|
On October 28 2011 12:42 Filter wrote:
The Police are not the answer to everything, the police getting involved won't really change anything. You can't simply go through life and everything that goes against you tell somebody and get them to punish them for you. The kid who beat up that guy should be suspended because fights happen (I get it, this was more assault than a fight but I'd still put it in there.) and if something else happens along those lines then I'd really stick it to him.
I'm not sure you understand how society works. Police ARE meant to be the answer IF SOMEONE DOES SOMETHING ILLEGAL. Vigilantism is not the answer, and there is a reason it is outlawed. This kid physically assaulted another human being, which is illegal, the correct response is to get the police involved.
On October 28 2011 12:42 Filter wrote:Lets say the kid who did the assault gets charged, gets probation and gets his life pretty fucked up over it. What if that kid was popular and life only gets worse for the guy who got beat up because this situation happened, what if other people kick his ass on the way home from school then what have we done? Instead of helping somebody understand the world better we've made one guy bitter and angry towards the world and three or four others futures fucked over because of criminal records.
None of that has tangible or logical backing. I could just as easily argue that the kid who did the bashing was a horrible human being and also bullied and assault many other students around him and he got what he deserved. You're offering nothing constructive with this paragraph.
On October 28 2011 12:42 Filter wrote:People need to stop with this garbage and stand up for themselves, I know when I was in school and shit went down there might be a couple of punches but if a fight got that serious people would be pulling it apart not egging it on no matter who was involved in it. Sometimes police involvement can only make situations like this worse if everybody turns on the victim.
You have no evidence or proof to suggest that everyone would turn on the victim, or that the police getting involved would make the situation worse. Also, how do you stand up for yourself when you're on the ground with a bigger kid on top of you beating the shit out of you? Responding to violence with more violence is NOT the correct answer.
On October 28 2011 12:42 Filter wrote:If it can be solved and people learn lessons from a suspension then perfect, everythings okay. The kid who got his shit kicked will look like the bigger man for not being a douche and charging etc and hopefully get more support in the school and the other guy might change his point of view, regardless of what SHOULD happen if the outcome to the people is better one way then do it that way.
This kid will not learn from a 3 day suspension. He will go through life thinking that bashing gays is okay because all that will happen is a 3 day holiday from school. Charging someone for physically assaulting you is not a "douche" thing to do. The gay kid will not get more support from not charging him. More likely if police are involved people wont fuck with him because they know consequences may come. If they get 3 days off school every time they beat him up he'll continue to get beaten up by every homophobe in the school, life will get worse and worse for the kid until he commits suicide. Then he's just another gay teen suicide statistic.
On October 28 2011 12:42 Filter wrote:I watched the video, and it was brutal and disgusting. Especially when he started to really crack him while he was on the ground undefended, that is not defensible but I hope there is a solution that lets two lives move on better off for this situation, not one that ruins many more.
You have no evidence that the bully being locked in jail would ruin anyone's life. It is much more likely he will realize there are CONSEQUENCES to his actions and may think twice before viciously beating another living breathing human being.
|
On October 28 2011 12:55 Amaterasu1234 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 12:53 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:22 Half wrote:
This is kinda dumb, why not just a longer suspension?
Or do we want the police getting involved with everything. You think giving this kid a criminal record for life is going to help him change his outlook towards gays?
Completely ridiculous that the most reasonable option is second to last with only 2% of the votes. QUICKLY GUYS. POLARIZE EVERYTHING. I think it's going to set an example that beating the shit out of people for no good reason is illegal and looked down upon by society. As well it should be. But people get beat up in schools all the time, just for reasons other then being gay. What, arrest all of them too? ...why not?
You're just pushing people you find incongruous with your neat little world into the margins, at no regard to the human cost. You're not different from the 30 something conservs who think all the kids doing hard time in prison for drug charges or DUIs deserve to be in there.
Ok, So a 17 year old kid hates gays. Another 17 year old kid gets into fights. Maybe hes struggling with his own sexuality, maybe he has his own, completely unrelated insecurities, maybe hes the product of a decadent culture. NO I DONT WANT TO FACE THIS MAKE IT GO AWAY.
Meanwhile, a virtual slave labour complex is being built up on the fruit of your petty fears.
|
On October 28 2011 12:20 AudionovA wrote:
No punishment, of course there going to say its a hate crime, theyre the victims! There are 2 sides to every story people. You should hear both before judge on a possible skewed case.
uhh this is whats confusing me about the poll.
