Thread: Crime and Equality of Punishment

In an age where we all can't now fail to be aware of the fact that it is wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion, race or gender should we still put up with seeing a disproportionate number of our Jails and prisons filled with black men. Should we have equality of punishment for everybody regardless of their religion, race or gender just like we expect from other aspects of our everyday lives?

Perhaps its just some odd querk of our societies that despite over half a century of campaigns for equality in terms of both gender & race that our justice systems seemed to have changed little in the way in they routinely send black men to prison whilst by comparison very few white men and even less women are given such harsh sentences for their crimes. Is it perhaps that this area of society is being over looked, or could it be that it is actively being engineered in this way perhaps?

I pose this simple question, If people of different of different races & genders all commit the same crime should our courts pass upon them the same sentence?

Originally Posted by Ascended

In an age where we all can't now fail to be aware of the fact that it is wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion, race or gender should we still put up with seeing a disproportionate number of our Jails and prisons filled with black men.

If black men are committing more crimes , then yes.

Should we have equality of punishment for everybody regardless of their religion, race or gender just like we expect from other aspects of our everyday lives?

Yes. Do you have evidence that this is not the case?

Perhaps its just some odd querk of our societies that despite over half a century of campaigns for equality in terms of both gender & race that our justice systems seemed to have changed little in the way in they routinely send black men to prison whilst by comparison very few white men and even less women are given such harsh sentences for their crimes. Is it perhaps that this area of society is being over looked, or could it be that it is actively being engineered in this way perhaps?

I pose this simple question, If people of different of different races & genders all commit the same crime should our courts pass upon them the same sentence?

Yes. But by your way of thinking, women are underrepresented in prisons, and should be convicted at a much greater rate.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Ascended

In an age where we all can't now fail to be aware of the fact that it is wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion, race or gender should we still put up with seeing a disproportionate number of our Jails and prisons filled with black men.

If black men are committing more crimes , then yes.

Should we have equality of punishment for everybody regardless of their religion, race or gender just like we expect from other aspects of our everyday lives?

Yes. Do you have evidence that this is not the case?

Perhaps its just some odd querk of our societies that despite over half a century of campaigns for equality in terms of both gender & race that our justice systems seemed to have changed little in the way in they routinely send black men to prison whilst by comparison very few white men and even less women are given such harsh sentences for their crimes. Is it perhaps that this area of society is being over looked, or could it be that it is actively being engineered in this way perhaps?

I pose this simple question, If people of different of different races & genders all commit the same crime should our courts pass upon them the same sentence?

Yes. But by your way of thinking, women are underrepresented in prisons, and should be convicted at a much greater rate.

Ok well first up I'm suggesting that it seems rather odd that we except people as being equal for everything except crime, here we are suddenly suggesting that they are committing more crimes and thus we've locked more people up of one particular race and gender than anyone else. Seems a bit odd that we percieve this particular group of society as more criminally minded, and indeed if they are actually equal then there must indeed be some other external force at work that is scewing the figures. It seems with a prison population that is 60% black from a total population where only 30% are black then clearly there is something at work which isn't equal.

Do I have evidence to support the idea that people shouldn't be given equality of punishment for everybody regardless of their religion, race or gender?, no I'm asking here whether people should be treated with equality. I do have evidence to support the prison population figures though from the DOJ:
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Prisoners in 2010 (Revised)

The last point is a bit of a misunderstanding, I'm not calling for armies of women to be convicted of crimes, what I'm asking here is that if we are to have an equal society for everyone then should everybody expect the same punishment if they commit a crime, regardless of their race or gender, just like they might expect to be given the same salary if they do the same job.

What I'm trying to gage is people's view's towards the criminal aspect of equality for both race and gender.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Ok well first up I'm suggesting that it seems rather odd that we except people as being equal for everything except crime, here we are suddenly suggesting that they are committing more crimes and thus we've locked more people up of one particular race and gender than anyone else. Seems a bit odd that we percieve this particular group of society as more criminally minded, and indeed if they are actually equal then there must indeed be some other external force at work that is scewing the figures.

We don't merely perceive it as such. It is borne out by crime statistics. I assume you are referring to US statistics, because I haven't heard this is the case elsewhere. Regardless of the causes, you must deal with the facts, which do not fit your pre-conceived notion that all races should commit crimes at equal rates.

It seems with a prison population that is 60% black from a total population where only 30% are black then clearly there is something at work which isn't equal.

It's a different sub-culture with different standards of behavior.

Do I have evidence to support the idea that people shouldn't be given equality of punishment for everybody regardless of their religion, race or gender?, no I'm asking here whether people should be treated with equality. I do have evidence to support the prison population figures though from the DOJ:
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Prisoners in 2010 (Revised)

The last point is a bit of a misunderstanding, I'm not calling for armies of women to be convicted of crimes, what I'm asking here is that if we are to have an equal society for everyone then should everybody expect the same punishment if they commit a crime, regardless of their race or gender, just like they might expect to be given the same salary if they do the same job.

What I'm trying to gage is people's view's towards the criminal aspect of equality for both race and gender.

Why do you suppose that women are incarcerated at different rates than men?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Why do you suppose that women are incarcerated at different rates than men?

From the perspective of US law please feel free to correct me here if I'm a little behind the curve here because the most up to date information I could obtain on the equality of sentencing guidelines dates from a 2005 supreme court ruling that over turned the attempted introduction of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, these guidelines were very much intended to, and would have indeed mandated, ensure judges give out equal sentences for both men and women.

I think it was the cases United States v Booker, No. 04-104, and United States v
Fanfan, No. 04-105 on which the Supreme Court based it's decision.

The effect of the Supreme Court ruling left judges the discretion to choose how they would interpret or even follow guidelines as a result thus notions of equality were subject entirely to their whim of efficacy.

With regard to UK law, certainly consecutive updates to sentencing guidelines have repeatedly recommended different sentences for men and women, possibly the distinct lack of female prison places might have some baring on helping to explain this though.

Do you think it has to do with sentencing guidelines? It couldn't have anything to do with they type and number of crimes committed by women, then?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Do you think it has to do with sentencing guidelines? It couldn't have anything to do with they type and number of crimes committed by women, then?

Ok here firstly the crimes being committed by women shouldn't, at least in my opinion, have any bearing on whether they are given an equal sentence to that of men. Perhaps if we are to see a truely equal society, based on a notion of total equality for race and gender then we should expect to that people are convicted of crimes at similar rate. If people are indeed equal then as a statistic of the population why wouldn't they commit crimes at equal rate? Given that these statistics don't tally it perhaps suggests we still have along way to go towards creating an equal society.

Given that we are seeing different outcomes based on race and gender across the crime statistics then we either have to accept it's either down to fundamental differences between the people themselves or that it is due to differences in the way that people are being delt with by the criminal justice system.

Do you think people should be treated equally and if so do you think this will have any effect on changing outcomes so that they become more representative?

Why do you suppose that women are incarcerated at different rates than men?

Since women are generally weaker than men and "softer", people tend to think they are innocent, they are more willing to buy into female's excuses, and they think it's worse for a man to commit a certain crime than for a woman. If you hear that there is domestic violence amongst a heterosexual couple, most people automatically assume man = perpetrator and woman = victim and we need to help the woman.
As a result of stuff like this, women spend, on average, 40% less time in jail for committing the exact same crime.

Getting back to the race side of the OP, I'm quite sure there may well be some racial issues with courts, juries and judges. But I'd have thought the biggest issue would be who gets investigated or arrested in the first place - with the police and the prosecutors. There's a reason why the expression driving while black has been around since the 90s.

As far as anyone knows there's very little difference white and black people in drug use, but if you're more likely to be picked up for minor traffic violations then your statistically normal likelihood of having drugs or drug gear in the car or on your person suddenly means that you're much more likely to finish up in court. So judges, juries and the whole court system could be impeccably impartial and you'll still end up with a disproportionate number of black people convicted and doing time if the initial detection and investigation process is skewed.

As for women and men and domestic violence.

The numbers are bit hard to extract because of reporting/ categorisation problems and that research into men as victims is a lot more recent. There's one particular issue that needs a bit more work ...
1. "mutual brawling" - women start physical exchanges almost as often as men in mutual violence incidents - but it looks like male violence because...
2. men are much more likely to inflict serious injury requiring hospitalisation, or lethal violence.

See the wiki Domestic violence against men - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The simple tally of physical acts is typically found to be similar in those studies that examine both directions, but some studies show that male violence may be more serious. Male violence may do more damage than female violence; women are more likely to be injured and/or hospitalized. Female partners are more likely to be killed by their male partners than the reverse (62.1% to 37.9% per Department of Justice study), and women in general are more likely to be killed by their spouses than by all other types of assailants combined.

...
In a Los Angeles Times article about male victims of domestic violence, Fiebert suggests that "...consensus in the field is that women are as likely as men to strike their partner but that—as expected—women are more likely to be injured than men."

In a 2002 review of the research however Michael Kimmel found that violence is instrumental in maintaining control and that more than 90% of "systematic, persistent, and injurious" violence is perpetrated by men. ....Kimmel argues that among various other flaws, the CTS is particularly vulnerable to reporting bias because it depends on asking people to accurately remember and report what happened during the past year. Men tend to underestimate their use of violence, while women tend to overestimate their use of violence. Simultaneously men tend to overestimate their partner's use of violence while women tend to underestimate their partner's use of violence. Thus, men will likely overestimate their victimization, while women tend to underestimate theirs.

More details with some comparisons between men and women here. Domestic violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by adelady

Getting back to the race side of the OP, I'm quite sure there may well be some racial issues with courts, juries and judges. But I'd have thought the biggest issue would be who gets investigated or arrested in the first place - with the police and the prosecutors. There's a reason why the expression driving while black has been around since the 90s.

Racial profiling only goes so far to explain the discrepancy in crime rates, which is to say not very far at all. For example, it does not explain the concentration of crime in ethnic neighborhoods.

A crime is a crime.

Male or female.

Same crime, same punishment.

Should have nothing to do with race or gender.

You do it. You pay.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by adelady

Getting back to the race side of the OP, I'm quite sure there may well be some racial issues with courts, juries and judges. But I'd have thought the biggest issue would be who gets investigated or arrested in the first place - with the police and the prosecutors. There's a reason why the expression driving while black has been around since the 90s.

Racial profiling only goes so far to explain the discrepancy in crime rates, which is to say not very far at all. For example, it does not explain the concentration of crime in ethnic neighborhoods.

Perhaps then Harold you could indeed explain why you feel that racial profiling doesn't explain the discrepancy in the crime figures, do you have a reason for this particular view or another reason perhaps that you feel better explains it?

It seems there has to be some reason why there are more black men in prison than either white men or women and if it isn't down to the way they are delt with by the courts then indeed what other possible reasons does that leave?

The reason there are more black males in prison in the USA is beep cause society doesn't break the cycle. They commit a much, much higher number of crimes per capita...but why?

Canadian justice and that of most western Nations is not about punishment but about what's best for society. Natives are much more involved in crime but removing male influence from families isn't to the benefit of Native people.

The same with women. They receive lighter sentences on average but a woman being in prison isn't accomplishing much for society. They tend not to be violent.

Young offenders, with only a few exceptional cases, are released at adulthood even for crimes such as murder, etc. and their past record is sealed and not part of the adult criminal system. The idea is that this gives them more chance to start adulthood without a cloud overhanging them.

Anyways, the attempt is to break the cycle. Fewer individuals in jail, less crime. More productive citizens. If a women drowns her children in the USA she will go to jail for 25 years. In Canada, more likely 2 years and placed back in society with supervised expectations. In the USA her release would be 'an outrage'...in Canada not likely to make the news as it is seen as much as a health or behavioural issue as one of a crime. The more you can keep offenders in a healthy social structure, the less potential issues.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Perhaps then Harold you could indeed explain why you feel that racial profiling doesn't explain the discrepancy in the crime figures, do you have a reason for this particular view or another reason perhaps that you feel better explains it?

It seems there has to be some reason why there are more black men in prison than either white men or women and if it isn't down to the way they are delt with by the courts then indeed what other possible reasons does that leave?

The reason racial profiling does not explain it is what I already pointed out. The crime rates are much higher in areas with higher black population. This means either blacks commit more crime or that whites are entering black neighborhood to commit their crimes, then they are framing and unjustly convicting black people for those crimes. It just isn't credible.

