|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 16, 2018 17:10:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 16, 2018 23:12:35 GMT -5
"Restorative Justice" is one of those things that sounds great on paper but has yet to yield consistent positive results in the real world (isn't there a similar saying about Communism?). They use it at my niece's school and it's mostly a disaster. To me, this is another example of something that is well-intentioned, yet almost too pie-in-the-sky to be true, but is seductive enough to doe-eyed ideologues that they'll lap it up and implement it without actually waiting for some adequate long-term research and testing to confirm that it's even worth it. Seems to happen a lot in education. They act before they think (oh, the irony). Other examples of "this-sounds-way-too-good-to-be-true-therefore-I-bet-it'll-definitely-work-so-let's-not-wait-for-confirmation-let's-just-run-with-it-right-now-I-mean-what-harm-could-it-do-am-I-right?" programs/ideas that also that turned out to be steaming piles of shit: 1) D.A.R.E.2) Purity Pledges3) Learning Styles4) Growth Mindset |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 17, 2018 6:49:43 GMT -5
I agree, this is something that seems more common in the realm of education than anywhere else. Maybe it's because many seem to see education as so critical a field that all shortcomings therein--real or imagined--must be "solved" absolutely; incremental improvements are never good enough, let alone individual ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 17, 2018 6:57:07 GMT -5
Incidentally, the above story touches on another theme that remains close to my heart: redefining (or renaming) things in order to influence future stats/outcomes.
In this case:
How does one justify classifying assault as "nonviolent"?
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 17, 2018 7:14:06 GMT -5
Incidentally, the above story touches on another theme that remains close to my heart: redefining (or renaming) things in order to influence future stats/outcomes. In this case: How does one justify classifying assault as "nonviolent"? Sometimes speech is categorized as assault. I'm guessing violent assaults wouldn't be categorized as "nonviolent", but who knows. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 17, 2018 16:28:09 GMT -5
Even so, that still leaves the issue of "public fighting" also somehow being "non-violent."
This stuff really leaves me scratching my head.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 19, 2018 7:52:22 GMT -5
How exactly do “healing circles” restore anything? In a sane world, restorative justice would simply be another term for restitution. (Which should be the basis of our justice system, imo.) The world becomes more Orwellian every day.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 3, 2019 8:59:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 3, 2019 10:07:28 GMT -5
So, would the "Thanks Obama" meme actually apply here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jan 3, 2019 15:24:20 GMT -5
We over incarcerate and punish ppl in this country for sure, but a lot of that has to do with class, and often race. A poor black kid is far more likely to get prison or jail time for smaller offenses than a rich white kid.
I don't have an issue with the idea of restorative justice, but like anything else, the devil is in the details. How is it handled? Is it just pie in the sky, feel good, say you're sorry and send them to their room without desert for the night, or is there significant rehabilitation?
I'd like to see more charity work, for people who show genuine remorse. I don't mean just picking up trash on the side of the road, but something that they can see their work making a difference.
I'd like to see stuff like that used more with kids because we seem to jump at the chance to charge juveniles as adults.
Punishment that never ends, that just throws people away, has little to do with justice.
I'm not sure I have all the answers. Someone who really is sorry and wants to do better should get our support, whereas someone who thinks the world owes them something, or that rules don't apply to them, are likely to re-offend.
Of course, a lot of it is political. If you try for things that amount to less punishment, more rehabilitative, you get called soft on crime. So politicians want to be seen as being tough on crime.
We need to be smart on crime. Carrot and stick. Punishment is needed in many cases, but so is redemption.
I find my views on this have changed a lot over time. I used to probably be more on the tough on crime mindset, but I really do think we need to spend more time helping offenders rebuild their lives.
And again, this type of thing really gets the deck stacked against you if you're poor, if you're a minority, of God forbid, both. I fully believe that DA's stack their resume with easy convictions and overly harsh punishments with people who don't have the $ to fight, to the point where innocent people probably take plea deals for lesser charges for crimes they didn't commit cause they can't fight it.
