Talk:Criminon/Archive 1

That introduction states a completely false information
it says: "Criminon is an element of the Scientology movement directed at rehabilitating prisoners, in particular those with mental illnesses." But going to the Criminon website, the main thing mentioned is not about "mental illnesses" but about drugs. Where does that other, unsupported, uncited information about "in particular those with mental illnesses" come from? There's not only no cite for that, but particularly, the Criminon site states otherwise. Terryeo 09:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Oh, I see, it was placed in there from the beginning. Well, I'll remove that uncited bit. If there is discussion on it, we can put it back. Terryeo 09:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is totally false and so was the article in the LA Times that made this up. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.60.153.202 (talk &bull; contribs).

Urban report and FASE
I couldn't find that report on the urban.org site. I'd prefer a direct link rather than a copy on Criminon's site. As well, FASE is not a disinterested third-party. It seems exist only in a tight circle of scientologist organizations that share many of the same people, and publish approvals of each other. AndroidCat 23:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * FASE is a Scientology front group: Boston Herald 3/5/98 And more importantly, when the state of Utah found out Criminon/Narconon's ties to Scientology, they dropped them like a hot potato.  wikipediatrix 23:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Just a quick question regarding the introduction of this article. The program has used correspondence materials to treat hundreds of prisoners at the high security California State Prison, Corcoran, beginning in 1990[3]. Now, my enlgish may be a bit off, I'm not a native speaker and all, but to me that sentence implies that the program has actually suceeded in its atempts to... cure these prisoners. Is there any evidence supporting this? 62.231.141.214


 * No, there is no evidence Criminon is successful at convicts' rehabilitation. In fact there is evidence to show it does the opposite. Massachusetts Board of Prisons performed a study showing Scientology's front group made prisoners worse-off than no intervention at all: convicts subjected to the dubious treatment returned to prison more often than those that were not subjected to the treatment. They also had more drug abuse problems than convicts with no intervention at all. Massachusetts dropped the scam like yesterday's dirty diapers. --66.82.9.74 (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Find Out for Yourself
All of my research points to this being a very promising program. Countries around the world have implemented the program and are sticking with it.

I was able to find the following website, which contains a link to a study which was done in the Honduras:

http://www.able.org/about/studies-white-papers.php?specific=criminon&lb=/programs/criminon

Additionally, I understand that in the states, the Urban Institute is in the process of conducting an unbiased, scientific study of the Criminon program and will be releasing their findings in 2007 or thereabouts. How about we let the unbiased experts decide on this one, since they're already working on doing so?

And if you really want to see a "cult" of sorts, witness the volume of websites devoted to attacking Scientology with no real hard data to back them up. These people have obviously spent a *lot* of time and energy attacking this group, with the seeming intention of protecting people from it - if nothing else, that sure doesn't give people a whole lot of credit for being able to look and figure things out for themselves. It's really a shame since we live in a society where quite a few people are deterred from actually looking at something new for themselves if they sense a potential for drama or for being ostracized in any way as a result. I'm curious to learn the true intentions of the anti- campaign. In the meantime, I'm going to continue to help people who wpend their time trying to make the world a better place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.122.29 (talk • contribs).


 * Well, if your "research" didn't turn up the fact that www.able.org belongs to The Association for Better Living and Education, which oversees Criminon, Narconon, Applied Scholastics and The Way To Happiness Foundation, then your research was very incomplete. Hardly "unbiased experts", mmmm?


 * As for what you refer to as people "attacking Scientology with no real hard data to back them up" -- what do you define as "real hard data"? It seems to me that since we are talking about the issue of crime, that maybe the conviction of eleven Church of Scientology leaders for the single largest infiltration of the United States government in history is real hard data.  Or perhaps we could look at possibly the largest Ponzi scheme in history.  Now, you might say "Well, just because some Scientologists, up to and including Mary Sue Hubbard, have committed not just crimes but breath-taking, record-breaking crimes, doesn't prove that Scientology doesn't have the technology to reform criminals."  I can't agree with that, but I agree that one might say that, and one might even believe it.  But how can you view it as irrelevant?  You talk about being "curious to learn the true intentions" of those who exhibit skepticism about Scientology -- as if Scientology had never given anyone reason for skepticism.  Federal conviction is reason for skepticism, believe me.


