Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun! (Read 293 times)
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 789
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #40 - Nov 9th, 2017 at 2:56pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Nov 9th, 2017 at 11:34am:
As I've said, I think it's reasonable to base it partly on a country's population. Land area would also be a consideration.
But your population is lower than that of the U.S. because you have admitted so few immigrants.  Not the other way around.


Quote:
Burnsred, you offered a paragraph that was bolded that had something to do with mental illness in Canada and maybe something to do with putting people in insane asylums. I can't find it now. I wanted to read it and answer your question or comment.
Sure:

By 2016, 7 provinces had made significant amendments to their involuntary admission criteria. Table 1 shows criteria for all jurisdictions including the 4 with changes prior to 2001. Between 2001 and 2016, 3 additional provinces, Nova Scotia,8,s.17 Newfoundland and Labrador,9,s.17 and Alberta,10,s.6 made significant changes to their involuntary admission criteria. Each of these provinces’ changes was similar: expanding the criteria to include broadly defined harms, rather than just dangerousness, and introducing a substantial mental or physical deterioration criterion as an alternative to the harm criterion. Some provinces also incorporated a requirement that the person be incapable of making admission or treatment decisions to be admitted involuntarily.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794956/

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5069
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #41 - Nov 9th, 2017 at 3:05pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Nov 9th, 2017 at 2:56pm:
But your population is lower than that of the U.S. because you have admitted so few immigrants.  Not the other way around.


Sure:

By 2016, 7 provinces had made significant amendments to their involuntary admission criteria. Table 1 shows criteria for all jurisdictions including the 4 with changes prior to 2001. Between 2001 and 2016, 3 additional provinces, Nova Scotia,8,s.17 Newfoundland and Labrador,9,s.17 and Alberta,10,s.6 made significant changes to their involuntary admission criteria. Each of these provinces’ changes was similar: expanding the criteria to include broadly defined harms, rather than just dangerousness, and introducing a substantial mental or physical deterioration criterion as an alternative to the harm criterion. Some provinces also incorporated a requirement that the person be incapable of making admission or treatment decisions to be admitted involuntarily.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794956/



Thanks, I had lost it and it seemed important. I would say at first glance that what has actually happened is that those provinces have succeeded in finding a more 'socially acceptable' solution to mental illness problems than prisons.

Is that addressing your point? I'm also suspecting that you're attempting to make a point on our system trying to justify locking up more people with mental illness. I would take the opposite approach and say that it's more looking after people with problems.

Suffice to say that it's going to cost more for looking after mental health issues.

The question for a libertarian would then be, is it going to save more of my money overall by reducing prison time and the expense that goes along with it.

I would refer you to your overloaded prison system and it's costs. Should we try to do some cost analysis of the alternatives in both countries?

I think that helping people with mental health problems is quite similar to rehabilitation of prisoners in some ways.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 789
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #42 - Nov 9th, 2017 at 3:22pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Nov 9th, 2017 at 3:05pm:
Thanks, I had lost it and it seemed important. I would say at first glance that what has actually happened is that those provinces have succeeded in finding a more 'socially acceptable' solution to mental illness problems than prisons.

Is that addressing your point? I'm also suspecting that you're attempting to make a point on our system trying to justify locking up more people with mental illness. I would take the opposite approach and say that it's more looking after people with problems.

Suffice to say that it's going to cost more for looking after mental health issues.

The question for a libertarian would then be, is it going to save more of my money overall by reducing prison time and the expense that goes along with it.

I would refer you to your overloaded prison system and it's costs. Should we try to do some cost analysis of the alternatives in both countries?

I think that helping people with mental health problems is quite similar to rehabilitation of prisoners in some ways.
Yes, very similar.  I do agree strongly that we should rehabilitate people.  I am also very suspicious of people who advocate for rehabilitation as an alternative to long sentences.  Because the key ingredient in any rehab program that has a snowball's chance of succeeding is time. 

So rather than say, "We should just put prisoners through the ___________ rehabilitation program and then let them go" I would say, "We should rehabilitate violent people until they are safe to return to society and then let them go."

