Denial, judges (was: New here)

August 10, 2001

"Denial" refers to a medical/psychiatric disorder, which judges are not qualified to diagnose

Nonsense. It goes to denial of behavior. A guy is drinking and screwing up, and doesn't want to admit the cause and effect of the drinking behavior and the other behavior. Nothing arcane or medical about it, Rita. It is about behavior.

--Mona--

August 10, 2001

No, I saw that in DSM-IV®.... "denial engaging disorder."

What a crock of shit. Meaning that in the most respectful possible way, of course.

--Mona--

August 10, 2001

> In a message dated 8/9/01 1:02:56 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> kayleighs@m... writes:

>

> > The point you are not taking in is that judges are not allowed to

> > speculate about whether offenders are " in denial. " Judges are simply

> > not qualified to judge that.

>

> Why not? They regularly chastise for failure to show remorse.

>

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

" Remorse " ostensibily refers to a crime, which a judge is qualified to

comment on. " Denial " refers to a medical/psychiatric disorder, which judges are

not qualified to diagnose. A judge could base his/her opinion on a defendant's

alcohol abuse/dependence on expert professional testimony -- but cannot make the

assessment himself.

I personally was told by the judge in my civil suit, " well if you had a

positive Breathalyzer on the job then you obviously have an alcoholism problem. "

This had no bearing on that particular case (religious coercion) so was not

challenged by my attorney. But it made me shudder nonetheless.

~Rita

August 10, 2001

The concept of denial in the treatment inquisition has the same meaning as it did in the Roman Inquisition. It does not concern behavior, it concerns beliefs. I was a self referal with a clean record, and was considered to be in denial by the treatment inquisition when I resisted them.

I understand all of that, Tommy, and in other contexts rant as well as anyone here over the treatment industry's notion's of denial. Indeed, I have myself been subjected to this pernicious accusation when I resisted AA; it was told to me I was in denial and just looking for an excuse to keep drinking.

Apparently, it is inconceivable to most that I could simply be disinclined to join a religious movement and embrace "powerlessness"; I must be in denial.

BUT, this is not the same thing as a judge presented with an accused who is on his third alcohol-related offense. For this accused to continue to insist he has no problem with alcohol, constitutes a refusal to admit the truth or reality of his situation, i.e., it is denial.

Just because the term "denial" has been coopted and misused by XA and the treatment industry, does not mean no one ever is in denial of an alcohol problem. I assure you, my father is in denial, and that fact has made the lives of everyone in our family quite miserable, indeed.

--Mona--

August 10, 2001

When the hypothesis of the offender who comes before a judge who may deem him in "denial" arose, I don't believe we were talking about 3rd time offenders.

I don't know that any precise scenario was on the stage. My point is simply that there are situations in which it is not unreasonable, and not 12 Step mania, to consider that a criminal is in denial of his alcohol problem.

--Mona--

August 10, 2001

>

> > " Denial " refers to a medical/psychiatric disorder, which judges are not

> >

>

>Nonsense. It goes to denial of behavior. A guy is drinking and screwing

>up,

>and doesn't want to admit the cause and effect of the drinking behavior and

>the other behavior. Nothing arcane or medical about it, Rita. It is about

>behavior.

>

>--Mona--

No, I saw that in DSM-IV®.... " denial engaging disorder. "

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

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

August 10, 2001

The concept of denial in the treatment inquisition has the same

meaning as it did in the Roman Inquisition. It does not concern

behavior, it concerns beliefs. I was a self referal with a clean

record, and was considered to be in denial by the treatment

inquisition when I resisted them.

In his 1989 book " Diseasing of America: Addiction Treatment Out of

Control " , Stanton Peele wrote:

" Of all the ideas presented by the alcoholism movement, that of

denial--which means that the drinker doesn't agree with what the

alcoholism movement or treatment personnel tell him or her--has the

most malicious potential. The concept of denial has been applied in

very broad ways to explain nearly every failure of people to conform

to the diagnosis or prognosis laid out for them. To consider just one

remarkable case: Janet Woititz, whose book 'Adult Children of

Alcoholics' became a publishing phenomenon, conducted her Ph.D.