 * Frankly, the burden of proof is exactly the opposite of where the Scientologists would like it to be. The Scientologists say "oh, we have all these great theories about what causes crime!  (Namely, we think it's psychiatry.)  We should be allowed into prisons, to teach our ideas to the prisoners!"  Do you think that "we have some theories!" is sufficient reason that they should be let in?  Do you think the Aryan Nations should be allowed to send their representatives into prison, to teach the prisoners their ideas about who's behind all the crime in the world?  No?  Then please explain why Scientology should get different treatment, without having earned it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still perplexed why 24.251.122.29 would remove the Second Chance link from the page. They clearly state that they're licensing Criminon's program, and have been actively promoting it in states like Arizona. Any reason not to mention them 24.251.122.29? AndroidCat 00:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with directly using statements from Criminon
For example, "In 2006 it is currently running programs in over 2,500 institutions in 35 countries." That needs citing and hopefully by a third party because number claims from Scientology organizations are notoriously inaccurate, either that or it should be marked as a quotation and sourced to Criminon.

My initial reaction was to revert the change as another drive-by PR addition or -bomb the new text, but I'll hold off for now. AndroidCat 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

AndroidCat - this wasn't a drive-by PR addition. It was an experiment by a new user to see what is going on here. You are entitled to your critical opinion of Scientology or Criminon. However you are editing Wikipedia and that requires some balance as a matter of policy. In spite of that, every single paragraph -every one - in this article carries a negative implication and data that would be disputed by a Scientologist or Criminon staff member. You can't tell me that's balanced or NPOV.

Your reversion of my minor changes deleted a summary of Criminon's own published mission statement. Shouldn't an article about any organization include at least that much?

"The way to happiness does not include murdering your friends or your family." "It does not include being murdered yourself." - This is not a Way To Happiness precept no matter what the LA Times says. You can check this for yourself by checking the Wikipedia article on this or simply getting yourself a free copy from the twth.com. Why did you revert that simple correction?

I've looked at the other pages on Scientology and it's clear to me you are part of a community pushing a biased agenda. I can see a few Scientology apologists in here thinking that by persuasion they can win you over to a more sensible approach. But the only really workable solution is that you guys write your critical views and then allow equal space to the people you are writing about rather than twist yourself in knots trying to be neutral about something you detest.

So how about you write what you really think and then give me equal space to put the Criminon view? Actually comply with Wikipedia policy?

With the greatest respect, Scio-1 14:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the "murdering your friends or your family" bits because you are right. While they do occur in the text of precept #8, they are not precepts themselves. As for the rest, the main problem was incorporating Criminon's statements as Wikipedia's own position. Including information like Criminon's mission statement or their claimed number of franchises is fine, so long as it is cited and sourced to Criminon. My main object to it was that it wasn't, not that it was pro-Criminon.


 * I urge you not to become frustrated. The Wiki rules and guidelines which everyone operates under take some getting used to. AndroidCat 16:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi AndroidCat. If this article is a product of Wikipedia guidelines then they need a rewrite. But this is more about the people implementing the guidelines. People lose perspective when they have a strong opinion about something and they fail to differentiate between opinions and facts.

One example is your unusual opinion that the Mission Statement of an organization can be either “pro” or “con”. Fact is that the opening sentence of this article conflicts with the Criminon Mission Statement. Criminon would say that no inmates are screened for mental illness or addiction and their programs are intended for all. Therefore one or both sides of this conflict are suspect. The incorrect and opinionated way of resolving this conflict is to simply omit the conflicting datum you don’t agree with. As you have done here (I’m not sure if you wrote the original text but you just put it back there after you became aware of the conflict).

The WTH precept thing is a great example of the incredible lengths Wikipedia editors won't go to to ensure the article is accurate. The out-of-context quote from a newspaper article (?) had a more derogatory feel to it so I can see why it appealed and no further research was needed.