What a libertarian struggles with is the idea of locking someone up, either in a prison or an institution, before they have committed a violent act.  It wouldn't have been an issue in the case of the church shooter since he had already committed a violent act and was clearly not rehabilitated so he should have still been in prison.

So maybe the distinction between a mental hospital and a prison for violent offenders is moot.  Lock up violent people in a humane institution for violent people and let them out when they are no longer a danger to society.




  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5069
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #43 - Nov 9th, 2017 at 5:51pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Nov 9th, 2017 at 3:22pm:
Yes, very similar.  I do agree strongly that we should rehabilitate people.  I am also very suspicious of people who advocate for rehabilitation as an alternative to long sentences.  Because the key ingredient in any rehab program that has a snowball's chance of succeeding is time. 


I'm glad you have modified your approach to include rehabilitation. And yes, it takes time.

Quote:
So rather than say, "We should just put prisoners through the ___________ rehabilitation program and then let them go" I would say, "We should rehabilitate violent people until they are safe to return to society and then let them go."


Exactly! And that approach is obviously working very well in countries that emphasize rehab.

Quote:
What a libertarian struggles with is the idea of locking someone up, either in a prison or an institution, before they have committed a violent act.


My perception is that what the libertarians on this board are struggling with their primal need to get revenge through punishment and so can't stomach rehabilitiation and the kindness it entails. I think that was also your position.

Quote:
  It wouldn't have been an issue in the case of the church shooter since he had already committed a violent act and was clearly not rehabilitated so he should have still been in prison.


I'm not going to be with you if you backslide on this issue. Even the church shooter would be a candidate for rehabilitation. More likely he would be a candidate for mental help. This is probably a simple case to decide on burnsred.

Quote:
So maybe the distinction between a mental hospital and a prison for violent offenders is moot.  Lock up violent people in a humane institution for violent people and let them out when they are no longer a danger to society.


No, it's a much more complicated distinction than that. But you seem to have the basic concept down pat now. Why would anyone want to keep somebody locked up if the person wasn't a danger to society?

Only the loved ones of the victim in some cases but that would be their faling wouldn't it.




[/quote]
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 789
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #44 - Nov 9th, 2017 at 8:03pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Yes, very similar.  I do agree strongly that we should rehabilitate people.  I am also very suspicious of people who advocate for rehabilitation as an alternative to long sentences.  Because the key ingredient in any rehab program that has a snowball's chance of succeeding is time.


I'm glad you have modified your approach to include rehabilitation. And yes, it takes time.
I strongly advocate it as long as it is real and not lip service.

Quote:
Quote:
So rather than say, "We should just put prisoners through the ___________ rehabilitation program and then let them go" I would say, "We should rehabilitate violent people until they are safe to return to society and then let them go."


Exactly! And that approach is obviously working very well in countries that emphasize rehab.
Really?  Examples of violent offenders who were released, rehabbed and did not return to violence?


Quote:
Quote:
What a libertarian struggles with is the idea of locking someone up, either in a prison or an institution, before they have committed a violent act.


My perception is that what the libertarians on this board are struggling with their primal need to get revenge through punishment and so can't stomach rehabilitiation and the kindness it entails. I think that was also your position.
That was never my position.  My position was to hold violent offenders in humane prisons until they are not a danger to society.  Agreeing with rehabilitation doesn't change that, it only adds a potential way besides old age for a person to no longer be a danger.   If you know of real rehabilitation methods that bring that about in a verifiable way, I'm all ears.

Quote:
Quote:
It wouldn't have been an issue in the case of the church shooter since he had already committed a violent act and was clearly not rehabilitated so he should have still been in prison.


I'm not going to be with you if you backslide on this issue. Even the church shooter would be a candidate for rehabilitation. More likely he would be a candidate for mental help. This is probably a simple case to decide on burnsred.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have tried to rehabilitate him.  I'm sure they did.  I'm saying that on the day of the shooting, he was clearly not rehabilitated and so would not have been a candidate for release.

