Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Fire! Fire! Fire!
So the two kids who started the Seton Hall dorm fire are going to prison. But they get to go the Garden State Youth Correctional Facility in Yardville, a special prison for people 19-29. I didn't know NJ had prisons segregated by age, let alone 3 of them. But I think that's probably a good thing.
Also, I wonder, given the number of life without parole sentences that are sure to increase as the death penalty is phased out, to say nothing of the lifetime civil commitments some people are calling for for convicted sex offenders, will there eventually be prisons just for old people?
In addition to a full day of work, inmates are expected to participate in programs such as problem solving and anger management.Now unless the problem solving class involves how to use a fire extinguisher, I don't know how good it'll be for them. But I suppose for the majority of the kids/young adults at Yardville, those are probably very useful classes.
LePore and Ryan pleaded guilty on the eve of their murder trial in November, each to a single arson charge, admitting they ignited a banner about 4:30 a.m. on Jan. 19, 2000, in a freshman dormitory in South Orange. They called it "a prank that got out of hand."
Also, I wonder, given the number of life without parole sentences that are sure to increase as the death penalty is phased out, to say nothing of the lifetime civil commitments some people are calling for for convicted sex offenders, will there eventually be prisons just for old people?
Friday, February 9, 2007
Adopt -A-Juvie
Those tree-hugging hippies in Boulder, CO are at it again:
Seriously, I think this is a great program. I think lots of people should adopt juvenile offenders and help steer them to the right path. I hope this program gets some statistical support to prove that it works (my hunch is it will and it's a cost-effective intervention) and that it's repeated in other areas across the country.
With the success of the new MTV show "Juvies", I'm sure this program will really take off!
Boulder County Community Justice Services is looking for volunteers who want to make a difference in these juveniles’ lives. Volunteers help plan group activities, complete intake and accompany juveniles to court. Volunteers work closely with Probation, District Attorneys, Law Enforcement, the Courts and an experienced staff on behalf of the juveniles and the county’s Juvenile Center. Additionally, the program offers opportunities for volunteers to apply their own interests and skills to lead projects such as art, music, crafts or creative writing activities.
Seriously, I think this is a great program. I think lots of people should adopt juvenile offenders and help steer them to the right path. I hope this program gets some statistical support to prove that it works (my hunch is it will and it's a cost-effective intervention) and that it's repeated in other areas across the country.
With the success of the new MTV show "Juvies", I'm sure this program will really take off!
Thursday, February 8, 2007
OK is Friggin' OK!
A beef in the heartland has caused one protesting student to be taken to juvenile facility yesterday. Maybe she can be on the next season of MTV's Juvies.
One student has been arrested, another suspended and as of yesterday, the protests continue, although now they seem to be limited to before and after school, not during class. There may be some issues with America spreading democracy around the world, but at least the spirit is alive and well in America's Heartland.
Props to all the kids for keeping it peaceful, even if some may have scratched up some administrators' cars. I can think of no better lesson in community engagement for these students than to be a part of this protest.
One Hilldale High School student was taken to a juvenile facility Wednesday after refusing to stop screaming obscenities during a demonstration against the suspension of the school’s principal, police said.I think there's a general presumption that protesting high school student reside in coastal cities or other "Blue State" communities, where such behavior is generally viewed in a more favorable light. Well, either things are really changing quickly in Oklahoma after their recent economic boom, or this is a really good principal caught in a bizarre feud with the local Superintendent.
On Monday, up to 300 students also walked out of class to protest the suspension and possible firing of Dewayne Pemberton. He was suspended with pay last week.No one seems to be talking publicly about the origins of this feud, but according to the Muskugee Phoenix, it appears to stem from a spat with the assistant principal/athletic director over a coach not having a CDL for bus duty.
Superintendent D.B. Merrill has declined to give reasons for the suspension, calling it a personnel matter.
Muskogee police officer Brad Holt said the student demonstration this morning was peaceful.
One student has been arrested, another suspended and as of yesterday, the protests continue, although now they seem to be limited to before and after school, not during class. There may be some issues with America spreading democracy around the world, but at least the spirit is alive and well in America's Heartland.
Props to all the kids for keeping it peaceful, even if some may have scratched up some administrators' cars. I can think of no better lesson in community engagement for these students than to be a part of this protest.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
This is getting to be Re-Goddamn-Diculous!