A kid gets beaten up and you say no punishment for the attacker? What the fuck?
|
On October 28 2011 12:57 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 12:55 Amaterasu1234 wrote:On October 28 2011 12:53 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:22 Half wrote:
This is kinda dumb, why not just a longer suspension?
Or do we want the police getting involved with everything. You think giving this kid a criminal record for life is going to help him change his outlook towards gays?
Completely ridiculous that the most reasonable option is second to last with only 2% of the votes. QUICKLY GUYS. POLARIZE EVERYTHING. I think it's going to set an example that beating the shit out of people for no good reason is illegal and looked down upon by society. As well it should be. But people get beat up in schools all the time, just for reasons other then being gay. What, arrest all of them too? ...why not? You're just pushing people you find incongruous with your neat little world into the margins, at no regard to the human cost. You're not different from the 30 something conservs who think all the kids doing hard time in prison for drug charges or DUIs deserve to be in there. Ok, So a 17 year old kid hates gays. Another 17 year old kid gets into fights. Maybe hes struggling with his own sexuality, maybe he has his own, completely unrelated insecurities, maybe hes the product of a decadent culture. NO I DONT WANT TO FACE THIS MAKE IT GO AWAY. Meanwhile, a virtual slave labour complex is being built up on the fruit of your petty fears.
When will you realize that "getting into a fight" and premeditated assault are SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT?
|
The guy should be charged. No question about it.
|
On October 28 2011 13:00 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 12:57 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:55 Amaterasu1234 wrote:On October 28 2011 12:53 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:22 Half wrote:
This is kinda dumb, why not just a longer suspension?
Or do we want the police getting involved with everything. You think giving this kid a criminal record for life is going to help him change his outlook towards gays?
Completely ridiculous that the most reasonable option is second to last with only 2% of the votes. QUICKLY GUYS. POLARIZE EVERYTHING. I think it's going to set an example that beating the shit out of people for no good reason is illegal and looked down upon by society. As well it should be. But people get beat up in schools all the time, just for reasons other then being gay. What, arrest all of them too? ...why not? You're just pushing people you find incongruous with your neat little world into the margins, at no regard to the human cost. You're not different from the 30 something conservs who think all the kids doing hard time in prison for drug charges or DUIs deserve to be in there. Ok, So a 17 year old kid hates gays. Another 17 year old kid gets into fights. Maybe hes struggling with his own sexuality, maybe he has his own, completely unrelated insecurities, maybe hes the product of a decadent culture. NO I DONT WANT TO FACE THIS MAKE IT GO AWAY. Meanwhile, a virtual slave labour complex is being built up on the fruit of your petty fears. When will you realize that "getting into a fight" and premeditated assault are SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT?
Yes, the primary difference is one occurs when a member of society ignores social contract for petty ends, the other occurs when a freaking kid whos going through puberty gets emotional.
|
Obviously with this shit all over the internet and TV etc. charges will be filed and the kid will be fined and/or put on probation and community service at the least. A 3 day suspension is pretty standard for a fight at a school, unless it's a repeat offender.
I'm sure the school wasn't aware of the recording and planning of the beating or the circumstances, they aren't court. It's up to the attacked party to call the authorities unless of course the kid was severely beaten where the school would have to call them.
|
On October 28 2011 12:45 Hnnngg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 12:35 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 12:17 Hnnngg wrote:On October 28 2011 12:07 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 12:00 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 11:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 11:48 Hnnngg wrote:On October 28 2011 11:42 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 11:16 Hnnngg wrote:On October 28 2011 11:12 AlphaWhale wrote:
Gaol/Jail is expensive. It doesn't help anyone. It's a siphon on taxes and is used as an easy answer to complex questions. These sorts of crimes and acts need to be dealt with in a rehabilitating and educating way rather than just prison.
This is the problem. People see a bad thing happen and just say "prison". It's meant to keep vicious people out of society for our safety, not be the timeout corner of society.
