In the article, Court Upholds Involuntary Commitments For People With Disabilities the constitutionality of placing people with disabilities under government-institutionalized care is decided in Nebraska. After being challenged by a person with an IQ of 62 who was recently committed by the state, it was deemed that the state holds the authority to place people with developmental disabilities in mental hospitals if they are “determined to be dangerous.” In the same article, lawyers argue that this law is unconstitutional because it does not require a trial to be held for people with disabilities. On the other side of the argument in the article People With Disabilities Confined Involuntarily For Decades, Suit Alleges discusses three residents of Texas who have intellectual disabilities who have been institutionalized for a total of 130 years without anyone reviewing their placements, and it is feared that they are not alone. These are just two articles that discuss opposing viewpoints dealing with confining people with disabilities, how many others are there? Our questions to you are: 1. What is your opinion regarding both sides of the decisions, 2. What precautions could the state take to prevent people from being placed in care?
Group: Julia, Tiffany, Danielle, Jordan, Kristen
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First, I cannot believe that some states have this law of being able to put individuals with disabilities into confinement, whenever they see fit. In regards to first article I do not agree with the court decision. I also did not like the fact that the individual did not even receive a trial. Just because they posed a threat at one time does not mean that they are always a potential threat and a trial would have been able to look into that. I also wonder if the court looked into why they were a threat. I am not saying that this individual with disabilities is completely innocent if they did do something, but they deserved a trial. I have witnessed too many times people making fun of individuals with disabilities and trying to hurt them so if the person is being made fun of reacts in a threatening way in order to protect themselves then it is acceptable. I agree with the lawyers who were arguing that it was unconstitutional. It definitely was. A trial should be held for everyone not just those who are deemed sane. As for the second article I am appalled at how the system works. All people have rights whether they are disabled or not. The fact that their case was not reviewed is inhumane. People think just because someone is disabled they do not deserve to be heard or have rights. The answer is not to lock individuals up, but to have the state offer programs that they must attend that can help them get back on track. They are not animals, they are people. I believe that states need to improve their care systems and programs for individuals with disabilities and not hide what they think is a problem.
ReplyDeleteI find it horrible that there are states that treat people with disabilities like this. I agree completely that it is unconstitutional. In the United States, people are innocent until proven guilty and they are proven guilty by a jury of their peers. The fifth amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees that right to all citizens. The second article mentioned that some of the people institutionalized had been there since their teenage years or childhood. Criminals all serve a set sentence and are paroled after serving their time. I do not believe it is constitutional or fair to let a rapist out on the streets again after 15 years or so but never let a person with a disability who may never have done anything wrong except make a threat out of the institution.
ReplyDeleteI believe states could find different solutions to this problem. First, a person with a disability that makes a threat needs to have a trial by jury before being institutionalized, although I do not believe they should be punished for something they merely thought. But a trial by jury is more constitutional than imprisonment without. States could establish better programs in the community to assist people with disabilities on a daily or weekly basis.
In learning more about how states are treating people with disabilities, I have become intrigued with the different opinions. First of all, I very much disagree with the way some states allow those with disabilities to be shut away from society without a fair trial. There are way too many people who get shoved under the rug just because it's easy to sweep up everyone at once than to take the time and examine each individual, but I do not think this is constitutional or fair because they are citizens just like the rest of us! Obviously many in the end could end up being put away in institutions after determining that they are a "danger" or whatever else but I still feel it is very important to give them a way out just like we would with anyone else.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it seems like it would be beneficial for the states to do a little more work in maintaining the institutions where people with disabilities are living as well because they may be able to be let out later on if programs are good inside. Many people could learn how to better function in society if given more options and more help.
I am surprised that people are still confined in state institutions on the basis of their mental state to the degree that these articles report. Yes, some people who do terrible crimes are later found to have some imbalance chemically, emotionally, or mentally. But this is not justification to institutionalize numerous cases of mental instability, especially when there is no trial held or chance given to these people. I recognize that many families with children with mental disabilities cannot care for them to the extent that is needed. I think it is sad though that mental institutions still exist to the extent described in these articles. In school we read about Dorothea Dix and others who did so much to change the sphere of mental institutions in the US. I guess I had just assumed that we were past all that.
ReplyDeleteIn order to better prevent the improper placement of individuals within state institutional care, courts could require multiple testing of individuals recommended for institutional care. As seen above, just an IQ test is not enough. Hopefully through various types of tests, it could be more accurately determined whether an individual should be in a more highly confined situation.
I can't believe that in the United States of America, a place where we honor freedom and justice, certain states would put people in an institution without a fair trial. In the first article, it says that if they are determined to be dangerous, they can put them in mental hospitals. Who determines if a person is dangerous or not? People with disabilities sometimes portray their emotions in different ways than those without disabilities. It may not always be appropriate at times, but most of these people are rarely "dangerous". In the second article, it says, "professionals hired by the state have indicated that each of the three could be cared for in a less restrictive environment." Why then are disabled people still in institutions without a fair trial? If they could have a less restricted environment, they might be able to change, if they really are "dangerous" and become more connected in a community. Disabled or not, everyone deserves a fair trial.
