|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 25 2023 05:40 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2023 05:11 BlackJack wrote:On July 24 2023 21:24 Magic Powers wrote:On July 24 2023 21:08 ZeroByte13 wrote:
Weird - to me subtitles match what Christel and the judge say in the video, and this is what BJ posted.
If you watch from 45:00 or so
- at 45:04 they say "her court date for resisting arrest and truancy..."
- at 45:16 it mentions "still up to 4 charges... truancy, beyond the control... but right now it's disorderly conduct resisting arrest... their offer is to plead guilty for the resisting arrest." And it's clearly Christel.
- at 46:18, the judge asks "do you plead guilty to the charge of resisting arrest?", Christel pleads guilty, for which she's being sentenced to 20 days of HIP.
These are words from the video, no subs, it's Christel on the video and the judge speaks to her and about her.
Unless I massively misunderstood something, she got 20 days of HIP for resisting arrest, and then when she broke the condition, she got what she would get otherwise. That's a later part of Christel's case. The initial charge was just truancy. Her mother made sure of that to legally protect herself. The additional charge that came later was resisting arrest. I falsely thought you were confusing the two cases because it was Demetria, and not Christel, who was initially facing an assault charge against her aunt (but not resisting arrest). But you weren't actually confused about that. Instead you falsely thought that Christel's story started with resisting arrest. In reality it started with truancy. Then came BJ and he claimed that I'm "making things up", which I clearly wasn't. I was right in that Christel was in detention for truancy, and not for any other charges. Resisting arrest was later added to the list of charges. They were separate cases for Christel. Later she was sent back to court for violating a condition of her probation (not allowed to skip school), but the documentary didn't make the greatest effort distinguishing between these two cases, which would explain some of the confusion between you, myself and BJ. Since BJ falsely claimed and insisted that I was making things up, and because he posted a different link that only showed Christel's case (which I didn't realize initially), I got confused and falsely concluded that something must be wrong with the video. So because he was insisting on truancy not being Christel's initial charge, therefore I thought he must be confusing her case with Demetria's, and that's why I falsely claimed that's not Christel. I didn't realize that he was mixing up the order of events, and not mixing up individuals, which is because I remembered that Demetria faced one similar charge and my best conclusion was that that caused BJ to mix up their two stories. He didn't mix them up, he only incorrectly represented the timeline of Christel's case and proceeded to falsely accuse me of making things up. It makes no sense to accuse me of that, because the documentary is clear about the initial timeline in Christel's case. It would be the documentary's fault, not mine. I hope this clarifies everything. Except you were making things up. You said she spent 65 days in Juvenile detention for truancy. The truth was she "faced up to 65 days in juvenile detention" for violating the terms of her resisting arrest charge before the judge decided to cut her one more break and return her to house arrest. I don't understand what the problem is here. ZeroByte and I even went the extra mile to transcribe the relevant portions of your video word for word and yet you just ignore it and insist on your own version of reality. So many conversations needlessly turn to crap in this thread because everyone feels entitled to their own set of facts or their own definitions for words. It's really unfortunate. You did not explain it this way in your original response. You falsely claimed:
"She accepted a plea deal for resisting arrest which entailed 20 days of home incarceration and a condition that she doesn't skip school."This didn't happen in that order. She was in detention for truancy, not for resisting arrest. The arrest charge came later. The rest of your rebuttal therefore didn't matter to me anymore, because you already started it off on the wrong premise. It also doesn't help that you started your comment by antagonistically accusing me of making things up.
Again here is the relevant transcription from the video:
Judge: how do you plead to the charge of resisting arrest, guilty or not guilty?
Christel: guilty
Judge: the sentence for that today is 20 days of home incarceration and you are to attend school daily with no unexcused absences.
You really need to do some reflection here. I'm literally quoting your own source word for word and you consider it a "false claim." What's going on here?
|
On July 25 2023 05:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2023 05:40 Magic Powers wrote:On July 25 2023 05:11 BlackJack wrote:On July 24 2023 21:24 Magic Powers wrote:On July 24 2023 21:08 ZeroByte13 wrote:
Weird - to me subtitles match what Christel and the judge say in the video, and this is what BJ posted.
