Reforming Juvenile Justice

[nageov3t]

I think trusting anyone, whether elected or not, with the power of cold blooded murder is morally wrong.

stupid christian morals... get out of my head! *shakes his fist*

 

[Moonbeam]

SoG: Others are entitled to their opinion - as am I.

M: Why are you entitled to your stupid God Damned opinion? Your stupid God Damned opinion is the reason that delinquents in many states are set up as children for a life in prison. Your stupid God Damned opinion means lives are ruined and horrible crimes will be committed. But sure, air head, you are entitled to your stupid God Damned opinion. But the facts say your stupid God Damned opinion is a piece of sh!t. Why don't you change your stupid God damned opinion in the face of real evidence. Is it because your head is the size of a giant hot air balloon to contain your preposterous ego?

SoG: Personal responsibility means knowing the limits and the consequences involved if you overstep those limits.

M: Thank you Mother, but how are YOU, who ignore real life data that says you are full of it going to be able to do something as involved as determining limits?

SoG: 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.

M: No I won't yield an inch, hehe. I said that people cannot be allowed to act out their illness on other innocent people. What I did say was that they need and profit from therapy, the exploration of their feelings of worthlessness with the whole family involved in the therapy as well under the guidance of skilled and trained people. This is treating the illness of crime with an eye to discovering its roots rather than intimidating people with fear if they commit a wrong. It is not about hugs. It is about being sensitive and intelligent in treating children rather than being an asshole whose answer to everything is to punish.

SoG: 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 punitive 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.

M: These kids are grown and already f@cked up. We aren't talking about raising children but healing sick kids. It's about growing up past destructive self hate. You have to change the message they are getting that they are worthless to one where they may begin to see that message was a lie. We are not talking about shades and good and evil. We are talking about two methodologies and mindsets in regards to what to do with delinquent kids, one of which is failing and one that works. I am trying to bring this data to people's attention knowing full well that it flies in the face of what so so many believe, and go on believing regardless of evidence.

Maybe I should just have said you are on about something that was never said or implied except as a stereotyped response to the notion of the soft liberal. You are simply having an argument with nobody here. I know you mean well. And while much of what you are saying has nothing to do with anything, you are unrelatedly right. Kids need limits etc etc etc.

 

[Cerb]

Punishment that does not solve the problem that it is the result of, is pointless.
Any decent crime is one in which you have exerted your will over another.
Putting you in jail for months is not going to fix that.

Making it clear that you have lost your rights for a time, because you took them from others, will help work, but still requires a direction to go from there. For one thing, realizing that your actions, even something as simple as shoplifting, come from you not having some proper freedom or other basic emotional need. Find that need, and make it realized, and you have solved the problem--or at least gotten much of the way there.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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.

You might want to check yourself, Moonie. Loss of freedom and time is the cruelest punishment of all.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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.

You might want to check yourself, Moonie. Loss of freedom and time is the cruelest punishment of all.

OK I am checking: What exactly do you mean? You have made a statement. To what and where do you intend it to apply. On one hand loss of f and t are not as cruel as loss of f and t plus torture or torture and death. On the other, what do you propose to do with people who act out. If you are proposing that the focus should be on raising proper children I'm all for that but we are where we are and we also have to deal with that. It would be nice if you could put a little detail and effort in your response, some clues to where you are going sometimes.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
OK I am checking: What exactly do you mean? You have made a statement. To what and where do you intend it to apply. On one hand loss of f and t are not as cruel as loss of f and t plus torture or torture and death. On the other, what do you propose to do with people who act out. If you are proposing that the focus should be on raising proper children I'm all for that but we are where we are and we also have to deal with that. It would be nice if you could put a little detail and effort in your response, some clues to where you are going sometimes.

Well, Moonie, as I've tried to explain before, we have a fundamental difference in communication. You believe that a single-minded entity named "we" or "humanity" actually exists, and I do not. There is no "we," just your "I" and my "I" and everyone else's "I". When all of our "I's" recognize the sovereignty of each other "I" and the love and respect that each deserves (simply for being an "I"), then we will be able to more properly focus on raising more proper children (among other pressing issues). That is this personal responsibility you say doesn't exist, and why I see your "we" mentality as a step backwards for our mass of "I's".

