You must log in or register to comment.
What if we all became cops? We get universal income? Lol
Because suite giving people money without suits doesn’t help the suits friends who also happen to wear suits.
California had a great mental health system in place. Ronald Reagan got elected and chose to close many of the in patient facilities. This lead to mass homelessness, which meant the police and prison budgets had to go up.
Then he did the same thing when he was President.
Their excuse was rampant abuse, so instead of fixing it, they just closed them.
What if locking people up indefinitely (as many were in institutions decades ago) and diagnosing them with subjective criteria isn’t ideal? I’m not dismissing anybody’s diagnosis or hand-waving real symptoms or illness - I’m merely suggesting that an authoritarian system where human rights are stripped with minimal outside observation (with sometimes flimsy criteria and fallible actors) is potentially damaging to mental health and is probably not conducive to healing. It can be a very imbalanced power dynamic, especially as it was in the institutions of the past as you pointed out.
We need an answer to retain the rights of those involuntarily held as best as possible. I think it’s important to make courts more accessible to patients (and their loved ones), providing those held involuntarily with access to second opinions or different facilities (in some cases), and having established (and independently enforced) criteria for release - with appeals available for patients to argue their case for release with legal representation and other expert witnesses (e.g. other psychiatrists, qualified individuals directly involved in their care past or present) and perhaps even family members and other people who were involved with the patient.
Involuntary commitment (for any extended period) should be reserved for the severely mentally ill, who are determined by independent review to be in need of treatment to stabilize - and only those who are a danger to themselves or others, those who committed crimes, and those who are actively violent should be held in higher-security (locked) facilities.
I feel the rest would benefit greatly from conditions akin to a Soteria House (without locked doors, forced medication, or coercion) - the Soteria House model could be expanded, adapted, or modified. Treatment could be loosely mandated by courts, with reviews conducted and alternative treatment plans established if the patient wishes to modify or discontinue treatment before they are thought to be stabilized by their psychiatrist(s) and care team. I feel that maintaining consent, valuing patient input in forming treatment plans, and avoiding coercion is key to address certain states of trauma - otherwise patients are potentially faced with more trauma.
For those who are not thought to be severely ill, but who are thought to be in temporary crisis (and who are not thought to be violent or a threat to themselves or others), stabilization could be attempted in a temporary hold to assess their state, and continued onward with care akin to Soteria Houses or intensive outpatient care and other forms of observation and forms of support (e.g. with their environment and other distressing situations they are facing).
And to respond directly to you, I definitely feel like society was incapable or very underequipped to fix the institutions back then. Society is still largely unable to address distress and its very real manifestations or consequences - such as homelessness and the prevention of individuals from becoming homeless against their will.
The reason they locked people up is that they didn’t have any other treatment. Most psychiatric meds are recent inventions.
Here’s a link to a longer piece on the whole situation.
Small government doin its thing, yay Murica. Also stricter gun laws thanks to good old fashioned racism and hospitals are more overworked than ever with patients dealing with substance abuse and other related mental health issues. We stopped putting sick people in treatment and the cops just started shooting them instead.
California had a great mental health system in place.
I’m sorry, but no, we really fucking didn’t. Reagan was wrong (about everything) to close them, but they weren’t good before he did that by a looooong shot
The reason no one in a suit cares is because most of the voting monkeys don’t care because they lack the capacity to understand.
To add some evidence (from a basic internet search, skimmed but not read in detail):
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/evidence-behind-putting-money-directly-pockets-poor
Thanks, bookmarking this
To address this problem, we need to fundamentally revisit the idea of the social contract. Even the definition of crime today feels outdated almost archaic. If you look into your country’s penal code, you’ll likely find absurd and antiquated laws that have no place in a modern society.
The deeper issue is this: most legal systems are still grounded in Victorian moralism, Puritan ideals that glorify work and wealth, and a liberal ethical framework that collapses under its own contradictions. Trying to solve complex structural violence with these tools just makes things worse.
The problem isn’t just systemic it’s internal. As long as we defend our comfort zones like fragile sandcastles, thinking “as long as I’m safe and untouched” (aka “I’ve got mine, so screw the rest”), then we will continue to see public resources diverted—not toward justice or equality—but recycled back at us as institutional violence.
F.e. the current Dutch penal code was accept in 1881. Thats 144 years ago.
