|
On October 28 2011 13:32 Hnnngg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:29 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 13:11 Hnnngg wrote:On October 28 2011 13:04 NovaTheFeared wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Hoping for an isolated incident and denying the chance for a repeat offense, especially considering the circumstances, appears to favor the latter. He will likely still be charged and face a penalty, so it won't be free. It just won't be jail. This leniency also doesn't apply all violent crime. Even juveniles can be tried as adults and face serious jail sentences for other crimes. An assault and battery like this case appears to be a misdemeanor. With the facts as we have them, it's inconceivable that the perpetrator will spend a day in jail. Let alone the 10 years one person suggested. From what I've seen, probation and suspension/expulsion. So basically he can't commit another crime while under probation (oh no, he's not allowed to commit a crime again!) and has to wait for some time to go to school or go to a different school. You think raging homophobes won't take that trade? I'd take that trade just because someone stepped on my shoe.
Even though you think they will take the trade, few do. The number of hate crime assaults like these vs. the number of people who are homophobic is starkly different. Crossing the line into violence is not common. Simple google search/wiki yields this:
According to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics Report, there were a total of 8152 hate crimes reported around the country. 4368 (53.6%) were racial bias motivated; 1483 (18.2%) were religious bias motivated; sexual orientation bias accounted for 1330 (16.3%); ethnicity/national origin bias was the cause of 927 (11.4%); disability bias was connected with 36 (0.4%); and the remaining 8 incidents (0.1%) were the result of multiple biases.
Of course, not all hate crimes are reported but they're not epidemic either. The reason they feel more common than the number of occurrences suggest is that they're so despicable that the media cannot help but report any instance it finds.
|
On October 28 2011 13:42 omisa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:40 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 13:33 omisa wrote:
Why on earth would you ever get the law involved over a school fight?
Instead of wasting energy and time blaming the bully/schools/system/etc and feeling sorry for the kid, why not do him a favor and teach him to stand up for himself. The fight was not that bad, at most he will have a bruised ego, but if he cant stand up for himself he is in for a hard life. Like has been said before in this thread which you obviously haven't read: It wasn't a fight. Watch the video, it was a vicious and brutal assault. Also, teaching the kid to "stand up for himself" (i.e. fighting back) - he shouldn't need to, the assault shouldn't happen in the first place. Additionally it is a little hard to stand up for yourself when there is someone else on top of you wailing on you. Punishing the bully is not "wasting energy". TBH it wasnt that brutal, But if you think that just because violence shouldnt happen, then it wont, well i dont really know what to say to you...
Violence is an inevitability, that's why we have the justice system to help protect those who cannot protect themselves.
|
On October 28 2011 13:41 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:25 Judicator wrote:On October 28 2011 13:22 Half wrote: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? The pole between two unfavorable choices is hardly an advocate for the pole you have your stuff camped out on, but rather, just another advocate for the fact that the intrinsic structure in which these events are occurring is broken and the focus must be on that.
Sure, but how do you sell that to the victim here? Doesn't he deserve some form of legal justice? That can be and should be the focus after this specific incidence is sorted out, but how do you sort out the incidence without compromising that notion?
|
It seems like its hard to really say if motivation should factor in the sentencing. It seems appropriate in some situations and not at all in others. As a society i think we need to decide whether or not motivation counts because it has serious implications to all forms of law
and on a side note i originally read the topic as "Gay student gets beaten off in classroom".
|
On October 28 2011 13:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:36 omisa wrote:On October 28 2011 13:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 13:33 omisa wrote:
Why on earth would you ever get the law involved over a school fight?
Instead of wasting energy and time blaming the bully/schools/system/etc and feeling sorry for the kid, why not do him a favor and teach him to stand up for himself. The fight was not that bad, at most he will have a bruised ego, but if he cant stand up for himself he is in for a hard life. I don't think you quite understand how life is supposed to work. Is that so? So do you let yourself get pushed around all day? No, I totally judo chop anyone who gets in my way, I always take the law into my own hands, and I can breathe fire. And thank goodness I'm not gay or black or a woman or any other minority, or else people would make fun of me.
Well thats cool and all, but seriously, running from your problems wont fix them.
|
In the case of Casey Haynes (sp?) from http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=201229 , the school chose to suspend the bully for 21 days and the kid who stood up for himself for 4 days. In that case, the school waited before giving a verdict, watched the video, considered their options, and eventually came through with what seems like a fair judgment. The violence in that case was far less dangerous and far less hateful than what's being shown here.
