Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's all well and good committing the mentally ill.
Problem is.... not all mass murderers are mentally ill. What you going to do about that.
A good many people were involuntarily institutionalized, however, the ACLU went to the Supreme Court to free them and won. We're stuck.
Since bripat was unable to provide any corroboration and objective evidence otherwise, incarceration for the mentally insane is a fact and not prohibited by the 4th and 5th Amendment.
Where are the facts, bripat?
That's all well and good committing the mentally ill.
Problem is.... not all mass murderers are mentally ill. What you going to do about that.
Also..I just want to say...
It's stupid to pick on the mentally ill... it could be a drug addict, a drunken person. somebody in a bad mood, somebody who is feeling aggressive ..etc...etc...
It could apply to anybody because there is a certain acceptability of violence in the culture.
....OUTNUMBERED!!!!!!
Since bripat was unable to provide any corroboration and objective evidence otherwise, incarceration for the mentally insane is a fact and not prohibited by the 4th and 5th Amendment.
Where are the facts, bripat?
Are you capable of reading the 5th Amendment, Fakey? It says the government cannot revoke your rights without a trial by jury. That is an indisputable fact.
Washington The tragedy in Connecticut has reopened a difficult debate over whether states should be allowed to involuntarily commit the mentally ill.
The trend over the decades has been to release mental health patients, with a number of court cases restricting involuntary commitment. Last weeks deadly rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School exposed cracks and inconsistencies within the nations mental health system. Many say that until those problems are fixed, its only a matter of time before another national nightmare unfolds.
Its a cultural and mental health problem and its something we need to address soon and seriously, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge told Fox News. We need to balance individual rights with the needs of the community.
Ironically, a Connecticut mental health bill calling for changes that could have taken someone like shooter Adam Lanza off the streets was defeated earlier this year in the state legislature. The bill would have allowed the state to commit someone if there was a reason to think that would prevent them from harming others.
Read more:
Connecticut killings reopen debate on forcibly committing the mentally ill | Fox News
Someone's actually looking at the mental health angle? Hallelujah!
Washington The tragedy in Connecticut has reopened a difficult debate over whether states should be allowed to involuntarily commit the mentally ill.
The trend over the decades has been to release mental health patients, with a number of court cases restricting involuntary commitment. Last weeks deadly rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School exposed cracks and inconsistencies within the nations mental health system. Many say that until those problems are fixed, its only a matter of time before another national nightmare unfolds.
Its a cultural and mental health problem and its something we need to address soon and seriously, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge told Fox News. We need to balance individual rights with the needs of the community.
Ironically, a Connecticut mental health bill calling for changes that could have taken someone like shooter Adam Lanza off the streets was defeated earlier this year in the state legislature. The bill would have allowed the state to commit someone if there was a reason to think that would prevent them from harming others.
Read more:
Connecticut killings reopen debate on forcibly committing the mentally ill | Fox News
Mentally ill people can't make rational decisions, and they should be forcibly committed if it is what they need to become better.
who decides what is rational comrade Noomi ?
Washington The tragedy in Connecticut has reopened a difficult debate over whether states should be allowed to involuntarily commit the mentally ill.
The trend over the decades has been to release mental health patients, with a number of court cases restricting involuntary commitment. Last weeks deadly rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School exposed cracks and inconsistencies within the nations mental health system. Many say that until those problems are fixed, its only a matter of time before another national nightmare unfolds.
Its a cultural and mental health problem and its something we need to address soon and seriously, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge told Fox News. We need to balance individual rights with the needs of the community.
Ironically, a Connecticut mental health bill calling for changes that could have taken someone like shooter Adam Lanza off the streets was defeated earlier this year in the state legislature. The bill would have allowed the state to commit someone if there was a reason to think that would prevent them from harming others.
Read more:
Connecticut killings reopen debate on forcibly committing the mentally ill | Fox News
I'm against it because it's too easy to abuse. All it takes is a couple of scheming children to have a parent committed so they can control the parent's money. Or they could have other ulterior motives for having someone committed.
Mentally ill people can't make rational decisions, and they should be forcibly committed if it is what they need to become better.
I have little confidence that the state can ever provide the sort of care that would help anyone become better. What sort of institutions might exist for long term/lifetime care I can't imagine.
Since bripat was unable to provide any corroboration and objective evidence otherwise, incarceration for the mentally insane is a fact and not prohibited by the 4th and 5th Amendment.
Where are the facts, bripat?
Are you capable of reading the 5th Amendment, Fakey? It says the government cannot revoke your rights without a trial by jury. That is an indisputable fact.
Do you see trial by jury anyplace here?
What is Involuntary Commitment? - Suicide.org!
Or here
NC Magistrates Association - Involuntary Commitments
Or here
Involuntary Commitment
I could go on for a very long time. You are just wrong. There is no trial by jury and may not even need a crime.
The government doesn't actually revoke your rights as much as say you have no rights because you are incompetent to exercise them.
who decides what is rational comrade Noomi ?
I think the parent or guardian can make that choice.
Sorry, but I wouldn't want either of my parents deciding if I'm rational. They're both a couple of loony tunes.
Also..I just want to say...
It's stupid to pick on the mentally ill... it could be a drug addict, a drunken person. somebody in a bad mood, somebody who is feeling aggressive ..etc...etc...
It could apply to anybody because there is a certain acceptability of violence in the culture.
Blaming the mentally ill is just a populist cop out!
In any case, if you include a lot of common symptoms such as depression ... most people are mentally ill at some stage in their lives.
Sometimes you can't tell who is actually mentally ill, or have some other illness that makes them go whacko! My husband had an overactive thyroid years ago...it would make him violent, the least little thing would set him off. There was almost a divorce, i was actually scared of him, until we found out about his thyroid. He would go through what's called a "thyroid storm" and the Dr explained there was no way for him to stop it. So his problem was medical, not mental.
Are you capable of reading the 5th Amendment, Fakey? It says the government cannot revoke your rights without a trial by jury. That is an indisputable fact.
Do you see trial by jury anyplace here?
What is Involuntary Commitment? - Suicide.org!
Or here
NC Magistrates Association - Involuntary Commitments
Or here
Involuntary Commitment
I could go on for a very long time. You are just wrong. There is no trial by jury and may not even need a crime.
The government doesn't actually revoke your rights as much as say you have no rights because you are incompetent to exercise them.
Yes, I know the government routinely violates the Fifth Amendment. That's all you've pointed out. All those laws are gross violations of the Constitution. When the government locks you up and throws away the key, it's revoking all of your rights, especially the right to a trial by jury.
Due Process of Law and the 5th, if the law is crafted to meet their needs, impose no impediments from protecting the mentally ill and others from the actions of the former.
To suggest that such is "fascism" reveals a juvenile understanding of basic terminology.
You are fascist to the bone, Fakey. That kind of violates the 5th Amendment and the due process clause, don't you think?
There's no due process when a couple of offspring or your parents can have you committed for years on their testimony alone and without any kind of trial.
bripat may have any opinion on the Constitution, but since he is not an authority on its legal interpretation and operation, his opinions can be legitimately ignored.
Each state should have a taxpayer supported mental hospital where family and friends can drop off someone for evaluation for 30-60 days before they are either released or kept for treatment. The Feds could help support these special hospitals for the public safety and security.
Some people don't get mental treatment because they don't have health insurance.....
The guy at Sandy Point was mentally ill but there are loads of killers out there who have no mental problems at all.