Here's hoping someone up in Albany has some friggin' sense! If not, I'm going to be racking up the tickets...
Ban Proposed On Cell Phones, iPods In Crosswalk
NewsChannel 4 reported that Sen. Carl Kruger is proposing the ban in response to two recent pedestrian deaths in his district, including a 23-year-old man who was struck and killed last month while listening to his iPod on Avenue T and East 71st Street In Bergen Beach.
"While people are tuning into their iPods and cell phones, they're tuning out the world around them," Kruger said. The proposed law would make talking on cell phones while crossing the street a comparable offense to jaywalking.
Some pedestrians said they were not worried about their safety while using their electronic devices while walking.
"I look for the light," said Venus Montes of Williamsburg.
"I'm still looking," said Lance Gordon of Far Rockaway. "It's not like I'm not paying attention."
Others said the proposed ban would not work.
"I don't think anyone's going to be up for this," said Patricia Lewis of Staten Island. "I don't think anyone wants this."
Other pedestrians said they thought the proposal was a good idea.
"It's too dangerous," said Nicole Lake of Jersey City. "Drivers don't pay attention and pedestrians don't pay attention."
###
Arrghhh...Nicole Lake of Jersey City, you must be one of those types of people who annoy the hell out of my friend on the PATH trains. Can we have some individual responsibility in 21st century America, please?
So while I'm complaining, let me give props to the other 3 people quoted in this piece, all New Yorkers, who show enough common sense not to get run over when they're listening to their ipods! Good grief!
Ban Proposed On Cell Phones, iPods In Crosswalk
Ban Would Apply To Cell Phones, MP3 players, Blackberrys
NEW YORK -- A state senator from Brooklyn said on Tuesday he plans to introduce legislation that would ban people from using an MP3 player, cell phone, Blackberry or any other electronic device while crossing the street in either New York City or Buffalo.NewsChannel 4 reported that Sen. Carl Kruger is proposing the ban in response to two recent pedestrian deaths in his district, including a 23-year-old man who was struck and killed last month while listening to his iPod on Avenue T and East 71st Street In Bergen Beach.
"While people are tuning into their iPods and cell phones, they're tuning out the world around them," Kruger said. The proposed law would make talking on cell phones while crossing the street a comparable offense to jaywalking.
Some pedestrians said they were not worried about their safety while using their electronic devices while walking.
"I look for the light," said Venus Montes of Williamsburg.
"I'm still looking," said Lance Gordon of Far Rockaway. "It's not like I'm not paying attention."
Others said the proposed ban would not work.
"I don't think anyone's going to be up for this," said Patricia Lewis of Staten Island. "I don't think anyone wants this."
Other pedestrians said they thought the proposal was a good idea.
"It's too dangerous," said Nicole Lake of Jersey City. "Drivers don't pay attention and pedestrians don't pay attention."
###
Arrghhh...Nicole Lake of Jersey City, you must be one of those types of people who annoy the hell out of my friend on the PATH trains. Can we have some individual responsibility in 21st century America, please?
So while I'm complaining, let me give props to the other 3 people quoted in this piece, all New Yorkers, who show enough common sense not to get run over when they're listening to their ipods! Good grief!
A Child's Best Interests...
So who gets to decide? According to this recent opinion piece by UCLA Constitutional Law Professore Eugene Volokh in the L.A. Times , courts should be careful when applying this "best interest of the children" standard to limit the free speech rights of parents. Consider this:
The gist of the piece focuses on the 1st amendment rights of the parents involved. But I think it falls prey to the same fallacy often seen in articles discussing legal issues involving youth. The idea that young people are incapable of exercising agency over their own thoughts, ideas and actions wreaks of an anti-youth prejudice, a prejudice the law not only encourages but in fact, codifies.
In this particular article, one of the parents is a militant Islamic with pro-jihad ideas and he is forbidden from discussing these issues with his children, both of whom are named Mujahid. (Like George Forman's kids, I guess he calls them by their 2nd name, in this case, David and Daniel.) It's an extreme case, to be sure, but it brings up an important issue.
How many of our ideas about the world do we inherit from our family and how many do we independently form on our own? I believe that, like many things in life, this isn't so easily deconstructed and in truth, it's a complex combination of family influences and those of our social networks, communities and media influences, etc.