If you watch from 45:00 or so
- at 45:04 they say "her court date for resisting arrest and truancy..."
- at 45:16 it mentions "still up to 4 charges... truancy, beyond the control... but right now it's disorderly conduct resisting arrest... their offer is to plead guilty for the resisting arrest." And it's clearly Christel.
- at 46:18, the judge asks "do you plead guilty to the charge of resisting arrest?", Christel pleads guilty, for which she's being sentenced to 20 days of HIP.
These are words from the video, no subs, it's Christel on the video and the judge speaks to her and about her.
Unless I massively misunderstood something, she got 20 days of HIP for resisting arrest, and then when she broke the condition, she got what she would get otherwise. That's a later part of Christel's case. The initial charge was just truancy. Her mother made sure of that to legally protect herself. The additional charge that came later was resisting arrest. I falsely thought you were confusing the two cases because it was Demetria, and not Christel, who was initially facing an assault charge against her aunt (but not resisting arrest). But you weren't actually confused about that. Instead you falsely thought that Christel's story started with resisting arrest. In reality it started with truancy. Then came BJ and he claimed that I'm "making things up", which I clearly wasn't. I was right in that Christel was in detention for truancy, and not for any other charges. Resisting arrest was later added to the list of charges. They were separate cases for Christel. Later she was sent back to court for violating a condition of her probation (not allowed to skip school), but the documentary didn't make the greatest effort distinguishing between these two cases, which would explain some of the confusion between you, myself and BJ. Since BJ falsely claimed and insisted that I was making things up, and because he posted a different link that only showed Christel's case (which I didn't realize initially), I got confused and falsely concluded that something must be wrong with the video. So because he was insisting on truancy not being Christel's initial charge, therefore I thought he must be confusing her case with Demetria's, and that's why I falsely claimed that's not Christel. I didn't realize that he was mixing up the order of events, and not mixing up individuals, which is because I remembered that Demetria faced one similar charge and my best conclusion was that that caused BJ to mix up their two stories. He didn't mix them up, he only incorrectly represented the timeline of Christel's case and proceeded to falsely accuse me of making things up. It makes no sense to accuse me of that, because the documentary is clear about the initial timeline in Christel's case. It would be the documentary's fault, not mine. I hope this clarifies everything. Except you were making things up. You said she spent 65 days in Juvenile detention for truancy. The truth was she "faced up to 65 days in juvenile detention" for violating the terms of her resisting arrest charge before the judge decided to cut her one more break and return her to house arrest. I don't understand what the problem is here. ZeroByte and I even went the extra mile to transcribe the relevant portions of your video word for word and yet you just ignore it and insist on your own version of reality. So many conversations needlessly turn to crap in this thread because everyone feels entitled to their own set of facts or their own definitions for words. It's really unfortunate. You did not explain it this way in your original response. You falsely claimed:
"She accepted a plea deal for resisting arrest which entailed 20 days of home incarceration and a condition that she doesn't skip school."This didn't happen in that order. She was in detention for truancy, not for resisting arrest. The arrest charge came later. The rest of your rebuttal therefore didn't matter to me anymore, because you already started it off on the wrong premise. It also doesn't help that you started your comment by antagonistically accusing me of making things up. Again here is the relevant transcription from the video: Judge: how do you plead to the charge of resisting arrest, guilty or not guilty? Christel: guilty Judge: the sentence for that today is 20 days of home incarceration and you are to attend school daily with no unexcused absences. You really need to do some reflection here. I'm literally quoting your own source word for word and you consider it a "false claim." What's going on here?
What's going on is you not accepting that we both messed up.
|
If me messing up entails correcting the record after you grossly misstated the facts, then sure, "we both messed up."
|
Magic Powers and BlackJack, what are the most important changes that need to happen to the American prison system, in your opinions? Maybe there are some common items between your two lists that you'd agree on?
|
On July 25 2023 08:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Magic Powers and BlackJack, what are the most important changes that need to happen to the American prison system, in your opinions? Maybe there are some common items between your two lists that you'd agree on?
