pre-emptive strikes

[bushidomartialarts]

this came up as a thought in a previous thread, and i wanted to expand on it.

at what point are we, as a society permitted to pre-emptively stop, observe or otherwise interfere with somebody we're sure is going to hurt people?

two examples...

1. research seems to indicate that if an adolescent tortures animals, he 's gonna hurt somebody if they live long enough. probably kill somebody. if we catch an adolescent torturing animals, do we have the right to interfere with him before he harms his first human?

2. south africa either is or is considering separating citizens with an incurable form of tuberculosis from the rest of the population, so they won't infect anybody else. it's undeniable that this will save lives. is it justifiable?

what do we think?

 

[Sukerkin]

Interesting and difficult moral questions, Bushido.

I'll leave the first one for now. More details are needed regarding what you mean by 'intefere' before I can begin to judge what I think.

As to the second one, I don't find that so problematic. Isolating carriers is a perfectly acceptable and effective medical practice.

Where the moral questions come in are just how this isolation is to be achieved and what conditions the unfortunates have to live in. If it involves the creation of a seperate 'town', isolated from the general populous but otherwise equal in amenaties and services, then that doesn't seem too physically onerous.

The psychological effects of forcible seperation from loved ones and family is a whole other issue tho' and one that becomes more important the more I think about it. After all this is a permanent isolation and even those incarcerated for deliberate wrong-doing have the right to see those close to them. Those sent to this moden-day leper colony are not criminals but patients and it is hard to justify totally cutting them off from their families.

Oh dear, I've talked myself into a corner :lol:. I think its a good idea on purely pragmatic grounds but find it somewhat problematic when the emotional side of the moral dilema kicks in . I'll have to ponder this some more as I can't say both "Yes" and "No" .

 

[MJS]

this came up as a thought in a previous thread, and i wanted to expand on it.

at what point are we, as a society permitted to pre-emptively stop, observe or otherwise interfere with somebody we're sure is going to hurt people?

two examples...

1. research seems to indicate that if an adolescent tortures animals, he 's gonna hurt somebody if they live long enough. probably kill somebody. if we catch an adolescent torturing animals, do we have the right to interfere with him before he harms his first human?

2. south africa either is or is considering separating citizens with an incurable form of tuberculosis from the rest of the population, so they won't infect anybody else. it's undeniable that this will save lives. is it justifiable?

what do we think?

I replied in the other thread before seeing that you started this one, so I'll reply here again.

IMO, someone should intervene. If we don't then we have no right to sit back and complain when certain things happen. I mean, if a parent sees their child showing signs of a certain behavior, ie: violence, hurting themselves or others, etc., I'd hope that they would do something. Again, if they don't then they have no right to complain if their child gets arrested and lands in prison. I'm sorry, but if that means that someone has to be locked up for the rest of their life, and away from the GP, then so be it.

Mike

 

[Infinite]

I replied in the other thread before seeing that you started this one, so I'll reply here again.

IMO, someone should intervene. If we don't then we have no right to sit back and complain when certain things happen. I mean, if a parent sees their child showing signs of a certain behavior, ie: violence, hurting themselves or others, etc., I'd hope that they would do something. Again, if they don't then they have no right to complain if their child gets arrested and lands in prison. I'm sorry, but if that means that someone has to be locked up for the rest of their life, and away from the GP, then so be it.

Mike

Intervene how? Almost ALL boys at one point torture an animal. Be it insect, mamal, or reptial.

I mean I've pulled the spider leg off to see what would happen before. I've even done the magnifying glass to an ant hill. I've never hit anyone in anger in my life.

The problem lies in when these activities have reached the threshold and that we do not know yet.

--Infy

 

[MJS]

Intervene how? Almost ALL boys at one point torture an animal. Be it insect, mamal, or reptial.

I mean I've pulled the spider leg off to see what would happen before. I've even done the magnifying glass to an ant hill. I've never hit anyone in anger in my life.

The problem lies in when these activities have reached the threshold and that we do not know yet.

--Infy

Yes, I've done the magnifying glass thing too. I also watched Friday the 13th, Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street when I was a kid. However, there comes a time in life when we mature and we don't run outside on a 90 degree day and burn ants. I have had a few dogs during my lifetime. I own one right now. I rescued him. I love that dog with all my heart and I often sit and wonder what kind of a life he had before I got him. I hate when I hear about cases of animal abuse. I also didn't grow up and chase my younger sister around the house with a butcher knife either. I didn't go out on Halloween night and kill people.

