This is why I specified I'm only speaking in generalities and not in reference to your particular case, as it's insanity to suggest there's anything good about light sentances for repeat offenders who show no remorse and live around kids. That's just extremely upsetting. I agree with you. However the law only prevents some action. It has afterall provided you with all that information, and it does allow for other ways to keep kids safe--not that that's sufficient, just that it's something, and better than nothing. I'm just making lemonade here.
Can he be treated? Sure. I don't know what the success rate is, for counseling, or for drug therapy, but I do know the relapse rate for alcoholism is similarly huge. I've met people who had been treated, in hospital or other supervised settings, for alcohol detox no less than 65 times.
And yes the rape of a kid can lead to a murder of a kid, but what I meant was I'd much rather see someone raped than killed outright. I know lots of people who've recovered well from such assaults and no one that's recovered from death.
Police warning
That huge margin of failure you indicate is what troubles people, and that failure rate is for those who want help. We all take precautions to protect ourselves, family, friends and belongings and most people respect the personnal rights of others so we need not be on "condition red" at all times. Cowardly (weak) predators (what they actually are) no longer function in a way to contribute to our species, they take more than they can ever give. We at some point will need to relearn when to cut our losses, protect the weak yes, but weak predators should be given no place in society.I do know the relapse rate for alcoholism is similarly huge. I've met people who had been treated, in hospital or other supervised settings, for alcohol detox no less than 65 times.
I understand the interest in getting rid of an element in society that is just evil... One question that this generates is, what does this signal to the people who have urges and who may be seeking or about to seek help for it? Might they not seek help if they knew the authorities would kill them for having them or if they had acted on them in the past?
Psychiatrists opposed mandatory reporting when someone gives them a credible concern that they might be a risk to someone for preceisely this reason. The relevant case is the Tarasoff decision. Ms. Tarasoff was killed by a man seeing a shrink who'd indicated he thought about killing her. The initial result however was that shrinks had to warn the potential victim (there are criteria identified, such as reasonable chance person will act, specific notifiable target, etc). Later this was revised because it put the burden of survival on the target. Now the standard is you have to protect the potential target thru some meaningful intervention. That could include voluntary or forced institutionalization without telling the person; it could include telling the police, etc. It is also recognized that this policy can damage some counselor patient relatioships (can't trustn someone that told on you). Efforts are now made to minimize this by having the suspected risk possibly inform the victim with the shrink (or other professional) so it seems less of a breach of their confidentiality. Lest this sound like too much whining on behalf of the potential killer, it's long been the policy of the Catholic church not to report possible or current child abuse or threat of killing that's revealed in confession (lest I'm mistaken, if so, my apologies).
What's the best approach to hearing some potentially dangerous impulse from, say, a psych patient?
Psychiatrists opposed mandatory reporting when someone gives them a credible concern that they might be a risk to someone for preceisely this reason. The relevant case is the Tarasoff decision. Ms. Tarasoff was killed by a man seeing a shrink who'd indicated he thought about killing her. The initial result however was that shrinks had to warn the potential victim (there are criteria identified, such as reasonable chance person will act, specific notifiable target, etc). Later this was revised because it put the burden of survival on the target. Now the standard is you have to protect the potential target thru some meaningful intervention. That could include voluntary or forced institutionalization without telling the person; it could include telling the police, etc. It is also recognized that this policy can damage some counselor patient relatioships (can't trustn someone that told on you). Efforts are now made to minimize this by having the suspected risk possibly inform the victim with the shrink (or other professional) so it seems less of a breach of their confidentiality. Lest this sound like too much whining on behalf of the potential killer, it's long been the policy of the Catholic church not to report possible or current child abuse or threat of killing that's revealed in confession (lest I'm mistaken, if so, my apologies).
What's the best approach to hearing some potentially dangerous impulse from, say, a psych patient?
--Ian
