Ruffian:

quote:

But every one of them who has proven themselves a threat to others sure as hell should be.

By "proven", do you mean in a court of law?

But we don't have such a crime on the books! "Ruffian, you are charged with being a threat to others. How do you plead?"

We have crimes with titles such as "reckless endangerment", "assault", "aggravated harassment", even "public nuisance", but you know what? Every one of them is a charge that is leveled at you for something you did .

Our social system is in large part founded on the notion that actions are punishable, but neither intentions alone nor possible future actions are --

"Ruffian, you are charged with false imprisonment, insofar as you seem capable of and predisposed towards incarcerating the schizophrenic AHunter3, whom you believe to be dangerous, but who hasn't done anything, how do you plead?"

"What are you talking about, I haven't locked him up, he's still right here posting on the board!"

"Yes, but we think you might"

 

OH, perhaps that isn't what you meant? Perhaps by "proven", you meant that a psychiatric evaluation yielded this finding?

"Doctor Ruffian, you are charged with false imprisonment, insofar as you seem capable of and predisposed towards incarcerating the schizophrenic AHunter3, whom you believe to be dangerous, but who hasn't done anything, how do you plead?"

"What are you talking about, I still haven't locked him up, he's still right here posting on the board!"

"Yes, but we think you might, and you have a history of having done so in the past, and furthermore you have the wherewithal to do so again, so in our opinion the likelihood of you doing so again makes it necessary for us to consider you a danger to freedom, and we must act with more concern for the public good than for your rights and err on the side of caution."

 

SOME INTERESTING FACTOIDS FOR YOUR PERUSAL:

* Psychiatrists have a dismal track record at predicting violence.

* A commitment hearing, although technically a legal procedure, does not ensure the right of the patient to testify or secure witnesses to testify on the patient's behalf; and there IS no "standard of proof" such as preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt.

* The most common commitment standard, "danger to self or others", is not defined either, and has, in real life in real hearings with real people, been interpreted to mean:

a) might have sex with too many men (Arlene Sen)

b) has grown a beard and adopted Orthodox Jewish customs instead of looking for a new lucrative stockbroker position after his old firm went under (Leonard Roy Frank)

c) still disagrees with the psychiatrist's recommendations of appropriate career choice (Janet Gotkin)

d) doesn't want to take the psychiatric meds that the psychiatrist thinks the patient should take (millions of us)

e) wants to marry again, against the wishes of the adult children (Ms. Helene Rockwell)

 

I'm sorry, but the opinion of an infinite number of psychiatrists holds no more weight for me than the opinion of an infinite number of Bible-pounding hellfire-and-brimstone preachers, or an infinite number of jihad-declaring mullahs for that matter.

 

Original SDMB thread - Dear Sister, please take your lithium

 

See my next post on this same thread

See my previous post on this same thread

 

The SDMB Posts