As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Proper Punishments for Minor Crimes
zagdrob
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
This board has had a number of discussions about what types of punishments are proper for minor property crimes - such as graffiti / other vandalism, minor drug / alcohol (non-driving) offenses, or petty theft - that pose no danger to individuals. As someone whose vehicle has been keyed / egged, and mailbox smashed, I understand the frustration and anger that results from someone damaging MY stuff. Stuff that I paid good money to buy, and - even with insurance - will need to pay good money to fix.
There is often a good deal of disagreement as to what levels of enforcement and punishment are necessary, and what is effective as a deterrent. Indeed, while life-long imprisonment would be effective at preventing a given individual from committing more minor crimes, it's a very poor use of resources and quite harsh for the damage the crime causes. In many cases, first offenders are punished with fines and community service, while repeat offenders normally receive larger fines and the possibility of short periods of jail time.
I want to note that I'm talking about 'minor' crimes here, not trying specifically to debate what crimes are major or minor. I'll definitely agree that many crimes are minor or major based on context - someone through a rock through the window of an abandoned building should not be treated the same as someone throwing a brick through the window of an occupied home. Similarly, someone spray-painting a wall, someone painting a gang tag, and someone painting a swastika on a Jewish bakery are not directly comparable, and for the purposes of this thread we're generally only talking about the most minor crimes.
So, what types of punishment do people think are adequate / necessary? What types of punishment are completely unacceptable for these crimes, and why?
Community Service: This type of punishment involves sentencing offenders to perform work - usually a number of hours of work - in service to their community. This is a very common punishment for people convicted of minor, and sometimes more serious crimes in the United States. While the amount of community service assigned to offenders can vary significantly and a number of different tasks are recognized as community service, this usually involves some form of menial work of value to their community. So-called 'chain gangs' often clean up garbage along the side of roads and sidewalks, clean up graffiti, wash police cars, and perform maintenance / landscaping duties for various charities and local programs.
Corporal Punisment: This type of punishment is a form of deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offense or for disciplining / reforming a wrongdoer. While not frequently used in the West anymore, this type of punishment was common in the past, and is still in use in many parts of the world. In a highly publicized incident (christ, 20 years ago) Michael P. Fay, an American convicted of vandalism in Singapore received 4 lashes (reduced from 6).
Fines / Fees: This is a common punishment where an offender must pay an amount of money to the courts. The amounts can vary, and in many Western countries the minimum / maximum amounts are fixed by statute. Often, the amount of the fine will increase with subsequent offenses, and while not de facto fines, a number of court fees and costs associated with prosecution and trying the individual who commits a minor crime are lumped in as 'fines'.
House Arrest / Monitoring: This isn't a particularly common punishment for minor offenses, but on occasion individuals convicted of minor offenses will be confined to their home or required to wear some form of monitoring. This monitoring may track their activities to verify they are only at approved locations such as their home / work, notify authorities if the individual consumes alcohol, etc.
Incarceration: This is sometimes used, although in many cases incarceration is (arguably) reserved to more serious / major crimes. Short term incarceration is often used for problematic or repeat offenders and normally takes place at a local level (such as a county jail). Overnight incarceration with release on the individual's recognizance is also relatively typical for minor crimes. Long term incarceration and imprisonment tends to be reserved to serious / major crimes. Often, incarcerated / jailed individuals will be required to participate in community service.
Public Humiliation: This type of punishment involves humiliating a person in front of others, normally in a public place. While not frequently used in the West, some judges are known to sentence offenders to various forms of public humiliation, normally related in someway to their crimes. Additionally, it has been expressed that a typical punishment for minor crimes (Community Service) often doubles as a form of public humiliation as offenders are frequently seen in public performing menial tasks such as picking up garbage.
Rehabilitation / Treatment: This is a common 'punishment' for drug or substance abuse issues, or other minor crimes committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. An individual will be required to successfully complete a variety of forms of treatment - ranging from attendance at meetings / classes to lengthy stays at secure facilities to learn skills that will hopefully help them remain clean and not lapse back into a cycle of committing crimes again.
So, I've tried to be somewhat comprehensive with the available punishments. I personally think that for most minor crimes, fines / fees and community service are the most effective / reasonable punishments, which rehabilitation or treatment (and monitoring) for people who have substance abuse problems or where substance abuse played a factor in the commission of their crime.
