Jump to content
RemedySpot.com
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

Re: New here

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Excellent, I'll go get it. I'm saving all these on my laptop as someday I am going to write a flaming novel to my congress, judges, probations officers and the like and reference all this great stuff. I have been so angry that I spit when I talk... I need to calm down and focus on the greater good.

lisak

Re: New here

Ahhh... I have finally popped over to unhooked and have found a candy store of full of wonderful reading, references and ideas. Thank you. You are quite welcome. Apple at aadeprogamming links to an article at the unhooked site, written by professional counelors on how AA's doctrine's conflict with standard therapy modalities. I believe that to be a very important (peer-reviewed) piece. --Mona--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Excellent, I'll go get it. I'm saving all these on my laptop as someday I am going to write a flaming novel to my congress, judges, probations officers and the like and reference all this great stuff. I have been so angry that I spit when I talk... I need to calm down and focus on the greater good.

lisak

Re: New here

Ahhh... I have finally popped over to unhooked and have found a candy store of full of wonderful reading, references and ideas. Thank you. You are quite welcome. Apple at aadeprogamming links to an article at the unhooked site, written by professional counelors on how AA's doctrine's conflict with standard therapy modalities. I believe that to be a very important (peer-reviewed) piece. --Mona--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From:

>

>

> >> An entire other issue which I haven't (yet) seen much discussion of

> is

> WHY LSR members would want to function as agents of the court or agents of

>

> the government. Seems to me that if your position is that parole or

> probation conditions can include mandated " recovery " counseling, that such

> counseling ought to be provided by credentialled professionals paid by the

>state --

> and such persons would of course be subject to sanctions for any abusive or

> =

> unprofessional behavior. Unpaid, lay-led support groups have no business

> carrying out court sentences or parole (or EAP) orders.<<

>

> For the Nth time, as long as it doesn't violate 1st or 8th Amendments, if

> you are convicted, a court can sentence you to whatever sort of flying fuck

> it deems applicable.

> Like said, it's not about what you or I want! It's about the

> legal powers the court system has. Period.

> That includes the court system using free recovery support groups rather

> than paid counselors.

---------------

" Using " free recovery groups?? How could the government do this without

the active participation of said free recovery groups??

Perhaps you misunderstand my question -- or perhaps you avoid the issue --

but the question is, why does LSR agree to tattle to the courts and the EAP's on

people's attendance or lack thereof?

The courts and authorities can TRY to require attendance and slips to

" prove " it, but they can't require LSR to sign these slips. So why agree to be

unpaid enforcers of the court's decree in this way? Why not let the authorities

do their own dirty work in re enforcement of parole/probation/gov't employment

conditions?

What does LSR get out of being part of such a system?

~Rita

> Courts use unpaid anger management programs for domestic violence cases.

> They have **every** business sentencing how they damn well think is legal

> and applicable. Period.

> How many times does Mona (or myself) have to say that?

> Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From:

>

>

> >> An entire other issue which I haven't (yet) seen much discussion of

> is

> WHY LSR members would want to function as agents of the court or agents of

>

> the government. Seems to me that if your position is that parole or

> probation conditions can include mandated " recovery " counseling, that such

> counseling ought to be provided by credentialled professionals paid by the

>state --

> and such persons would of course be subject to sanctions for any abusive or

> =

> unprofessional behavior. Unpaid, lay-led support groups have no business

> carrying out court sentences or parole (or EAP) orders.<<

>

> For the Nth time, as long as it doesn't violate 1st or 8th Amendments, if

> you are convicted, a court can sentence you to whatever sort of flying fuck

> it deems applicable.

> Like said, it's not about what you or I want! It's about the

> legal powers the court system has. Period.

> That includes the court system using free recovery support groups rather

> than paid counselors.

---------------

" Using " free recovery groups?? How could the government do this without

the active participation of said free recovery groups??

Perhaps you misunderstand my question -- or perhaps you avoid the issue --

but the question is, why does LSR agree to tattle to the courts and the EAP's on

people's attendance or lack thereof?

The courts and authorities can TRY to require attendance and slips to

" prove " it, but they can't require LSR to sign these slips. So why agree to be

unpaid enforcers of the court's decree in this way? Why not let the authorities

do their own dirty work in re enforcement of parole/probation/gov't employment

conditions?

What does LSR get out of being part of such a system?

~Rita

> Courts use unpaid anger management programs for domestic violence cases.

> They have **every** business sentencing how they damn well think is legal

> and applicable. Period.

> How many times does Mona (or myself) have to say that?

> Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From:

>

>

> >> An entire other issue which I haven't (yet) seen much discussion of

> is

> WHY LSR members would want to function as agents of the court or agents of

>

> the government. Seems to me that if your position is that parole or

> probation conditions can include mandated " recovery " counseling, that such

> counseling ought to be provided by credentialled professionals paid by the

>state --

> and such persons would of course be subject to sanctions for any abusive or

> =

> unprofessional behavior. Unpaid, lay-led support groups have no business

> carrying out court sentences or parole (or EAP) orders.<<

>

> For the Nth time, as long as it doesn't violate 1st or 8th Amendments, if

> you are convicted, a court can sentence you to whatever sort of flying fuck

> it deems applicable.

> Like said, it's not about what you or I want! It's about the

> legal powers the court system has. Period.

> That includes the court system using free recovery support groups rather

> than paid counselors.

