ggFTW

ggFTW (http://ggftw.com/forum/)
-   News & Current Events (http://ggftw.com/forum/news-current-events/)
-   -   Misbehaving pupils ending up in court (http://ggftw.com/forum/news-current-events/110894-misbehaving-pupils-ending-up-court.html)

mamoru 04-16-2012 01:33 AM

Misbehaving pupils ending up in court
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BBC
Hundreds of US schools have police patrolling the playgrounds and corridors to keep order. But some believe their presence means an increasing number of pupils are being criminalised for minor classroom offences.

Judge John Sholden sits, dressed in black robes, in between two American flags and calls out names.

He is looking down on a courtroom full of teenagers and their parents who are facing "Class C" misdemeanour offences for skipping school.

At the truancy courts of Dallas in Texas, absence from class or repeated late arrivals are punishable with fines of up to $500 (316).

"A Class C misdemeanour is the lowest level of all the criminal offences, it would be the equivalent of a traffic ticket or not abiding by a stop sign on the street," says Judge Sholden, who can also hand out sanctions like essays and book reports in his sentence.

The use of the court system to correct student behaviour is a popular policy used in schools across Texas.

A recent study put the number of Class C tickets issued to young people at around 300,000 per year.

More

The...hell? High school students are being fined and taken to court for not tucking in their shirts. I have no words

Rhinehart 04-16-2012 11:46 AM

It's pretty messed up, but I'm honestly not surprised. I remember when I returned to my hometown of La Verne, CA after living in Oregon for a few years, I saw a bunch of cops patrolling Bonita High (my old high school). I never will understand why people think that's necessary and it's hard not to think "police state" in times like these. It goes without saying that young people are going to make stupid mistakes, but fining them for each and every one of them? How many ways CAN they extort money from people in this country?

Tardar 04-16-2012 01:37 PM

13 year old said it. Must be true.

@Rhine: Firstly, you best check what a police state is. A police state is a state in which the government enacts repressive social, economic, and political controls. Most police states are totalitarian states. There is no aspect of having police in school, usually for safety reasons, that constitutes a police state. Secondly, I reiterate my main point of taking the word of a thirteen year old. Truancy court is truancy court, and has always existed. The likeliness of kids getting fined for "not tucking in their shirts" is unlikely. Now, if a teacher had said that that "not tucking in their shirts" equated to a Class C misdemeanor fine, I'd be more likely to believe it. But no, a thirteen year old says it. Thirdly, they actually only get a ticket in most cases and tickets are easily appealed (especially if the policeman who ticketed you isn't there). They go to court when they refuse to pay and/or didn't appeal (i.e., civil disobedience. Though, it's also important to note that with civil disobedience, you are supposed to willingly accept the consequences of your actions).

Cornflake 04-16-2012 01:58 PM

i don't know what's involved in a truancy fine but skipping a day or half a day of classes is normal around here. you'll get a bit of a lecture and they'll contact your parents if you're under 18 (sometimes). i guess i could understand a fine if they decided not to go for 2 weeks and didn't provide any reason.

if the police are there to protect the kids then why do they make it a goal to frighten them? isn't it a bit counter productive?

Tardar 04-16-2012 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornflake (Post 1706289)
i don't know what's involved in a truancy fine but skipping a day or half a day of classes is normal around here. you'll get a bit of a lecture and they'll contact your parents if you're under 18 (sometimes). i guess i could understand a fine if they decided not to go for 2 weeks and didn't provide any reason.

if the police are there to protect the kids then why do they make it a goal to frighten them? isn't it a bit counter productive?

It's against the law to skip school (real). Education is compulsory in the United States, hence truancy courts who deal with students, who are truant (cut classes). Unless you have formally dropped out of school, or your parents have cleared you from attending a day (or a number of days), you must be in school.

Not all police forces are omgsoscurry. Good media picks out the basket cases to make sensationalist stories that aren't accurate. Speaking from my experience with the policemen and women stationed in my school, they're not all omgsoscurry. All ten to twelve I've had from middle school to high school (one in DC and one in Colorado, where they have the day of the Columbine shooting off and do regular drills in case another happens), have all been friendly and more interested in being friends with the students.

Cornflake 04-17-2012 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamesie (Post 1706296)
It's against the law to skip school (real). Education is compulsory in the United States, hence truancy courts who deal with students, who are truant (cut classes). Unless you have formally dropped out of school, or your parents have cleared you from attending a day (or a number of days), you must be in school.

Not all police forces are omgsoscurry. Good media picks out the basket cases to make sensationalist stories that aren't accurate.

i'm not saying it's legal, i'm saying it's to be expected and punishing something like that with a fine is just stupid.

i also don't think that would be a quality of 'good media'. it's a terrible practice no matter how common it may be.

Bolter 04-17-2012 05:26 AM

well, I think this is a little bit too far here

Queen 04-17-2012 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornflake (Post 1706593)
i'm not saying it's legal, i'm saying it's to be expected and punishing something like that with a fine is just stupid.

i also don't think that would be a quality of 'good media'. it's a terrible practice no matter how common it may be.