I'm not a big fan of incarceration, but I think there are a lot of cases where a period of house arrest / monitoring would be an adequate trade-off. Incarceration is just too expensive, and really leads a lot of people to more criminal activity down the line. Corporal punishment I'm generally opposed to on ideological grounds, and public humiliation can vary so much in execution that my support / objection would be circumstantial.
There is often a good deal of disagreement as to what levels of enforcement and punishment are necessary, and what is effective as a deterrent. Indeed, while life-long imprisonment would be effective at preventing a given individual from committing more minor crimes, it's a very poor use of resources and quite harsh for the damage the crime causes. In many cases, first offenders are punished with fines and community service, while repeat offenders normally receive larger fines and the possibility of short periods of jail time.
I want to note that I'm talking about 'minor' crimes here, not trying specifically to debate what crimes are major or minor. I'll definitely agree that many crimes are minor or major based on context - someone through a rock through the window of an abandoned building should not be treated the same as someone throwing a brick through the window of an occupied home. Similarly, someone spray-painting a wall, someone painting a gang tag, and someone painting a swastika on a Jewish bakery are not directly comparable, and for the purposes of this thread we're generally only talking about the most minor crimes.
So, what types of punishment do people think are adequate / necessary? What types of punishment are completely unacceptable for these crimes, and why?
Community Service: This type of punishment involves sentencing offenders to perform work - usually a number of hours of work - in service to their community. This is a very common punishment for people convicted of minor, and sometimes more serious crimes in the United States. While the amount of community service assigned to offenders can vary significantly and a number of different tasks are recognized as community service, this usually involves some form of menial work of value to their community. So-called 'chain gangs' often clean up garbage along the side of roads and sidewalks, clean up graffiti, wash police cars, and perform maintenance / landscaping duties for various charities and local programs.
Corporal Punisment: This type of punishment is a form of deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offense or for disciplining / reforming a wrongdoer. While not frequently used in the West anymore, this type of punishment was common in the past, and is still in use in many parts of the world. In a highly publicized incident (christ, 20 years ago) Michael P. Fay, an American convicted of vandalism in Singapore received 4 lashes (reduced from 6).
Fines / Fees: This is a common punishment where an offender must pay an amount of money to the courts. The amounts can vary, and in many Western countries the minimum / maximum amounts are fixed by statute. Often, the amount of the fine will increase with subsequent offenses, and while not de facto fines, a number of court fees and costs associated with prosecution and trying the individual who commits a minor crime are lumped in as 'fines'.
House Arrest / Monitoring: This isn't a particularly common punishment for minor offenses, but on occasion individuals convicted of minor offenses will be confined to their home or required to wear some form of monitoring. This monitoring may track their activities to verify they are only at approved locations such as their home / work, notify authorities if the individual consumes alcohol, etc.
Incarceration: This is sometimes used, although in many cases incarceration is (arguably) reserved to more serious / major crimes. Short term incarceration is often used for problematic or repeat offenders and normally takes place at a local level (such as a county jail). Overnight incarceration with release on the individual's recognizance is also relatively typical for minor crimes. Long term incarceration and imprisonment tends to be reserved to serious / major crimes. Often, incarcerated / jailed individuals will be required to participate in community service.
Public Humiliation: This type of punishment involves humiliating a person in front of others, normally in a public place. While not frequently used in the West, some judges are known to sentence offenders to various forms of public humiliation, normally related in someway to their crimes. Additionally, it has been expressed that a typical punishment for minor crimes (Community Service) often doubles as a form of public humiliation as offenders are frequently seen in public performing menial tasks such as picking up garbage.
Rehabilitation / Treatment: This is a common 'punishment' for drug or substance abuse issues, or other minor crimes committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. An individual will be required to successfully complete a variety of forms of treatment - ranging from attendance at meetings / classes to lengthy stays at secure facilities to learn skills that will hopefully help them remain clean and not lapse back into a cycle of committing crimes again.
So, I've tried to be somewhat comprehensive with the available punishments. I personally think that for most minor crimes, fines / fees and community service are the most effective / reasonable punishments, which rehabilitation or treatment (and monitoring) for people who have substance abuse problems or where substance abuse played a factor in the commission of their crime.
