In article <20270091.3687aabd.alt.gathering.rainbow@aol.com>,
gathering@cygnus.com wrote:
> In a message dated 98-12-28 09:38:46 EST, you write:
>
> <<
> > > Let us resolve as follows:
> > >
> > > Resolved, all prisoners, captives and restrained persons are
> > > due liberty as of the first day of January of the year 2001 > > > of the common era,
> > > >>
> I, Miranda, Raven ask: The ten per cent or whatever thereabouts it is of truly
> violent men and women who are incarcerated OUGHT NEVER to be released. All
> others-- let em go. I am an anarchist. But there are very mentally ill people
> who kill and maim and kill and when set free they immediately go kill and maim
> and kill and kill and kill. I am absolutely against thre death penalty. But
> I am for imprisoning these psychos till they die. And, yes. It is known
> almost always who these repeat killers will be. M the r

Hi M the R,

I almost overlooked your response, because I got cute and changed the name of
the thread. You have a valid concern which deserves to be treated seriously.

First let us carefully distinguish, that the social or medical diagnosis of
uncontrollable persons is not equivalent to their legal status as convicted
felons, captives of law. There are equally dangerous persons walking the
streets, who have not gone through the legal happenstance of having one
particular violent act declared criminal, though anyone might observe the
violent tendencies and actual public hazard in their behavior. I think you will agree with me, that society's most important concern is the public safety, in containing the threat of these destabilized personalities.

However, if society's self-preservation is the weightiest concern, one past
act, the theoretic basis of criminal law, is not as important a perspective
as the prevention of harm. The best predictor of harmful behavior is the
personality structure. This more effective indicator of hazardous behavior
potential may not be used, due to the blocking behavior of the ethical
concept, of guilt by legal decree. So we cannot remove the dangerous people
from our environment, whom the law has not adjudged guilty of criminal
activity, because we think they have a bad attitude. On a local community
standard, individuals with behavioral problems will get public attention,
which may alter behavior without need for restraint, or it may not. While the
determinant for psychology is a pattern of acts and statements which together
indicate a pathology, the legal criterion of a single act on a list of
forbidden acts is not sensitive to human relationships.

I think the concept behind law, we say it's so and it must be for always, is
pretty pretentious. In fact I don't think those laws made under the
understanding that they must be true forever, are really all that true any
more. Right now we have these stresses: we're too crowded, and our activities
have brought about a mass extinction event, and the atmospheric carbon
loading times temperature product could present a threat of imminent
catastrophe on short notice.

I want to go into detail, if it's OK. There aren't really too many people.
There are too many people for our contemporary technological limitations. As
many people as we have now is fine, and even more, but not too many more. We
must change our technological basis to make the world work now. We have asked
too many times that the rest of the biosphere change to suit human
requirements, since we agreed to take over management of the planet in 11,000 BC. It's our turn now to have to change. Too many major systems of this
planet are now malfunctioning due to human stupidity, it's just about broken.
If we don't wise up in a hurry we will destroy the life on this planet
including, last but certainly not least, we the humans.

Thus the human technological base must change to a minimal emission standard,
with a solar and Hydrogen energy standard. I foresee aerostatic transport
being needed for forested areas, due to the cloture of forest roads. With
surface fuel deliveries interdicted by road clotures, many fuel-dependent
types will move out of the forests, while others more naturally careful of
fires may find living space among the wildlife. That's the way it will have
to be. Airship people guarding the forests.

If society's self preservation is the weightiest concern, the population must
resolve there is a new standard for human behavior, that exploitation is
forbidden. If persons do not distinguish a discontinuity between the
industrial age and the carbon-safe age, they may forget to change. a
memorable feature, the Day of Freedom on which nobody had any history, will
be the mnemonic event to demarcate our historical change. When people think
fo why they drive with Hydrogen rather than gasoline, they will remember that
date as being responsible for the change, rather than the day they had their
gas tank switched to a cryogen.

There must be a date of discontinuity, through which the old system cannot
see the future, and behind which the new system will sense the foreigness of
abjured ways. The first day of the new millenium is the natural day for this.
It has the awesome inertia of inexorability, it is destiny. (That's a strong
word for an old bibliomantic sorceror fellow like me to be throwing around. i
don't use that word much.) You get the point, there are hidden forces
harnessed by setting that date. If I am come to bring freedom to the captive,
shall I be stayed because of some court's opinion of the category of
someone's offense? There are innocent persons in reality who are accused and
subsequently convicted of every category of offense. I know this as a fact.

We will stop doing this to people and make a new start. There are human
beings genetically and physically, who do not share our common states of
consciousness because of impaired cognition, abnormal brain chemistry, or
logic disorders such as obsession or compulsion. A degree of restraint is
essential, but guilt must not be associated with this type of restraint. One
step below these on the priority list we find intimidation exploitation,
those who routinely instill fear on the personal level as a matter of policy,
to aggrandize themselves. This behavior hazards the cooperative goals of our
society, though it is not a medical concern but a matter of ethics. It's a
human trait which has outlived its usefulness, so bossy behavior should be
strongly deprecated in public. The bully is a bedroom selection, not a public authority.

So certain people are prisoners, but the real question about them is exactly
the same as for the public at large, are they sick? If not, they should be
let go. If so, they should be restrained. So whether people have been
convicted of crimes does not make the slightest difference in the decision
whether they should be locked up, from an objective standpoint. It's all in
where their heads are at. Their own communities are generally the best to
make this decision, but this means their real communities rather than the
formal pretense of the legal structure to represent their communities. Yes, i
do advocate sending all the convicts home, except for those who can't control
themselves, and they need to be sent to medical supervision.

I hope I have addressed your concerns. I can't soothe all your anxieties,
because change is scary. The times are scary, and that's for real. Sleeping
through scary times won't work this time. It's show time.

Reassuringly,
Johnny Thunderbird
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb275670 http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/millenialamnesty
http://www.dejanews.com/~millenialamnesty

Re: What is to be Done? Io Babylon! 990103