I had read that Neely was schizophrenic-- if he was indeed diagnosed and behaved as such, he should NEVER have been freely roaming streets and subways where he could easily harm others; he really had no notion of acting on "his own accord". I agree with Rufo that both men were used for pathological, ideological means and ends. We must get the mentally deranged into treatment or a long-term hospital to keep them safe and secure AND to keep everyday people safe from the ravages of the insane, while weeding out the Dafna Yoran types from holding law degrees that they abuse.
I’ll never forget the decade when I was deciding whether to become a psychiatrist versus a neurologist (we are both “boarded” by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology) and chose the latter. America was closing Psychiatric Hospitals because, we were told, we had medications to control schizophrenia, bipolar disorders and the like, and therefore why “lock up” mental patients? Terrible mistake—which has led to such human tragedies described here by Mr Rufo.
As you must be aware , Joe, the Schizophrenia medications often do more harm than good. The adverse effects can be appalling.
What I question is how the US can be dedicated to freedom, but lock up persons who have not committed any crime, as was suggested rather blithely here. I can see doing so if a crime has been committed, of course, but because of the potential of a crime? How does this tally with the belief in freedom? What are the legalities? And what would stop mis-use of this locking-up persons for non-crimes?
I agree that these psychiatric medications have been a disappointment with respect to benefits and side effects. It was the liberal medical establishment that claimed admission to a “mental hospital” was anti-freedom and they pushed to have these hospitals closed. (TB sanitariums were also being closed as well but INH (isoniazid) and other medicines became available and were very effective at eradicating TB. As a medical student at UVA we visited the last of 6 TB sanitariums to close. While talking to a young man who got INH too late in his TB course, he suddenly started spurting blood that pulsated with his heart rate. He died within a minute, blood splattered all over). I learned very early in my career that medical disease is more treatable than psychiatric disorders.
Sanitariums for TB are a very different kettle of fish than mental asylums. Besides which, TB can be proven, whereas "mental illness" not so much. It can also be mis-used in false allegations. We have seen a truckload of false allegations used by the Democrats against their targets for instance. Although they usually go for allegations of sexual abuse or financial impropriety.
Too bad all forms of insanity are now considered to be medical diseases waiting for a "cure." I think this delusion was amplified by the explosion of the psychotropic drug market in the 1960s.
Thomas Szasz was right. However, the fact that most forms of insanity cannot be traced to a physical cause lent some weight to the case for deinstitutionalization as a cost-saving measure.
Ever since, the insane have bounced between jails, hospitals, and the streets.
It's time to bring back legally enforced institutionalization. The problem is, of course, how to avoid using the courts to unjustly lock up people who are not legitimately insane or whose forms of insanity do not cause the madman to act violently or in a habitually criminal way. We can't yet lock people up for being a perpetual public nuisance, as attractive as that proposition might be to some. (Edit: As far as I know, this isn't a crime that is punishable by jail time. Also, we ought to get out of the habit of using the term "mentally ill" for reasons I allude to in my second paragraph.)
The NYC Shelter system consists of hotels that are administered by notoriously corrupt non profits like Acacia Networks. The food is not edible but NYC pays millions for the slop. No one has to go to any counseling for anything or receive mental health services, drug use and drinking is rampant, as is untreated mental illness. People coming out of prison act out all over the place despite security guards, the director of one of Acacia Networks would not allow NYPD onto the premises. They have no interest in getting clients into permanent housing. There are people in these hotel/shelters for five, six years. Neely was out on the streets because he probably wouldn't comply with the rules at the shelter such as be in your room between 11pm and 4am, don't fight with the staff, don't steal, don't burn anything in your room, etc. Neely wanted to be on the streets to be closer to illegal drugs.
Yes Lostina. The "Homeless" are an tough problem. On one hand you have druggies and mentally unstable who need help. On the other hand, the gov institutions that help are not in sync with helping much given it reduces their head count. My brother in-law, who worked in an NGO that helped the homeless, complained when they would leave. Perhaps we need a two-sided punch; (1) charities who are motivated to help those in need but do not depend on it for funding, and (2) laws that lock up vagrants unless they get care from an approved charity.
ha ha, the so called charities are the scammiest non profits going. Homeless is an Industrial Complex. which millions are made. Approved charity? Like Catholic Charities? look into these Homeless Industrial Complex players.... Adams co defendant Winnie Greco owns hotels that she leases to NYC for the homeless. The government of Pakistan owns the Roosevelt Hotel, Ground Zero for the illegal alien baby factories.
