Should crazy people have the same constitutional rights as everyone else?

[XemaSab]

Should we allow crazy people to be locked up indefinitely?

Should we prevent crazy people from exercising their rights to free speech? Or to own guns?

Where do we draw the line?

[napi21]

1. The problem is WHO decides someone is crazy!

I agree, someone should have filed something that would have shown up on the background check when the VT killer tried to buy his gun. But that's not what you said. You said CRAZY PEOPLE. I'm sure many of us think a lot of the fundies are crazy, and they think we are, so how and who would decide who is crazy?????

[BulletproofLandshark]

3. Spot On

Just imagine the potential for political abuse here. Dissidents all over America could be declared insane solely as a pretext for stripping them of their constitutional rights.

[Warpy]

21. With the desperately sick bunch in power now

we'd be headed right for Stalinsm. Everybody on DU would be labeled mentally ill, drugged and locked up. Perhaps they'd extend that to all registered Democrats.

C'mon. You know they'd try to do it.

As for the standard, "a danger to himself or others," I think it's a very good one. However, we need to broaden the word "danger" to include the lost souls living under bridges and out of garbage cans because they're too paranoid to accept help from anyone. They freeze to death often enough the definition really should be extended to those who can't care for themselves.

Suicide isn't the only danger, folks.

Having prisons be the mental health unit of last resort is miserable for everyone, and that's occasionally fatal, too.

I have a cousin who goes off his meds and falls down the rabbit hole every few years. I would love to see the authorities able to pick him up and deliver him to an inpatient psych unit to get him back on his meds and able to manage his own life, which he can do with his symptoms controlled. His family gets very angry every time this happens and the cops say they can't do anything about it. He ends up on the street until somebody finds him.

All the mental health centers in the world wouldn't have helped Cho, part of whose delusion was that he was superior and it was the rest of the world that needed help. As he deteriorated over the next year or so, though, it would have been clear that he was a danger to himself, at least. Decent follow up might have prevented the massacre.

[Raksha]

32. This is precisely why the Bush Mafia's attempt to sabotage

the Justice Department is so damned dangerous to America. Without a reasonably impartial judicial system, our whole society breaks down.

Re >>With the desperately sick bunch in power now we'd be headed right for Stalinsm. Everybody on DU would be labeled mentally ill, drugged and locked up. Perhaps they'd extend that to all registered Democrats.<<

You're damn right they'd lock up everybody on DU as "mentally ill" if they could get away with it. They'd do it in a heartbeat. And knowing this--knowing we can't trust them as far as we could throw them--ties our hands with regard to people who truly ARE mentally ill, and a danger to themselves and/or others.

[XemaSab]

27. That was point #1 I was trying to make

Point #2 is who decides which rights should be taken away from so-called "crazy" people.

[TygrBright]

2. The Constitution protect's NO ONE'S right to harm themselves or others...

...that is the basis of a large segment of our legal system. The Constitution does NOT prevent states from defining the circumstances under which an individual citizen can be construed to present a danger to themselves and/or others and prescribing remedies to prevent that harm.

Thus, the Constitution allows us to commit people who make credible threats of suicide or homicide, for observation and/or further investigation. It allows us to deprive someone with an uncontrolled seizure disorder of the right to drive, as a PREVENTIVE remedy.

Such preventive remedies must apply to everyone, regardless of whether the state formally declares them to be mentally ill or incapacitated. The state may not (for example) declare mental illness alone a reason to restrict someone's rights. States must require other evidence, beyond a mere diagnosis of mental illness, that someone will harm themselves or others if they (for example) are allowed to purchase a gun.

So yes, "crazy people" (a hellofan offensive term, by the way, to those who suffer from mental illness,) DO have, and should continue to have, all of the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

adamantly,
Bright

[XemaSab]

28. A 72 hour hold

hardly protects anyone or anything from an individual intent on harm.

[TomInTib]

4. My sister is the craziest person I have ever known (and I have known many)

And she is always armed to the max.

God, I could tell some stories about this.

She gets away with it every time.

[rubberducky]

5. This post should be locked. It`s beyond belief for someone

here to be posting something so "crazy".What a charming word for mental illness.

[Cetacea]

7. I know. It's just as bad as "Ho". Actually, worse,.

I can't believe some of the dehumanizing terms I've seen thrown around the last day or so. However, it does demonstrate the fact that the problem of stigma remains a huge problem.

[sandnsea]

14. Better than fucked up freak

I couldn't get that thread locked either.

[Cetacea]

16. self-delete for redundancy. sorry !

[napi21]

20. I'm sorry you find that word offensive, but it is the generic word

used for severly disturbed individuals in our society. I used it in my post for that reason.

Perhapse I'm wrong, but mentally ill just doesn't convey the message of the people who have no problem killinga lot of people because they are angry at the world. To me that's CRAZY!

