Subject:
|
Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Nov 2001 14:40:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
312 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
> > > 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.
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.
> > > 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?
> They need more help than punishment if that's what you you both mean.
By "stringent controls" I mean exactly that. I'm not referring to
beatings or the like, but such controls might presumably take the form of
long-term incarceration while in treatment and/or mandatory long-term
medication. If the person is mentally ill beyond his ability to control
himself, then incarceration during treatment (if treatment is possible)
doesn't seem out of order.
> > 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.
If this were simply a matter of a history of shoplifting, I'd agree.
However, since sexual predation is identified as a mental illness (and one
that doesn't just go away after a while), the criteria for longterm handling
of the individual are demonstrably different. Certainty is not guaranteed,
of course, but when is it ever guaranteed? If the condition can be
determined still to exist, and if the individual does not have some credible
means of controlling himself or being controlled, then the potential for
further crimes exists in a much more tangible way than for someone who
occasionally swipes a pack of gum.
> > > 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.
I agree with you Chris, but I'll also let Maggie off the hook by pointing
out that my question was unfairly vague. However, it's also kind of vague
to refer to "selling the mentally ill" as if a sexual predator is no
different from a compulsive hand-washer. While I can't draw the boundaries,
some difference must be recognized, and different standards of treatment are
necessary.
Just out of curiosity, do you feel that victims are entitled to
compensation following attacks by the mentally ill? That is, if a victim
incurs huge medical costs from injuries inflicted by a sexual predator, can
the victim sue for costs (leaving aside "pain and suffering" for a moment)?
> Maybe more creativity and customization in our CJ and mental illness handling
> is called for. Remember, people don't actually want to be bad.
But some people don't feel it's "bad" to filet people and eat them, so
even if they don't actually want to be bad, they can still feel free carving
someone into steaks. I think you're onto something in allowing people with
mental illness to have some voice in their treatment, but not to the point
of letting them design their own prisons, so to speak.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!!
|
| (...) I think so. I mean, if they're a threat, then we can't very well let them just hang out and hurt people. If we can fix them, then obviously we do. But in most cases I think psychiatry is a waiting game until they just get over it...if they (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!!
|
| (...) I don't think so. But only because I think that they should remain in treatment until they do not pose a credible threat. (...) They need more help than punishment if that's what you you both mean. (...) What's the difference between them and (...) (23 years ago, 2-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
|
|
|
|
