"Over Punishment in Schools"

According to www.dictionary.com, police are "an organized civil force for maintaining order, preventing and detecting crime, and enforcing the laws". In New York City, police are in charge of public school security, making schools there much safer. However, according to an editorial I read ("Over-Punishment in Schools"), there has been growing concern from juvenile justice advocates about the policies and circumstances in which children are being arrested. In some cases, they feel that the police are arresting and criminalizing children for behavior that was dealt with principals, parents, and guidance counselors, in the past. In many cities, school officials have identified the problem of "over policing". Juvenile justice advocates feel that "over policing" in schools has a negative affect on students because those who are arrested or singled out by the criminal justice system in school have a greater risk of dropping out of school or later on in life having issues with the law. Furthermore, the article says that most of these students are either Black or Hispanic, and many have emotional or learning disabilities.

The solution lawmakers are trying is the new Student Safety Act. The act is still a draft bill, but its main points would allow teachers, parents, and students to file complaints against security officers working at school, and "The draft bill would require police and education officials to file regular reports that would show how suspensions and other sanctions affect minority children, children with disabilities and other vulnerable groups".

As I thought about this article, I wondered whether or not it was right that the police were involved at school. Clearly, they provided safety for students which I think is extremely important, especially in neighborhoods where gangs are prevalent. However, I feel that the criminal justice system and the school disciplinary system should be separate. It isn't fair for a student if they could be in trouble with the police for walking without a hall pass or talking back to a teacher (examples given in the article). In those situations, it should be on the principal or dean to decided what the punishment should be. Perhaps a warning or detention.

What do you think? To what extent should police be involved in school discipline and security?

Picture from: http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/police-car.JPG

In the name of fame?

A few days ago, Sophie blogged about the couple (Michaele and Tareq Salahi) who broke into the White House to attend a fancy state dinner. They were able to get passed secret service and White House security, pretending that they were on the guest list. Today, I read a follow up article about the couple, "White House Intruders Want Money for Tale". Apparently, the want to become reality TV stars, and the break in was all a ploy for fame and money. According to the article, the couple "postponed plans for an interview Monday on CNN's 'Larry King Live' and were seeking top-dollar bids for their first television interview." The couple is waiting to see who bids the highest for an interview with them, part of their scheme to make big bucks off their White House escapade. Not only that, but this is not Michaele Salahi's first shot at fame: she also has a spot on "Real Housewives of D.C., the Bravo TV show".

After reading this article, I couldn't help thinking back to the Balloon Boy Hoax, and the parents who were so desperate for fame that they harmed their own son and lied to the public. There seems to be a trend of people lying in order to find fame. In my opinion, neither of these couples deserve fame, they haven't done anything worthy of appreciation from the public. Instead, they've just been embarrassments to our country. Why the sudden quest for fame? What makes reality TV show fame so appealing to people? Do you think this couple is worthy of our country's attention?

Picture from: http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/IST/IST500/ICN1031.jpg

The Right...to hang laundry?

"U.S. Residents Fight for the Right to Hang Laundry" ?? This article heading completely surprised me when I stumbled across it this morning on Yahoo. Perhaps because I never thought of hanging laundry as a right that could be taken away. But, in many towns in Pennsylvania and across the U.S., this right is being opposed. Carin Froehlich hangs her laundry every day on a clothesline between her trees in her backyard. She does this to save energy and save money. However, neighbors have sent her anonymous letters telling her that her yard looks like "trailer trash" and they don't want to see her "unmentionables", even though she hangs her underwear inside. According to the article, many towns have passed "No haning rules" because, "The consensus in most communities is that people don't want to see everybody else's laundry." Also passing these rules are housing associations such as condominiums and townhouses that make up 20 percent of the population.

