Here we go... Michael Atherton writes:
"Many of the kids in the movie ... may have been better off in the juvenile justice system rather than ending up in prison for life." The easiest way to find oneself in and out of prison for life is an early introduction to the juvenile justice system. Then he writes: "many people in the gay community have been arguing that sexual preference is genetically determined." AND: "This typical liberal spin. My arguments had nothing to do with race." Mr. Atherton, you cannot have it both ways. Either you can draw in relatively unrelated "hot-button" issues (in this circumstance - and in my opinion unfairly - tailored to the characteristics of the person with whom you disagree) AND allow an equally analogous comparison of your favored policies regarding behavior to old policies regarding race, or both debating techniques are off the table. Of course you never said anything about race. Brandon never said you did. He made a comparison between your ideas about what we should do with "bad" children and what the prevailing attitude once was towards minority children. You can argue with this analogy on the merits. But I am so, so tired of people dismissing arguments with what they hope to be dirty, accusatory words. "That's just exactly the sort of __________ tripe I'd expect from you!" Seriously. It's gotten old. Then Mr. Atherton writes: "Children that violently attack other children or teachers are bad. It is your assumption that we cannot or should not differentiate, a position that perpetuates an environment in the schools that is not conducive to quality education." I believe that it is not only possible but necessary to differentiate between bad behavior and "bad" children. The former leaves the door open for the hope that the individual can change for the better. The latter gives up entirely, abdicates our responsibility to the child (no one can do anything for him or her, after all), and effectively throws him or her away. To say: "since you have done something bad, you are a bad person," is profoundly dehumanizing. I suppose pointing this out makes me a humanist. Finally, Michael writes: "Prisons serve different functions: one of which is to protect the public." The public is best protected when prisons are unnecessary. The students who are thrown into "special" schools or the juvenile justice system will leave them at some point, unless we are willing (and fiscally able) to house them in prisons for the remainder of their lives. The day children leave the systems you view as a solution, they are often - if not usually - far more dangerous than they were when they entered. More predisposed to commit crimes, more likely to wind up back in prison as adults. Is this the best way to protect the public? Robin Garwood Seward _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
