Throwaway05
3mo ago
So you want to pay the taxes required to run a criminal grade trial on everyone who is involuntary committed so that they can have their guns taken away by a jury of their peers. This would be expensive in a pure trial sense and because it would be slow people would be held unnecessarily - if you can go home after 4 days because the medication worked but you need to stay in the hospital (or be dispo'ed to jail/prison) for ....however many weeks to months it takes to hold an actual trial.... isn't that a worse violation of your rights?
Throwaway05
3mo ago
Absolutely, and while overt delusional beliefs are what pop to non-medical people seeing or hearing about these patients, the real problem is the negative symptoms of schizophrenia (often manifesting as a total inability to care for oneself in a functional way). That is much less exciting but more important for commitment purposes a good chunk of the time.
I think a lot of the doubters here would be way more comfortable if they had a chance to stay in a city crisis center for five minutes.
Throwaway05
3mo ago
That sounds like a plan. That sounds like you want this to be adjudicated in court instead. Explore that! Examine the consequences! Thank about it! Is it better? Worse?
I haven't seen good faith engagement from you in ages in this conversation. You clearly imply that some infringements on the right to bear arms is reasonable but you don't want to admit what that is then you later try and imply that you don't. Those are incompatible and you must pick.
Throwaway05
3mo ago
That is not a plan.
Throwaway05
3mo ago
What is your proposal.
Throwaway05
3mo ago
Okay but the problem is that psychotically violent is a transient state - at present we hold them away from others while psychotically violent and then release them when they aren't.
A good number of people have one episode of violence or violent potential and then stop.
Likewise the mental health system is somewhat optimized for trying to predict violent potential in advance and head it off. Do you count the people who have committed that "pre crime" or not?
Throwaway05
3mo ago
To be clear: you want the state to summarily execute between 5-10 percent of the population because of the presence of severe mental illness?
Throwaway05
3mo ago
Bipolar + Schizophrenia + Schizoaffective disorder add up to something like 5% of the population. Not all of these people commit violence. Not all of these people end up with an involuntary commitment. Saying "you murdered someone during a manic episode I no longer feel comfortable with you living in the community" is one thing "the severity of your illness is so bad that someone thought you were going to hurt people but you didn't end up doing that, however I'm not sure I feel comfortable with you having guns even if you don't need to be in the hospital 100% of the time is another."
Plenty of people end up transiently psychotic because of things like medical illness, substance use (even caffeine!), sleep deprivation, stress, trauma and so on. Most of these do not go on to kill people. A fraction who do end up with an involuntary commitment are significantly more dangerous and risky.
Throwaway05
3mo ago
I think a good thought experiment here is to look at traffic tickets.
Do you think cops should have flexibility in giving a ticket or not?
Choosing not to is also abomination of due process, it is inconsistent and potentially abusable and corrupt. It's also flexible and can work out well.
The system works better for most people overall when have some flexibility in the system. Some people are screwed over by that flexibility however in my experience it's usually for good reason (in this case: guy is likely an asshole).
If you want to remove the slack and flexibility in the system you can certainly advocate for that but you'll find it probably isn't what you want in practice.
With respect to this guy specifically, I got the impression that it seemed like he had more involvement with mental health care that he was letting on and was trying to minimize which is not a good sign.
Throwaway05
3mo ago
Lets list some of the categories of patients this kinda thing applies to.
-
Someone has a brief psychotic episode, has interest in killing someone but doesn't manage to do so. They have a 30% chance of not progressing into having any further episodes of psychosis.
-
Someone uses drugs or alcohol. While under the influence of drugs or alcohol they become homicidal or suicidal.
-
Someone has a medical problem like a brain tumor, dementia, or more reversible things like autoimmune encephalitis or hyperthyroidism. While medically unwell they become psychiatrically unwell.
-
A totally normal person has a first time manic episode with threatened or actual HI/SI. Outside the manic episode they are totally normal. They take their medication but still have a risk of problems. Maybe they have a kid and end up with sleep deprivation. Maybe the run a 5k and become dehydrated and their lithium metabolism is altered.
-
Schizophrenic guy who knows he is schizophrenic, takes a long acting injectable medication to make sure he doesn't forget. Symptoms are well controlled. Sometime over the course of his life his metabolism of the medicine changes and he ends up sick again (and dangerous).
You really want to lock up all of these people indefinitely?
Medicine and the legal system don't know with surety who will offend and who will be dangerous. So we try and be judicious in how much we violate rights. Summarily executing someone for being diagnosed with schizophrenia is a bit of an overshot. Locking people up indefinitely (especially when they have periods of healthy functioning that might even last decades) is also likely overshooting it.
It's also hideously expensive and drains resources that could be best used elsewhere.
They won't have guns anyway while locked up.
Why not start with less restrictive measures?
If individual autonomy isn't important to you (it certainly is to Nybbler) then the expense should certainly factor into it. How much extra in taxes do you want to pay to do this?
Throwaway05
3mo ago
It's an argument about giving crazy people guns.