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
OK I am checking: What exactly do you mean? You have made a statement. To what and where do you intend it to apply. On one hand loss of f and t are not as cruel as loss of f and t plus torture or torture and death. On the other, what do you propose to do with people who act out. If you are proposing that the focus should be on raising proper children I'm all for that but we are where we are and we also have to deal with that. It would be nice if you could put a little detail and effort in your response, some clues to where you are going sometimes.

Well, Moonie, as I've tried to explain before, we have a fundamental difference in communication. You believe that a single-minded entity named "we" or "humanity" actually exists, and I do not. There is no "we," just your "I" and my "I" and everyone else's "I". When all of our "I's" recognize the sovereignty of each other "I" and the love and respect that each deserves (simply for being an "I"), then we will be able to more properly focus on raising more proper children (among other pressing issues). That is this personal responsibility you say doesn't exist, and why I see your "we" mentality as a step backwards for our mass of "I's".

That is a bit clearer I guess. You want to see we in an esoteric way and I just use it in an every day sort of way. I see, i think a little bit, how important that distinction is to you, however, and don't think I disagree with it. I guess, however, for every position or stance one can take there is a corresponding disease and for you it would be the disease of individualism or ego, the notion that you are somehow special because you are unique. I would tend more to see that we are all the same, created in the Image of God. The recognition of sovereignty would come from seeing in the other yourself. The facets of a gem are all gem. And I guess the disease you fear in the we is collectivism or some enforced egalitarianism. These opposites resolve in my opinion in the higher understanding I proposed, that the I and the we are aspects of God or the True Self.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That is a bit clearer I guess. You want to see we in an esoteric way and I just use it in an every day sort of way. I see, i think a little bit, how important that distinction is to you, however, and don't think I disagree with it. I guess, however, for every position or stance one can take there is a corresponding disease and for you it would be the disease of individualism or ego, the notion that you are somehow special because you are unique. I would tend more to see that we are all the same, created in the Image of God. The recognition of sovereignty would come from seeing in the other yourself. The facets of a gem are all gem. And I guess the disease you fear in the we is collectivism or some enforced egalitarianism. These opposites resolve in my opinion in the higher understanding I proposed, that the I and the we are aspects of God or the True Self.

No, you misunderstand. It is not that my singlular "I" is unique and sovereign, it is that ALL of the "I's" on earth are unique and sovereign. Think Golden Rule morality. We are each of us unique, each us of special, each of us individual, each of us sovereign. Collectivism is not egalitarian or a higher understanding, it is a repression of individuality. An opinion that your "we's" should have the power to enforce its worldview over our "we's", for "our" own good. This is why you constantly speak of how we hate ourselves, and are diseased, and should submit, etc. Just like a preacher calling on his flock to repent and be born again, and for the same reason. This submission of individuality to another human is the abomination of self, the placing of another god before God. God is our individuality, our uniqueness each of us, and not our collectivism.

 

[piasabird]

Death Penalty makes the most sense in Juvenile cases. If you execute them at 16, then they are not a drain on society for the nexe 60 years. It makes good economic sense and it makes the world a lot safer for the rest of us.

 

[Cerb]

If there is no 'we', then there is no system of laws for these kids to break, because you are alone, as is every other 'I'. But, we are not alone, and these systems do exist. The 'we', a collection of 'I's of somewhat like mind, made these systems. For the most part, the limits of actions imposed by these systems are based on those rules that a large proportion of people agree with. Those people are part of 'we'. A collective does not invalidate individuality in any way.

God is a word I'm going to leave entirely to y'all. It requires a 10' pole in situations where it has a clear definition. All it seems to be doing here, like half of the conversation, is obfuscate..

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Death Penalty makes the most sense in Juvenile cases. If you execute them at 16, then they are not a drain on society for the nexe 60 years. It makes good economic sense and it makes the world a lot safer for the rest of us.

Originally posted by: Cerb
If there is no 'we', then there is no system of laws for these kids to break, because you are alone, as is every other 'I'. But, we are not alone, and these systems do exist. The 'we', a collection of 'I's of somewhat like mind, made these systems. For the most part, the limits of actions imposed by these systems are based on those rules that a large proportion of people agree with. Those people are part of 'we'. A collective does not invalidate individuality in any way.

Given these prevalent mentalities, it is no wonder to me that my words fall flat on deaf ears.

If (for example) a thing is wrong, then the consensus of all humanity in believing it is right does not stop it from still being wrong.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is justice. I just lost my massive post.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is justice. I just lost my massive post.

