• SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    I dislike how we have moved away from utopian shows to dystopian content. Even the new Star Trek content is all about being in a crisis.

  • Zachariah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    Reminds me of how much I appreciate MacGyver never used a gun, or stories where beating the bad guy means transforming them rather than killing them or besting them.

  • RBG@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Sure, but if he killed a person during this he still should answer for it.

    Edit: what is it with the downvotes? If someone killed someone, they have to answer for it, no matter if mentally ill or not. If they are non-violent but mentally ill, they deserve proper treatment of course.

    • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The “answering for it” part is where the character is confined for mental health treatment.

      • Maalus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Sure, but he’ll be confined for life regardless (barring any miracle scifi cures, which won’t work in the real world). Also this places emphasis on the stereotypical “violent mental patient” and glosses over the 99% of people with mental illnesses.

        • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Do you not think people can be cured of mental illness in the real world? It does, in fact, happen all the time. Including with the stereotypical violent mental patients.

          And if someone commits crimes while mentally ill, and then is cured and poses no threat of reoffending, what purpose is served by keeping that person confined?

          • Maalus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            It isn’t that easy with the justice system in most countries. You also don’t know when someone is “cured” and when they aren’t posing any threat. It just isn’t that simple.

            • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.netOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Of course it’s not that simple. That’s why, after people are institutionalized and treated, they’re gradually given more and more freedom in structured settings - eg halfway houses, work release, house arrest with family - to make sure the treatment is working and the person is ready to be a functional member of society again.

              It works that way in a country that actually cares about people, anyway. No guarantees if you’re in the United States.

              But the point is - or should be - that punishing people for acts they’re not responsible for is both cruel and meaningless. The mentally ill person, once cured, shouldn’t remain confined as punishment for crimes he committed while ill. The criminal, once rehabilitated, shouldn’t remain confined for crimes he committed while ignorant and immature. In both cases, the goal of an enlightened system should be to return the person to society as quickly as possible and give them the tools they need to function as a valuable and productive member of society. Locking someone up for life benefits no one except the prison industry.