For your 4th Journal entry you are to write about a debatable topic that interests you and that you are familiar with, have knowledge of. Please feel free to include hyperlinks, video, photos or any other formats in your entry. Your audience will be the worldwide internet, therefore that means that anyone and everyone could come across your entry ad may know a lot or may know nothing about your topic. It is up to you to give them the background information that they need in order to understand the topic and your entrance into the conversation. Knowing that you have an audience should shape the tone and style you use as well as the language you choose; specifically you should have authoritative tone, conviction that you know what you are talking about.
Have fun, and remember to think outside the box and bring forth various perspectives about the issue, not just your own. (F.Y.I.: Next week for the entry you will be required to visit one of your peers' blogs, read and respond to their prompt)
I leave you with the advice of one of my favorite English Teachers reciting "Speak with Conviction" on Def Jam Poetry, Taylor Mali.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
The Juvenile System: Who Cares?
How many of you are criminals? I would imagine not too many of you, right? I mean, most of you probably haven't been handcuffed, or spent a night in jail, right? And you probably wouldn't want to be friends with a criminal either. They are after all, for the most part uneducated, low class, unambitious, bottom feeders that milk the social welfare system of our country for all it's worth. And mom and dad always taught you: "Tell me who you hang out with and I'll tell you what kind of person you are". According to the consensus view, crimes are behaviors that are believed to be repugnant to all elements of society and that the majority of society agrees on what behaviors should be outlawed by the criminal law.
But, what if I told you that most of you, if not all of you are criminals? No way right!!?? Well, let's take a look at what the definition of crime is:
"A violation of societal rules of behavior as interpreted and expressed by a criminal legal code created by people holding social and political power. Individuals who violate these rules are subject to sanctions by state authority, social stigma, and loss of status." (Criminology by Larry J. Siegel)
So I ask again, how many of you are criminals? How many of you have violated a law? How many of you have, for example, gone faster than the speed limit or run a red light? Those are laws right? If you broke the law, you are a criminal. But then why, when we think of criminals, do we only think of the labels I listed above? What makes you a "better" criminal than someone else? Is it the type of crime? Running the red light or speeding isn't as "violent" or dangerous as robbing from a store? But what if running that red light or speeding caused a fatal accident? If looked at from this perspective does it not disqualify the notion that the type of crime committed does not necessarily make you a worse criminal? Maybe it's the reason the crime was committed that makes the criminal worse? You were speeding because you needed to get to class on time, so that makes it alright for you to speed, because you are trying to get an education and be a productive human being of this society. And the dude that robbed the convenient store was only trying to get some money so he could feed his addiction...or maybe to feed his family. It doesn't matter what his reasons were, right? Robbing the covenient store is worse than speeding. If his reasons don't matter, why should anyone's right? It doesn't matter why you would violate a law, all that matters is that you did.
Bottom line, crime goes on everyday and everywhere. Some get caught, some don't. Either way crime affects our lives directly and indirectly whether we want it to or not, whether you know someone in jail or who has done time or not, you are affected by it because our society pays for it, financially and behaviorally. The question that has been on the table for a while now, though, is if the system we have in place in this country is really working to help curb the problem of crime or is it helping to perpetuate a neverending cycle? Some jails have incorporated different types of rehab programs recognizing that it does matter why people commit crimes and if there is an understanding of the individuals psyche then they can possibly be rehabilitated and the individual can go back into society a more productive member of it. But career criminals begin as juveniles and routinely shuffle in and out of the juvenile system until they are no longer juvies or commit a crime that could end them up in the adult system even if they are a minor.
