|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm honestly not sure whether you're being sarcastic here. The first part seems sarcastic, but the second part seems serious. Correct on the sarcasm thing, but the concern about rehabilitation goes beyond juvenile prisons. I don't know if you were around for the excellent prison threads in Laissez Faire, https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3233450 (definitely worth getting archives for), but the OP is a prison reform advocate. But even he admitted that quote:I know plenty of men who are over age 45 who have been behind bars for more than 20 years. They are not the same person- but almost to a man, that which made them the person that committed the offense has not changed. The point of a proper juvenile justice system and a rehabilitative adult justice system is to separate out the ones who can be rehabilitated from the ones who can't (and to stop torturing the ones who can't as well). But I submit that some people cannot be fixed, even if we reform the system so as not to deliberately break the ones who can be.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2023 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It's not a given at all that you start from what you define as a humane and non-psychotic perspective. Someone might argue that rehabilitative justice is inhumane towards the victims, robbing them of dignity by treating the offender with far more kindness than they ever showed their victims. The thread is supposed to be about balancing rights, and people's perception of those rights are going to differ, often quite a lot. oh. i dont care about what those people argue. i would discount those people and disengage with the conversation, because they do not share my values and are not worth my time. i'd probably go so far as to insult these hypothetical people for being bad people
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 03:44
|
|
|
I don't think the the supposed rights of victims ought to be considered too heavily, to be honest. Justice must be done dispassionately, and I acknowledge that even if it really pisses me off in certain cases. Victims have the right to be made whole in cases where it's possible, and the Kia thieves or whatever can do that. Get a job and 50% of your paycheque goes to restitution. That'll teach a better lesson than prison will. What good will prison do?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 05:38
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Victims have the right to be made whole in cases where it's possible, and the Kia thieves or whatever can do that. Get a job and 50% of your paycheque goes to restitution. That'll teach a better lesson than prison will. What good will prison do? It's a charming idea, and fortunately not forbidden by the 13th amendment, but who's going to hire a 15 year old car thief? And if the state is going to make up work for them to do, why not just have the state pay restitution directly?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 06:07
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:It's a charming idea, and fortunately not forbidden by the 13th amendment, but who's going to hire a 15 year old car thief? And if the state is going to make up work for them to do, why not just have the state pay restitution directly? I actually like the idea of the federal government being allowed to either create make work jobs for economically vulnerable people or just straight up handing people money to correct injustices. Better that then having an hegemonic evil empire. Anyways, like I said, I posted this thread because I am emotionally conflicted. I don't necessarily intend to "win" this argument. I just want to hear people rip apart my worst impulses. I like the idea of restoration and rehabilitation in theory but I see news stories that piss me off and get under my skin. Juveniles who upon getting probation for stealing cars, proceed to do a home invasion. Juveniles who murder, carjack, and rob people. Heinous poo poo, though given statistics, probably cherry picked. I see them come up on my browser home screen all the time. Zoeb fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Nov 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 07:01
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:It's a charming idea, and fortunately not forbidden by the 13th amendment, but who's going to hire a 15 year old car thief? And if the state is going to make up work for them to do, why not just have the state pay restitution directly? I don't see any reason why the symbolic "working to pay it off" of community service doesn't serve the same function, with insurance or the state making the victim whole. The state doesn't need to "make up work", a soup kitchen or animal rescue or whatever can find something for a 15-year-old to do. A direct "wage garnishment" sort of situation could also work theoretically, but in practice I think it just would take too long for the full amount to be paid off to be practical for the victim - you'd still need the state to pay the amount initially or else you could easily be waiting a year or longer to get your car back as a victim
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 07:05
|
|
|
Zoeb posted:I actually like the idea of the federal government being allowed to either create make work jobs for economically vulnerable people or just straight up handing people money to correct injustices. Better that then having an hegemonic evil empire. Yeah, uh, I think this here is a warning sign. Of course clickbait is going to select for stories that are sensationalist and worse. especially if you click them
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 07:18
|
|
|
Zoeb posted:I actually like the idea of the federal government being allowed to either create make work jobs for economically vulnerable people or just straight up handing people money to correct injustices. Better that then having an hegemonic evil empire. Consider that you're being fed those cherry picked stories because they are the most likely to get your engagement and clicks. That stuff sells, and it's in a lot of entity's interests to try to make people scared and reactionary by overstating these problems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 09:00
|
|
|
The solution to that would appear to be to change your homepage to a different website, or leave it blank.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 09:12
|
|
|
Are you my boomer father in law? This thread is basically a carbon copy of a debate we had over thanksgiving. He loves to uncritically swallow breathless media narratives as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I don't think the the supposed rights of victims ought to be considered too heavily, to be honest. Justice must be done dispassionately, and I acknowledge that even if it really pisses me off in certain cases. Yes I agree that people should be made whole when possible, but I don't think the length of a sentence should have anything to do with the victims. I don't think anyone has a right to revenge
