emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
- Jan 21, 2010
- 23,669
- 4,181
- Thread starter
- #21
I'll have to get back to you on this one, but as far as I know, no crystal ball has ever worked and we don't live in a minority report world.Just curious, when you say,
"
... health and safety" and quit criminalizing issues of
drug and relationship abuse that require counseling and healing therapy, not punishment to fix. "
Are you trying to say that a battered spouse isn't a crime?
The assault is already a crime. That's the part that does
become a violation of the civil and criminal laws.
The problem being missed is addressing the CAUSES of ABUSIVE DISORDERS
and RELATIONS BEFORE this RESULTS in a crime. Police and laws cannot do that!
The community setting up a process to identify, address, and resolve "complaints of abuse"
BEFORE any crime occurs would reduce the burdens on police.
IT WOULD ALSO REDUCE THE COSTS OF DAMAGES, PROSECUTION AND LAWSUITS,
AND INCARCERATION, SO INSTEAD OF DEFUNDING POLICE LESS AND LESS TAX MONEY
WOULD BE WASTED ON PUNISHMENT IN PRISONS AND CAN BE INVESTED IN PREVENTATION
EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, COUNSELING AND JOBS SOLVING PROBLEMS INSTEAD.
Same with abortion, drug laws, drunk driving, immigration and trafficking.
All of that can be PREVENTED by addressing Relationship abuse and addictive disorders
to REDUCE the demand for drugs, trafficking etc.
We could eliminate 80-90% of these cases that otherwise escalate into crimes
if we start taking ABUSE seriously.
But ABUSE starts with INTERNAL and RELATIONSHIP issues that are
NOT crimes. So that's where the majority of the work needs to be focused.
Govt CANNOT intervene on this level.
It is TOO EXPENSIVE for taxpayers to ignore the problem "until it becomes a crime for police."
Incarceration can cost 25-50K a year per person, where those people cannot work
and become dependent on tax paid welfare, housing and other subsidies as well as their families
left without support when a parent goes to jail.
We wouldn't need to raise more taxes to pay for health care, education, etc.
if we redirect money wasted "after the fact" and invest it in jobs and internships in preventative care,
not just health care, but daycare and elderly care to create paid jobs instead of more welfare.
People do have rights and one of those rights is the right of innocent until proven guilty. You cannot just say, "So and so is likely to abuse his wife, or such and such is going to shoot her husband."
It doesn't work that way.
Dear Darkwind
That's the same problem we are having with the mask mandates.
We haven't proven WHICH people actually have the infection, especially with asymptomatic spread,
when testing takes 3-5 days anyway to even find out.
Technically by Constitutional standards, nobody can legally be deprived of liberty
until proven to be a threat. If people are tested as positive, then traditional quarantines allowed those people to be isolated.
But there is no precedent for isolating or restricting people who haven't been proven to be infected yet.
So this is new ground, and people DO NOT AGREE.
That is why I am saying to allow Districts to Democratize
and decide their own policies. And keep others away if they disagree.
As for abuse, which isn't proven who is causing what part of the problem and often it is mutual conflicts causing it,
again, that is where I would advise Districts to set up Conflict Resolution assistance
so ANY report of conflict or abuse can be addressed WITHOUT criminalizing or penalizing anyone's record.
If the RESIDENTS agree to an intervention process, by which anyone can get help to resolve a complaint,
then this doesn't have to escalate to a civil action or a criminal case but can be avoided altogether.
So instead of fighting over drug laws, if neighbors agree they don't want
drug addiction or sales going to drug addicted people to go unchecked,
but want to ensure people are screened and not being abused because
they have an addictive or medical disorder; the neighbors in a district
can form a process and policy where they ALL consent to report any
abuse or conflict, and mediate that until an agreed solution is reach by
all the parties. If they don't all agree to conflict resolution, then the
residents have to work that out, resolve the reasons for objection,
and not wait until a confrontation happens to call police and risk an incident.
That is what I would suggest so people CAN address differences in beliefs
about pandemic precautions, about guns and drugs, about prochoice and
prolife standards on health care and prevention of sexual abuse or relationship abuse etc.
Even within the same district, if people don't agree on policies but have two different
schools and policies, they can agree to follow different ones and stay away from each other.
Similar to people agreeing only to date prolife Catholics if they don't want to mix relations with
anyone who is proabortion. Or people who marry Muslim if they want their household to
be free of pork.
If people have conflicts over policy, these either need to be mediated or separated
where they don't impose on each other. So if this takes setting up SEPARATE
schools or separate civic associations to have their own local policies, that
would still allow other groups to decide their own policies as well, and leave each other alone!