Well the point of that line was simply to say that if the clinician believes the patient is no longer a danger to society, then the patient wouldn't have to keep seeing them.
However some accountability must be made when someone makes an unequivocable statement. If I put my name to something saying "x won't happen", I should be liable when and if "x" does occur. This should be true regardless of the value of "x". That doesn't mean if I as a clinical psychiatrist say "Little Michael here isn't going to murder anyone any more ever again, he's all better now.", and Mr Myers ends up going on a killing spree 20 years later, that I should be tried for murder. But criminal negligence and/or negligent homicide would seem to fit the bill wouldn't it? (Ref: Halloween 1978) Sincerely, Steve On Jan 24, 2008 1:24 PM, Jonathan Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 24 Jan 2008, at 12:05, Steve wrote: > > > On Jan 24, 2008 11:00 AM, Bradley Daw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> To: Steven > >> From: Representative Brad Daw (District 60) > >> Re: HB 139 > >> > >> First of all, I would like to thank you for your interest and > >> concern in > >> my sponsored bill, "Wireless Internet Access Requirements." This > >> bill > >> originated out of a personal responsibility that I feel to protect > >> our > >> children and our families from the dangers of the internet. Internet > >> pornography poses a great threat to our children and this bill is > >> directed to help to keep them safe when they are outside of the home. > >> The other aspect of protection that this bill offers our families is > >> protection against pedophiles. Those members of society do not > >> deserve > >> free wireless internet service and should not be allowed to easily > >> and > >> anonymously access it in public hotspots. > >> > >> However, I am concerned with many of the critiques of this bill. For > >> this reason, I would like to set up a time when we can meet together > >> with a member of the Attorney General's staff and discuss > >> alternatives > >> that would make this bill more acceptable for the general public > >> while > >> still fulfilling some of the goals I have discussed previously. > >> Please > >> let me know if there is a time next week when we can set an > >> appointment > >> and discuss the matter further. > >> > >> I will be circulating a formal email regarding this bill and > >> answering > >> many questions and objections about it. In the mean time, I look > >> forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your time and your > >> concern. > >> > >> > > > > Your reason for sponsoring this bill is to "protect the children" > > Ok, I can understand that you have a desire to protect your children > > from the dangers of the internet. > > However this is not the way to do it. > > > > Content filtering is always a bad idea in general, most kids are smart > > enough to bypass it and it tends to get in the way of legitimate use, > > such as a medical student, or someone studying psychology or any > > number of thousands of legitimate uses of the internet. > > > > As far as I can tell, your bill doesn't specifically require that and > > I commend you for that much, however "proving adult hood", is also > > not going to prevent anything either. The bill is unenforceable, and > > what do you do if the child has presented a "fake id", or handed the > > "nice man at the counter" mommy and daddy's credit card, or even has a > > credit card of their very own as I stated previously. > > > > The best way to protect children from the "dangers of pornography and > > the internet", is to educate parents and instil values in the > > children. You cannot legislate that. It starts from within the > > family. It is the job of the family and to a lesser extent the church > > to teach and instil values. > > > > If your child is browsing pornography on the internet, meeting up with > > paedophiles and etc, that means that YOU as a parent are being > > neglectful of your child. You have failed your child, plain and > > simple. We already have laws to deal with parental neglect. I fail > > to see how letting your child browse porn on the internet is any > > different than leaving your Playboys laying around the house > > > > If you want to stop this, then sit down with your child and have a > > frank discussion about it. It's your job as a parent to do this, but > > it is not your job as a legislator to create a nanny state in the > > interests of protecting the children, and in the process > > inconveniencing everyone else, by creating a crime out of allowing > > simple public access of a shared community resource. One which was > > originally funded by taxpayer dollars for the purposes of advancing > > technology and the state of research. > > > > Remember, your job is to protect YOUR children from the dangers of the > > internet. My job is to protect MY children from the dangers of the > > internet. I may even disagree with you on what is and is not > > dangerous, for instance someone may let their child climb a tree, > > another may not, out of fear the child will fall and harm themselves. > > Therefore it is not YOUR job to protect MY children. > > > > As far as pedophiles not deserving to have free wireless internet > > access, this law does nothing to prevent that at all. > > And to be frank there really is nothing you can do except punish a > > person for creating / distributing and possessing such materials, I'm > > relatively certain we have a law like that in place already. > > You could extend the penalty for being a pedophile to require no > > internet access at all. But how do you let them re-integrate into > > society. If you don't want them re-integrating then why let them out > > at all? Either the criminal has paid their dues, to society, or they > > have not. You cannot pass a law that punishes someone for something > > that they have not yet done, nor attempted to do. If you think the > > current punishment for being a pedophile is too lax, then work on a > > bill to strengthen our penalties against it. I would recommend you > > lengthen sentences and require regular contact with a clinical > > psychiatrist at their own expense for the remainder of their life, or > > until the psychiatrist can say with certainty that the offender will > > not re-offend and is willing to be held criminally liable if his > > assertion is incorrect. Then again I would recommend that for any > > felon. > > > > Justice must always be "ex post facto", and the justice system works > > best when laws are passed that recognize this fact. > > Laws designed to "prevent" crime, are never successful and place an > > undue burden upon society. > > As soon as we start to pass laws that infringe upon the greater good > > of society in the interests of protecting society from a few > > individuals, we are trading freedom for security and making a whole > > new set of criminals out of otherwise ordinary citizens. > > Usually while doing nothing to actually protect us from the "bad > > guys". > > > > The truth plain and simple, is that this law makes a criminal out of > > any business owner who decides to leave an open WiFi point for the > > convenience of his/her customers and/or employees and/or society at > > large. > > > > Since you are a resident of Orem, I urge you to go to > > http://www.plug.org/ the Provo Linux users group (About half of us are > > actually in Orem), and sign up for the mailing list there. A sizeable > > portion of your technically literate and concerned constituents are > > members there and engage in lively debate on political topics all the > > time. You could receive feedback in advance from hundreds of people, > > whom the laws you are proposing would effect, before you propose > > legislation that boils down to nonsense and you end up losing more > > voters. > > I can promise that you will be received well, and this simple act > > would enhance your credibility with your technically literate > > constituency. > > > > "I would recommend you ... require regular contact with a clinical > psychiatrist at their own expense for the remainder of their life, or > until the psychiatrist can say with certainty that the offender will > not re-offend and is willing to be held criminally liable if his > assertion is incorrect. Then again I would recommend that for any > felon." > > I do not agree that anyone should be held liable for the acts of > anyone else. But that is a tangent to this discussion. > > Other than that, I agree with what you said and I say, once again, > very well written. > > Brad actually lives a couple streets away from me. I hope he sees > this as constructive criticism and accepts your offer to check out the > mailing list. If he is going to sponsor technical legislation he > really should understand what he is doing. Imagine if all politicians > actually consulted with their constituents. I think that would be a > sign or something. > > Jonathan > > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
