Reforming Juvenile Justice

[Moonbeam]

NPR's Talk of the Nation:

Reforming Juvenile Justice

Talk of the Nation, August 29, 2005 · States such as Louisiana have seen high rates of recidivism among young people and young adults. Some blame the juvenile justice system, in which young offenders convicted of minor offenses such as shoplifting are imprisoned with kids who've committed serious crimes such as murder or rape.

Guests debate whether the system is broken, and what might be done to lower the number of repeat offenders.

Guests:

Mark Steward, executive director of the Missouri Youth Services Institute; retired director of the Missouri Division of Youth Services; works with Louisiana Office of Youth Development to develop changes in the state's juvenile reform system

Vincent Schiraldi, director, D.C. Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services

David Utter, executive of the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana

Michael Kroll, senior editor of The Beat Within, a weekly magazine with material written by youth in California juvenile corrections facilities
===============
A fascinating listen for those with time and interest. Seems that Missouri has the lowest 5 year return to jail rate for juvenile offenders of any state in the nation and set out 30 years ago to break up the centralized punishment oriented centers and replace them with local small ones that GASP explore the kids negative feelings with their families. No punishment, no prison uniforms, but lots of TLC and applied intelligent awareness to get at the causes driving these delinquent kids. Louisiana, with a high rate of juveniles going to prison and a harsh system is taking it apart and moving to the Missouri system.

Perhaps the psychobabblers will save our lost kids. Nice to see proof in a pudding that's been baked.

 

[zendari]

They can start the reform by bringing back the death penalty.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: zendari
They can start the reform by bringing back the death penalty.

"Reforming Juvenile Justice" and "death penalty"? As much as I might support the death penalty - I doubt I would support it in juvenile cases(cases tried as juveniles). Are you suggesting we put the death penalty in play for kids?

 

[Vic]

"... 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty'. But duty is an adult virtue - indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be, a 'juvenile delinquent'. But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents - people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail." -- Robert Heinlein

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: zendari
They can start the reform by bringing back the death penalty.

"Reforming Juvenile Justice" and "death penalty"? As much as I might support the death penalty - I doubt I would support it in juvenile cases(cases tried as juveniles). Are you suggesting we put the death penalty in play for kids?

For some people like the Columbine shooter that was 17? Absolutely.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: zendari
They can start the reform by bringing back the death penalty.

"Reforming Juvenile Justice" and "death penalty"? As much as I might support the death penalty - I doubt I would support it in juvenile cases(cases tried as juveniles). Are you suggesting we put the death penalty in play for kids?

For some people like the Columbine shooter that was 17? Absolutely.

While I may understand your position in that particular case, I doubt a 17 year old Columbine shooter would have been tried in the juvenile system.

 

[zendari]

As I understand it the SCOTUS threw out the death penalty for the 17 under crowd regardless of the crime. Rapists and murderers deserve it regardless of age and mental status.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
"... 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty'. But duty is an adult virtue - indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be, a 'juvenile delinquent'. But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents - people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail." -- Robert Heinlein

This is a contradiction created solely on the artifice of years. A person of less than x years is not delinquent but one of y years is. Cannot being a juvenile delinquent mean simply being delinquent is duty compared to others of similar age. Clearly also, if every young criminal is the result of a faulty parent or guardian we can throw out the notion of personal responsibility. So what do we do with these programming failures, simply wipe them out as Zendari seem to be moving toward, or treat the matrix of the family as Missouri is doing.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: zendari
As I understand it the SCOTUS threw out the death penalty for the 17 under crowd regardless of the crime. Rapists and murderers deserve it regardless of age and mental status.

Can you give any reasons as to why other than because you say so?

