5 ms·

Teenage boys are idiots. I was one, most of us were, if you never raised any hell then good for you, I guess. What are you going to do, prosecute black/brown

by jbooth 13y ago

Teenage boys are idiots. I was one, most of us were, if you never raised any hell then good for you, I guess. What are you going to do, prosecute black/brown teenagers with extreme prejudice while giving white teenagers a ride home and a stern talking to? And then wonder why the statistics wind up how they are, why so many black kids don't have a father in the house? If more policy-makers had to deal with this situation in their neighborhoods, seeing their nephews get locked up with hardened criminals, the situation would change. They don't, so it doesn't, and young black men turn into statistics.

pstuart 13y ago
> Teenage boys are idiots Especially those without guidance and mentoring. If we took a fraction of the funds used to deal with their crimes and spent it on proactive engagement we'd all be better off. For example, programs like Midnight Basketball[1] should flourish throughout the land [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_basketball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_basketball
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 13y ago
> Teenage boys are idiots. I was one, most of us were, if you never raised any hell then good for you, I guess. Yes. The difference is that in the inner city, they're idiots without fathers, without authority figures, living in an environment where that power vacuum is replaced by gangs. Teenage idiocy amounts to a qualitatively different threat under those conditions. It's unfortunate that black or Hispanic kids are far more likely to find themselves in that situation than white kids, but does that mean we should treat gang-related graffiti intended to intimidate the same way we treat some dumb suburban kids playing a prank? I'm not saying that our approach is the best one. I'm saying that there is more to the story than "zomg, the police are oppressing minorities!" Look, I live in one of the most inner-city inner cities (Wilmington, DE). It's a place where the murder rate is comparable to Bogota, Colombia, and where there was a shooting this year on Main Street (rumor is more than one, and in one case the target was a public bus) just blocks from the central business district.[1] It's a really complicated situation. On one hand I feel bad for the kids without fathers, etc. I lament the de-facto segregation and oppression that continues to exist as a direct consequence of de jure segregation and oppression. On the other hand, this shit isn't all theoretical and academic, and life isn't all about idealism. I have a wife and a kid and we live here and sometimes walk home from work late at night, and I'm not going to complain if the police crack some heads in the process of keeping the gang violence to a low simmer. I think this makes me less morally culpable than the other middle/upper class people, who have just abandoned the city altogether and live in homogenous enclaves in the suburbs, just driving in for work and quickly shuffling the distance from their office to the parking garage every day. [1] Once, my dad and I were driving around trying to return a rental truck late at night and he suggested we try again in the morning because the place made him uncomfortable. This is a guy who was in Yemen in the 1990's when the civil war broke out, was in Afghanistan in the shadow of Tora Bora while the U.S. was fighting the Taliban, was in Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake...
- sophacles 13y ago
  There's a lot of implicit circular reasoning in this post. 1. The neighborhood is bad therefore everyone in it deserves to be treated harshly. 2. Look how many heavy sentences are handed out in the neighborhod. It's must be a bad one. (goto 1) The other circular problem that exists is this: 1. People who have "done" bad things (as evidenced by heavy sentences on record) are probably going to do them again. 2. We don't want to give bad people any real jobs or opportunities they are bad. 3. There aren't a lot of options or opportunities left but to do bad things. (goto 1)
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Nothing circular: > 1. The neighborhood is bad therefore everyone in it deserves to be treated harshly. How people deserve to be treated isn't the sole consideration. It's also relevant how people must be treated in order to maintain a certain level of order. > 2. Look how many heavy sentences are handed out in the neighborhod. It's must be a bad one. (goto 1) Did I say anything about sentences? My evidence was murders and shootings (on a per capita basis). > 1. People who have "done" bad things (as evidenced by heavy sentences on record) are probably going to do them again. Yes, it's called "recidivism" and is an empirically measurable phenomenon. > 2. We don't want to give bad people any real jobs or opportunities they are bad. I'd be happy to pay more taxes to support those things. But people like me who have the money to pay taxes aren't going to continue to live in a city if they feel like it's unsafe for their wives to walk home from work at night. It's a sad truth of life, but if you cater too much to the concerns of the poor, you'll drive out the people with the resources to implement the programs to alleviate those problems. See, e.g., Detroit or Wilmington or Camden, etc.
    - jbooth 13y ago
      Yeah, but this all makes sense as long as it's someone else. "I don't care if there's gross miscarriage of justice for hundreds or thousands of other people as long as I feel safe" is what you're saying.
      - 13y ago

by jbooth 13y ago

pstuart 13y ago

> Teenage boys are idiots Especially those without guidance and mentoring. If we took a fraction of the funds used to deal with their crimes and spent it on proactive engagement we'd all be better off. For example, programs like Midnight Basketball[1] should flourish throughout the land [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_basketball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_basketball