[rubberducky]

23. My mother has had mental problems all of her life, but I would

kick ass if somebody called her "crazy". That word cannot even begin to encompass the sad world she lives in. Nothing personal. Just a hot button issue with me.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. You like low taxes?

I know I do. It costs anywhere from $60,000 to $100,000/yr to keep mental health services consumers in a hospital. If those people spend the 30-90 days necessary for them to be assessed and titrated up on effective medications, then assigned to supportive housing in the community, it costs only $30,000/yr. Also, the people who go through this process, go to supportive housing or Integrated Case Management System(ICMS) support and advocacy and live in the community have a very, very excellent record of reintegrating into the community and living productive and rewarding lives. Far more so than they ever would in perpetual institutionalization.

Mr. Cho's problem was that he had been shown to be presenting a clear danger to himself and others and was not given the followup care and counseling and supports he needed. A while back, here on DU, a presently active case worker, in the midwest, IIRC, posted that he was having absolutely no success at getting people who satisfied the "Clear Danger" criteria into hospitalization. Why? Federal budget cuts over the last six years.

Don't fall into the trap of demonizing the community of citizens who deal successfully with mental illness every day. Start finding out how public health systems have been underfunded into near non-existence. Six years ago, these systems were working very, very effectively.

[Cetacea]

8. Indeed.

Good points.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

9. Do you have any idea...

How close I came to going off in that post? ;-)

[Cetacea]

11. Yes, I think I know what you mean!

You have great impulse control!
:)

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

12. And insight.

My ADL's are pretty good, too. As is presentation and affect. ;-)

[rubberducky]

15. How true. when a person truely needs the help and can`t afford it they are

SOL.

[Bluerthanblue]

22. for the love of money-

and the things it can 'do' people starve, bleed, kill, die, abuse, oppress, torture, neglect, hate, ______.....______________....._____________......_____________________________-


The twisted 'manifesto' has been linked with a hatred for the "wealthy"- this makes a kind of frightening sense.

Your reply is 'right on the money' I believe.

But IMO the OP is offensive and counter-productive. Denial and avoidance are personal barriers many mentally ill people already fight against. Comments like those made by the OP will only reinforce this.

peace,
blu

(6yrs ago things were better in the MH field- but HMO's still didn't want to fund anything- and Medicaid/Medicare often rushed people out the door in an effort to 'save money'- Mental Illness is still more than an illness- it is also socially stigmatizing.}

[XemaSab]

29. Last 6 years?

Try the last 27 years; Reagan was the one who closed the institutions.

Also, the word on the street is that there is excellent treatment for less disabling mental illnesses, but for the severely mentally ill, the system is a revolving door with very little actual "treatment" involved.

[mod mom]

10. Well, they definitely shouldn't be allowed to play President!

[Honeycombe8]

17. LOL LOL! nt

[Strawman]

13. We should not stigmatize/shame the mentally ill and their families

I suspect that is why this man only seemed to receive help after being forced to after run-ins with campus authorities. Certainly without such lax gun controls I don't think this would have happened and we wouldn't be talking about any of this (that's the paramount lesson, I think), but I also suspect the stigma attached to mental illness and possibly the particularly acute stigma attached to mental illness in the Korean community prevented this person from getting the treatment he needed that might have prevented this. By all accounts, this kid had problems for years and his parents just must have been in some sort of denial. In effect they dumped him on the Va Tech community.

But, getting back to your question (although I don't care for the way you state it) I do wonder if we might do a better job of protecting society and also protecting the autonomy of mentally ill persons, 99.99% of whom are not mass murders, by not putting abstract notions of their individual liberties above their well-being. I wouldn't say they should be "locked up," but in certain cases I think maybe they should be treated against their expressed wishes. Based on previous research on the homeless mentally ill, and also based on the frustration encountered by faculty who tried to compel Cho into some kind of treatment, I think civil libertarians sometimes do society and these mentally ill persons a disservice in pursuit of a particular political agenda. I'm generally very supportive of the ACLU and civil libertarians, but this is a significant area where I disagree somewhat.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

I agree.

The mental health services consumers are NOT the people to anyone should worry about. They are in care, have supports and monitoring and take their medications, all successfully. Most live good and productive lives in the community.

No, worry about a system breaking down. Worry about those who are not and cannot get the services and care that they need. Worry about a society-wide breakdown in out public health systems, thanks to the greed and avarice and barbarianism of repukes and their contributors. There is where one's concerns should be focused.

[XemaSab]

30. Oooh... liberty versus well being!

So who makes the decision that people are incapable of caring for themselves? And how do you enforce treatment if a person is not an inpatient and does not want to be treated?