Only one component of the 5 step program (WTH) is mentioned here and it’s strongly implied that the program exists in correspondence form only (easily disproven) in only Corcoran prison (you really have to skimp on your research to write this one). A very courageous assumption is being made here that encyclopedia readers will not be particularly interested in things like that.

What they are interested in evidently, is critical information out of newspaper articles. The paragraph about Rushing for example. Sounds so negative. But reading between the lines, the only real data here is that in spite of critticism he still sent offenders to the program. It’s also quite clear that he didn’t want inmates to be recruited to Scientology and had some other aim in mind.

So? Did he send inmates there? Was he satisifed with the result? Or did they get recruited into the ranks of Scientologists and he had to withdraw his support? What useful information can we come away with here? Couldn’t someone in Wikipedia ring the judge up or send him a letter and ask him how it went? Reputable encylopedias would.

What about Prof. Kent’s statement about Scientology wanting to replace psych treatments with their own. I can’t figure out why you would take a nice juicy fact like that and turn it into an opinion by getting someone else to venture it. Scientologists will readily admit to that. But of course Wikipedia wouldn’t be interested in the qualifications or rationale that go with it - preferring it to sound like it is an obsession with no rationale at all.

Several months ago the Chief Education Officer of Australia’s largest women’s correctional centres came to my Rotary Club to talk about her work running training and rehab. She was passionate about their successes but quite candid about the inability of the industry to do very much about the extremely high recidivism rates. Even more candid about how the psychology programs which promised so much a decade ago have proven not to work – despite terrific sales pitches. Her experience is that only vocational and basic literacy programs have had any substantial success.

So the feeling that psych-based programs have been a trifle oversold is not solely the opinion of Scientologists. If an editor in Wikipedia actually did some research they would find that prisions with recidivism percentages in the high 80’s have all had psych programs and significant funding for quite some time. Yet recidivism rates remain high.

The paragraph about the wth precepts is about the straightest, most neutral paragraph in this whole article. Yet it doesn’t give any information at all about how valuable or effective I or Criminon feel it is. There is not the slightest inkling of support for the Criminon view (pro case) in this entire article. So please don’t tell me your deletions of a couple of pro sentences violate Wikipedia policy which demands balanced views.

Not so long ago I was asked to put my hand in my pocket to support a Criminon program in a nearby South-East Asian country. Criminon was established from scratch in response to government justice officials requesting pilots. Instead Criminon put those justice officials and government ministers through the courses themselves. After that they renewed their request and pilots were run in representative prisons – mens, women, juvenile and their hard-core, maximum security.

The programs were all so successful with inmates and prison officials that this country decided to implement throughout their entire country - quite a lot of prisons. Except… Criminon didn’t have the staff to do it. So another pilot was run where graduate inmates were trained to deliver the courses themselves. That has worked well and fairly soon that entire country will be delivering Criminon courses in every prison based on this approach.

For my money I get the videos showing inmates cleaning up their prisons, saying how much their lives have changed for the better and amazingly, government officials shortening sentences for Criminon graduates. Nobody is recruiting for Churches as this stupid Wikipedia article suggests (there are no Churches there and nobody reading Way to Happiness could even guess there was such a thing. But I guess it has to be in there because the LA Times said it). A lot of my friends put in a stupendous amount of work and hard-earned money to get this program running, attended fortnightly briefings to see how it was going and all we are getting out of it is the intense satisfaction of seeing some poor buggers get another chance in life.

And all Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia can say about it is that Criminon delivers correspondence courses in Corcoran prison with the end view of destroying psychiatry and recruiting everyone to Scientology. Pathetic.

I love the Criminon program and I am not alone. None of this positive view will ever make it into this article while you and certain colleagues with similar views are exerting your editorial control.

AndroidCat, you are probably a decent guy in many respects. But you need to have a look at what you are doing here. Admit that you can’t tolerate the positive view to go into these articles and that you are not willing to do the research necessary to make them accurate. Agree to confine yourself to writing the negative case and let Scientologists represent themselves.