Quote:
Quote:
So maybe the distinction between a mental hospital and a prison for violent offenders is moot.  Lock up violent people in a humane institution for violent people and let them out when they are no longer a danger to society.


No, it's a much more complicated distinction than that. [quote]Why?  To me a person who murders another person has to have a screw loose somewhere.  What evidence to you have that most killers are perfectly normal mentally?

[quote]But you seem to have the basic concept down pat now. Why would anyone want to keep somebody locked up if the person wasn't a danger to society?
I wouldn't.  As long as there is a way to know for sure that a formerly violent person is no longer a danger, why waste money keeping them locked up?

Quote:
Only the loved ones of the victim in some cases but that would be their failing wouldn't it.
Yes, family members of victims of mass killers are noted for failing to show compassion to the murderers.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5069
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #45 - Nov 9th, 2017 at 8:13pm
Print Post  
Quote:
That was never my position.  My position was to hold violent offenders in human prisons until they are not a danger to society.  Agreeing with rehabilitation doesn't change that, it only adds  a potential way besides old age for a person to no longer be a danger.   If you know of real rehabilitation methods that bring that about, I'm all ears.


The last time I introduced the Norwegian way you weren't very receptiive to it. But we can revisit in again if you like. If you have an attitude of wanting to learn how rehab can be accomplished then that allout example is one of the best.

The incentive being offered for you to start accepting it is in the enormous amount of money saved.

Whether or not it would work so well with Americans and their attitudes is something that would need to be considered.

I guess we'll see if you are interested?

Here's a question for you that I have devised myseld, but it's based on the principle being put to use in Norway.

Would you be in favour of serving up a nice steak dinner at least once a week to prisoners?

Or

Would you be more in favour of humiliating prisoners the way Arpaio did?

Which would pay the best dividends in the long run?  It would be a good question for all the others to answer too burnsred. I would love to hear how they answer, being supposed libertarians.

It's not something I've ever heard expressed by libertarians so this could be the first time and it would set the bar so to speak.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 789
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #46 - Nov 9th, 2017 at 8:37pm
Print Post  
Quote:
The last time I introduced the Norwegian way you weren't very receptiive to it. But we can revisit in again if you like. If you have an attitude of wanting to learn how rehab can be accomplished then that allout example is one of the best.

The incentive being offered for you to start accepting it is in the enormous amount of money saved.

Whether or not it would work so well with Americans and their attitudes is something that would need to be considered.

I guess we'll see if you are interested?

Here's a question for you that I have devised myseld, but it's based on the principle being put to use in Norway.

Would you be in favour of serving up a nice steak dinner at least once a week to prisoners?

Or

Would you be more in favour of humiliating prisoners the way Arpaio did?
I would prefer whichever one demonstrably led to real rehabilitation.

Quote:
Which would pay the best dividends in the long run?  It would be a good question for all the others to answer too burnsred. I would love to hear how they answer, being supposed libertarians.

It's not something I've ever heard expressed by libertarians so this could be the first time and it would set the bar so to speak.
Would the steak dinners be tied to desired behavior on the part of the prisoners?  If so, I would strongly favor it.  That kind of thing if - and only if - it is done correctly works with almost all bad actors who are not anhedonic or on the autism spectrum.  You may not have intended to, but you stumbled into an area in which I have both experience and expertise.

The most important components of serving the steak dinner as a part of rehabilitation is that the prisoners must earn the steak and other materials for the dinner through working on the farm or performing some productive work for money with which to buy it AND must also "earn*" the dinner though good behavior and participation in behavior training.

Is that what Norway does?

*I put earn in quotes because that part is only included in rehabilitation.  For free people, working for the money is all that should be required for a steak dinner.  Good attitude optional.




  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 22054
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #47 - Nov 10th, 2017 at 9:35am
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Nov 9th, 2017 at 3:22pm:
Yes, very similar.  I do agree strongly that we should rehabilitate people.

______________________________________

So maybe the distinction between a mental hospital and a prison for violent offenders is moot.
No one really knows how to "rehabilitate" people, nor does anyone know when someone has actually been "rehabilitated".

