- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Make Mental Institutions Great Again?
Posted on 7/25/25 at 7:30 am
Posted on 7/25/25 at 7:30 am
quote:
On July 24, 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order titled "Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets."
The order aims to address the growing number of people with severe mental illness or substance use disorder who are living on the streets.
It seeks to reopen or expand use of mental institutions, long-term treatment centers, and other inpatient facilities.
What Does the Order Do?
Authorizes involuntary civil commitment of individuals who are homeless and suffering from untreated mental illness or addiction.
Encourages state and local governments to bypass legal barriers to institutionalization by:
Overturning court decisions or consent decrees that prevent forced hospitalization.
Lowering legal thresholds for determining when someone can be committed.
Redirects federal funding toward:
Programs that support institutional care.
Cities and states that enforce bans on camping, drug use, and loitering.
Mandatory treatment and sobriety-based housing instead of harm-reduction models like safe injection sites.
Key Policy Changes
Reverses the federal government’s past support for “Housing First” strategies that provide housing without conditions.
Limits support for street outreach and harm-reduction services in favor of coerced treatment and enforcement-based approaches.
Creates a task force led by the Attorney General, with input from the Departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation.
Controversy and Concerns
Critics argue it criminalizes homelessness and revives outdated models of psychiatric institutionalization that have historically led to abuse or neglect.
Advocates warn the move could violate civil liberties and disproportionately affect people of color, veterans, and those with untreated trauma.
Supporters argue it restores public order and provides help to individuals who are unable to care for themselves.
There are a few posters here who need to be institutionalized for the safety of the public.
This will also limit 4Cubbies dating pool.
20
Posted on 7/25/25 at 7:37 am to stout
This is the greenlight for CA but the AG is already complaining of course
Posted on 7/25/25 at 7:46 am to stout
Seems like a giant overreach.
Yeah there’s no way this would be abused.
quote:
Authorizes involuntary civil commitment of individuals who are homeless and suffering from untreated mental illness or addiction.
Yeah there’s no way this would be abused.
Posted on 7/25/25 at 7:49 am to 4cubbies
Maybe you should take them in to your home. You have slept with the unhoused before
Posted on 7/25/25 at 7:56 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Yeah there’s no way this would be abused.
There's a bipolar homeless drug addict chick who camps out in a neighborhood where I and a friend of mine have rentals. She has caused issues for me and my friend numerous times. The neighbors who live there all hate her because she is a nuisance and has stolen from them. She has caused property damage, though it's hard to gather enough hard evidence to convict. The cops know her by her full name because they deal with her so much, and say there is nothing they can do because the jails are full, and when they issue her a citation to appear in court over trespassing, she never does. The laws currently give them very few options to keep her from terrorizing that neighborhood.
You think she should continue to be allowed to disrupt people's lives who just want to live in peace or should society accept that this woman needs help and is not willing to get it on her own?
This post was edited on 7/25/25 at 8:00 am
Posted on 7/25/25 at 7:59 am to stout
There was a guy who walked into local small buisness coffee shop in downtown SD butt naked with his dong hanging
Kids were in the shop it was insane. Cubbies would feel bad for that person
Kids were in the shop it was insane. Cubbies would feel bad for that person
Posted on 7/25/25 at 8:02 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Seems like a giant overreach.
One of your hot button issues is people being unnecessarily locked up in jail. I would argue that a fair amount of people locked up need to be institutionalized in a mental health care facility, until the day they can rejoin society, and not sit in a jailhouse without mental health.
quote:
Yeah there’s no way this would be abused.
It just goes to show you really aren’t interested in helping any of these people. You just think you can live in a progressive utopia with no prisons or mental institutions.
This post was edited on 7/25/25 at 8:05 am
Posted on 7/25/25 at 8:03 am to SDVTiger
Watch how many petty crimes like that stop when we start making these people get the help they ignore.
People like Cubbies aren't ready to accept that some people just aren't cut out to function in normal society. I understand being compassionate, but what about being compassionate for all of society, including those who have to just put up with crap because we shut down insane asylums?