I don't think he means good in the sense of like... I'm having trouble finding the word, I'll go with quality for now. What he meant I believe was smart media knows how to play with their power, and smart media picks out the extreme stories.

I'm really positive he didn't mean good/quality/righteous media, just media who knows how to play with media.

He also probably doesn't agree with it but this is just how it is right now, you basically agreed with him at the end.

Rhinehart 04-17-2012 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamesie (Post 1706282)
13 year old said it. Must be true.

@Rhine: Firstly, you best check what a police state is. A police state is a state in which the government enacts repressive social, economic, and political controls. Most police states are totalitarian states. There is no aspect of having police in school, usually for safety reasons, that constitutes a police state. Secondly, I reiterate my main point of taking the word of a thirteen year old. Truancy court is truancy court, and has always existed. The likeliness of kids getting fined for "not tucking in their shirts" is unlikely. Now, if a teacher had said that that "not tucking in their shirts" equated to a Class C misdemeanor fine, I'd be more likely to believe it. But no, a thirteen year old says it. Thirdly, they actually only get a ticket in most cases and tickets are easily appealed (especially if the policeman who ticketed you isn't there). They go to court when they refuse to pay and/or didn't appeal (i.e., civil disobedience. Though, it's also important to note that with civil disobedience, you are supposed to willingly accept the consequences of your actions).

Firstly, I didn't mean that thing about the police state literally. It was more of a hyperbole. But I feel something's a little wrong when police are patrolling schools.

And I know about the whole "13 year old said it" thing you're talking about. It's not exactly a reliable source. But it is true that criminal charges against kids are high and on the rise. It's been an issue that's come up a few times already and I still don't really think it's been raised enough.

It just bothers me that our country's faith in its children is so low, they have to station cops at schools to keep 'em in line when honestly, I feel that it accomplishes the exact opposite. The more you police these kids, the more likely they're going to lash out or do something stupid. It's a kind of pressure, really. Things would be better if schools knew how to handle things themselves and then did so.

Tardar 04-17-2012 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornflake (Post 1706593)
i'm not saying it's legal, i'm saying it's to be expected and punishing something like that with a fine is just stupid.

i also don't think that would be a quality of 'good media'. it's a terrible practice no matter how common it may be.

Are you implying that people who break the law shouldn't be punished?

Chelie sums up my opinion. "Good" media that wants to "catch your attention" will use extreme cases because they're more likely to catch you're attention.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chelie (Post 1706642)
I don't think he means good in the sense of like... I'm having trouble finding the word, I'll go with quality for now. What he meant I believe was smart media knows how to play with their power, and smart media picks out the extreme stories.
I'm really positive he didn't mean good/quality/righteous media, just media who knows how to play with media.
He also probably doesn't agree with it but this is just how it is right now, you basically agreed with him at the end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhinehart (Post 1706765)
(1) Firstly, I didn't mean that thing about the police state literally. It was more of a hyperbole. But I feel something's a little wrong when police are patrolling schools.

(2) And I know about the whole "13 year old said it" thing you're talking about. It's not exactly a reliable source. But it is true that criminal charges against kids are high and on the rise. It's been an issue that's come up a few times already and I still don't really think it's been raised enough.

(3) It just bothers me that our country's faith in its children is so low, they have to station cops at schools to keep 'em in line when honestly, I feel that it accomplishes the exact opposite. The more you police these kids, the more likely they're going to lash out or do something stupid. It's a kind of pressure, really. Things would be better if schools knew how to handle things themselves and then did so.

(1) That's quite the hyperbole. But even still, it's not the most appropriate hyperbole because a police officer in a school doesn't constitute a police state unless that sole police officer was arresting like homosexuals and blacks stating that they were like impure or whatever.

(2) I have more harsh opinions on justice, and generally believe that once you're at least 13, you're smart enough to be accountable for your actions. If not, you're parents are incapable.

(3) It's hard to have faith in children and young people (using this to refer to college people as well) when they feel the need to shoot up schools. Throw in the fact that children are also brutal to each other (see: bullying), it's really hard to think that children are just innocent angels.

The whole point of having police officers in school is in the event that someone decides to shoot-up, there's a pedophile in the school/near-by, there's situation that administration can't handle, there's someone is "trained" to handle these kinds of situations. The police officers are not there for everyday discipline; that's the job of administration.

Again I bring on the point of "good" media covering more sensationalist and extreme stories. Nobody cares about the many schools that have officers (almost every high school has one) that are more or less useless most of the time. If you wanna catch people's attention, write stories about the small number of schools with officers that are loco.

Cornflake 04-18-2012 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamesie (Post 1706827)
Are you implying that people who break the law shouldn't be punished?

not all laws are righteous. strict enforcement of laws which don't make sense is a bad thing.

Tardar 04-18-2012 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornflake (Post 1707036)
not all laws are righteous. strict enforcement of laws which don't make sense is a bad thing.

Tell me how truancy laws are bad laws. Mind you that the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that students stay in school at least into they can legally "drop out."

Rhinehart 04-18-2012 01:29 PM

I don't claim that kids are innocent angels or anything of the sort. What I'm saying is that a lot of people make stupid mistakes when they're young. And if it was just school shooters and pedophiles that the police were there to prosecute, I'd have no problem with it, but kids are getting arrested for burping or farting in class. Do you think the police really needed to get involved in those cases?