So if we know this, and understand it logically, and the domino effect it has, wouldn't it make sense to try to do all that can possibly be done to prevent it? Or is this just another one of those cases, that if it isn't happening in front of you, then who cares? Children, unlike adults, do not have the ability to remove themselves from situations that are potentially harmful to them physically or mentally. If your mommy is an alcoholic that beats you everyday, you can't just say at 7 years of age, "I'm outta here." Or even begin to understand the psychological damage that her behaviors are having on you for the long run. Wouldn't it make sense then that the juvenile system should work harder at helping to rehabilitate juvie criminals? Well, then again that would cost us money and we don't want to spend any more money than we already have to even if it means it is going to cost us more money in the long run and possibly lives. And, I don't care what they have been through, if you really want to get out of the rut you are in (a.k.a the ghetto) you can, I mean this is America after all, the land of opportunities; everything is right at your disposal, right at your fingertips.
Well, the state of Missouri doesn't think so. They have taken on a radical approach to the juvenile system and "by taking some of the hard edges out of juvenile corrections, the state of Missouri has chalked up results that have corrections experts across the country taking notice."
Here intensive therapy is key to rehabing juveniles so that they don't end up becoming career criminals or just another statistic. Tye, a 17 yr old female covicted of several felonies, says that the Rosa Parks Center for girls is unlike other facilities by comparing the juveniles' problems to that of weeds. "Other placements want to cut off the weed," she said. "Here, you get down to the root and they try to pull them out, because you can't kill it unless everything is gone."
So how much is all of this costing us is what you want to know right? (You ask this before you ask what the results of the approach have been.) Here's an excerpt from the Primetime news piece that covered the story:
Surprisingly, all the intensive therapy of the Missouri system actually costs less than other juvenile systems. The cost per child in Missouri, $50,000 a year, is about half the national average.
Twenty-five years ago, Missouri changed the way it looked at juvenile corrections because, officials say, the familiar model -- large prisons and boot camps -- was failing.
"The conditions for young people weren't safe, [they] weren't getting any better and were going out and repeating [the same] behaviors if not worse," said Tim Decker, director of the state's Division of Youth Services (DYS).
The new program has shown success. Only 10 percent of the kids in Missouri's juvenile jails end up in adult prison within three years, according to the DYS. In other states, that number is as high as 40 percent.
Recent reports about excessive violence against juvenile inmates have renewed calls for a national overhaul of the system. Does Missouri's model have the answer to America's broken juvenile justice system? Or are they just coddling children, as some critics say?
I sign off, leaving you with the question that the piece asks and I leave you with a link to the first part (about 5 minutes) of the one hour special that was aired on September 9th (or follow the hyperlink above to read the story). From the website you can access the rest of the one hour show and I encourage you to watch it yourself.
Part 1: A New Model for Juvenile Justice
Shared via AddThis
But, what if I told you that most of you, if not all of you are criminals? No way right!!?? Well, let's take a look at what the definition of crime is:
"A violation of societal rules of behavior as interpreted and expressed by a criminal legal code created by people holding social and political power. Individuals who violate these rules are subject to sanctions by state authority, social stigma, and loss of status." (Criminology by Larry J. Siegel)
So I ask again, how many of you are criminals? How many of you have violated a law? How many of you have, for example, gone faster than the speed limit or run a red light? Those are laws right? If you broke the law, you are a criminal. But then why, when we think of criminals, do we only think of the labels I listed above? What makes you a "better" criminal than someone else? Is it the type of crime? Running the red light or speeding isn't as "violent" or dangerous as robbing from a store? But what if running that red light or speeding caused a fatal accident? If looked at from this perspective does it not disqualify the notion that the type of crime committed does not necessarily make you a worse criminal? Maybe it's the reason the crime was committed that makes the criminal worse? You were speeding because you needed to get to class on time, so that makes it alright for you to speed, because you are trying to get an education and be a productive human being of this society. And the dude that robbed the convenient store was only trying to get some money so he could feed his addiction...or maybe to feed his family. It doesn't matter what his reasons were, right? Robbing the covenient store is worse than speeding. If his reasons don't matter, why should anyone's right? It doesn't matter why you would violate a law, all that matters is that you did.
