Criminal Prosecution and Free Will
Posted: March 4th, 2020, 6:48 am
In the Netherlands I have invested in reporting about psychiatry from a critical outsider's perspective (non expert, simply theory based and no links with business, religion or politics).
Hundreds of honest professors and scholars were raising the alarm about practices within psychiatry. One aspect that appeared to give psychiatry and edge was their increasing role in the criminal justice system since it enabled them to scare people away.
The basis for the growing influence of psychiatry in the criminal justice system is the idea that there is no free will. This makes it an interesting case for philosophical consideration (i.e. to watch real world implications of a deterministic perspective on reality).
Selective prosecution on the basis of a deterministic view
In the Netherlands and Belgium (Europe) people can be prosecuted differently on the basis of a psychiatric diagnosis. When given the "TBS" measure (forensic psychiatric imprisonment), criminals can be imprisoned for life and their release is completely dependent on the opinion of a psychiatrist.
Psychiatry has a rapidly growing influence in criminal prosecution. There is a growing movement that believes that human behaviour can be reduced to accidental chemistry in the brains and that there is no free will or guilt. According to this movement, criminal law should ideally be replaced by psychiatric treatment and preventive psychiatric measures.
An example of a tactic that they use. Prominent professors in the Netherlands have proposed to replace criminal prosecution for yong adults (<21 y/o) in which they argue that young criminals should not be punished but instead be transferred to the care of forensic psychiatry. The idea: "The criminals are not yet fully grown mentally and deserve psychiatric help.".
Psychiatry (and Big Pharma with it) stands to win a trillion dollar business. It is therefore interesting the explore the validity of the ideas that allow psychiatry to grow within the criminal justice system.
The Human Rights Counsel of the United Nations has declared selective criminal prosecution on the basis of a psychiatric diagnosis a form of discrimination which makes it a contentious practice.
Psychiatry's influence leads to absurd situations in which dozens of psychiatrists are debating in the media whether a perpetrator is diagnosed with schizophrenia or not.
An example case is that of the Belgian child murderer Kim de G. in which case 12 psychiatrists ultimately made conflicting diagnoses, with one psychiatrist boldly stating that Kim de G. was "a healthy boy" and that his mother should seek help herself if she believed that her boy was ill.
Also in a Dutch case nicknamed "Bijenkorf mother case" the arbitrariness became visible, in which the mother who killed her child by throwing her of the balustrade in a shopping mall was diagnosed with a 'one-off psychosis' back in time so that she received no punishment and no psychiatric treatment, and was simply released after the crime. The OM (public prosecutor) spoke of a "defective psychiatric examination".
The German postman Gert Postel, after a disastrous treatment of his mother, wanted to show that psychiatry is a scam and successfully infiltrated the forensic psychiatric establishment and was almost appointed professor of forensic psychiatry and director of a forensic clinic using self-made diagnoses.
Essentially, the "wet finger" of a psychiatrist determines whether a person can be jailed for life while they can also release convicts with a life sentence. At question is what the effect would be of such a practice on individual criminals, and on society.
An example case to get an insight is the story of a 14-year-old boy from The Hague, the Netherlands who, in a quarrel with peers, threatened them with a pocket knife. He was sentenced with youth TBS (forensic psychiatric imprisonment) and on his 18th birthday he had to "pray" to be free again (no sight on a date for release, his life essentially in the hands of arbitrariness of psychiatrists).
In the meantime, life-long convicts have the prospect of being released through TBS. An example is a mass murderer who in 2009, despite an imposed life sentence, was released for years and had founded a family through psychiatric leave.
A TV report by crime reporter Peter R. de Vries regarding child murderer Koos H. who was sentenced to life imprisonment and tried to "silently return to society" through TBS, also revealed the situation.
Loss of basic human respect before a crime is committed
The influence of psychiatry within the legal system logically has the effect that people have already lost the basic respect as a human being before they have committed a crime, with as a result that they will commit a crime faster. The basic respect that people share is an emotional threshold that ensures that someone has something to lose and that encourages humanity.