Does anyone think there is a case for giving people different sentences for the same crime if it means we end up with a more representative prison population?
This would be something like the justice systems version of affirmative action (US) or possitive discrimination (UK), the reason I'm asking is to see how this compares with other attempts to make society more representative on both race and gender grounds. If there is a reason why such attempts may work in one aspect of life and not another one, or indeed if it should be the same for every aspect.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Ascended

Perhaps then Harold you could indeed explain why you feel that racial profiling doesn't explain the discrepancy in the crime figures, do you have a reason for this particular view or another reason perhaps that you feel better explains it?

It seems there has to be some reason why there are more black men in prison than either white men or women and if it isn't down to the way they are delt with by the courts then indeed what other possible reasons does that leave?

The reason racial profiling does not explain it is what I already pointed out. The crime rates are much higher in areas with higher black population. This means either blacks commit more crime or that whites are entering black neighborhood to commit their crimes, then they are framing and unjustly convicting black people for those crimes. It just isn't credible.

But isn't that just stereotyping black people as being more criminally minded by suggesting they are committing more crimes, also even if that is so it wouldn't explain why one race could or would be more criminally minded.

Originally Posted by Ascended

But isn't that just stereotyping black people as being more criminally minded by suggesting they are committing more crimes, also even if that is so it wouldn't explain why one race could or would be more criminally minded.

It is not stereotyping if the statistics show that it is true. It is just a plain fact. There is no sense attempting to deny it. It is better to recognize reality and try to find the reasons and the solutions.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Ascended

But isn't that just stereotyping black people as being more criminally minded by suggesting they are committing more crimes, also even if that is so it wouldn't explain why one race could or would be more criminally minded.

It is not stereotyping if the statistics show that it is true. It is just a plain fact. There is no sense attempting to deny it. It is better to recognize reality and try to find the reasons and the solutions.

I really like the way you crafted your reply. You have managed to stick rigidly to the this notion that the statistics are showing more black being convicted of more crimes thus black people just simply must be committing more crimes. Whilst at the same time asking that everyone accept this as given and that we should attempt understand the reasons why.

But the problem here is that it presupposes that black people are committing more crimes and that is why the statistics are the way they are. When clearly we could be asking why it is that the statistics are giving us this picture that black are being convicted at greater rate, this indeed could be explained by either them being targeted at a disproportionate rate as adelady suggested or indeed the possibility that I raised in the opening post that they are being treated unequally by the courts.

But anyway we are getting away from the real issue I was trying to raise with this thread, that being of people opinions regarding whether when someone commits a crime they should be given an equal punishment for that crime regardless of their race, religion or gender inspite of the current inequalities of prison populations.

I was hoping to raise awareness of this this idea that people can accept that it's ok to discriminate in some areas such as education & employment for example or the basis of race or gender in order to bring about a fairer or more proportionate society, yet at the same time holding the strong view that all crimes should be delt with equally by the courts even though prison population are blatantley disproportionate. How and why this idea came about ect.... Whilst still maintaining a strong personal view that all discrimination is wrong at any level.

Originally Posted by Ascended

I really like the way you crafted your reply. You have managed to stick rigidly to the this notion that the statistics are showing more black being convicted of more crimes thus black people just simply must be committing more crimes. Whilst at the same time asking that everyone accept this as given and that we should attempt understand the reasons why.

But the problem here is that it presupposes that black people are committing more crimes and that is why the statistics are the way they are. When clearly we could be asking why it is that the statistics are giving us this picture that black are being convicted at greater rate, this indeed could be explained by either them being targeted at a disproportionate rate as adelady suggested or indeed the possibility that I raised in the opening post that they are being treated unequally by the courts.

No, it cannot be explained that way, for the reasons I have given. You can verify this for yourself, from crime statistics published on the internet. I am talking about crimes committed, not people convicted. Just pick any 10 cities and plot the crime rate versus percentage of black population. If you don't believe it, come and visit one of those cities. Walk the streets, or leave a car parked there overnight and see what happens.
Why are you willing to believe that white people are falsely arresting blacks, trumping up evidence, and committing perjury to falsely convict them on a massive scale? But you won't believe crime is higher in black neighborhoods.

But anyway we are getting away from the real issue I was trying to raise with this thread, that being of people opinions regarding whether when someone commits a crime they should be given an equal punishment for that crime regardless of their race, religion or gender inspite of the current inequalities of prison populations.

Nope. We are dealing with your original contention that blacks are not given equal treatment. This supposition is based on your ideological and unfounded belief that it cannot be a real difference in behavior.

I was hoping to raise awareness of this this idea that people can accept that it's ok to discriminate in some areas such as education & employment for example or the basis of race or gender in order to bring about a fairer or more proportionate society, yet at the same time holding the strong view that all crimes should be delt with equally by the courts even though prison population are blatantley disproportionate. How and why this idea came about ect.... Whilst still maintaining a strong personal view that all discrimination is wrong at any level.

Nobody has disputed that people should be dealt with equally before the law. That is not even a matter for debate.

But again you are using the arrest/conviction rates to justify the notion that more black people are committing crimes, what I'm suggesting is there could be other explantions for the statistics that don't presuppose that black people are committing more crimes. Regardless of the statistics unless we could know for certain of every crime committed and of which race the criminal was that committed we still can't say with accuracy that more crimes are being committed by black people.

However if indeed you start with the notion that more black people commit crimes then indeed more would be arrested and convicted which would skew the figures, however if you start with the notion that there is no reason why a crime is more likely to be committed by a black person than a white or hispanic person then people of all races would be arrested at similar rate, thus avoiding the whole problem of disproportionate racial profiling.

Ok you state "We are dealing with your original contention that blacks are not given equal treatment. This supposition is based on your ideological and unfounded belief that it cannot be a real difference in behavior."

Ok this is not based on any unfounded belief, this is based upon a starting point of equality, where everybody is equal, unless or until some reason has been identified that gives us cause to believe they would behave differently with regard to criminality. But that's beside the point because you seem unwilling to consider any possibility that suggests that black people might not actually be committing more crimes and indeed there are other factors at play that have skewed the crime figures.

The last point exactly as you have confirmed "Nobody has disputed that people should be dealt with equally before the law. That is not even a matter for debate.", now here most people agree that everyone should be treated equally. However I was trying to contrast this viewpoint regarding equality in treatment before the law over crime with notions of using forms of discrimination in other areas of society such as education & employment to ensure that under represented members of society have a greater chance to succeed than the groups who are over represented.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Does anyone think there is a case for giving people different sentences for the same crime if it means we end up with a more representative prison population?
This would be something like the justice systems version of affirmative action (US) or possitive discrimination (UK), the reason I'm asking is to see how this compares with other attempts to make society more representative on both race and gender grounds. If there is a reason why such attempts may work in one aspect of life and not another one, or indeed if it should be the same for every aspect.

The number in prison is of course a product of how many are sentenced AND how long those sentences last. As Harold points out the first might not be too much of a problem if in fact some haplogroup commit more crime; this is true regardless if the underlying reasons (mostly socioeconomic). The length of sentence given though show considerable difference, with African Americans sentences more than 20% longer than the same crimes of European, and differences in whether the guilty are even incarerated at all depending on ethnic group and gender. There are a bunch of studies that confirm this: descent. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...7#.UoLKfvkqh8E

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Ascended

Does anyone think there is a case for giving people different sentences for the same crime if it means we end up with a more representative prison population?
This would be something like the justice systems version of affirmative action (US) or possitive discrimination (UK), the reason I'm asking is to see how this compares with other attempts to make society more representative on both race and gender grounds. If there is a reason why such attempts may work in one aspect of life and not another one, or indeed if it should be the same for every aspect.

The number in prison is of course a product of how many are sentenced AND how long those sentences last. As Harold points out the first might not be too much of a problem if in fact some haplogroup commit more crime; this is true regardless if the underlying reasons (mostly socioeconomic). The length of sentence given though show considerable difference, with African Americans sentences more than 20% longer than the same crimes of European, and differences in whether the guilty are even incarerated at all depending on ethnic group and gender. There are a bunch of studies that confirm this: descent. An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Cheers Lynx, that's quite helpful. What I'm trying to understand though is why Harold seems convinced that the crime figures must mean that more black people are committing crimes. I just can't get there based on the figures alone because there are potentially other explanations that don't presuppose one racial group is more prone to committing crimes than another one.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Cheers Lynx, that's quite helpful. What I'm trying to understand though is why Harold seems convinced that the crime figures must mean that more black people are committing crimes. I just can't get there based on the figures alone because there are potentially other explanations that don't presuppose one racial group is more prone to committing crimes than another one.

Let me try this one more time. I am starting with crime rate by city. This is not a measure of who is arrested or convicted, or how long they serve in prison. It is just the crime rate for a given locality. Now plot this for each city against the percentage of blacks, hispanics, whites and asians as reported in the latest census data for the city. These numbers are in no way biased by how anybody is treated by the criminal justice system. If these data do show a correlation between black and hispanic populations and high crime rates (they will) then how would you explain it?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Ascended

Cheers Lynx, that's quite helpful. What I'm trying to understand though is why Harold seems convinced that the crime figures must mean that more black people are committing crimes. I just can't get there based on the figures alone because there are potentially other explanations that don't presuppose one racial group is more prone to committing crimes than another one.

Let me try this one more time. I am starting with crime rate by city. This is not a measure of who is arrested or convicted, or how long they serve in prison. It is just the crime rate for a given locality. Now plot this for each city against the percentage of blacks, hispanics, whites and asians as reported in the latest census data for the city. These numbers are in no way biased by how anybody is treated by the criminal justice system. If these data do show a correlation between black and hispanic populations and high crime rates (they will) then how would you explain it?

Actually that explanation was quite good at explaining your point of view, I understand what you mean much more clearly now, but I still don't agree, sorry. Let me now lay out where I'm having a problem getting to your position. First off out of all the actual crimes committed only a certain percentage ever get reported, out of the one's being reported only a certain amount ever get a suspect arrested and of the suspects arrested only a percentage ever results in a conviction. What this means is that at each stage there is the opportunity for over representation of one racial group over another, without them ever having actually had to commit more crimes. Now if we could know of every crime then we could use the figures to give us an accurate picture of who is really committing the crimes and at what rate. We don't know of every crime and obviously more resources are put into what are percieved as high crime areas then they are natually going to arrest more people, then when the suspects arrive in court again if it is percieved they are more prone to criminality they are more likely to be convicted. There just seems to many ways in which the figures could be being skewed I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Ascended

First off out of all the actual crimes committed only a certain percentage ever get reported, out of the one's being reported only a certain amount ever get a suspect arrested and of the suspects arrested only a percentage ever results in a conviction. What this means is that at each stage there is the opportunity for over representation of one racial group over another, without them ever having actually had to commit more crimes.

You seem to be clinging desperately to an ideological belief in the face of the facts. If you think crime is being under-reported in majority white neighborhoods (which is ridiculous), then just look at murders alone. Surely you can't believe that someone will get killed and it won't be reported to the police. Can you? Why are you still talking about arrests and convictions when I am specifically referring only to the statistics on crimes committed.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Ascended

First off out of all the actual crimes committed only a certain percentage ever get reported, out of the one's being reported only a certain amount ever get a suspect arrested and of the suspects arrested only a percentage ever results in a conviction. What this means is that at each stage there is the opportunity for over representation of one racial group over another, without them ever having actually had to commit more crimes.

You seem to be clinging desperately to an ideological belief in the face of the facts. If you think crime is being under-reported in majority white neighborhoods (which is ridiculous), then just look at murders alone. Surely you can't believe that someone will get killed and it won't be reported to the police. Can you? Why are you still talking about arrests and convictions when I am specifically referring only to the statistics on crimes committed.

Ok perhaps you can bring some of your experience to bear here and help me understand the error in my logic regarding this. If you could point at what point I'm going wrong and the mistake I'm making then I can constructively learn from that, cheers.

This is the way I worked it out. In order to know the race of the person who has committed a crime, they must first be arrested and then convicted of that crime. Prior to this because everybody is considered innocent until proven guilty we cannot know who committed the crime or their race.

Now given this fact in order to have statistics about the race of the people who have committed crimes it would first require they actually know who indeed had committed the crimes and again for this they need to know the conviction rates for those crimes.

My logic is that if we cannot know for certain of every crime committed then we can't have an accurate picture of people of a particular race committing more crimes, the committed crime statistics clearly couldn't take into consideration crimes that were not known about, likewise if people weren't arrested or convicted for the crimes again here the crimes committed statistics couldn't possibly know of the race of the people guilty of committing these crimes.

This is why I feel that we cannot use recorded committed crime statistics to know for certain that one race of people commits more crimes than another.
At each stage of the process before we can obtain the crimes committed statistics we have great potential for the figures to be skewed by other factors such as non reporting or detection of crimes, racial profiling and a greater presumption that one race are more criminally minded than another leading to increased conviction rates for people of that race.

