Subject:
|
Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:00:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
331 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler 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.
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 ever do. I have a schizophrenic uncle who was multiply raped in
different hospitals. I have strong opinions about the care that the mentally
ill should receive as a result of having grown up watching it suck.
> 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.
Agreed. It's one of those realities that is ugly but I think practicality
dictates the need. The only other reasonable option is to not care for them
but to not penalize someone for shooting them retributively. And that would be
ugly too.
I do, however, worry about a slippery slope in diagnosis. How deviant must
someone be to require psychiatric incarceration? What if they have the
ludicrous notion that people should have a right to bear arms and not pay
taxes? :-)
> > > 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)
But even then, sexual predation needs some cleansing of the definition, I
think. And are there really not mental conditions that go away that might have
caused the behavior? How much do we all buy the notion of temporary insanity
anyway? I'm not sure for myself.
> > > > 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.
Sure. Presuming a reasonable definition of predator, those folks are dangerous
to others and compulsives are just weird.
> 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)?
I think the victim should be able to sue for those costs. And if the insane
person is in a position to pay up, then that's valid. But I think we do have
to recognize that without the full compliment of rights, they aren't given the
full compliment of responsibilities either.
> > 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.
But if/once they realized that it was bad, they would want to see to it that it
wasn't repeated.
> 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.
I was just thinking that they might have the most valuable insight into their
own thinking and as such would be a valuable resource that is probably too
little harnessed.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