Homeless a tough problem? they are a made problem right in housing court. Those people were manufactured as homeless....
Problem is, then you have to re-assess the American ideal of freedom. If you can lock people away without them having committed any crime. What principle does that come under?
Besides which, there is no good medical treatment for Schizophrenia.
I believe he committed over 40 crimes in a 5 year period. He wasn’t held accountable by the prosecutor so people suffered. The last crime before his death he broke the orbital bone after beating a 67yr. Old woman in the face.
With a record like that, protecting the public needs to trump any compassion for Neely as a human being with a mental illness. Lock him up first, and try to cure him second.
Do you think to place someone in long-term care/hospital is equivalent to putting them in jail? How "free" is a mentally ill person on the streets? If the case is so severe, what is the alternative? A care home does not have to be institutional in a cruel and creepy way. Same goes for prisons. But when there are those that cannot care for themselves and suffer and/or commit heinous crimes, society must deal with it and not ignore it like we have been. And you are likely correct; there is no good treatment currently for schizophrenia. Or maybe there is a way to treat it that we don't know of yet or Big Pharma is hiding.
It is true that "a care home does not have to be institutional in a cruel and creepy way," but, unfortunately, that is an accurate description of many of the closed insane asylums and a fact that lent weight to the arguments for "deinstitutionalization" in the first place.
Charlotte, I think you are being naive here. You seem to think that forced lock-ups in long-term hospitals must be a lovely picnic.
Where do we draw the line? Depression is a mental illness. And yet a majority of adult Americans say they have suffered from this. Do we lock-up high-functioning Autistics> Oops....there goes Elon Musk and many of the geniuses developing our world.
So you think that people can be locked-up simply for the potential of committing a crime? Sounds like Communist countries. Well any human being has that potential. Look at the well brought up and well educated young man from the wealthy family who has just been arrested for murder of the Healthcare Executive.
Saying that Pharma might have a cure for Schizophrenia but they are hiding it is simply not believable.
Well, that was a big leap from my comment about schizophrenics needing long term care to you thinking I am talking about people with depression or autism! I live in a city where I often witness people going through extreme episodes of psychotic breaks on the streets. They are in tatters, flailing about, screaming, cursing, sometimes lunging at passersby -- these are the people I am speaking about, such as Jordan Neely. Not any of the others you oddly include. Schizophrenics deserve a warm place out of the rain or cold, a calm and safe environment, the dignity to bathe and be free from lice, etc, have decent meals and 24/7 care if they need it. What's wrong with that? You want them to continue to live on the street in dehumanizing conditions? I doubt that. And, duh, of course I do not endorse "locking people up for the potential of committing a crime". That's not a well thought out comment.
Big Pharma, by the way, is very unethical in regards to their business model; they are not interested in the least in seeing people well because well people don't need drugs, so it is not so unbelievable that this very powerful industry could and does block research/treatments.
All of my comments are well thought-out, Charlotte. It is you whom I find throwing out any old naive concept. Without considering all of the repercussions of such concepts in reality.
All decent people wish to see everyone warm and comfortable. But hauling them off to a lock-up is not the way to do it. You have a fantasy idea of what locked mental hospitals must be like -- you seem to think they are the Hilton. And that the "hidden" cures for Schizophrenia will be available there (what cures?). Done any reading in the reality of "mental asylums" through the ages? Many of those places descended into horror, not unlike the shelter system has descended into something less than it was meant to be.
Do you deny the possibility of creating and maintaining humanely-run mental hospitals?