I'm not a big fan of incarceration, but I think there are a lot of cases where a period of house arrest / monitoring would be an adequate trade-off. Incarceration is just too expensive, and really leads a lot of people to more criminal activity down the line. Corporal punishment I'm generally opposed to on ideological grounds, and public humiliation can vary so much in execution that my support / objection would be circumstantial.
0
Posts
Pretty much where I sit. Fines/community service are effective deterrents for most people, and appropriate punishment for most first/second time offenders. Treatment/rehab for appropriate situations. Or a combination of the two.
I've seen shame/humiliation used to varying effect too, it's a common element (officially or unofficially) in many military punishments. For instance, having to hold the sign that you got a DUI at the gate to post on weekend nights was "a thing" on my base. Having to give a class on drinking and driving was too, the main purpose wasn't to educate (we already knew the crap you were "teaching") it was to put you in front of the unit as "that asshole," and give people a chance to be dicks to you during the Q&A. However, out in the general public I don't see it working too often...most communities are too anonymous, and most people simply won't care. Plus, it can easily cross the line into cruel/unusual.
Incarceration is always there as a backup for those that refuse to comply with the previous punishments (fines/service/rehab), and for those who continue to offend. Personally, I feel that repeated minor offenses become major, which is why it's easier for me to justify incarceration for otherwise "minor" offense when it's not the first time. But assuming for a moment that this isn't reasonable (basically respecting your premise of "minor by definition") I think that short incarcerations can be beneficial for minor offenses as a deterrent; essentially showing the offender what they're in for if they continue. Preferably such incarceration would be structured to minimize risk to the offender and disruption of their life (loss of job, etc). So basically segregate minor offenders, and allow the sentence to be served piecemeal around a documented work schedule or some such.
For adults, I generally favor fine and service for first time offenders, larger fines and/or minor jail time for repeat offenders.
I think there should be a distinction between crimes that are just folks being assholes, versus things that are economically related. A kid vandalizing a house because he and his friends are dicks should be handled differently than a guy engaging in petty theft because he's poor.
This is kind of outside the scope of the thread, since we're just assuming 'minor by definition.'
But personally? I think vandalism and property destruction is worse than stealing for two reasons. One, stolen property can be more easily recovered...if I find you with my guitar, I can get my guitar back, whereas if you just smash my guitar and you don't have the money to fix it, my guitar is gone. Two, stealing is often at least associated with a need/desire. You steal because you need money, whether for food or drugs, or because after paying for food or drugs your life sucks and you also need a TV because Archer is an awesome show and makes you laugh and forget your life sucks. You are taking because you lack, which is illegal and harms others but is, on some level, understandable.
Whereas most vandalism is just you being a dick, because you can. You aren't benefiting, other than whatever chemical pleasure you derive from harming others. It's a much more depraved act.
EDIT: As an extreme example, imagine the difference between stealing the Mona Lisa because you want to appreciate it in your own home or profit off its sale, versus lighting it on fire because fuck art.
I think it's fair to include minors in the discussion within reason. I don't see that much of a distinction between a fourteen year old vandalizing a car and a eighteen year old doing it. With minors, you have the added benefit of more flexibility with 'house arrest' or 'curfew' type punishments. While you might be able to take an adult's drivers license and de facto place them under house arrest (depending on where they live), I think there are a lot higher legal hurdles for placing them under house arrest than a minor.
I also agree with McDermott that repeated minor crimes eventually become serious / major crimes, but I was trying to avoid getting too far into splitting hairs over when a 'minor' crime becomes 'major' or what crimes are minor and what crimes aren't. I definitely think that a gradual escalation of punishments for repeat offenders with some discretion based on the nature of the crime is going to be a necessity in any case.
Part of why I wanted to create this thread was some discussion of individual punishments for minor crimes, and why some of the ones we use may be invalid or some of the ones we don't really use might be better served. I mean, I don't support corporal punishment, but people sure as shit don't spray paint cars that often in Singapore. If I had to decide between 4 whacks on the ass or $1500 in fines, as a 16 year old I just might choose the whacks on the ass.
Something I've also liked about community service is that it's fair - an hour is an hour of your life to everyone. Some countries have a scaling fine system based on income / assets, but here the fines are generally fixed. Someone might get ruined by a fine that someone else may laugh off as not worth going to court to contest.
Ah, yes, I specifically wanted to mention this but forgot.
To be meaningful, fines must be scaled to income.
