pShould it be easier to commit to mental facilities people who may be prone to violence?

Results

63 %

Yes

24 %

13 %

I'm not sure

@Dec '12 V 366 votes c 237 comments

Detailed Results Next Debate Vote Now

Activity Stmts Popular

366 Votes

Mon
Douglass voted

v Yes
u

Mon
shareen12 endorsed seedtick

v Yes
u

Mon
SamSpade voted

v Yes
u

Mon
EastCoastMan voted

v Yes
Mon
Jen13411 endorsed PayThatCEO

v Yes
u

Sun
Javelina endorsed seedtick

v Yes
Jun 16
Mark_Hinkle endorsed Jean

v No
Jun 16
FatTony14 endorsed Jean

v No
Jun 16

DogLady_1

v No

It's not that difficult to commit someone now.. what the problem is keeping them in the hospital until a proper assessment or treatment can be conducted... without insurance or a means of paying for the hospitalization, a violent mentally ill person will be put back on the streets within 48 to 72 hours no matter what.

Post
u

Jun 16
Angry_man endorsed Neo_NtheMatrix

v No
Jun 15
Mthomas3073 voted

v I'm not sure
Jun 12
usmom3 voted

v No
u

Jun 11

fscott777

v Yes

If you want an answer to many of our worst crimes it can be found in the fact that the mentally ill are not dealt with in an effective manner. Take one look at the school killings along with the movie house killing an you know the folks that committed those crimes had serious mental health issues that were not dealt with by either there families or our society. We have to accept the fact that some of these mentally ill folks need to live in institutions not just for their sake but for our sake.

r1 reply

Post
u

Jun 11
Linebacker66 voted

v No
Jun 10
dfaustin voted

v No
u

Jun 10
Whiskey endorsed seedtick

v Yes
Jun 9
Tejano1969 voted

v Yes
Jun 8

JohnVicky

v Yes

I could eliminate quite a few RWNJ, T'Bagger types if I just secretly record their rants against our "black man" in the White House, and that is just within my own circle of "friends". I am sure others of you have similar stories. When they think they are preaching to the choir, they let loose. I am sure they would not mind after all they were proud to say it they should own it, threats and all. LOL, not a bad idea to record their rants for posterity.............. then getting them committed. We all know they are mentally deranged.

Post
u

Jun 8
hancel voted

v Yes
Jun 6
catiz voted

v Yes
u

Jun 6
USN-22 voted

v Yes
Jun 6
griz64blue voted

v Yes
Jun 6
stevesampson voted

v Yes
Jun 6
AnnieMc voted

v I'm not sure
u

Jun 4
bat62 endorsed seedtick

v Yes
Jun 4

busseja

v Yes

Problem is that most shrinks I have known are crazy. But you have to like the idea of one flew over the coocoo's nest approach to controlling prisoners.

Post
u

Jun 4
DIAMONDG81 voted

v Yes
Jun 4
okienomore54 endorsed Pack7

v Yes
Jun 3
dethkat666 endorsed PayThatCEO

v Yes
Jun 3

JTHEM

v Yes

Lawyers should not have to power to commit. It should be done by at least three unrelated psychologists, physicians, and social workers.

Post
u

Jun 2
Knoll37 voted

v Yes
Jun 1
Dsroka voted

v Yes
Jun 1
rtoberl voted

v Yes
Jun 1
H311RA151N voted

v Yes
May 31

PuroChorizo361

v Yes

And throw most the Righties/Wealthy in, lock the door and throw away the key! : D

Post
u

May 31
buckshotlee voted

v Yes
May 30
StanH voted

v Yes
u

May 30
Texasbuzz voted

v Yes
u

May 29
DebWilliams57 voted

v No
May 29
Philof endorsed gammler

v I'm not sure
May 28
Laz voted

v Yes
May 28

cat2009

v Yes

Find another way to dispose of them instead of at tax payer expense.