I suppose then we can't know anything for certain but so what?

I 'guess' than 18 year old native males commit more violent crimes than 60 year old white females.

Meanwhile, back in the real world of day to day living our young native males have high rates of theft to feed drug and alcohol abuse...violence, especially towards native women, etc. Our prisons have a high proportion of young native males... Higher than 60 year old white women who are somehow managing to hide their violent crimes...weird how the bodies are not found.

Anyways, in our society natives tend to be under represented in prison based on crime numbers even though their per capita rate of being in prison is much higher. It's only after several crimes, treatments, etc. that they are sent to prison. I tend to be a liberal and would have hardly anyone in prison. However, I don't see any unfair representation of a group in prison. If there are higher numbers of a group it is because of social issues and not justice issues.

Originally Posted by Fossilborealis

Our prisons have a high proportion of young native males... Higher than 60 year old white women who are somehow managing to hide their violent crimes...weird how the bodies are not found.

Hey that made me smile

But back to a more seriousness note though, it's kind of strange how we can just accept certain preconceptions like for example that an 18 year old male must be more likely to commit violent crime the a 60 year old female, but we can find it so difficult to accept that there actually might be other reasons for high crime statistics of one race, or that they arn't necessarily all more prone to commit crimes.

Nobody ever said they are necessarily all prone to commit more crime. However, if a sufficient number of them do, then you will naturally find that the arrest and conviction rate will be greater than that of the general population.
Consider the data below. It does show a correlation between black population and higher murder rate. This does not mathematically prove that blacks commit more murders, but if they don't, you need an alternate hypothesis. It would mean that (a) whites in the high crime cities commit many more murders than whites in low crime cities (but blacks in high crime cities do not), or (b) whites are visiting high crime cities to commit their crimes, or (c) murders are covered up in lower crime cities. Do you think any of these are credible, or do you have another hypothesis?

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate"]United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a problem with domestic violence among native Hawai'ians also. It is a big problem........sadly.

I want to know whether high crime rate is due to violation of fundamental rights.

Originally Posted by parag29081973

I want to know whether high crime rate is due to violation of fundamental rights.

What makes you think there's such things as "fundamental rights"?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by parag29081973

I want to know whether high crime rate is due to violation of fundamental rights.

What makes you think there's such things as "fundamental rights"?

He's probably read Locke. Which isn't cryptic, despite being lock.

I want to know whether high crime rate is due to violation of fundamental rights.

What makes you think the crime rate is high?

It's always higher than people would like, but violent crime has been steadily decreasing in all advanced industrial societies for a few decades now. Don't know about other crime rates, but violence is the one we worry about most I would have thought.

I wish I could remember the author's name, but he looked at data about illegal drugs in the waste water, and used that to argue that certain groups of people really are disproportionately convicted of drug use. I suppose that would be more of a geographical analysis that only indirectly shows the relationship between criminalization and socio-economic class. And it can't tell you if there are 100 heavy users or a thousand light users. Even so, the measurements are sensitive enough to detect spikes from weekend partying and exam week on campuses and have indicated that over all use rates and arrest rates don't correlate. At anyrate, I thought it was an interesting form of evidence.
'
Some related links:
Real-Time Wastewater Analysis Shows What Drugs Are Being Used Where | Popular Science

Estimating Community Drug Abuse by Wastewater Analysis


This article is not about waste water, but just self reported use and arrests for marijuana.
The black/white marijuana arrest gap, in nine charts - The Washington Post

You guys ever ask yourselves why minorities (Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, ect.) that grow up in middle class situations don't tend to go down criminal paths and act much differently, than those that do grow up in low income situations, which whom tend to go more towards crime and drugs.

Its all environment, because it has nothing to do with race or ethnic background. If it was the other way around, we would be asking why are whites causing so much crime..

Originally Posted by Ascended

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Ascended

First off out of all the actual crimes committed only a certain percentage ever get reported, out of the one's being reported only a certain amount ever get a suspect arrested and of the suspects arrested only a percentage ever results in a conviction. What this means is that at each stage there is the opportunity for over representation of one racial group over another, without them ever having actually had to commit more crimes.

You seem to be clinging desperately to an ideological belief in the face of the facts. If you think crime is being under-reported in majority white neighborhoods (which is ridiculous), then just look at murders alone. Surely you can't believe that someone will get killed and it won't be reported to the police. Can you? Why are you still talking about arrests and convictions when I am specifically referring only to the statistics on crimes committed.

Ok perhaps you can bring some of your experience to bear here and help me understand the error in my logic regarding this. If you could point at what point I'm going wrong and the mistake I'm making then I can constructively learn from that, cheers.

This is the way I worked it out. In order to know the race of the person who has committed a crime, they must first be arrested and then convicted of that crime. Prior to this because everybody is considered innocent until proven guilty we cannot know who committed the crime or their race.

Now given this fact in order to have statistics about the race of the people who have committed crimes it would first require they actually know who indeed had committed the crimes and again for this they need to know the conviction rates for those crimes.

My logic is that if we cannot know for certain of every crime committed then we can't have an accurate picture of people of a particular race committing more crimes, the committed crime statistics clearly couldn't take into consideration crimes that were not known about, likewise if people weren't arrested or convicted for the crimes again here the crimes committed statistics couldn't possibly know of the race of the people guilty of committing these crimes.

I must jump in here. The problem with your logic Ascended, is that the problems you're citing - things like profiling or unsympathetic juries - those things could cause a small statistical shift. Yes. But they could never cause a gargantuan shift. Profiling usually won't cause innocent people to get caught. Unsympathetic juries still do tend to acquit if the evidence isn't sufficient to convict.

However, the difference in crime statistics between black and white people in the USA is not small. It is gargantuan. Yes, it probably is the result of social and economic conditions, and not genetic predisposition, but the cause doesn't matter to this discussion. The fact is that, regardless of what is causing it, it is a reality. It probably shouldn't be, but "should" does not equal "is".

If it were small, I would agree with you. If it were small, it could be the system's fault. But a big difference would require the authorities to be utterly inept when it comes to catching white offenders. I mean really, extremely, inept. Nearly all white offenders would have to be almost never getting caught.

This is why I feel that we cannot use recorded committed crime statistics to know for certain that one race of people commits more crimes than another.
At each stage of the process before we can obtain the crimes committed statistics we have great potential for the figures to be skewed by other factors such as non reporting or detection of crimes, racial profiling and a greater presumption that one race are more criminally minded than another leading to increased conviction rates for people of that race.

No. There is not a "great potential" . There is a small potential, but not a great one.

Originally Posted by AndresKiani

You guys ever ask yourselves why minorities (Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, ect.) that grow up in middle class situations don't tend to go down criminal paths and act much differently, than those that do grow up in low income situations, which whom tend to go more towards crime and drugs.

Its all environment, because it has nothing to do with race or ethnic background. If it was the other way around, we would be asking why are whites causing so much crime..

This is very likely true. Too many black people are on welfare. People on welfare tend to commit crimes. Too much time on their hands. And they can't earn legitimate income without voiding the terms of their welfare check.

Trouble is there doesn't appear to be a good career path for people in the black community to go into. In the 40's, 50's an up to about the late 70's manufacturing work was a way lots of black people made their livings. Indeed, the introduction of black workers onto the assembly lines during WW2 is sometimes credited as having played a role in the transition toward racial equality in the USA.

But sometime in the early 80's, all the manufacturing in the USA began moving off shore. That left a lot of people on welfare, and they found it difficult to break into other professions.

(I'm hoping that it will be clear at this point that I am not faulting them for being in this position, merely pointing out that they are.)

Most of the semi-skilled trades, like carpentry, plumbing, or truck driving - are all very white dominated (although Mexican and Russian immigrant workers are starting to make inroads into these professions, and sikhs are a common sight in trucking ). Not saying a black person can't get hired on, but the whole crew he works with will be white rednecks. He'll either need to start listening to country music and going hunting on the weekends, or get used to feeling left out of the conversations.

The social models we work from often ignore social networking, even though social networking is a very real issue. If you are a white redneck with friends already working as outdoor electricians, you'll find it a lot easier to get onto a crew working as an outdoor electrician. If a black person were in the same situation they could do it too.... but too few black people are in that position right now.

This is very likely true. Too many black people are on welfare. People on welfare tend to commit crimes. Too much time on their hands. And they can't earn legitimate income without voiding the terms of their welfare check.

It's doubtful that being on welfare contributes to criminality; they are both the result of low socioeconomic status, and often low community and state resources to support them with effective education or economic opportunities. And contrary to many ill informed opinions those on welfare are often the hardest working trying to raise children, cooking at home, taking classes at a community college and struggling exhausted getting from day to day on their meager incomes.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

This is very likely true. Too many black people are on welfare. People on welfare tend to commit crimes. Too much time on their hands. And they can't earn legitimate income without voiding the terms of their welfare check.

It's doubtful that being on welfare contributes to criminality; they are both the result of low socioeconomic status, and often low community and state resources to support them with effective education or economic opportunities. And contrary to many ill informed opinions those on welfare are often the hardest working trying to raise children, cooking at home, taking classes at a community college and struggling exhausted getting from day to day on their meager incomes.

There are enough white people on welfare also. I agree with the poverty stances here. As the gap between the haves and the have not increases you're going to see the numbers equalize. Minorities have generally been on the low end of finances in this country "We don't hire them." You can only be exploited for so long before you start to get angry and want a little more for your efforts. The other side to the profiling and what not is that the white cops are so busy looking after the non white people that they don't notice old whitey breaking all of the laws.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

This is very likely true. Too many black people are on welfare. People on welfare tend to commit crimes. Too much time on their hands. And they can't earn legitimate income without voiding the terms of their welfare check.

It's doubtful that being on welfare contributes to criminality; they are both the result of low socioeconomic status, and often low community and state resources to support them with effective education or economic opportunities. And contrary to many ill informed opinions those on welfare are often the hardest working trying to raise children, cooking at home, taking classes at a community college and struggling exhausted getting from day to day on their meager incomes.

Well, yeah. I'm not thinking that single mothers are likely to become criminals.

Single men on welfare, though, or collecting some other kind of government money. A single man without a job is a formula for criminality. Too much time to sit around and plan crimes.

When a group of jobless, uneducated, men meet together, probably the first thing they're going to talk about is sports. Then they'll discuss favorite TV shows (mostly violent.) Then their economic situation. Then some guy in the group will have a very naive plan for a business, but the group will realize that it's naive before it really goes anywhere. Others plans for such businesses may get floated as time goes on, all very naive and unlikely to be profitable.

Sooner or later, someone will propose the one (and only) type of business that a group of uneducated men can reliably hope to make money at.

@ Harold14370, nice stats and graph, but I think the murder rate numbers are per 100,000 ... that's the standard rate for demographics (I don't know why). I know Gary IN is very black, so I checked — 84% black with a 2012 murder rate of 37; however, its murder rate was in the 40s to 80s for 2000 through 2009. source

###

@ everyone, I live near Boston, and the black-on-black crimes such as murders, shootings, drive-by shootings, etc occur at conspicuously higher rates than the same white-on-white crimes. And sadly, they are bad shots, so they also hit innocent bystanders, which causes even more distress and alarm. Black-on-black drive-bys were epidemic in the 1990s.

###

Let's look at the rationale behind incarceration. Traditionally, courts incarcerated criminals for three purposes — protect society, punish criminals, and rehabilitate criminals. In recent decades, America has pretty much despaired of rehabilitating criminals due mostly to the rampant crime rate in the second half of the 20th Century. However, I will maintain this third purpose here for completeness sake.

I think we see racism throughout the justice system, from profiling to death penalties, for one reason — society seems to see blacks as more prone to crime and less susceptible to rehabilitation (aka incorrigible). I don't know: maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Allow me to digress. I used to watch Fox News along with other news outlets until one day, many years ago, when those three newscasters/commentators discussed the death penalty, and one of them laughingly said that the government at least had to execute the mentally-retarded murderers because they can't know any better, and will simply murder again. That frosted me big time.

But I think it's the same kind of discrimination that we see against blacks. Their "difference" from the typical American is noticeable. Same thing with women, except with the opposite effect: Ooooh, poor thing, something must have driven her to do that. Same with juveniles because their difference from typical is noticeable, although most people would agree for the good of the person and society.

We need to rid the justice system of this negative discrimination, and replace it with an honest look at the person's own history. If his/her adult criminal record looks like a continuation of his/her juvenile record, then, yeah, give him/her a more severe sentence. If his/her criminal record shows a lack of wanting to be rehabilitated, then, yeah, give him/her a more severe sentence.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

Let's look at the rationale behind incarceration. Traditionally, courts incarcerated criminals for three purposes — protect society, punish criminals, and rehabilitate criminals. In recent decades, America has pretty much despaired of rehabilitating criminals due mostly to the rampant crime rate in the second half of the 20th Century. However, I will maintain this third purpose here for completeness sake.

