What should he get?

[Thoth]

Even though they go through that hell you don't sympathise with them? That also strikes me as quite unsympathetic.

There are so many youths like him that it's hard to be sympathetic. They do so much damage to themselves and everyone else around them. I get frustrated and angry, but in the end I do feel bad for them. They really do just want acceptance, as we all do, and they never find it, not in their parents, not in their neighborhood.

Well, the alternative is putting them in jail which also costs billions of dollars. Or, well, catch them young so you won't have to rehabilitate them. It's easier to strangle the criminal in development when this development is in it's cradle (meaning age 13-15) than to do it at age 18 when the guy's a drug addict with no schooling and know no other way to live his life.

Übereil

The problem is that by the age of about 7 or so they are normally already hardened. As ridiculous as that sounds, I know, but it's true. And how do you rehabilitate them? You can't lock them up forever. They have their peers and their families which have more influence then whatever program we could hope to put in place.

 

[magerette]

There are so many youths like him that it's hard to be sympathetic. They do so much damage to themselves and everyone else around them. I get frustrated and angry, but in the end I do feel bad for them. They really do just want acceptance, as we all do, and they never find it, not in their parents, not in their neighborhood.

I agree--the sheer numbers are staggering, and often frightening. I've been defending the rights of these kids to some empathy, but I also know that I could just as easily be their victim. It makes it hard.

The problem is that by the age of about 7 or so they are normally already hardened. As ridiculous as that sounds, I know, but it's true. And how do you rehabilitate them? You can't lock them up forever. They have their peers and their families which have more influence then whatever program we could hope to put in place.

I think you have to start as early in life as possible to change the outcome for these kids. For many it's already too late. I think Obama and his wife have a huge part to play here, and I hope it will help change the self-image these kids evolve by giving them some sort of alternative role models, but it's a very high mountain to climb.

Very insightful post, Thoth.

 

[magerette]

Ah, but let's dig a little deeper. The kid took a shot to the head. What's the likelihood he would have made it thru surgery, or even as far as the hospital? If we take away the overkill, but the kid dies anyway, are we even having the debate? Kid's still every bit as dead and situation is little different, but I'll admit I'd at least be polishing the dancing shoes. So why is our stance different just because this kid is "deader"?

Almost missed this. My last post as I'm wearing out the keyboard and my brain cells.
I think our stance is different because of the overkill and implied brutality. Everyone can recognize and identify with the urge to respond to a life-threatening attack. The druggist is the injured party. The kid is the aggressor. The first shot is more or less justified.
Then you get the guy freaking out and being a cold blooded killing machine on an unconscious body. The kid is no longer a threat, the guy is the aggressor. And the kid is defenseless, so the use of more force is redundant and well, just wrong.

It's the difference between rough justice and abuse of power, maybe? It also casts doubt on the original action--if the guy went off like that, was the kid actually as threatening to begin with, maybe the guy panicked and over-reacted in both instances, etc. IOW, it turns it all into a grey area where the good guys and bad guys are more confused.

It kind of reminds me of the torture debate point that revolves around whether the information could have been gotten by other means--of course, you don't and can't know, since you've already tortured. Very muddy waters.

 

[Oxlar]

I think the robbery was a crime. The pharmacy is in a bad neighborhood. It's been robbed before. It will be robbed again. You can shoot all the black teenagers you want, but you won't change that until you change the reasons it's happening.

I never espoused killing 'black teenagers' as being a solution. You make it sound like I want to go through the ghetto and offing any 13-19 year old black person. Justifying a robbery or minimalizing it because it is in an area more prone to robbery does even less to address the 'reasons'. However, kids seeing that there are consequences for your actions is a good place to start.

Must I then believe that? I don't think so.
Your interpretation of what I said is totally twisted. You'll not find one word in any of my posts that says I think people should commit crimes and not be held accountable. What I said was I thought it was hard to say the boy deserved to die because he went into a pharmacy with a gun he never fired. (I also said the druggist had a clear right to defend himself, btw.)

What you said was that you dissagreed and found offensive EVERYTHING I wrote. By your own words you implied it.