I think they need to stop imprisoning people almost altogether. I think it was the prison director himself who said that they're putting people in prison who don't belong there. Mentally ill people, homeless, minor offenses, and so forth. It doesn't make any sense, because the goal should be to protect the population and not to punish people. The whole mindset needs to completely move away from that of punishment and towards that of protection and rehabilitation.
Right now in the US there are more people in prison who are no threat to the population than people who are. And of those who are a threat there's little to nothing being done to rehabilitate them. And for those who are no threat, they don't receive treatment.
Looking at the case of Demetria. She assaulted her aunt and has to sit that out in detention for I don't know how long. She's not being given treatment, which she clearly needs.
Freeing up space would save the US a lot of money. They could then use that money to treat and/or rehabilitate inmates rather than isolating them in small, inhumane cells.
Police reform also needs to happen. There are many people in prison who are completely innocent. And when someone stays in prison for the first time, the odds increase manifold that they'll end up back in there over and over again. This is part of the reason why imprisonment should be avoided as much as possible, and alternative options should always be sought out first. In fact judges should fight tooth and nail to keep as many people out of prison as they reasonably can if we want anything to change.
|
US culture seems very vengefull to me. As long as this isn't fixed, have fun trying to reform the prison system. People want criminals to have a horrible time, else it would never have come to todays "standards".
It would probably be easier to make the burden of proof for the death penalty lower than rebuilding the prison system into a system that values rehabilitation and reintegration.
|
On July 25 2023 16:29 Magic Powers wrote:
I think they need to stop imprisoning people almost altogether. I think it was the prison director himself who said that they're putting people in prison who don't belong there. Mentally ill people, homeless, minor offenses, and so forth. It doesn't make any sense, because the goal should be to protect the population and not to punish people. The whole mindset needs to completely move away from that of punishment and towards that of protection and rehabilitation. I think the possible issue is that this rehabilitation will have to be forced too.
You can't tell an aggressive mentally unstable person - ok, don't assault anyone, take these meds, bye.
There's a very high chance they will not be taking these meds on a regular basis or at all, thus quickly reverting to their previous state and quite possibly attacking someone again.
Even judging by examples from this video alone (and I know many others) - it's obvious that it's absolutely not enough to tell such a person "here's your 2nd chance, dont' do it again" even if you will give them meds. There's a guy in the video who literally said "it's my fault, I stopped taking the meds".
It's very probable they will do it again, as they're often not capable of proper self-control - because it is their main problem in the first place, as everyone in the video admits. They need help, but this help basically should be forced on them. Even if it's forced softly, not aggressively.
And if you make it forced - it's basically a prison with a different name, a mental asylum. But hopefully different focus too.
|
On July 25 2023 17:51 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2023 16:29 Magic Powers wrote:
I think they need to stop imprisoning people almost altogether. I think it was the prison director himself who said that they're putting people in prison who don't belong there. Mentally ill people, homeless, minor offenses, and so forth. It doesn't make any sense, because the goal should be to protect the population and not to punish people. The whole mindset needs to completely move away from that of punishment and towards that of protection and rehabilitation. I think the possible issue is that this rehabilitation will have to be forced too. You can't tell an aggressive mentally unstable person - ok, don't assault anyone, take these meds, bye. There's a very high chance they will not be taking these meds on a regular basis or at all, thus quickly reverting to their previous state and quite possibly attacking someone again. Even judging by examples from this video alone (and I know many others) - it's obvious that it's absolutely not enough to tell such a person "here's your 2nd chance, dont' do it again" even if you will give them meds. There's a guy in the video who literally said "it's my fault, I stopped taking the meds". It's very probable they will do it again, as they're often not capable of proper self-control - because it is their main problem in the first place, as everyone in the video admits. They need help, but this help basically should be forced on them. Even if it's forced softly, not aggressively. And if you make it forced - it's basically a prison with a different name, a mental asylum. But hopefully different focus too.
Of all the people who have ever assaulted someone, most of the time, and even if they had a mental illness, mental illness is not a valid legal defense. We don't even know how often mental illness really is the cause of violence. In fact we might be making people more mentally unstable by putting them in prison for a prolonged time without treatment. And then if they show any erratic behaviors at all, or if they violate any conditions of their parole, even in a non-violent manner, they get sent back to prison regardless. Meanwhile criminals who are mentally more stable somehow are considered less of a threat just because they don't show any erratic behavior.
