Florida Spends Millions to Teach Mentally Ill How to Appear in Court and be Convicted

a reply to: infolurker

Truly disgusting.

a reply to: infolurker

Problem is once your comited by a judge to a mental institution its near impossible to get out. I can see the state spending thus to avoid having to pay for their stay in a mental institute. They might only get a couple of years in prison but could end up spending decades under doctors care.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

No you're right.
Let's just give up.

Phooey on defeatism.

If I can make it through my daily battles, surely we can win this War.
Buck up.
No surrender.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: infolurker

Problem is once your comited by a judge to a mental institution its near impossible to get out. I can see the state spending thus to avoid having to pay for their stay in a mental institute. They might only get a couple of years in prison but could end up spending decades under doctors care.

Correction, the state wants you there alright but they want you to pay for it, whatever the people.dont absorb is made up in taxes so they get theirs and private prisons get theirs.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

Oh I am not giving up,i am not defeated I am simply deflated when there is a battle to be fought I will come out swinging

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

It' a slow process....won't happen overnight, but it's catching on.
I see good things happening out there despite the deluge of bad news.

Stay true stay strong.
We will survive this.

a reply to: infolurker

Here is the original article that hasn't been manipulated to show a different picture.


Insane. Invisible. In danger. ‘Definition of insanity’ Florida spends millions making sure the mentally ill go to court — and gets nothing for it.

Secondly people need to understand how mental health laws work.

a reply to: Xcathdra

To be sure, my perspective on this phenomenon is decidedly political.

Rothbard on Szasz

In the United States alone, there are approximately one million civil commitments per year, that is, more than 2,500 per day. (The practice is common in all advanced societies.) This figure does not include the countless times minors are assaulted with unwanted psychiatric interventions. Depriving defendants of their right to trial by declaring them mentally unfit and depriving them of finite prison sentences by declaring them not guilty by reason of insanity are two other obvious and important instances in a long list of psychiatric violations of human rights.

The reactions of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals to my likening involuntary psychiatry to involuntary servitude and organized psychiatry ("psychiatric slavery") to chattel slavery is not my concern here. Instead, my concern is to suggest -- more pointedly than I have done in the past -- that libertarians, as self-defined guardians of individual liberty and responsibility, have a duty to confront and articulate their position on psychiatric coercions and excuses, all of which rest on the concept of mental illness as squarely as the beliefs and practices of theistic religions rest on the concept of god.

The issue before us is whether psychiatric coercions and excuses are -- by the light of what we know today -- virtuous or wicked, praiseworthy or blameworthy, social practices. Where do libertarians stand on the practice of depriving innocent people of liberty in the name of "mental illness"? I believe it behooves libertarians to candidly acknowledge whether they support or oppose statist-psychiatric interventions and articulate the reasons for their position.

Psychiatric slavery -- like chattel slavery -- is an either / or issue. A person either supports it or opposes it. Tertium non datur.

It isn't that I believe that those who want help should not receive it but, friends, family and associations of all varieties are where such help could possibly be found, not within the belly of the beast and not through violent coercion.

All right, if someone is mentally ill to the point where they have basically become incapable of functioning in society as indicated by their inability to follow laws to the point where they are in trouble with the normal criminal justice system, doesn't this argue for a mental health system that would take these people out of a society where they arguably are only a danger to themselves and those around them and instead of spending the money teach to them how to interact with the criminal system ... why aren't we spending it to treat them to where they might someday hope to interact with normal society in a more healthy and balanced fashion where they wouldn't need to interact with the criminal system?

a reply to: greencmp

and the political stance and the info you cited is lacking facts. In my state an involuntary commitment starts with a 96 hour hold. If it goes beyond the person is read their legal notice (Like Miranda warnings in crimi8nal arrests). The health agency is then required to notify the designated court for their area to inform them of an involuntary commitment. They are required to report to the court at established times to protect their rights (the patients). Anything beyond 21 days involves the courts in a more formal setting.

Before a person can be tried for a crime, if the mental capacity of the suspect is called into question, they must be evaluated and declared competent to stand trial. If a person is diagnosed with a mental disorder and takes no action to correct it they can still be held accountable for their actions. While a person has a right to refuse medication it doesnt give them a get out of trouble free card.

The laws in this area are specific from state to state (very similar requirements). People either dont know about the laws, dont understand them, or are out to make unfounded accusations based on their personal agenda.

I am not saying thats what you are doing for the record.

a reply to: ketsuko

The only way for a person to receive psychiatric assistance is -

* - voluntarily
* - involuntarily

If they choose not to get help the courts must become involved and even then its contingent on a psyche doctors evaluation and whether or not they can be forced into psyche assistance. A judge can only issue an order for evaluation. They cannot override a psyche doctors decision.

a reply to: Xcathdra

True, I am not talking about violent criminals but, those who would be institutionalized 'for their own good' without having harmed anybody else.

The denial of all rights with the false justification of assistance.

Perhaps my contribution is not merited since this is more of a policy discussion presuming the validity of preemptive intervention.

originally posted by: Teddy916

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
This is just wrong.
Sly demonisation and up front neglect.


This should be illegal.

I agree. Florida can be using the money to for better reasons. Like helping mentally ill people acquiring jobs and housing.

OR treatment!!!!! While housing is a requirement for treatment, jobs are for when someone is on, at the very least, a path to better health.

Mental illness is NOT the same as being developmentally challenged.

One you can and need to treat. The other you teach and adapt with/to.

a reply to: greencmp

Assistance to people with psyche issues revolves around identifying the issue and a plan of action to correct / manage / live with said condition. That is not the states responsibility.

Again to commit someone for their own good still requires the courts, and a lawyer for the person affected (just like miranda). Just like sending someone to jail a person with a mental issue can only be forced after evaluations by a psyche doctor and only after its established there is a mental issue severe enough it requires treatment. whether voluntary or involuntary.

Their rights are protected along the way, requiring the party to prove their case against the affected person. Even then they must report to the court continually to ensure their rights are protected and so we dont lock people away and then forget about them.

Policy discussion is appropriate but in my opinion its difficult to argue the merits without the basic understanding of the current laws in this arena (which is florida where as my examples are from missouri).

Its like I always say in threads dealing with a law no one likes. Learn what the law says and why so an argument can be made as to why its bad and how to fix it / make it better / why it needs to go.

a reply to: infolurker

Some people are making a lot of money off of this! The whole thing is a money scheme, I'd bet. Instead of treating people with real mental issues, treat them as though they have none, toss around a lot of cash, and then feed the criminal system as well? Utterly corrupt.