The bottom line here for me is that I think these kids should be given the opportunity to form their own opinions about their father's philosophies. There are many counterveiling influences to steer them away from jihad, not the least of which is their custodial mother. To assume that either one or both of these 11 and 13 year old boys will automatically become a threat to the U.S. by becoming a jihadist themselves is sheer lunacy.
Kids have minds' of their own, and they use them everyday, to make decisions that adults both encourage and are dismayed by. Sometimes we're thrilled and at times, disappointed by the decisions kids make, but they are their decisions to make, regardless of how their parents or the courts feel. The idea that these kids will become victims of their father's radical ideology is an insult to them and to young people across the country.
I'm no lover of jihadists and I'd certainly be a target for them if they do decide to walk down that tragic path. But that's their right as human beings to make those unfortunate decisions. And it's a right that at the end of the day, neither the courts, nor their parents, have much of an ability to curtail.
Besides, given the nature of adolescent rebellion, it's just as likely that these two kids raised with a "quasi-Muslim philosophy" will become Hassidic Jews, when exposed to their father's lunatic rantings, as it is that they will join Al-Qaeda.
Many parents might wonder how their own philosophies might be evaluated by family judges under that standard.
In fact, a wide range of parental speech has been prohibited by family courts, all in the name of the child's supposed best interests. One parent was enjoined from making any racial slurs in a child's presence. Another parent whose ex was a lesbian was ordered to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic." A different court barred a father from taking his children to "any social, religious or educational functions sponsored by or which otherwise promote homosexual lifestyle."
The gist of the piece focuses on the 1st amendment rights of the parents involved. But I think it falls prey to the same fallacy often seen in articles discussing legal issues involving youth. The idea that young people are incapable of exercising agency over their own thoughts, ideas and actions wreaks of an anti-youth prejudice, a prejudice the law not only encourages but in fact, codifies.
In this particular article, one of the parents is a militant Islamic with pro-jihad ideas and he is forbidden from discussing these issues with his children, both of whom are named Mujahid. (Like George Forman's kids, I guess he calls them by their 2nd name, in this case, David and Daniel.) It's an extreme case, to be sure, but it brings up an important issue.
How many of our ideas about the world do we inherit from our family and how many do we independently form on our own? I believe that, like many things in life, this isn't so easily deconstructed and in truth, it's a complex combination of family influences and those of our social networks, communities and media influences, etc.
The bottom line here for me is that I think these kids should be given the opportunity to form their own opinions about their father's philosophies. There are many counterveiling influences to steer them away from jihad, not the least of which is their custodial mother. To assume that either one or both of these 11 and 13 year old boys will automatically become a threat to the U.S. by becoming a jihadist themselves is sheer lunacy.
Kids have minds' of their own, and they use them everyday, to make decisions that adults both encourage and are dismayed by. Sometimes we're thrilled and at times, disappointed by the decisions kids make, but they are their decisions to make, regardless of how their parents or the courts feel. The idea that these kids will become victims of their father's radical ideology is an insult to them and to young people across the country.
I'm no lover of jihadists and I'd certainly be a target for them if they do decide to walk down that tragic path. But that's their right as human beings to make those unfortunate decisions. And it's a right that at the end of the day, neither the courts, nor their parents, have much of an ability to curtail.
Besides, given the nature of adolescent rebellion, it's just as likely that these two kids raised with a "quasi-Muslim philosophy" will become Hassidic Jews, when exposed to their father's lunatic rantings, as it is that they will join Al-Qaeda.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
UPDATE: Justice or Just Us? JUSTICE!!
The man responsible for some of the most vile comments directed towards lawyers serving the public interest has resigned.
I haven't heard any CEOs speaking up, as I predicted (although I also predicted I'd be wrong about my own prediction, just to make sure I covered all my bases, so on that count, I was a right.)
But at least Charles "Cully" Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs is no longer a Pentagon employee.
I haven't heard any CEOs speaking up, as I predicted (although I also predicted I'd be wrong about my own prediction, just to make sure I covered all my bases, so on that count, I was a right.)
But at least Charles "Cully" Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs is no longer a Pentagon employee.
Stimson said he was leaving because of the controversy over a radio interview in which he said he found it shocking that lawyers at many of the nation's top law firms represent detainees held at the U.S. military prison in Cuba.There is hope for Justice in this world after all!