Post
May 27
cathy voted

v No
May 27
RadAuthNat endorsed eieio

v Yes
u

May 27
sml11 endorsed Pack7

v Yes
May 27
new_life voted

v Yes
May 27
BravoJuliet endorsed seedtick

v Yes
May 26
DMMc endorsed Jean

v No
u

May 26
NowOrNever voted

v Yes
u

May 26
RealTexan voted

v Yes

Jun 16

DogLady_1

v No

It's not that difficult to commit someone now.. what the problem is keeping them in the hospital until a proper assessment or treatment can be conducted... without insurance or a means of paying for the hospitalization, a violent mentally ill person will be put back on the streets within 48 to 72 hours no matter what.

Post
u

Jun 11

fscott777

v Yes

If you want an answer to many of our worst crimes it can be found in the fact that the mentally ill are not dealt with in an effective manner. Take one look at the school killings along with the movie house killing an you know the folks that committed those crimes had serious mental health issues that were not dealt with by either there families or our society. We have to accept the fact that some of these mentally ill folks need to live in institutions not just for their sake but for our sake.

r1 reply

Post
Jun 16

DogLady_1

Most violent crimes are committed by people with no serious mental illness. And the worst crimes are committed by people with no mental illness. Rapists, pedophiles, human traffickers, polluters, spree killers, terrorists, kidnappers, extortionists, war criminals... they may be psychopaths, but they are not mentally ill... Statistics show that people with serious mental illness are LESS likely to commit violent crimes... so basically, sane people need to be locked up not just for their sake, but for our sake.

@DogLady_1 Post
Jun 8

JohnVicky

v Yes

I could eliminate quite a few RWNJ, T'Bagger types if I just secretly record their rants against our "black man" in the White House, and that is just within my own circle of "friends". I am sure others of you have similar stories. When they think they are preaching to the choir, they let loose. I am sure they would not mind after all they were proud to say it they should own it, threats and all. LOL, not a bad idea to record their rants for posterity.............. then getting them committed. We all know they are mentally deranged.

Post
Jun 4

busseja

v Yes

Problem is that most shrinks I have known are crazy. But you have to like the idea of one flew over the coocoo's nest approach to controlling prisoners.

Post
Jun 3

JTHEM

v Yes

Lawyers should not have to power to commit. It should be done by at least three unrelated psychologists, physicians, and social workers.

Post
May 31

PuroChorizo361

v Yes

And throw most the Righties/Wealthy in, lock the door and throw away the key! : D

Post
May 28

cat2009

v Yes

Find another way to dispose of them instead of at tax payer expense.

Post
May 24

Nurse8493

v Yes

Sure, the human has grown further into sin, on their own demise.

Post
u

May 23

IMAQT

v No

Judging whether a person is "prone to violence" is rather subjective. One so called expert may feel a person is prone to violence, another so called expert may not agree. The question then becomes, who gets to make these life changing decisions?

Post
o

May '13

Goose

v No

Great Soviet-era idea, committing political dissidents to mental institutions. Great Obama-run program - anyone who owns a gun may be "prone to violence", I'll just bet.

Post
May '13

Bill2E

v Yes

I have seen many mental patients on the street with no possibility of being placed in an institution. Police have no reason to arrest and transport these people unless they display an obvious danger to themselves or others. One elderly gentleman was observed out of his house wondering the small town I worked in, he had Alzheimer's disease and lived with is wife. His wife did not know when he slipped out of the house and felt he would endanger no one, he was always falling down and did not know who he was or where he was at. We eventually sent him by ambulance on one occasions when he fell, and the hospital decided he needed a social worker in opposition to his wif...

B1

r3 replies

Post
u

May '13

CommonSense

Question, are you omniscient? If not then how do you for sure that your perception that these people were mentally ill was correct? Also what if someone just wants to act crazy to screw with other people but could choose to act sane if they wanted to? (I can't believe I have to make this disclaimer but from experience I do have to because people love reading in things that aren't there: I am not trying to imply that the Alzheimer's patient you mentioned was doing this) As for the man you mentioned he was proven and committed, so it's really the best example to use. There's also plenty of people out there who behave violently BY CHOICE and not mental illness. T...

