Since the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, civil commitment in the United States almost always requires a finding of dangerousness -- both imminent and physical -- as determined by a judge.Coulter wants to take away the freedom of people whom she considers dangerous in a non-imminent, non-physical way.
For non-imminent, I understand what that means. It means there's no immediate danger, but there's fear a person might be dangerous in some way at some future date. That sounds to me like it applies to everyone. The future is not predictable like this – at least not well enough to ruin someone's life and lock them up without a jury trial.
This is an ridiculous standard for jailing someone – not just for a crime they didn't commit, but for an imaginary crime that may or may not happen one day.
For non-physical, I don't really know what Coulter is talking about. Is she saying that in addition to locking people up who are potentially dangerous in the sense of physical violence, we should also lock up people we're concerned are mentally ill enough to commit wire fraud? I disagree.
The danger Coulter repeatedly brings up in the article is mass murder. But she's using it to advocate initiating force against people who are dangerous in some non-physical way which isn't mass murder. She doesn't even mention which non-physical dangers she wants people to lose their freedom over. That's dishonest.
Most of the rest of the world has more reasonable standards -- you might almost call them "common sense" -- allowing family, friends and even acquaintances to petition for involuntarily commitment, with the final decision made by doctors.The idea is: acquaintances plus doctors can have anyone locked up. Remember the idea of innocent until proven guilty? Remember the idea of a jury of your peers? Remember due process? Forget all that. Doctors, some of whom work for the government, are going to be judge, jury, and imprisoner. Sound fun? Sound like reasonable common sense?
The result of our laissez-faire approach to dangerous psychotics...
Why not force Democrats to defend the right of the dangerous mentally ill not to take their medicine?
Democrats won't be able to help themselves, but to instantly close ranks and defend dangerous psychotics...Remember that when Coulter writes "dangerous" in these sentences, she means "non-imminently or non-physically dangerous". Otherwise the current laws would cover it.
She's complaining about a laissez-faire approach to people who aren't dangerous right now. But if there's no problem right now, leaving it alone makes more sense than locking someone in a thoughtcrime jail and then forcibly drugging them, without a trial, doesn't it?
Make no mistake about it. Involuntary commitment in a mental hospital is imprisonment the same as in a jail. Just without the defense lawyer, and without all the safeguards against abuse that our court system contains. This is an dangerous attack on liberty.