Law and Order in America

GostHacked · May 7, 2014

It is exactly the type of book that should be assigned.

I applaud the arrest of this person. In a discussion of a book about the themes of bullying and the consequences of bullying, this man did not just exceed his time, refusing to followed the rules that everyone else agreed to for an orderly and constructive meeting, but also interrupted others when they had the floor, refused to stop, and made clear that he would have to be arrested to stop his bullying behaviour.

Standing up for your kid is not bullying. Asserting your position as a parent is not bullying. Calling out the school for a bad decision is not bullying. If that is the case, then every parent out there is a bully and rightly so.

Wayward Son · May 7, 2014

Standing up for your kid is not bullying. Asserting your position as a parent is not bullying. Calling out the school for a bad decision is not bullying. If that is the case, then every parent out there is a bully and rightly so.

This man was attempting to impose his domination over the meeting. He could have "stood up" for his teenager, asserted his position as a parent, and called out the school for a bad decision while still being respectful to the other people present, but he chose a different route. He wanted to get arrested, and he made sure he got his wish.

Personally, I see limiting your teen-aged child's exposure to the real world and different ideas appalling, and I am sure his teen is embarrassed by him. You want to control and micromanage your child, then home school them. You have some issues with a part of the curriculum then you are free to voice them, but if it is as part of a public forum then it is within the rules of such a forum. Some parents don't want their children to learn about evolution, or climate change, or whatever else offends their ideology. Tough, if someone really want your child to be as stupid, narrow-minded, ideological, and uninformed as they are then keep them at home. I wonder how he is going to control his daughter when she reaches university age. Perhaps send her to Bob Jones University or Liberty.

GostHacked · May 7, 2014

This man was attempting to impose his domination over the meeting. He could have "stood up" for his teenager, asserted his position as a parent, and called out the school for a bad decision while still being respectful to the other people present, but he chose a different route. He wanted to get arrested, and he made sure he got his wish.

He did not want to get arrested, he said, they would have to arrest him to remove him. He made a stand as a parent should.

Personally, I see limiting your teen-aged child's exposure to the real world and different ideas appalling, and I am sure his teen is embarrassed by him. You want to control and micromanage your child, then home school them. You have some issues with a part of the curriculum then you are free to voice them, but if it is as part of a public forum then it is within the rules of such a forum. Some parents don't want their children to learn about evolution, or climate change, or whatever else offends their ideology. Tough, if someone really want your child to be as stupid, narrow-minded, ideological, and uninformed as they are then keep them at home. I wonder how he is going to control his daughter when she reaches university age. Perhaps send her to Bob Jones University or Liberty.

My real beef here is not the sexual content but the school shooting scenario, in light of Sandy Hook. I questioned the father's approach of going for the sexual content instead of dealing with the school shooting in the book. And he may not be the only one that protested the book, but he was the one that got arrested. So it could be that many parents object the the book being assigned. But the focus is just on this one guy who broke the rules.

Other situations like this I have seen the school panel simply go on with business and not really care what the parents want.So it's an arrestable offense for violating a two minute rule? Wait till he really breaks the rules.

Wayward Son · May 7, 2014

He did not want to get arrested, he said, they would have to arrest him to remove him. He made a stand as a parent should.

My real beef here is not the sexual content but the school shooting scenario, in light of Sandy Hook. I questioned the father's approach of going for the sexual content instead of dealing with the school shooting in the book. And he may not be the only one that protested the book, but he was the one that got arrested. So it could be that many parents object the the book being assigned. But the focus is just on this one guy who broke the rules.

Other situations like this I have seen the school panel simply go on with business and not really care what the parents want.So it's an arrestable offense for violating a two minute rule? Wait till he really breaks the rules.

He is a lawyer. He knew exactly what he was doing. I have been arrested while protesting. This person thinks he is a warrior in a conspiracy culture war by the school system to destroy the family unit (this is what he has said). I am not saying that he went to the meeting specifically to get arrested, but he knew full well that without getting arrested this culture war battle would get no coverage, whereas getting arrested would get tons.