Tardar 04-18-2012 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhinehart (Post 1707216)
I don't claim that kids are innocent angels or anything of the sort. What I'm saying is that a lot of people make stupid mistakes when they're young. And if it was just school shooters and pedophiles that the police were there to prosecute, I'd have no problem with it, but kids are getting arrested for burping or farting in class. Do you think the police really needed to get involved in those cases?

Stupidity is no reason for leniency unless the person is completely incapacitated (i.e., insane or mentally disabled). You know by smoking that weed there is that chance, however small it may be, that you get caught. You should accept the consequences.

I don't know how I feel about the burping, but if the student managed to cause a significant amount of "unrest" in the classroom through his burp, that's fair game. On the fart case, the kid was also turning off computers. And again, just because they get arrested doesn't mean things will actually happen. Arrest doesn't instantly mean you're guilty.

Rhinehart 04-19-2012 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamesie (Post 1707219)
Stupidity is no reason for leniency unless the person is completely incapacitated (i.e., insane or mentally disabled). You know by smoking that weed there is that chance, however small it may be, that you get caught. You should accept the consequences.

I don't know how I feel about the burping, but if the student managed to cause a significant amount of "unrest" in the classroom through his burp, that's fair game. On the fart case, the kid was also turning off computers. And again, just because they get arrested doesn't mean things will actually happen. Arrest doesn't instantly mean you're guilty.

It just seems a little excessive. The situations with the burping and the farting and shutting off computers could've been handled easily enough by the teacher. "Go stand outside", for example.

Tardar 04-19-2012 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhinehart (Post 1707678)
It just seems a little excessive. The situations with the burping and the farting and shutting off computers could've been handled easily enough by the teacher. "Go stand outside", for example.

Depends on if the kid actually listened. Just a couple days ago there was a 6-year old that was arrested for throwing a tantrum. Quite an arbitrary arrest no? Teacher could've just told the girl to stop or go sit outside. Well, because it was one of those "good media" cliffhangers (they went to a commercial) me and my friends looked up the story. As it turns out, the little girl was throwing things and jumping off desks screaming. She was sent to the Principal's office where she continued to misbehave and carry on with her tantrum. She was then arrested.

Really neither article talks about what happened other than kid got arrested for farting.

Cornflake 04-20-2012 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamesie (Post 1707219)
Arrest doesn't instantly mean you're guilty.

being exonerated of a crime doesn't necessarily mean you're innocent. there's a certain stigma attached to being arrested that will affect these kids for years to come.

Quote:

As it turns out, the little girl was throwing things and jumping off desks screaming. She was sent to the Principal's office where she continued to misbehave and carry on with her tantrum. She was then arrested.
wouldn't something like counseling or therapy, in the presence of her parents, be much more helpful? she's ****ing 6.

Quote:

Tell me how truancy laws are bad laws.
tell me why skipping a class is fair grounds for arrest? if i was being fined for missing a few classes i'd feel better off dropping out, and i don't think people dropping out of highschool is a good thing (most of the time). i simply think the law needs to be more lenient and that's a problem police officers sent to protect the students should understand.

Tardar 04-20-2012 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornflake (Post 1707884)
being exonerated of a crime doesn't necessarily mean you're innocent. there's a certain stigma attached to being arrested that will affect these kids for years to come.

Again, back to my "suffering the consequences because you made a stupid decision" point/idea. Usually arrests (without trials and such, unless they're big things like murder) don't show up on records that will directly impact them.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornflake (Post 1707884)
wouldn't something like counseling or therapy, in the presence of her parents, be much more helpful? she's ****ing 6.

The article didn't tell how the story ended after her arrest but I imagine that's where she was sent. I probably should mention that when she was "arrested," she was likely cuffed and just sent home to her parents. The article didn't exactly clarify, but "arrested" seems much more dramatic than what actually may have happened.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Cornflake (Post 1707884)
tell me why skipping a class is fair grounds for arrest? if i was being fined for missing a few classes i'd feel better off dropping out, and i don't think people dropping out of highschool is a good thing (most of the time). i simply think the law needs to be more lenient and that's a problem police officers sent to protect the students should understand.

1) It's a law that you have to attend school until you're at least, what 15 or 16?

2) Usually truancy cases just end with students being sent back to their school or parents (if off grounds) or just asked to go to class. In modern truancy, it takes a few offences before you're actually persecuted.

3) Officers in school are usually not in charge of truancy either. If the school notices you've been absent from classes a significant number of times, it becomes their job to file truancy charges, not the police officers.

Rhinehart 04-23-2012 10:45 AM

It's ironic that this subject be brought up about now, considering I just got an email for a petition involving a six-year-old girl who was handcuffed and arrested by police for throwing a "temper tantrum" in class. She was also suspended from school for the remainder of the year and has been traumatized by the experience.

Change.org - Start, Join, and Win Campaigns for Change

It's already got damn near their goal of petition signitures, but if anyone feels so inclined, they can sign as well. I already have.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.