It doesn't make complete sense. There's a fundamental misunderstanding of mental illness in the US.
|
Now, something from my (kinda) personal experience. (not in US though)
I used to live in a building with a mentally unstable guy who could be unpredictable and aggressive. He was sent to a mental asylum a few times, as far as I know, but they would let him go every time.
Now, I personally had almost no trouble with him - but I rarely met him in general, as I don't spend much time outside. People who did spend more time outside complained that every time they see him they're afraid, as they dont know which version of him it will be today, aggressive or not. I guess it could depend on whether he took meds or not that day.
Should this guy be left to terrorize the neighbourhood? Or should he be locked somewhere so he can't hurt others?
My guess is that most people from that neighbourhood would say - lock him up in mental asylum, protect us from him.
But he was there at least a few times, and they would let him go after a while - maybe on a condition that he will keep taking meds... which he often failed to do, it seems.
|
On July 25 2023 18:13 ZeroByte13 wrote:
Now, something from my (kinda) personal experience. (not in US though)
I used to live in a building with a mentally unstable guy who could be unpredictable and aggressive. He was sent to a mental asylum a few times, as far as I know, but they would let him go every time.
Now, I personally had almost no trouble with him - but I rarely met him in general, as I don't spend much time outside. People who did spend more time outside complained that every time they see him they're afraid, as they dont know which version of him it will be today, aggressive or not. I guess it could depend on whether he took meds or not that day.
Should this guy be left to terrorize the neighborhood? Or should he be locked somewhere so he can't hurt others?
Not to be dismissive, but I've honestly never been assaulted by a mentally ill person in my life. And we have plenty of them here roaming around in public.
Drunk people on the other hand are a menace. I always keep my good distance from drunk men during late hours.
What exactly do you mean by "terrorizing the neighborhood"? What does this man do?
|
I worked next to a mental health institution and the guys that were allowed out mixed with the druggies at the train station (often they are the same people - it was no "zombie/heroin-apocalypse, more coke/alcohol).
Sometimes it wasn't pleasent and they annoyed people, but they were absolutely harmless. I didn't hear of a single assault in my 18 years right next to this "hotspot". Sometimes the police checked them but that was mainly due to drugs.
|
On July 25 2023 18:32 Magic Powers wrote:
What exactly do you mean by "terrorizing the neighborhood"? What does this man do? I was never present myself at these confrontations but in 1.5 years that I lived there people called police on this guy at least 3 times. Could be more cases that I didn't notice. And I heard he used to harass people passing by.
Keep in mind - where I lived almost nobody would call police without a good reason, people really don't want to deal with them unless they think it's the only choice
Btw I'm pretty sure he was also a drug user, as he tried to sell me some things from his mom's appartment once, while looking (to me at least) like a junkie who needs a doze, he was really erratic - and I heard he was stealing stuff, probably to fuel his addiction, but these could be rumours of course.
As I said, I didn't met him often due to my "nerd" lifestyle, but whenever I saw him - I didn't feel safe.
|
On July 25 2023 18:51 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2023 18:32 Magic Powers wrote:
What exactly do you mean by "terrorizing the neighborhood"? What does this man do? I was never present myself at these confrontations but in 1.5 years that I lived there people called police on this guy at least 3 times. Could be more cases that I didn't notice. And I heard he used to harass people passing by. Keep in mind - where I lived almost nobody would call police without a good reason, people really don't want to deal with them unless they think it's the only choice Btw I'm pretty sure he was also a drug user, as he tried to sell me some things from his mom's appartment once, while looking (to me at least) like a junkie who needs a doze, he was really erratic - and I heard he was stealing stuff, probably to fuel his addiction, but these could be rumours of course. As I said, I didn't met him often due to my "nerd" lifestyle, but whenever I saw him - I didn't feel safe.
To me that sounds like a drug addict more than a case of mental illness. Could be a combination of both. Some drug addicts can be opportunistic thieves to fuel their addiction. I can't really say anything about the harassment claims, but if they're true then of course he should be confronted about that.
