A thought (3.33 / 3) (#23)
by jd on Mon May 21, 2001 at 03:18:26 PM EST
First, the US Constitution, and virtually every other safeguard known to mankind, is typically deprived a child, on the grounds that "adults know better".
(When, exactly, adults started knowing "better", or indeed knowing much of anything at all, is unclear and lost in the mists of time. Probably when it fell out of said adult's pocket.)
The attitude of those over 18 (21 in some areas) is fascinating. Such people have divine right to do as they please, to whom they please. (Which is remarkable, as most don't even believe in a God who could grant such a right to them!)
On the other hand, those same adults will typically be the first to cry foul, when anyone attempts to grant those children the same rights.
(Worse, when anyone tries to intervene when the adult imposes their "rights" over the child, through brute force and sheer bulk.)
This story isn't disturbing. Even remotely. The implications are the disturbing part. Implications such as:
- Kids learn by example, usually off their parents. If this kid has learned that violence and threats are "cool", then it's because one or both of his parents are violent and probably very dangerous.
- The kid will get punished. The actual fact-finding will come later. Facts get in the way of "discipline", so it's best not to get to those first.
- If these "threatened" kids turn out to be violent bullies, alchoholics, elitist, or otherwise plain nasty, don't expect that to come out. It would completely ruin the story of this psycho computer nerd.
- Situations typically build-up. They don't explode without warning. The warnings are just usually ignored. "Kids will be kids". So, just how many warnings -did- the parents, teachers and other kids in the school totally ignore?
- Schools can, of course, always teach and promote mature conflict resolution. This must be why the police were the first ones called in.
- If the e-mails came into the school, where exactly was the school firewall? Or do they normally encourage kids to communicate with any stranger they meet on the Internet?
- What were the police doing, seizing the computer, anyway? They expect to find fingerprints? A tiny gnome, inside, stamping the e-mails with postmarks? Don't know about anyone else, but if I were to send an e-mail that might not go down too well, I'd probably not leave a copy in the "sent-mail" folder, in plain text, in a clearly-marked directory, with large, neon signs saying "mystery plot device, this way!"
THESE are the things that trouble me. The raid itself was a piffling affair, in comparison. Indeed, it couldn't have even occured, had ANY ONE of these points been addressed, first.
Do you like your society roasted or boiled?