Oxford: Small risk of violence in schizophrenia
A large study by the University of Oxford into the link between the diagnosis of schizophrenia and criminal behavior among 96,000 people has shown that the risk of violent crimes is barely 1.2x as high compared to the "normal" population. This means that there is no scientific basis for selective prosecution of people on the basis of a psychiatric diagnosis. The risk of crime is almost the same for "normal" people.
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2009-05-20-sma ... e-involved
Many people with severe mental problems are good-natured people who would sooner harm themselves than others.
It may be something else that makes someone a good-natured and sincere person, and perhaps the only way to ensure that people do not want to commit crimes is to lead by example.
In Russia they have a saying that is applicable: "The fish rots from the top down". By that they mean that if the government / legal system is corrupt, then everyone will be corrupted.
In my opinion it is impossible that the human mind is the result of accidental chemistry because of the logic that the physical cannot be the origin of itself. That would mean that the idea that man is a meaningless accidental chemical process that psychiatry can master as a science is absurd.
The questions:
1) Is the Presumption of innocence essential? If so, why?
2) Is it just to exclude a group of people from the Presumption of innocence?
3) Considering the successful growth of psychiatry within the criminal justice system, does it imply anything about the validity of the idea that there is no Free Will? (i.e. did it result in a confirmation of the validity of a deterministic view on reality?)
Hundreds of honest professors and scholars were raising the alarm about practices within psychiatry. One aspect that appeared to give psychiatry and edge was their increasing role in the criminal justice system since it enabled them to scare people away.
The basis for the growing influence of psychiatry in the criminal justice system is the idea that there is no free will. This makes it an interesting case for philosophical consideration (i.e. to watch real world implications of a deterministic perspective on reality).
Selective prosecution on the basis of a deterministic view
In the Netherlands and Belgium (Europe) people can be prosecuted differently on the basis of a psychiatric diagnosis. When given the "TBS" measure (forensic psychiatric imprisonment), criminals can be imprisoned for life and their release is completely dependent on the opinion of a psychiatrist.
Psychiatry has a rapidly growing influence in criminal prosecution. There is a growing movement that believes that human behaviour can be reduced to accidental chemistry in the brains and that there is no free will or guilt. According to this movement, criminal law should ideally be replaced by psychiatric treatment and preventive psychiatric measures.
An example of a tactic that they use. Prominent professors in the Netherlands have proposed to replace criminal prosecution for yong adults (<21 y/o) in which they argue that young criminals should not be punished but instead be transferred to the care of forensic psychiatry. The idea: "The criminals are not yet fully grown mentally and deserve psychiatric help.".
Psychiatry (and Big Pharma with it) stands to win a trillion dollar business. It is therefore interesting the explore the validity of the ideas that allow psychiatry to grow within the criminal justice system.
The Human Rights Counsel of the United Nations has declared selective criminal prosecution on the basis of a psychiatric diagnosis a form of discrimination which makes it a contentious practice.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights accepted our demand put forth in our statutes article 2.(B) h. to abolich the UN resolution 46/119 of December 17, 1991 on the treatment of “mental patients”: In a report to the General assembly of UN of “on enhancing awareness and understanding of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” the High Commissioner definitly states, thatPsychiatric diagnoses are demonstrably controversial. It leads to a situation of arbitrariness that authoritative lawyers in the Netherlands have been resisting for years with, among other things, a boycott of the psychiatric "TBS" measure (forensic psychiatric imprisonment).
“47. In the area of criminal law, recognition of the legal capacity of persons with disabilities requires abolishing a defence based on the negation of criminal responsibility because of the existence of a mental or intellectual disability.41
- the Insanity defense “must be abolished” (see Article 47 below)
- and that the “Convention radically departs ” from the UN resolution …on treatment of “mental patients” (see Article 48 below)
- that all mental health laws using the pretext “as the likelihood of them posing a danger to themselves or others” “must be abolished” (see Article 49 below)
Psychiatry's influence leads to absurd situations in which dozens of psychiatrists are debating in the media whether a perpetrator is diagnosed with schizophrenia or not.
