The Missing Element in both Criminal Justice AND School Discipline: Consistency. Lack of it leads to Accusations of Bias

[Seymour Flops]

I'll start with education discipline, since that is where it starts. Principals give too much weight to how respectful a student is when they come into their office for a discipline referral. But, that kid's level respectful treaatment of the principal is a reflection of how they were raised.

They should not increase or decreast the punishment based on that. If a kid is in for a second cell phone violation, for example, give him what any kid would get for that. Don't be lenient because the kid said "sir," or "ma'am," Don't be harsher because the kid said "yeah, bru." That's a separate issue.

The problem is worse because it is a particular type person who commonly gets harsher treatment due to their demeanor.

Here is a vid of a "snotty little thug," who "blows up a sweet plea deal," by not being 'respectful.'

Ok, he was a dumbass to not be respectful. But how was he raised?

No need to speculate or guess, you can see how he was raised in that video. Since that kind of parenting is commonly found in a particular demographic, that particular demographic does not get the leniency that others get when they are respectful to the judge.

Because other demographic groups can swallow their "pride" for the moments that it takes to say "yes, Your Honor," instead of "Right." Most other demographics are raised that if they admit they did something, don't try to back track on that admission, or get mad when they don't immediately say "that's alright." Listen to the lecture, and then go home, don't argue and go to jail.

There are parent who will tell their sons, "don't ever respect someone unless they respect you first." Life doesn't work that way. Tell them this: For your own good, respect those in authority, regardless of whether they respect you. Complain to other authorities later if you feel they done you wrong. Being disrespected hurts a lot less than taking up the kiester for five years, which is what happens when you disrespect the law.

Then the media dutifully publishes the statistics showing that this demographics gets an average of XX years more for the same criminal behavior than those other demographics. No doubt it is true, because of the respect factor, which adds to the disrespect.

Judges are human and will tend to be more lenient with people who respect them. That needs to stop. Prison should not be the punishment for being "snotty."

You become a judge, you have to know that you will be dealing with a lot of people who dint get no good Chistian raisin' or no eigth grade education. Might as well put them in prison because no one taught them how to read, as because no one taught them how to show respect.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll start with education discipline, since that is where it starts. Principals give too much weight to how respectful a student is when they come into their office for a discipline referral. But, that kid's level respectful treaatment of the principal is a reflection of how they were raised.

They should not increase or decreast the punishment based on that. If a kid is in for a second cell phone violation, for example, give him what any kid would get for that. Don't be lenient because the kid said "sir," or "ma'am," Don't be harsher because the kid said "yeah, bru." That's a separate issue.

The problem is worse because it is a particular type person who commonly gets harsher treatment due to their demeanor.

Here is a vid of a "snotty little thug," who "blows up a sweet plea deal," by not being 'respectful.'

Ok, he was a dumbass to not be respectful. But how was he raised?

No need to speculate or guess, you can see how he was raised in that video. Since that kind of parenting is commonly found in a particular demographic, that particular demographic does not get the leniency that others get when they are respectful to the judge.

Because other demographic groups can swallow their "pride" for the moments that it takes to say "yes, Your Honor," instead of "Right." Most other demographics are raised that if they admit they did something, don't try to back track on that admission, or get mad when they don't immediately say "that's alright." Listen to the lecture, and then go home, don't argue and go to jail.

There are parent who will tell their sons, "don't ever respect someone unless they respect you first." Life doesn't work that way. Tell them this: For your own good, respect those in authority, regardless of whether they respect you. Complain to other authorities later if you feel they done you wrong. Being disrespected hurts a lot less than taking up the kiester for five years, which is what happens when you disrespect the law.

Then the media dutifully publishes the statistics showing that this demographics gets an average of XX years more for the same criminal behavior than those other demographics. No doubt it is true, because of the respect factor, which adds to the disrespect.

Judges are human and will tend to be more lenient with people who respect them. That needs to stop. Prison should not be the punishment for being "snotty."

You become a judge, you have to know that you will be dealing with a lot of people who dint get no good Chistian raisin' or no eigth grade education. Might as well put them in prison because no one taught them how to read, as because no one taught them how to show respect.