---------------

" Using " free recovery groups?? How could the government do this without

the active participation of said free recovery groups??

Perhaps you misunderstand my question -- or perhaps you avoid the issue --

but the question is, why does LSR agree to tattle to the courts and the EAP's on

people's attendance or lack thereof?

The courts and authorities can TRY to require attendance and slips to

" prove " it, but they can't require LSR to sign these slips. So why agree to be

unpaid enforcers of the court's decree in this way? Why not let the authorities

do their own dirty work in re enforcement of parole/probation/gov't employment

conditions?

What does LSR get out of being part of such a system?

~Rita

> Courts use unpaid anger management programs for domestic violence cases.

> They have **every** business sentencing how they damn well think is legal

> and applicable. Period.

> How many times does Mona (or myself) have to say that?

> Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

> Welll, I saw the application as follows: Mona was saying she believed the

> courts have the right to have probationers and parole's attend recovery

> group meetings cuz they give up some rights to be released from prison

> early, or released on conditions.... so as she stated, sleep next to bubba

> or go to recovery meetings.... My reason for posting the text was it

showed

> that though some rights can be held back, the giving of some rights so as

to

> hold back others isn't constitutional... or did I read it wrong. IANAL!

> And I am not a college graduate, so sometimes this case law and reading of

> law journals and such can twist up in my brain...

>

> I guess mostly I wanted to see if Mona knew about this idea/concept of not

> witholding some rights so as to withold other rights... if she hadn't, I

> figured it was food for thought for her. If she had, then I wanted her to

> tell me how her feelings on forcing probationers to attend recovery

> meshed/didn't mesh with the text I snipped. Thought I guess the text

really

> did concentrate on the religious aspect and I know how Mona feels about

> that. But I guess my Trimpey-ite-ed-ness comes in to play here....

> Recovery group attendance is NOT self help. Self help is pulling ones own

> self up by ones own bootstraps. Attending a GROUP is relying on

others.....

> thus, not SELF help, but GROUP help..... (as is so well stated in the

> White Essay off of " unhooked.com " that I want everyone to read for

> homework tonite as there WILL be a test tomorrow... ;)

No problem.. I'll let Mona pick up the thread if she chooses!

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

> Welll, I saw the application as follows: Mona was saying she believed the

> courts have the right to have probationers and parole's attend recovery

> group meetings cuz they give up some rights to be released from prison

> early, or released on conditions.... so as she stated, sleep next to bubba

> or go to recovery meetings.... My reason for posting the text was it

showed

> that though some rights can be held back, the giving of some rights so as

to

> hold back others isn't constitutional... or did I read it wrong. IANAL!

> And I am not a college graduate, so sometimes this case law and reading of

> law journals and such can twist up in my brain...

>

> I guess mostly I wanted to see if Mona knew about this idea/concept of not

> witholding some rights so as to withold other rights... if she hadn't, I

> figured it was food for thought for her. If she had, then I wanted her to

> tell me how her feelings on forcing probationers to attend recovery

> meshed/didn't mesh with the text I snipped. Thought I guess the text

really

> did concentrate on the religious aspect and I know how Mona feels about

> that. But I guess my Trimpey-ite-ed-ness comes in to play here....

> Recovery group attendance is NOT self help. Self help is pulling ones own

> self up by ones own bootstraps. Attending a GROUP is relying on

others.....

> thus, not SELF help, but GROUP help..... (as is so well stated in the

> White Essay off of " unhooked.com " that I want everyone to read for

> homework tonite as there WILL be a test tomorrow... ;)

No problem.. I'll let Mona pick up the thread if she chooses!

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

> Welll, I saw the application as follows: Mona was saying she believed the

> courts have the right to have probationers and parole's attend recovery

> group meetings cuz they give up some rights to be released from prison

> early, or released on conditions.... so as she stated, sleep next to bubba

> or go to recovery meetings.... My reason for posting the text was it

showed

> that though some rights can be held back, the giving of some rights so as

to

> hold back others isn't constitutional... or did I read it wrong. IANAL!

> And I am not a college graduate, so sometimes this case law and reading of

> law journals and such can twist up in my brain...

>

> I guess mostly I wanted to see if Mona knew about this idea/concept of not

> witholding some rights so as to withold other rights... if she hadn't, I

> figured it was food for thought for her. If she had, then I wanted her to

> tell me how her feelings on forcing probationers to attend recovery

> meshed/didn't mesh with the text I snipped. Thought I guess the text

really

> did concentrate on the religious aspect and I know how Mona feels about

> that. But I guess my Trimpey-ite-ed-ness comes in to play here....

> Recovery group attendance is NOT self help. Self help is pulling ones own

> self up by ones own bootstraps. Attending a GROUP is relying on

others.....

> thus, not SELF help, but GROUP help..... (as is so well stated in the

> White Essay off of " unhooked.com " that I want everyone to read for

> homework tonite as there WILL be a test tomorrow... ;)

No problem.. I'll let Mona pick up the thread if she chooses!

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

> " Using " free recovery groups?? How could the government do this

without the active participation of said free recovery groups??

>

It's not active... nobody **has** to sign any slips.

> Perhaps you misunderstand my question -- or perhaps you avoid the

issue -- but the question is, why does LSR agree to tattle to the courts and

the EAP's on people's attendance or lack thereof?

See above. And tattle is a pejorative word.

No, I understand your issue. IMO, it's that you simply don't like the fact

that a court sentence is not subject to democratic vote. Read

's post again, or read it the first time if you haven't.