Where did I ever say the law shouldn't be applied regardless of color or whatever? I do find the words ending in"That's all garbage" to be judgmental and offensive, and that's where I started to get mad, yes. Are you saying a teenager being shot down by a druggist is a case of our justice system applying blind justice? Because vigilanteism is not the rule of law, it's the rule of the jungle.

rather than the bad judgment and foolishness of a testosterone-filled teenager.

Combine that with the level of education and the environment this kid grew up in, and I think it's hard to say he absolutely deserved to die for 'making the choice' to be a thug--

In saying the above you imply that if a kid had a good education and grew up in a decent neighborhood or had a stable family that he would deserve differently than this poor black kid. Those are judgements based off of social/racial differences, which is exactly the point I was making.

And no, I'm not saying vigilantism is an example of blind justice. I'm saying that justice should be blind to the influences you ascribed to above.

Fear, indeed. I'm sure you do. Since this is pretty much a straight Limbaugh quote, and the talking point of every right wingnut blog and talk show, I think I can be excused for my reference. And this is where I began to get extremely offended.

Well I'm sorry, but I dissagree with you. And I wouldn't know if thats a Limbaugh quote because I don't listen to him. Just because someone has the same view point about something doesn't mean those two people are tied at the hip. If Rush said the sky was blue, it doesn't mean that I didn't come to that conclusion on my own too. But let me get this straight, your offended because I don't like Sotomayor? If thats the case you better shut your eyes because I'm about to make your head explode....... I don't like OBAMA.

No, I didn't. (WTF is a reprocation? Whatever it is, I can't recall espousing one.) And no, it isn't. There's not one shred of proof that Sotomayor has made legal decisions due to an identity politics ideology. To the contrary:
From a piece by Tom Goldstein on the SCOTUSblog(My bold)

Link to full article
But of course, to those who are demonstrating the knee-jerk negative response, her actual rulings in 96 cases, how she applies the laws, etc aren't as important as a gaffe she made 8 years ago.

Yeah, spelling isn't my strong suit. Repercussion.

Her comments and fire fighter case is enough for me. Any shadow of doubt is more than enough for disqualification.

No indeed, and I uphold your right to freedom of speech. Your views would be the trump card regarding your relevance, which to me is nonexistant, but I defend your right to hold them regardless. I just don't find it productive to try to talk people out of mindsets that diverge so dramatically from mine, and my blood pressure is an issue these days, hence the ignore thing.

So your only interested in having discussions with people who share a similar mindset with you? However, if you want to put me on ignore because your afraid your blood pressure might become elevated due to discussions with me, I'm more than sympathetic with your plight and won't engage you. But you could have just been up front about that with me.

Correct. I never had the money to attend the University of Illinois and study under Professor Ayers.

See! Some clouds do have silver linings. But seriously, I hope your not implying that you would love to be a student of his if you had the money. If you are, then I really do hope you put me on ignore because I will not have anymore sympathy for you or your blood pressure.

It has nothing in particular to do with Obama, though I do like him. I'm more a huge fan of keeping an open mind and keeping in touch with reality. I dislike race, class and gender bias intensely. It's a hot button for me, and it's on obvious display in the "empathetic, activist, racist" criticisms of Sotomayor, whether you can see it or not. There may very well be genuine reasons why Sotomayor isn't the right person for the job, but gender-biased accusations of "emotional, social based" rulings are not one of them. Your disdain for her is far more revealing of you than her--you can't even bring yourself to capitalize her name.

Really? Yeah, I would have never guessed. Keeping an open mind? But only if its with someone who has a similar mindset to you, right? I do find the oxymoron of you disliking race, class, and gender biasim with your previous statements about those being a source of distinction. What did I say that had anything to do with gender biased accusations of Sotomayor? Why do liberals always resort to demonizing those who dissagree wtih them? What did I say that was sexist? What did I say that makes me a racist? Obama has said he wants a judge with Social Empathy, which in my opinion (and that of the oath) is in direct opposition to what a judge is supposed to be.

