Psycho Control Solution

[Pinemarten]

Looks like we have a solution to prevent many deaths.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=5ab26cc8-16bf-4247-8914-6d703a5f693f


http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=6273ec70-f809-4848-8258-19d3a75dc96f&k=57567


"....the RCMP to come up with a new program to help identify and deal with people who present a deadly threat."

[Gillianren]

I don't think it will work as well as they seem to expect it to. Psychology is inexact, and it does rather rely on the crazy person being brought to their attention, which is far from a certainty. Seattle PD, for example, had literally thousands of tips to their "Ted" hotline (the man who killed two women at Lake Sammamish had introduced himself to several others, so they knew his name, or at least what he called himself) mentioning literally hundreds of people. Of those, four mentioned the right Ted. Was the Seattle PD supposed to run profiles on all the hundreds of people? If so, how were they supposed to pay for it?

[Pinemarten]

They acknowledge that fact:

"The system might not work on killers with no history of violence,"

but I do believe that most of the big cases did have a 'paper trail'. This would have stopped many of them if it was in place at the time.
A database such as this is a good step forward. It is the first time I have seen a solution to a problem, instead of endless rhetoric about the problem.
They will probably extend it to medical visits, drug prescriptions, weapon purchases, and even creative writing classes.

[Moose]

They will probably extend it to medical visits, drug prescriptions

They can't request this in Canada. Medical privacy is sacrosanct by legislation, if not the Charter of Rights and Freedom. Even if it were legal to collect this sort of info, you'd have to poll individual doctors, hospitals, and drug plans. Not even the provincial health departments track this info.

weapon purchases

Already done, presumably.

and even creative writing classes.

They could ask, but we're legally prohibited from releasing or confirming identifying student information (and that includes submitted work) to anybody but the student/applicant or their legal guardian. We can release their transcripts only on their instructions.

I'm not sure we could even do so under a court order.

[Pinemarten]

They could easily do a legal work-around.
Patients would be given the choice of submitting to the database, or being committed. They could also have the choice of no database-no meds. After a few doctors have to fight accessory to murder charges they will start to comply. The same charges could be brought on teachers.

[Moose]

This is Canada, not North Korea.

[publius]

This is Canada, not North Korea.


Nor Cuba. There, "aversion to socialism" is a mental disorder, and such patients can be forcefully committed and medicated for their own good. In North Korea, I imagine the treatment for the chemical imbalance that causes such politically incorrect thoughts would consist of a large impulse of momentum and kinetic energy applied to the brain tissue in a roughly 9mm diameter package.

The mere thought of this kind of tyranny is enough to make ol' Publius here crazy as a loon himself. You start passing laws like this, and I'm gonna get a bit squirrelly. Maybe black-helicoptery squirelly.

-Richard

[Gillianren]

but I do believe that most of the big cases did have a 'paper trail'.

You believe incorrectly.

[Fazor]

They acknowledge that fact:
but I do believe that most of the big cases did have a 'paper trail'. This would have stopped many of them if it was in place at the time.


Well, there's a problem with that statement. There's the (untrue) assumption that this "paper trail" is there. Also, you assume that a killer's "paper trail" differes from the thousands (or millions?) of others with similar mental illnesses. I can name about 5 kids from my graduating glass that fit the profile of the VT killer. Two of them also displayed a larger-than-usual interest in military history and weaponry. None of them ever killed anyone. Should they have been locked away just because they have the same traits as someone who did?

[Pinemarten]

I am not saying they should be locked away. I am just saying that a database can be created on a voluntary basis. If one doesn't wish to be entered in the database they can apply for omission. The anti-violence lobby in Canada is far stronger than any lobby for the rights of those with mental disorders. I have met some that do worry about their actions if they don't take their meds.

[Gillianren]

I am not saying they should be locked away. I am just saying that a database can be created on a voluntary basis. If one doesn't wish to be entered in the database they can apply for omission.

Again, assuming you have the paper trail to be entered into the database in the first place, which very few spree/serial killers do.

The anti-violence lobby in Canada is far stronger than any lobby for the rights of those with mental disorders.

Then someone should explain to the anti-violence lobbyists exactly how futile and expensive an idea this is. It won't work. Not on 99% of people who would snap and kill people. What it will do is catch up a lot of people who wouldn't.

I have met some that do worry about their actions if they don't take their meds.

