Monday, March 21, 2005
Please, the children
Languishing in the polls, National has come out a revolutionary proposal to punish parents for their children's indescretions.
Shit, with the United States' three strikes and you're out rule Bush could be in trouble.
And NZ First is calling for children as young as 12 to be tried as adults.
If we're going to make 12 or 13 the age at which society will hold children fully accountable for their actions - as we do right-minded adults - then logic would suggest this is the age at which we extend to children other adult entitlements too: like voting, drinking, smoking and gambling right? (Sorry Polar Bob)
While staying on the issue of law and order; why is it the Rugby Union is prepared to name players - some of them All Blacks - facing its judiciary yet the New Zealand Court system won't?
The National caucus has been wary of proposing the "parenting orders" Dr Brash will announce today, fearing they could be seen as too punitive.I wonder if Tony Blair was ever spoken to about this incident?
Such orders, which would be made by Youth Court judges, are already used in Britain, where it is claimed they have helped to halve youth offending.
Shit, with the United States' three strikes and you're out rule Bush could be in trouble.
There has sometimes been tension between Bush and the media over coverage of his daughters, especially when both had run-ins with the law over alcohol three years ago.In an incident in Austin, Texas, in 2001, Barbara was sentenced to perform community service and attend an alcohol awareness class, while Jenna, who had been found with a false ID, was fined US$600 and lost her driver's licence for 30 days.It seems even the world's most prominent people can have kids who rebel.
And NZ First is calling for children as young as 12 to be tried as adults.
The New Zealand First youth justice policy will include:Can someone please explain why the fuck we would want to give youths who have a propensity for violence "military-type training"?
· Requiring offenders 12 years and over to be dealt with by the District and High Courts not Youth Courts
· Providing the Youth Court with guidelines as to when anonymity of proceedings should be removed to reinforce the offender’s accountability to the community
· Make special military-type training sentences involving supervised control and intensive rehabilitation an option to recidivist offenders.
If we're going to make 12 or 13 the age at which society will hold children fully accountable for their actions - as we do right-minded adults - then logic would suggest this is the age at which we extend to children other adult entitlements too: like voting, drinking, smoking and gambling right? (Sorry Polar Bob)
While staying on the issue of law and order; why is it the Rugby Union is prepared to name players - some of them All Blacks - facing its judiciary yet the New Zealand Court system won't?
Comments:
LOL. No sorry needed Bennyasena. I agree. Don't let my opinions on some issues obscure the fact that I am after consistancy. If a drug is recognised as addictive and harmful, and labeled as such, why are other drugs not acceptable? Hence why my stance on dope. One in all in, within the right framework though.
So I agree with your example. The definition of adult should apply across the board. People complain about the drinking age being lowered to 18 but if you are under 20 you legally need your parents permission to get married. You can't set foot in the Sky City gaming area until you are 20 also. But you can drive at 15. If a student you are means tested based on your parents income /assets for forever and a day so I see no consistancy at all.
Peters would wake up in a cold sweat thinking about the teen pregnancy rate if all was equal at 12. Mind you, he probably does anyway if he doesn't have a shot or four of whisky and a fag.
Brash has NFI on anything. He's talking complete bollocks and I think he'll find it'll backfire. People may want accountability but no-one wants to be held accountable for someone elses actions, especially kids. Try getting them to tidy their room. Anything harder than that and you've got no show.
In regards to military service, it works for some but not others. So it's a make or break. Mike Tyson would have been killing people if not boxing and kept in line by Cus D'mato when young. When Cus died Mike went of the rails. Now he's too mentally frail and lacking in confidence to pose a huge threat. There are violent people in the world. That wil never ever change. The defense forces are perfect for this demographic. If it's what they are good at, you harness that skill and hone it under a disciplined environment. There may even be a pride in being good at killing. As a result an appreciation of self-discipline can happen and the knowledge that you don't NEED to use it.
Of course, the trick is to judge who it can work for and when to use it. And despite all that a dangerous mad unit will always be a dangerous mad nut, and no amount of intervention, of any kind, will change them.
Good post. Gets me typing.
Polar Bob
So I agree with your example. The definition of adult should apply across the board. People complain about the drinking age being lowered to 18 but if you are under 20 you legally need your parents permission to get married. You can't set foot in the Sky City gaming area until you are 20 also. But you can drive at 15. If a student you are means tested based on your parents income /assets for forever and a day so I see no consistancy at all.
Peters would wake up in a cold sweat thinking about the teen pregnancy rate if all was equal at 12. Mind you, he probably does anyway if he doesn't have a shot or four of whisky and a fag.
Brash has NFI on anything. He's talking complete bollocks and I think he'll find it'll backfire. People may want accountability but no-one wants to be held accountable for someone elses actions, especially kids. Try getting them to tidy their room. Anything harder than that and you've got no show.
In regards to military service, it works for some but not others. So it's a make or break. Mike Tyson would have been killing people if not boxing and kept in line by Cus D'mato when young. When Cus died Mike went of the rails. Now he's too mentally frail and lacking in confidence to pose a huge threat. There are violent people in the world. That wil never ever change. The defense forces are perfect for this demographic. If it's what they are good at, you harness that skill and hone it under a disciplined environment. There may even be a pride in being good at killing. As a result an appreciation of self-discipline can happen and the knowledge that you don't NEED to use it.
Of course, the trick is to judge who it can work for and when to use it. And despite all that a dangerous mad unit will always be a dangerous mad nut, and no amount of intervention, of any kind, will change them.
Good post. Gets me typing.
Polar Bob
# posted by 
: 21 March 2005 at 20:48
: 21 March 2005 at 20:48
A further suggestion for Tony Ryall / Don Brash:
If parents are generally held responsible for supporting their children as students until age 25, why not also hold them accountable for the crimes of those children?
That one would play well in the 'burbs.
Don Brash was interviewed on Checkpoint last night and clearly knew next to nothing about the "new" National policy. Unfortunately the Mary Wilson attack dog was kept on her chain. It would be nice to see Labour Ministers afforded the same courtesy.
If parents are generally held responsible for supporting their children as students until age 25, why not also hold them accountable for the crimes of those children?
That one would play well in the 'burbs.
Don Brash was interviewed on Checkpoint last night and clearly knew next to nothing about the "new" National policy. Unfortunately the Mary Wilson attack dog was kept on her chain. It would be nice to see Labour Ministers afforded the same courtesy.
Labour too associate students wealth with their parents income until they're 25-y-o don't they dc_red? Just interested to know if you support that policy?
Bennyasena
Bennyasena
# posted by : 23 March 2005 at 14:23
: 23 March 2005 at 14:23
I think it has been (or will soon be) lowered to 24. I guess there are now so many tertiary students in NZ (literally hundreds of thousands), compared to days of old when tertiary study was reserved for a relative elite, it would be quite expensive. Plus I doubt the govt would get much credit for lowering the age ... just flack from the Right about how many more people were dependent on state income support.
Still, doesn't make it right.
Still, doesn't make it right.
Post a Comment