I guess the point I was trying to make is, does the person show signs of this type of behavior on a regular basis? Is torture and abuse happening everyday? If so, thats what I meant by intervene. Why wait until the kid is 20, 30, or 40 yrs old before someone does something. IMO, alot of it comes down to parenting and how people were raised.

Mike

 

[jks9199]

I guess the point I was trying to make is, does the person show signs of this type of behavior on a regular basis? Is torture and abuse happening everyday? If so, thats what I meant by intervene. Why wait until the kid is 20, 30, or 40 yrs old before someone does something. IMO, alot of it comes down to parenting and how people were raised.

Mike

I presume you're referring to what's been called "the serial killer triad" of late bed-wetting, fire-starting, and animal cruelty. Many, if not all, identified serial killers have shared these traits. The problem is that the triad was identified through interviews with convicted serial killers; we don't know how many people share these traits yet never went on to become a serial killer. As has been mentioned -- most boys at some point in their lives do things that can be interpreted as "animal cruelty" whether it's burning ants or riling up someone's dog. Killing small mammals is more predictive... But how are you going to know? Should we begin installing monitors in every kid's neck like in Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card?

Here in the US, the presumption is that you aren't punished for what you might do -- only what has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you did do. Otherwise, every male needs to be locked up for rape since we all have the equipment to commit a rape!

 

[Infinite]

So I did chase my sister around the house with a knife... but really I thought it was funny. This was long before I knew what a knife was or what it was used for.

Once again I've never harmed anyone physically in my life intentionally.

jks has it right just because someone does these things there is no way to know what percentage of them will become serial killers. I was elluding to that less eliquently with my phrase about not knowing the threshold or rather Point of no return.

Infy.

 

[MJS]

I presume you're referring to what's been called "the serial killer triad" of late bed-wetting, fire-starting, and animal cruelty. Many, if not all, identified serial killers have shared these traits. The problem is that the triad was identified through interviews with convicted serial killers; we don't know how many people share these traits yet never went on to become a serial killer. As has been mentioned -- most boys at some point in their lives do things that can be interpreted as "animal cruelty" whether it's burning ants or riling up someone's dog. Killing small mammals is more predictive... But how are you going to know? Should we begin installing monitors in every kid's neck like in Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card?

Here in the US, the presumption is that you aren't punished for what you might do -- only what has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you did do. Otherwise, every male needs to be locked up for rape since we all have the equipment to commit a rape!

I think there is some confusion here. This behavior should be able to be identified by parents, teachers, etc. If the child is showing repeat signs of this behavior, don't you think someone should do something? I mean, if a kid is running thru the neighborhood, torturing the animals in the area, are you telling me this is normal? Please go back and reread what I said here:

Yes, I've done the magnifying glass thing too. I also watched Friday the 13th, Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street when I was a kid. However, there comes a time in life when we mature and we don't run outside on a 90 degree day and burn ants. I have had a few dogs during my lifetime. I own one right now. I rescued him. I love that dog with all my heart and I often sit and wonder what kind of a life he had before I got him. I hate when I hear about cases of animal abuse. I also didn't grow up and chase my younger sister around the house with a butcher knife either. I didn't go out on Halloween night and kill people.

I guess the point I was trying to make is, does the person show signs of this type of behavior on a regular basis? Is torture and abuse happening everyday? If so, thats what I meant by intervene. Why wait until the kid is 20, 30, or 40 yrs old before someone does something. IMO, alot of it comes down to parenting and how people were raised.

The problem tends to be that parents are totally clueless to what their kids are doing. The typical phrase goes something like this, "Oh no, my little Johnny would never do something like that!" People don't want to believe that their kids are doing something wrong, so they go into denial.

 

[MJS]

jks has it right just because someone does these things there is no way to know what percentage of them will become serial killers. I was elluding to that less eliquently with my phrase about not knowing the threshold or rather Point of no return.

Infy.

Like I said in the 2nd part of my post:

I guess the point I was trying to make is, does the person show signs of this type of behavior on a regular basis? Is torture and abuse happening everyday? If so, thats what I meant by intervene. Why wait until the kid is 20, 30, or 40 yrs old before someone does something. IMO, alot of it comes down to parenting and how people were raised.

I also stated that I too went out with the magnifying glass and burned ants, but that behavior stopped. I didn't have an obsession with it. I wasn't running out every 5 minutes to do it. People grow out of things as they mature. Its the people that as they grow older, still show signs of wanting to hurt animals, people, etc.

 

[Touch Of Death]

this came up as a thought in a previous thread, and i wanted to expand on it.

at what point are we, as a society permitted to pre-emptively stop, observe or otherwise interfere with somebody we're sure is going to hurt people?

two examples...

1. research seems to indicate that if an adolescent tortures animals, he 's gonna hurt somebody if they live long enough. probably kill somebody. if we catch an adolescent torturing animals, do we have the right to interfere with him before he harms his first human?

2. south africa either is or is considering separating citizens with an incurable form of tuberculosis from the rest of the population, so they won't infect anybody else. it's undeniable that this will save lives. is it justifiable?

what do we think?

Why bother with an African dilema when right here in these United States, teachers are forced to accept children with infectious diseases, and will lose their job if they warn the parents of the healthy students.

 

[jks9199]

I think there is some confusion here. This behavior should be able to be identified by parents, teachers, etc. If the child is showing repeat signs of this behavior, don't you think someone should do something? I mean, if a kid is running thru the neighborhood, torturing the animals in the area, are you telling me this is normal? Please go back and reread what I said here:



The problem tends to be that parents are totally clueless to what their kids are doing. The typical phrase goes something like this, "Oh no, my little Johnny would never do something like that!" People don't want to believe that their kids are doing something wrong, so they go into denial.

In my current assignment, I deal regularly with gang members. Many of them are kids. (Some are sociopaths... others are just herd members.) We find that it's quite common for parents to be oblivious to the fact that their kid is a gang member. They may have noticed his penchant for blue clothes, they may have noticed that he and his buddies have some weird ways to wave... But they don't notice that the kid is a banger, even though we can tell from 100 yards. Maybe it's denial, maybe it's ignorance, or maybe it's just that many parents aren't nearly as aware of their kids as we think they might be. (Ever shock your parents with something you did as a kid -- that they didn't know about till you told them after college? I have. My brothers have. Many, if not all, of my friends have.)

Teachers are just as bad... I just worked a case where even the school resource officer was shocked at the kids at I was investigating. And this is a "good" SRO from a cop's viewpoint; she's not buddy-buddy with the kids.

Again, I ask, who is going to monitor and identify the behavior? And, assuming that we do monitor and identify it... Who's going to make a decision? The current juvenile justice system, in my experience, will bend over backwards to give a kid a chance to rehabilate themselves, almost without exception.

 

[MJS]

In my current assignment, I deal regularly with gang members. Many of them are kids. (Some are sociopaths... others are just herd members.) We find that it's quite common for parents to be oblivious to the fact that their kid is a gang member. They may have noticed his penchant for blue clothes, they may have noticed that he and his buddies have some weird ways to wave... But they don't notice that the kid is a banger, even though we can tell from 100 yards. Maybe it's denial, maybe it's ignorance, or maybe it's just that many parents aren't nearly as aware of their kids as we think they might be. (Ever shock your parents with something you did as a kid -- that they didn't know about till you told them after college? I have. My brothers have. Many, if not all, of my friends have.)

Teachers are just as bad... I just worked a case where even the school resource officer was shocked at the kids at I was investigating. And this is a "good" SRO from a cop's viewpoint; she's not buddy-buddy with the kids.

Again, I ask, who is going to monitor and identify the behavior? And, assuming that we do monitor and identify it... Who's going to make a decision? The current juvenile justice system, in my experience, will bend over backwards to give a kid a chance to rehabilate themselves, almost without exception.

Apparently my sister and I must be in a different category, because our parents, especially our Mother, was very aware of what we were doing. As I said, its all how people are raised. Everyone is different, so you and I can compare ideas and people all day long, but the fact remains, that what you see is different from what I see and vice versa. There are many resources out there, available to parents and teachers, to aid in recognizing signs, but its up to people to take advantage of them. Not too long ago, in CT, there were quite a few cases of sexual abuse by older men on teen girls via the MySpace system. Many of the PDs in the area got together, exchanged info. and held meetings at schools with parents and teachers, to help them and give them an idea as to whats out there and how they can increase their awareness of what their child is doing. Theres programs for drug abuse and gang affiliation as well, but like I said, its a matter of taking advantage of whats out there.