Bottom line, crime goes on everyday and everywhere. Some get caught, some don't. Either way crime affects our lives directly and indirectly whether we want it to or not, whether you know someone in jail or who has done time or not, you are affected by it because our society pays for it, financially and behaviorally. The question that has been on the table for a while now, though, is if the system we have in place in this country is really working to help curb the problem of crime or is it helping to perpetuate a neverending cycle? Some jails have incorporated different types of rehab programs recognizing that it does matter why people commit crimes and if there is an understanding of the individuals psyche then they can possibly be rehabilitated and the individual can go back into society a more productive member of it. But career criminals begin as juveniles and routinely shuffle in and out of the juvenile system until they are no longer juvies or commit a crime that could end them up in the adult system even if they are a minor.
So if we know this, and understand it logically, and the domino effect it has, wouldn't it make sense to try to do all that can possibly be done to prevent it? Or is this just another one of those cases, that if it isn't happening in front of you, then who cares? Children, unlike adults, do not have the ability to remove themselves from situations that are potentially harmful to them physically or mentally. If your mommy is an alcoholic that beats you everyday, you can't just say at 7 years of age, "I'm outta here." Or even begin to understand the psychological damage that her behaviors are having on you for the long run. Wouldn't it make sense then that the juvenile system should work harder at helping to rehabilitate juvie criminals? Well, then again that would cost us money and we don't want to spend any more money than we already have to even if it means it is going to cost us more money in the long run and possibly lives. And, I don't care what they have been through, if you really want to get out of the rut you are in (a.k.a the ghetto) you can, I mean this is America after all, the land of opportunities; everything is right at your disposal, right at your fingertips.
Well, the state of Missouri doesn't think so. They have taken on a radical approach to the juvenile system and "by taking some of the hard edges out of juvenile corrections, the state of Missouri has chalked up results that have corrections experts across the country taking notice."
Here intensive therapy is key to rehabing juveniles so that they don't end up becoming career criminals or just another statistic. Tye, a 17 yr old female covicted of several felonies, says that the Rosa Parks Center for girls is unlike other facilities by comparing the juveniles' problems to that of weeds. "Other placements want to cut off the weed," she said. "Here, you get down to the root and they try to pull them out, because you can't kill it unless everything is gone."
So how much is all of this costing us is what you want to know right? (You ask this before you ask what the results of the approach have been.) Here's an excerpt from the Primetime news piece that covered the story:
Surprisingly, all the intensive therapy of the Missouri system actually costs less than other juvenile systems. The cost per child in Missouri, $50,000 a year, is about half the national average.
Twenty-five years ago, Missouri changed the way it looked at juvenile corrections because, officials say, the familiar model -- large prisons and boot camps -- was failing.
"The conditions for young people weren't safe, [they] weren't getting any better and were going out and repeating [the same] behaviors if not worse," said Tim Decker, director of the state's Division of Youth Services (DYS).
The new program has shown success. Only 10 percent of the kids in Missouri's juvenile jails end up in adult prison within three years, according to the DYS. In other states, that number is as high as 40 percent.
Recent reports about excessive violence against juvenile inmates have renewed calls for a national overhaul of the system. Does Missouri's model have the answer to America's broken juvenile justice system? Or are they just coddling children, as some critics say?
I sign off, leaving you with the question that the piece asks and I leave you with a link to the first part (about 5 minutes) of the one hour special that was aired on September 9th (or follow the hyperlink above to read the story). From the website you can access the rest of the one hour show and I encourage you to watch it yourself.
Part 1: A New Model for Juvenile Justice
Shared via AddThis
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Blog Prompt #2: A different kind of Marginalized Community
As I told you on the first day of class, a lot of the issues we will discuss and read about revolve around the issue of Marginalization. Many of you already belong to a marginalized community, whether it is because you are a minority or a female, or disabled (just to name a few); marginalized communities of individuals are pushed to the outskirts of the rest of the community for being "different". When we think of marginalized communities we think it's not right for a group of people to marginalized because of their skin color or their gender or because they are disabled. But are there groups of people who should be marginalized? That should be kept far away from everyone else? I'm sure you can think of a few groups of people that should be right? Maybe murderers or rapists for example? What about sexual offenders? Should they be marginalized? What's the first thing you think of when you think of a sexual offender? Do you think of a 45 year old man molesting a 13 year old? A priest molesting altar boys? Or do you think of a 19 year old guy who was dating a 16 year old girl and her parents didn't want her to have a boyfriend so they called the cops on him?