There are clear differences between mental hospitals and prisons, the most clear being that prisons hold people for defined periods, defined by law according to the severity of the crime they have committed, while mental hospitals can hold people indefinitely according to the evaluations of witch doctors who claim to understand things about people that they clearly don't.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 789
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #48 - Nov 10th, 2017 at 11:20am
Print Post  
Responding to Burnsred, whose word are also included for clarity in the quote below, Jeff Wrote:

Quote:
Yes, very similar.  I do agree strongly that we should rehabilitate people.

______________________________________

So maybe the distinction between a mental hospital and a prison for violent offenders is moot.
No one really knows how to "rehabilitate" people, nor does anyone know when someone has actually been "rehabilitated".

There are clear differences between mental hospitals and prisons, the most clear being that prisons hold people for defined periods, defined by law according to the severity of the crime they have committed, while mental hospitals can hold people indefinitely according to the evaluations of witch doctors who claim to understand things about people that they clearly don't.
I guess what I should have said was that maybe the distinction should be moot.  It's kind of silly to argue whether a murderer is crazy.  Killing someone is a crazy thing to do and a person who does that must be locked up for the protection of other individuals.  IMHO, They should be locked up, not for a defined period, but until they are no longer a threat to other individuals.  In other words, until they are rehabilitated.  So in that respect, I agree with Don_G.

However, I agree with you that we currently have no reliable and verifiable way to rehabilitate people.  So those incarcerated for violent crimes would be waiting for Don and the 'witch doctors' to come up with such a method.  Meanwhile those of us who do not initiate force will be safe from those who do (except those in government of course).

The beauty of my idea is that both you and Don should be happy with it.  Don and his fellow believers in rehab will be able to demonstrate that confidence by volunteering to have rehabilitated murderers living next door.  But since even Don is unlikely to allow that without proof of the rehabilitation, that won't actually happen anytime soon so you will be happy with murderers being incarcerated for long stretches.  I'll be happy with both and proud to have found a way for you two to come to agreement.

Talk about win-win-win boi!


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5069
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #49 - Nov 10th, 2017 at 11:29am
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Nov 9th, 2017 at 8:37pm:
I would prefer whichever one demonstrably led to real rehabilitation.

Would the steak dinners be tied to desired behavior on the part of the prisoners?  If so, I would strongly favor it.  That kind of thing if - and only if - it is done correctly works with almost all bad actors who are not anhedonic or on the autism spectrum.  You may not have intended to, but you stumbled into an area in which I have both experience and expertise.


You can tell me about your experience if you like. The steak dinner wouldn't be a reward the first time. But after the dinner and some civil words from the admins. the payback for the steak dinner could be weighed up and compared to the benefits received by the prision. It would obviously prove to be worth the steaks. Then it would be repeated the next week. Bearing in mind, a change of attitude by the prison would be required too. They would have to throw out the Arpaio types.

Quote:
The most important components of serving the steak dinner as a part of rehabilitation is that the prisoners must earn the steak and other materials for the dinner through working on the farm or performing some productive work for money with which to buy it AND must also "earn*" the dinner though good behavior and participation in behavior training.


You're abandoning the concept by making it payment for work done. The concept is more in the prison admin and guards earning the good behaviour from the prisoners. So unfortunately, you are thinking like Arpaio more than following the Norway model.

Quote:
Is that what Norway does?


No, and we are no closer to you understanding how to change your system of punishment. You're forgettinig that the reason why it's worth talking about is becsause you are paying more in taxes to uphold the flawed system that puts too many  people in jails.

I've heard no indication that you know more about any of this so I don't know what your field of expertise could be?

Quote:
*I put earn in quotes because that part is only included in rehabilitation.  For free people, working for the money is all that should be required for a steak dinner.  Good attitude optional.


They're not free people of course. I don't think you have any interest in pursuing an answer for your overcrowded jails and the huge tax expense it incurs. It calls for a different attitude and that is not an attitude you would want to consider.

I'm wondering if any of the libertarians on this board would think it was a good idea worth discussing? It's a part of a person's political ideology isn't it.





  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy