Re: We will Survive -- MIDRANGE-NONTECH

On Saturday 15 September 2001 11:34 am, MacWheel99@aol.com wrote:
> Chris
>
> I look on a 17 year old or a 22 year old as an almost adult who needs to
> aquire the same understandings as an adult, while the rules should be
> different for a pre-teenager, or a pre-schooler.  Child development
> authorities need to make a judgement regarding the accused minor what is
> appropriate if found guilty.

That would be nice. But unfortunately that is not at all what happens. A
crime happens, anger cries for revenge and politicians exploit that by
creating harsher sentences as if that will somehow make the next kid more
mature. Do they think that kids are even aware of the sentences involved in
the crimes they commit?

> The rules should not be flat out based on child is above or below some age
> when the crime occurred, but on an evaluation of a stage of development,
> since not all children mature on all areas at same rate.

I'd agree, but we do actually have a "cut off" age for everything else in our
society. When you can vote, get a driver's license, be drafted, buy a gun,
drink, etc.

> I agree that we do not want to house people who have violated just one
> offense against society with a mix of people who are skilled at many
> offenses, so that the prison system becomes a training ground for repeat
> offenders of crimes other than what got them into prison in the first
> place, or become better at this behavior.

Well, you are right we do want to seperate prisoners, but we don't.
Unfortunately, the worst mix is with juviniles. Children suffer the worst
abuses. This doesn't endear them to our society. They don't look upon the
people who have put them there as friends. So it isn't a surprise they come
out worse.

I'm sure, though, there are those who do come out and change themselves in
spite of the system.

> There needs to be a re-education facet.
> Motorists who are found guilty of traffic offenses sometimes have to pass
> intensive driver sensitivity classes before allowe to have a driver's
> license again.
> People with drug problems have to get rehabilitated before they are allowed
> out of detention.
> Rapists have to be able to explain what they did wrong before they are
> considered for parole.

These are things you are suggesting, right? I would agree that there needs to
be a re-education factor. But it really can't be handled well during
incarceration. In the case of addicts (including alcoholics), they will often
be able to clean up in prison but be unable to stay that way when they get
out. One major reason is that in order to cure such problems requires a
change of lifestyles, new habits and new friends. Those things aren't likely
to change as a result of prison. In fact, they are more likely to remain the
same after prison, because a person is not likely to be able to find new
friends, etc. once they have a felony conviction.

Rapists, sex offenders in general, really probably need specific treatment.
Some of them may never in their life understand why they did what they did.
But, most sex offenders don't require incarceration but all do require
treatment. Unfortunately, we only use incarceration.

Consider this, if a woman allows a 15 year old boy to touch her breast for
the purpose of sexual gratification, she has commited a felony for which she
can serve 1-3 years in state prison. If that same boy then shoots someone he
will be (here in California) tried as an adult and sentenced to prison. She
will be a registered sex offender for life as a result of lewdness with a
minor, and he will be in prison for life for commiting and adult crime.

> Kids think it is not a crime until they are an adult & the only real thing
> wrong is to get caught.  I have had this told to me by several youngsters.
> They really believe it.

Well, I've spoken to a lot of guys about this. For two years I tutored
inmates at Soledad (Correctional Training Facility, central housing). Level 2
prisoners, many of whom are serving life as Soledad houses "Close-B" inmates
in addition to normal level 2 inmates. These are guys who have been sentenced
to long terms but have behaved well and thus been allowed to move to lower
security housing.

The experience changed me. I gained some friends that I never thought I'd
have. Many youngsters grow up in their little "Lord of the Flies" world
within gangs. They believe a lot of stupid things, but that doesn't make them
evil. It does make them dangerous and a problem to our society.

> I think people, found guilty of computer crime, need to demonstrate an
> awareness that they know what they did wrong, before they are allowed
> access to any computer again.

But what would constitute computer crime? In Las Vegas I knew of a guy who
went around signing up people for software services then only providing part
of them although he'd collect most or all of the money. Is that the same as a
guy who emails child porn or hacks into a business? What if I hit my wife
with my keyboard? ;-)

Or how about me? When I was in high school our computer access was limited.
(of course, no PCs in those days). I used to ditch school and ride to the
university so I could sign on to their mainframe where I had over 30
passwords which had been issued to university staff and students. In order to
get access to terminals, I would often solve programming problems for the
students there so that they would give me their terminal. Is that the same as
a guy who breaks into NASA or runs a denial of service against ebay?

Mac, if you (or anyone else) wish to continue this discussion, which is fine
with me! I really am concerned about stuff like this, let's do it directly. I
don't think it goes on the list.

I appreciate both your opinion and the fact that you are open to thinking
about this stuff.

> MacWheel99@aol.com (Alister Wm Macintyre) (Al Mac)

--
Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...
...Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other
commandment greater than these. Mark 12:30-31