 

[zendari]

It is my belief that anyone who commits murder should potentially merit the death penalty. For one reason or another we entrusted this decision to 5 unelected judges instead of our state legislatures.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
"... 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty'. But duty is an adult virtue - indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be, a 'juvenile delinquent'. But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents - people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail." -- Robert Heinlein

This is a contradiction created solely on the artifice of years. A person of less than x years is not delinquent but one of y years is. Cannot being a juvenile delinquent mean simply being delinquent is duty compared to others of similar age. Clearly also, if every young criminal is the result of a faulty parent or guardian we can throw out the notion of personal responsibility. So what do we do with these programming failures, simply wipe them out as Zendari seem to be moving toward, or treat the matrix of the family as Missouri is doing.

Wow. For someone who normally seems to post vacuous squibs this post bucks that trend. :thumbsup:

I pretty much agree with your post and line of reasoning. The only thing I'd add is that while we are hugging these criminals into reforming - we shouldn't pretend that there shouldn't be punishment involved also.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: zendari
It is my belief that anyone who commits murder should potentially merit the death penalty. For one reason or another we entrusted this decision to 5 unelected judges instead of our state legislatures.

That's it? Your belief? It is an interesting feat, no, just to believe without reason. What is the difference between what you believe in and stupidity or bigotry or any number of other things. I thought belief was a thoughtful product of reason.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: zendari
It is my belief that anyone who commits murder should potentially merit the death penalty. For one reason or another we entrusted this decision to 5 unelected judges instead of our state legislatures.

When you say "we," you're referring to the Founding Fathers. Do you believe you have greater vision than they did?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari
It is my belief that anyone who commits murder should potentially merit the death penalty. For one reason or another we entrusted this decision to 5 unelected judges instead of our state legislatures.

When you say "we," you're referring to the Founding Fathers. Do you believe you have greater vision than they did?

Not at all. But nothing is perfect, after all. Obviously the Founding Fathers were not or else we wouldn't have all these amendments.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
"... 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty'. But duty is an adult virtue - indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be, a 'juvenile delinquent'. But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents - people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail." -- Robert Heinlein

This is a contradiction created solely on the artifice of years. A person of less than x years is not delinquent but one of y years is. Cannot being a juvenile delinquent mean simply being delinquent is duty compared to others of similar age. Clearly also, if every young criminal is the result of a faulty parent or guardian we can throw out the notion of personal responsibility. So what do we do with these programming failures, simply wipe them out as Zendari seem to be moving toward, or treat the matrix of the family as Missouri is doing.

Wow. For someone who normally seems to post vacuous squibs this post bucks that trend. :thumbsup:

I pretty much agree with your post and line of reasoning. The only thing I'd add is that while we are hugging these criminals into reforming - we shouldn't pretend that there shouldn't be punishment involved also.

I think the notion of a lack of 'punishment' is exactly what Missouri has accomplished. There is a difference between punishing people and intervening when they act out.

 

[beyoku]

Just kill all kids,.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
"... 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty'. But duty is an adult virtue - indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be, a 'juvenile delinquent'. But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents - people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail." -- Robert Heinlein

This is a contradiction created solely on the artifice of years. A person of less than x years is not delinquent but one of y years is. Cannot being a juvenile delinquent mean simply being delinquent is duty compared to others of similar age. Clearly also, if every young criminal is the result of a faulty parent or guardian we can throw out the notion of personal responsibility. So what do we do with these programming failures, simply wipe them out as Zendari seem to be moving toward, or treat the matrix of the family as Missouri is doing.

Wow. For someone who normally seems to post vacuous squibs this post bucks that trend. :thumbsup:

I pretty much agree with your post and line of reasoning. The only thing I'd add is that while we are hugging these criminals into reforming - we shouldn't pretend that there shouldn't be punishment involved also.

I think the notion of a lack of 'punishment' is exactly what Missouri has accomplished. There is a difference between punishing people and intervening when they act out.

So are we right back to the personal responsibility issue(or lack there of)? Lack of consequences - just more hugs? Sorry - too hippie for me. You had me with you for a while but to strip away the notion of consequences is going backwards in my opinion.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
"... 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty'. But duty is an adult virtue - indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be, a 'juvenile delinquent'. But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents - people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail." -- Robert Heinlein

This is a contradiction created solely on the artifice of years. A person of less than x years is not delinquent but one of y years is. Cannot being a juvenile delinquent mean simply being delinquent is duty compared to others of similar age. Clearly also, if every young criminal is the result of a faulty parent or guardian we can throw out the notion of personal responsibility. So what do we do with these programming failures, simply wipe them out as Zendari seem to be moving toward, or treat the matrix of the family as Missouri is doing.

