes are committed by 10 percent of criminals.

Obviously the other 90% of the criminals are SLACKERS!

 

[The Fool]

If someone should be locked up for wanting to harm another person, should a nine-month pregnant woman be locked up for wanting an abortion?

Have you ever heard of someone being locked up for wanting something. I want to shag Britney but I'm unlikely to be charged.

 

[The Don]

Is this the correct time to bring up the well worn canard of the "untreatable psychotic individual who presents a clear danger to those around him but as yet has not committed an offence". Do we have to wait for this person to kill someone before we take action ?

Of course this could lead to people being held indefinitely without trial without having committed a crime (not that this already happens to terror suspects) based on a possibly suspect diagnosis.

My definitive answer is "Yes certainly under certain circumstances" but of course these circumstances will only reveal themselves after the fact. My diagnoses will only be possilbe with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[jay gw]

Opponents will use the same arguments they use when police do racial profiling. That, well, you shouldn't. Even though it works.

But people who do psychotic things like Columbine/other massacres, do not let on to what they're planning.

 

[Tony]

I think only if the person is at risk of harming themself or others. And, this should be very carefully evaluated (and not up to the sole judgement of, say, a family member).

I think only if the person is a danger to others. What's the logic in keeping someone in a cage who is a danger only to themselves?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I think only if the person is a danger to others. What's the logic in keeping someone in a cage who is a danger only to themselves?

Depends on your ethics. Do you stop someone from jumping off a bridge, if you have the chance?