People like Cubbies aren't ready to accept that some people just aren't cut out to function in normal society. I understand being compassionate, but what about being compassionate for all of society, including those who have to just put up with crap because we shut down insane asylums?
Posted on 7/25/25 at 8:06 am to stout
The government should not be allowed to involuntary commit citizens at its discretion.
But I’m for a limited government and I’m against the police state. Just some of the many ways we differ philosophically.
But I’m for a limited government and I’m against the police state. Just some of the many ways we differ philosophically.
This post was edited on 7/25/25 at 8:12 am
Posted on 7/25/25 at 8:06 am to stout
Yes. In addition to removing the illegals, we need to remove hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people from society. It’s not compassionate to let an insane unstable potential violent person have free will.
Posted on 7/25/25 at 8:18 am to 4cubbies
quote:
The government should not be allowed to involuntary commit citizens and its discretion.
We all know you are oversimplifying the process of what it actually takes to commit someone for your argument. They can't go lift someone off the street and commit them the same day.
quote:
1. Legal Thresholds for Commitment
To involuntarily commit someone, most states require that one or more of these legal standards be met:
The person is a danger to themselves (e.g., suicidal).
The person is a danger to others (e.g., violent or threatening).
The person is gravely disabled, meaning they can't meet basic needs like food, shelter, or hygiene due to mental illness.
Some states include substantial risk of deterioration or serious mental illness requiring intervention.
The standard must typically be supported by:
A mental health professional’s evaluation.
Credible evidence (e.g., behavior, statements, physical condition).
2. Due Process Requirements
Because civil commitment takes away a person's liberty, strong legal safeguards are in place:
Initial detention: Usually permitted for 24–72 hours under an emergency or psychiatric hold (like a “5150” in California).
Court hearing: A judge must review the case within days.
The person has the right to an attorney, to contest the commitment, and to present their own evidence.
Some states require multiple evaluations by independent professionals.
Courts apply a “clear and convincing” evidence standard (not just suspicion).
3. Duration of Hold
Emergency holds: 24–72 hours.
Extended holds: After a court order, 14–30 days or more depending on the case.
Long-term commitment: Requires formal commitment hearings, with periodic judicial review and rights to appeal.
4. Who Can Start the Process
Police, doctors, or family members can initiate emergency detention.
Mental health professionals must certify that criteria are met.
Courts ultimately make the decision for longer commitments.
There is still due process. The same due process that is acceptable to jail people for crimes.
quote:
But I’m for a limited government and I’m against the police state.
Just saying something doesn't make it true. We have all seen you champion overreach here but only the overreach you agree with. You are the same as everyone else in that regard.
BTW, I am for the betterment of society by removing the scum that would cause harm to others. It's what has allowed society to survive for thousands of years.
Posted on 7/25/25 at 8:26 am to stout
quote:
We all know you are oversimplifying the process of what it actually takes to commit someone for your argument. They can't go lift someone off the street and commit them the same day.
Did you read what you posted in the OP?
quote:
Authorizes involuntary civil commitment of individuals who are homeless and suffering from untreated mental illness or addiction.
Encourages state and local governments to bypass legal barriers to institutionalization by:
Overturning court decisions or consent decrees that prevent forced hospitalization.
Lowering legal thresholds for determining when someone can be committed.
Redirects federal funding toward:
Programs that support institutional care.
Cities and states that enforce bans on camping, drug use, and loitering.
Mandatory treatment and sobriety-based housing instead of harm-reduction models like safe injection sites.
If someone says another person is a danger to themselves or someone else, that person is immediately committed as it is. Same day. Same hour, usually.
quote:
We have all seen you champion overreach here
But no one can give an example or link an example.
Just saying something doesn't make it true.
quote:
BTW, I am for the betterment of society by removing the scum that would cause harm to others.
I know you think people born with mental illness are scum but it’s not the government’s job to shield you from people that make you uncomfortable. If someone is harassing you or doing something illegal- those things are already against the law. If your local PD refuses to enforce the laws, take it up with them.
Posted on 7/25/25 at 8:28 am to stout
quote:It’s a free country. If the person is, first and foremost, not suffering from a mental illness or substance abuse disorder, not a danger to self or others or not gravely disabled, that’s a no. Civil commitment involves due process. Instead, make jails that serve primarily as treatment centers.