You missed Heinlein's point. The parents are deliquent in their duty to raise a proper child. Personal responsibility is for adults. Children below the age of consent should not be blamed because their parents never taught them that thieving and killing is wrong. Years are not an artifice. Or why does the newborn infant not walk and talk?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
"... 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty'. But duty is an adult virtue - indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be, a 'juvenile delinquent'. But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents - people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail." -- Robert Heinlein

This is a contradiction created solely on the artifice of years. A person of less than x years is not delinquent but one of y years is. Cannot being a juvenile delinquent mean simply being delinquent is duty compared to others of similar age. Clearly also, if every young criminal is the result of a faulty parent or guardian we can throw out the notion of personal responsibility. So what do we do with these programming failures, simply wipe them out as Zendari seem to be moving toward, or treat the matrix of the family as Missouri is doing.

Wow. For someone who normally seems to post vacuous squibs this post bucks that trend. :thumbsup:

I pretty much agree with your post and line of reasoning. The only thing I'd add is that while we are hugging these criminals into reforming - we shouldn't pretend that there shouldn't be punishment involved also.

I think the notion of a lack of 'punishment' is exactly what Missouri has accomplished. There is a difference between punishing people and intervening when they act out.

So are we right back to the personal responsibility issue(or lack there of)? Lack of consequences - just more hugs? Sorry - too hippie for me. You had me with you for a while but to strip away the notion of consequences is going backwards in my opinion.

But here again what you say is just your opinion which you cling to in the face of real numbers that show your way leads to prison for kind and the other way vastly less so. That is the point. The proof in in the pudding, not in your opinion. It is simply irrational to fly in the face of evidence. Listen to the program and see what you think then.

 

[Vic]

I don't disagree with you, Moonie. It's just that your argument is so obvious that IMO it's ridiculous that it's even being argued. Treat a shoplifting kid like a murderer, provide murderers to train him how, and of course he will become a murderer. It's only that you think we should stop here, with this small success, that I disagree with you.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
"... 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty'. But duty is an adult virtue - indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be, a 'juvenile delinquent'. But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents - people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail." -- Robert Heinlein

This is a contradiction created solely on the artifice of years. A person of less than x years is not delinquent but one of y years is. Cannot being a juvenile delinquent mean simply being delinquent is duty compared to others of similar age. Clearly also, if every young criminal is the result of a faulty parent or guardian we can throw out the notion of personal responsibility. So what do we do with these programming failures, simply wipe them out as Zendari seem to be moving toward, or treat the matrix of the family as Missouri is doing.

Wow. For someone who normally seems to post vacuous squibs this post bucks that trend. :thumbsup:

I pretty much agree with your post and line of reasoning. The only thing I'd add is that while we are hugging these criminals into reforming - we shouldn't pretend that there shouldn't be punishment involved also.

I think the notion of a lack of 'punishment' is exactly what Missouri has accomplished. There is a difference between punishing people and intervening when they act out.

So are we right back to the personal responsibility issue(or lack there of)? Lack of consequences - just more hugs? Sorry - too hippie for me. You had me with you for a while but to strip away the notion of consequences is going backwards in my opinion.

But here again what you say is just your opinion which you cling to in the face of real numbers that show your way leads to prison for kind and the other way vastly less so. That is the point. The proof in in the pudding, not in your opinion. It is simply irrational to fly in the face of evidence. Listen to the program and see what you think then.