Well, that sucks. I would have liked to have read it. Naturally, I respect your opinion, Moonie, even when I occasionally find it most disagreeable.

 

[Moonbeam]

Guess I'll just do a quickie:

V: No, you misunderstand. It is not that my singlular "I" is unique and sovereign, it is that ALL of the "I's" on earth are unique and sovereign.

M: Never meant that. Was referring to your I as an example of persons who believe in the I.

V: Think Golden Rule morality. We are each of us unique, each us of special, each of us individual, each of us sovereign.

M: I did, we are all created in the image of God and thus all special.

V: Collectivism is not egalitarian or a higher understanding, it is a repression of individuality. An opinion that your "we's" should have the power to enforce its worldview over our "we's", for "our" own good.

M: True, but that is not the higher understanding. Individualism leads to egotism leads to collectivism to restore balance,,,,,all of it is sick.

V: This is why you constantly speak of how we hate ourselves, and are diseased, and should submit, etc. Just like a preacher calling on his flock to repent and be born again, and for the same reason.

M: Hehe, far out. As you say moments earlier:

"If (for example) a thing is wrong, then the consensus of all humanity in believing it is right does not stop it from still being wrong."

You hate yourself. You do not know it, do not what to know it and do not want to know that you do not want to know. There is no submission, no preacher and no flock and no demand you be born again. There is only the truth within. You simply spit into the wind as an exercise in individualism.

V: This submission of individuality to another human is the abomination of self, the placing of another god before God. God is our individuality, our uniqueness each of us, and not our collectivism.

You are not talking about the self but the ego. Only YOU can be YOU. This submission is something that already happened to you. It is the truth of this about yourself that you hate and it is what keeps you from seeing. You died and are really upset.

There but one God and we are all Him except for the fact we don't know it.

Neither an individual nor a we be. Be what you really are.

 

[Vic]

On all that, Moonie, I must respectfully disagree with your opinion. There is balance -- when each of us respects all others as ourself. I do not see in your collectivism that type of balance, because of your disregard of the notion of self upon which this mass mutual respect must be based on. Choice. There must always be choice. And that is where the personal responsibility comes into play as the most necessary thing of all. And you deny it. And on that (and the denigration of self you feel is necessary), we disagree entirely and permanently.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
On all that, Moonie, I must respectfully disagree with your opinion. There is balance -- when each of us respects all others as ourself. I do not see in your collectivism that type of balance, because of your disregard of the notion of self upon which this mass mutual respect must be based on. Choice. There must always be choice. And that is where the personal responsibility comes into play as the most necessary thing of all. And you deny it. And on that (and the denigration of self you feel is necessary), we disagree entirely and permanently.

As long as people hate themselves and cannot see it, any attempt to treat others as we would be treated will lead to disaster. That we wish to be treated like sh!t is reflected in our world. Please also refer to something real and concrete when you refer to my collectivism. I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought it was you who denied choice when you said that a delinquent is the result of delinquents. And real personal responsibility means real self knowledge which means facing that old self hate. One can only choose when one is conscious. What you call choice I call wandering around in your sleep.

I am all for the sanctity of self but against the delusions of ego. Surely a delinquent would say, hey I was just being me.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is no denigration of the self in self knowledge about repressed self hate. It is simply knowing what is. The denigration comes from believing there is something wrong with you when in fact there isn't. You can find that out when you feel how you were made to feel and have the concrete evidence of the lie you were sold. You are really, I think, trying to plug the fact that we are all OK without realizing you have feelings you are not that are unconscious and unacknowledged. I am pointing out where the enemy is for those who don't see. You do not have to look and you are no less to me if you don't. I think you are OK, or as OK as my own blindness allows. And I'm all for being as responsible and caring of others as we can. I just think I see the source of where we fail, unacknowledged self hate coupled with some experience in that direction with myself and others.

Every thing that you believe is good IS good, but I'm also saying that you don't believe that in your feelings because we are cut off from what we feel.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Vic
Given these prevalent mentalities, it is no wonder to me that my words fall flat on deaf ears.

If (for example) a thing is wrong, then the consensus of all humanity in believing it is right does not stop it from still being wrong.

Wrong in your eyes, or wrong in theirs?