Or to use my even more directl language... the court doesn't give a flying

fuck what you like or don't like when you get sentenced *****for a fricking

crime!***** Hello, you're a criminal at that point. The judge doesn't care

if you'd rather have an orange jumpsuit than a white one. It doesn't care if

you think your parole or probation officer doesn't like you. It doesn't care

if it sentences you to months of community service trash pickup during the

summer and your fair complexion burns easily.

In a DUI, it doesn't give a flying fuck if ***you*** don't think you're

alcoholic either. Especially if it has background evidence to indicate a

present pattern of behavior, or has concerns about a possibly developing

pattern of behavior. It sees a behavior and prounounces sentence. Period.

It does not ask, you, Rita, to like the sentence. It certainly does not

invite you to express your opinion on it. It says, " Guilty. Here's your

sentence. Take this parole or probation, or non-jail sentencing.... or else,

do the time. "

You, the convicted criminal, are not extended a vote on this matter.

The court cares not if you are pounding your emotional feet inside and

saying.... I don't wannna go to..... wherever. As long as the sentence

passes the 1st and 8th Amendments, tough shit. You lost. Period.

>

> The courts and authorities can TRY to require attendance and slips to

" prove " it, but they can't require LSR to sign these slips. So why agree to

be unpaid enforcers of the court's decree in this way? Why not let the

authorities do their own dirty work in re enforcement of

parole/probation/gov't employment conditions?

>

> What does LSR get out of being part of such a system?

Again, LSR " gets " nothing.... It's free choice whether to sign such a slip

or not. I, personally, have no problem doing so. Why should I put somebody

in further trouble? True, some court ordered people don't want to be in

recovery rooms... but some DO!

And those who really don't can go to the rooms, get the meeting schedule,

then get bar friends to sign their slips. Happens all the time.

If somebody comes, tho, I'll befriend them. It's for the individual.. I'm

not doing any " dirty work. " Beyond that, this is not some court conspiracy.

Again (and how many times have I said this one too)... the court can

" coerce " appearances at other programs for other problems.

The battering husband can claim " I don't have an anger problem. " The court

says... we don't care what you think, you were arrested for domestic

violence.... go to anger management or do the time.

Again -- period. End of sentence (Or, should I say, beginning of sentence?)

The court doesn't care about any fricking inner-child whining that you don't

like the sentence.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

> " Using " free recovery groups?? How could the government do this

without the active participation of said free recovery groups??

>

It's not active... nobody **has** to sign any slips.

> Perhaps you misunderstand my question -- or perhaps you avoid the

issue -- but the question is, why does LSR agree to tattle to the courts and

the EAP's on people's attendance or lack thereof?

See above. And tattle is a pejorative word.

No, I understand your issue. IMO, it's that you simply don't like the fact

that a court sentence is not subject to democratic vote. Read

's post again, or read it the first time if you haven't.

Or to use my even more directl language... the court doesn't give a flying

fuck what you like or don't like when you get sentenced *****for a fricking

crime!***** Hello, you're a criminal at that point. The judge doesn't care

if you'd rather have an orange jumpsuit than a white one. It doesn't care if

you think your parole or probation officer doesn't like you. It doesn't care

if it sentences you to months of community service trash pickup during the

summer and your fair complexion burns easily.

In a DUI, it doesn't give a flying fuck if ***you*** don't think you're

alcoholic either. Especially if it has background evidence to indicate a

present pattern of behavior, or has concerns about a possibly developing

pattern of behavior. It sees a behavior and prounounces sentence. Period.

It does not ask, you, Rita, to like the sentence. It certainly does not

invite you to express your opinion on it. It says, " Guilty. Here's your

sentence. Take this parole or probation, or non-jail sentencing.... or else,

do the time. "

You, the convicted criminal, are not extended a vote on this matter.

The court cares not if you are pounding your emotional feet inside and

saying.... I don't wannna go to..... wherever. As long as the sentence

passes the 1st and 8th Amendments, tough shit. You lost. Period.

>

> The courts and authorities can TRY to require attendance and slips to

" prove " it, but they can't require LSR to sign these slips. So why agree to

be unpaid enforcers of the court's decree in this way? Why not let the

authorities do their own dirty work in re enforcement of

parole/probation/gov't employment conditions?

>

> What does LSR get out of being part of such a system?

Again, LSR " gets " nothing.... It's free choice whether to sign such a slip

or not. I, personally, have no problem doing so. Why should I put somebody

in further trouble? True, some court ordered people don't want to be in

recovery rooms... but some DO!

And those who really don't can go to the rooms, get the meeting schedule,

then get bar friends to sign their slips. Happens all the time.

If somebody comes, tho, I'll befriend them. It's for the individual.. I'm

not doing any " dirty work. " Beyond that, this is not some court conspiracy.

Again (and how many times have I said this one too)... the court can

" coerce " appearances at other programs for other problems.

The battering husband can claim " I don't have an anger problem. " The court

says... we don't care what you think, you were arrested for domestic

violence.... go to anger management or do the time.

Again -- period. End of sentence (Or, should I say, beginning of sentence?)

The court doesn't care about any fricking inner-child whining that you don't

like the sentence.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

> " Using " free recovery groups?? How could the government do this

without the active participation of said free recovery groups??

>

It's not active... nobody **has** to sign any slips.