As to why he concentrated on the sex scene instead of the school shooting...well for starters he has not read more then one page of the book. As he has said, a friend (undoubtedly a fellow fundamentalist, tea-party, Rush Limbaugh loving, Obama's a Muslim type) came over to his house to visit. The friend asked if his daughter was reading the book in question, asked to be brought the book, "randomly" flipped it open to the exact page with the passage of the sex scene, and said read this passage. The same students see sexual content on the TV every couple minutes, but I am sure that reading through more than 300 pages of a novel in order to get to a sex scene will be corrupting.

As to your worry about students reading about a school shooting affecting them...when they go to schools which run drills about preparing for shootings, see school shootings on the news, and live in a culture where violence is pervasive on the TV and in video games, well that worry is just as head in the sand. I grew up when the cold war thoughts of nuclear war was still on the minds of many. Was assigned a book about the after affects to a civilization after a nuclear war. Only thing I remember from whole year. Very beneficial.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Wayward Son

Big Guy · May 7, 2014

He was escorted out because he was asked to leave a meeting after having his say. It had nothing to do with the issue. When in a group setting, you have a large number of people attending, then the rules of decorum have to be followed and enforced by the chair. That is the role of the chair. I saw part of the video and this gentleman was prepared to stop the business of council and the rest of the attendees because HE decided he had the cause. In his mind the end (getting that book banned) justified the means. Civilized society cannot function under those conditions.

If someone stood up and started to chant "keep that book, keep that book!" was told to sit down and refused to do so then he/she too would have been physically escorted out of the room. As to the "arrest", I do not know the law in that state and municipality.

kimmy · May 9, 2014

Before I watched the video, I was predisposed to assume it was another case of some self-styled alpha-male having a temper-tantrum because he wasn't getting his way. Like, the world is supposed to grind to a halt if some "alpha-male" doesn't get his way.

But after seeing the video, the guy didn't really seem out of control or anything. Obviously he was angry, but he wasn't out of control or threatening. I felt like the school people-- who later admitted to being in the wrong-- were hiding behind the "2 minute rule" to stifle discussion about the situation. Maybe instead of trying to shut down that discussion, they should have just had it out.

Personally I think the idea of trying to shield high-school students from controversial ideas is stupid. If they are going to require parental consent to teach students anything beyond mathematics and grammar, then they might as well just shut the whole thing down.

-k

Big Guy · May 9, 2014

I have always believed that one of the major functions of education system is to encourage students to ask questions - even if those questions cross into "uncomfortable" issues. Personally I have found that when a parent questions what is taught at school it is because the parent does not want to answer questions from their child on that issue. It can be on sex, discrimination, religion et al.

The parent is always the final "teacher" preparing the child to function in our society.

monty16 · May 9, 2014

They have a gun problem that's completely out of control and the police are reacting to it with measures that protect themselves. However, understanding the root of the problem doesn't excuse the police their violence.

We can have the same thing in Canada if we willingly follow the lead of Alberta and the Conservatives!

Argus · May 14, 2014

They have a gun problem that's completely out of control and the police are reacting to it with measures that protect themselves. However, understanding the root of the problem doesn't excuse the police their violence.

We can have the same thing in Canada if we willingly follow the lead of Alberta and the Conservatives!

Or Quebec and its Liberals?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/14/matt-gurney-arrest-of-lac-megantic-engineer-an-embarrassing-sideshow/

Edited May 14, 2014 by Argus

overthere · May 14, 2014

They have a gun problem that's completely out of control and the police are reacting to it with measures that protect themselves. However, understanding the root of the problem doesn't excuse the police their violence.

We can have the same thing in Canada if we willingly follow the lead of Alberta and the Conservatives!

Guns and police are out of control in Alberta?

Thanks for the tip, I'd better stay inside for the rest of the year.

I wouldnt want to be murdered in a streetcar by the cops.

Oh wait, that was Toronto.

monty16 · May 14, 2014

Guns and police are out of control in Alberta?

Thanks for the tip, I'd better stay inside for the rest of the year.

I wouldnt want to be murdered in a streetcar by the cops.

Oh wait, that was Toronto.