research on the treatment of children of alcoholics who attended

Alateen had lower self-esteem than those who did not

attend...According to Woititz, it only seems that children of

alcoholics have higher self-esteem when they don't enter treatment,

but they are actually denying their low self-esteem. Woititz is

confident, however, that the children will be better off when this

artificial self-esteem is stripped away. "

" I, Galileo, being in my seventieth year, being a prisoner and on my

knees, and before your Eminences, having before my eyes the Holy

Gospel, which I touch with my hands, abjure, curse, and detest the

error and the heresy of the movement of the earth. "

> In a message dated 8/10/01 8:31:39 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> rita66@w... writes:

>

> > " Denial " refers to a medical/psychiatric disorder, which judges

are not

> >

>

> Nonsense. It goes to denial of behavior. A guy is drinking and

screwing up,

> and doesn't want to admit the cause and effect of the drinking

behavior and

> the other behavior. Nothing arcane or medical about it, Rita. It

is about

> behavior.

>

> --Mona--

August 10, 2001

For your below Mona what would be the criteria for judging whether one were

"in denial"? Statement of Denial of, alcoholism?, Dependency? genetic

predisposition? or would it be behavior dependent? And if so what behaviors

would trigger the "in denial" charge? and what happens in your below if the

behaviors are present absent a dependent dx?

This is just a matter of common sense. If you have a perp before you with one drunk and disorderly, and now a DUI, but the guy steadfastly insists he can handle his liquor, he's very likely deluded. Just as a guy on his second offense for battery wants to insist he has no problem managing anger. Or a child molester insists he really doesn't have a problem, won't happen again, all is under control & etc.

Judges, like anyone, don't need a degree in psychology to know these people need to face reality or they are a menace to themselves and others, and are likely to offend again.

--Mona--

August 10, 2001

When the hypothesis of the offender who comes before a judge who may

deem him in " denial " arose, I don't believe we were talking about 3rd

time offenders.

> In a message dated 8/10/01 11:47:39 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> perkinstommy@h... writes:

>

> > The concept of denial in the treatment inquisition has the same

> > meaning as it did in the Roman Inquisition. It does not concern

> > behavior, it concerns beliefs. I was a self referal with a clean

> > record, and was considered to be in denial by the treatment

> > inquisition when I resisted them.

> >

>

> I understand all of that, Tommy, and in other contexts rant as well

as anyone

> here over the treatment industry's notion's of denial. Indeed, I

have myself

> been subjected to this pernicious accusation when I resisted AA; it

was told

> to me I was in denial and just looking for an excuse to keep

drinking.

> Apparently, it is inconceivable to most that I could simply be

disinclined to

> join a religious movement and embrace " powerlessness " ; I must be in

denial.

>

> BUT, this is not the same thing as a judge presented with an accused

who is

> on his third alcohol-related offense. For this accused to

continue to

> insist he has no problem with alcohol, constitutes a refusal to

admit the

> truth or reality of his situation, i.e., it is denial.

>

> Just because the term " denial " has been coopted and misused by XA

and the

> treatment industry, does not mean no one ever is in denial of an

alcohol

> problem. I assure you, my father is in denial, and that fact has

made the

> lives of everyone in our family quite miserable, indeed.

>

> --Mona--

August 10, 2001

Should a judge be doing any such considering in the first place? Especially

in regards a non dependent dxed individual?

For your below Mona what would be the criteria for judging whether one were

" in denial " ? Statement of Denial of, alcoholism?, Dependency? genetic

predisposition? or would it be behavior dependent? And if so what behaviors

would trigger the " in denial " charge? and what happens in your below if the

behaviors are present absent a dependent dx?

In a message dated 8/10/01 2:03:15 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

kayleighs@... writes:

When the hypothesis of the offender who comes before a judge who may

deem him in " denial " arose, I don't believe we were talking about 3rd

time offenders.

Re: Re: " Denial " , judges (was: New here)

I don't know that any precise scenario was on the stage. My point is simply

that there are situations in which it is not unreasonable, and not 12 Step

mania, to consider that a criminal is in denial of his alcohol problem.

August 10, 2001

>

> > When the hypothesis of the offender who comes before a judge who may

> > deem him in " denial " arose, I don't believe we were talking about 3rd

> > time offenders.

> >

>

>I don't know that any precise scenario was on the stage. My point is

>simply

>that there are situations in which it is not unreasonable, and not 12 Step

>mania, to consider that a criminal is in denial of his alcohol problem.