It's also because research has shown that certain types of offenders cannot be rehabilitated. Like they honestly have a very nearly zero rehabilitation rate. (Small enough that statistical error or blind luck could account for any apparent exceptions to the rule.)

The idea that you can force people to think what you want them to think is going out of style. And thank goodness for that.

But the side effect of admitting we can't force people to think what we want them to is admitting we can't force them to stop being criminals unless they want to change. And many don't want to change. They just want society to become more tolerant of their behavior (which it won't and ought not to.)

But I think it's the same kind of discrimination that we see against blacks. Their "difference" from the typical American is noticeable. Same thing with women, except with the opposite effect: Ooooh, poor thing, something must have driven her to do that. Same with juveniles because their difference from typical is noticeable, although most people would agree for the good of the person and society.

Let me add some data here.



Do you see how big the gap is? You can't get gaps that big by way of statistical fluke. That's pie in the sky wishful thinking.

It's not science.

I should add that the solve rate for homicide in the USA is 61% (as of 2007). Which makes it very unlikely that the discrepancy could be due to unsolved crimes. Although not entirely impossible.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28116857/n.../#.U6OEufldU-A

The "murder rate" is very different between races, but the total number of murders is closer to a match. The reason the rates show up as different is because white people outnumber black people by about 5 to 1. In 2011, 52% of total murders where race of offender was known were committed by black people, and 45% were committed by white people.

So there are 5 times as many white people as black people, but black people still committed more total murders.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...-homicide-data

As for women vs. men, the gap is even bigger.

We need to rid the justice system of this negative discrimination, and replace it with an honest look at the person's own history. If his/her adult criminal record looks like a continuation of his/her juvenile record, then, yeah, give him/her a more severe sentence. If his/her criminal record shows a lack of wanting to be rehabilitated, then, yeah, give him/her a more severe sentence.

You have no evidence. You just want to see what you want to see.

The discrimination may already be absent. Or it may be at low levels. Or you might have white jurors questioning themselves and overcompensating by letting black people who are guilty off the hook. Many white people try to prove to themselves that they are "not racist" by overcompensating and assuming the best about black people. (Which ultimately is racist also.... but at least it's a good attempt at not being so.)

The statistics are simply too skewed to get a good picture. Only a slight skewing would be explainable by police error.

Good argument Kojax

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

We need to rid the justice system of this negative discrimination, and replace it with an honest look at the person's own history.

I meant that, instead of a judge or jury looking at a black defendant and wanting to slam him because he's black, they should consider his own personal history, and if he has a long record, then yeah, slam him.

Originally Posted by kojax

The idea that you can force people to think what you want them to think is going out of style. And thank goodness for that.

That would mean that schools are going out of style too.

But seriously, the justice system after conviction is more sophisticated than the general public knows. If an inmate continues to maintain a criminal mind, it will make itself known. I have a few years' experience working with inmates. They have people around them 24/7, including other inmates who will rat on each other in a heartbeat. It's as though their entire environment is chuck full of antennas and instrumentation. Only highly extraordinary inmates can pretend 24/7. It's very, very difficult.

Some inmates are only fooling themselves. They think they can goof off in prison, but go before the parole board and act like an angel and convince them. Ha! The parole board won't show it's entire hand. It'll give some lame excuse, such as a minor discipline problem from five years previous, but in reality, they have much more recent knowledge of ongoing bad behavior.

You have no evidence. You just want to see what you want to see.

If you're talking to me, I think we're on the same page. I don't see how we're not. Most of your post seems to be slamming me as if, for example, I'm claiming blacks don't commit a disproportionate amount of crime. They do. I'm saying the system should treat each person individually, instead of as a member of a race or a gender or whatever.

[QUOTEI meant that, instead of a judge or jury looking at a black defendant and wanting to slam him because he's black, they should consider his own personal history, and if he has a long record, then yeah, slam him.
][/QUOTE]

Good Point Mr. Monroe!

I find the data presented vague and simplistic. There are other studies which define other factors, specially poverty, greed, and single female headed households.

Our structural analysis of race, neighborhood socioeconomic conditions, and
homicide suggested that area-based interventions that would improve neighbor-
hood social and economic conditions such as increased home ownership and
access to college education may be effective in decreasing homicide risk for men.
In addition, although homicide risk is highest in federally defined poverty areas
and increasing poverty within federally defined poverty areas is strongly associ-
ated with increasing homicide risk, any increase in poverty within a neighborhood
has a strong influence on increasing homicide risk for the men living in that neigh-
borhood.

(1)

The Statistical profile of the middle or upper class homicide is virtually the opposite of the lower class homicide, except for the sex of the offender. To summarize:
1.The upper-class killer is a white male, over thirty years old. In the lower-class, he is a black male under thirty.
2.The are no ascertainable cases of victim-precipitated upper-class homicide compared to the one fifth to one-third such cases in lower-class homicides.
3.Intra-familial homicides predominated in the upper class cases, occurring three times as often as in the lower-class cases.
4.Homicides followed by suicide accounts for 27% of upper class cases, but only 0.8% to 9% of lower class cases.
5.The upper-class method of killing is seldom stabbing. It often involves shooting, though not proportionately more frequently that the lower-class offenders in studies with southern locales.
6.Alcoholic consumptions is rarely related upper-class homicide. Over one-half of the lower-class homicides are alcohol related.
7.Upper-class homicides, like lower-class homicides, take place during the evening hours, 8PM to 1:59AM; however, unlike lower-class homicides, upper-class cases follow no diurnal pattern.
8. Upper-class killings are significantly more likely to occur at the victims home than those in the lower-class cases.

(2)

It is a very complex issue. Even part of the data that Harold cited in his post states:

The FBI web site recommends against using its data for ranking because these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents.[4] The FBI web site also recommends against using its data to judge how effective law enforcement agencies are, since there are many factors that influence crime rates other than law enforcement.

(1)Homicide Risk Across Race and Class:
a Small-Area Analysis in Massachusetts
and Rhode Island

(2)Patterns of Middle and Upper Class Homicide

In impoverished communities, people still have to eat, so they "eat" via drugs. When I was growing up, in my surroundings I saw drug dealers (gang members), thieves, hustlers, drug addicts, prostitutes, and those that sat around on welfare. Now the only adults in my community that had any respect and image (so I thought) where the drug dealers, so I naturally looked up to them as any young male would. Those drug dealers also happened to be gang members, because in order to sell drugs in my neighborhood you had to be part of that gang. When you have a bunch of kids who've grown up with no family support, no parents, no education, no opportunities, and have seen nothing but violence so much so that they sleep with gun shots at night and you give them a name and give them false hopes of a family, some money, and also because they already "think" they can't be anything more in society. They clinch on to that, they will die for it, they would give up their whole life for it (life in prison). Furthermore, violence is like a wild fire, it escalates and accelerates to a point of no control, because now the original killings are becoming revenge killings. Now these kids that had no money, no such thing as self worth and family, now have something to fight for, even if its over something extremely irrational like killing each other cause you live 5 blocks the wrong way.

I grew up like that and I know what its like to see hustlers sell to your own pops, but you got respect for them cause they got nice shoes, nice cars, and they show you love as a kid when they on the block, when nobody else in the world seems to give a **** about you. I know what that's like, it draws you in so quick and at such a sensitive age.

Originally Posted by AndresKiani

I grew up like that and I know what its like to see hustlers sell to your own pops, but you got respect for them cause they got nice shoes, nice cars, and they show you love as a kid when they on the block, when nobody else in the world seems to give a **** about you. I know what that's like, it draws you in so quick and at such a sensitive age.

How did you manage to escape?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by AndresKiani

I grew up like that and I know what its like to see hustlers sell to your own pops, but you got respect for them cause they got nice shoes, nice cars, and they show you love as a kid when they on the block, when nobody else in the world seems to give a **** about you. I know what that's like, it draws you in so quick and at such a sensitive age.

How did you manage to escape?

Baseball, I was a good baseball player so I went to college. College allowed me to see another world that I had never seen in my life, to which it opened my eyes which were blinded for so many years.

It pisses me off because the whole time I was acting a fool (thinking that I actually was a somebody and that the world owed me something), and all I got to show for it today.. Is 20 years of missed opportunities, two gun shot wounds, and a big nasty scar on my hand from which I had my tattoo carved out of me with a knife when I got jumped by some clowns like myself.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

We need to rid the justice system of this negative discrimination, and replace it with an honest look at the person's own history.

I meant that, instead of a judge or jury looking at a black defendant and wanting to slam him because he's black, they should consider his own personal history, and if he has a long record, then yeah, slam him.

Originally Posted by kojax

The idea that you can force people to think what you want them to think is going out of style. And thank goodness for that.

That would mean that schools are going out of style too.

But seriously, the justice system after conviction is more sophisticated than the general public knows. If an inmate continues to maintain a criminal mind, it will make itself known. I have a few years' experience working with inmates. They have people around them 24/7, including other inmates who will rat on each other in a heartbeat. It's as though their entire environment is chuck full of antennas and instrumentation. Only highly extraordinary inmates can pretend 24/7. It's very, very difficult.

Some inmates are only fooling themselves. They think they can goof off in prison, but go before the parole board and act like an angel and convince them. Ha! The parole board won't show it's entire hand. It'll give some lame excuse, such as a minor discipline problem from five years previous, but in reality, they have much more recent knowledge of ongoing bad behavior.

I agree that it is good to give a person the opportunity to change. I just think we have to take "no" for an answer. And when the answer is "no", then we need to just plain be rid of the person. Keep them locked up just to keep them locked up so they don't bother us.

As for schools, the same principle applies. Give a kid the opportunity to learn. If they don't take it and it is apparent they aren't likely to change their mind, then quit wasting our money.

You have no evidence. You just want to see what you want to see.

If you're talking to me, I think we're on the same page. I don't see how we're not. Most of your post seems to be slamming me as if, for example, I'm claiming blacks don't commit a disproportionate amount of crime. They do. I'm saying the system should treat each person individually, instead of as a member of a race or a gender or whatever.

I can see now that you are right. We are on the same page.

There were 12,664 murders in the USA in 2011. That means that, with a population of 300 million, the average American had about a 0.004% chance of committing murder that year.

So, even if the average black person had a chance of committing murder that was 5 times greater than the average, that still would mean any given black person only has a 0.02% chance of committing murder in a given year. It seems kind of silly to think of a person as a "potential murderer" if they only have a 0.02% chance of murdering anyone. (And the real statistic is probably lower than that even.)

That is the fallacy of profiling. A comparatively high statistic may still be very low in the absolute sense.

Originally Posted by AndresKiani

Baseball, I was a good baseball player so I went to college. College allowed me to see another world that I had never seen in my life, to which it opened my eyes which were blinded for so many years.

It pisses me off because the whole time I was acting a fool (thinking that I actually was a somebody and that the world owed me something), and all I got to show for it today.. Is 20 years of missed opportunities, two gun shot wounds, and a big nasty scar on my hand from which I had my tattoo carved out of me with a knife when I got jumped by some clowns like myself.

Good for you. I'm glad you've seen the light, and hope you do well. Are you still in college? How's it going?

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

Originally Posted by kojax

The idea that you can force people to think what you want them to think is going out of style. And thank goodness for that.

That would mean that schools are going out of style too.

Schools don't teach you what to think, they teach you how to think. There's a difference.

Originally Posted by kojax

As for schools, the same principle applies. Give a kid the opportunity to learn. If they don't take it and it is apparent they aren't likely to change their mind, then quit wasting our money.

Are you suggesting that a child without a fully developed brain make choices as a youngster that will follow him forever? "Look here Bobby, you didn't pick red shoe on the test, you're out of school."​
Moronic.

Andres glad you got out...inspiring.

Kojak every child deserved a teaches and support staff that try try try to get through to them and involve their family until the last day they are in school--even saving one in a hundred kids saves all of us $ in the end and improves our society as well as the misery that child will likely face into adulthood--tax payers should demand no less.

Originally Posted by AndresKiani

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by AndresKiani

I grew up like that and I know what its like to see hustlers sell to your own pops, but you got respect for them cause they got nice shoes, nice cars, and they show you love as a kid when they on the block, when nobody else in the world seems to give a **** about you. I know what that's like, it draws you in so quick and at such a sensitive age.

How did you manage to escape?

