I want to make the sphere of liberty smaller for nuts who might have a violent (even if temporary) impulse.
(buzzer sound)
I cannot agree with this, reasonable as it sounds, because of one word.
MIGHT
"Might" is an acknowledgement of the existence of a
possibility. That's all it is. It is not, and should never be taken to mean that a possibility is anything other than a possibility. "Might" has nothing to do with the probability or likelihood of anything. Determining that requires additional evidence.
"Might" (and "might not") are, or might be,
the ultimate blanket coverage term. Everything we can think of can be covered under that blanket.
I don't think taking action based solely on "might" is the right thing to do. You might think differently.
Now "nuts"....another word used many ways. In the context of this discussion we are not usint "nut" to describe an entusiast about something but someone who
might be dangerous.
The term in common use in today's discussions "Mental Health issues".
Which is yet another nebulous blanket term. And even worse, it is a term with flexible definitions. What is, or is not a "mental health issue" depends on who is making the judgement.
There are still people alive today (though fewer every year) who can remember a time when homosexuality was listed in the standard medical texts as a mental illness. (just one example of how "standards" change)
Literally, anyone who thinks differently than what is considered "normal" (by the person making the judgement) may be labeled mentally ill, or "nuts".
Mental Health is a sloppy nebulous term that can, and has been applied to anyone who thinks differently than you do. And, its more of a net than a blanket, because, like a net, it catches some things and lets others slip through.
We make the (understandable) automatic judgement that someone who commits a mass shooting/mass murder has mental health problems, because, its obvious,
sane people do not do such things.
problem is, sometimes "sane" people do such things. OR perhaps more correctly people who are otherwise considered sane, do such things.
We have an almost built in preconception that people judged insane are not capable of detailed logical reasoning or carrying out complex plans.
Some are not. Some are.
The problems that must be overcome in order to craft a "better" kind of red flag law are numerous, and as I see it, primarily are;
(in no particular order, and by no means all inclusive)
The fact that, until an illegal act happens, the suspect is just a law abiding citizen who must be afforded the same rights as everyone else.
While people (and governments) do, they should not act out of fear.
Taking pre-emptive action against someone who has not broken the law is acting out of fear.
I freely admit there are situations where that pre-emptive action is the correct thing to do for public safety. We have laws that cover that and allow it. Generally speaking, the pre-emptive action is initiated when there is evidence of one of those "conspiracy to commit" laws is broken.
I'll use the example of the "mad bomber" who gets arrested before setting off (or sometimes even finishing) their bomb. I consider that a justifiable response, but that is a vastly different situation than what red flag laws are doing.
Another thing a law has to get past is simply that it is a law, and so must meet certain requirements, some of which are that it must be fair, and fairly applied to everyone.
IN order to do that, there must be standards. Specifically defined points that the situation either meets, or does not meet.
What are they to be? WHO decides that? Legislators? Judges? general public opinion based on polls??
Activists for one point of view or another??
For example, we have legal standards to define what is legally a threat. DO vague and creepy social media posts meet that standard? They might, they might not....Everyone has a different point of view, but the law can have only one, otherwise it cannot meet the equal treatment requirement of the law.
Arguments about the "right" way to raise children have a point, but that point ends when the child discovers it has free will. The old argument about "nature vs. nurture" also ignores free will.
The classice discussion example is a "good" family who has three sons. One grows up to be a priest, another a cop, and the third a career criminal.
All have the same nature (genetics or what ever term you apply) and the same nurture (raised in the same environment) but the result is different.
I think the answer is free will.
And I think this also applies to the mass killers, and their "mental health". Some people do those things because they have actual mental issues, and some do it simply because they choose to.
Sane, but extremely maladjusted to society...is that insane? Is it a mental health matter, or a behavioral choice? And, no matter which, how does the law deal fairly with that?
One of the many standards used is does the subject understand the difference between right and wrong? If they know its wrong and do it anyway, its a criminal matter. If they don't know its wrong, then its a mental health matter, so it becomes a matter of treatment for illness rather than punishment for a crime.
The unavoidable downside to this is that all we can ever know is what the subject tells up. And a really good liar can fool a lot of people.