> Perhaps you misunderstand my question -- or perhaps you avoid the

issue -- but the question is, why does LSR agree to tattle to the courts and

the EAP's on people's attendance or lack thereof?

See above. And tattle is a pejorative word.

No, I understand your issue. IMO, it's that you simply don't like the fact

that a court sentence is not subject to democratic vote. Read

's post again, or read it the first time if you haven't.

Or to use my even more directl language... the court doesn't give a flying

fuck what you like or don't like when you get sentenced *****for a fricking

crime!***** Hello, you're a criminal at that point. The judge doesn't care

if you'd rather have an orange jumpsuit than a white one. It doesn't care if

you think your parole or probation officer doesn't like you. It doesn't care

if it sentences you to months of community service trash pickup during the

summer and your fair complexion burns easily.

In a DUI, it doesn't give a flying fuck if ***you*** don't think you're

alcoholic either. Especially if it has background evidence to indicate a

present pattern of behavior, or has concerns about a possibly developing

pattern of behavior. It sees a behavior and prounounces sentence. Period.

It does not ask, you, Rita, to like the sentence. It certainly does not

invite you to express your opinion on it. It says, " Guilty. Here's your

sentence. Take this parole or probation, or non-jail sentencing.... or else,

do the time. "

You, the convicted criminal, are not extended a vote on this matter.

The court cares not if you are pounding your emotional feet inside and

saying.... I don't wannna go to..... wherever. As long as the sentence

passes the 1st and 8th Amendments, tough shit. You lost. Period.

>

> The courts and authorities can TRY to require attendance and slips to

" prove " it, but they can't require LSR to sign these slips. So why agree to

be unpaid enforcers of the court's decree in this way? Why not let the

authorities do their own dirty work in re enforcement of

parole/probation/gov't employment conditions?

>

> What does LSR get out of being part of such a system?

Again, LSR " gets " nothing.... It's free choice whether to sign such a slip

or not. I, personally, have no problem doing so. Why should I put somebody

in further trouble? True, some court ordered people don't want to be in

recovery rooms... but some DO!

And those who really don't can go to the rooms, get the meeting schedule,

then get bar friends to sign their slips. Happens all the time.

If somebody comes, tho, I'll befriend them. It's for the individual.. I'm

not doing any " dirty work. " Beyond that, this is not some court conspiracy.

Again (and how many times have I said this one too)... the court can

" coerce " appearances at other programs for other problems.

The battering husband can claim " I don't have an anger problem. " The court

says... we don't care what you think, you were arrested for domestic

violence.... go to anger management or do the time.

Again -- period. End of sentence (Or, should I say, beginning of sentence?)

The court doesn't care about any fricking inner-child whining that you don't

like the sentence.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

please see my comments below:

Re: Re: New here

.. >

>

> For the Nth time, as long as it doesn't violate 1st or 8th Amendments, if

> you are convicted, a court can sentence you to whatever sort of flying

fuck

> it deems applicable.

> Like said, it's not about what you or I want! It's about the

> legal powers the court system has. Period.

Okay, Okay, Okay... I think we GET it. Okay? We get the damn SEMANTICS of

the way it IS vs. the way it SHOULD or COULD be.

CAN we agree that it SUCKS that the court IS creative in it's setencing?

And CAN we agree that the way it IS is not the way it may always BE? That

the way it might OUGHT to be is the way it may actually someday BE?

> That includes the court system using free recovery support groups rather

> than paid counselors.

> Unless, as part of fine-related sentencing, it says, you go to

professional

> counseling and YOU pay the counselor, or else go to jail.

And here is where I, personally, would like to see this thread take a soft

turn and perhaps talk about the FACT that judges are PUNISHING people

through coercion to attend recovery groups! If they can and do coerce people

as they damn well please as a way to keep non-violent criminals (assuming no

DUI person killed anyone) out of the clink it sounds to me like they are

forcing group therapy and calling it punishment. If it's punishment, it

ain't recovery and I don't know what the damn judge thinks he's

accomplishing there.

> Courts use unpaid anger management programs for domestic violence cases.

> They have **every** business sentencing how they damn well think is legal

> and applicable. Period.

It is not the place of a judge to say whether or not someone is an alcoholic

(as we understand it), or that someone needs freaking treatment!!!!!!!!!!!

I know that for Washington state, a judge can order an assessment and that

the convict follow through on the assessments recomendations as well as the

recomendations of the probation officer. I say, the judge has NO place in

determining WHAT treatment course to take. If it IS happening that way

(without input from probation officers or treatment assessment centers) then

it seems to me that it that could be argued under the 8th Amendment.

Furthermore, I have a big problem with probation officers calling all the

shots and having the judge follow through like a friggen robot. Where is

the oversight? There is none.

And our only ideology is to find your own way to s=

> tay

> > sober.

> (sigh) -- but what if " your own way to stay sober " is to do it

WITHOUT=

> attending recovery groups?

> One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at recovery

gr=

> oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in

> self-rec=

> overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and personal

> c=

> ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety.

>

>-- but coerced

> i=

> nvolvement DEMANDS that the person pretend to need such support, whether

or

> =

> not it is true.

And if it follows that a judge has no business defining the treatment plan,

then where does the judge get off in not allowing a person to take the path

of recovery on their own? I think this is excellent fodder for discussion.

Have you all done your homework assignment and read Whites Essay yet? (tsk

tsk) Let's please talk about that...

