No. Hell no. It will marginalise and make things worse for most. It will also cost a heck of a lot more so who is footing that bill? You can’t have an already poor subset of people ( lots of mentally ill people don’t or have compromised work and thus earnings ) having to pay more than they already do for treatment that is unnecessary. We already have forensic wards for the violent/crime people.
It’s a campaign to deflect the real problems with other issues namely gun control and you shouldn’t buy into that rubbish. Community inclusion works and works way better than institutions.
This is already happening in my country and most of the time the patients are either fed very basic diets or suffer from abuse.
Also most shooters don’t have mental illnesses (other than personality disorders) so this won’t solve the actual problem. Stats show that only 10% of mass shooters were mentally ill. If we don’t ban guns ■■■■ is just going to happen.
They don’t have easy access to guns like we do. They don’t have the same vicious circle society we do where we live in a violent society where guns make it even more violent than it already is.
Lets not stray from the topic here. It’s hard because this is a particularly political issue but op’s question is whether you agree or not. Lets not let it devolve into the mire of gun control.
There are no shootings in Belgium. But for psychiatric patients who do crime there are forensic psychiatric wards. They tend to be very long term so I hope I never commit a crime and end up in one. Would hate that.
I already despair when I have to be in a ward a few weeks. I hate it. I hate to be locked up and I hate the fact that other people decide over every little detail of my life, no matter how modern their facilities look. It is emotionally unhealthy. I would rather be begging on the streets than in an asylum.
I must say, based on how modern hospitals are it’s difficult to say what these conditions would look like in an institution. Speaking from experience I was in a hospital with inpatient level care for 18 months. Now I know this is absolutely nothing compared to how long some people would be staying at these places but it was the best experience I’ve ever had in a hospital. There was a fenced in courtyard that we were allowed to go out into to play basketball or sit in the grass and the sun. And we were even allowed to walk around the grounds if we were on a high enough privilege level. I used to play disc golf outside with my clinician even. I don’t think the conditions at an institution would be as good as that sadly. But I think that depending on what it would look like there I don’t inherently think it’s a bad idea. This also all depends on reasoning for being admitted in the first place.
However the reasoning behind this whole thing is based on political gain. I think a better solution would be better inpatient care to begin with. I personally think that inpatient care as it is is already starting to feel outdated. There are already facilities to house the mentally ill who commit serious crimes. I cannot think of another reasoning that would justify locking someone away for the rest of their life. I should have thought about this a little more before I posted my first response because I just completely changed my mind. It’s unnecessary and I cannot help but see this system being abused by both staff, government, and criminals
You do realise the issue with mass shootings isnt gonna be magically solved by locking people away inhumanely? What is going to change by making even more degrading conditions for the mentally ill to live in? How is it going to stop gun crimes?
The only way to stop people using guns to slaughter innocents is to put limitations on guns. There is no other way. Most countries dont have regular mass shootings. Its an American problem due to American gun laws.
Many of the mass shootings I know the deal of weren’t someone who was treated poorly by an insinuation or let go early. They were psychopaths or people who thought killing others would prove something to the world. They did it for notoriety, fame and out of desperation.
How will asylums pick up these individuals and be notified of their terrible thoughts and action plans? They aren’t being seen by MH services to begin with.
I feel like this is some knee jerk reaction you’ve had from watching a news show (or something) that has said “oh mass killing happens because of people with MH issues” when actually when you look at a case by case basis I don’t think that is what is happening.
On a separate note : it surprises me that many of you who clearly have MH issues(else you wouldn’t be here), and possibly would’ve been locked away in an asylum 70 years ago - are totally fine to do that to others. Have some compassion.
That depends very much on there being adequate funding for mental health services. Despite repeated statements talking about improving things very little actually changes.
In the UK those who are very well most of the time and are acutely ill the rest of the time are given priority over those who function less well than them most of them. Those who function less well most of the time being those who’ve gone past the acute phase of their illness, and are chronically disabled.
I agree that lack of gun control is the main issue and that the majority of these mass shooters are dealing with severe personality disorders and not necessarily living with a severe mental illness like schizophrenia or bipolar.
With that said I feel that long term asylums is a good place to keep those severely mi patients in a safe place instead of letting them rot in our prison system.
No. They’ll just start locking all mentally I’ll people up even if they’re not violent. It will degrade into abuse. They already treat us very badly in hospital wards. I can’t imagine how mean they’d be in a place where people have no rights