No, I didn't say that. I suggested that if we follow the lead of Alberta we will be heading in the same direction as the land of the gun that's south of our border. The Conservative government hasn't achieved that yet but their hearts are in it for sure. Along with messing with the justice system to make sentences stiffer and out of the discretion of judges who are the experts with firsthand knowledge of each individual to be sentenced. It all fits together you see, stiffer sentences, fewer paroles, more hardened criminals, more prisons, more gun violence, more murders, more violence, more victims, and then more handguns to protect oneself from the problems the Conservatives want to create!

bush_cheney2004 · May 14, 2014

No, I didn't say that. I suggested that if we follow the lead of Alberta we will be heading in the same direction as the land of the gun that's south of our border.

I most certainly agree that it is far better to be a criminal perp in the land of thug-hugging north of the border. If I ever get a hankerin' to commit crimes, Canada is the place to do it.

monty16 · May 14, 2014

I most certainly agree that it is far better to be a criminal perp in the land of thug-hugging north of the border. If I ever get a hankerin' to commit crimes, Canada is the place to do it.

I know I shouldn't respond to that but I will because it's so ridiculous that it deserves a comment. So how about this? Your gun will be taken away from you at the border if you become the sort of person who is tending to gun violence. They are being watched!

Are you thinking about doing that now? Are you threatening violence? Do you own a handgun?

bush_cheney2004 · May 14, 2014

I know I shouldn't respond to that but I will because it's so ridiculous that it deserves a comment. So how about this? Your gun will be taken away from you at the border if you become the sort of person who is tending to gun violence. They are being watched!

Are you thinking about doing that now? Are you threatening violence? Do you own a handgun?

Should have followed your first inclination. One doesn't need a gun to commit crimes in Canada. I am threatening contrary observation and sarcasm...is that a crime in Canada ?

jacee · May 20, 2014

I most certainly agree that it is far better to be a criminal perp in the land of thug-hugging north of the border. If I ever get a hankerin' to commit crimes, Canada is the place to do it.

If you are caught committing a crime in Canada, you are less likely to commit another one. The rehabilitation model is more effective in reducing crime than the 'harsh punishment' approach.

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ffcts-prsn-sntncs-rcdvsm/index-eng.aspx

Interestingly, within the incarceration vs. community domain, the higher quality studies reported higher recidivism rates for the incarcerated group! There were no differences in effect size by design quality for the more vs. less category. Finally, two effect sizes came from randomized designs; they reported 5% and 9% increases in recidivism for the incarceration group.

overthere · May 20, 2014

No, I didn't say that. I suggested that if we follow the lead of Alberta we will be heading in the same direction as the land of the gun that's south of our border. The Conservative government hasn't achieved that yet but their hearts are in it for sure. Along with messing with the justice system to make sentences stiffer and out of the discretion of judges who are the experts with firsthand knowledge of each individual to be sentenced. It all fits together you see, stiffer sentences, fewer paroles, more hardened criminals, more prisons, more gun violence, more murders, more violence, more victims, and then more handguns to protect oneself from the problems the Conservatives want to create!

I don't know what you're talking about and I suspect we have that in common.

The Criminal Code in Alberta is exactly the same Criminal Code in other provinces.

In what way is Alberta Leading anything, except sending money to other places?

guyser · May 20, 2014

In what way is Alberta Leading anything, ~~except sending money to other places~~?

Oil production?

Beef productoin?

On Guard for Thee · May 20, 2014

If you are caught committing a crime in Canada, you are less likely to commit another one. The rehabilitation model is more effective in reducing crime than the 'harsh punishment' approach.

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ffcts-prsn-sntncs-rcdvsm/index-eng.aspx

Interestingly, within the incarceration vs. community domain, the higher quality studies reported higher recidivism rates for the incarcerated group! There were no differences in effect size by design quality for the more vs. less category. Finally, two effect sizes came from randomized designs; they reported 5% and 9% increases in recidivism for the incarceration group.

