This seems like it's a very, very good thing.....so lets see how people on here spin it as something absolutely deplorable.
this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
139 points (99.3% liked)
News
29203 readers
3713 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Thank goodness. Ever since we got rid of the asylums, things have been going downhill, and I'm glad to see that someone's getting sense back.
Jail isn't better, and this will be used to hunt the poor even more extensively, not just the homeless. A day late on your rent and keep your apartment messy? Congrats, you get a nice vacation under this proposal.
People who slip by a day and just keep a mess tend to have support networks. If they're employed, they're not likely to get thrown in a mental health section in NY. Plus, again, this is New York, not Texas or Florida. Consider the context here. There's a lot of homeless people in the City who refuse care and get washed through the system. They aren't getting held in jail, but they're racking up fines, putting them further behind and worse off. Mandatory care is needed for some people. And we can't write laws to cover the corner cases without risking overreach.
More people are isolated from support systems than ever before in history, and the rapidly rising homeless population across the US is absolutely a counter to your narrative.
We do need systemic reform. We need housing first solutions to homelessness. Not forced 'hospitalization' for anyone too poor to live free and too useless to work for the state as a slave.
"Forcibly hospitalize" is not "jail".
A day late on your rent and keep your apartment messy? Congrats, you get a nice vacation under this proposal.
Completely untrue misinformation.
"Forcibly hospitalize" is not "jail".
Yeah, it’s worse, because the only “law” you have to break to get arrested for it is making others uncomfortable.
Forced hospitalization is, at best, the same as jail, at worst, worse than the worst jails in existence. Let's see how you feel after sedatives and anti psychotics get forcibly put into your system you you statistically get sexually abused by an orderly, see how much unlike jail it is then.
To your second statement, absolutely no part of this proposal limits the action to indigent or houseless persons. If you can't pay your rent on time you, objectively, cannot house yourself. Congrats, you're now in a 'hospital' and have to prove you're not crazy. Something that is famously difficult to do in the best situations as it's proving a negative.
How this bill would be used is not some neoliberal fairy tale wherein only those you personally think should get help are forced to get help; this is yet another criminalization of homelessness that is written vaguely enough to apply to anyone on SNAP or at risk of eviction.
Forced hospitalization is, at best, the same as jail,
You can't just walk out of jail 24 hours later because you've taken your meds again, or shown that you don't need to be held.
Let’s see how you feel after sedatives and anti psychotics get forcibly put into your system you you statistically get sexually abused by an orderly
Well that escalated quickly!
To your second statement, absolutely no part of this proposal limits the action to indigent or houseless persons.
Because it's not supposed to be limited to just indigent or homeless people. It isn't pretending to be only aimed at them.
If you can’t pay your rent on time you, objectively, cannot house yourself.
Ah so you're deliberately being misleading. No, not paying your rent doesn't make you meet the criteria for being put on a mental health hold.
Congrats, you’re now in a ‘hospital’ and have to prove you’re not crazy. Something that is famously difficult to do in the best situations as it’s proving a negative.
Congrats, you’re now in a ‘hospital’ and have to prove you’re not crazy. Something that is famously difficult to do in the best situations as it’s proving a negative.
You don't have to prove you're not crazy, they have to prove that you are too mentally unwell to be able to meet your basic needs in the outside world, and no, that doesn't mean you paid your bills late or accidentally overcooked your steak.
5150 holds are a minimum of 24 and have no maximum. Not 'just' 24 hours. You also have to prove the conditions that caused you to be admitted arent going to happen immediately, which is impossible if you're homeless or were made homeless by your confinement.
To your escalated comment... No shit. That is actual reality and actually what happens. And has been happening. And will likely continue to happen. Even more than non medical prisoners, those forced into hospitalization have such a significantly higher incidence of being assaulted that it's pretty much the same as explicitly damning them to it.
