Re: DSM: Re: JC and SM
Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:49:48 EST

It seems to me that it is quite widely accepted that any psychological
intervention is only successful when the person involved wants to undergo the
process. What Marko envisions for his school instead of a JC of some sort is
a delving under the surface into the offender's psyche. I don't like this
idea at all because I know from my own self that unless I am ready to receive
counsel I absolutely hate the interference in my private inner self. I
consider it offensive and invasive and hence am closed to any suggestion
which in reality might have been helpful to me. Thus the JC makes sense to
me. If I did something that bothered another or was against the rules, I
will accept a judicial approach rather than be subjected to psychologically
based intervention. My moods or inner conflicts might be the cause of my
infractions of the rules or annoying behaviors but if I am unable to face my
demons I would rather get a fair punishment than be obligated to delve into
my secret life.

Also, sometimes you are forgetful or distracted or focused on a project and
then you tend to be insensitive to others. It is OK to be told that your
behavior is unacceptable in the community and then pay some consequence. Is
it really preferable to get into a whole dialogue with the person offended
about the matter? I think that people do that all the time anyway and only
go to the JC when they don't want to get into the personal interaction mode
in a particular situation or with a particular person.

Hanna from SVS

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:55 EST