The costly criminalisation of the mentally ill • Hacker News Board

Re: The costly criminalisation of the mentally ill

#21

Post by vacri » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 3:12 AM UTC

gruseom wrote: post #8

WestCoastJustin wrote: post #2

Great example of something that does not belong here. A social political issue with absolutely zero to do with tech or hacker news! Why is this getting upvotes?

I believe you're wrong here. HN is not just about tech. It has always had room for substantive articles about anything interesting. Is this article substantive? I'd say it's surprisingly so, for such a short piece. It contains a mix of anecdote, data, and history. I learned three or four things I didn't know, and I've read occasional stuff on this issue in the past. The graph alone is worth the visit.

A wider variety of topics also occasionally spurs an HN denizen to start implementing a solution, even a startup around the 'non-hacker' stuff.

Re: The costly criminalisation of the mentally ill

#22

Post by phren0logy » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 3:20 AM UTC

I am an HN regular, and a forensic psychiatrist. Every day I work with mentally ill people who have been charged with crimes. I don't have much to add here except to say thanks for taking an interest.

The mentally ill and the incarcerated are two of the most deeply marginalized groups in our society. It's nice that someone outside of our world is thinking about them.

Re: The costly criminalisation of the mentally ill

#23

Post by sliverstorm » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 3:22 AM UTC

droithomme wrote: post #20

The article uses a woman as an example and gives her crimes as: "trespassing, prostitution, drugs, disorderly conduct, petty theft, drinking in public". The petty theft is later discussed as theft from a supermarket, probably of some small food item. As to the others, why should any of them be imprisonable offenses? Drinking in public? Drugs? Prostitution? Trespassing is not breaking and entering, which is reasonable…

You had me dangling by a thread, I was still sort of with you... then you declare that disallowing public nudity is tyranny?

My friend, overstatement is a quick & easy way to lose support.

Re: The costly criminalisation of the mentally ill

#24

Post by fosap » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 3:27 AM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #23

droithomme wrote: post #20

The article uses a woman as an example and gives her crimes as: "trespassing, prostitution, drugs, disorderly conduct, petty theft, drinking in public". The petty theft is later discussed as theft from a supermarket, probably of some small food item. As to the others, why should any of them be imprisonable offenses? Drinking in public? Drugs? Prostitution? Trespassing is not breaking and entering, which is reasonable…

You had me dangling by a thread, I was still sort of with you... then you declare that disallowing public nudity is tyranny? My friend, overstatement is a quick & easy way to lose support.

Public nudity is mere morals. IMO nothing law should deal with. Tyranny is a strong word, but it seems unreasonable interference.

Re: The costly criminalisation of the mentally ill

#25

Post by ceautery » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 3:34 AM UTC

"...taking something without paying at Wholefoods Market; but when two security guards came after her and she thought they were attacking her, she fought back. This led to a felony charge for robbery."

I'm very curious about Melissa's case now. Shoplifting ain't felony robbery, obviously, and over-aggressive security staff have been known to injure or kill people[1][2], so "thought they were attacking her" is a legitimate concern.

[1] - http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/ex-guard-convicted-sho... [2] - http://jezebel.com/5967072/woman-shot-dead-by-walmart-securi...

Re: The costly criminalisation of the mentally ill

#26

Post by smtddr » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 3:35 AM UTC

droithomme wrote: post #20

The article uses a woman as an example and gives her crimes as: "trespassing, prostitution, drugs, disorderly conduct, petty theft, drinking in public". The petty theft is later discussed as theft from a supermarket, probably of some small food item. As to the others, why should any of them be imprisonable offenses? Drinking in public? Drugs? Prostitution? Trespassing is not breaking and entering, which is reasonable…

>I propose that public nudity and refusing to give your name to police when they have no cause to ask it are both fundamental rights of man and that any society which denies these rights is tyrannical and any person who denies these rights is an enemy of humanity.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.... whoa. I like to think of myself as open-minded but I'm not ready for that just yet. That being said, San Francisco apparently has no punishment for being nude in public and yet I've only seen nudity in public twice in the 6 years of having a full-time job there. So maybe it should be removed from the law and most people will continue to cover-up out of personal modesty.

Re: The costly criminalisation of the mentally ill

#27

Post by gruseom » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 3:52 AM UTC

phren0logy wrote: post #22

I am an HN regular, and a forensic psychiatrist. Every day I work with mentally ill people who have been charged with crimes. I don't have much to add here except to say thanks for taking an interest. The mentally ill and the incarcerated are two of the most deeply marginalized groups in our society. It's nice that someone outside of our world is thinking about them.

Well, I wish you would add more. You'd surely have more of value and experience to say than almost anybody here. But I hope that doesn't sound demanding--I really appreciate your comment.

Re: The costly criminalisation of the mentally ill

#28

Post by qq66 » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 3:55 AM UTC

droithomme wrote: post #20

The article uses a woman as an example and gives her crimes as: "trespassing, prostitution, drugs, disorderly conduct, petty theft, drinking in public". The petty theft is later discussed as theft from a supermarket, probably of some small food item. As to the others, why should any of them be imprisonable offenses? Drinking in public? Drugs? Prostitution? Trespassing is not breaking and entering, which is reasonable…

Public nudity has been taboo since long before we had governments and laws. Even uncontacted peoples generally cover their genitalia even if they are otherwise totally naked. Regardless of first-principles freedom-based arguments, US legislators did not create proscriptions against public nudity and they are not going to be able to eliminate them.

Re: The costly criminalisation of the mentally ill

#29

Post by yareally » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 3:56 AM UTC

droithomme wrote: post #20

The article uses a woman as an example and gives her crimes as: "trespassing, prostitution, drugs, disorderly conduct, petty theft, drinking in public". The petty theft is later discussed as theft from a supermarket, probably of some small food item. As to the others, why should any of them be imprisonable offenses? Drinking in public? Drugs? Prostitution? Trespassing is not breaking and entering, which is reasonable…

> "If police are arresting people without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion, then it is the police that are acting illegally here. You are not required to identify yourself to any police officer just because he asks, and if he asks without reasonable suspicion or probable cause (it depends on the state which one is the threshold), and you refuse to state your name, then he can not arrest you for that sole reason. If he attempts to do so, it is false arrest, and you have the right under the law, upheld by the supreme court, to use any necessary force to resist illegal arrest.

What constitutes whether a police officer has the right to "stop and identify" someone varies quite widely from state to state[1]. Before attempting to do so, it's a good idea to know the explicit details for the current state one is residing.

Some states actually have claims that you must identify yourself when stopped if the police officer asks. Failure to do so can lead to arrest under laws of the state:

"Five states’ laws (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, and Ohio) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information."

"Seven states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont) explicitly impose a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself."

"In five states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling."

"Virginia makes it a nonjailable misdemeanor to refuse to identify oneself to a conservator of the peace when one is at the scene of a breach of the peace witnessed by that conservator."

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes#Obli...

Re: The costly criminalisation of the mentally ill

#30

Post by a_bonobo » Fri, Aug 09, 2013, 3:58 AM UTC

gruseom wrote: post #8

WestCoastJustin wrote: post #2

Great example of something that does not belong here. A social political issue with absolutely zero to do with tech or hacker news! Why is this getting upvotes?

I believe you're wrong here. HN is not just about tech. It has always had room for substantive articles about anything interesting. Is this article substantive? I'd say it's surprisingly so, for such a short piece. It contains a mix of anecdote, data, and history. I learned three or four things I didn't know, and I've read occasional stuff on this issue in the past. The graph alone is worth the visit.

From the official FAQ [1]

>What to Submit

>On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

[1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html