Prescient psychiatry: ‘Symptoms of mental illness’ proving future criminal intent…

Innocent until proven guilty does not apply to those who’ve been diagnosed with ‘mental illness.’ You are guilty of potential of potential crimes, a psychiatrist suspects you might commit if they don’t chemically strait-jacket your body and mind into a ‘placid’ state. (The potential criminals who are in states of catatonia, are also suspects with negative symptoms of schizophrenia. I can’t see how it helps to use the same drugs on those with catatonia, as on those with mania, but apparently it’s all about prevention being better than cure and for the safety of society.)

                ‘Hearing voices’ is seen as a potentially criminal condition. Unusual states of consciousness psychiatrists believe have enough kinetic energy to be a potential danger to society. Psychiatrists have the prescience to know these things. You cannot expect the ordinary lay public to understand their reasoning. It’s all too complicated for them.

                Essentially though, psychiatrists couldn’t really convict a person of ‘potential future crimes,’ so, why are they allowed to not only imprison, but torture suspects of events only psychiatrists can predict could happen?

                Well, because the law in the state of Victoria, amongst other places, states that it is an incarceratable offence to ‘appear to have a mental illness’ and if you ‘appear to have a mental illness’ you are therefore potentially a danger to self or others and are in need of immediate treatment, according to prescient psychiatrists. And therefore you meet the criteria of sectioning. And therefore you will be forcefully drugged and if pregnant, electrocuted.

                What is psychiatry doing?! Well, they are punishing people they suspect will commit future crimes. Not because the patient has ‘made plans,’ but because the patient has ‘symptoms of mental illness,’ ie are hearing voices etc...

                Psychiatrists are punishing the people they suspect, in the same why they punish people who have committed violent crimes, who have ‘not been fit to stand trial due to mental illness.’

                Psychiatrists have a notion that a person with a ‘mental illness’ who commits a crime is the same as a person with a ‘mental illness’ who doesn’t commit a crime. Psychiatrists think that a person who is non-violent should be subjected to the same harsh chemical lobotomy as a person who is violent.

                Given that psychiatry has had a long history in aversion therapy (including King George III, who had porphyria causing him to ‘go mad’. His biological illness was not helped by the psychiatrists of the time using aversion therapy, blistering his calves and feet with acid. But the psychiatrists claimed this ‘cured’ him.) Given that aversion therapy is psychiatry’s main tool, (now in the form of neuroleptics and other drugs, seclusion and ECT) why do they think it works well as ‘treatment’ to give the same drugs to murderers, as to victims of assault, who are suffering repercussive mental health issues as a consequence?

                Now, murderers are put in separate, high security forensic psychiatric ‘hospitals,’ to victims of assault, who’ve committed no crimes, and are put in psychiatric 'hospitals'; but they are both subjected to the same torture regime by psychiatrists, if they’re deemed to have a ‘mental illness’ that ‘needs treatment’. And, according to psychiatrists all ‘mental illness’ needs their ‘treatment’ regimes.

                When are innocent victims of crime and other traumas, going to be allowed to decide what their treatment consists of? It is not okay to torture a person who happens to be ‘grieving for too long.’ It is not okay for a psychiatry to torture a victim of domestic violence. It is not okay to torture people full stop, particularly when the person is not in the least bit violent and has no need to be chemically restrained.

                Psychiatry has no place in ‘treating’ with aversion therapy innocent victims of crime, war and horrific circumstances, or even those who have been under too much pressure, just because they hear voices, are feeling suicidal, or are experiencing unusual states of consciousness. These people should not be retraumatised by psychiatry! They should be helped with compassion and understanding to gain a solid understanding of consensual reality, so they can understand why they are suffering and how they can break-through the internal crisis they are experiencing.

                My suggestion is that all psychiatrists get the sack and non-invasive therapies replace their cruel torturous regimes. It’d save a lot of money for the government. There wouldn’t be the $145,000 per year and up wage for the psychiatrists. Nor would there be the huge chemist bill of around $3600 per patient to add to that. Plus, people would actually move through their crisis, stabilise and get back to earning a living.

                Psychiatric drugs are ill treatment. Harming those already suffering does not help one bit. Forcing them to agree that the treatment is helping so they can be released from treatment orders, is just ridiculous.

                And, really, when you think about it, predicting future crimes should be evidence based not ‘symptom’ based.

                Work it out, hearing voices and having unusual states of consciousness is not a crime and should not be treated like it is something horrendously violent crime that needs immediate and life-time chemical restraints, that renders that person into no longer being able to think enough to heal, let alone be a contributing member to society. Plus the effects of these drugs not only damn a person’s intellect, they cause horrific physical disfiguring. This is just not okay. Please show some respect for victims of crime who develop ‘symptoms of mental illness’ and stop the horrific crimes against humanity psychiatrists are committing.

Make a New Year's resolution to end the psychiatric regime in 2013!
more protest Ts