In some ways, I am one of those people. I do worry about what will happen someday unless I find meds that work. (I bump up to clinical dosage of Lamictal in less than a week.) I get manic rages; I've almost killed people in the past. However, I would not kill people who weren't actually there at the time I lost it. In fact, I'm pretty good at holding onto my control until I can get out of the situation, so the odds are very good indeed that I'll never kill anyone. So the choice is, lock up all the bipolar people (unfeasible) or miss the majority who might snap at any time. Do you start to see the problem with this idea?

[Pinemarten]

I can see all sorts of problems with the idea. I am not saying I agree with it. I am just speculating as to how a program like this can be implemented in Canada.
We tried gun control as a 'knee-jerk' policy to gain votes. It was pressured by anti-violence groups and fought by gun owners. The gun owner lobby is far more powerful than the mental patient lobby. Mental patients weren't even allowed to vote here until about 15 years ago.
It passed and years later it is being scrapped because it is ineffective and too expensive.

We will continue to attempt more anti-violence laws, and eventually we may find one that works.

[Pinemarten]

Again, assuming you have the paper trail to be entered into the database in the first place, which very few spree/serial killers do.



Then someone should explain to the anti-violence lobbyists exactly how futile and expensive an idea this is. It won't work. Not on 99% of people who would snap and kill people. What it will do is catch up a lot of people who wouldn't.



In some ways, I am one of those people. I do worry about what will happen someday unless I find meds that work. (I bump up to clinical dosage of Lamictal in less than a week.) I get manic rages; I've almost killed people in the past. However, I would not kill people who weren't actually there at the time I lost it. In fact, I'm pretty good at holding onto my control until I can get out of the situation, so the odds are very good indeed that I'll never kill anyone. So the choice is, lock up all the bipolar people (unfeasible) or miss the majority who might snap at any time. Do you start to see the problem with this idea?

Doesn't this post contradict this one?:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=977904&postcount=8

[mugaliens]

Has anyone mentioned that this guy's idea is insane? Talking about taking action against people with no history of violence?

With no history, who's to say a person would commit violence in the future, regardless of whatever psych profile some psych(o) brain doc determines?

Sheesh, talk about the thought police running rampant over others...

It also sounds like this guy has some control issues, which in itself, is a little psychotic...

[Moose]

Doesn't this post contradict this one?:

No.

Pinemarten, you have to face it. The world is not safe. It's not supposed to be safe. Anybody can be a threat to you, including yourself.

If you truly believe people who are innocent of any violent crime, but might someday commit one, can and should have their liberty summarily trampled on, I have to ask in total seriousness if you're volunteering to be first. After all, you meet the criteria on both counts.

[Roving Philosopher]

...I am just saying that a database can be created on a voluntary basis.

This doesn't exactly sound voluntary

They could easily do a legal work-around.
Patients would be given the choice of submitting to the database, or being committed. They could also have the choice of no database-no meds. After a few doctors have to fight accessory to murder charges they will start to comply. The same charges could be brought on teachers.

[mugaliens]

We will continue to attempt more anti-violence laws, and eventually we may find one that works.

I've got an idea, and no offense to my Canadian brethren and sistren, but it just might work: handcuff everyone and assume everyone is violent. Jail everyone, including the jailors, and ensure the government provides an infrastructure to make things appear as close to normal as possible so as not to antagonize anyone.

Naturally, this move would cut down on immigration issues, an added bonus.

[Pinemarten]

I was pointing to the fact that one statement agrees there is usually a paper trail, and the other statement says there usually isn't.

The program as it is now I agree with.
It will protect peace officers.

The other statements are merely speculation as to how 'democracy' in Canada can change a good thing into a controversial nightmare.

Gun control was voluntary. Register your guns or face a fine.
Seatbelts and helmets are voluntary. Wear them or face a fine and limited (50%) injury payouts.
Auto insurance is voluntary. Pay it or face fines, points, and suspension.
Drivers licences are voluntary. Have one or face fines, points, and suspension. (Where do they put the points? What do they suspend?)

[Peter Wilson]

Looks like we have a solution to prevent many deaths...
It's nothing new. Called marihuna prohibiton; was enacted in the 1930s. People who smoke it go psycho, becoming violent criminals. Now, we have a system in place that identifies these violent people before they commit crime, and punishes them accordingly.

You Canadians should give it a try :whistle:

[Pinemarten]

It's nothing new. Called marihuna prohibiton; was enacted in the 1930s. People who smoke it go psycho, becoming violent criminals. Now, we have a system in place that identifies these violent people before they commit crime, and punishes them accordingly.

