This is the national conversation we should be having:
The changes in handling the mentally ill helped put an end to those abuses — but gave rise to other problems, such as chronic homelessness. As the tragedy in Tucson shows, occasionally the new policy can lead to far greater problems and the death of innocent people. Galston uses this tragedy to consider whether we should go back to the older system, or at least take steps in that direction.
It's a fair question, unlike some of the other nonsense that has been spouted over the last 72 hours. However, there really is no evidence that the former system would necessarily have worked to keep Loughner locked up, at least not as a certainty. We had insane people commit murders under the old system, too. The abuses that come with the older versions of commitment laws would be difficult to prevent if a doctor could keep someone locked up on his say-so without allowing for some sort of habeas corpus-like procedure that would prove that someone is a danger to others — a system we have now.
It's not unfair to open this debate after what happened in Tucson. However, we need to know more about why Loughner wasn't treated and wasn't recognized as dangerous before giving government the power once again to declare citizens who have committed no crime a danger, and then lock them away for years or decades without proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.
With little or no power to lock up problem people (the current situation), more innocents like the ones in Tucson will be in danger. But giving government the power to lock people up based on "warning signs" until some expert decides they're no longer a danger is risky, too. It's a tricky path to walk.
We should have some extra sympathy today for those with profound mental illnesses and for those who work with them. The majority of the seriously mentally ill are no more likely to be violent than the general population. But whenever something like this happens, there's a reactive tendency to lump them all together.
Comments
Having "little or no power to lock up problem people" isn't the problem when people aren't getting mental health care in the first place. I don't see a reasonable way to find out who has violent problems other than that.