Should government reserve right to impose help?

[Machjo]

After reading of the blog of the perpetrator of the recent attack in Montreal, it would seem that this man had given clear indications that he needed help. Yet instead of seeking help as any mature and responsible person in his position would have, he decided to try to deal with it himself until he committed murder.

Under circumstances that indicate that a person may need help for the sake of public security, aught government bodies reserve the right to force such people against their will to accept help, and even confine them if felt necessary, assuming of course that the person's other basic rights are still respected of course, along with a genuine attempt to rehabilitate him so as to grant him his freedom again as soon as possible?

Of course I'm for guaranteeing individual freedom. But if a person obviously needs help, yet chooses not to seek it on his own, I would think it quite approapriate for the authorities to force him to accept it if need be. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[DurkaDurka]

RE: Should government res

If a person is considered a risk to their self or the public, is it not possible for the police to have him detained for psychiatric evaulation? You could reduce the immediate risk from the equation, how you deal with them in the long run, I don't know.

 

[Machjo]

In the long run? I'd say keep him confined for as long as need be. If he's rehabilitated within days, great. If he just won't rehabilitate, then keep him locked up for as long as it takes. Let him work in confinement. He could still make friends with others of his kind. Let him buy things on-line and give him enough freedom to enjoy life, but he should still stay confined for as long as necessary for public safety while never giving up on his ability to be rehabilitated. Much better than having him kill someone.

Also, if a person commits murder, never should he be allowed to declare insanity. Insane or not, he can always ask for help, as is his duty if he's in trouble, Society can meet him half way by providing psychiatric services for free, and treating him in a humane manner while also ensuring he has the opportunity to live a fulfilling life. But in the end, he has to meet society halfway too by showing up at a bloody hospital and asking for help. There is no shame in that whatsoever. The shame comes in not asking for help and them murdering someone. Same applies to pedophiles and others. There is no shame wahtsoever in asking for help. That's just a sign of maturity.

 

[Colpy]

I mightily fear this idea.

I don't trust government that much.

And, I understand what a shock these events are, but I feel we have to accept something: SHIT HAPPENS!

I don't mean to be cavalier, or to the ignore the absolute hell the families of the dead and the critically wounded are going through. I understand the need to feel we are doing something: but I think we should accept something as truth. THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO TO PREVENT RANDOM ATTACKS.

For example, let's think about Mr. Gill.

How would the government happen to KNOW he was troubled? Is the government now going to monitor the internet, and toss in the whacko ward anyone that exhibits anti-social tendencies or a taste for delusion?

we could wave bye-bye to a couple of people that have posted on Canadian Content........

Better start building psychiatric facilities, and training psychologists.

Sorry guys, that's how I see it. These things are inevitable, and unpreventable.

 

[Curiosity]

The internet is a venue for everything and to begin judging or monitoring those who are extreme for whatever their cause - should be allowed their place to write....

...but when it comes to two things....the taking of lives or the molestation of children.... nobody should sit around doing nothing.... I know it is an infringement upon privacy but which is the greater evil here?

It does open doors for the government to step into a personal space and make judgments....but threats of harm to self or others is a code not only the professionals should adhere to, but all people of a caring nation.

On a website such as this a professional could have joined as a member and become a confidant to this person - suggestions can always be posted for help with problems - some of the radical websites I have visited make me wonder if the Psychiatric Association should put up some 1-800 numbers for membership to get help....

The trouble with someone really out of touch with reality is: The often do not recognize it and think they are functioning passionately with reason.

The molesters....well hell is too good for them of course....but I had to include them as they and their scum also make use of the internet.

 

[Machjo]

Molesters, yes. Pedophiles who have not yet molested, no. If a pedophile asks for help, we should admire his courage and not put him down. After all, if one asks for help and is completely ridiculed, then we're sending a message to the rest that they'd be wise not to ask for help and expose themselves to ridicule like that. This would only increase the chances that that pedophile might eventually molest a child.

If he has not molested a child yet, and asks for help before doing so, he ought to be praised for doing so. Even if for whatever reason we conclude in the end that we ought to restrict his access to children, we still ought to show that person respect for having asked for help before he should end up doing something that could ruin a child's life. He could always live a normal life overall. Just that we'd keep him away from children, even if it means moving him away from the city to a place where only other pedophiles live. They could still work, etc. just not have access to kids. If we think he can still discipline himself enough not to hurt a kid and just needs someone to talk to, fine.

But if he molests a child... whole different ballgame. Castration's in order?

 

[tracy]

We already have the right to detain those who are a risk to themselves or others on involuntary holds in the psych wards. The regulations vary from province to province because it is a healthcare matter, not a law enforcement one. When I worked in BC, you could detain someone for up to 72 hours without their consent and longer if two psych docs agreed they were still a danger to themselves or others. They also have the right to break patient confidentiality to inform another person if they are the target of their patient's threats. In fact, I believe they are mandated to in most provinces. I am 100% sure this measure has saved lives, but it's not going to save everyone.

 

[Curiosity]

If a person is acting out in a public place..... then the authorities can have him/her analyzed as to impairment and possible detention....for the allotted hours under the local government regulations... but...

On the internet involves a whole new set of rules.

Do we invade the internet and "seize" the impaired person for writing what may be the biggest fantasy life of the poor sod's existence....?

How does one select subjects for investigation from the internet without
breaking some of the already existing "hands off" laws ... wait until they
act out in reality at some later date as did Gill?

I know some groups went after that Man/Boy Love website which morphed into so many different ones on a daily basis it was difficult to keep up with it.... Gill was different keeping to one place and one theme... we should have had someone at least check on him....but then the membership at his website are all probably of the same philosophy.

I think MySpace still operates even though some sickos have been working out meeting places with underage kids...and being exposed by one of the networks down here.... if you want to see a sad gang of losers....ewwwww

I mean some of the biggest evil creepazoids on the internet are probably harmless dudes who are dreaming of having such control....but would never transfer their twisted half-life to a real situation.....

But but if molesters can be tricked into "meetings" ... why not potential "killers"???

 

[tamarin]

Vampirefreaks.com has been in the news before. It obviously offers a haven to a subculture most would prefer they didn't know about. What the government should do is keep a central registry on sites that seem to elicit aberrant or criminal behaviour. If a file develops, legal action against the site's operators should be contemplated.