Should 10 & 11 year olds be charged?

[EE-BO]

Hi AKA Monet,

When I mentioned standards- I was talking about the standards by which the government would decide when a child should be removed. I do think economics could end up playing an unfair role in that- hence my concern.

And fair point of you to note that this is an economic issue in general more than racial. I agree. The hypothetical I posed was driven in large part by the fact African-American status, on average, in the US is highly tied to economics, and not in a good way.

But most importantly, I love the hint of optimism in your posts on topics like this. It is very contagious- and thankfully so.

[GeekyPenguin]

I think they should get stayed adjudication - make them spend a week in juvie (this seems like YEARS to kids that age) and do 100 hours of community service. If they go the next year passing all their classes with Cs or better, do the service, and otherwise stay out of trouble, nothing goes on their record. They eff up again, and they're going to have the adjudication on their record and do some more time in juvie.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

I think they should get stayed adjudication - make them spend a week in juvie (this seems like YEARS to kids that age) and do 100 hours of community service. If they go the next year passing all their classes with Cs or better, do the service, and otherwise stay out of trouble, nothing goes on their record. They eff up again, and they're going to have the adjudication on their record and do some more time in juvie.

While we are at it, let's take their 360's and PS3s from them and make them go out and play like normal kids too....


Let me ask...on a serious note....does anyone think that because kids absorb so much from the media nowadays (games, movies and tv) that it has stopped them from being on a high creative level and with the lack of actually playing with others, or joining in of simple social activities that this in part is giving a rise to the number of violent children?


i mean, that pent up energy sitting in from of the tube has to go somewhere....

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Let me ask...on a serious note....does anyone think that because kids absorb so much from the media nowadays (games, movies and tv) that it has stopped them from being on a high creative level and with the lack of actually playing with others, or joining in of simple social activities that this in part is giving a rise to the number of violent children?

i mean, that pent up energy sitting in from of the tube has to go somewhere....

A good question. The older I get, the more I resist the urge to talk about "the good old days" because I see that the state of life of each generation is so very different, with the differences becoming greater as technological advances accelerate. And for all the new perils that arise, there are also great advantages.

When I was growing up, the Apple IIe and Atari 5200 were the rage at a time when I was old enough to be able to play video games or use computers.

And back then, there were plenty of kids who played sports and avoided computers, and also plenty of kids who thrived on the arcades or on early versions of home video games.

But the majority fell somewhere in the middle- doing some of both.

I suspect there has always been a large segment of the population who are socially challenged, but in the internet age they are a lot more visible.

20 years ago- even 15 years ago- places like GreekChat did not exist. There was no completely democratic form of instant communication available to virtually everyone and visible by so many people.

And to make matters worse, a great many of the people who spend a LOT of time on the internet are those socially inept people. Those with full and rewarding lives are not going to spend hours a day on the internet.

There is the media to consider as well. Now that we have several 24 hour news stations making news into a profit business instead of a public service, we hear about all these really extreme stories.

In the wake of Columbine, there were several articles published showing that statistically speaking school shootings have been at a fairly constant level since the late 1800s.

But with all the media exposure now- Columbine became a story that was played up to create the illusion that school shootings were a new and dangerous phenomenon. Granted Columbine itself was an unusually grave situation, but that is not the same as using it to create the notion it was a sign of disaster in the newest generation of school children instead of just another isolated incident that is part of life.

My grandfather- a veteran of WWII and Korea- told me there were PLENTY of draft dodgers and drug addicts in those wars. But the media access to battlefields was different then and the wars were not as controversial as Vietnam- and so while there was certainly a more centralized effort to dodge the draft with Vietnam, the image of Vietnam compared to other wars regarding these issues is also more than a little skewed.

Long story short- I think technology just makes us more aware of the world at large, and a profit-driven media is going to bring us the most sensational and off the wall stories there are. And they are also going to invite political advocates and think-tank employees to talk about those incidents and portray them as signs of a negative trend in order to drum up support for political agendas.

This is why I pretty much only watch CNBC during market trading hours and sometimes Lou Dobbs after that. Even those broadcasts are tainted, but the rest are largely designed to inspire anger and emotion that is just not helpful or accurate.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

A good question. The older I get, the more I resist the urge to talk about "the good old days" because I see that the state of life of each generation is so very different, with the differences becoming greater as technological advances accelerate. And for all the new perils that arise, there are also great advantages.

