Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Thanks

Subject: An Orwellian Nightmare: Mandatory Mental Health Screening of Children

Greeting,

I greatly appreciate your recent commentary about public schools performing mental health screening. Your concerns ring true with me, and while I was reading it, I thought about what kind of final results we can expect from that proposed plan. If the results are similar to special education results and drop-out prevention program results, I wouldn’t expect too much for the potential high price.

Your commentary also reminded me of the ABA’s Kennedy Commission report. That commission advocates strategies other than incarceration to prevent crime. While I agree with their goal, I have reservations about how well our institutions will perform. As one example, the ABA President got off on the wrong foot by advocating more job training, but most credible research suggests that we need to deal with more important factors.

After 30 years of organizing and managing prevention and other programs for troubled young people, I crave to see more effective strategies that prevent our high incarceration rates. Nevertheless, I fear that we still may not deal with a few very basic and strategic requirements to reduce crime and delinquency.

In the end, the success rates of our best efforts depend upon the young people who are the potential prison inmates. Foundations, government agencies and program operators possess lots of research and experiences that they can use to design model projects. But, the young people who are heading towards the prisons do not believe that things will get better, and they often refuse to commit their minds, souls and hearts to strategies that will help them. If we stop and think, a young woman who has been abused and molested since she was ten certainly does not believe she has control over her destiny and often can not see a reason to change her behaviors. A young man eligible for special education, but never received any services can not make friends with people who will set healthy standards and encourage him to follow his special gifts. The many young black dyslexic men may never overcome the alienating stigma of the inappropriate placements into classes for emotionally disturbed students. On top of that, chances are that he is dyslexic because of poor prenatal and infant nutrition--that is a huge factor. "Welfare reform" greatly increases the chances that his newborn brother will have worse nutrition and eventually end up in prison. I can not remember the number of young mothers I have seen sitting and crying in their apartment with no food and no belief that they can help themselves. They often live within a few miles of a mall or downtown shopping area, but have never been there. They certainly would not feel accepted. Identifying how to recruit these young people into activities that stop crime identifies where we start to change the system.

From my experiences, if we want to reduce criminal behaviors, we must change four factors that affect the participants’ desire to build better lives.

First, we must recognize that violence against women produces women criminals. In Virginia, 90% of women applying for public assistance are victims of long term abuse and molestation. Being repeated victims gives them a sense that they are not responsible for their actions and have no control over their futures. These women provide the source for increased women’s prison populations. Almost all woman inmates that I have met are victims of worse crimes than the reasons for their convictions. Very few programs deal with that frequent and overwhelming need.

Second, a staff person at Virginia’s juvenile learning centers told me that about 25% of the kids entering their system have been identified by public schools as eligible for special education, but after the intake center’s assessments, the number rises to 50%. From my experiences, also, at least half of the young criminals and young adult criminals are either eligible for special education or are almost eligible. In spite of that, I have only known of a very few justice system employees that recognize it as a cause for criminal behavior.

Third, I sure hope that I do not sound pretentious, but the quality of the programs serving low-income people and criminals is not good. Too often, the quality is awful. Often, the workers expect instant results from their participants and simply punish them for doing what abused or handicapped people do. At the same time, what can we expect when one probation officer has 150 clients? A couple decades ago, American manufacturing confronted their crisis of producing poor quality. But, the agencies and organizations dealing with troubled youth show very little inclination to acknowledge their poor performance. Most often, they behave the same as do many prison inmates. They simply blame their clients or someone else.

Finally, peer and community influences are major factors that many researchers identify. Most neighborhoods have good wholesome people. Most public housing projects include wonderful healthy residents. However, alienated kids gravitate to other alienated people. They reinforce each other and they are so desperate for friends that those friendships are much more important than jobs or the threat of incarceration. What’s more, these alienated kids are highly visible because their parents or others do not allow these kids to be in their own homes, and their street visibility gives them more prestige for other vulnerable people. We need to more rigorously focus upon ways to recruit and retain meaningful close contacts with alienated youth. The research and information is available about how to recruit their loyalty.


The factors that I highlighted are part of a complex web of factors that affect each kid differently. In fact, I probably should have added that each kid is different and needs a different mix of flexible services. Yes, that is an important factor, but most agencies and organizations tend to simply plug kids into one or maybe two slots that they have available. The young people in the justice system have lots and lots of needs, and only serving one of those needs insures failure. I can say that with absolute certainty.