And to your third point, that's my point. Its not just going to be used on the unsightly or dangerous, it is an indefinite hold where you have to prove a negative to get out of; one that has extremely low standards to apply, and one that is applied by people that objectively are not trained to make the determination.
5150 holds are a minimum of 24 and have no maximum. Not ‘just’ 24 hours.
I didn't say they are ONLY 24 hours, read what I said again. I said that you can't walk out of jail 24 hours later. With mental health holds you absolutely can sometimes, probably most times. Not all, but I didn't say you could.
You also have to prove the conditions that caused you to be admitted arent going to happen immediately, which is impossible if you’re homeless or were made homeless by your confinement.
If the condition that caused you to be admitted was "being homeless", which it isn't.
That is actual reality and actually what happens.
those forced into hospitalization have such a significantly higher incidence of being assaulted
So you get put on a mental health hold and you just start getting molested by orderlys immediately? What stats do you have for how many people on these holds are sexually abused almost immediately?
And to your third point, that’s my point. Its not just going to be used on the unsightly or dangerous
But that wasn't your point. Your point was that it was vague enough so it isn't only used against the homeless, despite it never being aimed at just the homeless lol.
one that has extremely low standards to apply, and one that is applied by people that objectively are not trained to make the determination.
Sources please :)
The source is the fucking article you're commenting on, the one that explicitly states being homeless is a mental illness, being unable to procure food legally is a mental illness, and that all first responders, i.e. cops that are absolutely not trained to deal with mental illness, are the sole arbiters of who gets these holds now.
You're as much of a freedom advocate as Ronald Reagan.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Jail and asylums are very different. Jail is a tool for incarceration, it gives us systematic racism. Asylums are for crazy shit, it gives us LORE.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Involuntary psychiatry is a violent practice that strips its victims of all human rights and effectively all due process. It is an unimaginable horror that can possibly lead to coercive psychiatry or medicalized rape.
“who appear to be mentally ill and who display an inability to meet basic living needs” could be taken against their will to a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.
Not being able to provide for your needs is not mental illness. An appearance of mental illness is not proof that somebody needs involuntary commitment. First responders are not equipped to diagnose mental illness - this is a stripping of rights and imprisonment.
If somebody is unable to provide for their needs, give them the ability to do so. Provide food, real housing, actual medical care, and an option for outpatient mental health care for them to recover if they are not in crisis.
I understand some people are severely mentally ill, are in crisis, and are a DANGER to themselves and others and need care ASAP, but this is just targeting impoverished individuals, who may be homeless, based on what is effectively hearsay.
We can do better than this as a society.
And then there is gangstalking... The purpose to make people look insane when they are just regular people. Just because they may know something you don't want them to know.
It's psychological warfare. And it goes deep.
Gangstalking is schizophrenia.
Its genuinely not. Its a practice of multiple 'churches' like scientologists and some sects of Mormonism.
Edit: For evidence see Leah remni's multiple lawsuits podcasts books, etc. its a real tactic absolutely in use right now if you manage to piss off the wrong people.
It does bring up a tough question though: what do we do with people who need treatment but refuse to accept it?
Find a way of treating them and helping them to adjust to society without the use of coercion or a violation of their rights. That means giving them real legal representation, giving them access to courts that are open to public observation (mental health courts are NOT sufficient), giving them access to second opinions, and exhausting social supports (e.g. housing them in a safe environment) without imprisoning them.
The bar for being declared incompetent and unable to consent to treatment (which leads to forced psychiatry) is not high enough. Even coming from a psychiatrist, it is effectively hearsay in my opinion. There is not enough due process and outside oversight.
There are real side effects to psychiatry - it's called iatrogenic illness. When somebody is in crisis, what do they prescribe? They prescribe powerful drugs, usually neuroleptics. For example, tardive dyskinesia can affect up to 20% of people who take neuroleptics. It could be permanent - look up YT videos of those afflicted. It's easy to stereotype somebody as mentally ill if they develop TD.