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 18:17
|
|
|
Dubar posted:Yes I agree that people should be made whole when possible, but I don't think the length of a sentence should have anything to do with the victims. I don't think anyone has a right to revenge How do you feel about the 17 year olds who stole our car and got taken home to their parents, out of curiousity? I’m sure the parents will teach them to not get drunk, bust up cars for fun, and then drive drunk away this time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 18:45
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:How do you feel about the 17 year olds who stole our car and got taken home to their parents, out of curiousity? There is a seperate issue here which is that grand theft auto is a serious crime, so I do feel that letting them off with a warning is not how this should be handled. However if they were given a sentence of like 6 months in a juvenile facility, I don't think that the victim has a right to be upset that its too little
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 18:57
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:How do you feel about the 17 year olds who stole our car and got taken home to their parents, out of curiousity? At least they didn't record themselves murdering somebody, like that pair Las Vegas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
this is tangentially related, but is there good evidence out there pointing one way or another to the median age where people establish their understanding of right and wrong? i am sympathetic to the idea that if we could convincingly say that someone knows their actions are wrong and understands the consequences that we could morally punish a 17 year old similarly to an 18 year old, but i'm also sympathetic to the idea that the age is higher than 18. obviously there needs to be a convenient bar that is not dynamic (it wouldnt really be fair to hold an unusually emotionally mature 13 year old to the same standard as most 18 year olds), but is 18 actually the correct number or is it just the convenient one
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 23:12
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:How do you feel about the 17 year olds who stole our car and got taken home to their parents, out of curiousity? Obviously they should be locked in a Kia factory until they've built you a new car. BougieBitch posted:I don't see any reason why the symbolic "working to pay it off" of community service doesn't serve the same function, with insurance or the state making the victim whole. The state doesn't need to "make up work", a soup kitchen or animal rescue or whatever can find something for a 15-year-old to do. A direct "wage garnishment" sort of situation could also work theoretically, but in practice I think it just would take too long for the full amount to be paid off to be practical for the victim - you'd still need the state to pay the amount initially or else you could easily be waiting a year or longer to get your car back as a victim But if the restitution comes from the state, and the state only gets round to collecting the money from the criminal years later, if at all, there would be the same level of taxpayer resentment as there presently is over giving criminals cable TV, educational programs, and food and water. Community service, although it's better than jail, doesn't throw off any revenue so it can't make up any restitution (if it was economically valuable it would either be done by the private sector or by the government), and I think part of the reason for its popularity is the assurance it offers the victims that the criminal is doing something unpleasant either way. Same with those weird "boot camps" for troubled teens that used to be popular and maybe still are, but philosophically we want to develop genuine morality in our teenagers, which goes beyond the principle of reward and punishment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2023 01:42
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:this is tangentially related, but is there good evidence out there pointing one way or another to the median age where people establish their understanding of right and wrong? i am sympathetic to the idea that if we could convincingly say that someone knows their actions are wrong and understands the consequences that we could morally punish a 17 year old similarly to an 18 year old, but i'm also sympathetic to the idea that the age is higher than 18. obviously there needs to be a convenient bar that is not dynamic (it wouldnt really be fair to hold an unusually emotionally mature 13 year old to the same standard as most 18 year olds), but is 18 actually the correct number or is it just the convenient one  There might be a mean you could designate as "good enough", but if the above is any indication, that would leave a lot of people to be judged as way more mature than they actually are. Like, look at those outliers out near 25, whose physical maturation matches that of a mean 10 year old. Sure, they have more experiences to work with to solidify an understanding of right and wrong, but it might still be tough for them to really integrate those experiences into a mature understanding of morality. And the outliers seem likely to be the ones that actually end up doing poo poo like joyriding, or far more serious crimes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2023 05:46
|
|
|
I think simplifying the issue into an understanding of right and wrong is a bit facile. Even young children have a conception of right and wrong. What they lack is an understanding of long-term consequences, and the executive function to categorically avoid "wrong" actions which provide a boon in the present. This is also a reasonable argument for charging juveniles as adults in the cases of very serious crimes like murder, in a sense; it might be unreasonable to expect a teenager to be able to fully process the consequences of stealing something, even a car, but you can argue that they probably do understand the concept of death and that it's permanent and fundamentally wrong to kill someone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2023 06:06
