I never said anything about horror or revulsion. Not sure where you got that from. But it is draconian! As I have said before in other contexts, when the world is run your way, I hope you don’t get busted speeding through a school zone. Prison island for you! And will it actually catch the worst offenders? Would your system catch the Enron people? No. It will however catch the grossest, dirtiest, least sociable people. Not sure gross (or property crime, which you mentioned more than once) is the worst problem in our society – it’s certainly not the one we need most protection from.

And no, I do not accept utilitarian arguments. There is no forced choice between “normals” and “criminals / mentally ill / addicts / whatever.” I would choose a person over a cow, but luckily, I don’t have to. I choose to let both live (this is a reference to my eating choices which have been gone over exhaustively here. My non-utilitarian stance should be well known by now.). All have a right to life. My personal comfort might be a little higher if all the “bad” people were gone, but actually my personal comfort is already pretty damn high. Increasing my glaringly enormous privilege even more at the expense of other people’s freedom is not something I want or would agree to, if given the choice.

The DSM is an interesting entity, an in part a reflection on the consensus of people, whom have biases and agendas. Addiction is a “illness” in the current version. Homosexuality was in previous versions. Maybe if the mentally ill could get it together enough to have a few parades, they could get it out of the book, and call it a healthy lifestyle instead of an aberrant behavior.

And I think you are criticizing my methods at least in part because they have the capacity to make mistakes, writing off people that could be saved, missing the rich functional alcoholic and abusive parents etc. (As well as being draconian, and filling you with horror and revulsion.) I maintain that while my system isn’t perfect, we could round up a great many of the worst, most obvious social offenders.

And if you are willing to concede that they are “worth less” while not being “worthless” then shouldn’t it follow with your animal rights ideals of cow over fly, man over cow, (the unit of worth measurement escapes me at present) that the well being of the many “more worths” is of greater weight than the freedom of the “less worths?”

If that’s the case, I just need to codify the worth of homeless crazy drug addict thief freedom (sterotypes aside), and the worth of normal person not having to watch a dude masturbate in public while walking to breakfast (or getting his car stolen, or health care dollars siphoned away) and then come up with an equation to illustrate that there is more “worth weight” on the side of the normals.

I shall begin the calculations.

~I.

P.S. Something is awry with your Brother / University post.

Ah. That is quite different.

“However if you make a choice to possess controlled substances, in contravention of the laws of the land, you should be punished. If you repeatedly do this, you should be sent away from society. So really it’s only the mentally ill who are also criminals that I want to imprison, to disallow them certain opportunities to harm themselves, and others.”

Well, I do have trouble getting behind this. Why are drugs illegal? Because they are harmful to the body? Can’t be any worse than perfectly legal tobacco. Taken chronically, worse than what alcohol does (cirrhosis, etc). Because people on them do terrible things (ie property crime)? This is almost certainly a result of the massively marked up price, a result of the so called war on drugs, which makes them dear. Interestingly enough, most people who use heroin do so irregularly, without addiction, without crime (other than the crime of purchasing), as perfectly normal members of society. Hard to believe but it’s true! Even the “hard” drugs don’t automatically make you an addict – physiological tolerance and withdrawal are neither necessary nor sufficient to diagnose addiction, and this conceptual set-up is borne out in reality, not just the research lit.

So in my opinion, there’s no reason to respect a law of the land if the law is wrong (other than fear of punishment of course). Obedience isn’t a virtue once you get out of your childhood years. In general I agree with punishment for law breaking, but our drug laws are absurd and I have little respect for them. It doesn’t bother me a tittle when people buy or use drugs, at least not from a law-abidance perspective. Drug addiction (which note is not a foregone conclusion, even with the big nasty heroin) doesn’t need to lead to being a street person, or a prostitute, or a criminal – plenty of white collar addicts show us this. Hmm, I’m getting off topic here…

Being sent away is a pretty harsh sentence. Would this be a permanent exile-hood? Wouldn’t you consider that an enormous harm to them?

“The reason that your “cancer patient” analogy falls flat, is because rarely do cancer patients commit crimes to support their drug use stemming from their illness. If a cancer patient jacks a bunch of cars, let’s send him away too.”

Well, they don’t commit crimes now that medical marijuana is legal – formerly purchasing and owning was criminal. But exactly, you’ve hit it – there’s nothing special about any drug that makes the user a criminal. Drugs aren’t the problem at all. (Wait, is that what you’re already saying?)