 

[Andrew Green]

at what point are we, as a society permitted to pre-emptively stop, observe or otherwise interfere with somebody we're sure is going to hurt people?

I think this is a dangerous thing as it is a very slippery slope.

People should be free to act as they please within the limits of society and the law, and sometimes those already put up walls that maybe don't need to be there.

It sounds like the "Pot is a gateway drug" argument to be honest. Yes, some people that smoke pot will move onto stronger drugs. But for most Alchohal and tobacco come before pot, do we ban those as well? Does someone drinking lots of coffee lead to more potent stimulants, things like Speed, so we need to ban coffee?

Lately there has been lots in the news about illegal wiretaps, searches, survailance, holding without charge ([SIZE=-1]Guantanamo Bay) and other such preemptive strikes against "warning signs." None of which should have happened.

Warning signs are usually not illegal, if they where they would not be signs and be crimes. If we start taking action against legal behaviour deemed to be a "warning sign" by some talking heads, well, at that point I think the American "The right to bare arms" needs to spread worldwide and start being put to use.
[/SIZE]

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Why bother with an African dilema when right here in these United States, teachers are forced to accept children with infectious diseases, and will lose their job if they warn the parents of the healthy students.

good point. i'd heard of that, but hadn't thought to mention it.

i'm at odds with myself on the whole issue. on the one hand, there seems to be some logical good sense behind some of the steps that could or are being taken.

on the other, like mr. green just mentioned, it's a very slippery slope and runs directly contrary to some of the basic assumptions and values of our culture.

 

[jks9199]

Apparently my sister and I must be in a different category, because our parents, especially our Mother, was very aware of what we were doing. As I said, its all how people are raised. Everyone is different, so you and I can compare ideas and people all day long, but the fact remains, that what you see is different from what I see and vice versa. There are many resources out there, available to parents and teachers, to aid in recognizing signs, but its up to people to take advantage of them. Not too long ago, in CT, there were quite a few cases of sexual abuse by older men on teen girls via the MySpace system. Many of the PDs in the area got together, exchanged info. and held meetings at schools with parents and teachers, to help them and give them an idea as to whats out there and how they can increase their awareness of what their child is doing. Theres programs for drug abuse and gang affiliation as well, but like I said, its a matter of taking advantage of whats out there.

But you are still suggesting that we somehow, before a person commits criminal acts and only because they show things that we have found linked to certain criminal behavior -- but that ARE NOT causitive of criminal behavior, decide that this person should be separated from society.

That's just not how we do things here in the US. Even the various state gang laws are careful to define a CRIMINAL street gang and not merely target people who are associating together (recall the First Amendment to the US Constitution... we are free to assemble for peaceable or legal purposes). We don't even hold accused people in jail, unless we have good reason to believe that they either pose a threat to the public, themselves, or are not going to come to trial.

Sorry -- the basic premise of stopping someone for something they might do just doesn't work under the legal system of the USA. As I said, every male has the basic equipment to commit rape; surely you're not in favor of locking every guy up to prevent rapes. Or... Many people living in inner city areas with poor socio-economic conditions commit various crimes, including robbery and drug dealing. Shall we incarcerate them all -- ignoring the fact that many of them do NOT commit crimes? (Note that I'm NOT ruling out proactive, positive pre-emptive measures...) Lots of crime occurs in New York City; perhaps Escape from New York had the right idea... Let's wall NYC off, cut bridges, and leave 'em alone? (Yes -- I'm going to extremes. I'm confident this isn't what your suggesting.)

Now -- if you're talking about looking over, and seeing someone about to hit someone, or otherwise posing an imminent threat... That's a different (and equally complex) issue.

 

[MJS]

But you are still suggesting that we somehow, before a person commits criminal acts and only because they show things that we have found linked to certain criminal behavior -- but that ARE NOT causitive of criminal behavior, decide that this person should be separated from society.

That's just not how we do things here in the US. Even the various state gang laws are careful to define a CRIMINAL street gang and not merely target people who are associating together (recall the First Amendment to the US Constitution... we are free to assemble for peaceable or legal purposes). We don't even hold accused people in jail, unless we have good reason to believe that they either pose a threat to the public, themselves, or are not going to come to trial.