In this case, it seems the school couldn't be fucked to watch the video or make any kind of educated decision in regards to the attack. They just say "Ah, kids will be kids" and slap a generic 3-day suspension on it like they would with any other fight. This is not the way to handle bullying. I believe expulsion is the proper retort. I wouldn't get the law involved unless I had to, but if the school isn't going to do anything, I guess it's necessary. The bully needs to learn that there are consequences for his actions.
|
On October 28 2011 13:43 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:32 Hnnngg wrote:On October 28 2011 13:29 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 13:11 Hnnngg wrote:On October 28 2011 13:04 NovaTheFeared wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Hoping for an isolated incident and denying the chance for a repeat offense, especially considering the circumstances, appears to favor the latter. He will likely still be charged and face a penalty, so it won't be free. It just won't be jail. This leniency also doesn't apply all violent crime. Even juveniles can be tried as adults and face serious jail sentences for other crimes. An assault and battery like this case appears to be a misdemeanor. With the facts as we have them, it's inconceivable that the perpetrator will spend a day in jail. Let alone the 10 years one person suggested. From what I've seen, probation and suspension/expulsion. So basically he can't commit another crime while under probation (oh no, he's not allowed to commit a crime again!) and has to wait for some time to go to school or go to a different school. You think raging homophobes won't take that trade? I'd take that trade just because someone stepped on my shoe. Even though you think they will take the trade, few do. The number of hate crime assaults like these vs. the number of people who are homophobic is starkly different. Crossing the line into violence is not common. Simple google search/wiki yields this: Show nested quote +According to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics Report, there were a total of 8152 hate crimes reported around the country. 4368 (53.6%) were racial bias motivated; 1483 (18.2%) were religious bias motivated; sexual orientation bias accounted for 1330 (16.3%); ethnicity/national origin bias was the cause of 927 (11.4%); disability bias was connected with 36 (0.4%); and the remaining 8 incidents (0.1%) were the result of multiple biases.
Probably because of deterrence. People don't believe they can get away with hate crimes. There are definitely people who would if they think they would only get probation/expulsion. I can point a finger at a face I've met who would beat the crap out of someone if they could get away with it (probation/expulsion).
|
On October 28 2011 13:44 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:42 omisa wrote:On October 28 2011 13:40 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 13:33 omisa wrote:
Why on earth would you ever get the law involved over a school fight?
Instead of wasting energy and time blaming the bully/schools/system/etc and feeling sorry for the kid, why not do him a favor and teach him to stand up for himself. The fight was not that bad, at most he will have a bruised ego, but if he cant stand up for himself he is in for a hard life. Like has been said before in this thread which you obviously haven't read: It wasn't a fight. Watch the video, it was a vicious and brutal assault. Also, teaching the kid to "stand up for himself" (i.e. fighting back) - he shouldn't need to, the assault shouldn't happen in the first place. Additionally it is a little hard to stand up for yourself when there is someone else on top of you wailing on you. Punishing the bully is not "wasting energy". TBH it wasnt that brutal, But if you think that just because violence shouldnt happen, then it wont, well i dont really know what to say to you... Violence is an inevitability, that's why we have the justice system to help protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Please, dont hide behind the justice system. It doesnt protect those who cannot protect themselves, it brings them material justice.
|
the only place this case wouldnt get taken seriously is america
|
On October 28 2011 13:48 omisa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:44 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 13:42 omisa wrote:On October 28 2011 13:40 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 13:33 omisa wrote:
Why on earth would you ever get the law involved over a school fight?
Instead of wasting energy and time blaming the bully/schools/system/etc and feeling sorry for the kid, why not do him a favor and teach him to stand up for himself. The fight was not that bad, at most he will have a bruised ego, but if he cant stand up for himself he is in for a hard life. Like has been said before in this thread which you obviously haven't read: It wasn't a fight. Watch the video, it was a vicious and brutal assault. Also, teaching the kid to "stand up for himself" (i.e. fighting back) - he shouldn't need to, the assault shouldn't happen in the first place. Additionally it is a little hard to stand up for yourself when there is someone else on top of you wailing on you. Punishing the bully is not "wasting energy". TBH it wasnt that brutal, But if you think that just because violence shouldnt happen, then it wont, well i dont really know what to say to you... Violence is an inevitability, that's why we have the justice system to help protect those who cannot protect themselves. Please, dont hide behind the justice system. It doesnt protect those who cannot protect themselves, it brings them material justice.
And that justice helps with deterrence of other crimes being committed. People don't violently assault others all the time because they know there are consequences of their actions.