As for an hour equaling an hour, yes and no. In theory this sounds right, but it will vary based on how much free time a person has. An hour taken from the "spare" time of somebody working two jobs to get by is, I'd think, worth "more" to them than an hour taken from somebody living a life of leisure off an inherited trust fund (extreme opposites chosen for contrast, but applies across the spectrum). The value that a single hour of my time has goes up the less hours I have that aren't "spoken for."
Agreed and this is my biggest issue with fines. $500 is an annoyance to one person but it's a crushing financial burden to another. I also dislike fines when they are less about deterrence and more about revenue generation. It's just another form of taxation. It's really hard to enforce a scaling system policy though without being totally invasive. I can see it working well at the federal level (where income records are known via the IRS) but very hard to enforce at the local level.
Out here is Los Angeles they are basically just using fines now to help fund the government shortfalls. They effectively increased all fines by a multiplier of 3 or 4. So on the books it says $50 but when you get the actual ticket it comes out to $200 instead. They've done this across the board. Texting at a red light is somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 now. Running a red light or carpool violations are over $1000.
No reason a fine can't be deterrence and revenue generation, I'd say. It's a voluntary tax on bad behavior. But yeah, those shenanigans don't sound reasonable. And you'd still want them scaled to income, so that the "tax" is progressive/flat.
And at least in theory I can't see why we couldn't link up databases to make it work.
I might too, but I think a lot of people underestimate the brutality of caning. It doesn't sound bad, but we're talking open flesh, scarring, and people straight pass out during it.
If it's deterrence, that means you want the behavior to stop.
If it's revenue generation, you don't want to cut off your source of revenue.
The two goals are mutually exclusive.
In the latter case, the government has incentive to keep the bad behavior going, and law enforcement just needs to act out a little theater pretending that they actually want you to stop the thing they're doing.
Example: enforcing speed limits by stealth (speed traps, hiding behind landscaping, unmarked police cars) vs highly visible highway patrol.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah it's certainly feasible from a technical sense I'm just wondering if there are constitutional legal hurdles.
I don't consider them "voluntary". If I'm driving 67 in a 65 I'm technically breaking the law, even if the rest of traffic is going 72. I'm basically at the mercy of law enforcement. I can fight it but that just costs more money and time. It's an unplanned tax collected at the whims of the cops. If you tell me you're going to tax X% of my income I can budget for that. When I get slapped with a $1000 penalty for rolling a right turn at a red light it doesn't feel like justice is being served.
Fines are how a lot of low tax states (or even some high tax states which are completely out of control like CA) make their budgets these days which I think is morally problematic. It's politically very safe though since voters don't have a problem screwing that other guy who is doing something wrong. They just don't want to pay for stuff themselves.
These signs double the speeding fines and lower the speed limit. It's rare to see anyone actually working and theoretically at risk from the speeding. But the fines and lowered speed limit always apply when the signs are there.
At one point my town, Killen, had the section of the highway leading into Florence designated a 40 mph fines doubled zone for something like 2 continuous years. They made a lot of money, and no one was made safer.
Give a kid a fine or house arrest and their parents are getting the worst of it but put them on a road crew or make them pick beans at minimum wage until I get paid back for the damages.
For extra points set up a a superfund like the EPA and make them pay 4 times the amount so the fund can pay people who don't find out who did it.
Restitution is preferable when feasible, but sometimes it simply isn't. You look at the sheer amount of property damage caused by teenagers, then look at how long it would take to cover that amount of damage at minimum wage assuming we still want to allow them to, you know, attend school, and I just don't know that you can get there given the portion of offenders you catch.
There's probably not a lot of distinction between a 14 year old and an 18 year old, maybe, but there's a distinction between a 14 yo and a 30 yo. A teenager is likely to be a stupid asshole who does things to look cool and is moved by peer pressure. An adult is ostensibly a mature individual who is less likely to break the law just because it's funny. The legal reason for the distinction is that kids aren't fully responsible for their actions yet, and as far as law enforcement is concerned, I think punishments for minors need to be more akin to smacking a dog with a newspaper and yelling "No!"
And as a rule, I'm against any kind of state-sanctioned corporal punishment. Whether or not it's theoretically effective or theoretically moral, it's way to easy to take to a very bad place. Fines, community service, jail time (which would include things like house arrest) and mandatory enrollment in certain programs are pretty much the extent of acceptable punishments, I believe.
