...into housing and medical care — potentially without their consent — kicked off...
If the alternative is prison - also presumably without their consent - then it seems weird to highlight that as a concern.
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
50 points (100.0% liked)
News
24672 readers
4062 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not a prison alternative:
Family members and first responders are among those who can now file a petition on behalf of an adult they believe “is unlikely to survive safely” without supervision and whose condition is rapidly deteriorating. They also can file if an adult needs services and support to prevent relapse or deterioration that would likely result in “grave disability or serious harm” to themselves or others.
It doesnt really have anything to do with homeless people, either. It reads to me like it's designed to get people into conservatorships and not much else.
What is Cali even doing at this point?
I enjoy walks and live in a California city. It is common to walk past a conspicuously homeless person who is having entire conversations with themselves as they walk past half aware of their surroundings.
I think the nobler intention is to try to get them help. How this works...? I guess we'll see.
WOW does this article bend over backwards to obscure the likelihood that "treatment" is not going to be voluntary. First of all, this is not affected individuals applying for these services, as that would just be social services, a thing that already exists. Here's how this system works:
Family members and first responders are among those who can now file a petition on behalf of an adult they believe “is unlikely to survive safely” without supervision and whose condition is rapidly deteriorating. They also can file if an adult needs services and support to prevent relapse or deterioration that would likely result in “grave disability or serious harm” to themselves or others.
As far as I can tell, this isn't even remotely exclusive to homeless people, and it feels like burying the lead that Cali's homeless population is mentioned at all. This is anyone with a psychotic disorder that can be forced into "treatment" by a badge or random family member who claims they're "deteriorating." If you think that sounds like it's putting people with psychotic disorders at a even more heightened risk of being forced into conservatorships, you'd be right:
A person who does not successfully complete a plan could be subject to conservatorship and involuntary treatment, said Tal Klement, a deputy public defender in San Francisco who is among critics of the new process.
The article immediately moved to muddy this fact by following it up with two paragraphs that start with this sentence:
But the statute also allows the court to dismiss the proceedings if the individual declines to participate or to follow the agreement.
That's all you need to read - "allows" is extremely different from "requires." The court is in no way required to respect the wishes of the affected individual as the article irresponsibly attempts to imply, and as these courts are likely to be biased to view the affected individual as a crazy person and the people that reported them as Good Samaritans "just trying to help," they are probably far more likely to opt for treatment, consensual or not, and this court becomes an excellent method of fast tracking vulnerable people into conservatorships.
Assuming "first responders" make any use of this, maybe this shields a few people from jail, but as cops aren't really opposed to sending people to jail, it's more likely they'll just use this system when they suspect someone of having a psychotic disorder but can't get them for an actual crime, if they bother to use it at all.