|
A secondary group are families temporarily homeless due to adverse life conditions. Those can be helped by providing a semi-temporary place to stay. I'm all for this. But the primary cause of homelessness is a mental health problem, largely brought on (but not entirely) by drug addiction[0]. Building housing may help, but individuals who are mentally well and want to live indoors can find housing, it doesn't have to be in SF or LA if cost is the issue. The infrastructure for supporting addicts and those with clinical and severe mental health issues is at odds with the State's position that virtually prevents anyone being from admitted to an institution without their direct consent. In California, it is very difficult to admit someone to a mental hospital involuntarily. A police officer may deliver a person to a mental hospital and that hospital has 72 hours to evaluate them. Once evaluated, the hospital has to either get a judge's order to admit them, or let them go. Given that the entire state has only 6,000 psychiatric hospital beds, vs. 150,000 homeless in the state, this is seldom done: "On or previous to the expiration of the 72 hours, the psychiatrist must assess the person to see if they still meet criteria for hospitalization. If so, the person may be offered a voluntary admission. If it is refused, then another hold for up to 14 days, the 5250 (WIC-5250), must be written to continue the involuntary confinement of the person. A Certification Review Hearing (W&I 5256) must occur within four days before a judge or hearing officer to determine whether probable cause exists to support the 5250. Alternatively, the person can demand a writ of habeas corpus to be filed for their release after they are certified for a 5250, and once filed, by law, the person must appear in front of a judge in two (2) days, which is two days sooner than the Certification Review Hearing." [0] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-10/homelessnes... [1] https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/involuntary-commitme... |
IMO, this is a good thing.
First, the idea of involuntary commitment is antithetical to the concept of individual rights. Even if you accept that there are times when it is necessary, granting that power to the state is to me unacceptable. This is a political stance, of course, and arguing politics isn’t what I want to do here so I’ll just leave it at that.
Second, I have found that no amount of help will solve a mental health problem if the person themselves doesn’t want the problem to be solved. Speaking from personal experience on both sides of this issue - someone must want to change before whether or not they can do so without assistance is relevant. Providing assistance to people who do not want to change is at best a waste of resources and at worst enabling them to continue a self-destructive cycle that they would have otherwise been forced to change by circumstance.
Because of the above, I strongly oppose legal mechanisms for involuntary commitment as a civil action.