@CommonSense Post
May '13

Bill2E

@CommonSense I became aware of mental illness by being a law enforcement officer for over 30 years before retirement. I mentioned the ones I had observed were in small communities. When you work the streets in smaller communities you can recognize the ones that are faking mental illness and the ones that are mentally ill. To add further would be fueling your fire and I'll pass.

@Bill2E Post
u

May '13

CommonSense

@Bill2E Standards of which have all developed based on observations made by human minds? How do we know they aren't all pulling one over on us? (Not saying they are, I just doubt the ability of the human mind to come up with objective conclusions about other minds, regardless of how many minds are involved the whole thing looks circular to me because minds are evaluating minds and they don't do it by looking directly at people's minds because there aren't any psychic people, it's always behavior yet instead of just describing what people can know 100% for sure people always come up with descriptions of the mind which as a child confused me, I would've avoided a lot o...

@CommonSense Post
u

May '13

4PeteSake

v Yes

Yes.....at the moment some of the most disturbed people can check themselves out or refuse treatment.

Post
May '13

jeffreyknee

v Yes

Yes but paid for by the extended family and relatives. Mental illness and other healthcare too. Scrap the insurance business model altogether.

r1 reply

Post
u

May 19

Uncertain

A great number of mentally ill people have no family...or none that will claim them. There is no easy answer on who should/will pay.

@Uncertain Post
May '13

DanielZ

v Yes

Better to get help for them than to enable mayhem.

r2 replies

Post
o

May '13

TheHandsomeOne

It should be easier to lawfully kill any person mentally ill. As things are today, a certified mentally ill person can kill you and say, "ooops, forgot my meds or CBT is failing me! My bad, gimme 4 years in the nervous hospital and I'll not do it again!" The dude in Slingblade should walk among all as he was righteous and not the least bit mentally ill. Those who locked him up were. One shouldn't have to be incarcerated for being mentally ill or incapable of reasonable adult functioning to forfeit their right to vote, either.

@TheHandsomeOne Post
May '13

Bob72370

Have you ever seen one of the "mental facilities" available? How much help do you feel that someone would get in one of these facilities? Would you sentence someone who has never harmed himself or another to a "mental facility" just because they exhibit some characteristics that are different from yours? Don't forget, there is probably someone out there somewhere that feels that you are not completely in control either, when it comes their turn to judge someone for possible commitment they just may point a finger at you...

@Bob72370 Post
May '13

Bob72370

v No

"May be prone to violence"??? What happened to due process and innocent until proven guilty?

B1

r6 replies

Post
o

May '13

TheHandsomeOne

Even a timid coward can find manifest violence under the right circumstances. To parrot the bleeding hearts when they are objecting to limiting anyone having the right to vote, is somebody going to "play god" or can science determine which humans among us have more of the genetic traits that are at the basis of human's survival instinct? Clearly, it and cognitive ability has been bred out of many. An interesting question for those against any form of what they dramatically call "voter suppression", will you lock these people up playing god over them yet also believe mentally ill people or retarded people should retain their right to vote as they currently do? You...

B1

@TheHandsomeOne Post
May '13

Bob72370

@TheHandsomeOne How did this conversation turn to gun control and voter registration? The question was should it be easier to lock up people who MAY be prone to violence. When does confining them to mental institutions become just the first step? The looney bins will fill up fast, what then? Executions? Oh wait, you could not call it that, purification?, yes that has a better ring. Gas chambers? Or do we just let them starve, after all they are less than human because they MAY be prone to violence. How do we decide who may be prone to violence? Brain scans to compare ones brain to a "normal" brain? Do we confine anyone with a genetic predisposition to violence? Sounds...

