[Jimbee (OP)]

I really don't know what percentage of boardmembers here are from the US. Because this is really more of a US issue. Also, I don't know what your policy about posting matters related to medical law, even in the medical section. Because you know, law and medicine really sometimes can't be separated. IAE, I think this is the last legal thing I will post here for a while. At least unless I think of something else really important.

But people, in the US at least, complain it's not easy enough to civilly commit mentally ill people. But that doesn't seem to be the case with old age homes. People seem to complain it's too easy to put Grandma or Grandpa there. He or she was functioning so well independently, and the kids had them put them there. Probably because they were after their money too, I don't know.

Changing the commitment laws wouldn't change anything, I'm sure they're more than adequate. It's just free and easy to do, i.e., change the law. They used to call that closing the barn door after the horses escaped, because it really accomplishes nothing.

And it might make things worse too. There seem to be a lot of mentally ill people in downtown Dearborn now (a suburb of Detroit, MI where I live), I don't know why. People acting weird, sometimes yelling for no apparent reason, if you know what I mean. Anyway, this one lady was apparently accused of shoplifting at a store. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. But no one really cared at that point. But she was visibly upset, talking loudly to herself, possibly mentally ill. But the Dearborn Police just called her a taxi to take her home. That's really all she needed.

Now if it was easier to commit her, they'd have to put her in a jail cell possibly. And people fearing that would be less likely to get help, which could potentially make matters worse. Just like if you let a sliver go, it can lead to infection, the same is true about mental illness. Making matters in fact much worse instead.

Thoughts? Comments?

[alancalverd]

The purpose of committal is, or should be, preventive or punitive. If no crime has been committed, we are looking to prevent harm to the subject, to his immediate associates, or to society at large. The distinction between harm and inconvenience can be blurred, but just for once it seems that the Dearborn police used common sense and discretion - apparently a newsworthy rarity in the US but the norm in a civilised country.

[Jimbee (OP)]

The purpose of committal is, or should be, preventive or punitive. If no crime has been committed, we are looking to prevent harm to the subject, to his immediate associates, or to society at large. The distinction between harm and inconvenience can be blurred, but just for once it seems that the Dearborn police used common sense and discretion - apparently a newsworthy rarity in the US but the norm in a civilised country.

The situation surrounding mental health is very complicated in the USA. I am not saying you were trying to oversimplify it. But people sometimes do. Actually, I like to think the mentally ill have it better in the United States than they do in some places in some ways. I'm serious.

For one thing, we have the US Supreme Court. And it has the power to nullify laws it considers unconstitutional. In the United Kingdom (is that where you're from?), they say they don't need to have courts with the power to do that, because you are s so sensible and level-headed there. I wish we had that here. But it's interesting, because the SCOTUS has given the mentally ill a lot of rights that ironically they may not even have in the UK. For example, you alluded to using the mental health system to punish offenders (is that what you meant?). You can't do that here. Because I think the courts have ruled, punishment is punishment, and psychiatric care is psychiatric care. I think that is interesting.

I wouldn't be too quick to judge our police either. They are under enormous stress, yes much much more than they probably face in the UK. Plus as Detroit Chief of Police James E. White recently said, the police here just aren't trained to be mental health professional it really isn't their fault sometimes. And as I showed above, sometimes they do the right thing.

[alancalverd]

I used committal to cover all kinds of legal containment. In the general case of mental illness the object is obviously to protect, not to punish, and if a criminal is judged not to be mentally ill he will serve time in a prison, not a hospital. Complications arise where someone's mental illness has led to a criminal act, or where a criminal has a mental illness not related to his crime, but the purpose of a court is to provide a forum for determining such cases in public.

We do have a supreme court but it doesn't get involved much with constitutional matters as we don't have a written constitution. British law used to be based on wrongs, not rights, so in principle you could do any thing that isn't actually prohibited. The very few rights established since Magna Carta haven't changed much: the right to vote and to be represented in a court of law are pretty  much all you need, because your freedoms are protected by the illegality of unlawful imprisonment, killing, harassment,  etc. Criticising the government is not prohibited so we have no need for the Russian practice of "treating" dissidents in psychiatric hospitals.

The simple principle of wrongs went down the toilet of the European Union, whose laws are based on rights. Problem is that one man's right becomes another man's duty, so we can't, for instance, deport or extradite a man who has a sick cat which he claims to be his family because his right to family life must be protected by the State.

Part of the stress on US police is the constitutional right of citizens to kill one another (what else are firearms for?),so a "shoot first" policy is entirely understandable, even if the gang murder of an obviously unarmed man is not. Yes, it happens here, but rarely in public. And we do have the same problem with mental illness:when all else fails (and it often does) it is up to the police to contain the harm, using the tools at their disposal.

 

I like to think the mentally ill have it better in the United States than they do in some places in some ways.

Indeed. At least one incompetent and one raving nutter have become president in my lifetime.  We've had some barmy kings but none since 1650 with the authority to start a war.

[Bored chemist]

The simple principle of wrongs went down the toilet of the European Union, whose laws are based on rights.

Specifically the ones based on this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

Which was essentially written by UK lawyers.
Here they are.
Right to life

Prohibition of torture

Prohibition of slavery and forced labour

Right to liberty and security

Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly
Right to a fair trial

Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights
To be informed promptly
To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence
to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require
to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him
to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court

No punishment without law

Right to respect for private and family life


Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Freedom of expression

Right to marry

Prohibition of discrimination

Restrictions on political activity of aliens
Prohibition of abuse of rights

Protection of property

Right to education

Right to free elections

Which ones do you feel should not apply to you?

Problem is that one man's right becomes another man's duty, so we can't, for instance, deport or extradite a man who has a sick cat which he claims to be his family because his right to family life must be protected by the State.

Please show us details of where that actually happened.
(Hint; it didn't. A man cited the fact that he had a cat as evidence that he was settled in the UK)

You seem to be channelling the spirit of our ex Prime Minister.
https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/10/04/cat-had-nothing-to-do-with-failure-to-deport-man/

I expected better of you.

[alancalverd]

Most of said rights were already protected by the specific wrongfulness of any contrary action. What does "respect" mean, and how can you prove that you have or don't have it in the context of family life? Liberty to do what? Right to security from what? And whose duty it is to provide that security?

[Bored chemist]

Most of said rights were already protected by the specific wrongfulness of any contrary action

AND THE PURPOSE OF THE HRA IS TO STOP GOVERENMENTS WRITING LEGISLATION WHICH BREACHES THE CONVENTION. IT IS BINDING ON GOVERNMENTS, NOT INDIVIDUALS.

So, either the government plays nicely- in which case the HR act is irrelevant. (Ad therefore can not do any harm).
Of the government breaks those rights- in which case they are held to account for it.

Now, it's important to recognise that the UK government has, from time to time, been found in breach of the HRA.
That means the government tried to deprive someone of those rights.
And the HR court blocked them.

So, once again, which of those rights do you wish ot to apply to you?

Because, without that protection it is clear that our government will not always honour them.

What does "respect" mean, and how can you prove that you have or don't have it in the context of family life? Liberty to do what? Right to security from what? And whose duty it is to provide that security?

Stop pretending to be stupid.
You know what the answer is.
Either the details are explicitly in the legislation (which is far too long to copy + paste here so I didn't) or, if it's not then the court decide.
Just like UK courts have to make decisions.


But the real question is why did you think it was helpful to post the **** about a cat?
Did you actually believe it?