Baseball, I was a good baseball player so I went to college. College allowed me to see another world that I had never seen in my life, to which it opened my eyes which were blinded for so many years.

It pisses me off because the whole time I was acting a fool (thinking that I actually was a somebody and that the world owed me something), and all I got to show for it today.. Is 20 years of missed opportunities, two gun shot wounds, and a big nasty scar on my hand from which I had my tattoo carved out of me with a knife when I got jumped by some clowns like myself.

I am very happy for you.

Take what you learned back to your neighborhood in some way. Safely of course.

I so wish you great success.

If I were your Mom, I could not begin to say how proud of you I would be.

I am not. I'm still proud of you.

Sports are a good outlet....and a good way to channel youth. Music is also. Theatre.....but bottom line....education.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Andres glad you got out...inspiring.

Kojak every child deserved a teaches and support staff that try try try to get through to them and involve their family until the last day they are in school--even saving one in a hundred kids saves all of us $ in the end and improves our society as well as the misery that child will likely face into adulthood--tax payers should demand no less.

How do you do that without instilling in them the idea that everything is someone else's responsibility? They get to be 18 and get told it was all society's fault they chose to drop out of high school? The school system failed them? How do you think that lesson plays out over the rest of their life?

It's not their fault that girl got pregnant? It's not their fault that college class was too hard? (I hear a lot of college kids whining about their teachers and assistants not offering enough assistance.)

What do you think they'll tell their children when their children want to drop out of school. "Well, if the teachers at school aren't doing a good enough job of making you want to stay, .... I guess you *should* drop out son. That will show them they should be doing a better job of making you want to stay!"

At what point in their life do you want to instill personal initiative? After they're 18 and already out of school? (At which point.... you can't instill it in them anyway because they're not under your care any longer?)

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by kojax

As for schools, the same principle applies. Give a kid the opportunity to learn. If they don't take it and it is apparent they aren't likely to change their mind, then quit wasting our money.

Are you suggesting that a child without a fully developed brain make choices as a youngster that will follow him forever? "Look here Bobby, you didn't pick red shoe on the test, you're out of school."​
Moronic.

Is your goal to instill them with knowledge and success, or to instill in them the ability to gain knowledge and success?

If it is the second one, then the kid has to be taught to choose the red shoe on their own, not coddled into doing it.

Guide them....but make them take responsibility.

THEY make the choices at a certain point in their lives.

Support them, but never let them cop out.

Certainly we should expect children should be being taught a sense of responsibility and that actions have consequences, but perhaps the key point here is that they are indeed actually 'taught' this rather than simply expected to understand when even many adults in our modern society still have a problem with this one.

Most of us would probably agree that the best parents are the ones who are actively engaged in their children's lives and actually let them know when they're making mistakes, they are teaching their children the correct way to behave. Surely it isn't good parenting to just expect kids to get everything right by themselves and ignore it when they are do things wrong, likewise how can it be good teaching to just sit back and let kids fail, drop out of school ect...., without intervening?
Children need to able to learn and be supported and guided whilst they're doing so, so that they are able to make the right decisions for themselves. Sure if a kid wants leave school to be a professional athlete or they are running they're own company then you can see that perhaps there is some sensible reasoning behind such a decision, however if a kid wishes to leave school because they're having problems and as a result they'll end up just becoming a bum then we could perhaps say that that particular young person has not yet learned enough to be able to make their own sensible decisions or take responsibility for their future. So how can we in all conscience accept that it's correct for us to let young people be making these decisions by themselves when they will have such a massive effect on their entire future, is it not clearly the case we should taking responsiblity until such a time as they have learned or have been taught to act responsibly for themselves.

The issue should perhaps be about how much responsibility we expect young people to be able to handle as they are developing, keeping in mind that people develop at different rates and only give they more responsibility when they've proved they can cope with their existing responsibilites. It seems to often we simply expect people to be able to cope with things of which they've had little experience and then wonder why they've having problems without actually giving them the support and learning opportunities they really require.

Responsibility should be an on going and constant learning process and both parents and teachers should be involved in supporting young people through this process so that are able and properly equipped to make the important decisions about their future and that they get them right.

Originally Posted by kojax

Is your goal to instill them with knowledge and success, or to instill in them the ability to gain knowledge and success?

If it is the second one, then the kid has to be taught to choose the red shoe on their own, not coddled into doing it.

Both. It's not an "either-or" situation.

No where did I even imply that a teacher shouldn't teach personal responsibility...in fact it's a huge component of teaching to motivate, inspire, show by example, and in every other way communicate the importance of taking personal responsibility...it is a key part of effective teaching. And even if not successful, rather than abandonment to "stop wasting money" as you put it, that child deserves sustained attempts to teach that as well as their content knowledge until they are no longer in school.

We know a great deal about both effective parenting and teaching.

Originally Posted by ascended

certainly we should expect children should be being taught a sense of responsibility and that actions have consequences, but perhaps the key point here is that they are indeed actually 'taught' this rather than simply expected to understand when even many adults in our modern society still have a problem with this one.

Most of us would probably agree that the best parents are the ones who are actively engaged in their children's lives and actually let them know when they're making mistakes, they are teaching their children the correct way to behave. Surely it isn't good parenting to just expect kids to get everything right by themselves and ignore it when they are do things wrong, likewise how can it be good teaching to just sit back and let kids fail, drop out of school ect...., without intervening?
Children need to able to learn and be supported and guided whilst they're doing so, so that they are able to make the right decisions for themselves. Sure if a kid wants leave school to be a professional athlete or they are running they're own company then you can see that perhaps there is some sensible reasoning behind such a decision, however if a kid wishes to leave school because they're having problems and as a result they'll end up just becoming a bum then we could perhaps say that that particular young person has not yet learned enough to be able to make their own sensible decisions or take responsibility for their future. So how can we in all conscience accept that it's correct for us to let young people be making these decisions by themselves when they will have such a massive effect on their entire future, is it not clearly the case we should taking responsiblity until such a time as they have learned or have been taught to act responsibly for themselves.

The issue should perhaps be about how much responsibility we expect young people to be able to handle as they are developing, keeping in mind that people develop at different rates and only give they more responsibility when they've proved they can cope with their existing responsibilites. It seems to often we simply expect people to be able to cope with things of which they've had little experience and then wonder why they've having problems without actually giving them the support and learning opportunities they really require.

Responsibility should be an on going and constant learning process and both parents and teachers should be involved in supporting young people through this process so that are able and properly equipped to make the important decisions about their future and that they get them right.

spot on!

Kids need borders.

THey need to know when they cross those boundaries there are penalties.

I used that with my kids.

I wish parents would start BEING PARENTS and not....."reason" with a child. IT IS A CHILD! They need directions and boundaries...that expand as they grow so they get the entire picture and not just ME ME ME!!

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by kojax

Is your goal to instill them with knowledge and success, or to instill in them the ability to gain knowledge and success?

If it is the second one, then the kid has to be taught to choose the red shoe on their own, not coddled into doing it.

Both. It's not an "either-or" situation.

No where did I even imply that a teacher shouldn't teach personal responsibility...in fact it's a huge component of teaching to motivate, inspire, show by example, and in every other way communicate the importance of taking personal responsibility...it is a key part of effective teaching. And even if not successful, rather than abandonment to "stop wasting money" as you put it, that child deserves sustained attempts to teach that as well as their content knowledge until they are no longer in school.

We know a great deal about both effective parenting and teaching.

Do you ever consider what a slap in the face it is to the kids that actually dig in and get with the program? I can remember all kinds of long drawn out classroom dramas with some kid acting up and the teacher constantly dealing with the kid, again and again..... all to appease one annoying brat (I feel it's ok to say that because I was the same age at the time.)

I knew what the kid was doing. He just wanted attention. However I didn't much care to be coerced into being his audience.

What I'm wondering is: how do you expect to reach out to the trouble kids in a way that doesn't negatively impact all the other kids? A way that doesn't take away from them? You realize what you're teaching when you set that example? Failing to reward hard work and discipline, while simultaneously requiring the hard workers to put in extra hard work over one misbehaving kid?

Almost always when the teachers would assign groups for projects, they'd put the best behaved kids together with the least behaved kids, and if you were one of the good kids, then you always knew the only way that project was going to get finished was if you did your own work and theirs too.

Perhaps you've never had a good teacher--Nor taken notice of one, which is a shame.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Andres glad you got out...inspiring.

Kojak every child deserved a teaches and support staff that try try try to get through to them and involve their family until the last day they are in school--even saving one in a hundred kids saves all of us $ in the end and improves our society as well as the misery that child will likely face into adulthood--tax payers should demand no less.

How do you do that without instilling in them the idea that everything is someone else's responsibility? They get to be 18 and get told it was all society's fault they chose to drop out of high school? The school system failed them? How do you think that lesson plays out over the rest of their life?

It's not their fault that girl got pregnant? It's not their fault that college class was too hard? (I hear a lot of college kids whining about their teachers and assistants not offering enough assistance.)

What do you think they'll tell their children when their children want to drop out of school. "Well, if the teachers at school aren't doing a good enough job of making you want to stay, .... I guess you *should* drop out son. That will show them they should be doing a better job of making you want to stay!"

At what point in their life do you want to instill personal initiative? After they're 18 and already out of school? (At which point.... you can't instill it in them anyway because they're not under your care any longer?)

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by kojax

As for schools, the same principle applies. Give a kid the opportunity to learn. If they don't take it and it is apparent they aren't likely to change their mind, then quit wasting our money.

Are you suggesting that a child without a fully developed brain make choices as a youngster that will follow him forever? "Look here Bobby, you didn't pick red shoe on the test, you're out of school."​
Moronic.

Is your goal to instill them with knowledge and success, or to instill in them the ability to gain knowledge and success?

If it is the second one, then the kid has to be taught to choose the red shoe on their own, not coddled into doing it.

I agree with all of your points you've made here. but the points you've made here don't equal to kicking a kid out of school if they mes up.
I certainly agree that the students have less and less responsibility when it comes to education, but that is the politics of our time and it's trumpeted by those that want to get elected and so they get their law maker friends to pass more and more laws that take the responsibility off of the students and place it unfairly on the teachers. We can try to lead the kids to water but we for damn sure can't make them drink. Since personal responsibility apparently no longer exists for anyone, we have to find a way to bring it back, but I don't think kicking kids out of school is that way.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Perhaps you've never had a good teacher--Nor taken notice of one, which is a shame.

Beautiful response!
Kojax, in this instance, the fault is not with the kid it's with the teacher. Good teachers don't play into that nonsense and really good teachers use it to their advantage.

I have to stop and remember where you are coming from, Lynx. You're former military, so it's likely that the structure and discipline you found there has greatly shaped your life, and you are able to see how many young people who are presently acting like hoodlums may yet have the potential to become model citizens if only that kind of structure and discipline were made available to them.

But that's just one personality type. There is another personality type of people who are able create their own structure for themselves and prefer to do it for themselves. They neither need, nor appreciate anyone else trying to do it for them.

The second group does best if they are allowed to be isolated from the first group. The first group gains virtually nothing from being around the second group anyway. So really both groups might as well be separated from each other. Maybe it would be best if cities that are large enough were to set up two completely separate education systems for the two groups?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Perhaps you've never had a good teacher--Nor taken notice of one, which is a shame.

I did see a few good teachers, and I'll admit that they were especially good at keeping the bad kids engaged. But I don't think they wasted their time specifically seeking out the bad kids, or steering undue amounts of attention their way.

And come to think of it --- that's probably exactly why they were so effective at dealing with those kids. Giving undue amounts of attention to the bad kids creates a feedback system. It creates an incentive for the very thing you're trying to put a stop to. The kid starts to become a caricature of bad behavior. Making more and more overt attempts to show what a wreck they are so they can get more attention.

No. The best teachers just treated those kids like everyone else.

Good point Kojax

Originally Posted by kojax

I have to stop and remember where you are coming from, Lynx. You're former military, so it's likely that the structure and discipline you found there has greatly shaped your life, and you are able to see how many young people who are presently acting like hoodlums may yet have the potential to become model citizens if only that kind of structure and discipline were made available to them.

I don't agree. I routinely kicked out Soldiers who where either incompatible or screwed up so badly they could no longer serve with honor and carry the public trust. As for my background I was a son of a marine and a high school drop out--only deciding to improve myself after joining the working word on fishing boats in the Gulf of Maine.

