"Garwood, Robin" wrote: > The easiest way to find oneself in and out of prison for life is an early > introduction to the juvenile justice system.
Well I have to admit that the juvenile justice system never did much more for me than not incarcerating me for a long period of time, which is not to say that it couldn't have done something meaningful. If it is not clear from my posts, what I am proposing is an incremental system of student discipline with meaningful interventions (sans suspension). Such a system would begin in the classroom and would advance progressively with the final stage being the 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. The primary assumption of both my political and educational philosophies is that the more closely your assumptions match reality the more likely it is your solutions will be effective. Thus, assuming that ALL kids are basically good (a false assumption) leads to policies that prove ineffective for everyone. This is not to say that behavioral interventions will not work for the vast majority of children. I would estimate that only 0.5% of kids cannot be treated effectively with behavioral approaches, however it is important to admit that this maybe the case. The socialobiologic argument is complex and grates against our views of self determination, but I think that it is important to realize that a large portion of our behavior is genetically determined. To me that's not a problem, even if certain aspects of my personality are influenced by genetics it doesn't mean that I can't determine how they are expressed. In regards to my example of homosexuality being genetically determined; I pointed this out because I think that it reflects an inconsistency in Mr. Lacy's argument. It is Mr. Lacy who wares his sexual orientation on his sleeve, it's not as though I've painted him so. And, since I do not see that sexual preference implies anything negative about someone, I don't see anything wrong with using it as an example. However, it is quite different than coloring someone as a racist. > 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. I suppose it does identify you as a humanist, but I never talked about throwing children away. I said that there are some children that do not belong in the public schools and I suggested alternative educational programs for them. > 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? Call me pessimistic, but I cannot envision any time in the foreseeable future in which prisons will be unnecessary. Here again is the assumption that people are basically good and if we can only find someway of ridding society of evil influences (e.g., poverty) all will be well. I believe that these types of attitudes have resulted in a dysfunctional justice system, as well as a dysfunctional educational system. I would agree that many individuals are imprisoned inappropriately and that the prison system should do a better job of separating violent prisoners from those who stand a better chance of being rehabilitated, but a realistic first step would be to eliminate victimless crimes from the books. However, it seems that many liberals are not ready to let individuals be responsible for the consequences of their own behavior. Michael Atherton Prospect Park _______________________________________ 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