I don't know that I have the answers, but I think it's time we start asking the questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Jan 3, 2019 18:33:06 GMT -5
I fully believe that DA's stack their resume with easy convictions and overly harsh punishments with people who don't have the $ to fight, to the point where innocent people probably take plea deals for lesser charges for crimes they didn't commit cause they can't fight it. I agree with everything you said, except this. I see this as a throwaway remark so often and it really irritates me. I don't know of a single prosecutor who does this. For one thing, we don't exactly list conviction rates or numbers on our resumes, but I assume you were speaking metaphorically. Take a look around and look at all the program DAs are implementing to move away from drug convictions and toward rehabilitation. Sorry to pick on you Vince, but if you think about what you're saying, ("Prosecutors are happy to put innocent people in prison for an easy plea deal") it's pretty insulting. I'm sure it has happened, does happen, and will happen from time to time but to present it as the norm is like saying all chefs spit in your food and all school bus drivers are child molesters. So, believe it to be true if you want, but it's not and I will continue to stand up for myself and my colleagues who see our roles as protecting the community, not locking people up because we can.
Rant concluded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jan 3, 2019 22:45:16 GMT -5
I fully believe that DA's stack their resume with easy convictions and overly harsh punishments with people who don't have the $ to fight, to the point where innocent people probably take plea deals for lesser charges for crimes they didn't commit cause they can't fight it. I agree with everything you said, except this. I see this as a throwaway remark so often and it really irritates me. I don't know of a single prosecutor who does this. For one thing, we don't exactly list conviction rates or numbers on our resumes, but I assume you were speaking metaphorically. Take a look around and look at all the program DAs are implementing to move away from drug convictions and toward rehabilitation. Sorry to pick on you Vince, but if you think about what you're saying, ("Prosecutors are happy to put innocent people in prison for an easy plea deal") it's pretty insulting. I'm sure it has happened, does happen, and will happen from time to time but to present it as the norm is like saying all chefs spit in your food and all school bus drivers are child molesters. So, believe it to be true if you want, but it's not and I will continue to stand up for myself and my colleagues who see our roles as protecting the community, not locking people up because we can.
Rant concluded.
I should have been more careful in how I stated it.
I do think DA's, not all, but some, often get so convinced their right, or that someone deserves it, that they fail to see the doubt.
I also have seen cases where after a conviction, a prosecutor continues to fight new evidence that reasonably should clear a man, yet refuse to do so.
I also believe that that might be completely insulting to good men and women who do the best job they can, but not everyone in the office does the job as they should.
Maybe I'm completely off, but I think to a great extent DA's can have the same biases that affect cops.
And I do think this will be more relevant in poorer, minority areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Jan 4, 2019 10:20:21 GMT -5
Appreciate the restatement, Vince, thank you.
I'm sure you're right, there are some like that. Of course. But just as policing is moving toward community policing, so is prosecution moving slowly toward rehabilitation and proportionate sentencing. I still cringe when I hear my colleagues bragging about some high sentence they got, though to be fair it's almost always about a child rapist or molester they've put away.
|
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 4, 2019 10:58:16 GMT -5
Appreciate the restatement, Vince, thank you. I'm sure you're right, there are some like that. Of course. But just as policing is moving toward community policing, so is prosecution moving slowly toward rehabilitation and proportionate sentencing. I still cringe when I hear my colleagues bragging about some high sentence they got, though to be fair it's almost always about a child rapist or molester they've put away. "Cringe." Good word there, markesq. It's a highly appropriate word when one reads some of the comments to the follow-up article:
I don't know what it is about comments sections that draws bigots like cow pies draws flies, but they're equally as malodorous and offensively vile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jan 4, 2019 15:02:23 GMT -5
Appreciate the restatement, Vince, thank you. I'm sure you're right, there are some like that. Of course. But just as policing is moving toward community policing, so is prosecution moving slowly toward rehabilitation and proportionate sentencing. I still cringe when I hear my colleagues bragging about some high sentence they got, though to be fair it's almost always about a child rapist or molester they've put away. Like anything, there are good ones and bad ones. Good police, and bad police. Good DA's and good judges, bad ones. |
|