Authorizes involuntary civil commitment of individuals who are homeless and suffering from untreated mental illness or addiction
quote:
Lowering legal thresholds for determining when someone can be committed.
A big no. A person is free to be mentally ill. Danger to self, others, or gravely disabled is the current threshold. That is appropriate. Involuntary commitment removes too many constitutional rights. Most importantly, freedom of movement/enumerated movement and all the rights that come along with it. This will never hold up in court.
Homeless people who might be civilly committed under these circumstances, would be back out on the streets in seven days.
There needs to be additional funding for outpatient treatment centers, homeless shelters, halfway houses, mobile mental health and crisis teams. The current ones that receive funding are vastly understaffed with limited resources, soley due to lack of funding.
This post was edited on 7/25/25 at 8:44 am
Posted on 7/25/25 at 8:34 am to stout
Damn there is immediate need for thousands and thousands per state. Maybe one inside the DNC & Democrats chamber
Posted on 7/25/25 at 8:35 am to stout
We need a mental health overhaul, we need much more than just state institutions
Posted on 7/25/25 at 8:36 am to stout
quote:
People like Cubbies aren't ready to accept that some people just aren't cut out to function in normal society. I understand being compassionate, but what about being compassionate for all of society, including those who have to just put up with crap because we shut down insane asylums?
This is an interesting point and one that honest discussion should actually be held around. Part of being compassionate is being able to do the hard things sometimes, and that may be recognizing that someone just isn't cut out to function in society until they can get the help they need as you mentioned. This constant state of affirmation we've found ourselves in is the polar opposite of compassion.
Posted on 7/25/25 at 8:40 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Kids were in the shop it was insane. Cubbies would feel bad for that person
Part of me would feel bad for that person too.
But I would also immediately demand that person be arrested, put on a sex offender list and ideally detained in a mental institution or jail until they either are sentenced or rehabilitated.
Posted on 7/25/25 at 8:40 am to 4cubbies
quote:
If someone says another person is a danger to themselves or someone else, that person is immediately committed as it is
Did this EO magically get rid of the 14th Amendment? No? OK
quote:
Due Process Under the Order
The executive order does not create new laws or override existing due process protections. It instead urges changes at the state level.
It encourages states to review and revise their commitment laws, potentially including:
Redefining what constitutes a “danger to self or others” or “grave disability.”
Reviewing legal standards and thresholds for commitment proceedings.
The order tasks agencies with providing technical assistance to jurisdictions that make such changes.
The order signed by Trump on July 24, 2025, promotes the expanded use of civil commitment.
It instructs federal agencies to support states in revising their laws to allow broader use of institutionalization.
It does not change federal due process law, but it seeks to influence how states define and apply their existing legal standards.
The due process is not changing.
quote:
If your local PD refuses to enforce the laws, take it up with them.
Hopefully, this change will enable the PD to enforce the law vs having their hands tied. If you were a homeless drug addict, would you care about a law it there were zero consequences?
Posted on 7/25/25 at 8:42 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
It’s a free country. If the person is not a danger to self, others are gravely disabled that’s a no. Civil commitment involves due process. Instead, make jails that serve primarily as treatment centers.
quote:
We had a system for this, but we've spent the past half century gutting and destroying it. A vaguely worded Executive Order isn't going to change that. Instead of taking the proactive approach and actually trying to fix the problems with that system, we took the lazy way out and defunded it, shifting the responsibility to the private sector. That private sector has failed miserably.
quote:
make jails that serve primarily as treatment centers.
That was part of our solution, though not necessarily by choice. County and local jails have bore the brunt of our collapsing public mental healthcare in this country. Those local and county jails aren't equipped to handle the influx of truly sick people. They don't have the space, the manpower, the funding, or the expertise to handle this issue. It has lead to shitty, abusive care and a revolving door for those who need help the most. Jails are not the answer to our mental healthcare crisis in this country.
Posted on 7/25/25 at 8:44 am to stout
Seems like something the locals should do; not the federal government. Different cities have different levels of tolerances for such. Let them deal with it.
Page 1 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News