The history of mental hospitals and the treatment of the insane is ugly and fraught with error and lent weight to legal arguments for deinstitutionalization, but why let the past define the possible future?
while I agree with you in theory, in reality, Neeley fits the profile of the mentally ill, drug addicted homeless that commit murder by pushing innocent people off subway platforms. and by the way, do you live in NYC? do you depend on the subway? I do. If I saw Neeley on the subway, either impersonating the famous, or ranting to himself I would assess him as threat to my physical safety and well being and would act from there. I would run from the car if I could, but many NYC subway cars are locked, you can't pass through the cars, like the one he was on that fatal day. Otherwise I would move away from him if I could, been followed by the dangerous mentally ill when I've moved away. sometimes you gotta stand and deliver . I would clutch my screwdriver and scream curses at him to drive him away from me to protect myself. Neeley was looking for trouble when he went on the NYC subway begging. There are laws against begging and selling anything on the subway, the platforms, hallways, etc.
I hear you. This is a very sticky situation. I have already agreed that Neely was a criminal, looking at his past actions.
And yes, I have used public transit in various urban centres all of my life. I know it well. I am an average-sized woman, travelling alone, who has had to make quick decisions on what to do in several threatening situations,
So I know both sides of this issue. I sided with Daniel Penny, btw. It is just that we cannot allow the pendulum to swing from one extreme to the opposite extreme, and think we have solved this. There are those who will also manipulate the opposite extreme against the innocent and vulnerable.
I think I share your cynicism about human nature, but I also think the risk of creating new and improved mental hospitals is worth taking, since the status quo is ruining our cities along with other stuff like stupid ideologically-driven and venal mismanagement.
Well, there are places such as Canada with legislation for state euthanasia (called MAID) in which it is taken as a given that you are suicidal and a threat to yourself when you request this. Used to be that people like that were offered help. Now they are killed by the state. So the state becomes the threat. Think about that.
Actually, some of the people requesting state euthanasia have done so because their families guilted them into this, to get rid of the financial burdens of care. Or to collect an early inheritance. So these persons are not even suicidal, really.
This slippery slope is one reason I advocate the sale of the Sarcopod to individuals. You can have one in your garage and enter it whenever you feel the urge to kill yourself. For a reason I can't figure, the company that makes them says, "The Sarco is not and never will be for sale. The plans will be published open source or in The Peaceful Pill eHandbook. The final decision has not yet been made" (https://www.exitinternational.net/sarco/faqs/).
Giving others the power to decide who is or is not a candidate for euthanasia has always had this predictable outcome. Ethically, the problem lies in giving others the agency to do what one ought to do oneself. "Assisted suicide" is a sinister oxymoron for "homicide," justifiable or not.
Evidently, the hypoxia provided by the Sarcopod is done with nitrogen, and one experiences a sort of euphoria before conking out. The garage carbon monoxide route provides a slow death, with much pain and suffering. I've also learned that today's cars produce less CO, so it would take twice as long to croak than if you sat in a garage inhaling the fumes from your '68 Mustang with the original engine.
Strange days, indeed, that have us discussing the problem of state-sponsored homicide ("assisted suicide" my ass).
I'd say that's true in Canadiastan. I think the dickheads-that-be in Oregon have the same policy, or want it anyway--the "freedom" to be killed on demand.
Suicide is cowardly enough, but asking an MD to do it is the nadir of cowardice IMHO.
Oh, a number of the doctors here in Canadastan are quite keen. One of them, in BC, was doing a lot of media interviews a few years ago, boasting of her kill numbers. She was up to 400 at that point, since 2016. And she runs an abortion clinic on the side, invoicing every kill to government. Blows my mind. Apparently she is becoming elderly now, and uses a mobility scooter, but still insists on continuing her killing spree. Dr. Death.
I consider her a Psychopath. Persons of her sort in the medical profession must be in their glory.
Especially in this case, when Neely had been offered free housing and assistance and left the shelter of his own accord.
I had read that Neely was schizophrenic-- if he was indeed diagnosed and behaved as such, he should NEVER have been freely roaming streets and subways where he could easily harm others; he really had no notion of acting on "his own accord". I agree with Rufo that both men were used for pathological, ideological means and ends. We must get the mentally deranged into treatment or a long-term hospital to keep them safe and secure AND to keep everyday people safe from the ravages of the insane, while weeding out the Dafna Yoran types from holding law degrees that they abuse.
