The Royal Commission of Canada
(continued)

    We might find then that insanity should be prohibited as a defense, but that at the same time all criminality defined as intentional harm against the society should be classified as a greater or lesser extent of insanity and that the criminal should be, as you suggest, uniformly detained for treatment. And we find also, as we examine this problem and see the disastrous effects of early and unqualified releases from prison upon the society, that a criminal should be detained until it could be ascertained with great certainty that he would not further victimize the society. This last strikes directly at the parole system which is an unhappy one at best, and would make it the complete responsibility of parole boards to insure the society against further criminal acts on the part of the released prisoner.

    In the absence of a remedying treatment and practical means to effect it, such a course as this would be considered inhuman in the extreme. Even a hardened judge might recoil from the idea that insanity should never be used as a defense, and the intention to incarcerate criminals for their lifetime, if necessary to insure society against their depredations. These are very strong measures.

    Today, however, several experiments have demonstrated that treatment for criminality can be administered at very little cost to the state. This cost is as small as a few cents per prisoner. By means of Group Processing a great deal has been done in this field. The treatment itself is administered by magnetic tape recordings. The problem could not have been solved as long as individual application of therapy remained a necessity by reason of technology. But with the advance of Group Processing, the majority of criminals could be rehabilitated and freed by parole boards using sanity as their criteria without injury to the society. Even though this processing would not be effective upon all criminals to which it was administered, according to present standards and practices, it would at least be effective upon the majority.

    With regard to the second part of the purposes of the Royal Commission of Canada, it is my opinion that laws relating to "criminal sexual psychopaths" should be no different from laws relating to other criminalities. For the sexual psychopath, as Sigmund Freud long ago recognized, is a mentally ill person.

    In both these matters, we find the law capable of advancing to the degree that it is willing to accept its responsibility to the society at large. It is the purpose and function of law to safeguard the citizens of the society against the depredations or criminal practices of the few. If the law is totally responsible it would act to totally insure the citizenry against crime. This cannot be done by suppression of the citizenry at large, for this is the regulation of the many to monitor the few.

    Even without Scientology, without adopting its practices, law could be far more effective in safeguarding the society as a whole simply by reclassifying what it means by criminal and firmly observing its own definition for insane. With Scientology, once it has segregated out the criminals and the insane, once it has made its purpose distinct and clear, its detention of criminals until they were once more social could be resolved by the administration of tested processes to the criminals and the release of those who had responded on a group level. This, however, is a very long view and is far too firm a stand to expect from the judiciary, as these cannot but go by the customs of the people whom they serve. A long mile could be commenced upon this road, however, by demonstrating that groups of prisoners detained in prisons could undergo individual change by a rearrangement of their ideas and by releasing those so benefited into the society and by tracing their course until it was firmly established whether or not they had become social. With this step and with the evidence thus brought into being it might very well follow that a broad evolution in law would ensue.

    I wish to thank you very much for writing me. I hope you will let me hear more about this as I am intensely interested.

                                      My very best,

                               
                                            L. Ron Hubbard 


| Prior | L. Ron Hubbard Home Page | Contents | Contact Us | Scientology Related Sites | Bookstore | Next |

| Scientology Disaster Relief | Scientology Theology | Scientology Drug Solutions | L. Ron Hubbard Humanitarian | Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard | L. Ron Hubbard: The Music Maker | L. Ron Hubbard, Educator | L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics Letters | L. Ron Hubbard, Literary Correspondence | L. Ron Hubbard, A Profile | L. Ron Hubbard Tributes and Recognitions | L. Ron Hubbard, Poet/Lyricist | L. Ron Hubbard, Adventurer/Explorer | Scientology Site | Dianetics Site |

© 1996-2004 Church of Scientology International. All Rights Reserved.

For Trademark Information