There's something wrong about this...
 

NY Times

Daniel J. Langevin was 35, mentally ill and broke.
He had been living in psychiatric institutions on and off since his early 20s.
A friend who visited him at the Rochester Psychiatric Center in February 1995
remembered that Mr. Langevin had pain in his jaw, eye and face
that was not getting much attention from the staff.
A week later, he was discovered unconscious,
with a near-fatal infection spreading to his brain and other organs.
Mr. Langevin sued New York State, which operates the hospital,
and probably would have won a sizable award.

But the state countered by demanding that Mr. Langevin reimburse it
$1.7 million for 10 years of inpatient care he had received.

A judge sided with the state, and Mr. Langevin wound up with nothing.

That's appalling.

That sucks in major ways, especially since the state had already been reimbursed for the fellow's care.

Wait a minute, this useless drag on society has been mooching off the state like forever. Then some underpaid, overworked employee makes one little boo boo, and now this parasite is entitled to get a shitload more money from the taxpayers, that he can't do anything with because he's not fit for public.
Where's the soylent green truck when ya need it.

I guess they could have just gave him the hospital bill if he had won the money. That would have probably evened it up right there.

Hang on - a living, breathing, thinking person who is not capable of living outside an institution should be penalised for having to do so?

I don't think he should have sued, because that doesn't help anyone (as he cannot spend the money himself, evidently) but whistle-blowing in this case is justified. But my understanding is that in America, whistles blown = lawsuits.

But hey, if he's so worthess just threaten to kill him.
I'm sure the furore raised by the Right to Live groups will fund him for the rest of his natural life.

Funding for our whole mental health system is broken, like most everything else. Things get missed. And often those things have little to do with gross negligence as most ambulance chasers would like you to believe.

Our mental health system is also shot to shit.
"Care in the community" basically meant releasing people who could not cope with daily life and giving them accommodation and money, but little or no support. Oh they got their drugs paid for alright. But many - MANY - only took them with familial intervention.

But then institutions were cruel places too, preventing those who could live outside from ever having the opportunity to prove it.

I've yet to hear of any country who have been able to reach a reasonable balance. But I'd look to the Netherlands or New Zealand as examples. No, I've no idea how they handle it - I just know them to follow ideals pretty close to my own much of the time.

Oh, we release ours too. But I think most of them end up in the jail.

Or living under a bridge. :(

Or going to school here. ;)

In the US, it's just one legacy from our Governor and President,
Ronald Regan... De-institutionalize, then cut $ for meds and small group homes.

Ketchup is a vegetable!

Good ol' Ronnie... :)

I hope they all go to your state and enroll in your school.... Really.

Twins released from prision - with just one small contingency
 

ABC News
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES
Dec. 30, 2010

Supporters Applaud Plan to Release Scott Sisters in Kidney Deal
Gladys and Jamie Scott Were Given Life Sentences for an Armed Robbery
BUT...

NEXT DAY... Action -> Reaction

ABC News
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES
Dec. 31, 2010

Scott Sisters Kidney Donation Threatens Organ Transplant Laws
Governor's Deal Violates 50-Year-Old Donation Laws Outlawing Coercion and Rewards;

AND... What If Sisters Aren't a Match?

If you ever find yourself in either situation, I hope someone helps you.

Because no one helped me.

guilty within reason doubt ?
 

Yesterday I learned a man was just found guilty of a sexual offense against a young boy.
Sentencing will be in a couple of weeks, and he faces several years in prison.

He is well known and had a good reputation for his civic services
The particular event took place more than 10 years ago
His arrest and trial were widely publicized throughout the area
No other complaints have came forward from other children or adults

My surprise was the the jury verdict was 11 to 1.

Is not that one jury-person's "NO" vote a de facto statement that
the prosecution did not prove guilt conclusively, and there is still
reasonable doubt ?

Thinking beyond this man's case...
I did not know that when a person's liberty is at risk,
a guilty verdict could be brought even if the jury is not unanimous.
Is it a simple majority (7-5), a super-majority (8-4), or some other magic number ?

Nope, that's not reasonable doubt in my mind. Unanimous is unrealistic. I doubt it's that hard to nobble one jury member, and I'm sure as hell certain that one wacko with a weird agenda could fake it through jury selection.

I seem to think that -in the uk- the judge can instruct the jury as to what majority they require for each case...... I have no idea if that's the case here.

Criminal trials in the US require a unanimous verdict.

That's my problem with this verdict... It's from a Court here in Oregon !