Recently, over the summer, a huge news story broke out that spread all over the United States regarding sexual offenders being housed under the Julia Tuttle Causeway. Sex offenders are being escorted by officials, after they come out of jail and told that their new home is under the bridge. Why? Because of a law of course:
"Two years ago, Miami Beach Mayor David Dermer successfully pushed an ordinance that prohibited sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any school in his city — two and a half times farther than the state law's distance, which already prohibited offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, daycare centers, and playgrounds.
The ordinance came at a time when states across the nation were cracking down on sex offenders in the wake of the horrific rape and murder of nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford in Homosassa, Florida, by John Couey, a 47-year-old drifter with a criminal history of child molestation. Mayor Dermer intended his ordinance to set the high water mark, and it did. In a city surrounded by water and barely a mile wide at its thickest, the 2,500-foot ordinance effectively made Miami Beach the first city in America to exile sex offenders — a fact Dermer has acknowledged proudly." (http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2007-12-13/news/sex-offenders-set-up-camp/)
Of course no one wants a sex offender within range of children, but like everything else, unintended consequences arise, some of which would seem, officials and politicians were very eager to turn a blind eye to. Today there are over 70 sex offenders living under the bridge in tents and shacks and in squalid conditions with no running water, no toilets, or any sanitary conditions. This has many concerned about the effect it could have on tourism in Miami, but others are more concerned with the human rights aspect of exiling humans into these types of conditions. Another aspect to this whole situation has to do with definitions. This law applies to all sexual offenders of minors ( which could be described by any of the above examples I gave in the beginning), however there is no distinction being made between sexual offenders and sexual predators (who are accused of violent sexual acts against children). Is there a difference whether it is violent or not? As of today, residency laws do not distinguish between sexual offenders and sexual predators, they are clumped together as being one in the same.
Check out this interview with a couple of the guys living under the bridge:
Here are a few comments of what some others have to say about this situation:
Ultima Weapon 2009-05-21
This is a sad situation. This sad situation is featured on the front page of www.oncefallen.com. Ron Book, powerful Florida lobbyist, who lobbied to put these people under the bridge, is also the head of the Miami-Dade Homeless Trust. He's allowing these people to starve, denying them any kind of assistance. Ron Book is a crooked politician! Its time to abolish residency laws!
Luduvico 2009-05-07
The "Peadegeddon" episode of Brass Eye was comedy gold. Nonce Sense. Ha ha ha ha ha. The 18 y.o. who had sex with his 15 y.o. girlfriend and is now a registered sex offender, that's fucked up. This tent city bullshit is a bizarre freak show and does not deal with the sexual abuse of children at all. It is a warped political response to tabloid media hype which feeds of the suffering of victims. Guilty along with the sexual predators are the politicians and corporate media filth that support this shit and live off their crimes.
But then we have another situation regarding criminals of sex acts. Last week 29 year old Jaycee Lee Duggard was reunited with her family after having been held captive by a convicted sex offender for 19 years in his backyard. Jaycee was 11 years old when Phillip Garrido and his wife kidnapped her at the school bus stop. The Costa County Police Depatment are now apologizing for not having done more to rescue the girl sooner. Four years ago a neighbor called 911 to complain that people and children were living in the back yard in tents and that Garrido was psychotic and had a sexual addiction. But when the cops showed up they didn't even enter the house. They didn't even run a background check on him so they had no clue that he was even a registered offender.
This case with Duggard and the situation with the offenders living under the Julia Tuttle causeway raises a lot of questions regarding the manner in which criminal sex offenders are dealt with in this country as it points to all the "temporary" bandaid laws that have come about and perhaps have not been thought out thoroghly enough only to bring about more unintended consequences to have to deal with.