In case you are wondering, I once managed a pilot delinquency prevention project that, after three years, reduced the juvenile court intake and the crime rate by 50% for a small city. I designed and operated multi-service job-training programs that had high performance and retention rates for youthful offenders, and were later replicated statewide. From my experiences, I know that the young people in the justice system suffer immensely, and so I hope that your advocacy work helps produce what we all want. So, good luck, best wishes and thank you for your fine work.

Thank you,

Bob Spencer
Scottsville, VA

Mental Health

Subject: An Orwellian Nightmare: Mandatory Mental Health Screening of Children

Dear Mr. Whitehead,

I read the article you have in Sunday's Daily Progress. I want to thank you for telling the horror of the plan. I worked in the field and I am aware of the terrible danger. I wish I knew how to prevent this sick and viscious plan.

I hope you will shout the truth so everyone will know what a terrible attack is about to cripple children in America.

Sincerely,

Bernice Barsel

From CCHR Australia

Subject: An Orwellian Nightmare: Mandatory Mental Health Screening of Children

Dear John,

Your website link was sent to me by a friend, author Richard Gosden PhD, who wrote a fantastic book called "Punishing the Patient: How Psychiatrists Misunderstand and Mistreat Schizophrenia". The book is also an expose on the NSW mental health system. Why I am telling you this is that I am sending a letter to Members of Parliament regarding recent "suggestions" to change the legislation in NSW and would like permission to copy your article, "An Orwellian Nightmare" and send it to them. I will also be putting a link to your website on our local website www.mentalhealthcrisis. Keep up the good work.

Regards,

Kim Cullen
Director Citizens Commission on Human Rights, Sydney, Aust.

Mandatory Mental Health Screening

Subject: An Orwellian Nightmare: Mandatory Mental Health Screening of Children

Kudos for your excellent commentary, "Orwellian Nightmare." I recommend a good book on the subject, "Unholy Madness: the Church's Surrender to Psychiatry," by Seth Farber. Take a look at it some time if you can!

Best wishes. Keep up the good work.

Ben Hansen
Traverse City, Michigan

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Canadian Prescription Drugs

Subject: Federal Agents Strong-Arm Elderly Citizens Seeking Affordable Drugs

Every time I read about the US Government and it’s half-baked determination to prevent Americans from obtaining less expensive drugs from Canada, I start spitting nails.

I lived in Canada for about 20 years in the 70’s and 80’s. During that time I became a Canadian citizen while retaining my American citizenship and experienced the Canadian health care system to it’s fullest including childbirth and multiple surgeries. In 1980, I entered law school and my contracts professor was Anne McLellan, formerly Minister of Health and currently Deputy Prime Minister. I also know her husband, John Law, ironically also a Law Professor. I like both of them immensely and have the greatest personal respect for them.

I know, both from my own medical history and from knowing Anne, that bad drugs do not pass the lips of Canadian consumers any more often than they do American consumers. The Canadian government would not knowingly harm their citizens that way. Fake lipitor on the shelves anyone? The Gestapo like tactics of the FDA do a deep disservice to the taxpayers and are a reflection of the overreaching of the federal government. I wish I had a chance to review the places where the Federal Government has stretched the four corners of the Constitution beyond recognition but I know that such a study would be ignored by those that feel the average American is too stupid to look out for themselves. Drugs sold in Canada are not dangerous simply because the interests of the FDA and big drug companies are not served by cheaper prices.

Please keep up your reporting and whatever pressure you can place on the powers that be so that ordinary citizens understand the harm their government is doing in this area.

Nanci J. Beorn
Richmond VA

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Praise for the Defenders

Subject: An interview with Reverend Barry Lynn

Dear Editors,

Thank you for interviewing Barry Lynn. Americans United and the Rutherford Institute are both organizations I have the utmost respect for. Both institutions are sincere defenders of the Constitution, and I think their differences are primarily differences in emphasis. Communication is a key to finding common ground and fostering sympathy and understanding among your diverse constituents.

Tim West
Grand Rapids, Michigan

Congress Not Tyranical Threat to America, Courts Are!

Subject: Stripping the Courts Means Stripping Our Rights

Dear Rutherford Institute,

In case you did not notice, Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution (namely, the Exceptions Clause) gives the Congress the clear Constitutional authority to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. I notice this point was conveniently not addressed in the Commentary below.

The Courts may have helped in the past, but they are now trying to destroy America by forcing secular humanism down our throats as the State Religion! It is the courts and NOT the legislature that poses the TYRANNICAL threat to America. Wake up Rutherford Institute!


Mark Fisher