Hence, protecting them. Unfortunately, like anything, it is not a perfect system.
|
A minimum security juvenile detention centre is specifically designed for this type of crime, to rehabilitate the perpetrator so that they can become a productive member of society. Suspending him for 3 days then him just continuing to bully homosexuals afterwards is not going to benefit anyone nor will it result in him becoming a productive member of society.
You fail to understand that a juvenile detention centre doesn't just remove these problem kids from the system, it aims to rehabilitate them. If you have the opinion that juvenile detention centres don't work and the facts to back that up then that is a whole other issue, but that is currently what the justice system has to deal with situations like this.
You truly think that putting this kid in Juvy will solve his problems? You are truly blind.
Putting kids like him into juvy has literally our primary strategy for this kind of thing for the past fifty years. LETS KEEP ON DOING IT MAYBE ITLL WORK.
|
On October 28 2011 13:50 insomdapowahouz wrote:
the only place this case wouldnt get taken seriously is america
It really isnt that serious. It just sparks good moral debate.
|
On October 28 2011 13:46 omisa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 13:36 omisa wrote:On October 28 2011 13:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 13:33 omisa wrote:
Why on earth would you ever get the law involved over a school fight?
Instead of wasting energy and time blaming the bully/schools/system/etc and feeling sorry for the kid, why not do him a favor and teach him to stand up for himself. The fight was not that bad, at most he will have a bruised ego, but if he cant stand up for himself he is in for a hard life. I don't think you quite understand how life is supposed to work. Is that so? So do you let yourself get pushed around all day? No, I totally judo chop anyone who gets in my way, I always take the law into my own hands, and I can breathe fire. And thank goodness I'm not gay or black or a woman or any other minority, or else people would make fun of me. Well thats cool and all, but seriously, running from your problems wont fix them.
You're not supposed to always approach violence with violence. That's exactly why we have cops. The kid got his ass kicked. He didn't want to throw any punches, and he probably would have gotten knocked out anyway. And if this type of thing is allowed (getting suspended for three days is incredibly minor), it's going to happen again and again. How the heck is he going to stand up for himself? Attempt to punch the guy back? He'll still get his ass kicked.
As I said before, there's absolutely no reason why society needs to sit and watch this from the sidelines. We're not innocent bystanders here, especially when it's a hate crime. It's not like some stupid high school drama of two guys getting into an argument over a girl. It's blatant bigotry and assault for something that we can help with. Something that the police would be helping with if it were outside of school.
|
On October 28 2011 13:52 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:48 omisa wrote:On October 28 2011 13:44 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 13:42 omisa wrote:On October 28 2011 13:40 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 13:33 omisa wrote:
Why on earth would you ever get the law involved over a school fight?
Instead of wasting energy and time blaming the bully/schools/system/etc and feeling sorry for the kid, why not do him a favor and teach him to stand up for himself. The fight was not that bad, at most he will have a bruised ego, but if he cant stand up for himself he is in for a hard life. Like has been said before in this thread which you obviously haven't read: It wasn't a fight. Watch the video, it was a vicious and brutal assault. Also, teaching the kid to "stand up for himself" (i.e. fighting back) - he shouldn't need to, the assault shouldn't happen in the first place. Additionally it is a little hard to stand up for yourself when there is someone else on top of you wailing on you. Punishing the bully is not "wasting energy". TBH it wasnt that brutal, But if you think that just because violence shouldnt happen, then it wont, well i dont really know what to say to you... Violence is an inevitability, that's why we have the justice system to help protect those who cannot protect themselves. Please, dont hide behind the justice system. It doesnt protect those who cannot protect themselves, it brings them material justice. And that justice helps with deterrence of other crimes being committed. People don't violently assault others all the time because they know there are consequences of their actions. Hence, protecting them. Unfortunately, like anything, it is not a perfect system.
I do agree it is not a perfect system, but it would save many people time and money and help alleviate an already swamped legal system, if people didnt get the law involved for such a petty ordeal.
|
Pretty pathetic that some people are clueless enough to dismiss this as a "school fight". It's a vicious assault, an attack. It's a crime.
|
On October 28 2011 13:52 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
A minimum security juvenile detention centre is specifically designed for this type of crime, to rehabilitate the perpetrator so that they can become a productive member of society. Suspending him for 3 days then him just continuing to bully homosexuals afterwards is not going to benefit anyone nor will it result in him becoming a productive member of society.
You fail to understand that a juvenile detention centre doesn't just remove these problem kids from the system, it aims to rehabilitate them. If you have the opinion that juvenile detention centres don't work and the facts to back that up then that is a whole other issue, but that is currently what the justice system has to deal with situations like this.
