Most of a nation on probation?

[petro]

>On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, petro pulled this right out of his ass...
>
>>  	The disparity in numbers is largely due to the way we treat
>>  the mentally ill. "They" (Russia, and most of europe) don't count the
>>  numbers of people forcebly institutionalized for "mental illness" as
>>  part of their prisoner counts, and here in the US the government
>>  *usually* doesn't forcibly institutionalize someone until after
>>  they've committed a crime, or at least been convicted of a crime of
>>  some sort, whether it really should be a crime.
>
>Total, unequivocal bullshit.  You have anything to back up these absurd
>statements?
>
>(1) "Forcibly institutionalized" patients are *NOT* [legally] "prisoners",
>and therefore are not included in prisoner counts.  Obviously, this
>statement excludes those persons committed to institutions by a court as
>"unfit to stand trial" - a microscopic percentage of the
>"patient" population in the U.S.
>
>(2) The "2-P.C." [2 Psychiatrist Committal] laws do NOT apply to someone
>*after* they have committed a crime.  After they commit a crime, they are
>under the jurisdiction of a *court*, and they are no longer patients (and
>only _patients_ get 2-P.C.'d).
>

	Funny, you are accusing me of saying pretty much what you just said.

	Hmmm...

	Let me try to repeat myself is a way you might be able to 
understand it.

	In this country we *DO NOT INSTUTIONALIZE* many of our 
"mentally ill" like they do in other countries (Russia, Europe) Nor 
do we count those who are as "prisoners" (which many other countries 
do).

	What happens then is that a *significant number* of these 
mentally ill people commit crimes *FOR WHICH THEY ARE LOCKED UP AS 
CRIMINALS*.

	In otherwords, the numbers are skewed because we tend not to 
institutionalize people until the actually *DO* something (even if 
that something is "self-medicating" using non-prescription drugs) 
that violates the law.

>(3) The 2.P.C. laws are in EVERY state specifically allow for, and in
>fact, REQUIRE, that a person be involuntarily committed if "they present
>an immenent danger to themselves or others".  This is clearly not the same
>as "have committed a crime".

	And those committals are often of a very short nature--most 
often 72 hours being the limit w/out an inquiry, usually leading to 
some sort of outpatient care (at least in the time I worked for a 
hospital with a large government funded mental institution attached), 
which puts the person back out on the street where they take their 
meds, or not, leading to...

	The claim I am making is simply that comparing criminal 
incarceration rates across countries is not valid unless you account 
for many other factors, such as (in this case) the way those 
societies/cultures deal with their mentally ill. We deal with ours by 
*giving them* the choice (modulo "imminent danger to themselves or 
others") of getting treatment or not, and if they choose not and 
break the law they are criminals and are dealt with accordingly. Many 
other countries don't give the mentally ill person the latitude of 
that choice.

>      First you claim that "nobody has ever survived a shot to the head
>with a .32", and now *this*  --  Where do you get this shit from???

	My information is from some who has a professional interest 
in prison systems, and has studied them at length, as well as a bit 
of reading on my own.


-- 
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so
afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such
knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.