My point is simple. While we probably agree there are some children who will never become shining citizens, it is NOT THE TEACHER's job to make that decision (that's one for judges and juries), and lot and lots of evidence that as soon as a teacher gives up hope on a child they dramatically raise the chances that a child will fail. A teacher who didn't just see me as a troubled teenage dropout is what saved me and turned my life around--the is what teachers do--it is was every teacher should strive for. Teachers are being paid to have unbridled and unlimited hope in the children they are made responsible for--what every tax payer should absolutely demand. Teacher's who can't find that well spring of hope should be put out to pasture (which is one of several reasons I'm completely against tenure for secondary school teachers).

No. The best teachers just treated those kids like everyone else.

Not really. They provide what individual kids need, which isn't the same from child to child--whether that be a kick in the butt, a few minutes to go over some point in a new way, or just enough confidence, time and opportunity for the child to succeed and perhaps learn a pattern of success.

I did see a few good teachers, and I'll admit that they were especially good at keeping the bad kids engaged. But I don't think they wasted their time specifically seeking out the bad kids, or steering undue amounts of attention their way.

And come to think of it --- that's probably exactly why they were so effective at dealing with those kids. Giving undue amounts of attention to the bad kids creates a feedback system. It creates an incentive for the very thing you're trying to put a stop to. The kid starts to become a caricature of bad behavior. Making more and more overt attempts to show what a wreck they are so they can get more attention.

But you were a student. You have no way of knowing how they really approached the job. I remember being seriously impressed during a teacher training placement almost 50 years ago. The teacher was a middle aged bloke with a class of year 7s. Everything seemed to run like clockwork. Until he gave me my riding instructions for running a lesson myself (I thought the fact that I'd put in hours and hours preparing just one simple lesson was pretty well all that was needed). There were a whole lot of tips and tricks, but the one that really stood out was when he referred to one particular kid in the middle of the room. He said to watch him doing a couple of the lessons preceding the one I was lined up for, I thought I'd done a pretty good job of watching up until then.

He said to keep an eye on the time and I had to make sure that I walked around the room a lot of the time but that I absolutely must ensure that I paid some attention, maybe a pat on the shoulder (this being long before the rules about never touching students) maybe an encouraging word, whatever, but I should never leave more than a 20 minutes gap between examples of personal attention from the teacher. Otherwise this kid was liable to go completely out of control. I watched, I timed, and if I hadn't known he was doing it deliberately I'd never have guessed. I'm pretty certain none of the kids guessed either.

That room ran like a well oiled machine.

I don't want to discount the work of teachers, especially ones who genuinely put effort into it.

However, you can see where this is going, right? Shall every child who wasn't put in the room with one of the exceptional teachers of this world be granted a free pass to hurt whomever they want, rob, steal, maim, and kill? Are we saying that the whole reason people commit crime is because a teacher didn't go out of the way to show them specific attention?

Shall we put the teachers in jail then, if they let a kid slip through the cracks?

I think there has to be a standard for "good enough", and if a child receives more than that then that's great. I'm happy for them. But even if all they receive is "good enough", that's got to be sufficient for society to still be blameless should they choose to commit a crime. I wouldn't want "good enough" to be a standard that is set so high that only 0.5% of the population of teachers can deliver.

Originally Posted by kojax

I don't want to discount the work of teachers, especially ones who genuinely put effort into it.

However, you can see where this is going, right? Shall every child who wasn't put in the room with one of the exceptional teachers of this world be granted a free pass to hurt whomever they want, rob, steal, maim, and kill? Are we saying that the whole reason people commit crime is because a teacher didn't go out of the way to show them specific attention?

Shall we put the teachers in jail then, if they let a kid slip through the cracks?

I think there has to be a standard for "good enough", and if a child receives more than that then that's great. I'm happy for them. But even if all they receive is "good enough", that's got to be sufficient for society to still be blameless should they choose to commit a crime. I wouldn't want "good enough" to be a standard that is set so high that only 0.5% of the population of teachers can deliver.

There has to be some responsibility on the child as well. It's not just on the teacher.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

There has to be some responsibility on the child as well. It's not just on the teacher.

Right. But it seems that nobody wants to say how much.

Obviously not every child can be given the "attention they deserve" if that's defined as an amount of attention few children ever really get.

And it's natural not to want to punish an adult who was neglected as a child if we believe that the neglect contributed to their later misbehaviors, but this creates an accountability problem. All people who are adults now were children at some point in the past. If childhood neglect is allowed as an excuse for an adult to misbehave, then we're treating adults as if they are still children. The neglect in their past motivates us to allow them to act as if they are still in the past.

So should we still allow these stunted children to vote? Since we obviously don't believe them to be capable of making decisions on their own?

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

There has to be some responsibility on the child as well. It's not just on the teacher.

Right. But it seems that nobody wants to say how much.

Obviously not every child can be given the "attention they deserve" if that's defined as an amount of attention few children ever really get.

And it's natural not to want to punish an adult who was neglected as a child if we believe that the neglect contributed to their later misbehaviors, but this creates an accountability problem. All people who are adults now were children at some point in the past. If childhood neglect is allowed as an excuse for an adult to misbehave, then we're treating adults as if they are still children. The neglect in their past motivates us to allow them to act as if they are still in the past.

So should we still allow these stunted children to vote? Since we obviously don't believe them to be capable of making decisions on their own?

kojax you are clearly correct indeed we would still be treating adults as incapable children if we allow the notion that actions as adults can and should be excused if they weren't given optimal treatment during youth or that as children they were subjected to enviroments that have prevented them from becoming model citizens. Regardless of background or upbringing each adult should be ultimately responsible for their own actions and when those actions lead them into trouble socially, financially or with the law then they should have to face up to the consequences of those actions, however as a society I do feel that we can show some compassion for those who arn't able to measure up to our expectations because of problems in their upbringing that have occurred through no fault of their own. This shouldn't be an expectation on their part but rather an act of fairness on the part of our society in general that was at least partially responsible for failing them as children.

I would also suggest that when it comes to criminal trials not all crimes are punished equally, this is because the judges have to take into consideration mitigation. There are factors that can mean that some should be treated more leniently than others and I think perhaps as a society we could also at least accept this same principle in general that when judging the actions of others we can also at least try and consider an individuals specific circumstances or past that has led to their particular actions, rather than perhaps simply writing people off without any real effort at understanding where their behaviour was actually coming from.

The disadvantaged shouldn't expect favourable treatment because of their disadvantages but it perhaps also strongly reflects on us as individuals in how we do actually approach and treat those who have been disadvantaged.

You could probably even make a good case for suggesting that those who are incapable of showing more compassion for the disadvanged have perhaps themselves been disadvantaged in their education and upbringing as indeed such compassion does and should form an important part of a healthy psychological makeup.

Originally Posted by kojax

And it's natural not to want to punish an adult who was neglected as a child if we believe that the neglect contributed to their later misbehaviors,

Says who? The prisons are filled up with "mommy and daddy were mean/didn't pay attention to me" type individuals.

Originally Posted by kojax

but this creates an accountability problem.

If what you're suggesting actually happens then yes. but being sympathetic and withholding punishment are two very different things. I can be sympathetic to the guy that made poor choices to get into prison but he's going to prison none-the-less. His poor decisions are on him and no one else. If he wants to blame neglect for his impetus for his wrong decisions then fine but whatever the motivation was he still chose and he's still accountable.

Originally Posted by kojax

All people who are adults now were children at some point in the past.

I'm no biologist, but I'm pretty sure that's how that works.

Originally Posted by kojax

If childhood neglect is allowed as an excuse for an adult to misbehave, then we're treating adults as if they are still children.

I don't see that it is allowed as an excuse

Originally Posted by kojax

The neglect in their past motivates us to allow them to act as if they are still in the past.

I don't think so. That may be the rational, but it doesn't fly very far.

Originally Posted by kojax

So should we still allow these stunted children to vote? Since we obviously don't believe them to be capable of making decisions on their own?

Well, if they have any felonies then that answer is no.

Well, if they have any felonies then that answer is no.

A surprising answer from a liberal

Such policies are part of the problem. A felony (something you automatically get under Federal law for passing a single joint for example), traps people into the cycle of poverty which was directly related to the poor upbringing. It condemns their children to poor schools in poverty stricken places and a latchkey upbringing from parents who struggle with two jobs because they could never get a good paying one? The parents who pragmatically understand it's not worth getting a good education, because the felony even for something completely unrelated decades ago exclude them forever from getting good work or being a voting member of their community.

Fortunately and recently there's quite a few cities and states starting to understand the link between felonies and lifetime sentence created for individuals and their communities--the approach ranges from restoring full rights after the person has served their term as well as preventing employers from asking for most work.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Well, if they have any felonies then that answer is no.

A surprising answer from a liberal

Why is that surprising? That's the law. I was just stating the law.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Such policies are part of the problem. A felony (something you automatically get under Federal law for passing a single joint for example), traps people into the cycle of poverty which was directly related to the poor upbringing. It condemns their children to poor schools in poverty stricken places and a latchkey upbringing from parents who struggle with two jobs because they could never get a good paying one? The parents who pragmatically understand it's not worth getting a good education, because the felony even for something completely unrelated decades ago exclude them forever from getting good work or being a voting member of their community.

This has very little to do with the ability of casting a vote and more to do with the stigma of being a felon.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Fortunately and recently there's quite a few cities and states starting to understand the link between felonies and lifetime sentence created for individuals and their communities--the approach ranges from restoring full rights after the person has served their term as well as preventing employers from asking for most work.

I've read as much (most notably not losing the right to vote under certain classes of felonies. I believe it was started after the three strikes laws were amended to only cater to the worst level of felonies) but it's not common practice as of yet.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Well, if they have any felonies then that answer is no.

A surprising answer from a liberal

Such policies are part of the problem. A felony (something you automatically get under Federal law for passing a single joint for example), traps people into the cycle of poverty which was directly related to the poor upbringing. It condemns their children to poor schools in poverty stricken places and a latchkey upbringing from parents who struggle with two jobs because they could never get a good paying one? The parents who pragmatically understand it's not worth getting a good education, because the felony even for something completely unrelated decades ago exclude them forever from getting good work or being a voting member of their community.

In any economy there is going to be someone at the bottom. We do better to ask why the worst jobs in our society pay so little in the first place. If the bottom 10% does the worst 10% of jobs, and everyone in the whole country were to uniformly triple their level of education then well........ there would still be a bottom 10%, and that bottom 10% would still have a bad job.

If the people you see grinding out their lives were to get better jobs, then someone else would take their place at the bottom. It would just be different people.

I'm not sure what this logical fallacy is called. I want to think it's the winners/losers fallacy. If you give everyone a blue ribbon that doesn't mean nobody lost. It just means the one with the smallest blue ribbon finished last.

Originally Posted by Ascended

I do feel that we can show some compassion for those who arn't able to measure up to our expectations because of problems in their upbringing that have occurred through no fault of their own. This shouldn't be an expectation on their part but rather an act of fairness on the part of our society in general that was at least partially responsible for failing them as children.

I could relate with the concept of compassion, but then we migrate to "fairness"?


It's hard to communicate if we use undefined terms and/or concepts. "failing them as a child" - what does that mean? Does that mean there were 2 amazing teachers in their high school, and 50 mediocre teachers, and they only got the mediocre ones?

Or when you say "failed them" do you mean something more severe? Like maybe if one of their teachers molested them? Or if the level of supervision was so poor that they were constantly brutalized by other children?

Surely we aren't expecting for each child to have their own personal tutor. I mean, I guess if you as a tax payer want to pay for that we could add it to the school budget, but elsewise the average kid is just going to have to accept the typical 20-30 kids to a classroom.

I would also suggest that when it comes to criminal trials not all crimes are punished equally, this is because the judges have to take into consideration mitigation. There are factors that can mean that some should be treated more leniently than others and I think perhaps as a society we could also at least accept this same principle in general that when judging the actions of others we can also at least try and consider an individuals specific circumstances or past that has led to their particular actions, rather than perhaps simply writing people off without any real effort at understanding where their behaviour was actually coming from.

How deeply ought we try and understand " where their behaviour was actually coming from"?

Remember that psychology isn't exactly one of the hard sciences. Even when a full on professional shrink accepts $100 (or more) an hour to listen to someone and give them their full attention - we can't be entirely sure the full motives and background are going to come out. That highly educated, dedicated, and motivated professional is going to be doing their best, but quite a lot of the time they're still guessing.

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with making important, real world, decisions on the basis of unknown and unknowable speculations?

You could probably even make a good case for suggesting that those who are incapable of showing more compassion for the disadvanged have perhaps themselves been disadvantaged in their education and upbringing as indeed such compassion does and should form an important part of a healthy psychological makeup.

Or I could make a case for those people being extremely gullible.

Most cry stories are exaggerated. Some are outright concocted (especially if a felon is the one telling them to you.) And any but the most extreme cry story is probably not the reason why a person did what they did.