You Canadians should give it a try :whistle:

We do have it in place. It is too expensive to prosecute, so small amounts are just confiscated with no charges or record.
It is an issue during all elections to 'decriminalize' it, most people confuse this with 'legalize'. They will eventually lower it to a misdemeanour.

Alan Rock, a recent minister for justice, was asked if he ever used it. He replied: "I have honestly never used marijuana for medicinal purposes."

[korjik]

I was pointing to the fact that one statement agrees there is usually a paper trail, and the other statement says there usually isn't.

The program as it is now I agree with.
It will protect peace officers.

The other statements are merely speculation as to how 'democracy' in Canada can change a good thing into a controversial nightmare.

Gun control was voluntary. Register your guns or face a fine.
Seatbelts and helmets are voluntary. Wear them or face a fine and limited (50%) injury payouts.
Auto insurance is voluntary. Pay it or face fines, points, and suspension.
Drivers licences are voluntary. Have one or face fines, points, and suspension. (Where do they put the points? What do they suspend?)

Coersion is not voluntary. Think of an example like above involving a secretary, a lecherous boss, and unemployment.

[Pinemarten]

Coersion is not voluntary. Think of an example like above involving a secretary, a lecherous boss, and unemployment.

Harass is one word in Canada.

Voluntary and coercion are synonyms here.

Gun control, seatbelts, helmets, insurance, drivers licences, etc, were all laws that were fought in court on humans rights issues. All the cases eventually lost. They were lost on the the fact that sacrifices to some freedoms must be made to protect the rights of all.
I can see laws on other registries losing as well.

We have only had a constitution here since the 1980s. When it was written nothing was 'entrenched'.
Any changes can be made democratically.

[Moose]

Voluntary and coercion are synonyms here.

No they're not. They're antonyms, just like anywhere else.

[publius]

Gun control was voluntary. Register your guns or face a fine.
Seatbelts and helmets are voluntary. Wear them or face a fine and limited (50%) injury payouts.
Auto insurance is voluntary. Pay it or face fines, points, and suspension.
Drivers licences are voluntary. Have one or face fines, points, and suspension. (Where do they put the points? What do they suspend?)


Yeah, that's 'voluntary' in the same sense the IRS says federal income taxes are voluntary. :lol: Do this, or face legal sanction. That is coercion, forcing someone to do something.

And as I always remind people, remember that if you're going to say people should be forced to do something, you'd better mean it. If they don't, ultimately it comes down to real physical force, including deadly force.

So, when I say there ought to be a law, I always ask if I would I shoot my neighbor in order to make him comply.

Big Nanny is nothing without Big Brother as her enforcer. And as Chairman Mao put it, all political power flows from the barrel of a gun (used to be the sword in olden times). So when you get bright ideas about what the state ought to be doing, think about that.

-RIchard

[Pinemarten]

No they're not. They're antonyms, just like anywhere else.

I agree, but our politicians tend to write their own thesauri.

Publius, federal income tax in Canada was first brought in to pay for World War I. I have heard of people filing their return, citing that statute, and not paying taxes.
I wonder if it still works, or has that freedom been removed?

[mike alexander]

They will probably extend it to medical visits, drug prescriptions, weapon purchases, and even creative writing classes.

Wonderful. Creative writing classes. Time to get your head candled.

There was a story out of Teheran this weekend that the morals police were going around to dress shops telling the shopkeepers to saw the breast forms off mannequins because they were too revealing (true).

I immediately thought of the first line of a short story: Why stop with the mannequins, he asked himself?

Y'all better keep a close eye on me. I sometimes get BAAAAAAD thoughts.

[Gillianren]

I was pointing to the fact that one statement agrees there is usually a paper trail, and the other statement says there usually isn't.

No, both say that those who are serial/spree killers (there's a difference, but the statement applies to both) very seldom have a paper trail. In one, you said you assumed there usually was, and I told you that you assumed incorrectly, which means that there usually isn't. In the other one, I stated that they usually don't have a paper trail. You see how that's the same thing both times?

[Pinemarten]

I stand corrected. I mis-read post #8.