>

>--Mona--

I didn't see any " preconditions " attached to this scenario at the start of

this thread, either.

But, if for anybody who wants to " narrow " this, I'll even grant that

concession going on with this thread. That way we can keep this precise,

and, from my point of view, eliminate any wiggle room.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

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

August 10, 2001

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free >

>Subject: RE: Re: " Denial " , judges (was: New here)

>Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 15:40:21 -0500

>

>Should a judge be doing any such considering in the first place?

>Especially

>in regards a non dependent dxed individual?

As Mona has said elsewhere, judges do such " considering " ALL THE TIME in

many types of criminal cases. Why should alcohol cases be any different?

>

>For your below Mona what would be the criteria for judging whether one were

> " in denial " ? Statement of Denial of, alcoholism?, Dependency? genetic

>predisposition? or would it be behavior dependent? And if so what behaviors

>would trigger the " in denial " charge? and what happens in your below if the

>behaviors are present absent a dependent dx?

I think simple common sense... even if that's not totally pin-down-able: " If

it walks like a duck, talks like a duck. " And as Mona has also pointed out,

some actions are definitely much more likely to happen under the

influence... domestic violence; assault; aggravated assault... I don't think

it would take rocket science to make a reasonable (tho not perfect, of

course) " call " on such cases.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

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

August 10, 2001

I was called "alcoholic" by a judge, an EAP director,

How on earth did a judge get involved in this mess with the EAP?

--Mona--

August 10, 2001

I suppose there are circumstance in which a judge can conclude that a

defendant is in denial of alcohol problems. There are also

circumstances in which judges absolutely refuse to acknowledge that

alcohol has any bearing on the defendant's conduct at all, never mind

that all the assaults, criminal destruction of property, car theft,

etc., was committed while the defendant was not only under the

influence, but so drunk he couldn't remember why he was in jail when

he woke up the next day. It would be nice to have some consistency,

wouldn't it.

> In a message dated 8/10/01 2:03:15 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> kayleighs@m... writes:

>

> > When the hypothesis of the offender who comes before a judge who

may

> > deem him in " denial " arose, I don't believe we were talking about

3rd

> > time offenders.

> >

>

> I don't know that any precise scenario was on the stage. My point

is simply

> that there are situations in which it is not unreasonable, and not

12 Step

> mania, to consider that a criminal is in denial of his alcohol

problem.

>

> --Mona--

August 10, 2001

> In a message dated 8/10/01 8:31:39 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> rita66@w... writes:

>

> > " Denial " refers to a medical/psychiatric disorder, which judges are not

> >

>

> Nonsense. It goes to denial of behavior. A guy is drinking and screwing up,

> and doesn't want to admit the cause and effect of the drinking behavior and

> the other behavior. Nothing arcane or medical about it, Rita. It is about

> behavior.

>

> --Mona--

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

I apologize for not making myself clear -- I didn't mean that " denial " is a

medical/psychiatric disorder, I meant that " alcoholism " i.e. alcohol dependence

(or even the lesser " alcohol abuse " ) is a clinical disorder. So when a judge

says someone is " in denial " in stating he/she is not an alcoholic, the judge is

making an implied diagnosis of " alcoholism " that he is not qualified to make and

does not have sufficient information to make.

From what I have heard, in the state of Washington, all defendants

suspected of *possibly* having a substance use disorder are PROFESSIONALLY

assessed. Professional assessments go into a lot of detail about medical,

legal, and personal/social/job history, and use corroborating sources. If the

assessment shows no clinical disorder present, the judge accepts that -- in DUI

cases, the person would then be mandated to attend a brief educational session

in addition to any fine or license suspension. But " treatment " of any kind is

only ordered if a professional evaluation determines that the individual meets

the criteria for a substance use disorder -- and even then, there are different

levels of treatment for mild " substance abuse " than for a " substance dependency "

diagnosis.

Probably the WA system has some flaws -- but I think it's a hell of an

improvement over letting a JUDGE decide what diagnosis and treatment DUI

defendents merit.

And no, it is NOT generally " obvious " that any particular person is alcohol

dependent -- really, anyone can make an error in judgement and obtain a DUI.

Most often, it is a one-time thing and neither " treatment " nor total abstinence

is warranted.

~Rita

August 10, 2001