Others are entitled to their opinion - as am I. Personal responsibility means knowing the limits and the consequences involved if you overstep those limits. Removing consequences and replacing them with hugs removes Personal responsibility(which kids are supposed to be taught and modeled while under the care of their parents). Granted(not that you'll grant me similar) ONLY using punishment isn't the answer, but likewise only hugs is not the answer. Teaching a child involves conditioning of sorts. If you condition them to expect hugs when stepping over the limits - what might you expect next time the child wants some attention? Similarly by only using punative consequences you condition them to repress the need for positive attention and thus possibly seek destructive attention. Delicate balance indeed -but only one or the other is not healthy. You see, there are shadesofgrey that must be used for solving the black and white issue of right and wrong.

 

[Vic]

Hugs? No. But prison is never an acceptable or even mildly civilized form of punishment, not even for adults. Better to whip them IMO. At least then it's over and done with. Rather than locking them up with the other "bad eggs" for the remainder of their formative youthful years.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Vic
Hugs? No. But prison is never an acceptable or even mildly civilized form of punishment, not even for adults. Better to whip them IMO. At least then it's over and done with. Rather than locking them up with the other "bad eggs" for the remainder of their formative youthful years.

A prison cell for kids? No, I don't believe that does much good and probably harms children -but removing negative consequences will not solve the problems either. The problem as I see it is that if we have society(government) taking over the role of the parent(hugs/nurture) then it strips the parents of the responsibility for raising their child. Do we really want/need the government taking the place of parents? Like I say - many shadesofgrey must be used to achive the balance needed.

As far as a punishment for adults, well, there are many things that I'd love to see changed with that portion, but we'll leave that for a different thread.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
"... 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty'. But duty is an adult virtue - indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be, a 'juvenile delinquent'. But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents - people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail." -- Robert Heinlein

This is a contradiction created solely on the artifice of years. A person of less than x years is not delinquent but one of y years is. Cannot being a juvenile delinquent mean simply being delinquent is duty compared to others of similar age. Clearly also, if every young criminal is the result of a faulty parent or guardian we can throw out the notion of personal responsibility. So what do we do with these programming failures, simply wipe them out as Zendari seem to be moving toward, or treat the matrix of the family as Missouri is doing.

You missed Heinlein's point. The parents are deliquent in their duty to raise a proper child. Personal responsibility is for adults. Children below the age of consent should not be blamed because their parents never taught them that thieving and killing is wrong. Years are not an artifice. Or why does the newborn infant not walk and talk?

I think perhaps you missed my point. Years are an artifice not in knowing the difference between an infant and an adult, but between knowing which 16 or 17 or 18 year old is a child or an adult. To base that analysis simply on age is to draw a line that doesn't exist. And the notion of personal responsibility is out the window if the adult never became an adult. Because a body is mature does not mean the mind ever grew up. In other words to assign blame to parent or child is equally silly. Humanity is ill and it's not any body's fault. There is no such thing as personal responsibility. That is an excuse that people who were tortured and now enjoy torturing other human beings tell themselves to justify their actions. The only action that is proper and demanded is that people not act out their illness. If they do they must be stopped and then offered treatment. The only punishment required is the loss of freedom to act out. And that is done not as punishment but to protect innocent people. The need to punish arises out of the pain of being punished as a child for expressing real feelings, the pain of being made to feel evil for being real and then to have to adopt the phony mask of whatever ever shifting good the parents demanded. We hate the other, the criminal because he does what we feel. He brings our our hate for ourselves. No self hate, no desire to punish,,,,just that simple.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't disagree with you, Moonie. It's just that your argument is so obvious that IMO it's ridiculous that it's even being argued. Treat a shoplifting kid like a murderer, provide murderers to train him how, and of course he will become a murderer. It's only that you think we should stop here, with this small success, that I disagree with you.

Well here I do not know exactly what you mean. Nothing could be less obvious, it seem to me than what you claim is obvious since most of the world, it seems to me is into punishment as a means of control. So it strikes me as inevitable that what I am saying is argued. My point here is that the facts on the ground say that treatment works and punishment does not and that despite what you seem to be suggesting is obvious even the facts don't budge some people. That, in my opinion, is the interesting thing. What I don't understand is the business of being interested in stopping with some small success. Where do you get and what do you mean by that?