> How many times does Mona (or myself) have to say that?

ZERO more times.... please.

lisak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

please see my comments below:

Re: Re: New here

.. >

>

> For the Nth time, as long as it doesn't violate 1st or 8th Amendments, if

> you are convicted, a court can sentence you to whatever sort of flying

fuck

> it deems applicable.

> Like said, it's not about what you or I want! It's about the

> legal powers the court system has. Period.

Okay, Okay, Okay... I think we GET it. Okay? We get the damn SEMANTICS of

the way it IS vs. the way it SHOULD or COULD be.

CAN we agree that it SUCKS that the court IS creative in it's setencing?

And CAN we agree that the way it IS is not the way it may always BE? That

the way it might OUGHT to be is the way it may actually someday BE?

> That includes the court system using free recovery support groups rather

> than paid counselors.

> Unless, as part of fine-related sentencing, it says, you go to

professional

> counseling and YOU pay the counselor, or else go to jail.

And here is where I, personally, would like to see this thread take a soft

turn and perhaps talk about the FACT that judges are PUNISHING people

through coercion to attend recovery groups! If they can and do coerce people

as they damn well please as a way to keep non-violent criminals (assuming no

DUI person killed anyone) out of the clink it sounds to me like they are

forcing group therapy and calling it punishment. If it's punishment, it

ain't recovery and I don't know what the damn judge thinks he's

accomplishing there.

> Courts use unpaid anger management programs for domestic violence cases.

> They have **every** business sentencing how they damn well think is legal

> and applicable. Period.

It is not the place of a judge to say whether or not someone is an alcoholic

(as we understand it), or that someone needs freaking treatment!!!!!!!!!!!

I know that for Washington state, a judge can order an assessment and that

the convict follow through on the assessments recomendations as well as the

recomendations of the probation officer. I say, the judge has NO place in

determining WHAT treatment course to take. If it IS happening that way

(without input from probation officers or treatment assessment centers) then

it seems to me that it that could be argued under the 8th Amendment.

Furthermore, I have a big problem with probation officers calling all the

shots and having the judge follow through like a friggen robot. Where is

the oversight? There is none.

And our only ideology is to find your own way to s=

> tay

> > sober.

> (sigh) -- but what if " your own way to stay sober " is to do it

WITHOUT=

> attending recovery groups?

> One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at recovery

gr=

> oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in

> self-rec=

> overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and personal

> c=

> ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety.

>

>-- but coerced

> i=

> nvolvement DEMANDS that the person pretend to need such support, whether

or

> =

> not it is true.

And if it follows that a judge has no business defining the treatment plan,

then where does the judge get off in not allowing a person to take the path

of recovery on their own? I think this is excellent fodder for discussion.

Have you all done your homework assignment and read Whites Essay yet? (tsk

tsk) Let's please talk about that...

> How many times does Mona (or myself) have to say that?

ZERO more times.... please.

lisak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

> The courts and authorities can TRY to require attendance and slips to

" prove " it, but they can't require LSR to sign these slips. So why agree to

be unpaid enforcers of the court's decree in this way? Why not let the

authorities do their own dirty work in re enforcement of

parole/probation/gov't employment conditions?<

If a person is sentenced to do 100 hours of community service at food banks,

soup kitchens, and homeless shelters (all non-religious, just to make sure

we don't have that bollix up this argument), is it helping the government do

its " dirty work " for the managers of those place to sign the convict's slip?

Of course not. Ridiculous.

Courts use all sorts of agencies for sentencing conditions.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

> The courts and authorities can TRY to require attendance and slips to

" prove " it, but they can't require LSR to sign these slips. So why agree to

be unpaid enforcers of the court's decree in this way? Why not let the

authorities do their own dirty work in re enforcement of

parole/probation/gov't employment conditions?<

If a person is sentenced to do 100 hours of community service at food banks,

soup kitchens, and homeless shelters (all non-religious, just to make sure

we don't have that bollix up this argument), is it helping the government do

its " dirty work " for the managers of those place to sign the convict's slip?

Of course not. Ridiculous.

Courts use all sorts of agencies for sentencing conditions.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

> The courts and authorities can TRY to require attendance and slips to

" prove " it, but they can't require LSR to sign these slips. So why agree to

be unpaid enforcers of the court's decree in this way? Why not let the

authorities do their own dirty work in re enforcement of

parole/probation/gov't employment conditions?<

If a person is sentenced to do 100 hours of community service at food banks,

soup kitchens, and homeless shelters (all non-religious, just to make sure

we don't have that bollix up this argument), is it helping the government do

its " dirty work " for the managers of those place to sign the convict's slip?

Of course not. Ridiculous.

Courts use all sorts of agencies for sentencing conditions.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

>Okay, Okay, Okay... I think we GET it. Okay? We get the damn SEMANTICS of

>the way it IS vs. the way it SHOULD or COULD be.

I think more people are getting it... still not sure that nearly everybody

is. Not sure about that at all.

>

>CAN we agree that it SUCKS that the court IS creative in it's setencing?

>And CAN we agree that the way it IS is not the way it may always BE? That

>the way it might OUGHT to be is the way it may actually someday BE?

>

> > That includes the court system using free recovery support groups rather

> > than paid counselors.

> > Unless, as part of fine-related sentencing, it says, you go to

>professional

> > counseling and YOU pay the counselor, or else go to jail.

