For those of you who claim that the right thing in this situation would be to turn the child over to the authorities - what exactly do you think the authorities are going to do to make this situation better? The child obviously has some darkness that he needs to work through - to work through darkness he needs the support of a loving community. I find it very sad and disturbing that some commenters (who I assume are adults) believe that the right thing to do is to hand a child like this over to the police or mental institutions. This idea that the police are some sort of magical wand that you can wave at problems to make them go away is at the center of our (our here meaning the US & Britain's) social decay (c.f. the current treatment of drug abusers, ethnic minorities, and the "mentally ill" in the United States).
Assuming this story is true, what OP did was the right, human, adult thing to do - to treat the child as a human being capable of change and growth and to see to it that the community accepted him and moved him towards change. Concepts like "justice" and "psychosis" are easy to throw around and are very practical, but their use is typically the root of more harm than good.
You are calling a 17 year old person a "child". This is wrong, and perfectly in keeping with the trend of failing to raise children into mature adults.
17 year olds will be able to vote on their next birthday. They can hold jobs, they can drive cars, they can fly planes, they can even serve in the armed forces with their parents' permission. 17 year olds fought in the battle of Iwo Jima.
Calling this person a child diminishes them, and takes away their capacity for agency and responsibility. A big part of being a healthy, functional adult in society is responsibility. You can nurture them within a loving community all you want but if you protect them entirely from the consequences of their actions they will never become anything more than children.
First of all, you're picking on a very small point. The fact that I referred to this guy/kid/whatever as a "child" isn't really crucial to my argument except perhaps in a pretty indirect/connotative manner.
Second of all, to me, this kid is a child. I know some 30+ year old grown-ass men and women who are children. I was remarking on his (apparent) lack of maturity and his position within the community (still living with parents, pulling [admittedly extreme] "pranks", not living with the consequences of his actions).
I agree that to be an adult you need responsibility and that to get there you must increasingly suffer the consequences of your actions. My point (which you have avoided responding to entirely) centers on the fact that, in the US and the UK, turning ANYONE (child or adult) over to the "authorities" is not any sort of reasonable or useful consequence and, what's more, that it is disturbing to me that this particular idea of "punishment" or "consequences" or "justice" or whatever seems to continue to penetrate the public consciousness.
Just because he's 17 doesn't mean he has grown up. He obviously hasn't and treating him like a grown-up and expecting him to take responsibility when he obviously hasn't reached that part of his mental development would be very detrimental. That's why the article writer made sure to impress upon his parents that the boy needs counselling - to work through and correct whatever mental/behavioural issues he has.
That argument of course only holds if your goal is utilitarian with regards to the well-being of society as a whole and that family in particular. If you just seek to satisfy your inner craving for "justice", by all means - call the cops, destroy his life, create another criminal and drug user and watch him and his parents lose any hope of normal life, while you laugh and twirl your moustache from atop the moral high tower.
If it would be detrimental to him to "grow up" then will it not be detrimental to society to put him out in a world where he could do harm to others? Especially given that he already has a history of doing exactly that?
If the premise here is that this man-child is too immature to take on the responsibilities of adult society (such as the right to own firearms, the right to drive automobiles, the right to drink alcohol, etc.), that he is in some way developmentally disabled, then should he not be kept away from society and denied the ability to hurt others?
You are setting up a false dichotomy here. You are saying that the choice is either that this person be sheltered by a nurturing and loving community who protects him from the consequences of his actions and if not then his life will be ruined utterly. He needs to face the consequences of his actions. He needs to learn that it is necessary to abide by just laws in order to live in society and to fail to do so will result in very serious consequences. If he cannot accept any responsibility then he has no place in civil society.
What are the possible consequences of someone being sheltered from the consequences of their vile, hateful, violent acts? That person can become mentally and emotionally twisted and their hatred and lust for wanton destruction can grow. And this can occur even within the sheltering arms of a loving community. And then the hurt they cause others and the irreparable damage they do to themselves becomes even greater until they become a monster. A rapist, a serial killer, or merely an outcast who cannot mesh with society.
This is not about moral high towers, this is about ensuring that society does not become burdened with so-called adults who have never faced true responsibility and are incapable of functioning properly within society.
I think it is highly unlikely that any of his actions would result in any significant jail time. Community service, a fine, and/or some sort of probation are all more likely.
I had a childhood friend who got in with a bad crowd in high school. At some point, when he was about 17, he was caught illegally entering a business at night. His parents refused to go pick him up from the police station, so he had to spend the night and most of the next day in a cell. I don't believe his ultimate punishment involved any jail time.
I respect his parent's decision. That sort of action teaches a troublesome kid that there are real consequences for breaking laws beyond just upset parents. While a criminal record might make it harder for him to get a job in the future, it certainly doesn't make it impossible. I also suspect it is better than letting a kid think that other people will protect him and he can get away with whatever he wants.
