Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:46 am
have you been to a pysch ward? do you know some of the history of mental institutions? and, as you have said yourself, you're called when there's a problem. you don't see the good side nearly as much as you see the bad. i'm not saying there aren't problems (because there are plenty), i'm saying that the good of helping the people outweights (far, far outweights) the pains of dealing with them from time to time. you only see the bad, not the good. no, i haven't been to a group home but i have been in a psych ward, i have admitted people, and i have seen them when the get out.
characterizing an entire group of people based on your bad experiences would be like me characterizing all cops based on the times i was arrested (never have been). would you say that it would be fair to call all cops corrupt pigs if that were my only experience with them?
and one of the main reasons that people are in the group homes is because they're not treated to properly. i'd love for you to look at the demographics of your local group homes (and the demographics of those that don't have to go to group homes). i think you'd find a trend and i think you'd start to get it. you think health insurance covers mental illness; guess again. you think people are as likely to get treated (or seek treatment for others) for mental illness like they are for, say, diabetes or cancer; guess again.
and it sounds like most of the group homes you deal with are in poor areas (hungry and undertreated). would that be a fair assumption to make? why is it then that you assume that the problem is the people and not sufficient medical treatment *which is not "locking them up" as you say. and the government doesn't pay for that many meal because no one cares. these people are considered a hassle, a pain the ass, a burden to society.. criminals are viewed more highly than the mentally ill, by you, obviously, and by a lot of society. people think, at least criminals can recover, or, at least i don't have to see them everyday, or, at least we can blame it on something, or, at least it's somewhat predictable.
believe me, i've had my share of doses of "real world of mental health" and it isn't pretty.. but guess what, that just means we have to make it better, not lock it away in a neat little out of the way place so that people can go on stigmatizing it and ignoring it rather than helping. if everyone had to live with your so called "psycho wack-a-nuts" for a while, i bet you'd care a lot more about getting them better than locking them up.
and you're right, you have a clue, you just haven't processed it yet.
and this is something of a post-script that i just thought of: do you really believe locking criminals away for x amount of time really "cures" them or makes them less likely to commit the crimes again? as a public safety service provider (thank you, by the way), i'd be surprised if you believed that simple time behind locked doors really fixed anything.
characterizing an entire group of people based on your bad experiences would be like me characterizing all cops based on the times i was arrested (never have been). would you say that it would be fair to call all cops corrupt pigs if that were my only experience with them?
and one of the main reasons that people are in the group homes is because they're not treated to properly. i'd love for you to look at the demographics of your local group homes (and the demographics of those that don't have to go to group homes). i think you'd find a trend and i think you'd start to get it. you think health insurance covers mental illness; guess again. you think people are as likely to get treated (or seek treatment for others) for mental illness like they are for, say, diabetes or cancer; guess again.
and it sounds like most of the group homes you deal with are in poor areas (hungry and undertreated). would that be a fair assumption to make? why is it then that you assume that the problem is the people and not sufficient medical treatment *which is not "locking them up" as you say. and the government doesn't pay for that many meal because no one cares. these people are considered a hassle, a pain the ass, a burden to society.. criminals are viewed more highly than the mentally ill, by you, obviously, and by a lot of society. people think, at least criminals can recover, or, at least i don't have to see them everyday, or, at least we can blame it on something, or, at least it's somewhat predictable.
believe me, i've had my share of doses of "real world of mental health" and it isn't pretty.. but guess what, that just means we have to make it better, not lock it away in a neat little out of the way place so that people can go on stigmatizing it and ignoring it rather than helping. if everyone had to live with your so called "psycho wack-a-nuts" for a while, i bet you'd care a lot more about getting them better than locking them up.
and you're right, you have a clue, you just haven't processed it yet.
and this is something of a post-script that i just thought of: do you really believe locking criminals away for x amount of time really "cures" them or makes them less likely to commit the crimes again? as a public safety service provider (thank you, by the way), i'd be surprised if you believed that simple time behind locked doors really fixed anything.