Yes and on that note, I recall a report that showed up back when there was a lot of talk of Harper's C10 "tough on crime" bill. I can't put my finger on the link just now, but it came of all places from the state of Texas. They had the highest incarceration rate on the planet. They were looking at a 2 billion budget to build even more prisons but somebody finally said whoa. I recall they took 300 million of that budget and put it into other programs such as drug treatment, mental health, probation services and community supervision for prisoners. Incarceration fell by 9% and crime by 12.8%. and they saved the taxpayer money. Even Texas finally figured out that "hang 'em high and hang 'em often" doesn't work. Unfortunately Harper doesn't seem to be listening.

guyser · May 20, 2014

Yes and on that note, I recall a report that showed up back when there was a lot of talk of Harper's C10 "tough on crime" bill. I can't put my finger on the link just now, but it came of all places from the state of Texas.

I trust this is close enough?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/texas-conservatives-reject-harper-s-crime-plan-1.1021017

These comments are in line with a coalition of experts in Washington, D.C., who attacked the Harper government's omnibus crime package, Bill C-10, in a statement Monday.

"Republican governors and state legislators in such states of Texas, South Carolina, and Ohio are repealing mandatory minimum sentences, increasing opportunities for effective community supervision, and funding drug treatment because they know it will improve public safety and reduce taxpayer costs," said Tracy Velázquez, executive director of the Washington-based Justice Policy Institute.

"If passed, C-10 will take Canadian justice policies 180 degrees in the wrong direction, and Canadian citizens will bear the costs."

On Guard for Thee · May 20, 2014

I trust this is close enough?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/texas-conservatives-reject-harper-s-crime-plan-1.1021017

These comments are in line with a coalition of experts in Washington, D.C., who attacked the Harper government's omnibus crime package, Bill C-10, in a statement Monday.

"Republican governors and state legislators in such states of Texas, South Carolina, and Ohio are repealing mandatory minimum sentences, increasing opportunities for effective community supervision, and funding drug treatment because they know it will improve public safety and reduce taxpayer costs," said Tracy Velázquez, executive director of the Washington-based Justice Policy Institute.

"If passed, C-10 will take Canadian justice policies 180 degrees in the wrong direction, and Canadian citizens will bear the costs."

Thank you very much! That is exactly the one I was recalling and was madly looking for.

guyser · May 20, 2014

my pleasure

jacee · May 20, 2014

Punishment is not rehabilitation':

http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4526473-the-spectator-s-view-punishment-is-not-rehabilitation/

The United States has more people in jail relative to its population than any other country in the world, yet the rates of violent crime remain higher there than in those countries with lighter sentencing.

Argus · May 24, 2014

If you are caught committing a crime in Canada, you are less likely to commit another one. The rehabilitation model is more effective in reducing crime than the 'harsh punishment' approach.

In what way does our 'rehabilitation' model differ from their 'harsh punishment' approach?

As far as I'm aware the prison systems are roughly the same. What we lack is the breeding ground for crime which is the American inner city, with its vast array of criminal gangs.

Argus · May 24, 2014

"Republican governors and state legislators in such states of Texas, South Carolina, and Ohio are repealing mandatory minimum sentences, increasing opportunities for effective community supervision, and funding drug treatment because they know it will improve public safety and reduce taxpayer costs," said Tracy Velázquez, executive director of the Washington-based Justice Policy Institute.

"If passed, C-10 will take Canadian justice policies 180 degrees in the wrong direction, and Canadian citizens will bear the costs."

Or not. American sentences can often be draconion, even for non-violent offenses, and their mandatory minims tended to reflect that, as do their silly 'three strikes' rules, which can send a person to prison for life for stealing a candy bar. None of the Harper governments new laws are anything like as severe as has been typical in parts of the US controlled by Republicans.

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with mandatory minimums for most cases. However, the determination of Canada's judges to minimize sentences for convicted criminals, regardless of the severity of their crimes or their danger to the public, has lent considerable sympathy among many Canadians to the government's approach. In terms of things like gun crimes, yes, there can be the occasional injustice with a mandatory minimum, but I believe it's in society's interest, nonetheless.

I recall some time ago, before the mandatory minimums were in place, a street gang member with a long criminal record hauled over at gunpoint near Cornwall. The police found a fully automatic Uzi in his car. The learned judge humphed and harpumphed and gave him a $1000 fine then, with a kindly smile, kicked him loose. That's why we have mandatory minimums.