When I was growing up, the Apple IIe and Atari 5200 were the rage at a time when I was old enough to be able to play video games or use computers.

And back then, there were plenty of kids who played sports and avoided computers, and also plenty of kids who thrived on the arcades or on early versions of home video games.

But the majority fell somewhere in the middle- doing some of both.

I suspect there has always been a large segment of the population who are socially challenged, but in the internet age they are a lot more visible.

20 years ago- even 15 years ago- places like GreekChat did not exist. There was no completely democratic form of instant communication available to virtually everyone and visible by so many people.

And to make matters worse, a great many of the people who spend a LOT of time on the internet are those socially inept people. Those with full and rewarding lives are not going to spend hours a day on the internet.

There is the media to consider as well. Now that we have several 24 hour news stations making news into a profit business instead of a public service, we hear about all these really extreme stories.

In the wake of Columbine, there were several articles published showing that statistically speaking school shootings have been at a fairly constant level since the late 1800s.

But with all the media exposure now- Columbine became a story that was played up to create the illusion that school shootings were a new and dangerous phenomenon. Granted Columbine itself was an unusually grave situation, but that is not the same as using it to create the notion it was a sign of disaster in the newest generation of school children instead of just another isolated incident that is part of life.

My grandfather- a veteran of WWII and Korea- told me there were PLENTY of draft dodgers and drug addicts in those wars. But the media access to battlefields was different then and the wars were not as controversial as Vietnam- and so while there was certainly a more centralized effort to dodge the draft with Vietnam, the image of Vietnam compared to other wars regarding these issues is also more than a little skewed.

Long story short- I think technology just makes us more aware of the world at large, and a profit-driven media is going to bring us the most sensational and off the wall stories there are. And they are also going to invite political advocates and think-tank employees to talk about those incidents and portray them as signs of a negative trend in order to drum up support for political agendas.

This is why I pretty much only watch CNBC during market trading hours and sometimes Lou Dobbs after that. Even those broadcasts are tainted, but the rest are largely designed to inspire anger and emotion that is just not helpful or accurate.

You know it's sad when some of us havent hit 45 and we are already referring it to 'the good old days'


before I pop off anbother long assed post...pop over to the Alicia Keys thread....part of what you said is echod in that.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Let me ask...on a serious note....does anyone think that because kids absorb so much from the media nowadays (games, movies and tv) that it has stopped them from being on a high creative level and with the lack of actually playing with others, or joining in of simple social activities that this in part is giving a rise to the number of violent children?


i mean, that pent up energy sitting in from of the tube has to go somewhere....

I totally agree. I know when my cousins and I were little we spend hours just outside playing hide and seek, football, or any little game we found. My cousins had a Sega Genesis and I had the NES (and then later the Super NES) but we seriously played those for like 15 minutes---they bored us.

Now I see my younger cousins (who range in age from 6-13) and all they do is watch TV, stay on the computer, or play video games. Its ridiculous that they can't go outside and play, or ride their bikes for more than 3-5 minutes.

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

I think they should get stayed adjudication - make them spend a week in juvie (this seems like YEARS to kids that age) and do 100 hours of community service. If they go the next year passing all their classes with Cs or better, do the service, and otherwise stay out of trouble, nothing goes on their record. They eff up again, and they're going to have the adjudication on their record and do some more time in juvie.

Agreed. Good suggestion.

[DaemonSeid]

Some Singapore caning wouldn't hurt either

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Hi AKA Monet,

When I mentioned standards- I was talking about the standards by which the government would decide when a child should be removed. I do think economics could end up playing an unfair role in that- hence my concern.

And fair point of you to note that this is an economic issue in general more than racial. I agree. The hypothetical I posed was driven in large part by the fact African-American status, on average, in the US is highly tied to economics, and not in a good way.

But most importantly, I love the hint of optimism in your posts on topics like this. It is very contagious- and thankfully so.

I think that the authorities have a standard. But what would cause our children to make the conscious choice to pursue a violent act versus a collaborative supportive act of kindness? Because anger is an easier emotion to access and more viscerally empowering than to remain in solace and respond is transcendence and compassion...

It all comes down to the money or the value we place on those attachments that draw us an addiction to it... Some adults cannot triumph over their addictions, so how can we expect children to do so or to know the difference?

Thank you for the kind comment. I hope this civilized discussion can continue so that we can learn from each other rather than being "snarky"...