Here is a funny story:
I grew up in a town called Sylvan Lake. For a while, during my elementary school years, the municipality had a house arrest program for kids caught shoplifting. There was a drug store within walking distance of one of the middle schools and two gas stations in walking distance of the high school, and these places would just get robbed blind at lunch hour.
Then, one day, the entire program was abruptly cancelled. A few days prior to this, one of the kids I vaguely knew - in the sense that it's a small town, with like 300~ kids max at the school, so you sort-of vaguely know everyone - 'moved out of town'.
And what my parents meant by ' he moved out of town' when they explained this to me, even though I hadn't asked about it and probably wouldn't have noticed he was gone, was that he'd been physically beaten to death by his single parent after getting caught stealing a chocolate bar (he didn't have lunch, so I've been told because Single Parent never made him any).
Hahahahaha. I told you it was funny!
I'm not so keen on house arrest programs, mostly because you're taking a kid who's problems may stem from bad homes and then locking them into said bad homes.
This should be on the wiki page on Poe's Law.
The only issue is that I can't think of many manual labor jobs that a kid could do to pay off the damages.
Also, by 'minors', I mean anyone above the age of 10. If you aren't 10 years old, your punishment should be education-focused only. 8 year old kid mimicking bad behavior and keying your car is not the same Goddamn thing as 16 year old keying your car because screw YOU, maaaaan!
If an adult does the same thing, I'm on the same page as McDermott: fuck that person and their craven attitude. Jail time on top of anything else is fine by me in cases like that.
That's absolutely horrifying, but in no way surprising. I was married to a teacher, she worried constantly about disciplining children in homes she suspected were abusive.
But honestly, I don't know what you do here. You can't necessarily temper your punishment for minor crimes on the off chance that one kid's parents might be homicidal, that's just one of those fucked up things that's going to happen (and may happen anyway). Obviously, ideally you'd identify such abusive homes through other means and address the issue, but some will always slip through the cracks.
At the same time...yeah, don't know what to say. I get it. I just don't see a great solution. Though I'd agree that in many cases some other sort of education/confinement program is preferable. I just know this is often an issue with suspensions of students, the concern that keeping them home, and potentially the parents missing work, will lead to issues, or that parents will be abusive...but frankly, that's an issue that needs to be addressed at the root either way.
I favor community service and rehab. If they are being assholes by littering or vandalising things, than community service might make them less friendly towards the idea of do such things when they have to clean up after others. Rehab is kind of a no brainer if the issue involves that they are taking drugs. I'd say an educational program might also be good if they get caught dealing or doing something that community service might not remedy and that drug rehab won't fix. Done right, an educational program about why what they are doing is wrong could get them to understand that what they are doing is not kosher and that could be enough to steer them away from taking up the asshole life philosophy.
Fines are a bit harder because sometimes it's not really the parents' fault, as in the parents do everything right with raising their child and the kid decides to still fuck something up. Sometimes they are indirectly at fault, maybe they don't spend enough time with Timmy to teach him what is right from wrong because their boss Joe Fucks Poors won't pay them enough, let alone give them enough time, to raise their child. Sometimes they are directly at fault, they have no excuse to be a piss poor parent and/or actively encourage their child to be a belligerent little shit knowingly or unknowingly. This last bit is also why I'm not wild about certain forms of house arrest for minors because as enders story shows, the best thing might be to get them away from a shitty parent (I'm all in favor of afterschool, and weekend detention though. Also cool with curfews if it's determined that the parents are absolute shit). That said if there is damage to property or theft done in a way that the stolen item can't be recovered and the parents aren't poor, than a fine would probably work out alright since that doesn't mean fucking someone out of food, water, shelter, heat or education.
For adults -
I'm cool with adding house arrest and fines to the service and rehab punishments for minor crime. We jail too many people for stupid shit and jails aren't cheap. Some of these people would probably quite being assholes if they had to not only clean up their own mess but clean up other people's messes. Others, it's not a matter of moral failing, they have a disorder that needs to be treated properly and throwing them in jail will not fix that disorder and could make matters worse. Hell, throwing people in jail for stupid shit could have the opposite effect, since that might harden their position to more of a fuck society mindset.
House arrest could help get some people stop being asses if community service isn't enough (doesn't tie in easily to what they did wrong, thus resulting in the not too bright understanding they are picking up trash for doing X thing wrong) and it's not a treatment issue. House arrest can be rather unfun for people since that interferes with their ability to do whatever they please, when they please to do so (pretty much the restriction of freedom without costs that one would have to pay to lock them up in a jail cell).