I’ll never forget the decade when I was deciding whether to become a psychiatrist versus a neurologist (we are both “boarded” by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology) and chose the latter. America was closing Psychiatric Hospitals because, we were told, we had medications to control schizophrenia, bipolar disorders and the like, and therefore why “lock up” mental patients? Terrible mistake—which has led to such human tragedies described here by Mr Rufo.
As a frequent flyer in multiple neurological specialties, thank you.
As you must be aware , Joe, the Schizophrenia medications often do more harm than good. The adverse effects can be appalling.
What I question is how the US can be dedicated to freedom, but lock up persons who have not committed any crime, as was suggested rather blithely here. I can see doing so if a crime has been committed, of course, but because of the potential of a crime? How does this tally with the belief in freedom? What are the legalities? And what would stop mis-use of this locking-up persons for non-crimes?
I agree that these psychiatric medications have been a disappointment with respect to benefits and side effects. It was the liberal medical establishment that claimed admission to a “mental hospital” was anti-freedom and they pushed to have these hospitals closed. (TB sanitariums were also being closed as well but INH (isoniazid) and other medicines became available and were very effective at eradicating TB. As a medical student at UVA we visited the last of 6 TB sanitariums to close. While talking to a young man who got INH too late in his TB course, he suddenly started spurting blood that pulsated with his heart rate. He died within a minute, blood splattered all over). I learned very early in my career that medical disease is more treatable than psychiatric disorders.
Sanitariums for TB are a very different kettle of fish than mental asylums. Besides which, TB can be proven, whereas "mental illness" not so much. It can also be mis-used in false allegations. We have seen a truckload of false allegations used by the Democrats against their targets for instance. Although they usually go for allegations of sexual abuse or financial impropriety.
Too bad all forms of insanity are now considered to be medical diseases waiting for a "cure." I think this delusion was amplified by the explosion of the psychotropic drug market in the 1960s.
Thomas Szasz was right. However, the fact that most forms of insanity cannot be traced to a physical cause lent some weight to the case for deinstitutionalization as a cost-saving measure.
Ever since, the insane have bounced between jails, hospitals, and the streets.
It's time to bring back legally enforced institutionalization. The problem is, of course, how to avoid using the courts to unjustly lock up people who are not legitimately insane or whose forms of insanity do not cause the madman to act violently or in a habitually criminal way. We can't yet lock people up for being a perpetual public nuisance, as attractive as that proposition might be to some. (Edit: As far as I know, this isn't a crime that is punishable by jail time. Also, we ought to get out of the habit of using the term "mentally ill" for reasons I allude to in my second paragraph.)
As a 2019 article on the "Cal Matters" website argues, "Somehow, we must find a middle ground between incarceration, and untreated, unsupervised and at-risk mentally ill people" (https://calmatters.org/commentary/2019/03/hard-truths-about-deinstitutionalization-then-and-now/
Was he denied bail?
The NYC Shelter system consists of hotels that are administered by notoriously corrupt non profits like Acacia Networks. The food is not edible but NYC pays millions for the slop. No one has to go to any counseling for anything or receive mental health services, drug use and drinking is rampant, as is untreated mental illness. People coming out of prison act out all over the place despite security guards, the director of one of Acacia Networks would not allow NYPD onto the premises. They have no interest in getting clients into permanent housing. There are people in these hotel/shelters for five, six years. Neely was out on the streets because he probably wouldn't comply with the rules at the shelter such as be in your room between 11pm and 4am, don't fight with the staff, don't steal, don't burn anything in your room, etc. Neely wanted to be on the streets to be closer to illegal drugs.
Yes Lostina. The "Homeless" are an tough problem. On one hand you have druggies and mentally unstable who need help. On the other hand, the gov institutions that help are not in sync with helping much given it reduces their head count. My brother in-law, who worked in an NGO that helped the homeless, complained when they would leave. Perhaps we need a two-sided punch; (1) charities who are motivated to help those in need but do not depend on it for funding, and (2) laws that lock up vagrants unless they get care from an approved charity.
ha ha, the so called charities are the scammiest non profits going. Homeless is an Industrial Complex. which millions are made. Approved charity? Like Catholic Charities? look into these Homeless Industrial Complex players.... Adams co defendant Winnie Greco owns hotels that she leases to NYC for the homeless. The government of Pakistan owns the Roosevelt Hotel, Ground Zero for the illegal alien baby factories.