@Bob72370 Post
o

May '13

TheHandsomeOne

@Bob72370 You got it wrong.... let me reiterate, a person that gets a mental disability check can flat out murder you and get 4 years in a mental institution. Think about that. It should be easier to flat out kill people who need killing and if it were, things like the batman theater massacre would seldom happen. Don't try and tell me that kid is mentally sound and he certainly needed killing before he walked, heavily armed, into the theater with the intent to massacre as many as he was able. 150 years ago in America, he'd have been lawfully gunned down by a human that had no fear of reprisals for doing the right thing....at least by the time he walked into the d...

B1

@TheHandsomeOne Post
o

May '13

TheHandsomeOne

@Bob72370 and that same person that will serve 4 years for your murder, does not forfeit their right to vote as they do their right to own firearms.... I'm not about harming anyone that poses no threat to me or anyone innocent or intends me no harm. That is quite far removed from Hitler.

B1

@TheHandsomeOne Post
May '13

Bob72370

@TheHandsomeOne Again, this is not the same conversation. This conversation is about whether or not it should be easier to confining to a mental facility someone who MAY be prone to violence. Not about someone who has committed a crime, not about losing the right to own a firearm, not about voter registration. The incarceration of someone who MAY at some point be prone to violence. A person who at this point has done nothing to harm another, but who MAY be capable of doing so at some point. Do not go comparing apples to Pomeranians, stick with the matter at hand. I did not say that the theater shooter did not need to be gunned down. Quite the opposite, I feel t...

@Bob72370 Post
Load more replies >
May '13

scotta

v No

Some more lib bull skatt.

Post
May '13

MarkColwell

v I'm not sure

The devil is in the details here... on the surface it sounds like a good idea, however a lot of work would have to be put into the wording to insure it's not abused.

Post
o

Apr '13

NoAmnestyEVER

v Yes

Should it be? Absolutely. Will it ever be? Hell no, thanks to the ACLU and other leftist scumbags who think that criminals should have more rights than the rest of society.

r1 reply

Post
May '13

Bob72370

Careful there, that statement borders on anti-social behavior and just may be enough to get you tossed into a "mental facility". From your tone we can assume that you may become violent. Since you MAY be prone to violence perhaps there is a need to incarcerate you now, before you are allowed to hurt someone. A trial? No need for that, we have your statement here that shows a propensity toward violence. More than enough to get you committed. There, doesn't that feel righteous?

@Bob72370 Post
u

Apr '13

URBS

v No

It is not that hard to commit someone now so how about we just take care of the people we have that need help now rather than just lock away more to rot!

Post
u

Apr '13

BossTweed

v Yes

Yes..........but, let their families pay for the "treatment" or the stay in the facilities. Charity begins at HOME.

Post
R Load more comments...

u

Dec '12

seedtick

v Yes

Let's qualify this statement...there are plenty of laws that can be used to commit a mentally incompetient person. But, the conflict is with so-called privacy and confidentiality laws. Add the atmosphere of "political correctness" that has invaded the thinking of too many and we have a bad situation. Additionally, too many families just plain won't admit that one of their own is in trouble and either keep silent or prevent them from being helped.

B4

r3 replies

e37 endorsed

Post
u

Dec '12

Pack7

v Yes

We used to be able to deal with crazy people. That is, until the ACLU stepped in and demanded that we close down the mental institutions and respect the rights of the mentally handicapped and allow them to function in society. I think we know the results of all this. For the past 35 years we have been dealing with horrific stories from mentally deficient or just plain crazy individuals. We see the results time after time and all we want to do is take guns away from law abiding people. This great liberal experiment has not and is not working yet we continue to allow them to turn their failures into attacks on law abiding citizens. Go after the loonies and stop harassing...