You are not me. I am not you. You cannot decide what is right and wrong for me, and I cannot decide what is right and wrong for you. We can decide what clear limits we will set for our interaction, though, sucn that we do not do wrong by each other. This grows to a large scale, and you get societies.

Morality is relative. It is not relative to the situation, as 'relative morality' is generally used to mean. It is, however, relative to people, and groups of those people.

Ultimately, you can only make decisions of what is right and wrong for yourself. But, you can also help others do the same for themselves, which, back to the topic, is what they are trying to do with the alternative system in Missouri.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Cerb
Wrong in your eyes, or wrong in theirs?

You are not me. I am not you. You cannot decide what is right and wrong for me, and I cannot decide what is right and wrong for you. We can decide what clear limits we will set for our interaction, though, sucn that we do not do wrong by each other. This grows to a large scale, and you get societies.

Morality is relative. It is not relative to the situation, as 'relative morality' is generally used to mean. It is, however, relative to people, and groups of those people.

Did you actually read my posts? My entire point was how about some have no right to decide for others. The sovereign right of individuals to decide for themselves, and the personal responsibility that must then come with that right of decision.

Morality OTOH is by no means relative. Wrong does not become right with the changing of the hairstyles.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Cerb
Wrong in your eyes, or wrong in theirs?

You are not me. I am not you. You cannot decide what is right and wrong for me, and I cannot decide what is right and wrong for you. We can decide what clear limits we will set for our interaction, though, such that we do not do wrong by each other. This grows to a large scale, and you get societies.

Morality is relative. It is not relative to the situation, as 'relative morality' is generally used to mean. It is, however, relative to people, and groups of those people.

Did you actually read my posts? My entire point was how about some have no right to decide for others. The sovereign right of individuals to decide for themselves, and the personal responsibility that must then come with that right of decision.

If what is right or wrong is solely to be decided by the individuals, without compromise among groups, then why don't we have a an anarchistic Utopia? Personal responsibility has little to do with it, unless you feel that taking credit for your own choices somehow enforces its own ethical code on a person.

Morality OTOH is by no means relative.

So, you know what is right is wrong for every person out there, and they cannot have something right for them that is wrong for you, or wrong for them, that is right for you?

Let's take abortion. Person A keeps her baby.
Person B has it aborted.
If right and wrong are not relative, then one of them is clearly wrong. If both are doing what is right for them, then what is right for one is not necessarily right for the other, and from that, what is right and what is wrong is relative to each of them.

However, let's take theft. No one like their belongings stolen. So, we agree on that--it is a violation of one's own rights. Then, as a large group, we decide to enforce that, by removing rights from those who have violated those rights of others; preferably in a roughly equivalent degree to the rights originally lost. That becomes a justice system, defined, run, enforced, and checked upon, not by a single person, but by a large group. A group, that might be represented by a pronoun, we, or us. If a group does not have the right to do this, then the overwhelming majority of states in the world are clearly in the 'wrong'. A justice system, which this topic is about, is entirely about enforcing the will of a large group upon that of a smaller group. It just tries to have noble goals.

Wrong does not become right with the changing of the hairstyles.

I did not express, nor imply, that it did.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Cerb
If what is right or wrong is solely to be decided by the individuals, without compromise among groups, then why don't we have a an anarchistic Utopia? Personal responsibility has little to do with it, unless you feel that taking credit for your own choices somehow enforces its own ethical code on a person.

Utopia is foolish, and anarchy is not sustainable (as some thug will always quickly rise to the top as a dictator). People enact governments to protect their individual rights, and those governments then exist with the consent of the governed. The "I" does not serve the "we", the "we" serves the "I".

So, you know what is right is wrong for every person out there, and they cannot have something right for them that is wrong for you, or wrong for them, that is right for you?

Let's take abortion. Person A keeps her baby.
Person B has it aborted.
If right and wrong are not relative, then one of them is clearly wrong. If both are doing what is right for them, then what is right for one is not necessarily right for the other, and from that, what is right and what is wrong is relative to each of them.

Your conclusion that, if right and wrong are relative then one of the above example must then be wrong, is false. One person making a left turn and another making a right turn is not a lession in morality, it is simply choice. And as such, each must bear the consequences of their decision. That is personal responsibility.