[Pinemarten]

Looks like the US already has a database:

http://policyalternatives.ca/MonitorIssues/2006/04/MonitorIssue1356/

Quote:

Unlike in Canada, the federal Privacy Act in the U.S. “regulates records the government stores, but does not regulate how [government] agencies access records from the private sector.” Insiders have spoken of a “black box” of information the U.S. is amassing for security purposes: no one knows exactly what it will eventually contain, only that it will be as comprehensive as possible.

[mugaliens]

I don't think it will work as well as they seem to expect it to. Psychology is inexact, and it does rather rely on the crazy person being brought to their attention, which is far from a certainty. Seattle PD, for example, had literally thousands of tips to their "Ted" hotline (the man who killed two women at Lake Sammamish had introduced himself to several others, so they knew his name, or at least what he called himself) mentioning literally hundreds of people. Of those, four mentioned the right Ted. Was the Seattle PD supposed to run profiles on all the hundreds of people? If so, how were they supposed to pay for it?

I couldn't agree with you more, Gillianren.

This is the sort of thing that was enacted during WWII which lead to the extermination of hundreds of thousands.

The human condition is such that millions of us experience various thoughts which, on their own basis, might have us locked up - except for the fact that millions of us have never acted on those thoughts - nor would we ever.

That's normal.

Everyone experiences this to one extent or another. A third of the people in the military, the police, the FBI, CIA, etc., would be considered threats under Pinemartin's approach.

But what makes them ok people is the fact that somewhere along the line, they've learned to control it, and, as such, are benefactors of society, not detractors. They're the ones who defend the gates, who keep the bad guys out, and who corrall the bad guys within.

Quite a few more of those who'd fit Pinemartin's profile include those who man neighborhood watch programs, who are security guards, etc.

The list is endless, and includes cyber security specialists!

The bottom line is that people of certain mentalities usually benefit society. Trying to ID the "dangerous ones" is like trying to classify the middle school security guard as the "bad guy" just because if he had to pull the trigger to protect the hundreds or thousands of kids inside against an intrusionist shooter, he'd be able to do so.

So, what - now we throw these guys in jail because they're of the mindset to help us?

[mugaliens]

Yeah, that's 'voluntary' in the same sense the IRS says federal income taxes are voluntary. :lol: Do this, or face legal sanction. That is coercion, forcing someone to do something.

For the last seven years (save one, where I sent them a check when one was due after I sold a house), I've always filed my taxes with a letter, instead of the stupid form:

To Whom It May Concern:

I've paid you slightly more than you were due. Please check your records to verify this is true.

If you feel I've overpaid you, please mail me a check for the difference. If you're unable to do that, please spend any overages wisely.

Thank you.

To date, there's been no check, but there's been no investigations, either. And, just to be on the safe side, I have actually done my taxes as per the forms, usually less than $100 per year that they owed me (and I've never owed them a nickle).

Personally, I think it's a standoff - they realize it would take tens of thousands of dollars to get me to put up the actual forms only for them to realize they actually owe me.

And to be honest with you, I do love my country, and am not worried about a couple hundred extra dollars they have which might belong to me.

[Pinemarten]

I couldn't agree with you more, Gillianren.

This is the sort of thing that was enacted during WWII which lead to the extermination of hundreds of thousands.

The human condition is such that millions of us experience various thoughts which, on their own basis, might have us locked up - except for the fact that millions of us have never acted on those thoughts - nor would we ever.

That's normal.

Everyone experiences this to one extent or another. A third of the people in the military, the police, the FBI, CIA, etc., would be considered threats under Pinemartin's approach.

But what makes them ok people is the fact that somewhere along the line, they've learned to control it, and, as such, are benefactors of society, not detractors. They're the ones who defend the gates, who keep the bad guys out, and who corrall the bad guys within.

Quite a few more of those who'd fit Pinemartin's profile include those who man neighborhood watch programs, who are security guards, etc.

The list is endless, and includes cyber security specialists!

The bottom line is that people of certain mentalities usually benefit society. Trying to ID the "dangerous ones" is like trying to classify the middle school security guard as the "bad guy" just because if he had to pull the trigger to protect the hundreds or thousands of kids inside against an intrusionist shooter, he'd be able to do so.

So, what - now we throw these guys in jail because they're of the mindset to help us?

"Insiders have spoken of a “black box” of information the U.S. is amassing for security purposes: no one knows exactly what it will eventually contain, only that it will be as comprehensive as possible."

I think the "black box" will be complete when everyone is in it, except the ones that built it. Which will render it pretty well useless. Another example of money well spent.