Yes the kid needs to be punished, but you throw him into a prison and you have a good chance of creating a useless member of society, totally useless. Educate the kid into what? This isn't a non-violent crime, it's not typing "Fag" on the internet. From what I understand, the victim was targeted because of their sexuality. There's nothing to educate or rehabilitate. There's just no room in a society for people like that. This is a good example where prison is the right answer. If someone who is anti-gay can't help himself or be re-educated then we have to seriously reconsider not just hate crime laws but whether we should prosecute the perpetrators at all. After all he can't help himself, according to this logic. This bigotry is exactly the kind of thing that can be changed because it's an idea, or a belief system, not an immutable characteristic. The kid isn't going to jail over this because he's underage. He *might* get some juvenile detention depending on the jurisdiction. The simplistic "lock 'em up and throw away the key!" types like you are why we have a ridiculously high incarceration rate. There's no such thing as "accidentally homophobic". Only the willfully ignorant can be willfully intolerant. And I mean intolerant as in, "this kind of shit shouldn't exist and I will take it upon myself to get rid of it." I hate fat people, but I tolerate them. How does his age factor into his religious beliefs? (athiest homophobe, make me laugh). There's no reason to accept this kind of person in society. Until that changes, the person should be kept out of society. You know where that place is? Prison. I honestly think you're trolling now. Since you now admit he can change and be reeducated, the obvious answer is not prison but counseling/probation. duh. He stated that he can change but he chooses not to. You can't reeducate someone who is not willing to be reeducated. Especially when his parents are teaching him the exact opposite. There's nothing in the story that indicates the attacker is unwilling, except his facebook quote which makes me believe the bigotry is fairly deeply ingrained. People also tend to make these big changes when faced with serious consequences in law. And, tbqh, fixing the bigotry is secondary to preventing further physical attacks since being a homophobe is not inherently dangerous. In other words, he needs some monitoring/examination to make sure he is unlikely to repeat his crime. Prison isn't necessary for that. Alright, let's assume no jail time is given and he's given probation. What does that do? Does that make it seem like going to prison is worse? How could he not be aware of the serious consequences of the law? Would probation somehow change him around, make him a non-violent homophobe? Or, we could look at the different kinds of prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison#United_StatesMost of the fear towards prisons making small-time criminals into big-time criminals doesn't happen in minimum security prison. Minimum security prison, as the almighty wikipedia states, "The lowest level of security to which an inmate can be assigned directly. This type of prison is typically a "prison farm", or other work-oriented facility, and most often houses petty or "white collar" criminals." White-collar and petty. Sounds like a sufficient place according to the crime. I don't think even a minimum security prison is fitting for the crime with the facts we have at hand. For starters, we assume (partly because the attacker's identity is withheld, partly because it's HS) that he is underage. Therefore he won't be imprisoned for this level of crime. Second, and this is the core distinction, prisons are not and should not be the first punitive measure considered when a violation of law has occurred. Only when non-prison options have been exhausted should we go there. That does not appear to be the case in this instance. So, if the attacker was a year older then we could consider prison? That last part about prisons not being the first punitive measure is... an opinion I guess. I'm thinking about weighing the pros and cons of involving prison and not involving prison. The are minimal cons to involving a minimum security prison sentence for Intolerant Violence. This is a violent crime and should be taken seriously. What if it happens again? Will that be enough for him to go to prison? If not, what the hell. If yes, why does it have to happen twice? I'm not seeing a reason to not involve prison in this specific case.
Most likely he would not be sent to prison if it happened again, but would be sent to the closest equivalent of juvenile detention. If he was 18, a short jail sentence would surely be on the table. The reason why it has to "happen twice", as you say, that first time offenders get lenient sentences, is that quite frequently the justice system deals with isolated incidents and we hope that the first round of sanctions corrects the behavior. We have these escalating penalties as both a recognition that previous corrective action has failed to curb illegal behavior, and that each repeat offense increases the likelihood of another.
To jump to prison when we have less drastic options is an utter waste of resources. That is the ultimate underpinning of light sentences for first offenses. It's a cost-benefit analysis.
|
On October 28 2011 12:57 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 12:55 Amaterasu1234 wrote:On October 28 2011 12:53 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:22 Half wrote:
This is kinda dumb, why not just a longer suspension?
Or do we want the police getting involved with everything. You think giving this kid a criminal record for life is going to help him change his outlook towards gays?
Completely ridiculous that the most reasonable option is second to last with only 2% of the votes. QUICKLY GUYS. POLARIZE EVERYTHING. I think it's going to set an example that beating the shit out of people for no good reason is illegal and looked down upon by society. As well it should be. But people get beat up in schools all the time, just for reasons other then being gay. What, arrest all of them too? ...why not? You're just pushing people you find incongruous with your neat little world into the margins, at no regard to the human cost. You're not different from the 30 something conservs who think all the kids doing hard time in prison for drug charges or DUIs deserve to be in there. Ok, So a 17 year old kid hates gays. Another 17 year old kid gets into fights. Maybe hes struggling with his own sexuality, maybe he has his own, completely unrelated insecurities, maybe hes the product of a decadent culture. NO I DONT WANT TO FACE THIS MAKE IT GO AWAY. Meanwhile, a virtual slave labour complex is being built up on the fruit of your petty fears.