I’m a little uncomfortable with the stereotyping we’re engaged in here – I actually don’t know anything about how many drug addicts are also petty (or not petty) criminals, once you remove “crimes” like prostitution and mere buying and selling, which as I say, in my opinion are not crimes at all. Property crime like theft is of course a big problem, or so it seems, but I’m not even sure how common it is if we look at the entire spectrum of addicts, including alcoholics, say, who tend to be working people. Addiction is not limited to illegal drugs simply because the law of Canada tries to make us think so – people get addicted to legal drugs (sedatives, pain killers, tobacco), shopping, eating, sex, etc. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of addicts are not criminals at all.

So I’m not really liking the implied message there, which is that addicts/mentally ill people all jack cars. Note also that being an addict is by definition being mentally ill, according to the DSM model.

Actually, am I misunderstanding you? I might be focusing too much on addiction and you’re thinking more of mental illness in general? Like, say, schizophrenics who don’t use substances at all but are homeless people? (Forgive me, I just got out of bed…!)

“And there are many outward signs that suggest that a person won’t be a good parent. Lengthy criminal record? History of drug abuse? Probably won’t be a good parent. Live in squalor, can’t take care of yourself without assistance or intervention? Not parent material. In and out of rehab programs for Alcohol? Probably shouldn’t be getting pregnant and burdening a child with FAS.”

Hmm. These are quite true points. Some people are clearly going to be, shall we say, difficult parents. A wrinkle I would add are the millions of people who pass for normal who nonetheless will totally mess up their kids, who we won’t have much hope of identifying in advance and who even if we did, how would we prove it?

Also we need to consider the role of society – what does merely living in this place at this time do to people, regardless of their parenting? What are the stresses and illness-causing elements of life in our culture? No one avoids these, but they may still exert terrible pressures on our children.

The real issue here is reproductive rights, I suppose. In a perfect world people should have the right to do as they wish with their bodies, including breed, but the reality is we live in a society where your choices cost the rest of us money, time, stress, whatever. My feeling is that it’s totally unacceptable to restrict breeding, but I agree that sometimes it’s a train wreck just waiting to happen.

“There seems to be an underlying assumption that human beings have a right to be treated equally, period. Some might suggest this is a type of speciesist argument that Puck received such scathing criticism for not so long ago.”

Wait, are we comparing humans with animals now? Surely we can agree I take a pretty supportive and equality-promoting position on animal rights…?

I would say that all people have equal rights, and because most people are moral agents, that most component have equal moral responsibilities. Being unable to understand and/or enact the responsibilities does not strip you of your rights – this is the crux of my animal rights position, where animals are afforded rights even though they cannot return the favour. (The very antithesis of speciesism! ) Likewise, humans who are unable (not just unwilling) to maintain their moral responsibilities retain their moral rights.

In this context punishment for crimes is logical and consistent. The question is, are DTES homeless people moral agents or moral patients? If the latter, punishment is not appropriate. I agree they can’t be allowed to continue doing what they’re doing if it involves stealing or violence or serious offences. Is a bare bones prison island the appropriate response? No way! Based on the psychological variables I posted about, I don’t believe most of the people living in the DTES have much of a choice about how to get along in the world. I would consider them moral patients (bracing for the blast here…!).

“Are we really all of equal worth? To whom? Certainly not society it would seem. To God? That won’t sail with Vex and Co.”

Equal worth… a very good question. No, we are not. If I had to choose to throw my husband into a pit of boiling lava or a homeless guy, I’d pick the latter, and not just because I happen to know and love my husband. I think he’s much more useful to society, probably had more and better interpersonal relationships with, has greater potential on all scales to improve the world. Or at least maintain it. But fortunately we don’t have to put people who are “worth less” into lava pits! We can try to make they worth more, capable of more. They are still human beings, albeit damaged ones, who have rights.

One problem is you can’t force people to get better. Forced treatment does not work. And one of the common problems of being all fucked up is you don’t have the perspective to see that you need to change. So if we can’t make them change, and they don’t want to change, and they are making life worse for those of us who play by the rules, what are we to do? Prison island? That will be an ongoing thing – every generation will produce its flops even after we sweep away the most obviously problematic people. The problem isn’t really solved this way. Also we must ask what the social costs of such an institution will be. Does it engender social and individual illness by its very presence? What are the costs of living in a police state?