>

>And here is where I, personally, would like to see this thread take a soft

>turn and perhaps talk about the FACT that judges are PUNISHING people

>through coercion to attend recovery groups! If they can and do coerce

>people

>as they damn well please as a way to keep non-violent criminals (assuming

>no

>DUI person killed anyone) out of the clink it sounds to me like they are

>forcing group therapy and calling it punishment. If it's punishment, it

>ain't recovery and I don't know what the damn judge thinks he's

>accomplishing there.

Looking at the " should, " if a judge (without using the word " alcoholic, "

believes the person in a DUI may continue this behavior without treatment of

some sort, including possibly killing someone with the next DUI... on behalf

of society, that judge should " coerce " some sort of recovery.

>

> > Courts use unpaid anger management programs for domestic violence cases.

> > They have **every** business sentencing how they damn well think is

>legal

> > and applicable. Period.

>

>It is not the place of a judge to say whether or not someone is an

>alcoholic

>(as we understand it), or that someone needs freaking treatment!!!!!!!!!!!

To the degree that rehabilitation as well as punishment is part of the

correctional system, yes, it may well be that it's the place of a judge to

make such a call.

> > One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at recovery

>gr=

> > oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in

> > self-rec=

> > overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and

>personal

> > c=

> > ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety.

People can engage in self-recovery even if being " coerced " to a recovery

group. They aren't mutually exclusive. LSR and SOS do not mandate a certain

way to recover. And even if it were AA... you could ignore most of what they

say.

As far as judges being " dictated " by PO's, to the degree that happens, that

is again not restricted just to drug or alcohol related offenses.

Wanna pay for more judges? Wanna pay for all this professional treatment,

either with your tax dollars, or as additional sentencing if you're the

convict?

Again, these issues are not just restricted to drug and alcohol offenses.

>Have you all done your homework assignment and read Whites Essay yet? (tsk

>tsk) Let's please talk about that...

>

Yes, I've read White.

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

>Okay, Okay, Okay... I think we GET it. Okay? We get the damn SEMANTICS of

>the way it IS vs. the way it SHOULD or COULD be.

I think more people are getting it... still not sure that nearly everybody

is. Not sure about that at all.

>

>CAN we agree that it SUCKS that the court IS creative in it's setencing?

>And CAN we agree that the way it IS is not the way it may always BE? That

>the way it might OUGHT to be is the way it may actually someday BE?

>

> > That includes the court system using free recovery support groups rather

> > than paid counselors.

> > Unless, as part of fine-related sentencing, it says, you go to

>professional

> > counseling and YOU pay the counselor, or else go to jail.

>

>And here is where I, personally, would like to see this thread take a soft

>turn and perhaps talk about the FACT that judges are PUNISHING people

>through coercion to attend recovery groups! If they can and do coerce

>people

>as they damn well please as a way to keep non-violent criminals (assuming

>no

>DUI person killed anyone) out of the clink it sounds to me like they are

>forcing group therapy and calling it punishment. If it's punishment, it

>ain't recovery and I don't know what the damn judge thinks he's

>accomplishing there.

Looking at the " should, " if a judge (without using the word " alcoholic, "

believes the person in a DUI may continue this behavior without treatment of

some sort, including possibly killing someone with the next DUI... on behalf

of society, that judge should " coerce " some sort of recovery.

>

> > Courts use unpaid anger management programs for domestic violence cases.

> > They have **every** business sentencing how they damn well think is

>legal

> > and applicable. Period.

>

>It is not the place of a judge to say whether or not someone is an

>alcoholic

>(as we understand it), or that someone needs freaking treatment!!!!!!!!!!!

To the degree that rehabilitation as well as punishment is part of the

correctional system, yes, it may well be that it's the place of a judge to

make such a call.

> > One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at recovery

>gr=

> > oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in

> > self-rec=

> > overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and

>personal

> > c=

> > ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety.

People can engage in self-recovery even if being " coerced " to a recovery

group. They aren't mutually exclusive. LSR and SOS do not mandate a certain

way to recover. And even if it were AA... you could ignore most of what they

say.

As far as judges being " dictated " by PO's, to the degree that happens, that

is again not restricted just to drug or alcohol related offenses.

Wanna pay for more judges? Wanna pay for all this professional treatment,

either with your tax dollars, or as additional sentencing if you're the

convict?

Again, these issues are not just restricted to drug and alcohol offenses.

>Have you all done your homework assignment and read Whites Essay yet? (tsk

>tsk) Let's please talk about that...

>

Yes, I've read White.

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

>Okay, Okay, Okay... I think we GET it. Okay? We get the damn SEMANTICS of

>the way it IS vs. the way it SHOULD or COULD be.

I think more people are getting it... still not sure that nearly everybody

is. Not sure about that at all.

>

>CAN we agree that it SUCKS that the court IS creative in it's setencing?

>And CAN we agree that the way it IS is not the way it may always BE? That

>the way it might OUGHT to be is the way it may actually someday BE?

>

> > That includes the court system using free recovery support groups rather

> > than paid counselors.

> > Unless, as part of fine-related sentencing, it says, you go to

>professional

> > counseling and YOU pay the counselor, or else go to jail.

>

>And here is where I, personally, would like to see this thread take a soft

>turn and perhaps talk about the FACT that judges are PUNISHING people

>through coercion to attend recovery groups! If they can and do coerce

>people

>as they damn well please as a way to keep non-violent criminals (assuming

>no

>DUI person killed anyone) out of the clink it sounds to me like they are

>forcing group therapy and calling it punishment. If it's punishment, it

>ain't recovery and I don't know what the damn judge thinks he's

>accomplishing there.

