Death at Tranquility Bay (Teen Help), Jamaica

[FaceKhan]

Laws Well, at least if the laws changed so that teens could get out of these places, then those teens who are able to escape temporaily or contact someone, could get out. I remember the story of one person at Tranquility Bay who managed to contact someone while being abducted and the government sued to get him out of there, but his parent's lawyer (who was also a program parent) managed to keep him from being pulled out of the program to testify. I am not sure what happened to him? Kids are in the unfortunate position of having to live with the people who they tried to sue.


You should not be locked up without a fair trial and anyplace where you can't physically walk out the door and leave is a lock-up.


There will always be cults that abuse kids, by changing the law we can at least state loud and clear that these programs are not rehab, or therapy, or schools, or hospitals. They are cults and scams, they are dangerous and illegal. Sure there are laws against child cruelty, kidnapping, assualt, false imprisonment, fraud. The laws only need to be tweaked a little so that they are more clear in this area.  

Slavish discipline makes a slavish temper... If severity carry'd to the
highest pitch does prevail, and works a cure upon the present unruly
distemper, it often brings in the room of it a worse and more dangerous
disease, by breaking the mind; and then, in the place of a disorderly young
fellow, you have a low spirited moap'd creature, who, however with his
unnatural sobriety he may please silly people, who commend tame unactive
children, because they make no noise, nor give them any trouble; yet at
last, will probably prove as uncomfortable a thing to his friends, as he
will be all his life an useless thing to himself and others... Beating them,
and all other sorts of slavish and corporal punishments, are not the
discipline fit to be used in the education of those we would have wise,
good, and ingenuous men...
John Locke, 1692

[Elle]

AARC's laws. The thing is that I WAS illegally held. I was told that until I reached the age of 16 I couldnt' sign out and they had the right to keep me, but I learned later that it was bullshit. AARC's been doing that to kids for about a decade now, and it's an absolute complete lie, and the government knows because they're the ones that told me. One girl had a lawyer already, and he came to the center, found her and got her out. For the rest of us, most don't even know that they aren't legally aloud to be restrained and kept from leaving. The problem is finding a lawyer to represt us, when everyone is to scared to touch it.


                       Elle.

[FaceKhan]

Re: AARC's laws. What does AARC stand for?


Anyone know which state or federal laws say that you can leave. Please try to send me the text or the link. I was unaware there were laws that let people sign out of these programs even if they are under 18. If that is true, then it is a simple matter of getting better enforcment of these existing laws which can be a lot easier than getting new laws passed.

Slavish discipline makes a slavish temper... If severity carry'd to the
highest pitch does prevail, and works a cure upon the present unruly
distemper, it often brings in the room of it a worse and more dangerous
disease, by breaking the mind; and then, in the place of a disorderly young
fellow, you have a low spirited moap'd creature, who, however with his
unnatural sobriety he may please silly people, who commend tame unactive
children, because they make no noise, nor give them any trouble; yet at
last, will probably prove as uncomfortable a thing to his friends, as he
will be all his life an useless thing to himself and others... Beating them,
and all other sorts of slavish and corporal punishments, are not the
discipline fit to be used in the education of those we would have wise,
good, and ingenuous men...
John Locke, 1692

[ROFLatYEW9375]

Re: AARC's laws. Alberta Addiction Recovery Center, I do believe. So Canadian law would apply.


In Florida at the time I was in Straight it was not legal for anyone to hold anyone over the age of 16 against their will without a court order. Of course, it's also illegal to use or threaten criminal charges in order to coerce someone into doing something. I think that's called blackmail. So every time one of these TOUGHLOVE idiots advises a parent to try and get their kid to hit them next time they have an argument so they can file criminal charges, it's a conspiracy to commit blackmail. It's done every day, right out in the open, though. And I'd bet dollars to donoughts you wouldn't be able to find a cop, DA or SA willing to persue those charges. Even when HRS got behind our efforts to stop the abuse at Straight, they lost the battle to the real authorities in Florida, the Republican Party. (not to be confused with Republican people)


The law is just not anywhere near as powerful or effective as people seem to believe it is. It's just words on paper and is open to the interpretation of whoever perceives themselves as the authorities.


The question most present in my mind is how in the world did we get into this mess in the first place? NIDA propagates most of the myths that make up a diagnosis of adolescent drug addiction. The DOE propagates most of the myths that make up a diagnosis like Oppositional Defiant Disorder (Drug me, teacher, cause I don't like you.)


People perceive their kids as standing in need of treatment or intervention because the presumed experts impose that belief through force of law. If a parent chooses to reject those notions, they find themselves at odds with the authorities who might very well declare them to be unfit parents by virtue of the fact that the disagree with the experts. Now, character and human nature being what they are, it's a whole lot easier for a parent to go along with the authorities and use all the leverage they can to get their kids to come along too than to stand against the authorities and likely lose the battle. So that's what most people do.


What you're proposing is that we bring in a different bunch of experts to impose a different set of beliefs through force of law. To my mind, government hasn't done a real impressive job of raising kids over the past 100+ years that we've been gradually giving them more and more authority to do so. Why should we expect them to any better job in future.


More importantly, even if we could get all of the agencies and the individuals who work for them 100% in-line with how you and I think things ought to be, how do you propose keeping them from being corrupted or copted by people who would regard such a state of affars as a total catastrophy?


I think a better solution is to promote critical thinking and debate on the wisdom of turning over the traditional role of family to force of law in the first place.


Please, Big Brother, don't threaten my kid with jail because you assume that the consensual activity that she's engaging in today might eventually lead to non-consensual, criminal behavior at some point in the future. You just leave it to me to raise kids who don't victimize anyone. If I fail, they'll have me to blame. Then who will I turn to when I'm old and senile?