- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 14,236
- Reaction score
- 4,679
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I don't recall Rockefeller Republicans as being fiscal conservatives. Rather they were the last of the moderate/liberal Republicans.
In 1954, when Ike was the president, the Republican Party attempted to pass a bill exempting federal funds for care of the mentally ill and emotionally disturbed. Ike fought that bill and it never left committee. Over the next 2 decades, federal revenue sharing for care of inpatient mentally ill and the emotionally disturbed was sliced from the Federal budget as a direct cost, shifted to the Medicaid program, administered by the States. Meaning a patient first had to qualify for Medicaid before being institutionalized in most states. In most states today, only those deemed criminally insane are incarcerated in state owned institutions, those institutions are prisons, not asylums.
The ACLU cases were not for releasing the mentally ill or emotionally disturbed from institutions. They were for the Constitutional requirement for legal representation of adults involuntarily incarcerated in asylums without law representation, resulting from court proceedings. It was the decisions of Attorney Generals in most states and most cases not to proceed with court adjudications for those patients who were released because they had no lawful representation when they were judged insane by courts and incarcerated, after those patients were released from institutions after a Supreme Court decision that representation was required prior to commitment.
It was Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York who led the charge to remove the State of NY from owning and operating public institutions for long term care of the mentally ill and emotionally disturbed. His motivations were twofold, humane care for the mentally ill and emotionally disturbed because the state owned and operated facilities were hell holes. Look up Willowbrook. And as a fiscal conservative he wanted the state not to be burdened by the costs. He set the precedence and other governors followed in his footsteps.
You can put that myth to rest.
What is the cause of this massive swing in mental health problems?
Inequality.
For a lot of convicts prison is a right of passage. Start executing them, and it want be as inviting.
Not if it is a life sentence without parole. Consecutive sentences for each person they harm. Solitary with such a sentence is like being buried alive. Put them in solitary with no hope of getting out. Incarcerate enough of them and it leaves no room for claims of cruel and unusual punishment.
I dont know, but if anything, the Baker Act has been abused down there.In Florida there is a law called the Baker Act. As I understand the law people who are determined to be a danger to themselves or others can - per a judge's order - be detained and housed (against their will) until such time that they are evaluated and determined not to be a danger. Every state, I think, has a similar law. It doesn't sound to me as if that option was used in the Florida. Why? Why not? Apparently there were beaucoup red flags concerning this kid.
My opinion is that America does not take mental health seriously enough to provide it and properly fund access to it. Even then that is only one facet. I don't believe that that alone is the solution.
Horse manure. Most of these shooters come from affluence. Almost all are white boys from well heeled and moneyed families. The Las Vegas shooter was a 1%er.
Not if it is a life sentence without parole. Consecutive sentences for each person they harm. Solitary with such a sentence is like being buried alive. Put them in solitary with no hope of getting out. Incarcerate enough of them and it leaves no room for claims of cruel and unusual punishment.
America already locks up more of its people than any other developed country.
Horse manure. Most of these shooters come from affluence. Almost all are white boys from well heeled and moneyed families. The Las Vegas shooter was a 1%er.
I dont know, but if anything, the Baker Act has been abused down there.
Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Post your stats, if you know it's bull****.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings_in_the_United_States
In the 19th Century, when more people were armed and the death penalty was used more often, the murder rate was significantly lower.
Unless you do what Australia did, which was confiscate every gun in the country, I don't think there's much you can do
We have 350,000,000 people in The United States. Of course we have more people in prison.
You lock up more of your people than China.
You lock up more of your people than China.
That's because of the useless drug war. The lion's share of people in US prisons are in for non-violent drug offences.
46.2% of prisoners in Federal prison (not including state and county) are in for drugs. - https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp
Try and spin that.
China executes people for tax evasion, arson and rape, too. If we executed people like China, our prison population would plummet, along our crime rate.
America already locks up more of its people than any other developed country.
those aren't the only crimes that happen.
Even then. Those dudes don't want to die. That's why they're always looking to make a deal to avoid the death penalty.
And just to be clear, I'm talking about all murderers, not just the Nicholas Cruzes of the world.
I don't recall Rockefeller Republicans as being fiscal conservatives. Rather they were the last of the moderate/liberal Republicans.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?