Ha - Page 11

Hank Chinaski · 08-07-2007, 03:53 PM

http://www.juvenilejusticefyi.com/hi...e_justice.html

this seems a somewhat unbiased summary of how juvenile laws changed over time. it seems some changes intended to "protect" kids may have actually moved them closer to being exposed to adult sentences.

originally (early 1800s), if you were over 7, you went to jail- there weren't really 2 systems. then a juvenile system was set up, that was mostly all rehabilitation and no punishment (or at least intended to be). then in the 60s the Sup Ct. ruled that juveniles were entitled to all rights afforded adults in the criminal justice system. 1 dissenter (Fortas) wondered if the Court wasn't forcing the juvenile defendants closer to the adult system.

After that paranoid states legislators enact laws that let kids be tried as adults. I guess the prosecutors are saying some kid's actions are so bad that the reasons for the separate system don't apply because the kid ain't going to possibly be "fixed."

ThurgreedMarshall · 08-07-2007, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.juvenilejusticefyi.com/hi...e_justice.html

this seems a somewhat unbiased summary of how juvenile laws changed over time. it seems some changes intended to "protect" kids may have actually moved them closer to being exposed to adult sentences.

originally (early 1800s), if you were over 7, you went to jail- there weren't really 2 systems. then a juvenile system was set up, that was mostly all rehabilitation and no punishment (or at least intended to be). then in the 60s the Sup Ct. ruled that juveniles were entitled to all rights afforded adults in the criminal justice system. 1 dissenter (Fortas) wondered if the Court wasn't forcing the juvenile defendants closer to the adult system.

After that paranoid states legislators enact laws that let kids be tried as adults. I guess the prosecutors are saying some kid's actions are so bad that the reasons for the separate system don't apply because the kid ain't going to possibly be "fixed."

It seems that the only part of that article that is helpful is that part that talks about the rise in juvenile crime and the legislative reaction to same.

It would seem that the way kids are currently treated is not so different than adults, in that legislatures say "no, no, no" to rehabilitation in favor of harsher sentences. But it simply makes no sense to say that children are children when it comes to sex, alcohol, war, driving, work, etc., because they are not yet equipped to appropriately deal with these things, but then turn around and say that someone who isn't an adult was sufficiently acting like one when they committed a crime (such that we will just proceed as if they are one).

I guess we've decided that if a twelve year old shoots someone that it is more important to remove and punish him than to make an effort to rehabilitate them so that they can function in society. And in order to make that determination, you have to tell yourself that the type of crime committed is so heinous that it is the product of a mature criminal mind and not an immature, not-yet-fully-developed and most likely overly-influenced mind of a child.

Whatever. I think the concept is stupid. If we're going to have a cut-off for what is to be considered child v. adult, we should fucking stick to it.

TM

Flinty_McFlint · 08-07-2007, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Whatever. I think the concept is stupid. If we're going to have a cut-off for what is to be considered child v. adult, we should fucking stick to it.

TM

Whatever they decide, I want you to know it's still not cool to troll middle schools. Just trying to be a good friend here.

sebastian_dangerfield · 08-07-2007, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NotFromHere
I doubt that. Living in a house would require that you drive more than 5 minutes/day. And think of all that extra vacuuming.

Take the Alcoholics Anonymous quiz

1. Have you ever decided to stop drinking for a week or so, but only lasted for a couple of days?

2. Do you wish people would mind their own business about your drinking -- stop telling you what to do?

3. Have you ever switched from one kind of drink to another in the hope that this would keep you from getting drunk?

4. Do you ever need a drink to get started in the morning, or to stop shaking?

5. Do you envy people who can drink without getting into trouble?

6. Have you had problems connected with drinking during the past year?

7. Has your drinking caused trouble at home?

8. Do you ever try to get “extra” drinks at a party because you do not get enough?

9. Do you tell yourself you can stop drinking any time you want to, even though you keep getting drunk when you don't mean to?

10. Have you missed days of work or school because of drinking?

11. Do you have “blackouts”?

12. Have you ever felt that your life would be better if you did not drink?

People who answered yes four or more times are probably in trouble with alcohol. If you think you may have a problem with alcohol, see your doctor right away.

1. Yes.
2. Don't care. Excpet in re my love of merlot.
3. Yes, but for the opposite reason.
4. Not the morning thing.
5. Pass.
6. Define "problems." Probably no.
7. Define "trouble."
8. "Extra?" Is there a set limit?
9. No.
10. Yes.
11. Only a few times in my life.
12. No.

NotFromHere · 08-07-2007, 05:12 PM

So this guy

who was obviously bucking for more TV time during the Anna Nicole trial got his own show.

Pretty Little Flower · 08-07-2007, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Flinty_McFlint
Whatever they decide, I want you to know it's still not cool to troll middle schools. Just trying to be a good friend here.

Was this meant for Hank? Because you sent it to Thurgreed. I mean, it's good advice all around, but it seems like you maybe wanted to send it to Hank. You know, because he likes to hang out in middle schools when he takes "breaks" during his "runs." Which is a totally different thing from trolling. But it might be good for Hank to see your words anyway. Just in case.

ltl/fb · 08-07-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NotFromHere
So this guy

who was obviously bucking for more TV time during the Anna Nicole trial got his own show.

You need like a link. How are we supposed to know who that is? Or what the show is?

NotFromHere · 08-07-2007, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You need like a link. How are we supposed to know who that is? Or what the show is?

There's not much info on the show.
You didn't watch the Anna Nicole trial? This is what happens when you don't have cable or satellite.

but read nothing here

ThurgreedMarshall · 08-07-2007, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NotFromHere
So this guy

who was obviously bucking for more TV time during the Anna Nicole trial got his own show.

Smart. Judge Judy made $25 mil last year.

TM

ThurgreedMarshall · 08-07-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NotFromHere
You didn't watch the Anna Nicole trial? This is what happens when you don't have cable or satellite.

but read nothing here

I have satellite and I didn't watch that stupid shit.

TM

Replaced_Texan · 08-07-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I have satellite and I didn't watch that stupid shit.

TM

Same for this cable subscriber.

notcasesensitive · 08-07-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Smart. Judge Judy made $25 mil last year.

TM

Yeah, but Judge Judy is Smart, Tough and Fair. And she never cries.

(Who actually watched the trial? Sure, I was kept up-to-date by cnn.com and other "news" outlets, but I can't imagine how mind-numbingly dull that would have been to watch. I haven't watched any part of any trial since the OJ trial. That was scandalous, and yet still mind-numbingly dull. I get enough mind-n8umbingly dull in my own life, thanks so much.)

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 08-07-2007, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Same for this cable subscriber.

But how did you miss it altogether? It was Ito-esque.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 08-07-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive

but I can't imagine how mind-numbingly dull that would have been to watch.

Sure you can. Imagine watching yourself on tv doing your job.*

*and by "you" I mean anyone here.

Replaced_Texan · 08-07-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But how did you miss it altogether? It was Ito-esque.

Aside from whatever was posted here, I totally missed it.

I have recently come to realize that unless it's on the internet or a live sports broadcast, I am really hard to get information to.