I was for deinstitutionalization before I was against it (sorry, Kerry) when it started in Florida back in the 60’s-’70s. I was working indirectly on helping to reduce the population at institutions for the developmentally disabled. Sure, there were higher functioning people who could have coped in the community, but the vast majority did a lot better in the institution. It was much worse for the mentally ill whom we now find under bridges and along river banks (as well as in jails). I am all for opening up the institutions and repopulating with appropriate individuals who need a safe place to be (and so do we out here in Society). Unfortunately, Loughner and Holmes would not be in there because they did nothing prior to their crimes for a judge to commit them. Right?
Well, that’s the question: were Loughner and Holmes sufficiently symptomatic before they killed a bunch of people to have faced a civil committment hearing (doubtless brought by their own families). I have so little regard for the media, that I can’t say that we’ve been told, or not.
That was one of the points of Cramer’s book about his brother: though he never “snapped” as spectacularly, he exhibited plenty of behavior that would have made him subject to mandatory treatment, and possible institutionalization. One wonders if the same wasn’t the case with the Loughner and Holmes. I doubt that we’ll ever know, though...
Well, that’s the question: were Loughner and Holmes sufficiently symptomatic before they killed a bunch of people to have faced a civil committment hearing (doubtless brought by their own families). I have so little regard for the media, that I can’t say that we’ve been told, or not.
That was one of the points of Cramer’s book about his brother: though he never “snapped” as spectacularly, he exhibited plenty of behavior that would have made him subject to mandatory treatment, and possible institutionalization. One wonders if the same wasn’t the case with the Loughner and Holmes. I doubt that we’ll ever know, though...