Sorry -- the basic premise of stopping someone for something they might do just doesn't work under the legal system of the USA. As I said, every male has the basic equipment to commit rape; surely you're not in favor of locking every guy up to prevent rapes. Or... Many people living in inner city areas with poor socio-economic conditions commit various crimes, including robbery and drug dealing. Shall we incarcerate them all -- ignoring the fact that many of them do NOT commit crimes? (Note that I'm NOT ruling out proactive, positive pre-emptive measures...) Lots of crime occurs in New York City; perhaps Escape from New York had the right idea... Let's wall NYC off, cut bridges, and leave 'em alone? (Yes -- I'm going to extremes. I'm confident this isn't what your suggesting.)

Now -- if you're talking about looking over, and seeing someone about to hit someone, or otherwise posing an imminent threat... That's a different (and equally complex) issue.

I'm sorry, but there is still misunderstandings here. If a parent has a child that is suddenly not as social as they used to be, isolates themselves from friends and family, starts making comments that they don't want to live anymore, are you honestly sitting here telling me that the parents should wait until the child is ready to put the gun to their head or has the rope around their neck before they intervene??? I'm not saying to lock them up, which I get the impression that is what you think Im saying. Instead I'm saying to start the process of getting them help.

The city in which I work has a Mental Health group that is affiliated with the state. There are a number of times each week that they go with the cops to evaluate a client because that client has been making comments that deem a response from this group.

Again, I'm not saying put them in an isolated area, but when signs are being shown, that is the time to intervene. At this point, it seems that we're going to have to agree to disagree with our viewpoints.

Thanks for the discussion.

Mike

 

[jks9199]

I'm sorry, but there is still misunderstandings here. If a parent has a child that is suddenly not as social as they used to be, isolates themselves from friends and family, starts making comments that they don't want to live anymore, are you honestly sitting here telling me that the parents should wait until the child is ready to put the gun to their head or has the rope around their neck before they intervene??? I'm not saying to lock them up, which I get the impression that is what you think Im saying. Instead I'm saying to start the process of getting them help.

The city in which I work has a Mental Health group that is affiliated with the state. There are a number of times each week that they go with the cops to evaluate a client because that client has been making comments that deem a response from this group.

Again, I'm not saying put them in an isolated area, but when signs are being shown, that is the time to intervene. At this point, it seems that we're going to have to agree to disagree with our viewpoints.

Thanks for the discussion.

Mike

If you're talking a proactive response when you notice immediate indicators, then I'm with you. If you're talking about locking someone up because they might do something... No.

As I've said -- I'm a gang cop. Let me use that as an example. I'm actually also a believer in intervention as being part of the solution. If alert family, friends, teachers or community members recognize signs that a kid is becoming gang-involved, that's the time to step in and try to prevent them from actually joining a gang. Provide parenting classes, alternative programs, switch schools, and so on.

Similar examples could be made with community mental health services, a very few drug intervention programs and (I'm sure) other areas.

But talking about locking people away based on exhibiting SOME traits of gang members, paranoid schizophrenics, leprosy, or whatever, BEFORE they've actually done anything... Nope. While it'd save me hours and hours of investigative work, I can't lock a wannabe away even though I know that within three years, he's going to be an active, violent gang member. Even if I know that intervention is unlikely to work, either because of inept intervention programs or intractible knuckleheads. That's just not how we do things in the US.

 

[MJS]

If you're talking a proactive response when you notice immediate indicators, then I'm with you. If you're talking about locking someone up because they might do something... No.

As I've said -- I'm a gang cop. Let me use that as an example. I'm actually also a believer in intervention as being part of the solution. If alert family, friends, teachers or community members recognize signs that a kid is becoming gang-involved, that's the time to step in and try to prevent them from actually joining a gang. Provide parenting classes, alternative programs, switch schools, and so on.

Similar examples could be made with community mental health services, a very few drug intervention programs and (I'm sure) other areas.

But talking about locking people away based on exhibiting SOME traits of gang members, paranoid schizophrenics, leprosy, or whatever, BEFORE they've actually done anything... Nope. While it'd save me hours and hours of investigative work, I can't lock a wannabe away even though I know that within three years, he's going to be an active, violent gang member. Even if I know that intervention is unlikely to work, either because of inept intervention programs or intractible knuckleheads. That's just not how we do things in the US.