In most cases, if a person commits a crime, they do it because they are simply greedy. Looking for an easier way to get ahead. Or maybe they're just an adrenaline junky, and breaking the law was the only way they saw to get a cheap thrill. Or some combination of these. I think only very rarely is a person genuinely acting as they do because they can't help them self, or because the trauma of their childhood makes it impossible for them to live their live properly.

It's a view only that we seem to have let this evolve into a question of my best friend EDUCATION ..
That we started talking of consequences being firm and binding and un avoidable..
and I wish we had a judicial system that was constant, and consistent....
Inconsistency and soft enforcement is the enemy. It breads a consequence of.. They will let me off, or I can get away with..
Corruption and greed are the crimes of a sick society.. and it does not take long for violence and cruelty to rise in a society..
Teaching by good parenting and establishment of consistent consequence.. for wavering from the rules of society..
I have noted a inequality of sentencing.. Here in NZ they seem to be very soft on crimes of burglary or theft.. and fraud..
Crimes of violence and what we call manslaughter,being not premeditated murder. Are treated with eight to twelve year terms..
While a outright deliberate act of Grievous bodily harm seem to be met with 15 ~ 20 years..
Yet a policy of halving the sentences is apparent..
~ A organized semi political movement named 'Sensible Sentencing' has emerged as a attempt to driving towards a better standard of enforced judicial enforcement.
As for where this conversation has evolved to.. 'We will pay a massive price for not establishing a consequence of actions policy'.
Being soft on our children is or should be a crime.. Boundaries must be established..

No one has mentioned the parent.

Parent involvement is essential in children learning.


A parent who is open to children's learning difficulties and willing to try to do what needs to be done to help their child, helps the child, teacher and the entire class.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Well, if they have any felonies then that answer is no.

A surprising answer from a liberal

Such policies are part of the problem. A felony (something you automatically get under Federal law for passing a single joint for example), traps people into the cycle of poverty which was directly related to the poor upbringing. It condemns their children to poor schools in poverty stricken places and a latchkey upbringing from parents who struggle with two jobs because they could never get a good paying one? The parents who pragmatically understand it's not worth getting a good education, because the felony even for something completely unrelated decades ago exclude them forever from getting good work or being a voting member of their community.

In any economy there is going to be someone at the bottom. We do better to ask why the worst jobs in our society pay so little in the first place. If the bottom 10% does the worst 10% of jobs, and everyone in the whole country were to uniformly triple their level of education then well........ there would still be a bottom 10%, and that bottom 10% would still have a bad job.

If the people you see grinding out their lives were to get better jobs, then someone else would take their place at the bottom. It would just be different people.

I'm not sure what this logical fallacy is called. I want to think it's the winners/losers fallacy. If you give everyone a blue ribbon that doesn't mean nobody lost. It just means the one with the smallest blue ribbon finished last.

Originally Posted by Ascended

I do feel that we can show some compassion for those who arn't able to measure up to our expectations because of problems in their upbringing that have occurred through no fault of their own. This shouldn't be an expectation on their part but rather an act of fairness on the part of our society in general that was at least partially responsible for failing them as children.

I could relate with the concept of compassion, but then we migrate to "fairness"?


It's hard to communicate if we use undefined terms and/or concepts. "failing them as a child" - what does that mean? Does that mean there were 2 amazing teachers in their high school, and 50 mediocre teachers, and they only got the mediocre ones?

Or when you say "failed them" do you mean something more severe? Like maybe if one of their teachers molested them? Or if the level of supervision was so poor that they were constantly brutalized by other children?

Surely we aren't expecting for each child to have their own personal tutor. I mean, I guess if you as a tax payer want to pay for that we could add it to the school budget, but elsewise the average kid is just going to have to accept the typical 20-30 kids to a classroom.

I would also suggest that when it comes to criminal trials not all crimes are punished equally, this is because the judges have to take into consideration mitigation. There are factors that can mean that some should be treated more leniently than others and I think perhaps as a society we could also at least accept this same principle in general that when judging the actions of others we can also at least try and consider an individuals specific circumstances or past that has led to their particular actions, rather than perhaps simply writing people off without any real effort at understanding where their behaviour was actually coming from.

How deeply ought we try and understand " where their behaviour was actually coming from"?

Remember that psychology isn't exactly one of the hard sciences. Even when a full on professional shrink accepts $100 (or more) an hour to listen to someone and give them their full attention - we can't be entirely sure the full motives and background are going to come out. That highly educated, dedicated, and motivated professional is going to be doing their best, but quite a lot of the time they're still guessing.

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with making important, real world, decisions on the basis of unknown and unknowable speculations?

You could probably even make a good case for suggesting that those who are incapable of showing more compassion for the disadvanged have perhaps themselves been disadvantaged in their education and upbringing as indeed such compassion does and should form an important part of a healthy psychological makeup.

Or I could make a case for those people being extremely gullible.

Most cry stories are exaggerated. Some are outright concocted (especially if a felon is the one telling them to you.) And any but the most extreme cry story is probably not the reason why a person did what they did.

In most cases, if a person commits a crime, they do it because they are simply greedy. Looking for an easier way to get ahead. Or maybe they're just an adrenaline junky, and breaking the law was the only way they saw to get a cheap thrill. Or some combination of these. I think only very rarely is a person genuinely acting as they do because they can't help them self, or because the trauma of their childhood makes it impossible for them to live their live properly.

It seems quite hard to actually find a truely appropriate form of terminology to fully express how many adults in our society have ended up inadequately equipped to be fully responsible for themselves in a socially acceptable way, failing them as children was a way of trying to express concept in a way that demonstrated societies resposibility for the upbringing of children and that this doesn't always work out properly, thus in which case it is society as a whole that must also ultimately share some of the responsibility for the fact that children who have faced problems growing up have been affected in a way that means their behaviour as adults is being adversely affected. Now obviously there could be any number of serious problems that could occur in childhood that would affect their behaviour in later life so really it comes down to a simple decision of whether we do choose to make allowances for this or we decide not to and treat everybody exactly the same regardless of their specific or individual cirmcumstances.

As for suggesting that every child should have a personal tutor no, that really isn't a feasible or sensible suggestion. Suggesting that every child should be able to go to a school where the teachers actually care about that pupils welfare, progress and future is a far more sensible and practicle aim. How often do we hear about kids simply written off because they a problems? This shouldn't be allowed and whilst ever it is still happening then we will continue to face huge numbers coming into adulthood that simply don't know anything other than antisocial behaviour and criminality. No child of 4 or 5 dreams of living a life of poverty, low acheivement or crime, now if all these kids were allowed and enabled to reach their true potential we just won't have so many of the problems that exist in society today. How can we solve a problem if we are always ignoring the causes?

Again here I'm certainly not advocating expensive theropists, instead that understanding can take the form of just being more tolerant in some cases or maybe even actually helping, when appropriate, with opportunities that others may take for granted that have had the benefit of a more successful upbringing. Sometimes just giving someone a chance or giving someone something to be proud of is enough to help them believe in themselves so that are able to get back on to the right path in life.

Greed is greed and I don't think there's alot we can do to change this, but perhaps those who we see as looking for a shortcut or an easy way sometimes just simply don't know or haven't learned any other way to behave, in which case punishment maybe justified depending on the circumstances but without suitable education as well isn't going to change or help that person become a better person in the long run. Again the key comes down to understanding how and why bad behaviour and criminality is occuring before we can find a solution that is actually effective.

Originally Posted by babe

No one has mentioned the parent.

Parent involvement is essential in children learning.


A parent who is open to children's learning difficulties and willing to try to do what needs to be done to help their child, helps the child, teacher and the entire class.

I couldn't agree more, I think one of the biggest arguments in favour of free schools is that because of extra parental involvement then the children will end up with far better results, but even before children start parents have a very important role to play in teaching the children and actually making them ready for school.

Originally Posted by kojax

In any economy there is going to be someone at the bottom. We do better to ask why the worst jobs in our society pay so little in the first place. If the bottom 10% does the worst 10% of jobs, and everyone in the whole country were to uniformly triple their level of education then well........ there would still be a bottom 10%, and that bottom 10% would still have a bad job.

If the people you see grinding out their lives were to get better jobs, then someone else would take their place at the bottom. It would just be different people.

The flaw in that logic is it assumes a zero sum game. My point is one stupid mistake say at 15 which are often now days convicted as adults insures they'll always be at the bottom of available jobs even if they become a model citizen; worse is America, which is now one of the least mobile societies of developed nations means there's little hope for their children either.

Originally Posted by babe

As for suggesting that every child should have a personal tutor no, that really isn't a feasible or sensible suggestion. Suggesting that every child should be able to go to a school where the teachers actually care about that pupils welfare, progress and future is a far more sensible and practicle aim. How often do we hear about kids simply written off because they a problems? This shouldn't be allowed and whilst ever it is still happening then we will continue to face huge numbers coming into adulthood that simply don't know anything other than antisocial behaviour and criminality. No child of 4 or 5 dreams of living a life of poverty, low acheivement or crime, now if all these kids were allowed and enabled to reach their true potential we just won't have so many of the problems that exist in society today. How can we solve a problem if we are always ignoring the causes?

Well said.

Originally Posted by Ascended

It seems quite hard to actually find a truely appropriate form of terminology to fully express how many adults in our society have ended up inadequately equipped to be fully responsible for themselves in a socially acceptable way, failing them as children was a way of trying to express concept in a way that demonstrated societies resposibility for the upbringing of children and that this doesn't always work out properly, thus in which case it is society as a whole that must also ultimately share some of the responsibility for the fact that children who have faced problems growing up have been affected in a way that means their behaviour as adults is being adversely affected. Now obviously there could be any number of serious problems that could occur in childhood that would affect their behaviour in later life so really it comes down to a simple decision of whether we do choose to make allowances for this or we decide not to and treat everybody exactly the same regardless of their specific or individual cirmcumstances.

Ok. So we're not talking about grievous abuse.

One possibility is that the knowledge and intelligence standards of society are simply higher now than they were 50 years ago. And most likely they're going to keep going up.

If you start with a child who is basically not very bright, then depending on how un-bright that kid is, it might not actually be possible to get them to a point where they are "equipped to be fully responsible for themselves in a socially acceptable way" as you say.

How much money should we throw at the problem? Millions per child? Have a cut off at 100,000.00? If your answer is "however much it takes", then I think I'll take that as a "millions per child".

As for suggesting that every child should have a personal tutor no, that really isn't a feasible or sensible suggestion. Suggesting that every child should be able to go to a school where the teachers actually care about that pupils welfare, progress and future is a far more sensible and practicle aim. How often do we hear about kids simply written off because they a problems? This shouldn't be allowed and whilst ever it is still happening then we will continue to face huge numbers coming into adulthood that simply don't know anything other than antisocial behaviour and criminality. No child of 4 or 5 dreams of living a life of poverty, low acheivement or crime, now if all these kids were allowed and enabled to reach their true potential we just won't have so many of the problems that exist in society today. How can we solve a problem if we are always ignoring the causes?

Children get written off because the school system has finite resources. If you want to fund the schools better so they've got enough man power to deal with each child individually according to their needs then you should just say so.

None of this bullox about "if only the teachers would try harder". That's just plain disrespectful. Most teachers really do try hard. They work their full shifts and accept a pay check that is less than adequate for their level of education and the time requirements. You wouldn't become a teacher for any reason other than the love of teaching.

So whether we're talking about tutors or additional teachers, or smaller classrooms - just try not to fool yourself into thinking you're not talking about hiring more people.

Again here I'm certainly not advocating expensive theropists, instead that understanding can take the form of just being more tolerant in some cases or maybe even actually helping, when appropriate, with opportunities that others may take for granted that have had the benefit of a more successful upbringing. Sometimes just giving someone a chance or giving someone something to be proud of is enough to help them believe in themselves so that are able to get back on to the right path in life.

Greed is greed and I don't think there's alot we can do to change this, but perhaps those who we see as looking for a shortcut or an easy way sometimes just simply don't know or haven't learned any other way to behave, in which case punishment maybe justified depending on the circumstances but without suitable education as well isn't going to change or help that person become a better person in the long run. Again the key comes down to understanding how and why bad behaviour and criminality is occuring before we can find a solution that is actually effective.

What percent of the time are we talking? How many criminals do you think are actually motivated by bad upbringing instead of greed?

It's all well to speculate, but while we're busy caring for these poor neglected children - not grown to adults, we still need some degree of law and order. We still need protection from the others who are just plain sociopaths. If we as a society cannot perfectly sort the needful from the purposefully bad, then are we simply not entitled to law and order?