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 13y ago

> Teenage boys are idiots. I was one, most of us were, if you never raised any hell then good for you, I guess. Yes. The difference is that in the inner city, they're idiots without fathers, without authority figures, living in an environment where that power vacuum is replaced by gangs. Teenage idiocy amounts to a qualitatively different threat under those conditions. It's unfortunate that black or Hispanic kids are far more likely to find themselves in that situation than white kids, but does that mean we should treat gang-related graffiti intended to intimidate the same way we treat some dumb suburban kids playing a prank? I'm not saying that our approach is the best one. I'm saying that there is more to the story than "zomg, the police are oppressing minorities!" Look, I live in one of the most inner-city inner cities (Wilmington, DE). It's a place where the murder rate is comparable to Bogota, Colombia, and where there was a shooting this year on Main Street (rumor is more than one, and in one case the target was a public bus) just blocks from the central business district.[1] It's a really complicated situation. On one hand I feel bad for the kids without fathers, etc. I lament the de-facto segregation and oppression that continues to exist as a direct consequence of de jure segregation and oppression. On the other hand, this shit isn't all theoretical and academic, and life isn't all about idealism. I have a wife and a kid and we live here and sometimes walk home from work late at night, and I'm not going to complain if the police crack some heads in the process of keeping the gang violence to a low simmer. I think this makes me less morally culpable than the other middle/upper class people, who have just abandoned the city altogether and live in homogenous enclaves in the suburbs, just driving in for work and quickly shuffling the distance from their office to the parking garage every day. [1] Once, my dad and I were driving around trying to return a rental truck late at night and he suggested we try again in the morning because the place made him uncomfortable. This is a guy who was in Yemen in the 1990's when the civil war broke out, was in Afghanistan in the shadow of Tora Bora while the U.S. was fighting the Taliban, was in Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake...

sophacles 13y ago
There's a lot of implicit circular reasoning in this post. 1. The neighborhood is bad therefore everyone in it deserves to be treated harshly. 2. Look how many heavy sentences are handed out in the neighborhod. It's must be a bad one. (goto 1) The other circular problem that exists is this: 1. People who have "done" bad things (as evidenced by heavy sentences on record) are probably going to do them again. 2. We don't want to give bad people any real jobs or opportunities they are bad. 3. There aren't a lot of options or opportunities left but to do bad things. (goto 1)
- rayiner 13y ago
  Nothing circular: > 1. The neighborhood is bad therefore everyone in it deserves to be treated harshly. How people deserve to be treated isn't the sole consideration. It's also relevant how people must be treated in order to maintain a certain level of order. > 2. Look how many heavy sentences are handed out in the neighborhod. It's must be a bad one. (goto 1) Did I say anything about sentences? My evidence was murders and shootings (on a per capita basis). > 1. People who have "done" bad things (as evidenced by heavy sentences on record) are probably going to do them again. Yes, it's called "recidivism" and is an empirically measurable phenomenon. > 2. We don't want to give bad people any real jobs or opportunities they are bad. I'd be happy to pay more taxes to support those things. But people like me who have the money to pay taxes aren't going to continue to live in a city if they feel like it's unsafe for their wives to walk home from work at night. It's a sad truth of life, but if you cater too much to the concerns of the poor, you'll drive out the people with the resources to implement the programs to alleviate those problems. See, e.g., Detroit or Wilmington or Camden, etc.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    Yeah, but this all makes sense as long as it's someone else. "I don't care if there's gross miscarriage of justice for hundreds or thousands of other people as long as I feel safe" is what you're saying.
    - 13y ago