Friday, February 2, 2007
MTV's "Juvie" UPDATE
I saw the first episode of "Juvie " on MTV last night and it was interesting, to say the least.
I liked how the producers juxtaposed the two cases. The first person we meet in the premiere episode is a white girl who ran away from home. She made it all the way from Indiana to Texas before the authorities got her to turn herself in with some not-so-elaborate ruse. Also, she wants to audition for "American Idol" and you get to hear her sing in her cell. She isn't terrible, but I doubt Simon will be so forgiving. Let's just say she's no Kelly Clarkson, that's for sure.
The second "Juvie" was a black 17 year old male who got tagged with stealing a car. He says during his intake that he was driving but that the car wasn't stolen -- it belonged to a friend of his (or the friend's mom, I'm not sure which.) At the beginning, he's very standoff-ish towards the other Juvies he's housed with. But by the end of the show, he comes around and realizes that all the kids aren't so bad or so different from himself.
Anyway, you get the sense that the girl doesn't have the most stable home life but that the guy does. His mom comes to visit him while he's in jail and she's there at his hearing, where he gets to go home pending his next court appearance.
The girl's mom doesn't visit, but she does send her daughter a package of new sneakers with a long note tucked into the shoe that gets confiscated. Apparently if all the items aren't on a packing list, you're not allowed to have them. (Btw, is there anything that screams Crackhead Mom more than, "Here, I got you some sneakers. No love, but at least you got sneakers.")
It seems a little overly punitive when the guard doesn't allow her to even read the note. I mean, sure, take it away, but have a little humanity and let her read what her mother wrote. You get the sense that what happens at the hearing wouldn't have been such a surprise to this girl, had she read her mother's note beforehand. But the guards can't have their authority questioned so after the girl talks back for a while they put her on room restriction, which basically means solitary confinement for the night. It's the Juvie version of the hole, I guess.
At the hearing the Mom says she doesn't think she can control her daughter and doesn't want to bring her daughter home, so needless to say, the court decides not to send this girl home to her mother, from whence she ran away in the first place.
At the end of the episode, you learn that the girl is doing well in her new group home and is working on rebuilding her damaged relationship with her mother.
Here's hoping both of those crazy kids stay out of trouble!
I liked how the producers juxtaposed the two cases. The first person we meet in the premiere episode is a white girl who ran away from home. She made it all the way from Indiana to Texas before the authorities got her to turn herself in with some not-so-elaborate ruse. Also, she wants to audition for "American Idol" and you get to hear her sing in her cell. She isn't terrible, but I doubt Simon will be so forgiving. Let's just say she's no Kelly Clarkson, that's for sure.
The second "Juvie" was a black 17 year old male who got tagged with stealing a car. He says during his intake that he was driving but that the car wasn't stolen -- it belonged to a friend of his (or the friend's mom, I'm not sure which.) At the beginning, he's very standoff-ish towards the other Juvies he's housed with. But by the end of the show, he comes around and realizes that all the kids aren't so bad or so different from himself.
Anyway, you get the sense that the girl doesn't have the most stable home life but that the guy does. His mom comes to visit him while he's in jail and she's there at his hearing, where he gets to go home pending his next court appearance.
The girl's mom doesn't visit, but she does send her daughter a package of new sneakers with a long note tucked into the shoe that gets confiscated. Apparently if all the items aren't on a packing list, you're not allowed to have them. (Btw, is there anything that screams Crackhead Mom more than, "Here, I got you some sneakers. No love, but at least you got sneakers.")
It seems a little overly punitive when the guard doesn't allow her to even read the note. I mean, sure, take it away, but have a little humanity and let her read what her mother wrote. You get the sense that what happens at the hearing wouldn't have been such a surprise to this girl, had she read her mother's note beforehand. But the guards can't have their authority questioned so after the girl talks back for a while they put her on room restriction, which basically means solitary confinement for the night. It's the Juvie version of the hole, I guess.
At the hearing the Mom says she doesn't think she can control her daughter and doesn't want to bring her daughter home, so needless to say, the court decides not to send this girl home to her mother, from whence she ran away in the first place.
At the end of the episode, you learn that the girl is doing well in her new group home and is working on rebuilding her damaged relationship with her mother.
Here's hoping both of those crazy kids stay out of trouble!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)