I hate this sort of article. Just someone banging out words for a deadline.

>Yet there is little available data that draws a neat line between mental illness and crime, let alone violent crime.

Ok, so there's "little available data that draws a neat line"? Surely they'll discuss what that small amount of data is? No? No.

>Several studies, which did not look specifically at New York City, have concluded that people with mental illness are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators.

Gibberish, since it does not refute the idea that people with mental illness are more likely to commit crimes than people without mental illness.

>Experts in mental health care said they want to see the city and state taking more direct steps to help people who may need housing and psychiatric care. But they are concerned that the new policy isn’t nuanced enough to avoid criminalizing mental illness broadly, especially without clear data that shows a relationship between mental crisis and committing crimes.

Ok, now the writer is asserting--providing no evidence--that there are no "clear data that shows a relationship between mental crisis and committing crimes." I guess "little clear data" means "no clear data" in this universe.

>[Quote from a guy who doesn't like the policy]

Ok.

>Several high-profile crimes in recent years have drawn attention to mental illness as a possible predictor for assaults, or worse. Perhaps most infamously, the man who pushed Michelle Go in front of a subway train in January was deemed mentally unfit for trial.

>In May, police officials offered statistics at a City Council hearing showing that at least half of people arrested for hate crimes in the first four months of the year were already designated by the department as “emotionally disturbed.”

So far, the only data presented in the article suggests there actually may be some correlation between mental illness and criminal activity.

>[several paragraphs of Adams saying stuff.>

Ok.

>Yet experts said that Adams’ rhetoric broadly tying mental illness to crime was unfounded.

Ok, now presumably we're going to have an expert explain how it's not true that people with mental illness are more likely to commit crimes. . .

>"There's no cause and effect (of) if someone has a mental illness, they’re inevitably going to commit a violent crime. Absolutely not the case,” said Ruth O’Sullivan, the clinical director for Brooklyn Mental Health Court.

But instead we got an expert saying that having mental illness doesn't automatically mean you will commit violent crimes. Again, this is off-point gibberish.

A few paragraphs on . . .

>While data tends to show a connection between incarceration and mental illness, experts said it’s not clear that there is any causal relationship between having a chronic issue such as schizophrenia or a behavioral disorder and committing crimes. Jail may exacerbate mental illness due to lack of treatment, they said.

Ok, so now we learn that there is in fact a correlation between incarceration and mental illness, but we're told to ignore that because unnamed "experts" say that incarceration may cause mental illness. Fair enough.

A few paragraphs on:

>To be sure, O’Sullivan said she believes, based on her experience, that people experiencing both a total lack of shelter and untreated mental illness are more likely to commit acts of violence.

So now we're almost at the end of this article and the writer drops the statement that an expert believes that homeless mentally ill people are more likely to commit violent crimes.

Yeah I was thinking of Alvin Bragg’s policy.

> The Office will not seek a carceral sentence other than for homicide or other cases involving the death of a victim, a class B violent felony in which a deadly weapon causes serious physical injury, domestic violence felonies, sex offenses in Article 130 of the Penal Law, public corruption, rackets, or major economic crimes, including any attempt to commit any such offense under Article 110 of the Penal Law, unless required by law. For any charge of attempt to cause serious physical injury with a dangerous instrument, ADAs must obtain the approval of an ECAB supervisor to seek a carceral sentence.

He probably won’t get jail time unless it’s charged as a hate crime. Assuming they can even find him.

Edit: Ah, it’s Staten Island, so maybe he would get jail time.

I’ve done that in hockey fights.

Lol, this is totally true.

Big swinging dick in the sub!

> Uncle Budd is arguably the pioneer of this gray market model, embracing a legal loophole by gifting weed (not selling it) in exchange for a donation.

Lol, this is not a “legal loophole.” It’s “illegal.” The law is just not being enforced.

Get your anti-human crap outta here!

I have no idea.

You do realize I’m Charlie Kelly, Philadelphia’s #1 bird lawyer, right? I’m well-known in the Philly bird community.

Sorry I can’t get past “famed bike lawyer”

Bike law!

Could have used a quote from concerned activists.

There were reports noting the disparity but I recall no serious concern from medical officials about the causes of the disparity or how they needed to be reduced.

Women are more likely to do work in the home. Ok. Are men more likely to have jobs? (Yes.) And would that mean they have less rest time? (Also yes.)

It seems highly likely to me that men are just underreporting their “long Covid” symptoms.

So embarrassing! I will delete my comments.

Right. He said that the city intends to have vulnerable groups suffer the most. That’s what I said.

Yeah that’s not how I read his initial comment, which was saying that the city intends to harm these communities.

Mods are searching your comment history.

Wasn’t clear from his initial comment. His follow up comment seems to be talking about that. But then again I didn’t think “environmental racism” involved intentionality—his comment was that the city has intentionally tried to make poor people suffer these harms.

The schools with the neediest students get the most resources, I know that much. I don’t know much about the others.

Is that what OP was talking about?

You also said the city intends to make vulnerable communities suffer bad things. How so?

> New data from the city health department points to disparities in race and gender

> Women were 1.4 times more likely to report symptoms than men

I don’t remember public health officials whining about “disparities in gender” when it came to deaths from Covid. Or life expectancy for that matter.

What this most likely means is that men are less likely to report symptoms, not that they’re less likely to have symptoms. That’s the disparity. Just like men are less likely to report symptoms of depression while women are vastly more likely to be prescribed SSRIs.

I would ban all those—Pazienza, Duck Sauce, Michelle Go, Majors—because they were all one-off crimes and weren’t mass attacks. I don’t like the idea of mods deciding that crimes are important because of the race of the attacker or the victim. Too much discretion there and it would yield too many inconsistent results that would undermine confidence that the rule is being applied fairly. One rule for all stories reporting on specific crimes unless there are truly extraordinary circumstances that make it an issue for the whole city.

I don’t like a rule that privileges certain sources over other sources. Too many arguments about what’s reputable and what isn’t.

Those are my views anyway. And I still don’t know if it makes sense to cordon off crime posts in the first place.

You think there are no instances in which this will help people?