Perhaps we need to return to the days of removing very clearly troubled people from circulation until they aren't a danger to others.
Back in my day this type of thing would end with a talk with a local policeman, and maybe a smacking from your parents.
Psychiatric evaluation, police involvement, the media covering, etc, for a BS death threat by a 14 year old is quite a new development (of course "back in my day" teenagers also didn't regularly take guns and mass shoot people).
>Perhaps we need to return to the days of removing very clearly troubled people from circulation until they aren't a danger to others.
Yeah, that attitude worked great for the US and its harshest penalties, highest in the world incarceration rate, and record high recidivism. No murder capital of the western world, no mass shooting capital of the western world, no dangerous loony capital of the western world, etc...
/s
Of course, redemption should always be on the table. It's worth the risk.
Why not both? Why generalize to all scenarios at all times?
The process of exclusion is what causes you to define the borders of acceptability, and allows participants to have a clear understanding of when they're at risk of being excluded. Then they'll weigh their wants vs the rules and make a decision about whether they value their ideas over the group membership. Then what you are left with is people who want to be in the group more than they want to follow their whims against the group's rules.