Should we start locking people in mental hospitals against their wills as we did pre-1950s?

Today you cannot lock someone up against their will even if they clearly are seriously disturbed. Mental health advocates pushed for the release of tens of thousands of patients in mental hospitals in the 1950s (consequently, that’s just when the homeless population begin to soar too).
Should we go back to the days when we could lock up dangerous, sick people?

Related Blogs

Tags: , , , ,

16 Responses to “Should we start locking people in mental hospitals against their wills as we did pre-1950s?”

  1. Paul Revere Says:

    Yeah — it’s called prison.

  2. Alaska Boy USA Says:

    I’d rather see the civils rights of mentally ill people being given up rather than my own for owning a gun

  3. Debbie Says:

    actually if someone poses a threat to themself or society you can lock them up for up to 2 weeks of observation, but not longer than that if they never committed a crime.
    I do think we need to start locking up clearly disturbed people for lifetime though.

  4. eir Says:

    a state ordered "lock-up" can be used to hospitalize someone against their will.

  5. whimsy Says:

    NO, we need these folks for our volunteeer Army

  6. Ryde-On Says:

    You wouldn’t hold me long .I’m good with locks.

  7. eelfins Says:

    For their own good of course. I would take every homeless person and put them in work camps for their own good. If they are mentally disturbed or retarded, honest work isn’t going to hurt them, and being locked in a cage is not going to help them. I’m serious.

  8. Mary J Says:

    people who are frightening and scare society should be locked up before they do anything crazy.
    All those homeless people who talk to themselves in public should be rounded up and put in mental hopsitals for life.
    These people refuse medication, so they should be locked up

  9. Paul in San Diego Says:

    There’s not enough facilities to lock up all those O’Reilly, Hannity, and Beck viewers.

  10. Flying Fid Says:

    I imagine you are in the USA, here in the UK we can and do lock people away for their own safety. It is called sectioning and runs from 24 hours observation to permanent sectioning for the good of the public. This is for very dangerous lunatics but the great majority of those who are sectioned are of no danger at all.

  11. ol crow Says:

    NO. If we did that the republicans would be running things on the outside.

  12. Linda L Says:

    Starting with ALL politicians.

  13. PJ Says:

    The laws were changed in the 70s and it has increase the number of homeless and the occurence of violence and mass attacks. We do need to change what we are doing and start institutionalizing the most dangerous people. The practice of locking them away was discontinued mostly because of cost – but the cost of homelessness and increased violence may be higher. And there is the bit about infringing on civil liberties when we lock people up. It is a difficult problem.

  14. Ryan Says:

    No, because I might be one of them.

    Well I have panic attacks here and there, but if we went back to the 1950’s they’d think I was possessed by evil spirits and lock me up.

    We’re out of that age, go find something else to b /tch about.

  15. it's a baby girl♥ Says:

    I agree with Paul Revere. and while were at it, lets not EVER let the child preditors out! EVER!.

  16. Jenny Cash Show Says:

    i’ve worked for 20 years with the seriously mentally ill- 4 years in a locked ward setting and the balance in direct care positions as they were transitioned out of hospitals. i have dealt with the most bizzare circumstances you can imagine. i have scars from a few, nightmares about others. i’ve been to their funerals and comforted their mother, i’ve tried to petition them into court before all hell breaks loose. i feel a kinship with these folks- i was a very strong advocate for them- been called on the carpet for challenging doctors or decisions- been fired for not following a doctors orders.
    the move to community based outpatient treatment is littered with good intentions/ failed attempts -and stunning success.
    hospitals were grim places, not well funded, inadequate, understaffed and dangerous, believe me i usually had to battle someone every day.
    state hospitals cost money, states find its cheaper to help them live out in the community with some follow up services.hospital time is for crisis stabilization a 72 hour evaluation then ,yeah – look out- here comes rosco..i’d get calls sayin "were send him back "and -go oh shit no, you cant be serious..
    thats not to say they are any more prone to violence.no more than any cross section- but they can be a danger to themselves and stumble into situations . they are on meds that do help, but , they are ill. they need to be cut some slack.
    many did not find any help or couldnt really manage out in the world- they are the homeless- they fill the jails , their only real crime is being ill -in a throw away society- if you dont fit in you are tossed aside.
    in phoenix one summer some 24 mentally ill died out in the heat.. in alleys, or vacant lots. there was a hue and cry- the group homes and emergency services got reamed- but they have rights- you cant stop them from going out and screwing up.. i lost two just from getting hit by cars, they dont always pay attention.
    lets not go back to locking people away..but somewhere there should be a balance, a haven or at least a landfill where throw away people could be dumped off.