However, let's take theft. No one like their belongings stolen. So, we agree on that--it is a violation of one's own rights. Then, as a large group, we decide to enforce that, by removing rights from those who have violated those rights of others; preferably in a roughly equivalent degree to the rights originally lost. That becomes a justice system, defined, run, enforced, and checked upon, not by a single person, but by a large group. A group, that might be represented by a pronoun, we, or us. If a group does not have the right to do this, then the overwhelming majority of states in the world are clearly in the 'wrong'. A justice system, which this topic is about, is entirely about enforcing the will of a large group upon that of a smaller group. It just tries to have noble goals.

Theft is a violation of individual rights. See above, government are enacted to protect such rights. That the violator(s) are then forced to recompense via punishment for their wrong act is not a wrong in itself. It is justice, i.e. the righting of a wrong. As 2 wrongs don't make a right, it is crucial that justice not be made into revenge, thus the punishment must be limited to recompensation only. Hence, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth." No one believes in that old crap anymore though, which is why our criminal justice system is so fscked up. <edit>And that's really what this thread is all about -- we thought it would be cool to practice revenge on children, were horrified by the results, and when we stopped were then marvelled... sigh</edit>

I did not express, nor imply, that it did.

It seemed to me that you did. Now I see that you are just confused on this matter. Not an uncommon thing these days.

 

[BoberFett]

Imprisonment should be reserved for violent offenders, regardless of age. Imprisonment is required for those that pose an actual danger to society. Other crimes should simply be dealt with through public service.

Make a thief spend hundreds of hours working for free for the community. Maybe then he'll understand what it's like to see ones time and effort being stolen.

Edit: LOL, guess I should have read the entire thread before posting. This thread is no longer about juvenile punishment.

 

[Zebo]

Prison is big business. More judges, more corrections officers, more expensive union built facilities and the fat profit on top of that, more on-going contracted services and finally it gives pols a fear issue to run on...eg. "three strikes" "truth in sentencing" an other snazzy catch phases. I'm afriad any real solutions proposed in thread in like pissing in wind.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Cerb
If what is right or wrong is solely to be decided by the individuals, without compromise among groups, then why don't we have a an anarchistic Utopia? Personal responsibility has little to do with it, unless you feel that taking credit for your own choices somehow enforces its own ethical code on a person.

Utopia is foolish, and anarchy is not sustainable (as some thug will always quickly rise to the top as a dictator). People enact governments to protect their individual rights, and those governments then exist with the consent of the governed. The "I" does not serve the "we", the "we" serves the "I".

Why does the 'we' need to serve the 'I', or the 'I' need to serve the 'we'? If the 'I' is not serving the 'we', then the 'we' can't do a very good job of serving the sets of 'I's.

So, you know what is right is wrong for every person out there, and they cannot have something right for them that is wrong for you, or wrong for them, that is right for you?

Let's take abortion. Person A keeps her baby.
Person B has it aborted.
If right and wrong are not relative, then one of them is clearly wrong. If both are doing what is right for them, then what is right for one is not necessarily right for the other, and from that, what is right and what is wrong is relative to each of them.

Your conclusion that, if right and wrong are relative then one of the above example must then be wrong, is false. One person making a left turn and another making a right turn is not a lession in morality, it is simply choice. And as such, each must bear the consequences of their decision. That is personal responsibility.

What is right, and what is wrong, are choices. But, what is it that makes one choice right, and another wrong? If what is right and what is wrong does not differ between people, why is one choice good for one person, and another choice good for another?

However, let's take theft. No one like their belongings stolen. So, we agree on that--it is a violation of one's own rights. Then, as a large group, we decide to enforce that, by removing rights from those who have violated those rights of others; preferably in a roughly equivalent degree to the rights originally lost. That becomes a justice system, defined, run, enforced, and checked upon, not by a single person, but by a large group. A group, that might be represented by a pronoun, we, or us. If a group does not have the right to do this, then the overwhelming majority of states in the world are clearly in the 'wrong'. A justice system, which this topic is about, is entirely about enforcing the will of a large group upon that of a smaller group. It just tries to have noble goals.

Theft is a violation of individual rights. See above, government are enacted to protect such rights. That the violator(s) are then forced to recompense via punishment for their wrong act is not a wrong in itself. It is justice, i.e. the righting of a wrong.

Reparations would be righting a wrong. Justice is just handing out a punishment or reward based, impartially, on merit.