Well, I have to say, that after reading this post, it now seems like we're more on the same page than we were before. I've made quite a few posts in this thread. Unless I'm missing something, the only post that I made a reference to locking someone up was post #3. However, I stated that if the parent sees the signs and fails to act, then they should not complain if their childs behavior lands them in jail. Aside from that, every post has talked about intervention and getting the child help before they are so out of control, that jail or an institution is the only place for them.

 

[jks9199]

Well, I have to say, that after reading this post, it now seems like we're more on the same page than we were before. I've made quite a few posts in this thread. Unless I'm missing something, the only post that I made a reference to locking someone up was post #3. However, I stated that if the parent sees the signs and fails to act, then they should not complain if their childs behavior lands them in jail. Aside from that, every post has talked about intervention and getting the child help before they are so out of control, that jail or an institution is the only place for them.

I think that you and I are coming from similar places, though I think we have some differences in our points of view and philosophies, over all. But... The original post was:

this came up as a thought in a previous thread, and i wanted to expand on it.

at what point are we, as a society permitted to pre-emptively stop, observe or otherwise interfere with somebody we're sure is going to hurt people?

two examples...

1. research seems to indicate that if an adolescent tortures animals, he 's gonna hurt somebody if they live long enough. probably kill somebody. if we catch an adolescent torturing animals, do we have the right to interfere with him before he harms his first human?

2. south africa either is or is considering separating citizens with an incurable form of tuberculosis from the rest of the population, so they won't infect anybody else. it's undeniable that this will save lives. is it justifiable?

what do we think?

which clearly suggests separating people (locking them up; depriving them of their freedom of association) BEFORE they've done anything, based only on seeing indicators that they might do something.

Your initial reply,

I replied in the other thread before seeing that you started this one, so I'll reply here again.

IMO, someone should intervene. If we don't then we have no right to sit back and complain when certain things happen. I mean, if a parent sees their child showing signs of a certain behavior, ie: violence, hurting themselves or others, etc., I'd hope that they would do something. Again, if they don't then they have no right to complain if their child gets arrested and lands in prison. I'm sorry, but if that means that someone has to be locked up for the rest of their life, and away from the GP, then so be it.

Mike

seems pretty much like you're agreeing with that idea, though I also do see that you seem to suggest that someone should step in before it reaches the point of committing criminal behavior.

 

[MJS]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJS
Well, I have to say, that after reading this post, it now seems like we're more on the same page than we were before. I've made quite a few posts in this thread. Unless I'm missing something, the only post that I made a reference to locking someone up was post #3. However, I stated that if the parent sees the signs and fails to act, then they should not complain if their childs behavior lands them in jail. Aside from that, every post has talked about intervention and getting the child help before they are so out of control, that jail or an institution is the only place for them.

I think that you and I are coming from similar places, though I think we have some differences in our points of view and philosophies, over all. But... The original post was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bushidomartialarts
this came up as a thought in a previous thread, and i wanted to expand on it.

at what point are we, as a society permitted to pre-emptively stop, observe or otherwise interfere with somebody we're sure is going to hurt people?

two examples...

1. research seems to indicate that if an adolescent tortures animals, he 's gonna hurt somebody if they live long enough. probably kill somebody. if we catch an adolescent torturing animals, do we have the right to interfere with him before he harms his first human?

2. south africa either is or is considering separating citizens with an incurable form of tuberculosis from the rest of the population, so they won't infect anybody else. it's undeniable that this will save lives. is it justifiable?

what do we think?

which clearly suggests separating people (locking them up; depriving them of their freedom of association) BEFORE they've done anything, based only on seeing indicators that they might do something.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I guess it was the way I originally looked at this post. I took it as parents or family getting involved. Apparently I misunderstood what the OP was asking when he said society.

Your initial reply,

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJS
I replied in the other thread before seeing that you started this one, so I'll reply here again.

IMO, someone should intervene. If we don't then we have no right to sit back and complain when certain things happen. I mean, if a parent sees their child showing signs of a certain behavior, ie: violence, hurting themselves or others, etc., I'd hope that they would do something. Again, if they don't then they have no right to complain if their child gets arrested and lands in prison. I'm sorry, but if that means that someone has to be locked up for the rest of their life, and away from the GP, then so be it.

Mike

seems pretty much like you're agreeing with that idea, though I also do see that you seem to suggest that someone should step in before it reaches the point of committing criminal behavior.

Yes, I does give that appearance. Like I said, I originally took the post as parents, teachers, etc., stepping in to help get the person some treatment.