Looking at the " should, " if a judge (without using the word " alcoholic, "

believes the person in a DUI may continue this behavior without treatment of

some sort, including possibly killing someone with the next DUI... on behalf

of society, that judge should " coerce " some sort of recovery.

>

> > Courts use unpaid anger management programs for domestic violence cases.

> > They have **every** business sentencing how they damn well think is

>legal

> > and applicable. Period.

>

>It is not the place of a judge to say whether or not someone is an

>alcoholic

>(as we understand it), or that someone needs freaking treatment!!!!!!!!!!!

To the degree that rehabilitation as well as punishment is part of the

correctional system, yes, it may well be that it's the place of a judge to

make such a call.

> > One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at recovery

>gr=

> > oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in

> > self-rec=

> > overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and

>personal

> > c=

> > ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety.

People can engage in self-recovery even if being " coerced " to a recovery

group. They aren't mutually exclusive. LSR and SOS do not mandate a certain

way to recover. And even if it were AA... you could ignore most of what they

say.

As far as judges being " dictated " by PO's, to the degree that happens, that

is again not restricted just to drug or alcohol related offenses.

Wanna pay for more judges? Wanna pay for all this professional treatment,

either with your tax dollars, or as additional sentencing if you're the

convict?

Again, these issues are not just restricted to drug and alcohol offenses.

>Have you all done your homework assignment and read Whites Essay yet? (tsk

>tsk) Let's please talk about that...

>

Yes, I've read White.

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

> > > Mona,

> > >

> > > I'm very curious how you think LSR/SOS is not merely AA without God.

> >

> > Ken, *I* am very curious how you think that there could be anything

> > even resembling " AA without God. " !!!!!!!!

> >

> > Giving your will over to the HP, aka GOD, is the fundamental premise

> > that AA and what all the step groups are based on. If you don't have

> > that, you don't have an XA step group.

>

><---snip--->

>

>,

>

>What you have is a " We Agnostics " AA group. The group as " Higher Power " is

>acceptable.

>

>Ken

Pure bullshit, Ken. That's not the way either LSR or SOS is. First of all,

with no steps, there is no higher power to be invoked in the first place.

I had wondered about your ignorance of LSR or SOS in previous posts. I

wonder no longer, as you've clearly proven it now.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

> > > Mona,

> > >

> > > I'm very curious how you think LSR/SOS is not merely AA without God.

> >

> > Ken, *I* am very curious how you think that there could be anything

> > even resembling " AA without God. " !!!!!!!!

> >

> > Giving your will over to the HP, aka GOD, is the fundamental premise

> > that AA and what all the step groups are based on. If you don't have

> > that, you don't have an XA step group.

>

><---snip--->

>

>,

>

>What you have is a " We Agnostics " AA group. The group as " Higher Power " is

>acceptable.

>

>Ken

Pure bullshit, Ken. That's not the way either LSR or SOS is. First of all,

with no steps, there is no higher power to be invoked in the first place.

I had wondered about your ignorance of LSR or SOS in previous posts. I

wonder no longer, as you've clearly proven it now.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

> > > Mona,

> > >

> > > I'm very curious how you think LSR/SOS is not merely AA without God.

> >

> > Ken, *I* am very curious how you think that there could be anything

> > even resembling " AA without God. " !!!!!!!!

> >

> > Giving your will over to the HP, aka GOD, is the fundamental premise

> > that AA and what all the step groups are based on. If you don't have

> > that, you don't have an XA step group.

>

><---snip--->

>

>,

>

>What you have is a " We Agnostics " AA group. The group as " Higher Power " is

>acceptable.

>

>Ken

Pure bullshit, Ken. That's not the way either LSR or SOS is. First of all,

with no steps, there is no higher power to be invoked in the first place.

I had wondered about your ignorance of LSR or SOS in previous posts. I

wonder no longer, as you've clearly proven it now.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi Rita,

>

> But you must still believe you need LSR itself in order to

become or t=

> o stay sober. For what other reason would one choose to be involved

with LS=

> R?

This brings up the whole group vs non-group issue. I understand your

point about coersion, but I can see also that a person might want to

be in a group that provided support, without that becoming an

overriding belief system.

Actually, I can relate to people wanting to extend their social input

to meet the same goals that they are choosing. When I first joined

this list, I was trying to find the same thing before figuring out

that I didn't need to. But, I still might in the future.

The issue for me on this thread goes back to this being the

12-step-free list. LSR is definitely an alternative. It may have its

own problems and issues, but it is not 12-step.

This is indeed analogous to AA. And as with AA, it is certainly

the rig=

> ht of any citizen to seek support in any way he/she desires -- but

coerced i=

> nvolvement DEMANDS that the person pretend to need such support,

whether or =

> not it is true.

I see this as a separate issue. Because the state is coercing

citizens to one group or the other does not necessarily mean that they

have that much in common or that either group desires that people be

coerced into attending them.

I have been reading a fascinating history of AA by Dick B., who

believes that the only way AA will survive is if the coersion ends and

AA rekindles its ties to God and Christianity and drops all the HP

" nonsense. " I never thought I'd agree with an AA, but in this case I

do. And this guy has done his homework. If they did that, and stuck

to that, I would have no problem with them whatsoever. It sure has

ballooned beyond that, however.