ReplyDeleteI was very surprised by this article. I was unaware that this was even taking place, especially in the United States. I agree that treating people with disabilities this way is completely unconstitutional. There is a possibility that some people with disabilities pose a threat to society, just as there are some people without disabilities that pose a threat. And how are these typical people treated? They are given a fair trial by jury. They are considered innocent until proven guilty. Don't people with disabilities deserve the same treatment? Of course they do! If a person with a disability is dangerous to the people around them, then they should be tried in a court of law. If it is determined that they are in fact dangerous, then placing them in a home may not be an awful idea. However, these homes should not be places where the people with disabilities are confined and treated badly because that will not help the situation. These homes could be places where people with disabilities learn to live in society.
ReplyDeleteStates need to take measures to make sure that their citizens with disabilities are treated fairly and kindly. They deserve every right that the people without disabilities do. Each state needs to put into law and act that requires those with disabilities to be tried with the same process as all other citizens.
I was so shocked by those articles. It's the kind of thing you hear about 50 years ago, or the kinds of things that happen in developing countries: people with disabilities being locked up and left with no trials or reviews. I was so surprised that a state in this day and age would pass a law that did not require a trial for the people with disabilities to be locked up. I get the impression that this is all to do with money, most things are nowadays. It is cheaper for the state to lock up an individual with disabilities then finding a home for them, taking care of them, paying for lawyers and a full trial is required, it is easier and cheaper for them to be locked away and forgotten about. The point I'm trying to make is that if people with money, aka people with power fought for the rights of people with disabilities then we would not have this problem. But the fact is that nobody is fighting for them. In the 2nd article the 3 people were locked away and their cases were not reviewed, I'm not saying that the people were innocent, however theyre cases need to be reviewed. But the fact was that nobody was fighting for them, somebody needs to. People are so selfish nowadays, we only are concerned with our own troubles, but before we know it a member of our family could be in that situation and we would want the state to provide a way for them to receive a free trial and be places in the least restrictive environment.
ReplyDeleteI was very surprised when I read these articles. The constitution clearly states that every individual is innocent until proven guilty. Restricting the right to a fair trial to those with intellectual disabilities shows the court's blatant disregard for the constitution's ideals. I understand that it is sometimes necessary to commit those with disabilities to mental institutions, but it should not be done without a fair trial. If the state wants to save money, they are hurting themselves by upholding this law. Without the need for a proper trial, more individuals with disabilities will be committed. This means the state will now be accountable for more individuals, and it will cost more to care for them. If the state wants to save money and reduce the number of those currently committed, they need to give every individual a right to a fair trial and reevaluations should be conducted annually.
ReplyDeleteIt is so disheartening to hear about people with intellectual disabilities being "put away" as a precaution in case they MIGHT do something dangerous in the future. This concept is so against the American constitution. It leaves the life of a human being in the hands of someone's mere opinion or concern. Our nation is all about equality of rights...i'm pretty sure that includes ALL citizens, even citizens with disabilities. I understand the concern of these individuals causing harm to themselves or others; that is the case with many mentally handicapped people and it is important they receive the care and restriction necessary for safety. But in those cases, it is only fair that they receive a trial so that a judge or jury can be provided with all possible evidence to reach a correct verdict. Confining these individuals to an institution without fair trial is implying that their lives are not as valuable or worth our time as everyone else's. This notion could not be any more false. States need to create a specific process in which the individual's situation is reported and then well researched and defended. The main figures in the trial should be unbiased so that a fair and proper conclusion can be made. Surely a professional and specialist on the individual's particular disability should offer insight as well.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion regarding the decision that the state has had the power to confine these people is that their ruling is flawed. From the information provided in the article I didn't see enough evidence from the state that convinced me of their stance on the argument. The article was very short and I didn't see enough detail in it to persuade me.
ReplyDeleteThe second article was also very short but was a bit more persuasive in their argument that with the findings from the professionals hired by the state to review the competency of those confined, the three individuals should be in a better place. Of the two arguments presented I would stand with the latter because it shows citizens at least willing to have some faith in those with disabilities and their possibility of living normal lives.
One precaution the state could take to prevent people from being placed in care - at least without a fair trial or probable cause - is for them to assign these people lawyers, just like they do with criminals who can't afford one when they go to trial. These treatment centers may be useful in our society, but just like the movie "Changeling", people must be sent there justly and not simply by the decision of one person in authority.
