06-27-2026, 07:57 AM
I believe you meant "than" on line 8.
Presumably this poem refers to the DOJ memo proposing stricter limits to application of the 1999 Olmstead decision. Opponents of that proposal use the word "segregation" a lot - it became kind of a magic this-is-evil label in the 1950s and 1960s, but (it seems to me) does not apply here in that sense of working from prejudice against (in this case) people displaying unusual behavior.
The questions are, what's best for those with whom the people in question come in contact, what's best for the people in question, themselves, and (least important but most difficult) who decides. Advocates for minimum restraint on the oddly-behaving push the pre-judgment that they're harmless until proven dangerous; those willing to apply greater restraint push the potential for harm to self and others from unexpected or irrational behavior.
If a state obtains responsibility for a person due to odd behavior, it will as a first cut treat the person in accordance with the state's interest - which may involve institutionalization when less restraint would be possible but inconvenient, expensive, or difficult for normal-behaving citizens. The 1999 Olmstead decision tried to prioritize the patient's liberty as a value the state must maximize as much as is "appropriate."
My impression, and this is what the new DOJ proposal seems to be addressing, is that the Olmstead decision has been too broadly interpreted - that people who are not suited to community care or independent living have been pushed into those situations because otherwise there will be lawsuits. The stereotype cases are people who are OK when they take their meds but not when they don't, and the subway pusher/train stabber who is not being handled by criminal courts (for irrelevant reasons) but can't be institutionalized, either, on account of broad Olmstead interpretation so keeps hurting other people.
Those may be minor issues numerically, but very serious for the people involved. Since these things keep happening and Olmstead is implicated, DOJ may have a point.
Presumably this poem refers to the DOJ memo proposing stricter limits to application of the 1999 Olmstead decision. Opponents of that proposal use the word "segregation" a lot - it became kind of a magic this-is-evil label in the 1950s and 1960s, but (it seems to me) does not apply here in that sense of working from prejudice against (in this case) people displaying unusual behavior.
The questions are, what's best for those with whom the people in question come in contact, what's best for the people in question, themselves, and (least important but most difficult) who decides. Advocates for minimum restraint on the oddly-behaving push the pre-judgment that they're harmless until proven dangerous; those willing to apply greater restraint push the potential for harm to self and others from unexpected or irrational behavior.
If a state obtains responsibility for a person due to odd behavior, it will as a first cut treat the person in accordance with the state's interest - which may involve institutionalization when less restraint would be possible but inconvenient, expensive, or difficult for normal-behaving citizens. The 1999 Olmstead decision tried to prioritize the patient's liberty as a value the state must maximize as much as is "appropriate."
My impression, and this is what the new DOJ proposal seems to be addressing, is that the Olmstead decision has been too broadly interpreted - that people who are not suited to community care or independent living have been pushed into those situations because otherwise there will be lawsuits. The stereotype cases are people who are OK when they take their meds but not when they don't, and the subway pusher/train stabber who is not being handled by criminal courts (for irrelevant reasons) but can't be institutionalized, either, on account of broad Olmstead interpretation so keeps hurting other people.
Those may be minor issues numerically, but very serious for the people involved. Since these things keep happening and Olmstead is implicated, DOJ may have a point.
Non-practicing atheist