consent to placement at JRC. Once there, JRC must seek a court hearing to request permission to use electric shock or other Level III aversives on residents. Referred to as a “substituted judgment” hearing, the court determines whether the child or adult would have chosen to receive such treatment if he or she were competent to do so. Parents or other legal guardians must also approve the use of the GED. The court rarely denies approval. JRC is not an open facility but a closed institution where children are transported from their JRC owned and operated residences to the JRC school in shackles. As the NYSED report stated in 2006: Students were observed as they arrived and departed from school. Almost all were restrained in some manner, with handcuffs and leg restraints, as they ‘police’ boarded and exited vehicles. Several students are transported in wheeled chairs that keep them in four-point restraint. In practice, for many residents, JRC is a closed institution where children and adults with disabilities are segregated from the non-disabled world. Critique of aversive treatment from research and policy What’s wrong with punishments is that they work immediately, but give no long-term results. The responses to punishment are either the urge to escape, to counterattack or B.F. Skinner interview, The New York Times, 1987 a stubborn apathy. – This urgent appeal challenges the use of aversives at JRC on the ground that it violates international human rights law. Whether or not such treatment is narrowly defined as international human rights law places limits on the amount of pain that can be “effective,” inflicted on a person. To put this in context, however, it is important to recognize that the use of electric shock and restraints as treatment, as practiced at JRC, lacks evidenced-based proof of long-term efficacy or safety. Indeed, there is reason to be concerned that these practices create risk of trauma, marginalization, or alienation.” There are non-dangerous “psychological approaches to the management of dangerous or disruptive behaviors that do not entail the infliction of pain. The New York Psychological Association Task Force on Aversives Controls with Children reviewed the field in 2006 and found that on the use of techniques that essentially “prohibitions punish disabled students for symptoms of their disability have been promulgated by a variety of federal agencies and professional organizations.” The NY Psychological Association Task Force
consent to placement at JRC. Once there, JRC must seek a court hearing to request permission to use electric shock or other Level III aversives on residents. Referred to as a “substituted judgment” hearing, the court determines whether the child or adult would have chosen to receive such treatment if he or she were competent to do so. Parents or other legal guardians must also approve the use of the GED. The court rarely denies approval. JRC is not an open facility but a closed institution where children are transported from their JRC owned and operated residences to the JRC school in shackles. As the NYSED report stated in 2006: Students were observed as they arrived and departed from school. Almost all were restrained in some manner, with ‘police’ handcuffs and leg restraints, as they boarded and exited vehicles. Several students are transported in wheeled chairs that keep them in four-point restraint. In practice, for many residents, JRC is a closed institution where children and adults with disabilities are segregated from the non-disabled world. Critique of aversive treatment from research and policy What’s wrong with punishments is that they work immediately, but give no long-term results. The responses to punishment are either the urge to escape, to counterattack or a stubborn apathy. – B.F. Skinner interview, The New York Times, 1987 This urgent appeal challenges the use of aversives at JRC on the ground that it violates international human rights law. Whether or not such treatment is narrowly defined as “effective,” international human rights law places limits on the amount of pain that can be inflicted on a person. To put this in context, however, it is important to recognize that the use of electric shock and restraints as treatment, as practiced at JRC, lacks evidenced-based proof of long-term efficacy or safety. Indeed, there is reason to be concerned that these practices create risk of “psychological trauma, marginalization, or alienation.” There are non-dangerous approaches to the management of dangerous or disruptive behaviors that do not entail the infliction of pain. The New York Psychological Association Task Force on Aversives Controls with Children reviewed the field in 2006 and found that “prohibitions on the use of techniques that essentially punish disabled students for symptoms of their disability have been promulgated by a variety of federal agencies and professional organizations.” The NY Psychological Association Task Force
Issues_HR_Torture_not_Treatment_US_Report.docx