Along with most of lemmy, I agree that drug addiction should be treated as a sickness and not demonized. But I wonder how people who share the same opinion would feel about treating their own rage triggers that way. For example, if somebody said Russell Brand has a psychological problem we should help him with and hope he gets over it, the predictable response would be “Fuck you for defending rape, you piece of shit!” But people face the same challenge when they think of addicts as irredeemably evil.
This is much more about being pragmatic than anything else.
First for your argument to be true you would have to assume that people lack complete agency over their actions AND decide that they should never be punished for it ONLY helped. This would than go for every single crime no matter who no matter what.
I hope that we both agree that people do have agency and i hope we also agree that people have to pay their debts to society and that the threats of punishment is reflected in the desicions thst people make.
Further I hope we also agree that our solutions to problems in society should be effective.
When we help drug addicts we reduce the harm to society on all fronts and we can of course also make a moral argument that drug users hurt themselves the most and that addictions are mostly a complex beast that didn’t come into beeing purely bc the addict wanted this to happen. We DO NOT ABSOLVE THEM of the crimes they commited bc of their addiction, they are still legally and socially punished for stealing or robbing or whatever else but we also reduce the need for these crimes by having these programms.
Rape on the other hand is a completely differnt crime, not only because of the harm they are doing to others but also because there is no actual dire situation where you need to do it and as far as i know, there is no "illness’’ that makes you a serial rapist. Rape is about control, they want to hurt others, the hurt is the point and even if you want to classify this as an illness there is no real therapy for that. They COULD HAVE partaken in consensual rape play if they wanted to and when we have a rich guy they had all the money in the world to do so.
For an example, a pedophile should get all the help there is BUT as soon as they do harm to others they kinda lost that priviledge because they have proven they aren’t safe for society. A pedophile does not NEED to rape a child they can live their whole lives without ever touching one, they might not like it but they absolutely can.
Not every crime is the same and not every bad person is mentally ill just because you think a normal person would not have done this.
if somebody said Russell Brand has a psychological problem we should help him with and hope he gets over it
We absolutely should help him and hope he gets better. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t suffer the consequences of his actions, and be kept out of society until he has done so, and ideally is judged to no longer be a threat.
Those things are not comparable. We imprison people to safeguard society and most addicts are harmless to society. There is no rapist who is harmless to society.
People who think addicts are irredeemably evil are just irredeemably bigoted and hard of thinking. We should make that a crime.
The difference is that Russell Brand made people into victims. He harmed other people, and it’s an inherent product of rape. Same with murder and assault.
Addicts don’t inherently harm other people. In fact the addicts are the victims. Going after them is more akin to trying to demonize suicide victims.
If a person has a psychotic episode due to an undiagnosed mental illness and attacks someone, should they be thrown in jail or treated?
I don’t think that the existence of victims is what makes the difference, but rather our understanding of the underlying cause of the act.
It’s not unreasonable to put someone in jail to protect society if there’s no other option. However, it seems likely to me that some of the vile crimes we punish today are a result of either mental illness or neurological damage. While it is appropriate to take steps to prevent harm to others, we should not just automatically assume everyone who commits crime is irretrievably evil, even if our current understanding effectively makes that true.
Personally, I would rather see all crime as a disorders to be corrected rather than merely acts of evil people.
By way of support for my attitude, I refer you to this radiolab podcast episode:
Drug addiction causes direct physical harm to the user. If you remove the monetary cost, the other social harms are mostly resolved. There is very little danger to anyone other than the user if we treat substance addiction as an illness in the way described in this Tumblr post.
Sexual assault, by definition, harms other people besides the person who has the psychological problem. There is not really a way to treat it as an illness that mostly resolves the social harms.
I think that violent offenders should be kept away from the rest of society to reduce their ability to harm others. I think some of them are truly remorseful and can be rehabilitated, and those people can and should receive treatment and be reintegrated after they are no longer dangerous to others. I think some offenders are psychopaths who cannot be rehabilitated, and the only way we protect our society is to keep those people imprisoned indefinitely.
All of these things can be true at the same time, but internet forums are usually not conducive to nuanced conversations about complex topics.
I haven’t followed Russell Brand’s legal case. Has he expressed remorse and sought help, or has he just denied having committed a crime? I don’t think we can help anyone until they admit that they need help.