And until psychology evolves from an art into a genuine science - we never will have that ability. At present, all we can determine with certainty is if or not a crime has been committed and by whom (and even that with a margin of error.)

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by kojax

In any economy there is going to be someone at the bottom. We do better to ask why the worst jobs in our society pay so little in the first place. If the bottom 10% does the worst 10% of jobs, and everyone in the whole country were to uniformly triple their level of education then well........ there would still be a bottom 10%, and that bottom 10% would still have a bad job.

If the people you see grinding out their lives were to get better jobs, then someone else would take their place at the bottom. It would just be different people.

The flaw in that logic is it assumes a zero sum game. My point is one stupid mistake say at 15 which are often now days convicted as adults insures they'll always be at the bottom of available jobs even if they become a model citizen; worse is America, which is now one of the least mobile societies of developed nations means there's little hope for their children either.

How in this case is the sum greater than zero (or less than)?

In the first place, most of the time juvenile records can be sealed - so in order to find oneself in this situation you have to commit a felony after you've turned 18. After you've become an adult. We're not arguing "dumb kid", "didn't know any better" here.

In the second place, nobody is forcing these idiots to have kids. Why isn't it their fault their kids will grow up worse off? If they had a conscience, they would use contraception so as to avoid having kids if they can't support them. Why is it society's responsibility to bale out their family rather than their responsibility to plan it better?

Originally Posted by kojax

How in this case is the sum greater than zero (or less than)?

Because it assumes that people don't change for the better (or worse) and are destined to hold that bracket, and that the normalized standards when translated into real crimes or socio economic status would be held constant in time.

In the first place, most of the time juvenile records can be sealed - so in order to find oneself in this situation you have to commit a felony after you've turned 18. After you've become an adult. We're not arguing "dumb kid", "didn't know any better" here.

In most states it's much more complicated. In WA state for example, a person convicted as under 18 has a waiting period than has to file a petition with the courts, one most poor people cannot afford a lawyer to draft, and then only eligible for certain, not felony crimes. Many (most states) have similar restrictions and obstacles.

In the second place, nobody is forcing these idiots to have kids. Why isn't it their fault their kids will grow up worse off? If they had a conscience, they would use contraception so as to avoid having kids if they can't support them. Why is it society's responsibility to bale out their family rather than their responsibility to plan it better?

And here you missing the point. Although it seems to be a Christian value to punish children for the stupidity and crimes of their parents (and ancestors), doing so directly or creating numerous obstacles such as crappy under resourced schools, crappy health care, crappy child care, or not allow their parents to vote for better communities long after they've paid their dues to society for a crime, and bias legal systems is the antithesis of American secular values.

~ So from all of this Education or the lac of it.. we can draw some conclusions.
It is not the childs fault that the society has failed to equip them with experiences of learning, and roll models worthy of copy or admiration. Who is to blame.. That's right..
~ It's YOU. This generation that I am part of is not without responsibility..
Pick the child up from the delivery sweet and 'Hay' ! where's the manual.. ? Why not It's not like we don't know..
~ So you call on a lifetime of experiences, some good and worthy.. some not so.. It's little wonder our children are screwed from the outset.. Look around the globe and search for those societies that do a better job of equipping the young for the life ahead..
We call ourselves informed and educated.. It's a shame we are not doing our children a just job..
Am I being fare.. no, of course not.. It's a very narrow view.. But I beg your opinions be aware that it's this generation that has allowed things to get here.. We can fix it. I am not so sure I know how. Learning to be responsible and that every action invites a response..
Consequence for actions, with no exceptions. If we could teach the young that lesson.. we win..
Part of this view encompasses that a punishment system must be just and fare.. The the choices we make in life determine our fate.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by kojax

How in this case is the sum greater than zero (or less than)?

Because it assumes that people don't change for the better (or worse) and are destined to hold that bracket, and that the normalized standards when translated into real crimes or socio economic status would be held constant in time.

What I'm assuming is that if that person were to rise, someone else would fall.

The number of jobs that exist in each bracket determines how many people can possibly be in each bracket. Unless changing this policy causes there to exist more jobs in a higher bracket, then the total number of people who find themselves in the higher bracket can't possibly be going up.

It will just be different people. That's all. The former felon trades places with someone else. I'm sure the people who are presently above them are glad they don't have to compete with the felon.

Also, I'm not saying this is good. I'm just saying this is neutral. It's not bad either. If anything, the ability to know a person's past crimes helps business owners reduce the statistical probability of getting robbed - an outcome which actually does help to create more jobs in higher brackets.

In the second place, nobody is forcing these idiots to have kids. Why isn't it their fault their kids will grow up worse off? If they had a conscience, they would use contraception so as to avoid having kids if they can't support them. Why is it society's responsibility to bale out their family rather than their responsibility to plan it better?

And here you missing the point. Although it seems to be a Christian value to punish children for the stupidity and crimes of their parents (and ancestors), doing so directly or creating numerous obstacles such as crappy under resourced schools, crappy health care, crappy child care, or not allow their parents to vote for better communities long after they've paid their dues to society for a crime, and bias legal systems is the antithesis of American secular values.

The Christian value is people who can't support children feeling obligated to have them anyway.

Not expecting society to pay for a person's misguided family planning is just plain common sense. Nobody would take the effort to plan their family if the children were automatically guaranteed to have beautiful, perfect lives regardless.

The Christians want every accommodation made to the child bearing process. No contraception. Certainly no abortions. And for the state to never tell anyone - no matter how foolish their life choices - they can't have kids.

Common sense would dictate that felons be given vasectomies (or have their tubes tied). Greater common sense would dictate that people be required to post a bond before they have a child - in an amount of money sufficient to cover all costs should they later find themselves unable to support the child.

The problem is that our society treats child bearing like it's a game.

I'm sure the people who are presently above them are glad they don't have to compete with the felon.

Why not everyone assumes people can't change... In fact in my experience and by the statistics by the time people's brains are fully developed in their mid 20s they are already much less likely to make stupid decisions that get them a felony--ten years later the rates are way down.

Of course asking that the science of mental development actually get into reasonable sentencing guidelines, and it lifelong consequences is too much to ask in the US.

Common sense would dictate that felons be given vasectomies (or have their tubes tied)

Really you trade a joint for a cartoon of sigs...you are now a felony (by Federal Law)... destined not to have reproductive rights and to be a ward of the state because you can't get a respectable job...for the next 50 years. forgive me for thinking you still have a lot of thinking to do about this subject--your ideas and perspective about this subject are wacked, don't gibe well with science and lead to some questionable ethics with regard to how to deal with the situation.

I do agree with your comments about many Christians, though fortunately many ignore those parts of their doctrines in the developed world.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I'm sure the people who are presently above them are glad they don't have to compete with the felon.

Why not everyone assumes people can't change... In fact in my experience and by the statistics by the time people's brains are fully developed in their mid 20s they are already much less likely to make stupid decisions that get them a felony--ten years later the rates are way down.

I'm not suggesting they can't change. I'm just saying it wouldn't matter if they did. Unless one of them is going to go on to start a new industry, or revolutionize their field, they aren't going to create more jobs by being forgiven of their records.

What will happen instead is employers will be deprived of one means of protecting themselves from the likelihood of theft. Unless I've misunderstood what you are trying to say, and you expect a 100% reformation rate, there will still be some former felons who continue to be felons, and very likely steal from their employers.

If you expect a reformation rate much lower than 100%, then former felons remain a high risk group for employee theft. Not due to the ones who do reform of course, but due to the ones who don't.

Of course asking that the science of mental development actually get into reasonable sentencing guidelines, and it lifelong consequences is too much to ask in the US.

Psychology is only a "science" in the loosest sense of the word.

Common sense would dictate that felons be given vasectomies (or have their tubes tied)

Really you trade a joint for a cartoon of sigs...you are now a felony (by Federal Law)... destined not to have reproductive rights and to be a ward of the state because you can't get a respectable job...for the next 50 years. forgive me for thinking you still have a lot of thinking to do about this subject--your ideas and perspective about this subject are wacked, don't gibe well with science and lead to some questionable ethics with regard to how to deal with the situation.

I do agree with your comments about many Christians, though fortunately many ignore those parts of their doctrines in the developed world.

You won't get any argument from me that the drug laws in this country are overbearing and foolishly so. Our prisons are becoming overcrowded because of all the pot dealers that get nabbed and sentenced to terms often longer than those given to child molesters and murders and rapists.

But this kind of argument ultimately amounts to cherry picking. Quite a lot of former felons are not drug dealers, drug users, or any kind of drug related conviction. Quite a lot of them are child molesters, murderers, and rapists.

In a sensible country, no drug crime, no matter how extreme, would EVER be classified above the level of a misdemeanor. I suppose we'll need to fix that part of the system first, and then we can get on to the sterilizations.

Originally Posted by kojax

Common sense would dictate that felons be given vasectomies (or have their tubes tied). Greater common sense would dictate that people be required to post a bond before they have a child - in an amount of money sufficient to cover all costs should they later find themselves unable to support the child.

The problem is that our society treats child bearing like it's a game.

I can understand conservative views about self reliance and not wanting to pay for other people's poor choices. At the same time, ideas like forced sterilization kind of creeps me out, and its depressing to think that the most basic human experiences - having a family - could somehow become a restricted luxury, controlled by the state, with income requirements or licenses. What's left in life, what can't be taken away from a person once we cross that line?

Great points! Too tired to expound.

Originally Posted by DianeG

What's left in life, what can't be taken away from a person once we cross that line?

Any country that has 'life imprisonment' has already crossed that line.
I have yet to see anything that can't be taken away by the state: including a person's life.

But we wouldn't need state intervention if people weren't so stupid and selfish.
For example, there are parents who continue to have children, even though each of their previous children have been taken into care due to neglect.

People are biologically programmed to have children - which worked well when infant mortality was 80% and most adults died before they were 40.
But things have changed and our behaviour needs to change as well.

Originally Posted by DianeG

Originally Posted by kojax

Common sense would dictate that felons be given vasectomies (or have their tubes tied). Greater common sense would dictate that people be required to post a bond before they have a child - in an amount of money sufficient to cover all costs should they later find themselves unable to support the child.

The problem is that our society treats child bearing like it's a game.

I can understand conservative views about self reliance and not wanting to pay for other people's poor choices. At the same time, ideas like forced sterilization kind of creeps me out, and its depressing to think that the most basic human experiences - having a family - could somehow become a restricted luxury, controlled by the state, with income requirements or licenses.

A good childhood already is a restricted luxury subject to income requirements.

The state being involved won't change that.

All the state would be doing is preventing bad childhoods.

What's left in life, what can't be taken away from a person once we cross that line?

Who says there has to be something that "can't be taken away"?

The power of an individual to take away things from another individual is unlimited. Individuals even have the ability to murder one another. They can take a child and abuse that child in the most unspeakable ways, often without getting caught. Or by foolishness and neglect they can cause a child's death.

Why should there be any limit on what can be done to counter that?

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I'm sure the people who are presently above them are glad they don't have to compete with the felon.

Why not everyone assumes people can't change... In fact in my experience and by the statistics by the time people's brains are fully developed in their mid 20s they are already much less likely to make stupid decisions that get them a felony--ten years later the rates are way down.

I'm not suggesting they can't change. I'm just saying it wouldn't matter if they did. Unless one of them is going to go on to start a new industry, or revolutionize their field, they aren't going to create more jobs by being forgiven of their records.

Of course they can; they'll get better jobs, better education and perhaps even start businesses like the rest of us. Tax payers will stop spending for various social programs to make up for the level of income they can't achieve because of a lifetime sentence of never being able to. And none of us should under estimate the generation impacts of raising their kids in another impoverished environment.

Reading what you say about the "poor beleaguered felons" you met growing up reminds me of when I was a teenager and I used to talk with friends who's parents were getting a divorce. Always one parent was the knight in shining armor, utterly victimized by their former spouse and in no way in the least bit responsible for the fact there had to be a breakup.

And strangely, the question of which parent that was always turned out to be the same parent the kid had been listening to. On rare occasions I would get the chance to talk with the other parent, or a kid who was living with the other parent, and the story would suddenly be completely reversed.

Anyway, the trucking industry is always hiring. I've met a few former felons who worked in trucking, including one who I would never have believed could have been a felon (it was drugs of course.)

I think it's possible that the "nobody will hire me" story is also a bit of a myth. A way for lazy, shiftless people, who also happen to be former felons, to justify their longstanding unemployment and underachievement. If you are a felon, but you prove yourself by taking one of those inferior jobs, especially a hard one, and working at it for a few years without any problems, I seriously doubt you wouldn't be able to trade up.