I'm sorry I didn't capitalize her name. It had less to do with her than it did with my new keyboard, which I hate. Half the time I use the shift key it misses capitalizing my intended letter and I have to go back many times to the beginning of sentances to re-do it. So if I'm not really making a big effort to watch everything, I miss a bunch. Sometimes, I just don't even bother to try caping stuff. But, I did make an extended effort through out this post just for you.

 

[Oxlar]

He's a veteran with major problems. He's getting sympathy out the ying yang here, and from people like you all over the country. I'll be very surprised if he's convicted of murder one in a jury trial. I don't think it's misplaced to have sympathy for him--and believe me, I'm in the minority for having even a slight bit of sympathy for the dead kid. I don't know where you get the idea that the whole world is up in arms to defend the "poor black" kid; it never is, especially here. A few civil rights groups will speak up for him, and his mother, but if the disturbed druggist hadn't gone back and gut shot him 5 additional times when he was unconscious with a separate gun, he wouldn't even be facing a murder charge. If you want to make this guy your hero, you go for it. You won't be alone.

I haven't expressed any sympathy for this guy. Where do you get that? I'm just asking if he is getting sympathy for his 'problems'. To be honest, I hadn't even realized he had any of these 'problems' until I saw the interview tonight. To be clear, I'm not happy the kid is dead. But I do not have any sympathy either. At what point did I make this guy my hero?

 

[Zaleukos]

I
I think you have to start as early in life as possible to change the outcome for these kids. For many it's already too late. I think Obama and his wife have a huge part to play here, and I hope it will help change the self-image these kids evolve by giving them some sort of alternative role models, but it's a very high mountain to climb.

I agree very much that early intervention is the key. I dont think the level of sanction/punishment matters all that much in itself as long as it's above the threshold required to snap the kid out of destructive habits, as long as you catch them early. We should make police (stick) as well as civil society (carrot or positive role models) present in the problem areas rather than give up and abandon these places (we have these problems in areas like Rosengård and retreat has too often been the answer). Let police officers visit schools to build trust in addition to arresting those who cross the line. It makes a big difference whether the ghetto population as a whole sees the police as humans or as outsiders/enemies.

Some punishments are stinkers though. Putting them into storage together with more hardened role models is for instance not likely to do much good. I'd even say corporeal punishment would be better than that...

 

[Prime Junta]

If I were a libertarian, I might be offended. Not sure if that was your intent for the post or not.

Your stated political positions are compatible with American populist libertarianism as described in the article. You've said you voted for Ron Paul as a write-in candidate; you've expressed your distrust and distaste of government action in reaction to (perceived or real) market failures; your explanation of the financial crisis is based on orthodox Austrian-school principles; you've expressed (moderately) socially conservative positions; yet you say you don't identify with the Republican party.

All of these positions conform exactly to American populist libertarianism as described in the article I quoted; moreover, I don't recall you ever expressing an opinion that's *not* compatible with American populist libertarian orthodoxy.

IOW, I feel pretty comfortable treating you as one, until and unless you surprise us by expressing something at odds with that particular herd mentality. I don't think that's a very likely prospect, though, since you've already expressed your opinions on just about all of the points covered by the party platform.

 

[Prime Junta]

Could it be because people in high tax countries have a higher quality of life-like better education, enough to eat, more time to enjoy their lives, a social safety net and a more stable society?

Nah, it's because we're brainwashed from birth, and our ebul KKKommunist gubmint puts things in our drinking water to keep us docile.

 

[Rithrandil]

Really? Yeah, I would have never guessed. Keeping an open mind? But only if its with someone who has a similar mindset to you, right? I do find the oxymoron of you disliking race, class, and gender biasim with your previous statements about those being a source of distinction. What did I say that had anything to do with gender biased accusations of Sotomayor? Why do liberals always resort to demonizing those who dissagree wtih them? What did I say that was sexist? What did I say that makes me a racist? Obama has said he wants a judge with Social Empathy, which in my opinion (and that of the oath) is in direct opposition to what a judge is supposed to be.

You don't get to make the demonizing claim when you say that university degrees are worthless because it's all part of a progressive scam.

 

[Ubereil]

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."


I rest my case.