Okay...fair enough. Jail time alone won't ever fix the problem, I agree. But, if he's a threat to other people around him then he needs to be removed from the rest of society in the meantime. Perhaps he does have his own issues, I can't say that he doesn't, and those most definitely need to be dealt with. But, in the immediate future, some sort of isolation will at least do those around him some good.
|
On October 28 2011 13:02 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:00 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:55 Amaterasu1234 wrote:On October 28 2011 12:53 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:22 Half wrote:
This is kinda dumb, why not just a longer suspension?
Or do we want the police getting involved with everything. You think giving this kid a criminal record for life is going to help him change his outlook towards gays?
Completely ridiculous that the most reasonable option is second to last with only 2% of the votes. QUICKLY GUYS. POLARIZE EVERYTHING. I think it's going to set an example that beating the shit out of people for no good reason is illegal and looked down upon by society. As well it should be. But people get beat up in schools all the time, just for reasons other then being gay. What, arrest all of them too? ...why not? You're just pushing people you find incongruous with your neat little world into the margins, at no regard to the human cost. You're not different from the 30 something conservs who think all the kids doing hard time in prison for drug charges or DUIs deserve to be in there. Ok, So a 17 year old kid hates gays. Another 17 year old kid gets into fights. Maybe hes struggling with his own sexuality, maybe he has his own, completely unrelated insecurities, maybe hes the product of a decadent culture. NO I DONT WANT TO FACE THIS MAKE IT GO AWAY. Meanwhile, a virtual slave labour complex is being built up on the fruit of your petty fears. When will you realize that "getting into a fight" and premeditated assault are SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT? Yes, the primary difference is one occurs when a member of society ignores social contract for petty ends, the other occurs when a freaking kid whos going through puberty gets emotional.
I would have thought the more logical difference was one is a person beating the shit out of another person while the other is two people willingly exhibit violence towards each other.
One situation has two willing participants, the other has only one.
|
After reading a lot of comments I wish that the people who said that it was just your every day fight would watch the video...
Your typical fight at school does not consist of some kid pulling a defenseless person to the ground and beating their face in.
|
On October 28 2011 13:05 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:02 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 13:00 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:55 Amaterasu1234 wrote:On October 28 2011 12:53 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:22 Half wrote:
This is kinda dumb, why not just a longer suspension?
Or do we want the police getting involved with everything. You think giving this kid a criminal record for life is going to help him change his outlook towards gays?
Completely ridiculous that the most reasonable option is second to last with only 2% of the votes. QUICKLY GUYS. POLARIZE EVERYTHING. I think it's going to set an example that beating the shit out of people for no good reason is illegal and looked down upon by society. As well it should be. But people get beat up in schools all the time, just for reasons other then being gay. What, arrest all of them too? ...why not? You're just pushing people you find incongruous with your neat little world into the margins, at no regard to the human cost. You're not different from the 30 something conservs who think all the kids doing hard time in prison for drug charges or DUIs deserve to be in there. Ok, So a 17 year old kid hates gays. Another 17 year old kid gets into fights. Maybe hes struggling with his own sexuality, maybe he has his own, completely unrelated insecurities, maybe hes the product of a decadent culture. NO I DONT WANT TO FACE THIS MAKE IT GO AWAY. Meanwhile, a virtual slave labour complex is being built up on the fruit of your petty fears. When will you realize that "getting into a fight" and premeditated assault are SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT? Yes, the primary difference is one occurs when a member of society ignores social contract for petty ends, the other occurs when a freaking kid whos going through puberty gets emotional. I would have thought the more logical difference was one is a person beating the shit out of another person while the other is two people willingly exhibit violence towards each other. One situation has two willing participants, the other has only one.
I wasn't aware getting in a fight was a term used by our legal system, thank you for informing me on its syntactical specifications. Where did you attend law school? Your knowledge impresses me.
