How the forced hospitalization of 'mentally ill' people will work in NYC Sorry, not about Rudy or Hillary, New York City Mayor Eric Adams has directed the NYPD and peace officers to take individuals who appear "to be mentally ill" into custody involuntarily for psychiatric evaluations, even if they are not considered to be an imminent threat to the public. "Without that intervention, they remain lost and isolated from society, tormented by delusions and disordered thinking," said Adams in a Tuesday press conference. "They cycle in and out of hospitals and jails, but New Yorkers rightly expect our city to help them and help them we will." The directive has stoked outrage, controversy and debate about homelessness and mental illness, and how to tackle both issues.
Leave it to a cop to come up with the 'solution' of locking people up against their will to solve a problem
I don’t have a problem with it in basic principle. A lot of homeless are mentally ill, which is the reason for them being homeless in the first place. A lot don’t even have the wherewithal to seek help, so if the problem is to be addressed something like this is necessary. Now whether this is “successful” or not depends on whether they actually get these people care. How much of a good faith effort there is. If it’s actually effective (even if only 25% or 50%) that would be a good thing. The obvious danger of a program like this is that it’s closer to 0% effective and just used as a way to keep people locked up or using the threat to push them elsewhere. Even a “good faith” effort could end badly, and may be likely to do so given how overwhelming the issue is.
You cant think of a better idea than forced detention of people who haven't committed any crimes? Are there going to be doctors roaming the street diagnosing people mentally ill? Somehow I doubt that and it will be ripe for abuse. But anything to avoid being confronted with the depravity of America I guess.
Yeah. Whenever the topic of homelessness comes up on this board it ends with a "well what's the solution?" I know the article said NYPD AND peace officers. Perhaps a task force of social workers/psychologists would be better suited for this. But otherwise this is at least an attempt at helping the problem
Taking to another level here because there is no "danger to themselves or others" pretext here. A cop can basically declare you mentally ill and detain you now. What could go wrong in a for profit system?
In other countries, those with political views that are not acceptable are deemed "mentally ill" and sent to camps. Definitely a needle to be threaded between public safety and civil liberties. Having a mental illness is not illegal.
I don't love the idea for the reasons you stated. On the other side, about 3 years ago a mentally unstable homeless guy stabbed a random person to death who was sitting on a park bench about 5 blocks from my house. Whenever this topic comes up on these boards it boils down to this is a problem with no good solution. This isn't a great solution, but I see both sides of it.
Well there is a solution (its to live in a country that can guarantee housing), its just that there is no will to live in the sort of society that doesnt have a homelessness problem. America's solution to the problems of capitalism is to make it a crime to be poor or homeless. Plenty of other countries dont have a problem on our level, including very poor ones.
I thought baker acting someone is when there is proof a person has shown a desire to hurt someone or oneself.
You're talking about solutions to general homelessness, not mentally unstable homeless. Different discussions
True. But those aren't crimes that have been committed either, which was my initial point. Like it or not we detain people who haven't done anything. Specifically harming ones self. Not a crime even if you do it.
Well one would actually address the problem, the other is simply hiding people that are inconvenient that remind people that there is a problem. Doesnt help that people conflate homelessness with crime, but like I said, America basically criminalizes poverty and homelessness, so that's more or less how the state wants you to view it.
If this is a first step, and mental health-trained peace officers are truly involved in the decision, then as a pilot program this might be ok. If the cop is making that decision on his own……hell no. But it has to LEAD somewhere other than detaining people against their will for prolonged periods of time, in holding facilities that don’t provide resources for their recovery. Or it’s just incarceration by alternate means with no criminal act. There’s no good answer, but doing nothing isn’t the right answer either.
The Baker Act and similar statutes only allow for up to a 72 hour hold. After that it gets reviewed and approvals are sought to justify extending the hold. When they no longer meet criteria for the hold, they must be discharged. The old days of locking them up and throwing away the key are long gone. Criteria in a nutshell: Danger to self, danger to others, or gravely disabled to the point that they are unable to care for themselves. Longer term arrangements such as conservatorship or guardianship are difficult to arrange.
It’s all in the implementation but overall I support this. I don’t think leaving people who can’t really take care of themselves in the elements is humane or appropriate. Of course if they do this they have to have a plan to do something you can’t just put them in jail.
A lot of folks who hate liberty in this thread. Giving the government the power to detain whomever it wants as long as it claims they're mentally ill is a fabulously shortsighted decision. Just because you feel homeless people are an eyesore doesn't mean we have to do something about them. If a person is legitimately a danger to themselves or others, that's a different story. But arresting people merely because they're suspected of being mentally ill and trying to lock them up is both repugnant and almost certainly unconstitutional. Eric Adams is a turd.
