David writes: I actually think punishment has resulted in fewer incidents. If this is actually the case, David, do you think Senator Berglin's bill is still necessary? Do you think incidents of graffiti will drop further once the state goes after parents of taggers, especially parents who are living below federal poverty guidelines?
And as I asked in my first posting regarding this issue, why stop at graffiti, awful as it is? Why not make parents legally and financially responsible for other crimes their children commit? We're going after parents of taggers, I suspect, because of the common perception that taggers and their parents are black and poor and of no use to society. Again, Senator Berglin's bill is a desperate attempt to counter Republican assertions that the DFL is soft on crime (i.e., blacks). Given the impulsive nature of children, I doubt that a child is going to put down that can of spray paint after considering how their actions might alter their parent's financial and legal status. Now, you can say that parents have a responsibility to teach their children right from wrong. True. But how many children of decent and conscientious parents still do bad things despite their Mom and Dad's best efforts? Quite a few, I suspect. I don't know how many of you list members out there are parents. I'm not. But I can only hope that none of you are held legally and financially responsible for all the bad things your children may do in the future. Again, given the lack of assistance our government offers to parents, compared to other industrialized nations in the West, parents, regardless of race or class, need support not punishment.---Peter Schmitz CARAG TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