It could be that somebody reacts nicely to the drugs they are prescribed. But what happens when they are released and can't afford treatment or become non-compliant with treatment? It can lead to disastrous withdrawal and terrible side effects, that can result in more hospitalization or a worsening of their illness.
Knowing that, why would you take away somebody's ability to not consent to treatment? Why can't we give them access to intensive therapy, that they consent to, that properly addresses the root causes of their illness and inability to care for themselves? Why do we treat traumatized individuals by inflicting MORE trauma on them? Being kidnapped, imprisoned, and medically raped is traumatizing. Why are individuals not given the option to not consent to medication, but only consent to therapy?
I invite you to look at Soteria Houses, which is a different model of care, that successfully achieves remission in those that are experiencing first-episode psychosis/schizophrenia. If they can achieve remission with little to no psychiatric medication (and likely no life-long prescriptions) in a severe illness, without coercion or locked doors, why don't we give more people the chance to experience that? What if they have the capacity to heal in a supportive environment that doesn't strip them of their rights - an environment that respects their will and autonomy?
But what happens when they are released and can’t afford treatment or become non-compliant with treatment?
So you might say that they cannot meet their own basic needs?
I'm sorry but you can't just let all mentally ill people go free to do whatever they want, and you definitely can't just throw money and houses at them and expect the problem to go away. That's not how mental illness works. You might not like it, but there are people with mental illnesses who either need someone to be a full time carer for them - and that is either a friend/family member/care worker, or it's in an institution. The other option is you just let them die on the streets, maybe killing some other people along the way.
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
I’m sorry but you can’t just let all mentally ill people go free to do whatever they want
This is a free society. There is no due process or evidence before they are kidnapped in this instance.
I’m sorry but you can’t just let all mentally ill people go free to do whatever they want, and you definitely can’t just throw money and houses at them and expect the problem to go away.
No money is thrown at them before they get to be in the situation they are in. They are homeless because they lack funds. They cannot afford insurance or reliably access medical care. If there are public services available to them, they may not know they have access to them, or they may be under-served by them.
You might not like it, but there are people with mental illnesses who either need someone to be a full time carer for them
I have suggested multiple times that they be given all social supports that are available to them. If they require that, they should be given that option.
The other option is you just let them die on the streets, maybe killing some other people along the way.
Your characterization of people suffering from mental illness or homeless people in general being violent is not reflected by the facts. People with schizophrenia are more likely to be the VICTIMS of a crime, than be the perpetrator.
There is no due process or evidence before they are kidnapped in this instance.
If you ignore the due process and evidence I guess. This is for when police would have been dispatched to a mental health emergency.
They are homeless because they lack funds.
And they often lack the funds because of their severe mental illness that makes them unable to function properly in society. It's hard to hold down a job (or even get one) when you think that everyone is a lizard person who is trying to take over the world and are laying eggs in peoples brains, because of severe mental illness.
I have suggested multiple times that they be given all social supports that are available to them. If they require that, they should be given that option.
And every time you've suggested that and people have asked "but what if they don't take any of the help or suggestions" you've just gone "oh well that's up to them because it's a free country" and wiped your hands of it. That is not good enough, that's why I'm saying that your solution is essentially "let them die in the streets".
There are people that literally cannot take care of themselves due to mental illness. No matter how many services you offer them, it's just more services that they won't use. If the option is commit them and take care of them, or let them die, you're saying let them die.
Your characterization of people suffering from mental illness or homeless people in general being violent
I didn't characterize them "in general" as being that. It absolutely is a possibility, which is why I said "maybe".
I'll ask again - if a homeless severely, severely mentally ill person refuses all help, what do you suggest the government do?
If you ignore the due process and evidence I guess. This is for when police would have been dispatched to a mental health emergency.