Yeah, these laws both seem pretty unconstitutional, because they're placing people in institutions without the right to a fair trial. People shouldn't be committed without a trial, it is that simple. There needs to be proper evidence that anyone, with or without disabilities, is dangerous to others.
ReplyDeleteIts not the first time stupid laws have been passed. The country, however is getting better at making sure that things like this don't keep happening. If people just followed laws that are in place such as the IDEA, then other things wouldn't get out of hand. Some people do need to be placed in care, it just needs to be regulated and back with fair evidence.
I do not believe that people should be committed without consent. I cannot believe that people would think it was okay to commit someone with a disability that hasn't done anything wrong. I do believe, however, that with consent and/or cause are valid reasons for commitment. What is a valid reason? If the person has a history of lashing out violently, inflicting harm on self or others, etc...
ReplyDeleteThe state could hire someone as a "nanny" or "body guard" for the person with disabilities. This hired hand could be a witness in court to the commitment or lack thereof. I think that each case should be on trial. I know that that is expensive and likely won't happen (because the world is not fair), but that is what I believe should happen in order to keep us form being unlawful.
There was an interesting comment under the first article about how as ridiculous as laws like that seem, at one point in U.S. history, even slavery was constitutional. But just like that had to change when people really spoke up about how wrong it was, the more that stories like this are shared and more people become informed, that is when a change will come. Until then, unfortunately, as seems to be the common response with our class, very few are even aware that such a terrible law exists.
ReplyDeleteI also think that one of the underlying issues in both cases, is that there are many people that just don't want to "deal" with others that have disabilities or may need extra care. It is upsetting that their solution so often is just to "put them somewhere and forget about them." I think the more that we are active about increasing awareness for the needs of those with disabilities, the more effective we will be in providing better care for those that would otherwise just be institutionalized without another thought. People just need to recognize that these are individuals with unique needs, and one "solution" is not the best for everyone, and as we read here, very often, seems even un-American. I think it is up to educators and care-takers to be the voice for those that can't speak for themselves.
I think that it is wrong to "imprison" someone with a disability in a state mental hospital. We are always saying that we need to treat those with disabilities as people, treating them the same way that we treat everyone else. The government does not just throw people in jail, they are given a trail. I think that if the government wants to confine those with disabilities, they should be given a trail just like everyone else. It is unconstitutional to just confine someone without giving them a fair trail. If after a fair trail it is shown that there could be a danger in letting the person live on their own then yes it is fair to move the person to a place where they would be safe and taken care of.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I don't see how that law was ruled constitutional. Everyone has a right to a fair trial and there can be no punishment if there is no crime committed. I absolutely disagree with confining a person with disabilities in a mental hospital for no reason. I think that the state should take all measures possible to help a person becoming an independent and able to live in as least restrictive an environment as possible. In school, students should be taught life skills that will help them live in a normal situation and provide for themselves later in life. There are also programs such as RISE, TURN and CHRYSALLIS and many others that help to provide living and work support. Programs such as these should be tried long before a mental hospital. Just because these people have disabilities they still have rights and should have as many chances as possible to live a normal and productive a life as possible.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this I was shocked and found myself asking, "Wait...we still pull crap like this in America?". It was disgusting to me because people are people no matter WHAT. Sure, some might have a lower intelligence and might have some problems but they are STILL PEOPLE end of story. And by virtue of them being people they deserve what all other people are entitled and in this situation, a fair trial in court.
ReplyDeleteI think that when they are put on trial that they should have a lawyer of course, but also that there should be a trained professional in the field or special education, psychology or the like to help others understand what is going on. Yeah, I'm sure some of them are actually dangerous and in that case it's a different story, but I would dare to say that more times than not it was self defense or they were having a bad day. We all have bad days. And just because we have been trained not to lash out as much as they have doesn't mean that they are a constant threat and should be locked up from the world. I think a professional could help teach the court this concept.
The fact that states are allowed to treat individuals with disabilities like this makes me furious. Often times, these individuals are unable to stand up for themselves. I find it extremely unfair that they are allowed to treat people with disabilities all the same and often times won't take the time to examine each of their cases individually. I feel like if they did take the time to evaluate each case they would discover there is a different solution for each individual. I work in a group home with adults with disabilities. There is one lady there who is in her late fourties. When she was eight years old, she was put into an institution because she was deemed as a threat to her siblings. She was there for a majority of her life. Eventually, her parents decided to move her into a group home and that is how I have been able to work with her. Through behavior training, she has become a beneficial member of the society. If people would take the time to work with these individuals they deem as a "threat" to society, they will discover that they add so much to our community.
ReplyDeleteI believe that everyone has the right to a trial. If we can't put murderers in jail without a trial why should we be able to put individuals with special needs (who aren't hurting anyone) to be put away without a trial. That is just not fair. For those with severe enough disabilities there should be an advocate for them at the trial. I mean really they aren't hurting anybody
ReplyDelete