4 ms·

How is it in the interest of the person concerned to be in prison rather than undergoing psychiatric care though? We can take an extreme view of personal liber

How is it in the interest of the person concerned to be in prison rather than undergoing psychiatric care though? We can take an extreme view of personal liberty, but in the UK at least a significantly higher percentage of those entering prison are suffering from mental health problems than in the rest of society. Prison is a suboptimal way of treating them; the level of disconnect with the normal world that it forces is unhelpful enough to healthy inmates, let alone those already in a fragile state of mind. My understanding is that the bulk of individuals with severe mental health problems are more likely to be a danger to themselves than others in any case. Your argument seems to presuppose that authorities are inherently evil and trying to inflict harm on the individual. One could certainly make the case for that in some totalitarian regimes, but in a healthy democracy I don't believe that's a sustainable view. If you genuinely believe that, make your case and run for office. Yes, it has to be carefully used and overseen and yes, there have to be limits on its use (UK law explicitly requires that treatment to the individual's benefit must be undertaken during their time in hospital) but in balance and in a carefully controlled and properly publicly accountable system, I'm comfortable with the detention of individuals with mental health problems for treatment.

todayiamme 15y ago
I think that you're confusing 2 issues; Issue 1 : A large amount of criminals have mental health issues. Issue 2 : We don't like people with mental health issues and we tend to characterise them as "dangerous". The people in Issue 1 are a small subset of people in Issue 2. How you treat people in Issue 1 is a completely different matter than locking up people in Issue 2. It's like saying since 80-90% of rapists are males, we should pre-emptively employ measures such as imprisonment, tracking, banishment and castration for all males (these are measures currently undertaken for certain classes of sex criminals) Clearly a subset is not representative of the entire set. >>> Your argument seems to presuppose that authorities are inherently evil and trying to inflict harm on the individual. One could certainly make the case for that in some totalitarian regimes, but in a healthy democracy I don't believe that's a sustainable view. If you genuinely believe that, make your case and run for office. <<< Alan Turing.
- eftpotrm 15y ago
  Well, introducing rape in that way is a bit of a straw man I'd say. As I said, the bulk of individuals suffering from mental health issues severe enough to provoke possible medical incarceration are primarily dangerous to themselves, not others; their restriction is in their own clear long-term best interests. Nonetheless, for the few who are more likely to be dangerous to others or who, as a result or side-effect of their difficulties either have committed crime or are demonstrably threatening to do so, it is in no-one's best interests for them to be treated as if they are either a rational individual at liberty or a prisoner with no particular needs (depending on the stage). We have laws against conspiring or attempting to commit crime - how is it different to incarcerate (for purposes of treatment) the disturbed individual who makes a clear and credible threat of criminal behaviour for purposes of treatment? Or to link an individual's release from criminal incarceration to a treatment program for the condition that contributed to their offending behaviour? The example of Alan Turing might be valid had his prosection not happened 59 years ago and the offence for which he was prosecuted repealed 44 years ago. If there's a comparable contemporary offence and case of the state so demonstrably working against the interests of its citizens, let's have it out - otherwise, I don't see the case has been made.
  - todayiamme 15y ago
    Actually there are provisions for insanity in the law. So, that's taken care of. >>> Well, introducing rape in that way is a bit of a straw man I'd say. <<< How so? It's devastating for the victim and ruins thousands upon thousands of lives everyday. It's not a straw man. It's just a natural extension of your suggestion. Who draws the line and where do you draw it? This is a very, very slippery slope and it's best that you tread carefully. >>> their own clear long-term best interests. <<< Their best interests as defined by you? Isn't that a wee bit arrogant? Their best interests are in letting them be. Their best interests are in letting them breathe. Their best interests are in helping them live, instead of locking them away where they can't make people feel uncomfortable. >>> We have laws against conspiring or attempting to commit crime - how is it different to incarcerate (for purposes of treatment) the disturbed individual who makes a clear and credible threat of criminal behaviour for purposes of treatment? <<< Because, a) Over there they committed the action. b) Over here someone is just talking about it. a and b are quite different you know. >>> not happened 59 years ago and the offence for which he was prosecuted repealed 44 years ago <<< It still happens today. It's just that humans have this weird penchant of abusing power, and that simply won't change for a long, long time. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic/4565c22532/4565c25f3f5.html http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic/4565c22532/4565c25f3f5.h...

todayiamme 15y ago

I think that you're confusing 2 issues; Issue 1 : A large amount of criminals have mental health issues. Issue 2 : We don't like people with mental health issues and we tend to characterise them as "dangerous". The people in Issue 1 are a small subset of people in Issue 2. How you treat people in Issue 1 is a completely different matter than locking up people in Issue 2. It's like saying since 80-90% of rapists are males, we should pre-emptively employ measures such as imprisonment, tracking, banishment and castration for all males (these are measures currently undertaken for certain classes of sex criminals) Clearly a subset is not representative of the entire set. >>> Your argument seems to presuppose that authorities are inherently evil and trying to inflict harm on the individual. One could certainly make the case for that in some totalitarian regimes, but in a healthy democracy I don't believe that's a sustainable view. If you genuinely believe that, make your case and run for office. <<< Alan Turing.

eftpotrm 15y ago
Well, introducing rape in that way is a bit of a straw man I'd say. As I said, the bulk of individuals suffering from mental health issues severe enough to provoke possible medical incarceration are primarily dangerous to themselves, not others; their restriction is in their own clear long-term best interests. Nonetheless, for the few who are more likely to be dangerous to others or who, as a result or side-effect of their difficulties either have committed crime or are demonstrably threatening to do so, it is in no-one's best interests for them to be treated as if they are either a rational individual at liberty or a prisoner with no particular needs (depending on the stage). We have laws against conspiring or attempting to commit crime - how is it different to incarcerate (for purposes of treatment) the disturbed individual who makes a clear and credible threat of criminal behaviour for purposes of treatment? Or to link an individual's release from criminal incarceration to a treatment program for the condition that contributed to their offending behaviour? The example of Alan Turing might be valid had his prosection not happened 59 years ago and the offence for which he was prosecuted repealed 44 years ago. If there's a comparable contemporary offence and case of the state so demonstrably working against the interests of its citizens, let's have it out - otherwise, I don't see the case has been made.
- todayiamme 15y ago
  Actually there are provisions for insanity in the law. So, that's taken care of. >>> Well, introducing rape in that way is a bit of a straw man I'd say. <<< How so? It's devastating for the victim and ruins thousands upon thousands of lives everyday. It's not a straw man. It's just a natural extension of your suggestion. Who draws the line and where do you draw it? This is a very, very slippery slope and it's best that you tread carefully. >>> their own clear long-term best interests. <<< Their best interests as defined by you? Isn't that a wee bit arrogant? Their best interests are in letting them be. Their best interests are in letting them breathe. Their best interests are in helping them live, instead of locking them away where they can't make people feel uncomfortable. >>> We have laws against conspiring or attempting to commit crime - how is it different to incarcerate (for purposes of treatment) the disturbed individual who makes a clear and credible threat of criminal behaviour for purposes of treatment? <<< Because, a) Over there they committed the action. b) Over here someone is just talking about it. a and b are quite different you know. >>> not happened 59 years ago and the offence for which he was prosecuted repealed 44 years ago <<< It still happens today. It's just that humans have this weird penchant of abusing power, and that simply won't change for a long, long time. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic/4565c22532/4565c25f3f5.html http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic/4565c22532/4565c25f3f5.h...