Subject:
|
Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Nov 2001 13:11:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
254 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
> > > you may be taggable as one of those "sex offenders" that gets
> > > watched for 25 years. (someone ought to test the constitutionality of that,
> > > actually, but I digress...)
> >
> > I've wondered about that as well. On one hand, if a medically
> > demonstrable risk continues to exist that an individual will commit a crime
> > again, is it not in the public's interest to be appropriately informed, even
> > at the expense of that individual's right to privacy?
>
> Yes.
I don't think so. But only because I think that they should remain in
treatment until they do not pose a credible threat.
> > The crux appears to be whether or not the individual has paid his "debt to
> > society" by serving a prison term (or what-have-you), but if sexual predation
> > isn't simply a crime but an illness, might not more stringent controls be
> > appropriate?
>
> Yes.
They need more help than punishment if that's what you you both mean.
> > Granted, the treatment for illness should't be incarceration in prison, but
> > some sort of treatment (and detention in the meantime) seems justifiable.
> > Certain drugs like Depo Provera show promise as a means of reining in
> > predatory urges, and, while the chemical effects wane after treatment is
> > terminated, the behaviors learned during treatment can help control such
> > behaviors.
>
> But why should the rest of society have to live with the possibility that the
> offender's behavior may not be controlled?
What's the difference between them and anyone else? You are living this very
day with the possibility that _my_ behavior may not be controlled. Should we
also preemptively treat or incarcerate everyone? Obviously you can say there's
a difference between someone who has demonstrated a problem of this sort and
someone who has not, but your statement suggested that you were seeking surity
which is a phantom.
> > However, the long-term health effects are not known; might that
> > sort of treatment be acceptable, or at least preferable, to prison?
>
> Does anyone really care about the long-term health effects on these people?
Yes. I think it is a bad idea to get used to selling the mentally ill to
pharaceutical companies. But maybe it's just me.
> Economically speaking the drugs (assuming the biotechnology exists) would be
> cheaper for society than locking the offender up.
True. But not as sure a handling. What if these people were involved in the
process of determining what was wrong with them and figuring out a solution?
Maybe more creativity and customization in our CJ and mental illness handling
is called for. Remeber, people don't actually want to be bad.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!!
|
| (...) Do you allow for life-long treatment, even if that treatment necessitates incarceration? I ask because if there's an organic flaw in the brain chemistry, then the individual is realistically a threat forever. (...) By "stringent controls" I (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!!
|
| (...) Yes. (...) Yes. (...) But why should the rest of society have to live with the possibility that the offender's behavior may not be controlled? Or the possibility that the offender may decide not to show up for his Depo Provera treatment (or (...) (23 years ago, 1-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