Fines also have some promise. Good way to make sure victims get reasonable compensation for damages and having a flex fund for criminal justice. If crime goes up, you'll also collect more money to make sure the proper actions are carried out, while not having to worry about funds. I have two concerns with fines. First, fixed fines suck because you could have a case where it's way too much for a poor individual, thus having the opposite desired effect (Bob stole food from the Quickie Mart to feed his family for the day. Bob pays a fine, so now he is forced get even more money to ensure that his family can make this months rent). On the other hand, Joe Fucks Poors, goes into the same Quickie Mart and steals the same amount of bread because he doesn't feel like paying and he doesn't even register the fine, so he frequently does this. So fines would need to scale within reason. They need to be a deterrent without fucking over people in poverty and the rich can suck it up because more often than not, they are just being assholes when they commit petty crimes. The second issue is shitty localities relying on fines to cover their budgets, there needs to be a federal law that can't be overturned that requires all budgets to function without bringing in any fine money (it's one thing if the fine money is put towards unexpected expenses or fed in a way to help law enforcement keep up with increased punishments that are a result from an increase in crime).
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
But more than that, I really don't think that how easily you can afford to make someone whole should factor into your obligation to make people whole. Why should a home owner be forced to bear the cost of fixing damage because they guy who did it was poor?
A $200 speeding ticket for a mcdonalds employee could cause him to be homeless if it comes at a bad time, for someone who makes six figures it's nothing
Restitution is not the first purpose of the criminal justice system.
It is, at best, a secondary purpose - subordinate to deterrence, rehabilitation, and protecting the public from future crimes.
We have other social institutions in place to repair financial damage - the civil court system and insurance, mostly.
It's not the criminal court's job to make you whole. That's why State Farm is there.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You need them to be doing something constructiveish, but for kids from good homes its punishment, for kids from bad home its probably a better environment and maybe they will gain something. There is a cost in teacher pay, but it's probably negligible onsidering what most teachers make. The breakfast club really wasn't that bad an idea. Same reason I think all suspensions should be in-school.
Yup. If somebody doesn't understand this, I don't know how you can even explain it to them, it's that obvious. I've been poor. I remember when a $150 speeding ticket would wreck my shit.
Whereas the other day I got hit for over $200, and honestly don't give much of a shit. If I get one or two of those a year, no big deal. Insurance goes up a bit? Meh, I'm fine. I drive a brand new import, I actually budgeted for the ticket I totally intended to get before the year was out (made it 11 months!).
If it's after school there's also a cost in teacher time, which you need to consider. They have families too.
But yeah, there are ways.
Hey, guess what we are not doing in here!
Hint: That!
You may engage a post or ignore a post, but you may not just plain mock a post.
This should be their new byline.
1) As override said, $200 is very different for people at different income levels.
2) Think of this in practical terms, Mr. Lawyer: some kid does $5,000.00 worth of paint damage to your new Ferrari. Unless we can find a job for this kid at $100.00 / hr, it is going to take him a very long time to get the money to repaint your car. Are you okay having to show up to work at the office and get laughed at with your scratched-up Italian pride and joy in the meantime? You could say, "Well fuck it, just have the state take out a loan against him so I can go repaint it next Tuesday," but then we get to deal with the ensuing bureaucratic clusterfuck as well as, for some of us, a very uncomfortable feeling that having money is now directly related to how much vandalism or petty theft you can get away with.
ISS tends to be hit or miss. More often it's a miss because most teachers in charge of running it, don't do a good job at making it a punishment. I knew plenty of kids at my high school and middle school, who intentionally got ISS because they could sleep or read stuff once they finished all their school work, in some cases some of them got away with talking with one another. Granted it probably says something about the state of public education, but that a topic for a different thread.
After school and weekend detentions have the advantage in that the kids are now missing out on free time that they would have otherwise had, had they not broken the rules.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Yeah, on the one hand, cases like that are looking for ways to happen anyway. Honestly, if it wasn't triggered by house arrest, it could literally have been anything else. It could've been the kid not knowing a math problem, or scuffing his shoes, or wearing a displeasing color of shirt. Not disciplining a child because of how their psycho parent might respond is not far removed from not giving pop quizzes because the psycho parent's kid might fail it.