An example case is that of the Belgian child murderer Kim de G. in which case 12 psychiatrists ultimately made conflicting diagnoses, with one psychiatrist boldly stating that Kim de G. was "a healthy boy" and that his mother should seek help herself if she believed that her boy was ill.
Also in a Dutch case nicknamed "Bijenkorf mother case" the arbitrariness became visible, in which the mother who killed her child by throwing her of the balustrade in a shopping mall was diagnosed with a 'one-off psychosis' back in time so that she received no punishment and no psychiatric treatment, and was simply released after the crime. The OM (public prosecutor) spoke of a "defective psychiatric examination".
The German postman Gert Postel, after a disastrous treatment of his mother, wanted to show that psychiatry is a scam and successfully infiltrated the forensic psychiatric establishment and was almost appointed professor of forensic psychiatry and director of a forensic clinic using self-made diagnoses.
"Even a performing monkey can become a psychiatrist!"Questioning the end result
Postel: "In psychiatry one can explain everything, but then everything in a plausible way: as a psychiatrist you can claim the opposite, but also the opposite of the opposite. Those who master the psychiatric vocabulary, can endlessly continue to debit nonsense and thereby pack graduates. "
Postel: "It is a matter of psychiatric speech acrobatics and a little staging." Postel: "I thought to myself: who is the scammer here: they or me?" [More]
Source: Skepsis.nl (skeptic magazine): Postman becomes a court psychiatrist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gert_Postel
Essentially, the "wet finger" of a psychiatrist determines whether a person can be jailed for life while they can also release convicts with a life sentence. At question is what the effect would be of such a practice on individual criminals, and on society.
An example case to get an insight is the story of a 14-year-old boy from The Hague, the Netherlands who, in a quarrel with peers, threatened them with a pocket knife. He was sentenced with youth TBS (forensic psychiatric imprisonment) and on his 18th birthday he had to "pray" to be free again (no sight on a date for release, his life essentially in the hands of arbitrariness of psychiatrists).
In the meantime, life-long convicts have the prospect of being released through TBS. An example is a mass murderer who in 2009, despite an imposed life sentence, was released for years and had founded a family through psychiatric leave.
A TV report by crime reporter Peter R. de Vries regarding child murderer Koos H. who was sentenced to life imprisonment and tried to "silently return to society" through TBS, also revealed the situation.
Loss of basic human respect before a crime is committed
The influence of psychiatry within the legal system logically has the effect that people have already lost the basic respect as a human being before they have committed a crime, with as a result that they will commit a crime faster. The basic respect that people share is an emotional threshold that ensures that someone has something to lose and that encourages humanity.
Oxford: Small risk of violence in schizophrenia
A large study by the University of Oxford into the link between the diagnosis of schizophrenia and criminal behavior among 96,000 people has shown that the risk of violent crimes is barely 1.2x as high compared to the "normal" population. This means that there is no scientific basis for selective prosecution of people on the basis of a psychiatric diagnosis. The risk of crime is almost the same for "normal" people.
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2009-05-20-sma ... e-involved
Many people with severe mental problems are good-natured people who would sooner harm themselves than others.
It may be something else that makes someone a good-natured and sincere person, and perhaps the only way to ensure that people do not want to commit crimes is to lead by example.
In Russia they have a saying that is applicable: "The fish rots from the top down". By that they mean that if the government / legal system is corrupt, then everyone will be corrupted.
In my opinion it is impossible that the human mind is the result of accidental chemistry because of the logic that the physical cannot be the origin of itself. That would mean that the idea that man is a meaningless accidental chemical process that psychiatry can master as a science is absurd.
The questions:
1) Is the Presumption of innocence essential? If so, why?
2) Is it just to exclude a group of people from the Presumption of innocence?
3) Considering the successful growth of psychiatry within the criminal justice system, does it imply anything about the validity of the idea that there is no Free Will? (i.e. did it result in a confirmation of the validity of a deterministic view on reality?)