![]() |
|||
| Tuesday, October 26, 2004 Thanks 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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! 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 |
Archive June 2004July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010
|
||
| The Rutherford Institute P.O. Box
7482 Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482 Phone :: 434.978.3888 (8:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern) | Fax :: 434.978.1789 General Inquiries:: staff@rutherford.org | Legal Assistance:: tristaff@rutherford.org Technical comments :: webmaster@rutherford.org ©2007 The Rutherford Institute | Privacy Info |
|||