What the appropriate velocity on Madison in the rain?
And are we talking African or European swallow?
"attempt at disenfranchisement". Really, Chris?
Such hyperbole does not do the subject justice.
I really am sorry that Bruce was inconvenienced, but his right to vote was not in danger, nor were any substantial barriers placed in his way. Having to drive a couple of miles does not seem to high a price to pay, and erroneous maps be damned. Rather than sulking , one's time might be better spent on reflecting how many civil rights marchers got their heads beaten in for trying to vote and how damned lucky he is. Our friends who object about the need to display a photo ID might profitably think the same thoughts.
Or were you just exercising your poetic license?
It was no fiction. I vote in the same precinct as Bruce and I witnessed the described attempt at disenfranchisement by SNAFU happen. I've never seen the man so mad.
Reliance on scientific method creates expertise without experience. It should only be an adjunct to judgement. (I'll stop here because I'm all out of alliteration)
So true, but that really reduces the number of choices.
I totally agree! It's time to set differences aside and vote for someone who isn't a serial pathological lying criminal.
Anecdotes don't beat evidence. The brain is what it is. As a society we can't create laws based on individual assessment, so we have to set arbitrary ages for things like voting, military service, drinking, and life imprisonment. The judge is saying, based on scientific evidence he has studied, that we may need to rethink the age at which a person can be considered to be fully responsible for criminal behavior. He's not saying they just need more hugs. He's saying let's let science help us set policy, rather than anecdotes and good old fashioned common sense.
Looks like you got away with voter fraud, cd. Now go ahead and vote ten times like Il Douche says it's easy to do.
Agree. It occurred to me many times that sending a child back to their original environment was worse than institutionalizing them. There were some home situations where I thought exposure to hardened criminals was greater than in the Training School.
Can you die of schadenfreude? Good one, Bruce. Btw---I was told by the perfectly coiffed circa 1960's sweet lil church lady at my precinct that my driver's license name no longer matches the name on the Election Commission's "Book" (as if it were the Gospel according to Shelby County). After a brief amount of staring at my photo, she said, "Well, I can see you are who you are." Then, she gave me a Diebold machine card.
Off hand some things come to mind. Lumping all offenders together is cheaper, so we're looking at short term expense. Sending some kids back to their original environment after seven hours special ed, really slows possible progress. It's hard, but differentiating normal teen violence from the pathological keeps minor offenders from being tossed to the "wolves".
BVW: As a writer of fiction you're no Philip K. Dick, but keep at it. At least until your attempts at political subterfuge become apparent even to your most ardent defenders.
Kinda off subject....but, as a person who has volunteered to work at polling locations for several elections, I hear your "bitching"...I guess I should expect no less, considering I'm the "face" of the election commission at the given moment. But folks, please...try to hold your anger and frustration for the actual election commission/system, and not the poor hump who has volunteered to work a 15 hour (sometimes +) day for what works out to be right around minimum wage. NOBODY working at a polling place has control over what you're pissed about. I mean, we're trying to do our civic duty, and the process itself can make that very difficult. But some of you seem to go out of your way to make it even more so. Seriously..think before you speak. Just sayin'.
I might also say that such extreme cases prove the point.
What I was doing was exposing the fallacy of making a sweeping statement about the development accountability in young people and further setting an arbitrary age for elective enforcement of the criminal laws.
One of the legal purposes of a juvenile courts' jurisdiction is to decriminalize otherwise criminal behavior on the part of children. So if the good judge is willing to say that violent acts committed by persons less than 25 years of age are just due to 'stupidity", and should be decriminalized, it might be best for him to more fully develop his concepts before he opens his mouth and advocates.
Now, if the state decides that some sort of "youthful offender" status can be granted to certain persons under 25 based on an otherwise clean record, and the underlying offense is not violent in nature, that is a different story entirely. I can see the Juvenile Court using its resources in that case. But that is not what was reported.
Right on, CL. I saw the same stuff. Lets see some plans.
APop and Jeff,
I've just finished working 10 years with teen aged offenders. The cut off in these programs for attempted murderers and murders was about 13. Muggers, gay bashers etc were still in til 20. These allowed violent offenders were mixed in with chronic runaways, pot dealers and those with impulse control problems and brain damage. So my point I guess is that even in this juvenile system, the mix of violent and non violent is a problem.
At the end of many days I just felt like calling in a nuclear strike. But there were always some kids special enough to call my finger away from the button.
The right wing lock em all up and the liberal hugs systems don't work. I'd like to read some concrete plans.
Maybe the nice lady's son will take her back to her house to get her passport. My elderly mother never leaves home without it, nor her American Express card.
@AP - What you are doing here, is a form of 'reductio ad absurdum' argument. By taking an extreme case, you are trying to argue that the principle being articulated by Judge Michael is erroneous.
However, the danger of using 'reductio ad absurdum' arguments, is that rather than proving that the initial principle is incorrect, all you are doing is describing outliers in the standard deviation tail of the Bell Curve for that principle.
So sure, your point is valid. Judge Michael's proposal isn't necessarily a panacea to the problem he is philosophizing about. But at the same time, it doesn't disprove his contention about how such a strategy might change outcomes in a large number of cases.
A more rational description of the sociology here, is that our society as a whole would benefit from a strategy which diverts specific types of offenders into different types of incarceration, based upon their individual characteristics, rather than simply lumping all 'bad people' into the same category, and treating them the same way.
Because Judge Michael is irrefutably correct in that assumption.
Oh, I did. I used to work at JC, too.
Anything that makes it harder to vote, benefits the established order, whatever that might be. It is for this reason, that poll taxes were introduced in the South.
It is the idea of 'representative government' itself which is the problem here. Rather than helping organize the electorate, it suborns it. The calculus of this is elementary.
The magnitude of the influence on the outcome of a given race, is determined much more certainly by those who choose how to divide the electorate, than those who vote in the race. One effect is multiplicative, while the other is only additive.
This is why gerrymandering must be made illegal.
Yeah Clyde, that must be why Roger Stone has Nixon's visage tattooed on his back yet still stumps for Trump and threatens violence if Trump loses.
By Chris Shaw
download this issue
click here to see more »