All the best, Scio-1 03:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

ps: my comment about 80% recidivism is anecdotal & misleading. Published recidivism stats vary widely for different offenses, demographics, etc and I shouldn't have generalised like that. The point was simply that there aren't any programs out there making any guarantees to reduce recidivism. Scio-1 12:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Second Chance Center Preliminary Process Evaluation Study

 * Second Chance Center Preliminary Process Evaluation Study, Paul Guerin, Ph.D. October 2008. Prepared for: State of New Mexico and the Second Chance Center. University of New Mexico, Institute of Social Research.
 * Most interesting study and valuable source for this article. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone with a little more experience can include

 * Maybe someone with a little more experience can include material from the recent fiasco in New Mexico involving Second Chance, also note that the purif rundown was said by Tommy Davis to be a strictly RELIGIOUS activity in regards to treatment to Jett Travolta hence it's inappropriate for a supposed secular treatment center71.179.172.46 (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

May Be Defunct
This Scientology fake front may be entirely defunct, there has not been any public exposures of Scientology's attempts to get their materials in to prison systems for some years now. Has any knowledgeable editor found any Scientology activity in the past coule of years for their "Criminon?" If so it might be informative to add a section to the extant article indicating whether the fake front is active or inactive. From my review on line it appears to be defunct/inactive. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Is no longer a fake front
Searching around the network it appears that this Scientology fake front is no longer being used to try to sell Scientology's frauds. The Scientology organization has a number of post office boxes around the world -- around 20 locations -- which they still claim is a "Criminon" fake front, but the Scientology organization no longer actively tries to sell frauds using the fake name. The article here appears to be badly obsolete since the fake front appears to be defunct. BiologistBabe (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will check on this, I beleiev you are correct, that the Scientology criminal enterprise no longer actively attempts to market this fraud, however Scientology still retains trademark ownership of the fake name so I expect that the article is still accurate in that respect. Damotclese (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Defunct
This Scientology fake front is actually defunct, the crime syndicate does not promote this fraud any more. I wonder if some mention should be made, perhaps change the text in to past tense. Damotclese (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have some sources that we could cite here? their website is still up and running, though, and has a quote by LRH on the top.


 * Also, although I understand that you feel strongly about the topic, your choice of words gives me the impression that you might have difficulty writing neutrally about the topic. Scientology has caused a lot of friction in Wikipedia before, and therefore strict neutrality and factual, well-sourced reporting (the aim of all Wikipedians in any case) is absolutely crucial here. --Slashme (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, they have a number of web sites that they maintain which are for fake fronts which no longer actually exist, and yes they continue to carry trademark, however they have closed all their actual physical book stores which were labeled under this fraud, they have post office box addresses which are Scientology book stores which carry numerous other fake front names.
 * I suppose it consists of personal research which is not suitable for the extant article. I actually visited each one of their "Criminon" offices that were within a 35 mile radius of my office, working with an IRS law enforcement effort which needed to tabulate the extent of this fake front. Every address we visited either (1) did not physically exist, (2) was a book store, or (3) was a mail drop.
 * I'm wondering if that fact should be folded in to the extant article. Attempt to phone one of their "Crimnon" addresses results in a Scientology customer who has to put one on hold and go search for a ringleader who can actually play pretend long enough to see if there's money in the offing. Damotclese (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's great news! Unfortunately, as you say, it's original research at the moment, but if you can find some published information to that effect, it would be very good for this article. --Slashme (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Criminon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090320170421/http://isr.unm.edu/cara/pdf/SecondChanceCenter_FinalReportv16_Final.pdf to http://isr.unm.edu/cara/pdf/SecondChanceCenter_FinalReportv16_Final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That automated link failed, it checks faulty. Damotclese (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan article
I removed the uncritical restatement of this Pakistan article. There are no hard facts or statistics; just an NGO promoting the program they bought into. --Slashme (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a charity -- it is a defunct fraud
The category suggests that this criminal enterprise is some how a charity. That is not correct, it is a defunct Scientology fraud. I'm not sure if the extant article should be classed as a charity. Damotclese (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)