How do you argue for or against something so vague? "Intervention" is an authoritative, 'official' sounding way to describe any sort of attack or ambush upon a child for any reason the parent deems fit. It could be over being gay, bad grades, talking back, because the parent "had a feeling", drug use, religion, or nothing at all.
Now, if you mean 'intervention' not in the 'ambush someone with all his relatives and send him off to a program' but rather 'intervention' in the sense of physically subduing and restraining someone, uh, the only good thing is if they're totally out of control from drugs or a panic attack and they are in a REAL danger of hurting someone, or themselves, and only that, and only until they calm down. I dont give two shits about property, especially at a cash-cow progarm.
When its used to intimidate, punish, humiliate, and "deter" its not 'intervention', its not 'restraining someone until they stop flipping out', its using restraint as corporal punishment, or to be more correct the threat of restraint as torture.
By the way, you dont hold people down until they calm down unless they have one of a few very specific kinds of relationships. Theyre giving up from being overpowered and scared. Im sure most realize that, but figured I'd include it in the post.
In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn?t speak up because I wasn?t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn?t speak up because I wasn?t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn?t speak up because I wasn?t a trade unionist. Then they came for Catholics, and I didn?t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
--Protestant minister Martin Neimoller