Wrong on both counts - drug addiction harms anybody connected with the user, and sexual abuse behaviors harm the behaver, just in much less obvious ways. This is the exact kind of rationalization people create to deny reality.
edit: Every single response to this comment is “they aren’t the same thing” because drug abusers only harm themselves and sexual predators only harm others. Wrong on both counts. Drug addition hurts everyone involved with the addict, and any kind of violence hurts the attacker, just in different and much less obvious ways. Instead of trying to rationalize refusing to help perpetrators get over being the way they are - because doing that would just make you complicit, and you crave vengeance! - maybe try to get over seeing everything as a binary choice between good and evil.
The harm to the people connected to the user, if you remove monetary aspects, is mostly grief about their loved one’s condition. Not physical harm (usually).
OTOH I don’t think addiction is an illness. It is a consequence of a poor decision which is hard to undo. Nobody is born an addict (unless your mother was a heavy addict too), and there’s no addiction germ. That said, consequences of a bad decision should be treated, not criminalized. If I decide to put my legs in the wood chipper, that’s a bad decision and I and my family will suffer from it. And I need medical treatment, not jail.
The harm to the people connected to the user, if you remove monetary aspects, is mostly grief about their loved one’s condition. Not physical harm (usually).
That was basically what I was going for in my reply, but it seems the person I was replying to was just looking for a straw man to attack. Thanks for reiterating.
I don’t know what to think in regard to addiction as an illness vs a series of choices. There’s so much we don’t know about our brains and our genes, and someday we may find that addiction is more attributable to biochemistry than to making choices. (Also, I’m a determinist, so I don’t believe “free will” can really exist. But I’m also a pragmatist, so I recognize that it’s useful for a society to operate under the assumption that people have agency and therefore can be held responsible for their actions.)
Well he has psychological issues and should seek help for them…but a lot of people have psychological issues and don’t rape. Yes, even people with sex addictions. So they’re kinda two seperate things
Any rate, part of recovery for addiction includes acknowledging what you did to get your hands on it and how damaging it was, and doing so in a way that gives you ‘useful’ remorse instead of spiraliing out again
“But if we treat these people as human beings and not trash who am I supposed to demonise for all of society’s problems?” - My boomer parents
Themselves?
Nah, that’d require introspection.
Yeah, not likely then. The first act of revolution is contemplation.
And eventually…you as well.
Along with most of lemmy, I agree that drug addiction should be treated as a sickness and not demonized. But I wonder how people who share the same opinion would feel about treating their own rage triggers that way. For example, if somebody said Russell Brand has a psychological problem we should help him with and hope he gets over it, the predictable response would be “Fuck you for defending rape, you piece of shit!” But people face the same challenge when they think of addicts as irredeemably evil.
This is much more about being pragmatic than anything else.
First for your argument to be true you would have to assume that people lack complete agency over their actions AND decide that they should never be punished for it ONLY helped. This would than go for every single crime no matter who no matter what.
I hope that we both agree that people do have agency and i hope we also agree that people have to pay their debts to society and that the threats of punishment is reflected in the desicions thst people make.
Further I hope we also agree that our solutions to problems in society should be effective.
When we help drug addicts we reduce the harm to society on all fronts and we can of course also make a moral argument that drug users hurt themselves the most and that addictions are mostly a complex beast that didn’t come into beeing purely bc the addict wanted this to happen. We DO NOT ABSOLVE THEM of the crimes they commited bc of their addiction, they are still legally and socially punished for stealing or robbing or whatever else but we also reduce the need for these crimes by having these programms.
Rape on the other hand is a completely differnt crime, not only because of the harm they are doing to others but also because there is no actual dire situation where you need to do it and as far as i know, there is no "illness’’ that makes you a serial rapist. Rape is about control, they want to hurt others, the hurt is the point and even if you want to classify this as an illness there is no real therapy for that. They COULD HAVE partaken in consensual rape play if they wanted to and when we have a rich guy they had all the money in the world to do so.
For an example, a pedophile should get all the help there is BUT as soon as they do harm to others they kinda lost that priviledge because they have proven they aren’t safe for society. A pedophile does not NEED to rape a child they can live their whole lives without ever touching one, they might not like it but they absolutely can.
Not every crime is the same and not every bad person is mentally ill just because you think a normal person would not have done this.
We absolutely should help him and hope he gets better. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t suffer the consequences of his actions, and be kept out of society until he has done so, and ideally is judged to no longer be a threat.