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think simplifying the issue into an understanding of right and wrong is a bit facile. Even young children have a conception of right and wrong. What they lack is an understanding of long-term consequences, and the executive function to categorically avoid "wrong" actions which provide a boon in the present. This is also a reasonable argument for charging juveniles as adults in the cases of very serious crimes like murder, in a sense; it might be unreasonable to expect a teenager to be able to fully process the consequences of stealing something, even a car, but you can argue that they probably do understand the concept of death and that it's permanent and fundamentally wrong to kill someone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2023 07:04
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:Obviously they should be locked in a Kia factory until they've built you a new car. My lizard brain genuinely agrees with this joke. My wife and I really treasure that drat car, we worked for and got it ourselves. There's poo poo was in there the thieves took or threw away that we can't get back, like some old CDs and some goofy polaroids of our kids and just assorted poo poo that meant something. They took our kids' loving car seats! It's hard to be objective. But for real, I am curious what people think we should do in situations like that because I have no good ideas. Dumbass teenagers don't deserve lifelong consequences for a bad decision. That's what the teens do. I just barely turned 26, I remember being/am a dumbass. But otoh a warning and turning them back to their parents no conseaunces is just going to encourage them to keep doing it. My mom raised me to know that stealing a car as a gag is not cool. Clearly theirs didn't. So wtf is the way to properly deal with this? I suppose that's the thesis of the thread and it has me struggling for answers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 19:57
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:
As I said I am of two minds about this. Y'all have already covered what the angel on my shoulder says. Some teens who have committed extreme crimes like carjacking, armed robbery, home invasion and murder have genuinely tragic stories about growing up in troubled circumstances and long term I would rather we did something about those circumstances but the devil on my shoulder says that that is merely a sign that those crooks are never going to change and they should be charged as adults. They caused lifelong consequences for others. A home invader has a good chance of getting killed by a homeowner and that is a risk they tacitly agreed to when they do home invasions. There is a place for retribution because without the state giving victims and society that retribution, people will take it upon themselves to seek retribution. When I was growing up a burglar broke into my house while my mom was sleeping, if he had harmed her, like many other burglars have done to other families, I would not have cared if he happened to be 15. I was young and I didn't break into people's houses. The angel on my shoulder though, knows at least a few stories where a boy murdered their pedo/rapist/wifebeater father and the court charged the kid with murder for doing society a favor by murdering infectious human garbage. I feel like that should have been taken into account. I know that prosecutors can't help themselves, they will over charge and put people to death to make their numbers seem higher. They will put people in jail who had good reason to break the law, who were more or less defending themselves but not in the clearcut way the law demands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
Teenagers are dumb but there's "got drunk and set fire to a trash container" dumb and "murdered owner during carjacking" dumb. I'm not saying we should be treating children as adults but even a 12 year old should understand that's bad. I guess this is going to the usual question of nature of crime. I'm not a criminologist and generally pretty sheltered from it so take this as a complete layman take. My understanding is that crime is almost entirely nurture and circumstances based. Which is good, I suppose, but if you take a juvenile, try to rehabilitate them, and then return them to the enviornment that caused them to behave the way they did, there's probably a very high chance they'll get back to it eventually. Do they have a hosed-up, abusive family? Stupid criminal friends? Dire poverty? Etc. etc. With an adult I supposed you could tell them hey we got you this stable job and an apartment in a new, safe location, away from your messed-up influences. Good luck, stay out of trouble. With a child though, you'd have to return them to wherever they were.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
I mean you don't the state literally has the ability to take kids into custody if they think their parents aren't doing a good job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean you don't the state literally has the ability to take kids into custody if they think their parents aren't doing a good job. What I have in mind is that it might not be something as clear-cut as physically abusive parents, but like a lovely area with no jobs and gently caress-all to do for entertainment for teenagers, unsupportinve parenting, neighborhood kid that tries to involve them in their crazy poo poo, etc. yeah that's another challenge, the idea is obviously not to put them in a similar or worse circumstances. vvv mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Dec 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 21:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean you don't the state literally has the ability to take kids into custody if they think their parents aren't doing a good job. That's not much of a solution either. They take the kid away from the appallingly bad parent for sure but where they end up after that could very well be worse. Parents looking to adopt usually don't adopt teenagers and only rarely adopt non-babies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 21:05
|
|
|
Which I think is a product of the same desire to have prisons merely be punitive and exploitative without regard to their social utility other than to perpetuate a race war and enrich their operators. The juvenile custodial system functions poorly because its primary purpose is to get the children out of sight by whatever method is expedient. There is no reason why society should be incapable of providing better care to children in a variety of ways, other than that it doesn't really want to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Which I think is a product of the same desire to have prisons merely be punitive and exploitative without regard to their social utility other than to perpetuate a race war and enrich their operators. The juvenile custodial system functions poorly because its primary purpose is to get the children out of sight by whatever method is expedient. I certainly agree more resources should be dedicated towards helping children who either don't have parents or who had grossly unfit parents
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 16:50
|
|