On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:48:41 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 16:53:18 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:19:06 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:49:11 -0800, wrote:

As usual, you only give half the story.

http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html


From this article
"By the start of the Carter administration in 1977, involuntary
commitment had been restricted to those who were deemed as potentially
dangerous to themselves or, perhaps more significantly, those around
them.2 Typically, the commitment had to be sponsored by a family
member and/or ordered by the court. A result of this policy was that
the mentally ill patient who refused treatment typically did not
receive any at all. If the patient had lost contact with family
members, she or he would not be committed unless found to be a threat
by the court. Often, those arrested ended up in jail rather than in
treatment if they had not been found to be a threat but had committed
a crime (Abramson, 1972; Conrad and Schneider, 1980). "

So, you're blaming Nixon. Fine with me.

Blame the 60s, it was the ACLU that pressed the cases that made it
virtually impossible to involuntarily commit someone unless a family
member did it or you convicted them of a crime.

The only way you can prove someone is a danger is to actually convict
them of a violent crime.

It's actually a lot easier than that, at least in California, which I
wouldn't consider particularly "conservative."

http://tinyurl.com/359asa

The only thing that is a given is the same 72 hour we have.
After that your statute says if they file a writ of habeas corpus you
have 2 more days to get a court decree and the 5250 hold is still only
14 days. After 17 days they walk ... assuming you have probable cause
to hold them that long.


"On or previous to the expiration of the 72 hours, the psychiatrist
must assess the person to see if they still meet criteria for
hospitalization. If so, the person may be offered a voluntary
admission. If it is refused, then another hold for up to 14 days, the
5250 (WIC-5250), must be written to continue the involuntary
confinement of the person. A Certification Review Hearing (W&I 5256)
must occur within four days before a judge or hearing officer to
determine whether probable cause exists to support the 5250.
Alternatively, the person can demand a writ of habeas corpus to be
filed for their release after they are certified for a 5250, and once
filed, by law, the person must be in front of a judge in two (2) days,
which, is two days sooner than the Certification Review Hearing. If
the person demands to file a writ of habeas corpus right at the time
of being given notice of certification, the Certification Review
Hearing will not take place. Many patients wait to see how things go
at the Certification Review Hearing first, because if the person loses
at the Certification Review Hearing, he/she can then take advantage of
the right to file writ of habeas corpus and end up having two
hearings, instead of just one.[4][5] If the 72-hour time frame has
elapsed before the person is offered a voluntary admission or placed
on the 5250 hold, the person must be immediately released."

And, pray tell.. who will be filing that writ? The ranting detainee,
who's banging his head against the cell wall?

On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:35:21 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:32:10 -0800, wrote:

It's actually a lot easier than that, at least in California, which I
wouldn't consider particularly "conservative."

http://tinyurl.com/359asa

The only thing that is a given is the same 72 hour we have.
After that your statute says if they file a writ of habeas corpus you
have 2 more days to get a court decree and the 5250 hold is still only
14 days. After 17 days they walk ... assuming you have probable cause
to hold them that long.


"On or previous to the expiration of the 72 hours, the psychiatrist
must assess the person to see if they still meet criteria for
hospitalization. If so, the person may be offered a voluntary
admission. If it is refused, then another hold for up to 14 days, the
5250 (WIC-5250), must be written to continue the involuntary
confinement of the person. A Certification Review Hearing (W&I 5256)
must occur within four days before a judge or hearing officer to
determine whether probable cause exists to support the 5250.
Alternatively, the person can demand a writ of habeas corpus to be
filed for their release after they are certified for a 5250, and once
filed, by law, the person must be in front of a judge in two (2) days,
which, is two days sooner than the Certification Review Hearing. If
the person demands to file a writ of habeas corpus right at the time
of being given notice of certification, the Certification Review
Hearing will not take place. Many patients wait to see how things go
at the Certification Review Hearing first, because if the person loses
at the Certification Review Hearing, he/she can then take advantage of
the right to file writ of habeas corpus and end up having two
hearings, instead of just one.[4][5] If the 72-hour time frame has
elapsed before the person is offered a voluntary admission or placed
on the 5250 hold, the person must be immediately released."

And, pray tell.. who will be filing that writ? The ranting detainee,
who's banging his head against the cell wall?

The ACLU which is how this policy was established in the first place.
The policy before that was that any state sanctioned psychologist
(qualified or not) could commit people and mental hospitals were used
as vagrancy jails.
I agree your average bag lady is not going to file a writ, but even
then your law says they are kicked out in 17 days. My guess is
California can't afford to keep them that long.
Treatment is just drugs anyway and it is hard to force people to take
drugs against their will.

So you believe the ACLU is all-knowing and all-powerful...

We have to protect the "average bag lady." That's the point.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 02:17:23 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:45:53 -0800, wrote:

And, pray tell.. who will be filing that writ? The ranting detainee,
who's banging his head against the cell wall?

The ACLU which is how this policy was established in the first place.
The policy before that was that any state sanctioned psychologist
(qualified or not) could commit people and mental hospitals were used
as vagrancy jails.
I agree your average bag lady is not going to file a writ, but even
then your law says they are kicked out in 17 days. My guess is
California can't afford to keep them that long.
Treatment is just drugs anyway and it is hard to force people to take
drugs against their will.

So you believe the ACLU is all-knowing and all-powerful...

We have to protect the "average bag lady." That's the point.

That is who got the current policy into law.
You are the one who linked the California statute that lets the state
hold people for 17 days. In Florida I don'r even think we have the
extra 14 days, it is just 3.



So are you saying 17 days is good or bad? I don't know what Florida's
laws are on the subject. I live in Cali.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:55:41 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:13:37 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 02:17:23 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:45:53 -0800, wrote:

And, pray tell.. who will be filing that writ? The ranting detainee,
who's banging his head against the cell wall?

The ACLU which is how this policy was established in the first place.
The policy before that was that any state sanctioned psychologist
(qualified or not) could commit people and mental hospitals were used
as vagrancy jails.
I agree your average bag lady is not going to file a writ, but even
then your law says they are kicked out in 17 days. My guess is
California can't afford to keep them that long.
Treatment is just drugs anyway and it is hard to force people to take
drugs against their will.

So you believe the ACLU is all-knowing and all-powerful...

We have to protect the "average bag lady." That's the point.

That is who got the current policy into law.
You are the one who linked the California statute that lets the state
hold people for 17 days. In Florida I don'r even think we have the
extra 14 days, it is just 3.



So are you saying 17 days is good or bad? I don't know what Florida's
laws are on the subject. I live in Cali.

I am saying blaming Reagan for "throwing out the mental patients" is
bull**** when the state laws say they have to. (Laws enacted before he
was elected president).

Reaganomics was designed to push people out of care they needed. As
with many things "Reaganomically" it was a failure of policy.