[Strawman]

44. Professionals based on certain standards make the decision

It's not impossible. It doesn't necessarily lead us down some imagined slippery slope to some kind of Soviet-style situation where psychiartry is used to imprison dissidents. We do it now, under the same rationale of the state having a responsibility to treat people, but we just don't do it very effectively. There has to be some kind of answer between the black and white thinking that either says "crazies have no rights, throw them all in the loony bin" or absolutist libertarianism that gives them the liberty to suffer. I think some on the left project romantic notions of free-spiritedness on people that are really just mentally ill and need treatment. I don't think that is what you are doing. If I understand your OP correctly, you are asking a leading question that implies that "crazy people" should be locked away. I think the common knee-jerk reaction on the left to a statement like that is to defend the rights of "crazy people." What I'm trying to say is that we have a responsibility to care for these people for their own benefit as well as for the safety of the public at large and we are shirking that duty.

The debate I'm kind of reacting to here is really over the standards and the power to compel individuals to be treated. I think the threshold for compellance is too high right now as evidenced by the powerlessness faculty and administrators at Va Tech felt in dealing with a person who they clearly and quite reasonably believed was a danger to himself and others. I don't have specifics about how those standards ought to be changed to bring liberty/well-being into balance. But many years ago I read a book by Judge Robert Coates that had some specifics. I don't recall them but if you're really interested I guess I would suggest starting there. But in general I think the committment to treating mentally ill people and protecting their civil liberties is out of balance in favor of the latter. I'm not advocating an absolute right to lock people away, more of an assumption of responsibility to care for and treat the mentally ill. I don't think that left-libertarian rhetoric should give cover to authorities who fail to adequately care for mentally ill citizens. That also involves a committment to providing resources for mental health care. In Michigan, for example, Engler gutted the mental health system and alot of poor mentally ill individuals are paying the price as are the communities they inhabit.

[XemaSab]

45. I don't think all crazy people should be locked away; I think a small percent should be.

But I really like your answer. It's very well thought out and implies that you've spent time musing on this topic.

:toast:

[BlooInBloo]

18. Stupidest post I've ever seen.

[XemaSab]

31. Righton

n/t

[flying_monkeys]

19. Your questions: No, yes and possibly no. Then dunno. But I'd like a

definition on "crazy" because not only is that word derogatory, it is pretty ambiguous as well.


What do you mean by "crazy"?

(And on edit, of COURSE they have the same Connie rights we all have!)

[XemaSab]

33. I've seen quite a few posts around here in the last few days

Saying that mentally ill people should not be allowed to buy guns. That's a constitutional right.

I've also seen a few posts saying that Cho should have been institutionalized, but we don't do that anymore in this country in part because of the civil liberties issues.

Cho was obviously having some mental problems in hindsight. But it sounds like the law had done what was within its power to do as far as restricting his behavior. (Maybe not VT, but that's going to take years to sort out.) Or take another infamous case: the Columbine killers. Yeah, they did and said some things that should have been red flags to anyone looking, but nobody really expected them to shoot up their school.

If someone had gone in a year ahead of time and said "These kids are dangerous and need to be locked up," how solid would the evidence have been? What if they're just wierd, angry kids?

I think it's a slippery slope to label someone "crazy" and then take away their rights.

[BlooInBloo]

24. I think there should be an Amerndment saying crazy people only count for 3/5 of a person...

... Anybody got any other undesirables they want to include?

[AZBlue]

25. Some; No; No; Absolutely; where they could harm themselves or others

eom

[XemaSab]

34. Who decides if they're a danger to self or others?

And how long should the label persist? :shrug:

[AZBlue]

46. A psychiatrist. Until they aren't a danger any more.

[piedmont]

26. How about we stop piling on stigma and FUND CARE AND RESEARCH?!

[Madspirit]

35. As a Crazy Person

I resent the question. ...and how do I know YOU'RE not crazy?
Lee

[XemaSab]

39. You should resent the question

And as for whether I am crazy... I posted a thread in GD. :D

[Swamp Rat]

36. Are you crazy?

:D

[XemaSab]

37. Probably

:D

At least, after my cold of the last few days I *have* felt a cameraderie with that image. :D /tmi

[Swamp Rat]

41. bad head colds can transform a person

:D

[XemaSab]

42. No doubt

[ends_dont_justify]

38. ....LMFAO

Oh man, this is rich. I was waiting for someone to so boldly go where no man should ever go. Trust me...sane people are misdiagnosed all the time and those prognosises later change. Do you wanna be locked up for the rest of your life because you got drunk one night and said something stupid? Things like that would constitute, if you gave people the right to lock others up forever. When could they tell the public they were framed?

[XemaSab]

43. I'm not a man; I'm a woman

:D

[ShortnFiery]

40. Trouble is = Who decides who is sane and who is crazy?

Now, I know that I'm sane but NOW I'm beginning to wonder about "others." :scared:

Perhaps you?!? Provide me a sampling of your correspondence so I can evaluate? <tease> :hi:

My Point: Psychiatry is NOT an exact science and Dx would be abused to meet corrupt agendas, both political and personal. ;)

[mdmc]

47. mental health is what we should strive for

mental illness is to be recovered from.