We make an effort to restrict people's rights to the minimum we can, even if it results in bad outcomes sometimes. Locking away someone indefinitely (or like, killing them) is extremely restrictive.
Giving them some rope with which to metaphorically hang themselves but not too much preserves autonomy as much as we can.
Throwaway05
3mo ago
I mean this is the point, their exists a class of people in society who are not safe to themselves or others due to a mental illness (this is different from the class of people who are this way due to personality structure, life experience, genetics, racism, whatever - we call these criminals).
For many mental illnesses denial of the mental illness, denial of symptoms, denial of need for medications - all these things are frequent parts of the pathology (sniff test to make it make sense: if you are delusional of course you are going to think you don't have delusions).
People who acknowledge they have problems end up with a voluntary admission not an involuntary one "man you nearly killed yourself dude, you think being in the hospital for a few days would be good for you?"
In any case you come in, take meds, stabilize, get discharged. Then you go home and forget to take your beds, have medical stuff that happens that makes the meds don't work, decide not to take them "because it went away" whatever. Then you get sick again and dangerous.
Rights restriction (such involuntary outpatient commitment, forced medications, jail time, indefinite hospital stays) is usually the way - harm reduction approaches such as banning firearm access are both cheaper and much less disruptive to the patient.
This is why I want Nybbler to come up with an alternative plan because realistically the problem is often "jail and no guns" or "no jail and no guns" (even if it is just fancy jail with extra steps).
Throwaway05
3mo ago
So I continue to hold him in the hospital against his will even though he is no longer a threat to himself or others? (he is only a threat after he goes home and stops taking his medicine).
That seems more rights destroying than preventing gun access, no?
Furthermore - who pays for this? Indefinite hospital stay is expensive as hell. What about the other people who need that bed?
Throwaway05
3mo ago
The way states usually handle this is that the person has to have some thing happen like a: has a psychiatric illness b. is a credible threat to themselves or someone else.
The presence of criteria for a psychiatric illness is important here and does most the political protection.
A really common teaching interaction is something like "haha, yeah man this patient is delusional because he is Trump supporter and thinks Obama isn't a citizen" attending puts on a very serious face "no, absolutely not. Political beliefs are not delusional unless they are totally culturally dystonic and fixed, the fact that he won the election is proof that is isn't delusion blah blah...."
Psychiatry is in general a pretty pozzed specialty but they don't fuck around when it comes to that kind of stuff.
You will absolutely see patients get discharged who are odious, violent, domestic abusers, substance users and all kinds of other crap because they don't actually meet commitment criteria and aren't psychiatric.
Now you are more like to see something like "this patient does meet commitment criteria yet we'd usually let him go because it's probably safe to do so however he was using racial slurs towards the staff so in he goes." This is unprofessional but still unfortunately legit.
Throwaway05
3mo ago
Guns are significantly more lethal than kitchen knives and screwdrivers. In the case of suicides for instance, it is very common for people to attempt suicide and then regret it. Means that are more lethal (especially more impulsively) are more likely to lead to completions.
I gotta imagine that most doctors have seen at least one patient who shot themselves in the head or attempted to do so and somehow survived. It is roouughhh.
The person who took a handful of melatonin in a suicide attempt is much better off afterwards.
Throwaway05
3mo ago
He goes to a pshrink and mentions that he's feeling suicidal thoughts
This does not meet commitment criteria. He should be committed if he attempted to kill himself, or if he is likely to kill himself if sent home. Suicidal ideation is not enough. Suicidal ideation with plan and intent or suicide attempt is.
Well, obviously, you just keep him locked up, indefinitely
So you would rather lock people up indefinitely than allow them to go free and not have guns?
Throwaway05
3mo ago
These are not in fact the options. Another option is to not deprive those who have been involuntary committed of their right to keep and bear arms once they are released.
Guy threatens to kill you for raping him. He gets admitted to the hospital. He gets discharged and still wants to kill you after he stops his meds, so he goes to a gun store, buys a gun, and shoots you.
How do you prevent this?
Throwaway05
3mo ago
My right to be alive supersedes your right to have a gun.
People who dislike me because of X attribute (for instance jihadis) can have a gun. People who have said threatening things towards people like me can have a gun. People who have gone out and attacked people like me can't have a gun. People who have murdered people like me definitely can't have a gun.
That's what felons have done, committed a crime and so you lost the right. Involuntarily committed people have usually committed a crime (that does not go charged because we don't usually charge people for suicide attempts or attacking an ER nurse while psychotic), or have expressed a desire, willingness, and ability to commit a crime.
It is not assessed through a jury of peers, but this is why I'm asking what you want instead, because if you want that shit gets worse - do you want to be held until the legal system gets its shit together instead of just discharged from the hospital? Do you want your taxes to balloon?
Accept the current system, propose something else, or let your psychotic neighbor shoot you in the face.
You've also declined to say whether limitations should exist, which is clearly important.
