|
|
|
|
|
|
by EMM_386
1738 days ago
|
|
|
> This is obviously not the case with a sizable portion of the people wandering the streets. I'll bite. Give me an example of someone who fits your definition of someone who should be forcibly taken under the wing of mental health treatment (whatever that entails) who isn't breaking any laws. Putting someone into a mental institution strips of them of all rights and requires convincing a judge to ever get out. This logic essentially wants to "arrest" people without "arresting" them because they aren't doing anything illegal. That requires a very precise definition of the conditions under which you can do this. Very much like a law. |
|
|
I did not suggest involuntary committal for those not breaking laws. I wrote a sizable portion of those who need mental health treatment are breaking laws (more importantly, they are behaving in a manner that is destructive to other members of society - littering, biological hazards, fire hazards, property crime, etc). Whether it be for schizophrenia, meth and drug addiction, or some combination thereof that make involuntary mental health treatment the only option.