Should Judges Be Able to Limit the Freedom of the Mentally Ill?
In 2005, Kendra’s Law was extended for another five years. In all, more than 8,000 people have been treated under its provisions, and the results have been striking. A 2005 study of more than 2,700 people to whom the law was applied found that, after treatment, the rate of homelessness in the population fell by 74 percent, the number who needed to be rehospitalized dropped by 77 percent and the number arrested fell by 83 percent. And a study published this year found that people receiving treatment under Kendra’s Law were only one-fourth as likely to commit violent acts, had a reduced risk of suicide and were functioning better socially than members of a control group.
Full article on making Kendra’s Law permanent.
There are real civil liberties issues, here. But on balance, I say yes. I can remember the days when the mentally ill were allowed to wonder freely around New York City streets. It wasn’t good for them, or for anyone else.
I suppose it all depends on who you have in mind. Are you including the Obama administration in this category. Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid?
I agree with Nancy. Something needs to be done.
But (in anser to Bruce –who I assume was not serious anyway) I would exempt all the politicians.
I imagine the screening process is cumbersome. Figuring out which mentally disturbed, homeless person poses a crime risk could be difficult.
New York has another program that gives free bus tickets (even plane tickets) to homeless people who have a relative that agrees to house them out of town.
New York’s explanation of the law. It gives a lot of power to officials. The explanation says someone can be placed under orders for forced mental health treatment for threatening “serious violent behavior.” This at a time when shopping addition is poised to be added to the DSM as a mental illness.
The problem is it wouldn’t be too hard to remand a really annoying dissident if the government wanted to.
How about including something concrete. Perhaps one should have to break certain laws before getting considered for forced drugging–laws like those against trespass, loitering, or panhandling?
Good point Linda.
Some would seriously question who this law could target and how effective a forced treatment paradigm really is in protecting the public and those labeled mentally unstable in reality. A more intrusive government has seldom produced the results they claim. In reading this bill I see a lot of bureaucracy and not much comment sense.
We are a nation of laws. Forcing drug treatment, and to use cohesive compliance threats runs counter productive to taking a more humane therapeutic approach with already ostracized segment of our population.
This law really opens to door to lots of abuses, and does little to truly protect both the public and those in emotional turmoil.
This law was based on those rare incidences of violence under taken by those under extreme mental distress (even though in the actual “Kendra” case the perpetrator was actively seeking intervention and help on his own to no avail before becoming unraveled into a violent and psychotic state.
We are fooling ourselves into a false sense of safety when we use fear mongering as a basis to validate forced treatment measures upon populations that are least able to legally represent themselves and their wishes before we have any proof or conviction of a actual crime being committed.
A link to another opposition view on this law.
Whether you agree or disagree with this law, we all should consider the far reaching ramifications of laws like this before pulling the trigger on them.