I'm suggesting no such thing. I'm saying that if someone thinks that this person should be sheltered entirely from the consequences of his actions then it is similarly logical to shelter society from his cruelty. If you'll notice I haven't actually suggested a course of action for dealing with him, I've only suggested that he needs to experience consequences for his hateful and violent attacks.
The 17 yo might not be a child, but he is immature. His actions were not the actions of a mature individual.
Knowing the 17 yo, and knowing his family means the article author was able to make a judgement call about how seriously he takes the threats against his family and himself now that the veil of anonymity is revealed.
If he was still worried about the threats being enacted after the 17 yo was reveal then I'm sure he would have involved authorities.
Actions have consequences, and while I agree that what the 17 yo did needs to have consequences, by invoking the authorities the author could change this from an act that has a definite conclusion to something that is ongoing (if only on his conscience) when he hears stories about this kid's life 5, 10 and 20 years from now.
To let go of retribution and have a dark part of your life concluded and move on is sometimes a better outcome than having to drag something out to get justice.
When I think back to the decisions I made as a 17 year old (and an 18, 19, 20 ... year old) I think it is perfectly valid to call a 17 year old a child.
At that age I would guess a large proportion can barely cook for themselves, have never lived alone, probably never paid a bill or shopped at supermarkets.
How will that help? You don't solve the problem of people being immature even into adulthood by delaying the official onset of adulthood yet more. You solve it by treating teenagers as adults in training. Which used to be the case until very recently. Now we avoid giving responsibility to teens, we treat high school like day care or a prison, and we wonder why our "kids" don't magically acquire maturity when they turn 18, or 21, or 25, or 30.
Maturity and responsibility are skills that must be taught. And they cannot be taught at a distance, they must be taught live, with the real world, because it is only through learning that actions have consequences, sometimes serious ones, that maturity is acquired.
I think the answer isn't so much giving people consequences as giving them responsibility.
It's ridiculous that some kids get their post secondary education degree without ever having held a job (of any kind).
I find it amazing that teens walk around with $200-$2000 worth of electronics that their parents paid for them with no thought to their value because they didn't pay for it, and they know they'll be replaced if they whine enough.
The case for upping the age of maturity to 25 is that there is solid brain science suggesting that that is how old we are when our brain finishes developing the ability to make mature decisions. See http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familylife/tech_assistance/etraining/... for that.
However you're absolutely right that children who are never given responsibility never develop their ability to take responsibility.
Totally agree. You see things from a different perspective when you start having responsibilities and duties, like having to pay for your rent, having to cook and do the cleaning yourself, and so on...
"...the tough thing about adulthood is that it starts before you even know it starts, when you're already a dozen decisions into it. But what you need to know, Todd, no Lifeguard is watching anymore. You're on your own. You're your own man, and the decisions you make now are yours and yours alone from here until the end. "
An arbitrary age of maturity has nothing to do with actual (as opposed to legal) adulthood or responsibility. The fact is that "kids" at the age of 17 and 18 are already making decisions that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Making the legal age later will certainly not help these people realize that the decisions they are making are important or that they need to take responsibility for themselves.
I often find the idea of "maturity" an interesting concept. We have a fairly fixed average lifetime expectancy, which can vary by a couple of years depending on where you live (on average). I think the global average is 68 years old for both sexes.
The western world has an fairly fixed period of "maturing" into adulthood, which is usually achieved when the individual reaches 18 years old. Most countries then offer the vote and other "adult" related perks and responsibilities. Meanwhile, adults are living longer and social and health support costs for those people in retirement is increasing and this burden falls on the working population.
Historically humans have matured before 18 years old. This shift has happened over the last two centuries (western world). However, let's not forget that in many parts of the world, children start work and start families at a much younger age and it is socially acceptable within their own societies. These are concepts that we in the western world find (now) quite bizarre, but during the (British) industrial revolution, children (and we had a lot of them) helped to power the revolution, working in mines and factories. These children had children younger and further increased the population at a more rapid growth rate. We now look on this with distaste, disgust and a large degree of pity, but at the time I doubt it was viewed as so.
I would go further and state that today we see this as slavery, whilst back then they saw it as necessity. This necessity still exists around the world, and even though there is a huge drive in the western world to boycott companies in the third and second world who use child labor, it is an important source of income for their families living in poverty. Importantly and all to often forgotten, we are too blinded by our indignation to see otherwise. I'm not saying that this is right, merely making an observation.
Meanwhile our welfare states are collapsing and we have few options. We have to reduce our social support costs or see our support systems collapse. Alternatively we could import human resource from abroad to pay the taxes to support welfare. Importing labor is not without its own challenges, but has helped to build countries like the United States into global powerhouses.