If they don't accept him in the mental asylum, I'd say that's probably because he's not seriously mentally ill to begin with. A better use of his time might be some kind of rehab program or group therapy if it can be determined that he has a substance abuse problem. They can also address behavioral issues, because maybe he's not even aware that he's making people uncomfortable. That's a problem that can occur with anyone, not only people who are mentally ill.
Imprisonment doesn't sound quite right for this man. Chances are he needs help and guidance.
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
On July 25 2023 17:19 Velr wrote:
US culture seems very vengefull to me. As long as this isn't fixed, have fun trying to reform the prison system. People want criminals to have a horrible time, else it would never have come to todays "standards".
It would probably be easier to make the burden of proof for the death penalty lower than rebuilding the prison system into a system that values rehabilitation and reintegration.
People have an incredibly bad gauge on how stifling and mentally impactful just imprisonment on its own is even with benign conditions.
So they demand extra layers of punitive measures added on top of that, and are frequently indulged by policy makers and this just ends up breaking people in the system, and people get surprised and indignant that they’re not good, law-abiding and ‘fixed’ out the other end
I’ve probably had the closest experience one gets to prison outside of prison you can get with being institutionalised, and that was only for a year, and probably (slightly) less intimidating in terms of my fellows around me. Shit was tough one.
Bit busy but I’ll delve into this topic a little for now anyway.
As an aside, society seems to have dropped basically all of the things I considered silver linings of COVID pretty quickly, here’s no real exception.
Essential workers are now back to being ‘unskilled workers’, that extra sympathy for mental illness brought about by many who wouldn’t normally have struggles in that domain being dragged down a level seems to mostly have dissipated.
And, to crudely generalise, the kinds of folks who couldn’t handle wearing a mask, and what at worst amounted to a very lax house arrest for a few months are back with their usual ‘prison is a holiday camp make it tougher’ spiel.
|
On July 25 2023 19:26 Magic Powers wrote:
Imprisonment doesn't sound quite right for this man. Chances are he needs help and guidance. Help and guidance, sure - but hopefully in a way that doesn't make other people feel uncomfortable about their safety or even suffer from possible consequences of "oh well, he stopped taking his meds again".
As I guess, this can take years before he changes, this doesn't happen overnight or even in a month or two.
I don't have kids but I can imagine I would hate being afraid to let them out and play in the neighborhood.
"rehab program or group therapy" could work - as long as he actually does that, which is one of the main problems here.
Either you force it (how?) or you just hope he will do it by himself - which means you hope a mentally unstable person will take rational decision and will keep taking this rational decision every day/week over a long time.
Someone can supervise that - but these services tend to be understaffed and overworked, and even their supervision doesn't guarantee anything, unfortunately.
I hope there's a way to not send such people to prisons or mental asylums (without a good reason) but also not make people around them being afraid/uncomfortable or, even worse, suffer from actions of mentally ill or unstable folks.
Right now I don't know what could be a solution here.
|
Mental health in general is such an important issue that largely affects many areas like homelessness, drug use, crimes.
I saw many teachers complaining that one student/pupil with behavior problems can ruin learning process for entire class. These teachers are not psychologists and not mental help workers, so they're not equipped with knowledge and skills - and they don't have time anyway - to cop with that in a good way.
Mental health should be a huge topic, a very important area of focus for government, otherwise you reap the consequences.
|
The way I see it, mental health is not a good predictor for violent crime. I've looked into it and so far I've only found indicators that mental illness may increase the likelihood of violent behavior, but not violent crime. For that there can be various possible explanations.
We don't know how often mentally ill people initiate physical confrontations to begin with. Maybe erratic behavior is more likely to draw attention from angry individuals who then create a physical confrontation with the mentally ill individual. That would then be expected to lead to an escalation more frequently. It's one of many possibilities that can't be ruled out, and it's one that would indicate that the stigma, and not the illness itself, is the cause of a greater general rate of violence by mentally ill people.
Just recently this footage was posted of a man who is mentally challenged (but not ill) and is being physically confronted by police. This was entirely avoidable and no fault lies with the man.
I use such examples to demonstrate that the stigma against various kinds of mental issues can be the true cause of an escalation. I expect that mentally healthy and capable people wouldn't get physically confronted in this manner, simply because they know how to operate a cashier. That's a form of discrimination against mentally challenged people. It can also be used against mentally ill people.