Homeless a tough problem? they are a made problem right in housing court. Those people were manufactured as homeless....
Problem is, then you have to re-assess the American ideal of freedom. If you can lock people away without them having committed any crime. What principle does that come under?
Besides which, there is no good medical treatment for Schizophrenia.
I believe he committed over 40 crimes in a 5 year period. He wasn’t held accountable by the prosecutor so people suffered. The last crime before his death he broke the orbital bone after beating a 67yr. Old woman in the face.
Sounds like Neely met the criminal definition then.
Yes. Very easy information to obtain- with even just a cursory look-see...
It is.
I am more interested in overall totalitarianism of the West. And I am not American, so I often focus elsewhere.
With a record like that, protecting the public needs to trump any compassion for Neely as a human being with a mental illness. Lock him up first, and try to cure him second.
Do you think to place someone in long-term care/hospital is equivalent to putting them in jail? How "free" is a mentally ill person on the streets? If the case is so severe, what is the alternative? A care home does not have to be institutional in a cruel and creepy way. Same goes for prisons. But when there are those that cannot care for themselves and suffer and/or commit heinous crimes, society must deal with it and not ignore it like we have been. And you are likely correct; there is no good treatment currently for schizophrenia. Or maybe there is a way to treat it that we don't know of yet or Big Pharma is hiding.
It is true that "a care home does not have to be institutional in a cruel and creepy way," but, unfortunately, that is an accurate description of many of the closed insane asylums and a fact that lent weight to the arguments for "deinstitutionalization" in the first place.
Charlotte, I think you are being naive here. You seem to think that forced lock-ups in long-term hospitals must be a lovely picnic.
Where do we draw the line? Depression is a mental illness. And yet a majority of adult Americans say they have suffered from this. Do we lock-up high-functioning Autistics> Oops....there goes Elon Musk and many of the geniuses developing our world.
So you think that people can be locked-up simply for the potential of committing a crime? Sounds like Communist countries. Well any human being has that potential. Look at the well brought up and well educated young man from the wealthy family who has just been arrested for murder of the Healthcare Executive.
Saying that Pharma might have a cure for Schizophrenia but they are hiding it is simply not believable.
Well, that was a big leap from my comment about schizophrenics needing long term care to you thinking I am talking about people with depression or autism! I live in a city where I often witness people going through extreme episodes of psychotic breaks on the streets. They are in tatters, flailing about, screaming, cursing, sometimes lunging at passersby -- these are the people I am speaking about, such as Jordan Neely. Not any of the others you oddly include. Schizophrenics deserve a warm place out of the rain or cold, a calm and safe environment, the dignity to bathe and be free from lice, etc, have decent meals and 24/7 care if they need it. What's wrong with that? You want them to continue to live on the street in dehumanizing conditions? I doubt that. And, duh, of course I do not endorse "locking people up for the potential of committing a crime". That's not a well thought out comment.
Big Pharma, by the way, is very unethical in regards to their business model; they are not interested in the least in seeing people well because well people don't need drugs, so it is not so unbelievable that this very powerful industry could and does block research/treatments.
Freddie deBoer, who is himself bipolar, has written a lot about this issue: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-call-that-compassion
All of my comments are well thought-out, Charlotte. It is you whom I find throwing out any old naive concept. Without considering all of the repercussions of such concepts in reality.
All decent people wish to see everyone warm and comfortable. But hauling them off to a lock-up is not the way to do it. You have a fantasy idea of what locked mental hospitals must be like -- you seem to think they are the Hilton. And that the "hidden" cures for Schizophrenia will be available there (what cures?). Done any reading in the reality of "mental asylums" through the ages? Many of those places descended into horror, not unlike the shelter system has descended into something less than it was meant to be.
Do you deny the possibility of creating and maintaining humanely-run mental hospitals?
The history of mental hospitals and the treatment of the insane is ugly and fraught with error and lent weight to legal arguments for deinstitutionalization, but why let the past define the possible future?
What has changed that would guarantee humanely and honestly run mental hospitals, Bull? The same risks are there today.
