"Ross A. Finlayson" wrote:
> Michael Lorrey wrote:
> > "Ross A. Finlayson" wrote:
> > >
> > > I think if it's administered under the Hippocratic oath or similar moral and
> > > ethical standards, that's different. Administering emergency medicine to save the
> > > life of another when they would otherwise die against their will is only
> > > admirable.
> > So administering LSD or other drugs to reprogram an incorrigible capital
> > murderer/serial killer so that they can be rehabilitated would be more
> > acceptable than executing them? When the alternative is execution,
> > re-programming is a decent alternative.
> WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS A HEALTH ISSUE.
Certainly. Execution is a health issue as well, at least as far as the
condemned person is concerned.
> > >
> > > Citizens have rights with regards to anyone trying to "reprogram" them.
> > But felons are effectively 'non-citizens' in many respects. Until a
> > felon is judged fit to return to society, judged to be willing and able
> > to participate as law abiding citizens, they shouldn't be reintroduced
> > into that society. Perhaps 'reprogramming' would be acceptable to you if
> > it were merely a choice a prisoner could make as an alternative to
> > remaining in prison?
> You say some felons some are not citizens, do you say they are not human? I say they
> are humans and many citizens.
They are humans, physiologically. Psychologically they may not act as
humans, primarily because they have not been treated humanely, but there
are exceptions: Bundy, Dahmer, etc.
> Reprogramming except in the context of regular education through trade skill and
> literary learning and punishments for violent behavior, should not be a focus. It
> sounds too cavalier to apply your meat rules to the brains of these prisoners.
Then why do sexual offenders resist accepting treatment as an
alternative to continued imprisonment after they serve their terms? They
say they LIKE feeling the way they do about the things they want to do
to women and children and that they should for some reason have a right
to continue to feel that way freely on the outside after they serve
their terms. They want to commit crimes again, they are not
rehabilitated, and no 'vocational' learning in prison is going to change
that in any way. I can understand why they resist it. I don't however,
agree that people who are psychologically predatory on other humans
should be let loose at some arbitrarily decided point. They should only
be released when and if they are found competent to act as free,
law-abiding, and trustworthy citizens. If it takes treatment to make
them that way, they can choose to take the treatment or stay in prison.
> If, after valid psychological examination in a psychologically healthy environment, it
> is determined a mild sedative will help the prisoner cope with his violence issues, then
> that may be prescribed.
How does a sedative help him 'cope'?
> In this thread I permuted the subject to "No Parole for Federales" to suggest to apply
> the cane to them.
Negative re-enforcement has significant proven deterrent effects. You
know that kid will never steal a sign in Singapore again, don't you?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:34 MDT