>

> An entire other issue which I haven't (yet) seen much

discussion of is=

> WHY LSR members would want to function as agents of the court or

agents of =

> the government. Seems to me that if your position is that parole or

probati=

> on conditions can include mandated " recovery " counseling, that such

counseli=

> ng ought to be provided by credentialled professionals paid by the

state -- =

> and such persons would of course be subject to sanctions for any

abusive or =

> unprofessional behavior. Unpaid, lay-led support groups have no

business ca=

> rrying out court sentences or parole (or EAP) orders.

>

> ~Rita

Rita, even that would be an assault in your case. They do it because

it is the easy way and is convenient. That might be why AA got so

many cases coerced to them in the first place, because they are there

and they are " free. " That doesn't explain to me why the TX centers

also coerce there...or does it? Hmmm, I'll be thinking on this one

awhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi Rita,

>

> But you must still believe you need LSR itself in order to

become or t=

> o stay sober. For what other reason would one choose to be involved

with LS=

> R?

This brings up the whole group vs non-group issue. I understand your

point about coersion, but I can see also that a person might want to

be in a group that provided support, without that becoming an

overriding belief system.

Actually, I can relate to people wanting to extend their social input

to meet the same goals that they are choosing. When I first joined

this list, I was trying to find the same thing before figuring out

that I didn't need to. But, I still might in the future.

The issue for me on this thread goes back to this being the

12-step-free list. LSR is definitely an alternative. It may have its

own problems and issues, but it is not 12-step.

This is indeed analogous to AA. And as with AA, it is certainly

the rig=

> ht of any citizen to seek support in any way he/she desires -- but

coerced i=

> nvolvement DEMANDS that the person pretend to need such support,

whether or =

> not it is true.

I see this as a separate issue. Because the state is coercing

citizens to one group or the other does not necessarily mean that they

have that much in common or that either group desires that people be

coerced into attending them.

I have been reading a fascinating history of AA by Dick B., who

believes that the only way AA will survive is if the coersion ends and

AA rekindles its ties to God and Christianity and drops all the HP

" nonsense. " I never thought I'd agree with an AA, but in this case I

do. And this guy has done his homework. If they did that, and stuck

to that, I would have no problem with them whatsoever. It sure has

ballooned beyond that, however.

>

> An entire other issue which I haven't (yet) seen much

discussion of is=

> WHY LSR members would want to function as agents of the court or

agents of =

> the government. Seems to me that if your position is that parole or

probati=

> on conditions can include mandated " recovery " counseling, that such

counseli=

> ng ought to be provided by credentialled professionals paid by the

state -- =

> and such persons would of course be subject to sanctions for any

abusive or =

> unprofessional behavior. Unpaid, lay-led support groups have no

business ca=

> rrying out court sentences or parole (or EAP) orders.

>

> ~Rita

Rita, even that would be an assault in your case. They do it because

it is the easy way and is convenient. That might be why AA got so

many cases coerced to them in the first place, because they are there

and they are " free. " That doesn't explain to me why the TX centers

also coerce there...or does it? Hmmm, I'll be thinking on this one

awhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi Rita,

>

> But you must still believe you need LSR itself in order to

become or t=

> o stay sober. For what other reason would one choose to be involved

with LS=

> R?

This brings up the whole group vs non-group issue. I understand your

point about coersion, but I can see also that a person might want to

be in a group that provided support, without that becoming an

overriding belief system.

Actually, I can relate to people wanting to extend their social input

to meet the same goals that they are choosing. When I first joined

this list, I was trying to find the same thing before figuring out

that I didn't need to. But, I still might in the future.

The issue for me on this thread goes back to this being the

12-step-free list. LSR is definitely an alternative. It may have its

own problems and issues, but it is not 12-step.

This is indeed analogous to AA. And as with AA, it is certainly

the rig=

> ht of any citizen to seek support in any way he/she desires -- but

coerced i=

> nvolvement DEMANDS that the person pretend to need such support,

whether or =

> not it is true.

I see this as a separate issue. Because the state is coercing

citizens to one group or the other does not necessarily mean that they

have that much in common or that either group desires that people be

coerced into attending them.

I have been reading a fascinating history of AA by Dick B., who

believes that the only way AA will survive is if the coersion ends and

AA rekindles its ties to God and Christianity and drops all the HP

" nonsense. " I never thought I'd agree with an AA, but in this case I

do. And this guy has done his homework. If they did that, and stuck

to that, I would have no problem with them whatsoever. It sure has

ballooned beyond that, however.

>

> An entire other issue which I haven't (yet) seen much

discussion of is=

> WHY LSR members would want to function as agents of the court or

agents of =

> the government. Seems to me that if your position is that parole or

probati=

> on conditions can include mandated " recovery " counseling, that such

counseli=

> ng ought to be provided by credentialled professionals paid by the

state -- =

> and such persons would of course be subject to sanctions for any

abusive or =

> unprofessional behavior. Unpaid, lay-led support groups have no

business ca=

> rrying out court sentences or parole (or EAP) orders.

>

> ~Rita

Rita, even that would be an assault in your case. They do it because

it is the easy way and is convenient. That might be why AA got so

many cases coerced to them in the first place, because they are there

and they are " free. " That doesn't explain to me why the TX centers

also coerce there...or does it? Hmmm, I'll be thinking on this one

awhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...