Part of the issue is that we are mostly stuck in an economic structure that cannot continue forever unless everybody partakes. Getting more wages every year, getting more revenue and profit every year, just doesn’t work for eternity. In theory, if everybody got their 2%$ wage increases and interest was just 2% a year (excluding promotions or corrections for pas years etc) it would be fine.
The circular economy theory is one of those theories that attempts to fix that AND also work on helping the repair, reuse, recycle movement.
Can we be real? Police do not reduce crime.
Police punish criminals, or rather, they punish those that they think are criminals, since everyone is innocent until proven guilty (also the reason you shouldn’t argue, fight with, nor run from cops… They can charge you with crimes like evading arrest, even if the arrest is unlawful, resisting arrest, or assault on a “peace officer”… Justice does not come from police action, it comes from the actions of the court)…
Police usually show up, and/or take action after crimes have been committed, not before.
If you want effective crime prevention, there are plenty of good studies that prove what works, and putting more police on the streets, and giving them better and better arsenals is not on that list.
From social programs to “handouts” for healthcare and basics like food and shelter, among so many more proven tactics, can significantly reduce crime rates.
Giving the police money under the guise of reducing crime or being tough on crime is just political spin. What they’re trying to do is funnel public dollars to their friends who make the equipment that the police use. Vests, weapons, radios, vehicles, you name it. More police means that police departments need more equipment to supply everyone.
These fuckers in government are serving themselves and their fat cat friends, not the public interest. The worst part is, that many believe their shit and think that it’s for the public good to give the police more money.
That’s the real problem here, ignorance. But again, that’s what the fat cats want. The majority to be just stupid enough to believe whatever they’re told and do no further investigation… To have faith in liars, thieves and cheats.
In a normal state of things the police doesn’t decide who is a criminal, the justice system does and that should be separated from the government. Sadly there are more and more corrupt countries these days. But yeah giving them more money for anything else than to get more/better personel doesn’t help.
That’s all great. But imagine being in the desert and knowing where an oasis is but just not telling any one about it. We all know this information on the left. We repeat it like crows cawing to each other. But we don’t pass it a long. So unless we get better at sharing our views in a modern online world, all this information is not worth jack fucking shit. And sharing this information is not just reciting it verbatim in a comment in a forum among everyone that already knows this. Unless that’s what we’re really after. Pats on the back from people who agree with us.
But imagine being in the desert and knowing where an oasis is but just not telling any one about it
We could do that, but it’s entirely irrelevant to the discussion
But we don’t pass it a long.
Maybe you dont
The circle jerk is definitely real, and I acknowledge it. At the same time though, to go along with your comment, we need to develop ways to actually bridge the gap. A lot, and in my experience most, of right leaning ignorant types are so hard set in their bullshit they won’t listen. Deep set propaganda channels on the right are so engrained they refuse to take any information outside of it. Granted I understand my area is a bit worse as I’m deep in a red state, but it’s disheartening as fuck. Not trying to be absolutist, I get there’s always a way, just fuck if I know what it is.
In my experience, it all comes down to presentation. Most die-hard Trump supporters aren’t as locked into their beliefs as people assume. But when we approach them waving the typical “leftist” flag, their defenses immediately go up.
I’ve had plenty of honest conversations where, if you avoid the usual framing, many of them actually agree with progressive policies. But you can’t come at them swinging it shuts everything down.
They’re not dumb, racist caricatures they’re people, just like anyone else. One of the right’s biggest strengths is building a shield that prevents our ideas from even reaching them. We need to ask: Why is so much effort spent on keeping our perspectives from mixing?
There is a lot of money and effort among the right wing party to antagonize the left to become more aggressive and hateful of the right. And we fall for it constantly. We’re trained to meet them with hostility, and that aggression plays right into the system’s hands. It doesn’t have to be that way. We should be discussing to understand their point of view and finding solutions for how the information we know can be used to open them up more to ours.
What they’re trying to do is funnel public dollars to their friends who make the equipment that the police use.
Don’t forget funnelling a steady stream of prisoners into their corporate prison system…
Also criminalizing any political opponents…
As always the real problem is laziness. Why create new systems when we can ad hoc the current system? Sure it was never meant to do that thing but our short term goals are way more important than any long term goal you can think of.
The system is fucked; people who are pro services are soft on crime, people hard on crime are soft on services.
You get a society where everything is provided and the fuckups are treated with kid gloves leaving everyone else asking if its really worth the tax hit, where the other option wants a fucked up ghetto of starving sick poor who get sent to work a life of prison labor if they steal food.