It'd be productive for a community to form a culture of understanding and assistance to prevent this kind of altercation and help such individuals lead a better life in which they feel respected.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ThatsInsane/comments/158ovzy/a_mentally_challenged_man_was_struggling_to_use/
So this is an example showing why I'm not convinced that mental illness is helpful as an indicator for crime. Criminal behavior is just criminal behavior and nothing more, and I think it's best to see it separately like that. Prison concerns itself with crime, not with just any disruptive behavior. The latter can and should be addressed in other ways.
|
On July 25 2023 20:23 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2023 19:26 Magic Powers wrote:
Imprisonment doesn't sound quite right for this man. Chances are he needs help and guidance. Help and guidance, sure - but hopefully in a way that doesn't make other people feel uncomfortable about their safety or even suffer from possible consequences of "oh well, he stopped taking his meds again". As I guess, this can take years before he changes, this doesn't happen overnight or even in a month or two. I don't have kids but I can imagine I would hate being afraid to let them out and play in the neighborhood. "rehab program or group therapy" could work - as long as he actually does that, which is one of the main problems here. Either you force it (how?) or you just hope he will do it by himself - which means you hope a mentally unstable person will take rational decision and will keep taking this rational decision every day/week over a long time. Someone can supervise that - but these services tend to be understaffed and overworked, and even their supervision doesn't guarantee anything, unfortunately. I hope there's a way to not send such people to prisons or mental asylums (without a good reason) but also not make people around them being afraid/uncomfortable or, even worse, suffer from actions of mentally ill or unstable folks. Right now I don't know what could be a solution here.
My mind wasn't quite made up about this earlier, now I've had some time to think about it. Enforcement is certainly an issue. If aggressive or disruptive behavior is not quite criminal or misdemeanor, so if it's more of a gray area, then I think if neighbors can't handle an individual, police can get involved in some capacity like conversation first and other means later if the behavior repeats. It would be too much to require rehab or therapy for every infringement, and I think it depends on the exact case. If the record clearly shows that one individual is acting out repeatedly, and especially if they've broken the law in some minor way, then I think a good avenue would be to call the landlord/owner of the block (I know some don't care, but others do and they can kick people out for such behavior). I know that in some cases these things lead to people moving out if they can't accept the circumstances and no one's helping them. It's hard to say how exactly things can be improved from the legal side. Sometimes it has to be a community effort.
|
United States41958 Posts
The issue of segregating dangerous individuals for the protection of the rest is a completely different issue to punitive justice. I don’t think they should be confused.
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
As was mentioned earlier regular blokes tanked on alcohol are far more likely to assault you than any other group out there, I’d assume also more likely to sexually assault you, and even when entirely benign can be very intimidating to be around, especially for women.
But mental illness does manifest in incredibly different ways, including violence. Although people largely don’t have a greater predilection towards violence on any kind of personal level, also the numbers get muddied as the seriously mentally ill are also some of the most vulnerable in society, so they’re also in environments where violence against them, or the legitimate fear of it are also much higher than average.
On the flip side, oh boy was I dangerous when I accepted the ‘come voluntarily or we’ll do it involuntarily’ call.
I was somewhat unlucky in despite, when semi-healthy, not knowing wtf was going on and reaching out, doctors somewhat also didn’t know wtf was going on so I was given medication that was actually actively counter-productive. For the record I’m bipolar. So I ended up unbelievably unstable, not innately violent but it came as a potential, almost incidental thing.
Coming out the other side I still had family though and friends and some support to rebuild, which is going well. On the flipside I was probably amongst the most unwell stepping in of everyone, but I’ve never come even close to being readmitted, and I know several folks who I’ve kept contact with who have.
Other folks in there don’t have that, the state doesn’t really give the extra assistance they need to get into employment. Often they are discharged to halfway houses with other people with deep personal problems, or drug addicts.
So they’re basically left to try and rebuild their lives solo, in environments that can be quite scary to be in, or if they’ve drug issues, full of drug temptations.
And if they fail to beat these extremely stacked odds society will judge them a failure.
The system manages acute mental illness exceptionally badly
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
