Fred wrote:
>
>        Yesterday a New York state court of appeals ruled that the correctional
>system cannot penalize an inmate for refusing to attend AA meetings that are
>part of all substance abuse treatment available at the facility where he is
>incarcerated. The interesting aspect of the ruling is that the inmate sued on
>the basis that AA is a religious organization, teaches religion, and that by
>compelling him to attend the state violated his right to religious freedom (he
>is an atheist).
>        Of course, the NY politicians (Dennis Vacco the AG) made the typical
>knee jerk response condemning the courts. However, no one seems to have
>examined, before putting the AA/12-step based system into place 1) whether
>there is good evidence of efficacy generally or 2) good evidence of efficacy
>with prisoners (many of whom suffer from various degrees of antisocial
>personality disorder, among other comorbid disorders). Likewise, no seems to
>have 3) looked for approaches which *do* have evidence of efficacy with just
>such populations.
>        Perhaps now the correctional system in NY will be compelled to look at
>these issues, just as other states are doing (right J. Mike?).
 
Hi Fred...
 
Thanks for this post.  I seem to recall a Maryland case with a similar outcome
some years ago.  Couldn't help but notice, Fred, that your post described an
objection based on (let's call it) "a problem of ideation" (i.e., can the state
impose a therapy that encourages/demands belief in a higher power?) but your bri
ef
discussion immediately transformed the issue into one of "therapeutic
effectiveness."   I can't help it:  this fascinates me.  My guess is that what
lies behind this little transformational act is really quite significant--namely
,
that as a scientist, or representative of scientific values, you want to steer t
he
discourse in an empirical direction and prefer not to conduct it in metaphysical
or even legal terms.  There is merit in that, of course, but there is also a pri
ce
to be paid:  here, that the metaphysical and/or dimensions (the terms in which t
he
court appears to have decided the issue) become, in effect, shaded into the
background or blanked out and another, more familiar language is substituted for
our discussion.  Then again, it's still early out here and I may be egregiously
overinterpreting again!  What do you think?
 
Ron
 
Ron
--
Ron Roizen
voice:  510-848-9123
fax:    510-848-9210
home:   510-848-9098
1818 Hearst Ave.
Berkeley, CA 94703
U.S.A.
[log in to unmask]