That’s because our societal structure doesn’t reflect reality. Here’s the reality: the government is a tribe, a gang, an institution. Give Burger King guns and badges, say they dictate human behavior now, and you get the same results. You all are so caught up in this mythical “big picture”, but the reality is right in front of you and under your feet. And that reality is anarchism. Nobody is coming to save you faster than someone can stab you and bounce, and if you check on your elderly neighbor who had groceries delivered a little too long ago, you’ll save a life faster than any social programs. Embrace the reality that we’re being picked on by these bullies we call institutions and business, check on your neighbor, pick up some litter, and punch a mofo in the mouth when you’re disrespected. We’ve developed tools for social cohesion over billions of years far more refined than your rudimentary moral and systemic frameworks. Use them, dummy. Not you, specifically, all of humanity.
As an outside observer it seems like American police culture is fundamentally rotten and it’s not a funding issue.
If I recall the vast majority of crime is property crime and if you remove property concerns that crime drops.
Pay attention to what we do whenever you see policy announcements as that gives a clear picture of what we want.
If you think you’re altruistic ass (not necessarily yours specifically) is different, you’re still a part of the machine that wants this. If you’re legit disgusted by it work from within to change it.
“Be the change you want to see in the world” is contrived as shit but it’s true.
I’m literally being as belligerent as I can already!
Don’t be belligerent you attract more bears with honey.
What’s cool is they are exporting it. The cops where you are look up to the American style. When the American cops retire, they will be hired to train your cops with seminars and books. Its a fun little community. So you’re an outsider, but not for long. Just a few more years of passively waiting and you will be an insider soon.
Crime goes down when police do less crime. Less police = less crime.
Given police crime When police funding is decreased by 50 percent Then police crime decreases by 50 percent
deleted by creator
I’m not disagreeing with this necessarily, but I don’t like seeing a post by an account I have no idea about stating something as scientific fact, and then having that post taken as fact point blank. Once again, not trying to say what she is saying is incorrect, I just get concerned when I see bandwagoning on some random person’s take.
That said, if you find the studies on this, please please please do us all a favor and comment those!
Here’s a decent meta-analysis you can start with.
Sixteen reviews met the inclusion criteria. The reviews were comprised of nine peer-reviewed articles and reports from systematic review databases, five technical reports, and two working papers. Table 1 shows the reviews organized by objectives and geography
Awesome, love this.
I wish this was the post or at least linked.
I’m disappointed that your link was not a rickcroll.
Well done and thank you.
There is a mountain of evidence and everything she says is common knowledge at this point to anyone who has spent even a few minutes looking it up. You can just use you favorite search engine to see for yourself.
You really just come off sounding aloof and uninformed. What evidence!? When you are swimming in a sea surrounded by it.
Sorry I was too busy yelling at other people on other threads.
But also my concern was about the reaction to the post, not necessarily the post itself, though the two are connected
But giving poor people money is a crime, it encourages people to become/stay poor
/S
It’s almost like their highest priority isn’t lowering crime.
Chaos, artificial scarcity, and violence feeds the system and justifies its existence.
Otherwise, why would we still have a mass incarceration system? Why is it still punitive in nature with terrible and inhumane conditions normalized?
A cycle is created that makes people unemployable and industries and those in power reap the benefits at every stage of these people’s lives - any police contact is effectively a scarlet letter. Specifically, many corporations benefit from the slave labor sourced from prisons and the private prison industry is its own can of worms.
With AI tooling screening job applicants with proprietary criteria, public data brokers, mass surveillance disguised as “adtech”, people search websites, social media (where people have a tendency to overshare personal details), systematic reporting of arrest records/etc. in newspapers (generally with no updates to reflect the person’s current situation); you can literally be unemployable in the US with no conviction or crimes that have been expunged or sealed.
If you have a felony or misdemeanor on your record - good fucking luck getting a job in today’s market - background checks are normalized and are extremely accessible to employers. It’s no wonder why people turn to crime to exist, discrimination is effectively legalized - there is insufficient regulation and protections for job applicants.
The only way to prevent crime is to rehabilitate those who commit crime and to provide services to enrich people’s lives before they would otherwise commit crime. We also need to respect people’s privacy upon rehabilitation - we shouldn’t be permanently labeling (or dehumanizing) those deemed to be fit to return to society (e.g. people that aren’t violent or who aren’t a threat). We have to give them a path to participate in society.
