4 ms·

Fair enough. But this article is about children being encaged en masse by a bloated bureaucracy, not a judicious selection of individuals that must be protected

Fair enough. But this article is about children being encaged en masse by a bloated bureaucracy, not a judicious selection of individuals that must be protected for their, or our own, safety.

vacri 13y ago
No, it's not about 'children'. It's about 16-year-olds. Teenagers. The actions in the article are not applied to people below 16. Absolutely no-one calls 16-year-olds 'children' unless they're trying to load their language to make a political argument. The one exception is parents comparing offspring, where 'children' applies to your offspring regardless of age - ask an 80-year-old about his children, and he'll talk about 60-year-old people. This doesn't mean the actions aren't inhumane or don't need evaluation or correction, but please avoid the inflammatory language.
- kefka 13y ago
  How about this: Teenagers are citizens who do not have the full rights and representations of a full citizen. Cant vote, cant smoke, cant drink, cant fight in the military. People keep trying to speak on your behalf, and waive your rights without asking them. I'm only for punishing 16 year olds as adults IF they are also given the rights and responsibilities of adults. At least start with representation (voting).
  - vacri 13y ago
    Sure. Call them minors, because legally they are - they don't have full rights. But when the term 'children' is used for mid- to late- teenagers, it's being used an an emotive term. Perhaps the solution is the creation of a legal area of 'semi-responsibility'? That between young childhood and adulthood there is a period where you're considered responsible, but at a reduced rate. This concept is clearly already in place - for example in my state, you simply cannot try someone under the age of 10 for murder, so you get 'minors under 10', 'minors over 10', and 'adults' - but it appears to be an administrative hodge-podge managed differently for different laws. Perhaps making an interstitial 'semi-responsible' range more codified might assist when making laws? I honestly don't know - IANAL, let alone one that deals with juvenile law.
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      There is some incremental responsibility already. (In the US) You can drive a car at 16. You can vote and buy tobacco at 18. You can buy alcohol at 21. Not to mention, there is such a broad range of maturity in people at different ages. It doesn't surprise me that we have a bit of a hodge-podge.
    - kefka 13y ago
      Then lets cut right to the chase then. We don't treat animals that bad. Putting people, at whatever age, in small boxes and throwing away the key for an arbitrary amount of time IS TORTURE. I don't care if you stole a loaf of bread. I dont care if you assaulted a classmate. Nor do I care if you raped and murdered multiple people. Torture is NEVER an acceptable answer to committing crimes. If someone's that bad, file for a capital case and attempt to have the state murder them.
      - vacri 13y ago
        Plenty of people treat animals that badly and worse. Battery chickens in particular are generally socially acceptable. In any case, solitary is not a judicial punishment. The court doesn't say "shove this person in solitary for 90 days, then a regular sentence for the next 180". Solitary is punishment for not behaving yourself once you're in prison. It's not pleasant, but it's one of the few options available to control inmates without resorting to physical violence (which is also torture). If you're going to take away solitary, you need to come up with a viable mechanism for ensuring the good behaviour of prisoners. And given the overcrowding in the US system, it has to work without a lot of resources. I agree with your sentiment - I'm a rehabilitation-not-prisons guy - but solitary serves a function that still needs to be performed if you take it away. As I say above, the first step is to simply just not put as many people in prison to begin with - fewer inmates means fewer people in solitary from a straight numbers perspective, and I imagine it'd drop again due to reduction in overcrowding.
- betterunix 13y ago
  If they are not children, why do we give them no say in the laws they are incarcerated for violating?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - vacri 13y ago
    I was unaware that the general public's working definition of "children" was "unable to vote". I guess that means that the severely mentally disabled, felons, and visiting foreigners are all children?

Fair enough. But this article is about children being encaged en masse by a bloated bureaucracy, not a judicious selection of individuals that must be protected for their, or our own, safety.

vacri 13y ago

No, it's not about 'children'. It's about 16-year-olds. Teenagers. The actions in the article are not applied to people below 16. Absolutely no-one calls 16-year-olds 'children' unless they're trying to load their language to make a political argument. The one exception is parents comparing offspring, where 'children' applies to your offspring regardless of age - ask an 80-year-old about his children, and he'll talk about 60-year-old people. This doesn't mean the actions aren't inhumane or don't need evaluation or correction, but please avoid the inflammatory language.

kefka 13y ago
How about this: Teenagers are citizens who do not have the full rights and representations of a full citizen. Cant vote, cant smoke, cant drink, cant fight in the military. People keep trying to speak on your behalf, and waive your rights without asking them. I'm only for punishing 16 year olds as adults IF they are also given the rights and responsibilities of adults. At least start with representation (voting).
- vacri 13y ago
  Sure. Call them minors, because legally they are - they don't have full rights. But when the term 'children' is used for mid- to late- teenagers, it's being used an an emotive term. Perhaps the solution is the creation of a legal area of 'semi-responsibility'? That between young childhood and adulthood there is a period where you're considered responsible, but at a reduced rate. This concept is clearly already in place - for example in my state, you simply cannot try someone under the age of 10 for murder, so you get 'minors under 10', 'minors over 10', and 'adults' - but it appears to be an administrative hodge-podge managed differently for different laws. Perhaps making an interstitial 'semi-responsible' range more codified might assist when making laws? I honestly don't know - IANAL, let alone one that deals with juvenile law.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    There is some incremental responsibility already. (In the US) You can drive a car at 16. You can vote and buy tobacco at 18. You can buy alcohol at 21. Not to mention, there is such a broad range of maturity in people at different ages. It doesn't surprise me that we have a bit of a hodge-podge.
  - kefka 13y ago
    Then lets cut right to the chase then. We don't treat animals that bad. Putting people, at whatever age, in small boxes and throwing away the key for an arbitrary amount of time IS TORTURE. I don't care if you stole a loaf of bread. I dont care if you assaulted a classmate. Nor do I care if you raped and murdered multiple people. Torture is NEVER an acceptable answer to committing crimes. If someone's that bad, file for a capital case and attempt to have the state murder them.
    - vacri 13y ago
      Plenty of people treat animals that badly and worse. Battery chickens in particular are generally socially acceptable. In any case, solitary is not a judicial punishment. The court doesn't say "shove this person in solitary for 90 days, then a regular sentence for the next 180". Solitary is punishment for not behaving yourself once you're in prison. It's not pleasant, but it's one of the few options available to control inmates without resorting to physical violence (which is also torture). If you're going to take away solitary, you need to come up with a viable mechanism for ensuring the good behaviour of prisoners. And given the overcrowding in the US system, it has to work without a lot of resources. I agree with your sentiment - I'm a rehabilitation-not-prisons guy - but solitary serves a function that still needs to be performed if you take it away. As I say above, the first step is to simply just not put as many people in prison to begin with - fewer inmates means fewer people in solitary from a straight numbers perspective, and I imagine it'd drop again due to reduction in overcrowding.
betterunix 13y ago
If they are not children, why do we give them no say in the laws they are incarcerated for violating?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- vacri 13y ago
  I was unaware that the general public's working definition of "children" was "unable to vote". I guess that means that the severely mentally disabled, felons, and visiting foreigners are all children?