On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Reese wrote: > Is americanized english a second language for you? No..I was just trying to decide what your whole post meant..you've clarified, however... > The legality of it. Take a closer look at how things were done, before > Reagan "turned the crazee's out into the street" or whatever it was that > was said. Try not to equivocate again. Actually I think I was accusing you of not being clear -- if anyone was equivocating it was you, but I was more inclined to think that it was merely communication breakdown. I don't claim that pre-reagan treatment of 'mental patients' was good. I'm not defending pre *or* post reagan treatment of 'crazee's' -- Tim made the comment that here in the good 'ol US (okay, serious paraphrasing) we didn't lock people up and drug them against their will in the way that Russia and the other bad-guy-communists did. I'm arguing that we do, and that while I don't know that we currently have adult-political-mental-prisoners (the U.S. seems to prefer framing people for murder and/or potential terrorist acts, I have, however, seen cases [and known people involved] where schools pressure parents into hospitalizing their kids for supposed 'ODD' because of underground newspapers and the like, which, when dealing with public schools, is disturbingly similar to government political repression, albeit on a smaller scale) the framework is there, and becoming stronger. As for the legality: in most states (laws actually vary from state to state, so I'm sort of pulling the most common/prevelant practice as I'm aware of it here, actual law in your state may be different) if the state can prove you are a danger to yourself or others than they can commit you, more-or-less indefinetly. This sounds pretty good on paper. The problem comes in with the standard of 'proof' -- in a lot of cases, all it takes is a psych testifying that they think that locking you up is a good thing -- often they don't require anything more (yes, I've sat through a commitment hearing...) than that -- such as explaining *why* you might be a danger (to yourself or others) and that's before asking why someone should be locked up just because they are 'a danger to themselves' (I've also seen some really weird things described as 'self mutilating behavior' -- including going out to clubs in heavy makeup, quitting a job to take a lesser paying job and sexual promiscuity -- perhaps not the healthiest behaviors, but not what I'd consider worth locking up) > I left this paragraph, as it was written. Finish it, please. Already did. If you haven't gotten that post by the time you get this one, drop me an email and I'll forward it on (I already got it) > I read it decades ago. Read some Plato, why don't'cha. Have done so, more recently. Plato's phaedrus said significantly less to me, though. > >Perhaps it should be 'better one hundred more-or-less sane people on the > >street than one possible danger locked up' > > I think I can live with that,,, Then we're at least on the same page here, I think. Ph.