“So why shouldn’t we lock away our criminal burdens, even if their mental illness contributes to their criminality.”
Well, I guess it depends on what you want. To punish? It works (but shouldn’t be used on moral patients). To prevent and rehabilitate? It fails. To protect the rest of us? Even if I have more potential or are “worth more” (as per the lava pit) than a DTES junkie, does that make me a more valuable human being, so much more valuable that he should be locked away forever to make my life easier? I don’t think so. And if we’re ever going to let these people off the island, that would be a disaster. Prison life damages people even more, as we know. This is one reason I dislike incarceration in general – it makes people worse by the time they get out.

And, let’s go sci-fi for a moment, what happens when the prisoners escape off the island with technology they created in secret caves? Very Mad Max.

“And I’m much closer to a solution that the solutionless WC. Mine’s just very uncomfortable, and chock full of cold pricklies. And smacks of Facism, which scares free-living vegan hippes.”

It should scare everyone. We start prison-islanding the criminals (and who defines what is a crime? Today the murderer, tomorrow the speeder). We move then to the seriously mentally ill, because probably they’ll become criminal if they aren’t already. Third, we round up the parents who produced those first two groups of people, because clearly they can’t be allowed to breed any more and anyway, if they fucked up their kids so bad they must be pretty fucked up themselves; no telling what their nasty influence on the world is and will be. Fourth, we imprison everyone who gets below a certain score on this test of criminal tendencies and/or mental illness classification. And on and on.

The problem with fascism is that it is run by people, fallible people, who have personal agendas and greed and fear and their own mental illnesses! I don’t know or even know of a single person I would trust to run the country on a totalitarian basis. Power corrupts and all that. We just need to riffle through our history books a little to see the terrible costs of those kinds of governments.

People forget we actually live in an awesome country, with relatively few problems, lots of freedom, low stress, amazing opportunities. Things are pretty good over here! The DTES is a serious problem, of course, but not so serious that we need to start shipping people away for the rest of their lives!

You may be closer to suggesting a solution but that doesn’t mean it’s a good one! But it’s true, I don’t have a solution. Also, I don’t have any breakfast so I need to go eat now. Apologies again for this response which seems rambly and unfocused even to me…!

I understand your reticence in regards to imprisoning the mentally ill. Let me clarify, I’m not advocating imprisoning people because they are mentally ill, unless they are a danger to us, or themselves. I’m advocating imprisoning criminals, who may happen to be mentally ill.

If you have a mental illness that you are coping with, and you are a productive, law abiding citizen, great. I wish you all the best, and will even advocate spending some state funds to help you out a bit.

However if you make a choice to possess controlled substances, in contravention of the laws of the land, you should be punished. If you repeatedly do this, you should be sent away from society. So really it’s only the mentally ill who are also criminals that I want to imprison, to disallow them certain opportunities to harm themselves, and others.

The reason that your “cancer patient” analogy falls flat, is because rarely do cancer patients commit crimes to support their drug use stemming from their illness. If a cancer patient jacks a bunch of cars, let’s send him away too.

And there are many outward signs that suggest that a person won’t be a good parent. Lengthy criminal record? History of drug abuse? Probably won’t be a good parent. Live in squalor, can’t take care of yourself without assistance or intervention? Not parent material. In and out of rehab programs for Alcohol? Probably shouldn’t be getting pregnant and burdening a child with FAS.

There seems to be an underlying assumption that human beings have a right to be treated equally, period. Some might suggest this is a type of speciesist argument that Puck received such scathing criticism for not so long ago.

Are we really all of equal worth? To whom? Certainly not society it would seem. To God? That won’t sail with Vex and Co.

So why shouldn’t we lock away our criminal burdens, even if their mental illness contributes to their criminality.

And I’m much closer to a solution that the solutionless WC. Mine’s just very uncomfortable, and chock full of cold pricklies. And smacks of Facism, which scares free-living vegan hippes.

Regards,

~I.

Also, as Winter Coat points out, apprehending children – even from terrible parents – is disastrous for them. That’s not a solution, or at least not a final one.

I find it highly disagreeable to contemplate incarceration of the mentally ill (and this is what addicts are, and also the homeless in overwhelming numbers). We don’t incarcerate cancer patients just because they’re going to become socially useless and cost us a bucket of money in health care. I do think there is a place for institutional care, if appropriately applied (ie, without abuse!) – clearly some people cannot get along in the outside world. Again this is generally a mental health issue. But an institution is a far cry from a bare bones prison island. The inhabitants are still people, still feel, still care, still suffer, and must be treated as such.