Those things are not comparable. We imprison people to safeguard society and most addicts are harmless to society. There is no rapist who is harmless to society.
People who think addicts are irredeemably evil are just irredeemably bigoted and hard of thinking. We should make that a crime.
The difference is that Russell Brand made people into victims. He harmed other people, and it’s an inherent product of rape. Same with murder and assault.
Addicts don’t inherently harm other people. In fact the addicts are the victims. Going after them is more akin to trying to demonize suicide victims.
If a person has a psychotic episode due to an undiagnosed mental illness and attacks someone, should they be thrown in jail or treated?
I don’t think that the existence of victims is what makes the difference, but rather our understanding of the underlying cause of the act.
It’s not unreasonable to put someone in jail to protect society if there’s no other option. However, it seems likely to me that some of the vile crimes we punish today are a result of either mental illness or neurological damage. While it is appropriate to take steps to prevent harm to others, we should not just automatically assume everyone who commits crime is irretrievably evil, even if our current understanding effectively makes that true.
Personally, I would rather see all crime as a disorders to be corrected rather than merely acts of evil people.
By way of support for my attitude, I refer you to this radiolab podcast episode:
http://www.wnycstudios.org/story/317421-blame/
The justice system should be about rehabilitation.
Drug addiction causes direct physical harm to the user. If you remove the monetary cost, the other social harms are mostly resolved. There is very little danger to anyone other than the user if we treat substance addiction as an illness in the way described in this Tumblr post.
Sexual assault, by definition, harms other people besides the person who has the psychological problem. There is not really a way to treat it as an illness that mostly resolves the social harms.
I think that violent offenders should be kept away from the rest of society to reduce their ability to harm others. I think some of them are truly remorseful and can be rehabilitated, and those people can and should receive treatment and be reintegrated after they are no longer dangerous to others. I think some offenders are psychopaths who cannot be rehabilitated, and the only way we protect our society is to keep those people imprisoned indefinitely.
All of these things can be true at the same time, but internet forums are usually not conducive to nuanced conversations about complex topics.
I haven’t followed Russell Brand’s legal case. Has he expressed remorse and sought help, or has he just denied having committed a crime? I don’t think we can help anyone until they admit that they need help.
Wrong on both counts - drug addiction harms anybody connected with the user, and sexual abuse behaviors harm the behaver, just in much less obvious ways. This is the exact kind of rationalization people create to deny reality.
edit: Every single response to this comment is “they aren’t the same thing” because drug abusers only harm themselves and sexual predators only harm others. Wrong on both counts. Drug addition hurts everyone involved with the addict, and any kind of violence hurts the attacker, just in different and much less obvious ways. Instead of trying to rationalize refusing to help perpetrators get over being the way they are - because doing that would just make you complicit, and you crave vengeance! - maybe try to get over seeing everything as a binary choice between good and evil.
Oh niice. Violence hurts the attacker, riight, yeah, sure
The harm to the people connected to the user, if you remove monetary aspects, is mostly grief about their loved one’s condition. Not physical harm (usually).
OTOH I don’t think addiction is an illness. It is a consequence of a poor decision which is hard to undo. Nobody is born an addict (unless your mother was a heavy addict too), and there’s no addiction germ. That said, consequences of a bad decision should be treated, not criminalized. If I decide to put my legs in the wood chipper, that’s a bad decision and I and my family will suffer from it. And I need medical treatment, not jail.
That was basically what I was going for in my reply, but it seems the person I was replying to was just looking for a straw man to attack. Thanks for reiterating.
I don’t know what to think in regard to addiction as an illness vs a series of choices. There’s so much we don’t know about our brains and our genes, and someday we may find that addiction is more attributable to biochemistry than to making choices. (Also, I’m a determinist, so I don’t believe “free will” can really exist. But I’m also a pragmatist, so I recognize that it’s useful for a society to operate under the assumption that people have agency and therefore can be held responsible for their actions.)
Drug abuse and sexual assault aren’t really comparable things, though. Typically drug users aren’t hurting anyone besides themselves.
Well he has psychological issues and should seek help for them…but a lot of people have psychological issues and don’t rape. Yes, even people with sex addictions. So they’re kinda two seperate things
Any rate, part of recovery for addiction includes acknowledging what you did to get your hands on it and how damaging it was, and doing so in a way that gives you ‘useful’ remorse instead of spiraliing out again