William Galston‘s argument that Tucson proves we need to lower the standards by which people are involuntarily committed to institutions for the mentally ill is frightening:
First, those who acquire credible evidence of an individual’s mental disturbance should be required to report it to both law enforcement authorities and the courts, and the legal jeopardy for failing to do so should be tough enough to ensure compliance. Parents, school authorities, and other involved parties should be made to understand that they have responsibilities to the community as a whole, not just to family members or to their own student body. While embarrassment and reluctance to get involved are understandable sentiments, they should not be allowed to drive conduct when the public safety is at stake. We’re not necessarily cramming these measures down anyone’s throat: I’ve known many families who were desperate for laws that would help them do what they knew needed to be done for their adult children, and many college administrators who felt that their hands were tied.
Second, the law should no longer require, as a condition of involuntary incarceration, that seriously disturbed individuals constitute a danger to themselves or others, let alone a “substantial” or “imminent” danger, as many states do. A delusional loss of contact with reality should be enough to trigger a process that starts with multiple offers of voluntary assistance and ends with involuntary treatment, including commitment if necessary. How many more mass murders and assassinations do we need before we understand that the rights-based hyper-individualism of our laws governing mental illness is endangering the security of our community and the functioning of our democracy?
This is a really creepy argument. Not only are we to become the state’s panopticon, scouring friends and family for the possibility of mental instability, but failing to properly identify someone as mentally ill is itself a transgression worthy of legal sanction.
Not only that, but we don’t even need evidence of an actual threat, we just point the finger at someone crazy, provide “credible evidence” for the accusation, and the state gets to lock them up indefinitely as a danger to those around them. I think it’s really strange to characterize as “hyper-individualism” the idea that you can’t deprive someone of their freedom based solely on the fact that you think they might be ill.
Look, let me put it this way. Mass shootings, terrible as they are, are still pretty rare. How rare do you think the abuse of a law in which people who, by Galston’s own admission, pose no danger to themselves or others, could be confined for mental health reasons based on suspicion of mental illness?
