Clearing Up the Language of Laws Is Always Better

In a democratic country, it's important for the people and the government to be both advocates of freedom and advocates of justice, two things that are sometimes difficult to reconcile. For instance, it was important to define exceptions to the free speech amendment so people couldn't make others feel that their lives were in danger. Today in with the war on terrorism, it's hard to tell where that line is crossed by the government and how closely laws are followed.

Despite the issue of whether or not laws are being obeyed, clarity is a very important aspect in the making, or amendment of a law. For example, obviously for many medical and health related facilities there have been laws passed refraining from patients being forced into care.
The language of the law however is often fuzzy as in the case for Virginia. Virginia, according to an article on washingtonpost.com has some of the toughest involuntary care of mental illness patients. It states that one has to be checked in if one is an "imminent danger to self of others." Yet there are no guidelines to who qualifies as an imminent danger, and how imminent danger is defined. In light of the Virginia Tech shootings, there has been pressure to clarify the language.

The new proposed amendment would say that in order for a person to be forced into care for a mental illness, that there must be "'a substantial likelihood'" that the person would cause 'serious physical harm to himself or herself.'" The bill has gotten bipartisan support, though there are of course some who oppose it as a threat to civil liberties. I think that this would be the opposite to a threat to civil liberties.

Language to clear up an already existing law, I believe is usually a positive thing, as long as it does not change the meaning of the law. I don't know who would argue that putting a person who is a substantial threat to others into a mental facility is unjust. Even a free society puts borders around freedom, many times that have to do with the protection of others' lives, otherwise no one would feel free.

Of course I am not necessarily an advocate of the government tapping phone calls. That obviously crosses the line. And I do not want to say that this amendment will perfect the law. There is no way to guarantee complete justice or complete freedom. The new wording is still unclear and does not necessarily solve the problem. It does however, take a step toward tightening up justice, and also insuring freedom.