So what do you think of all this? Any ideas of what should be done?
Recently, over the summer, a huge news story broke out that spread all over the United States regarding sexual offenders being housed under the Julia Tuttle Causeway. Sex offenders are being escorted by officials, after they come out of jail and told that their new home is under the bridge. Why? Because of a law of course:
"Two years ago, Miami Beach Mayor David Dermer successfully pushed an ordinance that prohibited sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any school in his city — two and a half times farther than the state law's distance, which already prohibited offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, daycare centers, and playgrounds.
The ordinance came at a time when states across the nation were cracking down on sex offenders in the wake of the horrific rape and murder of nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford in Homosassa, Florida, by John Couey, a 47-year-old drifter with a criminal history of child molestation. Mayor Dermer intended his ordinance to set the high water mark, and it did. In a city surrounded by water and barely a mile wide at its thickest, the 2,500-foot ordinance effectively made Miami Beach the first city in America to exile sex offenders — a fact Dermer has acknowledged proudly." (http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2007-12-13/news/sex-offenders-set-up-camp/)
Of course no one wants a sex offender within range of children, but like everything else, unintended consequences arise, some of which would seem, officials and politicians were very eager to turn a blind eye to. Today there are over 70 sex offenders living under the bridge in tents and shacks and in squalid conditions with no running water, no toilets, or any sanitary conditions. This has many concerned about the effect it could have on tourism in Miami, but others are more concerned with the human rights aspect of exiling humans into these types of conditions. Another aspect to this whole situation has to do with definitions. This law applies to all sexual offenders of minors ( which could be described by any of the above examples I gave in the beginning), however there is no distinction being made between sexual offenders and sexual predators (who are accused of violent sexual acts against children). Is there a difference whether it is violent or not? As of today, residency laws do not distinguish between sexual offenders and sexual predators, they are clumped together as being one in the same.
Check out this interview with a couple of the guys living under the bridge:
Here are a few comments of what some others have to say about this situation:
Ultima Weapon 2009-05-21
This is a sad situation. This sad situation is featured on the front page of www.oncefallen.com. Ron Book, powerful Florida lobbyist, who lobbied to put these people under the bridge, is also the head of the Miami-Dade Homeless Trust. He's allowing these people to starve, denying them any kind of assistance. Ron Book is a crooked politician! Its time to abolish residency laws!
Luduvico 2009-05-07
The "Peadegeddon" episode of Brass Eye was comedy gold. Nonce Sense. Ha ha ha ha ha. The 18 y.o. who had sex with his 15 y.o. girlfriend and is now a registered sex offender, that's fucked up. This tent city bullshit is a bizarre freak show and does not deal with the sexual abuse of children at all. It is a warped political response to tabloid media hype which feeds of the suffering of victims. Guilty along with the sexual predators are the politicians and corporate media filth that support this shit and live off their crimes.
But then we have another situation regarding criminals of sex acts. Last week 29 year old Jaycee Lee Duggard was reunited with her family after having been held captive by a convicted sex offender for 19 years in his backyard. Jaycee was 11 years old when Phillip Garrido and his wife kidnapped her at the school bus stop. The Costa County Police Depatment are now apologizing for not having done more to rescue the girl sooner. Four years ago a neighbor called 911 to complain that people and children were living in the back yard in tents and that Garrido was psychotic and had a sexual addiction. But when the cops showed up they didn't even enter the house. They didn't even run a background check on him so they had no clue that he was even a registered offender.
This case with Duggard and the situation with the offenders living under the Julia Tuttle causeway raises a lot of questions regarding the manner in which criminal sex offenders are dealt with in this country as it points to all the "temporary" bandaid laws that have come about and perhaps have not been thought out thoroghly enough only to bring about more unintended consequences to have to deal with.
So what do you think of all this? Any ideas of what should be done?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)