So because of an oath we should expect the same from pepole who have a much harder time being good, law abiding citizens than pepole from ritcher backgrounds? And for the same reason we should punish pepole just because that's what the law says? Waterproof case there, Oxlar.

@ Thoth: I agree with Magerette, that was a very insightful post. I don't have much else to say about it really (hmm, if we play Working in the Coalmine in loud speakers every noon they'll realize life's not that bad, really, and then we'll have less crime! Yeah, that'll work!).

Übereil

 

[dteowner]

So because of an oath we should expect the same from pepole who have a much harder time being good, law abiding citizens than pepole from ritcher backgrounds? And for the same reason we should punish pepole just because that's what the law says? Waterproof case there, Oxlar.

Folks, I hate to break it to you, but by the letter of the oath, Oxlar is completely right. The common accusation is that liberals want to legislate from the bench, and it's clear that adjusting the law based on a person's background is outside the bounds of the judicial branch and illegal as well. Sorry if you find it offensive that you're not supposed to be able to change the world via the courts, but that's not how our system is set up. If we're giving more than lip service to the concept of "blind justice", it is completely irrelevant whether this kid was a poor black boy that never knew nothin from nothing, or Chuck Norris in the flesh. That doesn't mean we can't discuss that aspect of the issue as a method of reducing future incidents, but making it a legal consideration is completely and totally against everything our country was founded on.

 

[Rithrandil]

I agree with dte. It shouldn't be a factor in the trial, I would argue, but I think it's something that needs to be discussed and addressed. My problem with traditional conservatives/my party is that they typically stop at the "shouldn't be a factor in the trial" part and don't move on to the second part.

We need to attack the root causes of these problems in addition to treating the symptoms.

 

[dteowner]

I've always been a fan of prompt public executions as a way to address the root cause, no fear of consequences.

 

[Ubereil]

Folks, I hate to break it to you, but by the letter of the oath, Oxlar is completely right.

Then change the oath.

Übereil

 

[Rithrandil]

Then change the oath.

Übereil

Why should we change the entire foundation of our justice system?

 

[Zaleukos]

Then change the oath.

That's a very nasty path to walk. Blind justice is fundamental to all western justice systems, including the Swedish one. The background of the defendant should be irrelevant in itself. Ideally it mainly matters (indirectly) if it affects motive and mental capacity.

FWIW I certainly dont think the US legal system has any problem with being too blind, the problem is rather the opposite due to the jury system (which has advantages but come at the cost of some populism).

 

[Ubereil]

Why should we change the entire foundation of our justice system?

Because...

I fail to see the point of justice. Punishing pepole never seem to do that much good. The only thing it does is keep pepole from harming other pepole for a while, but if that's the point, then why not shoot them right away and be done with it?

Shouldn't the legal system focus on something that acually has any effect on society? Like crime prevention or something like that?

Übereil

 

[Rithrandil]

I fail to see the point of justice. Punishing pepole never seem to do that much good. The only thing it does is keep pepole from harming other pepole for a while, but if that's the point,

The point of justice is to mete out punishment to those who violate the law.

then why not shoot them right away and be done with it?

Because punishment is supposed to the fit the crime and we aren't operating under Hammurabi's code.

Shouldn't the legal system focus on something that acually has any effect on society? Like crime prevention or something like that?

No. That's the purpose of the legislative and executive branches. Not the judicial branch.

 

[Zaleukos]

Shouldn't the legal system focus on something that acually has any effect on society? Like crime prevention or something like that?

The point of the legal system is to deal with those who break the rules. In democracies we prefer to not have this done arbitrarily.

Rule of law and constitutionalism are safeguards against the state abusing the legal system against its perceived enemies. They are also indirectly crucial for the legitimacy of the state.

 

[Ubereil]

The point of justice is to mete out punishment to those who violate the law.

Erm... justice is the measure you use when meting out this punishment. The point of using this meting system is to mete out punishment to those who violates the law? Kind of feels like we're using different terminology here...

Because punishment is supposed to the fit the crime and we aren't operating under Hammurabi's code.

What's the point of that?

No. That's the purpose of the legislative and executive branches. Not the judicial branch.

And why should the legislative branch focus on justice?

Übereil