Okay...fair enough. Jail time alone won't ever fix the problem, I agree. But, if he's a threat to other people around him then he needs to be removed from the rest of society in the meantime. Perhaps he does have his own issues, I can't say that he doesn't, and those most definitely need to be dealt with. But, in the immediate future, some sort of isolation will at least do those around him some good.
Somehow, the entire history of the American legal system has failed to convince me that "jail will set him straight".
|
On October 28 2011 13:07 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:05 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 13:02 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 13:00 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:55 Amaterasu1234 wrote:On October 28 2011 12:53 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:22 Half wrote:
This is kinda dumb, why not just a longer suspension?
Or do we want the police getting involved with everything. You think giving this kid a criminal record for life is going to help him change his outlook towards gays?
Completely ridiculous that the most reasonable option is second to last with only 2% of the votes. QUICKLY GUYS. POLARIZE EVERYTHING. I think it's going to set an example that beating the shit out of people for no good reason is illegal and looked down upon by society. As well it should be. But people get beat up in schools all the time, just for reasons other then being gay. What, arrest all of them too? ...why not? You're just pushing people you find incongruous with your neat little world into the margins, at no regard to the human cost. You're not different from the 30 something conservs who think all the kids doing hard time in prison for drug charges or DUIs deserve to be in there. Ok, So a 17 year old kid hates gays. Another 17 year old kid gets into fights. Maybe hes struggling with his own sexuality, maybe he has his own, completely unrelated insecurities, maybe hes the product of a decadent culture. NO I DONT WANT TO FACE THIS MAKE IT GO AWAY. Meanwhile, a virtual slave labour complex is being built up on the fruit of your petty fears. When will you realize that "getting into a fight" and premeditated assault are SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT? Yes, the primary difference is one occurs when a member of society ignores social contract for petty ends, the other occurs when a freaking kid whos going through puberty gets emotional. I would have thought the more logical difference was one is a person beating the shit out of another person while the other is two people willingly exhibit violence towards each other. One situation has two willing participants, the other has only one. I wasn't aware getting in a fight was a term used by our legal system, thank you for informing me on its syntactical specifications. Where did you attend law school? Your knowledge impresses me.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
No, "fight" and "beating the shit out of" aren't terms used in the legal system, but the legal system does recognize differences synonymous to the two terms used.
|
On October 28 2011 13:04 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 12:45 Hnnngg wrote:On October 28 2011 12:35 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 12:17 Hnnngg wrote:On October 28 2011 12:07 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 12:00 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 11:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 11:48 Hnnngg wrote:On October 28 2011 11:42 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 11:16 Hnnngg wrote:
[quote]
Educate the kid into what?
This isn't a non-violent crime, it's not typing "Fag" on the internet. From what I understand, the victim was targeted because of their sexuality. There's nothing to educate or rehabilitate. There's just no room in a society for people like that.
This is a good example where prison is the right answer. If someone who is anti-gay can't help himself or be re-educated then we have to seriously reconsider not just hate crime laws but whether we should prosecute the perpetrators at all. After all he can't help himself, according to this logic. This bigotry is exactly the kind of thing that can be changed because it's an idea, or a belief system, not an immutable characteristic. The kid isn't going to jail over this because he's underage. He *might* get some juvenile detention depending on the jurisdiction. The simplistic "lock 'em up and throw away the key!" types like you are why we have a ridiculously high incarceration rate. There's no such thing as "accidentally homophobic". Only the willfully ignorant can be willfully intolerant. And I mean intolerant as in, "this kind of shit shouldn't exist and I will take it upon myself to get rid of it." I hate fat people, but I tolerate them. How does his age factor into his religious beliefs? (athiest homophobe, make me laugh). There's no reason to accept this kind of person in society. Until that changes, the person should be kept out of society. You know where that place is? Prison. I honestly think you're trolling now. Since you now admit he can change and be reeducated, the obvious answer is not prison but counseling/probation. duh. He stated that he can change but he chooses not to. You can't reeducate someone who is not willing to be reeducated. Especially when his parents are teaching him the exact opposite. There's nothing in the story that indicates the attacker is unwilling, except his facebook quote which makes me believe the bigotry is fairly deeply ingrained. People also tend to make these big changes when faced with serious consequences in law. And, tbqh, fixing the bigotry is secondary to preventing further physical attacks since being a homophobe is not inherently dangerous. In other words, he needs some monitoring/examination to make sure he is unlikely to repeat his crime. Prison isn't necessary for that. Alright, let's assume no jail time is given and he's given probation. What does that do? Does that make it seem like going to prison is worse? How could he not be aware of the serious consequences of the law? Would probation somehow change him around, make him a non-violent homophobe? Or, we could look at the different kinds of prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison#United_StatesMost of the fear towards prisons making small-time criminals into big-time criminals doesn't happen in minimum security prison. Minimum security prison, as the almighty wikipedia states, "The lowest level of security to which an inmate can be assigned directly. This type of prison is typically a "prison farm", or other work-oriented facility, and most often houses petty or "white collar" criminals." White-collar and petty. Sounds like a sufficient place according to the crime. I don't think even a minimum security prison is fitting for the crime with the facts we have at hand. For starters, we assume (partly because the attacker's identity is withheld, partly because it's HS) that he is underage. Therefore he won't be imprisoned for this level of crime. Second, and this is the core distinction, prisons are not and should not be the first punitive measure considered when a violation of law has occurred. Only when non-prison options have been exhausted should we go there. That does not appear to be the case in this instance. So, if the attacker was a year older then we could consider prison? That last part about prisons not being the first punitive measure is... an opinion I guess. I'm thinking about weighing the pros and cons of involving prison and not involving prison. The are minimal cons to involving a minimum security prison sentence for Intolerant Violence. This is a violent crime and should be taken seriously. What if it happens again? Will that be enough for him to go to prison? If not, what the hell. If yes, why does it have to happen twice? I'm not seeing a reason to not involve prison in this specific case. Most likely he would not be sent to prison if it happened again, but would be sent to the closest equivalent of juvenile detention. If he was 18, a short jail sentence would surely be on the table. The reason why it has to "happen twice", as you say, that first time offenders get lenient sentences, is that quite frequently the justice system deals with isolated incidents and we hope that the first round of sanctions corrects the behavior. We have these escalating penalties as both a recognition that previous corrective action has failed to curb illegal behavior, and that each repeat offense increases the likelihood of another. To jump to prison when we have less drastic options is an utter waste of resources. That is the ultimate underpinning of light sentences for first offenses. It's a cost-benefit analysis.
So... everyone gets to commit one violent crime before they're an adult?
I guess I missed my opportunity to beat up the fags at my school by smashing their face in while they're on the ground.
Hoping for an isolated incident and denying the chance for a repeat offense, especially considering the circumstances, appears to favor the latter.
|
On October 28 2011 13:06 Cheeseburgered wrote:
After reading a lot of comments I wish that the people who said that it was just your every day fight would watch the video...
Your typical fight at school does not consist of some kid pulling a defenseless person to the ground and beating their face in.
For real man. That was a brutal attack. And you could tell the victim was terrified and obviously non-violent. They waited for the kid for the only purpose to beat the shit out of him. If there's anything on that footage that indicates they did it solely because he's gay, then this is an obvious hate crime. I would totally push for criminal action against the attacker and if not bring some intentional tort claims (battery at the very least). Truly despicable on the part of the attacker; that was so out of line.
|
On October 28 2011 13:11 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:07 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 13:05 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 13:02 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 13:00 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:55 Amaterasu1234 wrote:On October 28 2011 12:53 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:22 Half wrote:
This is kinda dumb, why not just a longer suspension?
Or do we want the police getting involved with everything. You think giving this kid a criminal record for life is going to help him change his outlook towards gays?
Completely ridiculous that the most reasonable option is second to last with only 2% of the votes. QUICKLY GUYS. POLARIZE EVERYTHING. I think it's going to set an example that beating the shit out of people for no good reason is illegal and looked down upon by society. As well it should be. But people get beat up in schools all the time, just for reasons other then being gay. What, arrest all of them too? ...why not? You're just pushing people you find incongruous with your neat little world into the margins, at no regard to the human cost. You're not different from the 30 something conservs who think all the kids doing hard time in prison for drug charges or DUIs deserve to be in there. Ok, So a 17 year old kid hates gays. Another 17 year old kid gets into fights. Maybe hes struggling with his own sexuality, maybe he has his own, completely unrelated insecurities, maybe hes the product of a decadent culture. NO I DONT WANT TO FACE THIS MAKE IT GO AWAY. Meanwhile, a virtual slave labour complex is being built up on the fruit of your petty fears. When will you realize that "getting into a fight" and premeditated assault are SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT? Yes, the primary difference is one occurs when a member of society ignores social contract for petty ends, the other occurs when a freaking kid whos going through puberty gets emotional. I would have thought the more logical difference was one is a person beating the shit out of another person while the other is two people willingly exhibit violence towards each other. One situation has two willing participants, the other has only one. I wasn't aware getting in a fight was a term used by our legal system, thank you for informing me on its syntactical specifications. Where did you attend law school? Your knowledge impresses me. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. No, "fight" and "beating the shit out of" aren't terms used in the legal system, but the legal system does recognize differences synonymous to the two in cases of assault.