On the other hand, forcing a kid to stay at home is only a good idea to the extent that the home is a positive environment. The kid who has good parents and is going through an asshole phase? Being stuck at home for awhile might do him some good. The kid who's going to sit at home and watch his parents yell at each other and beat each other up, or watch his dad smoke crack all night? Not so much with the doing good.
The idea behind my suggestion of house arrest was basically to remove the kid from negative behaviors and give him alternatives. If he's hanging around bad kids, keep him away from the bad kids for awhile. If the kids are going out and getting in trouble, force him to stay at home where he can't get in such trouble. So if the kid has a bad home life, maybe there's an alternative environment? I don't know what. Forced enrollment in after-school clubs? Force him to join the chess club? The problem is that kids committing crime are going to disproportionately have bad home environments.
Forcing a kid to use Linux is cruel and unusual.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
...Just because I can't read this and not comment on it:
I do not understand why some acts of graffiti are considered 'vandalism'. I mean, obviously tagging a gang sign onto a mailbox or painting WHORE! onto someone's wall is vandalism, but why is, say, painting a mural onto unused space on the side of Wal Mart 'vandalism'? What is being damaged? They can still hang-up advertisements over it if they want, the function of the wall is not being impaired, customers are not being visually assaulted with some disgusting crap. I can understand on some level that, hey, you just don't want people messing with your stuff - but does the state really need to step-in because someone painted a picture onto your monotone brick wall, or onto the sidewalk, or onto the road?
I don't think we want criminal courts to be the arbiters of what is and is not good art.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Um...yeah, it's pretty much the bolded. I have the right to have a side of my building be monotone, even if you think your particular mural really spruces the place up. It's not your building.
How else do I stop you from doing that other than getting the state involved? Which are you advocating: artists can paint whatever they want on my property, or I can use physical violence to stop them?
No shit. And this is irrelevant anyway, as a property owner I have the right to not have "good art" on my building.
If I complain to the police, obviously it wasn't good enough.
Courts have to make 'reasonable person' tests and the law has to deal with subjective things like nuisance laws and obscenity laws.
I'm not sure that expanding the subjectivity of the law in vandalism cases is a good idea. Asking courts to differentiate between 'pretty mural' and 'ugly tagging' seems like it'll get hairy in a lot of middle ground cases.
Perhaps a better way of going about it is just offer the property owner a mural. If you're a fuckawesome artist and the property owner is cool, then it could happen. Let the property owner make the decision.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It could definitely be structured in am agreeable way - I'm sure there are plenty of teachers that wouldn't mind a ten to six, with the last two hours grading papers while the room of detention kids do a forced study hall. We didn't even get useful work - just copying out of random reference books for an hour until our hands cramped up.
There are problems with transportation, if kids are relying on busses, but it's not intractable and is probably going to fall on parents.
With out of school disciplinary issues, you could in many areas make that something the 'alternate' school runs after hours and weekends, as a halfway measure to honest to god juvenile hall. I've heard nothing but bad about most juvies - regardless of intention, it's all the bad things of prison up to and including the sexual abuse, Lord of the Flies style.
I absolutely think though that for adults fines should be sliding based on income / means, with a floor and requiring reasonable restitution. I wouldn't be opposed to a Superfund style civic fund for vandalism that works as an insurance policy that people convicted of vandalism need to pay into vs. a direct restitution, with maybe sliding oor tiered brackets based on the total damage. That way the kid who keyed a Ferrari wouldn't be out the rest of his life, but also would have to repay a portion of damages.
And I definitely think that paying a deductible is a good part of restitution. Thats what insurance is for, and the premiums are calculated based on.
I think he's engaging in more blue-sky thinking. Like, "would art be a legitimate reason to override the rights of the property owner?" I don't think it is, but I recognize that it's not a totally insane idea. In cities with a lot of historical buildings, a property owner may be barred from making cosmetic alterations to the facade of a building that clash with the architecture of that building or obscure neighboring buildings.
And of course there's the negative form of the law - you have the right to have art, unless that art were obscene or otherwise a nuisance.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
"What do you think, Charlie?"
"I'm thinking 6.5. You could maybe talk me into a 7."
"Yeah, I'm there with you. Good composition, but uninspired. Case closed."
I get it. It's just always struck me as wrong on some level.
Plus I wouldn't mind the creation of Forensic Art Critique departments.