Personally, I think that this is an insignificant battle to be fighting. We live in an age where most people are very aware of the environment and there is immense pressure I think, on our generation, to help save our planet. Hanging laundry to dry reduces the greenhouse gases and energy consumption, so why ban this eco-friendly practice? Carin Froehlich brings up a good point: "'If my husband has a right to have guns in the house, I have a right to hang laundry,'" she says. Although I don't believe that people should have the right to possess arms, I firmly believe that this right should not be taken away from American citizens. I think that hanging clothes outside is a harmless act, especially if undergarments are kept inside, plus it has huge benefits. What does it say about our nation if we care more about what is in our neighbors backyards (appearances), than the health of our planet?

Picture from: http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/STFPOD/859022.jpg

Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

In light of the civil liberties discussions we have been having in class, I read an interesting article, "Weighing Life in Prison For Youths Who Didn't Kill", that touches upon this subject. In Florida, 77 people are serving a life in prison with no opportunity for parole because of crimes they committed as juveniles, none of them murder. Two of these prisoners (one raped a woman and the other committed an armed burglary) are going to appeal in court on Monday, saying that they should not be sentenced to die in prison for a crime other than a homicide because the Eight Amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment. Judges and state representatives are divided over the issue. Some see locking them up without hope for the future as barbaric, but others see teens as having the ability to determine basic right verse wrong, and in those cases, they should be punished and treated as adults. Many people also feel that because Florida is a tourist state and a sought out place for retirement, it needs to be safe and secure.

I think that punishing these people for life for crimes they committed as teens is not appropriate. As people who believe that juveniles should not be executed argue, "people under 18 are immature, irresponsible, susceptible to peer pressure and often capable of change.". The key phrase I think here is "capable of change". I agree completely that teenagers whether 13 or 17 should know that it is wrong to rape someone, wrong to commit a robbery, and those people deserve to spend a long chunk of time in prison. But, I do believe that with therapy and help, these teens can change, their brains will develop more, and they should have another shot at life. It's unfair to punish them away for ever because of a mistake (in these cases huge mistakes), that they made. I think that regarding the 8th amendment, it is cruel to keep them in prison for life, without any hope for the future. Disregarding the death penalty, the Supreme court usually allows states to decided how to punish each crime. Yet I think that this situation is unconstitutional.

Do you think that this is a situation in which one's constitutional rights are not being regarded? Or is this punishment just and constitutional?

picture: http://afghanistan.foreignpolicyblogs.com/files/2009/07/prison.jpg

War as an Equalizer

I read an interesting article about women who fight in the military, particularly about a women named Vivienne Pacquette who has been employed in the army for more than 20 years and spent 2 of those years in Iraq. The main focus of the article was post-traumatic stress disorder, (click here for more information on p.t.s.d.) which results from the trauma that the soldiers deal with while employed. Post-traumatic stress disorder can distorts personalities, lead to trouble sleeping, paranoia, and isolation. The article says that never before has there been so many women "paralyzed by the psychological scars of combat", and this is due to a historic shift in that the military has allowed women to take part in ground combat, positions previously barred from women.

Experts who have been studying these women acknowledge that female soldiers have been dealing with the stresses that come from fighting in ground combat just as well as the males are, and that "Psychologically, it seems, they are emerging as equals." But, different circumstances upon returning home lead to differences in coping between males and females. Regardless, Vivienne Pacquette, along with many other women, believe that war has been an equalizer. Instead of women being seen as weak, they are now fighting side by side men in Iraq, facing road side bombs, mortar attacks, and shootings, together.

So does this mean that we need war in order to bring equality between males and females? I think that by allowing men and women to fight side by side together in a war, they are creating equality in the war zone, because neither gender has a direct advantage: both are facing the same dangers and being effected mentally almost the same. Without war, I think that many people would still see women as physically inferior to men. But I also think that many people in society will still view women as less than when they return home from war because of the stereotypical role they are cast into. Indeed, the article says, "after completing important jobs in the war, women...smack up against old-fashioned ignorance: male veterans and friends who do not recognize them as "real soldiers";... and a society that expects them to be feminine nurturers, not the nurtured." People are not used to women in the role of a soldier, but I think that as more and more women do take on this role, it will help women to escape from their stereotypical role in society.

(picture from http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/23640/thumbs/s-FEMALE-large.jpg)