What makes it not wrong to hand out this justice, or even attempt the righting of a wrong? From where does the wronging get defined? Why is it that the group has the right to decide for an individual, if that individual did something that others thought to be wrong? If the individual is the one to make the choices of what is right and wrong, why can this be allowed?

"If (for example) a thing is wrong, then the consensus of all humanity in believing it is right does not stop it from still being wrong."

Yet, if you think it is wrong, and they think it is right, why are you correct, and they not? You are correct in your own mind, and they are correct in their minds. What is it that defines your being correct? What intrinsically makes either side correct?

As 2 wrongs don't make a right, it is crucial that justice not be made into revenge, thus the punishment must be limited to recompensation only. Hence, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth." No one believes in that old crap anymore though, which is why our criminal justice system is so fscked up. (edit)And that's really what this thread is all about -- we thought it would be cool to practice revenge on children, were horrified by the results, and when we stopped were then marvelled... sigh(/edit)
The server gave an error from the edit as a tag

Some people were horrified by the results. Some people. Others still believe in a kind of White Man's Burden mess.

I did not express, nor imply, that it did.

It seemed to me that you did. Now I see that you are just confused on this matter. Not an uncommon thing these days.

First, where did I express such a thing? Second, why is it that a person having a different code than yours is different than the individual having a right to decide for themselves, save that I've gone on and figured that they have already made a decision?

It's all basically the same question from a few posts ago--who sets right and wrong when it concerns another? The answer is in both the 'I' and the 'we'. Not one or the other, but both working together. The 'I' must serve the 'we', and the 'we' must serve the 'I'.

In areas where the system isn't so screwed up, as I definitely agree it mostly is, you cannot fully right a wrong. The wrong cannot be undone. However, while two wrongs do not make a right, they do have a start.

The 'I' who has done what is considered wrong by the 'we' (laws are of the system of people, not the individual) must be set aside, and have his or her rights removed, for taking them of the victim 'I'. The noble goal being to expose the person to the violation they have caused to another.

They have done this wrong because we agree that they have--not because what they have done has an instrinsic value of rightness, nor wrongness. The goal is basically to get the people working well with others, and not doing what others would see as wrong. Ideally, as this Missouri program has attempted, and possibly succeeded in, getting the people, who have done what others see as wrong, to find out why the behavior was seen as wrong, to find its cause, and to remove that cause.

Having the large set of 'I's compromising and in agreement on limits to be set is essential, and thus, making the collective 'we'. Likewise, it is eseential that the 'I's, now and in the future, support the 'we', change the nature of the 'we', or dissolve it to form a new one. With the 'I's in agreement, then certain things are defined as right, and certain things are defined as wrong, and regardless of the choices on makes, one must know and understand where those limits exist. One can still be responsible for one's self and cross those limits. Many of the limits defined are not really there for protection, but control, and thus, the problem of what person or group sets them.

An issue with juveniles is that they are not considered to be responsible, and so, not considered to have the clear choice in what is right and what is wrong. Who's right and wrong should be taught to them? This is where Missouri's method has an edge, and could also be used well in adult prisons. The right and wrong that society has set out are plain and clear. It is the duty then, of the offender, to re-evaluate his or her own right and wrong, rather than accepting the right and wrong that others have decided (barring the obvious peer pressure that will occur). This process puts responsibility, and some degree of liability, into their hands.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Imprisonment should be reserved for violent offenders, regardless of age. Imprisonment is required for those that pose an actual danger to society. Other crimes should simply be dealt with through public service.

Make a thief spend hundreds of hours working for free for the community. Maybe then he'll understand what it's like to see ones time and effort being stolen.

Edit: LOL, guess I should have read the entire thread before posting. This thread is no longer about juvenile punishment.

The thread is about what you make it about, in my opinion. I absolutely agree that violent offenders cannot be left to offend, but in what way should that be done. We can execute them, we can chemically neuter them, we can surgically alter their behavior, we can imprison them, we can separate them from civilian population is something typically not exactly a prison, and we can do the former and treat them. Everything depends, it seems to me on your vision of the origin of violence and whether it is a sickness that can be cured. The data from Missouri powerfully suggests that treatment hugely decreased recidivism for young people as opposed to states that practice harsh treatment and punishment. So while your point, I think is true, I don't think it is the issue. I fail to see how a knowledge or practice that tries to get at the core of youth delinquency has anything to do with letting people go free who are violent.