Throwaway05
3mo ago
The legal system in many places in the U.S. has abandoned intervention when a problem is a psychiatric matter and not a criminal one. Some of this is clearly inappropriate such as situations where the police are exhausted or the DA refuses to get involved. Sometimes it is appropriate, if someone is a chronic schizophrenic who has lost touch with reality and is violent then it's not a criminal problem, the guy is obviously not guilty by reason of insanity.
The person does not belong in jail they belong in a state hospital, this issue in part being that the funding for those beds has been taken away so traditionally these days they go to jail instead (it's just not the correct disposition).
Throwaway05
3mo ago
I frankly have no idea how the judge in question here can honestly take a look at a forty-year period with no criminal history or further interactions with the mental health system or criminal justice system,
I think the implication of the proceedings was that this was not true, clearly wasn't true, and the court didn't want to waste time and money on sorting it so used other procedural grounds to close the matter.
Most people who fail in these kinds of proceedings are so allergic to basic competence and not being an entitled asshole that nobody who actually witnesses the situation feels bad. In the same that you look at most police encounters and go: "Should he have beat his ass? No. Did he absolutely earn it? Yes."
Most principled third parties read about these situations and fear some authoritarian judge taking rights away (which does happen) but the vast majority is "please give me something, anything to work with.....okay I guess you won't."
Throwaway05
3mo ago
There are always limitations. If I state that I have the right to murder people I disagree with because murder is expression of my speech. I will get laughed out of court for making this argument.
For 2A there are limitations..... well first of all what is a gun? I say a tank, a Warthog, and a fissile device are all guns. The court may say they are not guns and therefore I have no constitutional right to them. Some fictional guns are gun shaped and launch projectiles but are sufficient to destroy the planet. The government better ban them, I live on the planet.
Limitations must exist, else you live in a society where I can murder you legally for no reason because I assert it is my constitutional right to do so.
I don't think you believe that no limits should be placed on constitutional rights though, I think you are mad at the current limits, which are more expansive than what I'm asking for.
American citizen Jihadis absolutely have the right to guns if they haven't been convicted of crimes. We can't just have a member of the priesthood point to them and say "Man, those are some BAD muzzies" and no guns for them.
This is in bad faith. I didn't say Jihadis couldn't have guns. I said they couldn't have nukes. That is an example of a common sense limitation.
Certain people can't be trusted with certain powers. Determining this adequately is hard and frustrating. Nearly nobody should be trusted with nukes. Nearly everybody should be trusted with a fork and knife.
If you want to criticize an aspect of the current plan you need to either assert that no rights limitations are appropriate (which you have alluded to but not actually done) or come up with an alternative solution to the problem.
Throwaway05
3mo ago
I think you can probably draw a line of separation between "normal" people who have personality traits, tendencies, hobbies, and political views I do not like and people who have severe mental illness (or an episode of the same with increased risk of recurrence).
Admittedly this guy was a lot further back so that the standards were different then they are today after some testing and improvement, but you have to work very hard to earn an involuntary stay and be very poorly behaved. Almost ALWAYS it involves true serious mental illness such and Schizophrenia, Bipolar disorder, severe Borderline, or MDD with suicide attempt or suicidal ideation. Or. It involves someone who is so unpleasant, uncooperative, violent, etc. that they are almost always a dangerous criminal they just might not have gotten caught yet (and the latter bucket is much less common).
If you are a threat to yourself or someone else in a real and foreseeable way you will likely be so again and the amount of danger is quite a bit higher. This is not "I dislike Nazis and they could do bad things!!!" this is "30% chance of murdering someone."
Throwaway05
3mo ago
The constitution is not a suicide pact, case law establishes restrictions to constitutional rights, 1A is the biggest place we see this. You aren't allowed to say anything and everything. This has been tested in a court of law to make sure that deranged actors do not ruin society and devastate the rights of others (admittedly with varying success and priorities).
The same for 2A. Jihadis can't have a right to nukes just because they are American citizens. That is not sensible. You can still be pro-2A and think that murders have lost their right to guns.
Ultimately your right to live supersedes my example crazy guys right to own a gun. If you believe otherwise you are in a gross minority.
If you think this guy doesn't have a right to kill you then you need to come up with a different way to prevent that because the legal system has already come up with their approach and you criticizing it can be easily blown off with "okay but like, how are you going to be sure you/your family doesn't get murdered?"
If you don't like the solution propose a different one that doesn't get you shot in the head for no reason.
Throwaway05
3mo ago
You have not proposed an alternative.
If your neighbor goes off of his medication and keeps following you around as you leave your house saying "Nybbler you raped me, I'm going to shoot you."
What do you want to do with this guy? Sure you could get him committed, but he'll be admitted, get stabilized, go home and go off his meds again and then go buy a gun and shoot you.
Especially in NJ the cops won't get involved because it is clearly a psychiatric matter not a criminal one.
I see Tchaikovsky come up on /r/Fantasy and /r/PrintSF quite a bit, but almost nobody ever mentions Shadows of the Apt, which I still feel is his best work.
More options
Context Copy link