I think Winter Coat is much closer to a solution, despite the stated lack of solution – poverty and addiction are social issues which need to be addressed on a social level, not on the level of the individual sufferer (or not exclusively there).

But I think Incog’s prediction about the Olympics is spot on – they’ll hide the DTES as much as possible, though my addendum to the prediction is that by 2011 it will all come rushing back.

Secondly, how is it clear that the “systematic erasure of cultures…” etc. is responsble for the situation? I don’t think we can sum up the causes so neatly.

Thirdly, I thought about the struggle to parent when you’ve had a bad institution screwing you up. I’m sure it’s a monumental struggle. Perhaps even beyond the abilities of most people.

Perhaps they shouldn’t try it.

Some people can juggle flaming knives while blindfolded. Most should not make the attempt. They won’t only screw their own lives up. Honestly, if a person is a “fuck up”, through their fault, or through unfortunate circumstances, one of the best things they can do is avoid procreation.

Vex touched on the massive disadvantage kids with mothers who abuse substances during pregnancy are forced to cope with. So, even if we did warehouse these people on some island, and sterilize the lot of them, at least we’d be prevented kids from being abused in utero. We’d also cut down on, although not eliminate the number of downtrodden in the next generation.

Rehabilitation schemes generally don’t work. A very small percentage of people get clean, sane, de-criminalized and move on to lead productive lives. Let’s do a little social triage, save the ones that aren’t a massive struggle, and warehouse the rest where they can do less harm to themselves than being allowed the freedom to continue to make poor choices that have generational consequences, and at the same time, keep decent people safer and happier.

You don’t have to bail out every drop of water in a leaking boat to keep it afloat, you just need to get a good bunch of it overboard.

It sucks we can’t save them all, but that’s reality, and everyone seems to recognize that all the tactics to save them aren’t working.

~I.

I liked the empathy with which you addressed the trauma that many in the DTES are struggling with. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I see poverty as a symptom of inequality. People are not living with bedbugs and struggling with addictions because they want to be there. A series of choices they were given (usually choices of bad or worse) have led to a situation where their poverty is visible. There are just as many addicts who can afford to hide their addictions (alcoholism anyone??) and pay to have someone else take care of their kids – the reality is that these people pass as middle class and so we don’t judge them and we don’t take their kids. However, we somehow feel free to judge the parenting and behaviors of those in the DTES.

In terms of child apprehension…the drop out rates, rates of addiction, and criminalization of youth in care are absurdly high. My question is why the state only gives a single mother with 1 child $940 a month but they are willing to pay foster parents over $700 a month to care for the child (if you are given $940 a month for you and your child you face pretty sketchy housing choices). Way too many studies have shown that the child welfare system destroys children’s lives. Combine this with the fact that there are more Aboriginal children in care this year than the total number of children who were ever in residential schools.

Clearly the situation in the DTES is a result of a systemic erasure of people’s cultures, identities and family relationships. I challenge Incognito really think about the struggle to try and parent a child when the only parent you have know was an abusive institution. It isn’t easy – full disclosure time, my grandfather was in a residential school. I have watched two generations of my family struggle to relearn how to parent. The successes where largely based on community support, non-judgmental attitudes, and a re-engagement with our culture.

As for solutions,I have none but I do know that the solutions which usually work are based on the knowledge and experience contained in a community. The DTES will start looking better when we start listening to the voices that exist there and supporting the solutions that they come up with.

I think it’s wildly inappropriate to punish someone who is a drug addict by twenty years of forced labour on a bare bones prison island. The reason I think this is related to the post – I can only too well see the reasons for the bad behaviour. Many, many, many are not actually under the control or the fault of the particular addict in question. But then again, maybe this doesn’t matter to you, since your focus is punishment (whereas I would seek some sort of solution that eliminates sources of the problem).

Consider, as i say, that society’s fuck ups don’t just come from the DTES. Would you institute some kind of mass, population wide yearly assessment to determine whose kids get yanked? (Are you aware that taking kids from their parents, even abusive ones, causes enormous damage to those kids?) Who decides?

And for that matter, would you want to live in such a police state? All of your ideas have been tried before, witness Germany in the forties, Stalinist Russia, and communist China. How did that work out for them – and would you have wanted to live there?