How the kid was raised is immaterial. The kid needs to respect legitimate authority and follow the rules everybody else has to follow. What he is taught at home is irrelevant to the same requirements applied to all students.

I agree that consistency in this is important in order for the kid to accept the reasonableness for the requirement to show respect for legitimate authority and for the rules in place.

And the same rules must also apply in law enforcement if people are to respect the law. If more black people than white people are breaking the law, it is not bias but equal protection under the law that causes more black people than white people to be detained and/or arrested. Likewise if more white people than black people are breaking the law, an honest system would see more white people detained and/or arrested than black people.

And all of society including what responsible parents should be teaching their children at home is to respect legitimate authority and follow the rules.

 

[Seymour Flops]

How the kid was raised is immaterial. The kid needs to respect legitimate authority and follow the rules everybody else has to follow. What he is taught at home is irrelevant to the same requirements applied to all students.

I agree that consistency in this is important in order for the kid to accept the reasonableness for the requirement to show respect for legitimate authority and for the rules in place.

And the same rules must also apply in law enforcement if people are to respect the law. If more black people than white people are breaking the law, it is not bias but equal protection under the law that causes more black people than white people to be detained and/or arrested. Likewise if more white people than black people are breaking the law, an honest system would see more white people detained and/or arrested than black people.

And all of society including what responsible parents should be teaching their children at home is to respect legitimate authority and follow the rules.

I don't think we are disagreeing much.

If the school is the place for kids to learn respect, it not being taught at home, then make that a separate offence. Give the kid X punishment for having his cell phone out, and if he's disrespectful to boot, give him another penalty for that. Don't say, "since you cannot be respectful, I won't be lenient about the cell phone use.

I don't find it immaterial that members of a specific demographic group are literally taught to be disrespectful to authority by their own parents. Suppose a parent had for three years before a kid started first grade taught them the sounds of letters but completely different sounds. For example, that "gh" always is the "f" sound as in laugh, and that "ti" is always the "sh" sound as in "caution," and that "o" makes the short "i" sound as in "women." Imagine when he tells the teacher he already knows how to read, and butchers a first grade primer.

Of course that would be relevant to how well he learns to read. You wouldn't just say, "how he was raised is immaterial. He needs to read just like everybody else." He has to first unlearn what he learned at home.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think we are disagreeing much.

If the school is the place for kids to learn respect, it not being taught at home, then make that a separate offence. Give the kid X punishment for having his cell phone out, and if he's disrespectful to boot, give him another penalty for that. Don't say, "since you cannot be respectful, I won't be lenient about the cell phone use.

I don't find it immaterial that members of a specific demographic group are literally taught to be disrespectful to authority by their own parents. Suppose a parent had for three years before a kid started first grade taught them the sounds of letters but completely different sounds. For example, that "gh" always is the "f" sound as in laugh, and that "ti" is always the "sh" sound as in "caution," and that "o" makes the short "i" sound as in "women." Imagine when he tells the teacher he already knows how to read, and butchers a first grade primer.

Of course that would be relevant to how well he learns to read. You wouldn't just say, "how he was raised is immaterial. He needs to read just like everybody else." He has to first unlearn what he learned at home.

No. Equal protection under the law is equal application for all regardless of what they are taught at home or believe personally. Otherwise the law is meaningless.

 

[jotathought]

How the kid was raised is immaterial. The kid needs to respect legitimate authority and follow the rules everybody else has to follow. What he is taught at home is irrelevant to the same requirements applied to all students.

I strongly disagree with this, as studies demonstrate that home life and parental participation usually produce students who do better in school. When children aren't taught to respect authority and/or lack parental participation, it often doesn't stay confined to the household.

 

[Foxfyre]

I strongly disagree with this, as studies demonstrate that home life and parental participation usually produce students who do better in school. When children aren't taught to respect authority and/or lack parental participation, it often doesn't stay confined to the household.

There is no way any school can reasonably find out what any student has been taught at home and then adjust individual policy for every student. That isn't how the real world works.

All students, regardless of what they are taught at home, should be required to follow the same rules at school and to respect legitimate authority at school. This is invaluable training for succeeding in real life.