Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Thingswithcookies t1_iypktah wrote

Attacks like this are why we should follow NYC in forcibly removing mentally ill and addicts from the streets. This is common practice in most first world countries plus most Asian nations.

133

RJ5R t1_iyplums wrote

Won't happen as long as the ACLU's lawyer army somehow has a bottomless pit of funding. I get that this country has a stain on its record of how the mentally ill were handled, but the pendulum has swung too far and now we're not handling it at all out of fear of resurrecting the past.

Unlike the past, when these people are removed from the streets, they should receive actual treatment (and I don't mean like the experimental treatments at those mental facilities that used to be on the roosevelt blvd)

43

dude_catastrophe t1_iypncft wrote

I feel like that’s a slippery slope, ethically speaking. It’s easy to say we should just forcibly remove someone who is presenting such obvious psychosis but what’s to stop a someone from claiming “mental illness” in bad faith on someone else just to have them carried away to a jail cell/crisis center? Aside from clear danger and life and death situations, there’s a reason we still require someone to go willingly into custody for mental illness.

21

An_emperor_penguin t1_iyptnfl wrote

I understand the issues with detaining them but I will never understand how letting these people rot on the streets was the option society went with

68

zh_13 t1_iypte48 wrote

Idk I feel like there can be a pretty clear distinction between someone making things up and recorded events. Like if you make the burden of proof like this, which it kind of already is now, I’m pretty sure this woman will be forcefully treated/locked up now cause she is obviously not well

You can’t rely on people checking themselves into treatment because half of the ppl on the street would literally never do that but keep doing crazy/destructive shit like this until they hurt someone really bad like this

29

PhillyPanda t1_iyqtwb3 wrote

>half of the ppl on the street would literally never do that

They also can’t exactly afford it. Voluntary treatment is pretty pricey. It’s hard to get help for mental illness even when you have insurance.

8

mustang__1 t1_iyro9u7 wrote

Doesn't matter of you can afford it if you would never voluntarily go anywhere ... That's like the chicken and the cow.

1

Namnagort t1_iyqnu8o wrote

If you are living on the street you should be helped and brought to a safe place where you could get rehabilitation.

14

PhillyPanda t1_iyqtat1 wrote

>what’s to stop a someone from claiming “mental illness” in bad faith on someone else just to have them carried away to a jail cell/crisis center?

The court system.

9

afdc92 t1_iyqy7yh wrote

The movement in the 80s and 90s for de-institutionalization was definitely good in some ways because there were so many people in hospitals who didn’t need to be there and would benefit from living and getting care in the community. But there are many more people who cannot or will not be compliant with treatment in the community and/or don’t have the services or support (from family, friends, greater community) to get it. Those are the people that you see living on the street, causing harm to themselves and others, who IMO need to be hospitalized for at least some period of time to get on a routine of meds that stabilize them and then get set up with services and supports when they go back into the community. But sadly I doubt that it will happen like it needs to because taxpayers don’t want to pay for it. So hospitalizing these people gets them off the street which will help temporarily but ultimately won’t do them much good if they’re released without a plan.

19

MeEvilBob t1_iyqq6cs wrote

Or maybe we follow Florida's lead and offer free bus rides from Kensington to Orlando.

18

PhillyPanda t1_iyqu3mk wrote

We’ve actually recently proposed sending our jailed youth to Texas.

6

_token_black t1_iyrrkh8 wrote

Send them to the Sacklers' doorsteps. They haven't faced any consequences for turning millions into addicts.

3

Dent7777 t1_iyr0vye wrote

NYC announced this, but they are only adding something like 50 beds. That's like announcing you are building a house and then only buying a few two by fours.

18

DonQOnIce t1_iyqnebl wrote

Where does NYC and the other countries place them?

1

Namnagort t1_iyqnwgh wrote

NYC announced a plan to do this because the situation is so bad. Did they actually accomplish it? The chances are slim

7

ScoutG t1_iyqq5e6 wrote

I think this was just announced and they haven’t started yet.

13

DonQOnIce t1_iyqo34s wrote

Yeah, I haven’t heard of this. I would support re-establishing state-run mental health facilities in general. But when I hear “remove”, alarm bells go off that it’s really just dumping them out of sight and not solving the problem. So I’m curious what is actually happening in the places that poster is referring to.

4

armhad t1_iypxhdu wrote

Yes, this past year has provided us many reasons to look up to those coveted nations you speak of

−7

Jmarz166 t1_iypyyrw wrote

The solution isn’t locking them up it’s improving services to help homeless. Its more effective, humane, and cheaper than institutionalizing people

−14

PhillyPanda t1_iyquiu7 wrote

If they’re a danger to themselves or a serious threat to others, the solution is locking them up until they are not a danger to themselves and others. It doesn’t matter if they’re homeless or not.

If they don’t cross that threshold, they have a civil right to be uninstitionalized and mentally ill, homeless or not

11

[deleted] t1_iyr8svs wrote

I don’t understand your point of view.

We got into this mess partly by closing asylums and letting the mentally ill run wild. Shitting in the streets, sleeping on the street, screaming at and assaulting random people.

Why do you think it’s better to just put up with that and wait (in vain) for them to just up and decide to seek help rather than commit them?

9