We cannot even guarantee that seniors' care homes will be well and humanely operated.
while I agree with you in theory, in reality, Neeley fits the profile of the mentally ill, drug addicted homeless that commit murder by pushing innocent people off subway platforms. and by the way, do you live in NYC? do you depend on the subway? I do. If I saw Neeley on the subway, either impersonating the famous, or ranting to himself I would assess him as threat to my physical safety and well being and would act from there. I would run from the car if I could, but many NYC subway cars are locked, you can't pass through the cars, like the one he was on that fatal day. Otherwise I would move away from him if I could, been followed by the dangerous mentally ill when I've moved away. sometimes you gotta stand and deliver . I would clutch my screwdriver and scream curses at him to drive him away from me to protect myself. Neeley was looking for trouble when he went on the NYC subway begging. There are laws against begging and selling anything on the subway, the platforms, hallways, etc.
I hear you. This is a very sticky situation. I have already agreed that Neely was a criminal, looking at his past actions.
And yes, I have used public transit in various urban centres all of my life. I know it well. I am an average-sized woman, travelling alone, who has had to make quick decisions on what to do in several threatening situations,
So I know both sides of this issue. I sided with Daniel Penny, btw. It is just that we cannot allow the pendulum to swing from one extreme to the opposite extreme, and think we have solved this. There are those who will also manipulate the opposite extreme against the innocent and vulnerable.
I think I share your cynicism about human nature, but I also think the risk of creating new and improved mental hospitals is worth taking, since the status quo is ruining our cities along with other stuff like stupid ideologically-driven and venal mismanagement.
Lock them up when they are a threat to themselves or others.
Well, there are places such as Canada with legislation for state euthanasia (called MAID) in which it is taken as a given that you are suicidal and a threat to yourself when you request this. Used to be that people like that were offered help. Now they are killed by the state. So the state becomes the threat. Think about that.
Actually, some of the people requesting state euthanasia have done so because their families guilted them into this, to get rid of the financial burdens of care. Or to collect an early inheritance. So these persons are not even suicidal, really.
This slippery slope is one reason I advocate the sale of the Sarcopod to individuals. You can have one in your garage and enter it whenever you feel the urge to kill yourself. For a reason I can't figure, the company that makes them says, "The Sarco is not and never will be for sale. The plans will be published open source or in The Peaceful Pill eHandbook. The final decision has not yet been made" (https://www.exitinternational.net/sarco/faqs/).
Giving others the power to decide who is or is not a candidate for euthanasia has always had this predictable outcome. Ethically, the problem lies in giving others the agency to do what one ought to do oneself. "Assisted suicide" is a sinister oxymoron for "homicide," justifiable or not.
The Sarcopods? Used to be that people who wanted to commit suicide just closed the garage doors and turned on the engine.
Evidently, the hypoxia provided by the Sarcopod is done with nitrogen, and one experiences a sort of euphoria before conking out. The garage carbon monoxide route provides a slow death, with much pain and suffering. I've also learned that today's cars produce less CO, so it would take twice as long to croak than if you sat in a garage inhaling the fumes from your '68 Mustang with the original engine.
Strange days, indeed, that have us discussing the problem of state-sponsored homicide ("assisted suicide" my ass).
I consider it mass state homicide, enacted by the state mercenaries who once called themselves doctors. They no longer deserve that title.
You could probably do just as well to find a murderous thug by looking at the ads in the back of one of those grimy magazines.
I'd say that's true in Canadiastan. I think the dickheads-that-be in Oregon have the same policy, or want it anyway--the "freedom" to be killed on demand.
Suicide is cowardly enough, but asking an MD to do it is the nadir of cowardice IMHO.
Oh, a number of the doctors here in Canadastan are quite keen. One of them, in BC, was doing a lot of media interviews a few years ago, boasting of her kill numbers. She was up to 400 at that point, since 2016. And she runs an abortion clinic on the side, invoicing every kill to government. Blows my mind. Apparently she is becoming elderly now, and uses a mobility scooter, but still insists on continuing her killing spree. Dr. Death.
I consider her a Psychopath. Persons of her sort in the medical profession must be in their glory.