Yes and I wasn't referring to them. I am saying that if a kid gets beat up at school, no matter how one sided it was, unless that kid is suffering actual long term physical harm, police intervention is simply not the way to go.
If you think it is, tell me why. None of your moralistic bullshit. Who is the beneficiary in this action. The kid? Damage is already done. Perpetrator? Certainly not on his way to becoming a productive member of society. People who are like the kid? No, because LGBT teens make up an extraordinarily small proportion of kids who get beat up in shitty American schools. The rest of the kids are left to fester. Ever hear of entire minorities boycotting inner city schools? This isn't an isolated problem, unless your willing to turn some 10-20 kids in every lower income school into undesirables, outcasts of our system before they even graduate. You think they're just going to go away? Wanna fucking kill them?
I'll tell you who is the main beneficiary.
You. That is the primary beneficiary. You get to push the ugly parts of our current society out of your neat, tidy little world. Wouldn't want actual societal change getting in the way of your luxuries would we.
|
3 day suspension? That's like telling him to go up to his room as a punishment. Expulsion is preferred.
|
On October 28 2011 12:53 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:22 Half wrote:
This is kinda dumb, why not just a longer suspension?
Or do we want the police getting involved with everything. You think giving this kid a criminal record for life is going to help him change his outlook towards gays?
Completely ridiculous that the most reasonable option is second to last with only 2% of the votes. QUICKLY GUYS. POLARIZE EVERYTHING. I think it's going to set an example that beating the shit out of people for no good reason is illegal and looked down upon by society. As well it should be. But people get beat up in schools all the time, just for reasons other then being gay. What, arrest all of them too?
...Yes?
I fail to see how your statement changes anything. You need to protect people who can't protect themselves, especially when they're being wrongfully hurt and attacked.
That's the job of a police officer.
Did you not see the video?
Saying "Psh, lots of people do it!" doesn't make a crime any less heinous.
|
On October 28 2011 13:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 12:53 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:22 Half wrote:
This is kinda dumb, why not just a longer suspension?
Or do we want the police getting involved with everything. You think giving this kid a criminal record for life is going to help him change his outlook towards gays?
Completely ridiculous that the most reasonable option is second to last with only 2% of the votes. QUICKLY GUYS. POLARIZE EVERYTHING. I think it's going to set an example that beating the shit out of people for no good reason is illegal and looked down upon by society. As well it should be. But people get beat up in schools all the time, just for reasons other then being gay. What, arrest all of them too? ...Yes? I fail to see how your statement changes anything. You need to protect people who can't protect themselves, especially when they're being wrongfully hurt and attacked. That's the job of a police officer. Did you not see the video? Saying "Psh, lots of people do it!" doesn't make a crime any less heinous.
So turn a substantial amount of already lower class citizens into undesirables before they even graduate. That will never come back to bite us at some future point in time, never.
|
On October 28 2011 13:22 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:53 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:22 Half wrote:
This is kinda dumb, why not just a longer suspension?
Or do we want the police getting involved with everything. You think giving this kid a criminal record for life is going to help him change his outlook towards gays?
Completely ridiculous that the most reasonable option is second to last with only 2% of the votes. QUICKLY GUYS. POLARIZE EVERYTHING. I think it's going to set an example that beating the shit out of people for no good reason is illegal and looked down upon by society. As well it should be. But people get beat up in schools all the time, just for reasons other then being gay. What, arrest all of them too? ...Yes? I fail to see how your statement changes anything. You need to protect people who can't protect themselves, especially when they're being wrongfully hurt and attacked. That's the job of a police officer. Did you not see the video? Saying "Psh, lots of people do it!" doesn't make a crime any less heinous. So turn a substantial amount of already lower class citizens into undesirables before they even graduate. That will never come back to bite us at some future point in time, never.
Or raise someone full of hate in their heart based on sexual orientations? That would work out well too.
What about the kid that got bullied then? Three day suspension is 3 days out of the school year you won't see your bully, that's so effective eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