B5

r25 replies

e18 endorsed

Post
Dec '12

Jean

v No

Committing someone to a mental health facility should NOT be an "easy" thing to do. History chronicles many cases when it was much easier to have someone committed to the point of doing so for less than honest reasons ..... this vastly effects ones rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Making it easier to commit someone to a mental facility would just be utilized for all the wrong reasons. how do you make people more responsible? We ARE our brothers keepers and if you know someone is dealing with mental problems do you have the faith and fortitude to step up and take action? this is where the system is failing...not with more laws needed but with people who...

B2

e11 endorsed

Post
Dec '12

PayThatCEO

v Yes

It takes nearly an Act of Congress to commit a loved one into a mental health facility. Now jails and prisons have taken over as a dumping ground for the mentally ill and we have a rampant population of homeless people. Even if you can get someone into a facility, it's mostly for a few days... a week at the most. Then they're put back out on the street. And mental health providers are THE worst at working with families. Families are often excluded from counseling and treatment and left clueless as to how to deal with their loved one. Treatment should be inclusive and it should be much, much easier to get.

B1

r2 replies

e11 endorsed

Post
u

Dec '12

DAR

v No

The laws are in place already. The problem is with the fact that there are not enough facilities or money to house those who have been diagnosed as being a danger to themselves and others. Health professionals have little recourse except to treat them as outpatients. Even when they actually commit a violent act, they are in and out as quickly as possible because it cost too much to house them. If there were more and better care facilities, people would be more prone to commit themselves. As it is now, their cries for help go unnoticed and they are more prone to express their frustration through violent acts.

B5

r1 reply

e7 endorsed

Post
Dec '12

gammler

v I'm not sure

This is a double edged sword. History has shown that it is a convenient way to silence people who are at odds with contemporary society. They may not be dangerous, just argumentative or listening to a different drummer. We have to define what constitutes "dangerous".

e7 endorsed

Post
Dec '12

Zazziness

v Yes

No one thinks crazy people should be left to roam the streets. Or do they? Here's a fact: crazy people are often estranged from their families. They often do not have jobs and cannot hold a job for very long -- that means they are often broke. That means private hospitals wont rush to admit them, even if the crazy person shows up on their doorstep and begs for help. That leaves The State to take care of them. And guess what? Funding for care to the mentally ill has been slashed to the bone and beyond. When we rip big holes in the social safety net, there are consequences. It is far too easy to be penny wise but pound foolish.

B2

r18 replies

e5 endorsed

Post
u

Dec '12

ProCCW

v I'm not sure

This is a very slippery slope. Who gets to set the requirements? I hope it's not my children because they think I'm a little on the mental side. All kidding aside here, what we need is affordable mental health care. If you are the unfortunate parent of a child that needs help be prepared to spent every cent you have, plus some you do not have to get adequate help. The insurance companies will only help cover the costs for 3 day stay in a mental facility. Even if meds are needed the professionals will tell you most will take up to six weeks to fully regulate a mental disorder. Most mentaly ill individuals especially teens are reluctant to start taking meds which makes a...

B5

r5 replies

e1 endorsed

Post
Dec '12

paperdragons81

v No

The words 'may be prone to violence', are a little broad. If were not careful, government could use this to get rid of people who oppose there views,or someone geting angry scares someone get locked away cause he looked like he might hurt someone. I think in the right curcumstances we could be ' prone to violence' even if we choose not to be.

B5

r1 reply

Post
Dec '12

MongoAPillager

v No

seems like with suspicious public shootings as of late,HHHHmmwell us gun toters don't want our second amendment messed with so how else can we control guns,hey i know lets get anybody that questions the state declared not mentally capable of owning a firearm,lets see our government says that any right wing bible thumper,tea party'er,,anyone who believes in the constitution etc. is a potential terrorist.right now if your are a veteran and are will to tell them you have PTSD you can have your benefits raised,i read a report that in Virginia over 20000 vets have lost their right to gun ownership through these methods,so don,t fall for this crap ,,, http://www.freerepublic...

B3

r7 replies

e2 endorsed

Post