A first responder is dispatched and kidnaps them. Where is the due process or evidence? Appearing mentally ill or being impoverished is not a crime or evidence of mental illness. A first responder is not a psychiatrist or able to diagnose somebody in such an environment.
And they often lack the funds because of their severe mental illness that makes them unable to function properly in society. It’s hard to hold down a job (or even get one) when you think that everyone is a lizard person who is trying to take over the world and are laying eggs in peoples brains, because of severe mental illness.
And who could blame them for thinking that? These are people that see first-hand the horrors of society and capitalism, of drug abuse and addiction. You can be unemployable in the US for different reasons than severe mental illness, like having a criminal conviction. Should they receive treatment for their delusions if it is imminently harming themselves or others, they are violent, or have committed a crime? Yes, it would likely be appropriate.
There are people that literally cannot take care of themselves due to mental illness. No matter how many services you offer them, it’s just more services that they won’t use. If the option is commit them and take care of them, or let them die, you’re saying let them die.
If they are a threat to themselves and others, have committed a crime, or are actively violent, they should be given due process and treatment they consent to prior to involuntary treatment.
I’ll ask again - if a homeless severely, severely mentally ill person refuses all help, what do you suggest the government do?
I've answered this in abundance. Re-read. It is the job of society and everybody in it to create a world that is less traumatizing, that is less exploitative, that nurtures every one of its members and helps them to unleash their potential. For individuals experiencing psychosis who are not violent, they should be given the option of an environment similar to a Soteria House.
load more comments
(11 replies)
Find a way of treating them and helping them to adjust to society without the use of coercion
But this is what I'm asking - what happens to those who will never accept help without coercion?
If they are actively violent and have committed a crime, hold them until their (expedited) court date (while providing them the option to explore support/therapy and/or access to spiritual counselors), record examinations by psychiatrists/perform them with outside/impartial observation, give the accused legal representation, and let publicly observable courts decide their fate. The option of a jury, witness/family/etc. testimony, and second opinions is imperative to their human rights.
If they have committed no crime (homelessness or being unable to provide for your needs are not crimes), are not violent, and are not a direct threat to themselves or others (and there is no concrete evidence that they will be) - there's nothing you should be able to do to violate their will.
In the latter situation, the best you can do is try to earn their trust and ensure they are provided an environment where they feel safe - providing them with every social support and alternative that they should be entitled to explore for their betterment.
"Let them die on the streets" is your answer, apparently.
If you read my initial comment in the thread, you would have seen me saying this:
If somebody is unable to provide for their needs, give them the ability to do so. Provide food, real housing, actual medical care, and an option for outpatient mental health care for them to recover if they are not in crisis.
Even in the comment you are responding to I said this:
In the latter situation, the best you can do is try to earn their trust and ensure they are provided an environment where they feel safe - providing them with every social support and alternative that they should be entitled to explore for their betterment.
I meant housing.
So what housing are they being given for free? There an overabundance of free government owned houses just sitting around in NYC to put severely mentally ill homeless people in?
Putting them in an institution until they get better is providing housing and services btw.
This is for the state of New York, which is a large area that encompasses more than just New York City. In 2022, there were over 1 million vacant houses just in the state of New York. Affordable housing and the lack thereof is a crisis. It must be rectified for a healthy society to thrive.
As for New York City, apartment buildings could be constructed or individuals could be relocated.
As of January 2024, there were approximately 158,019 homeless individuals in New York State, with the majority located in New York City. This number reflects a significant increase in homelessness, driven by factors such as a lack of affordable housing and an influx of asylum seekers.
As of January 2025, it is estimated that over 350,000 people are homeless in New York City
If there are over a MILLION vacant houses, and 350k (or slighty more) homeless people, what the fuck are we doing?
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Can we nominate people? There's an Orange that comes to mind.
He's probably behind this so he can send more US citizens to the camps.
I've been thinking about this.
There's plenty of delusional politicians who come to mind as well. It would also help enormously with public health funding .. lived experience and all.