You truly think that putting this kid in Juvy will solve his problems? You are truly blind. Putting kids like him into juvy has literally our primary strategy for this kind of thing for the past fifty years. LETS KEEP ON DOING IT MAYBE ITLL WORK.
So your problem is with the justice system.
Unfortunately the justice system can't prevent parents from raising bigoted intolerant children, but it can however punish and help rehabilitate those children who act on their hatred through violence.
Do you have facts or evidence that juvy never works? From what I can tell is you just like posting sarcastic comments in all caps. Very constructive to the debate.
On October 28 2011 13:55 omisa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:52 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 13:48 omisa wrote:On October 28 2011 13:44 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 13:42 omisa wrote:On October 28 2011 13:40 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 13:33 omisa wrote:
Why on earth would you ever get the law involved over a school fight?
Instead of wasting energy and time blaming the bully/schools/system/etc and feeling sorry for the kid, why not do him a favor and teach him to stand up for himself. The fight was not that bad, at most he will have a bruised ego, but if he cant stand up for himself he is in for a hard life. Like has been said before in this thread which you obviously haven't read: It wasn't a fight. Watch the video, it was a vicious and brutal assault. Also, teaching the kid to "stand up for himself" (i.e. fighting back) - he shouldn't need to, the assault shouldn't happen in the first place. Additionally it is a little hard to stand up for yourself when there is someone else on top of you wailing on you. Punishing the bully is not "wasting energy". TBH it wasnt that brutal, But if you think that just because violence shouldnt happen, then it wont, well i dont really know what to say to you... Violence is an inevitability, that's why we have the justice system to help protect those who cannot protect themselves. Please, dont hide behind the justice system. It doesnt protect those who cannot protect themselves, it brings them material justice. And that justice helps with deterrence of other crimes being committed. People don't violently assault others all the time because they know there are consequences of their actions. Hence, protecting them. Unfortunately, like anything, it is not a perfect system. I do agree it is not a perfect system, but it would save many people time and money and help alleviate an already swamped legal system, if people didnt get the law involved for such a petty ordeal.
Did you WATCH the video? How can you honestly try to pass this off as a "petty ordeal"?
|
This is a hate crime. Thus police should be involved.
|
On October 28 2011 13:52 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
A minimum security juvenile detention centre is specifically designed for this type of crime, to rehabilitate the perpetrator so that they can become a productive member of society. Suspending him for 3 days then him just continuing to bully homosexuals afterwards is not going to benefit anyone nor will it result in him becoming a productive member of society.
You fail to understand that a juvenile detention centre doesn't just remove these problem kids from the system, it aims to rehabilitate them. If you have the opinion that juvenile detention centres don't work and the facts to back that up then that is a whole other issue, but that is currently what the justice system has to deal with situations like this.
You truly think that putting this kid in Juvy will solve his problems? You are truly blind. Putting kids like him into juvy has literally our primary strategy for this kind of thing for the past fifty years. LETS KEEP ON DOING IT MAYBE ITLL WORK.
I think a better idea is to put him back in a place with more gay kids that he can bash, with no harsh consequences.
Oh no wait, that's you.
I can't believe your argument is "I know that nothing can fix this kid, so let's not really punish him." Maybe the justice system is flawed, but he still has to abide by the law. And those being unjustly persecuted should still be protected.
|
So your problem is with the justice system.
Unfortunately the justice system can't prevent parents from raising bigoted intolerant children, but it can however punish and help rehabilitate those children who act on their hatred through violence.
Do you have facts or evidence that juvy never works? From what I can tell is you just like posting sarcastic comments in all caps. Very constructive to the debate.
My problem isn't with the Justice system, my problem is people who see the justice system as a source of change. The justice system is a form of maintaining order.
You can lock him up so you don't see him anymore. Your world fits together now. People like him will continue to exist, in one form or other. Nothing has been changed. Exactly the way you like it.
I can't believe your argument is "I know that nothing can fix this kid, so let's not really punish him." Maybe the justice system is flawed, but he still has to abide by the law. And those being unjustly persecuted should still be protected.
No my argument is that your pushing responsibility onto a kid, which tremendously simplifies the matter, and doesn't benefit anyone. As I said before and which you have continuously failed to answer, who is the beneficiary besides yourself? The safety of the kid he assaulted could easily be arranged in such a controlled environment like a school without locking him up.
|
That is absolutely ridiculous. He needs to serve jail time. Also the fact that no one in the classroom helped to stop it is a crime in itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