Without a doubt, we need to extend people's working lives (i.e. later retirement), which is for many countries, especially in Europe, the first step on this path. The "lord taketh and the lord taketh away", but woe betide the state that tries to take anything away from its citizens. Countries like France are being brought to their knees by this welfare burden. The people protest in their millions as they see banks profit and get richer, but nothing will change, except for the fact that eventually, the French will have to accept later retirement and higher taxes.
Thus, the question I put to you is this: Do our children really need 18 years to mature, or is our system taking 18 years to mature them? Are we able to improve the system so that we can increase the number of workers in the system from the bottom up, rather than the top down?
We could radically change the way (and speed) in which we educate our children (and have more of them) to help offset the welfare gap from the bottom up. I haven't ever heard this idea proposed and the devil's advocate in me wants to question why not?
I have children and I want the best for them. On one hand I want them to enjoy their "extended" childhood, but I also want them not to suffer in poverty when they get older. The pragmatist in me thinks that there is little option other than consider extending the worker's life from both sides.
To summarize, the baby boomers fucked us and we and our children just have to live with the consequences.
"Without a doubt, we need to extend people's working lives (i.e. later retirement)"
How is this a given? Increased efficiency might counteract demographics. Hundred years ago a lot more farmers where needed to feed the same amount of people than today. If your phone can do your medical checkup, lots of medical aid workers can perhaps be freed to do other stuff.
I worry that we are being brainwashed on a constant basis by a rich elite to believe the "we have to work harder and longer" dogma. It doesn't make that much sense, given that we are a lot more technologically advanced than 50 years ago. Granted, the population has grown, too. All I want to say that I wouldn't take your claim at face value.
As for working children: sure, children can work. Does that mean they are adults? I think in our times it basically means being allowed to vote and make responsible decisions. You can still work in a coal mine following orders without being able to make responsible decisions.
Obviously people will do what they need to survive, but while we can, we should probably try to attain to a higher standard.
Even for the child laborers in India it is not a given that things have to be what they are. Yes, the current system makes it so - doesn't imply that there couldn't be another system. Paying their parents more might be a start.
I guess that is my opinion, as I personally see this as the most attractive option to solve the deficit. You can of course raise taxes, but that decreases fluidity. Decreased fluidity dampens growth, etc..
"You are calling a 17 year old person a "child". This is wrong, and perfectly in keeping with the trend of failing to raise children into mature adults."
I see it slightly more cynically - in my opinion, either the 17 year old is "child" so is not held responsible and his parents are, or he is not a child and is held responsible. I don't accept the assumption that _nobody_ is responsible for a badly brought up child. The guy and his wife were put through something a lot closer to "terrorism" than anything many detainees at Guantanamo ever managed. If the kid had been Arabian, and hs parents had knowingly or unknowingly provided training and equipment that allowd the kid to do what he did - how differently do you suppose this story would have played out?
Let's not pretend there's reason or justice in how the US treats those people. That's part of a larger conflict, and has little value as an example of individual responsibility.
17 year olds may be able to do all of those things, however we know that the average male's forebrain doesn't fully develop until much later, as much as 8 years later. Some males aged 25 still have not developed to the point of advanced reasoning. Reasoning like being able to see the consequences and harm done by stunts such as sending threats like this. It's certainly not enough to dismiss this and say "he's 17, he's not a child anymore".
Who cares about a "fully developed" brain, if there is even such a thing? Human beings at any age are largely irresponsible and irrational and most people never move beyond this. Yet I know that the vast majority of 17-year-olds I have encountered do not mail boxes of ashes to Jews, or anything of the sort. That his brain is not totally "developed" absolves nothing. Should a person with an IQ of 100 serve less time than a person with an IQ of 140, because the latter is more "capable of rationality", or whatever other quality you want to ascribe to the mind? At some point, certainly short after the reasonable age of entry into the working world (probably sixteen) people need to be expected to act decently. Sure, I'm in favor of rehabilitation -- punishment is a revenge-instinct and waste of resources -- but we should do ourselves and these people the service of being honest about what they are: criminals.
That sounds so weird. This is particularly males? Males with healthy diets and lifestyles, ones with terrible diets and bad lifestyles, or across the board?
Especially since the average male lifespan was around 35 years up until a few millenia ago. Are you saying that most males died before they reached maturity?
AFAIK 'average male lifespan was around 35 years' is based on estimates that includes all males including the relatively large percentage who never survived childhood
And your implication that a "loving community" can wave a magic wand and make this sick adult better is equally incorrect.
I would suggest in fact that some of the signs this troubled individual would behave in this manner were probably already apparent to his parents, but they chose to dismiss it because no parent really believes their own child can be capable of such horrible behaviour.
This is a person that needs professional help - from an objective third party. The authorities, while certainly imperfect, can provide this.
For all you know, when this adult was confronted and "broke down" it could have all been an act. He could truly be a psychopath (and his actions certainly suggest that)
I'm of multiple minds of this. My personal relation to this is my brother was a punk in his teenage years. He stole from friends, neighbors, and even my mom's engagement ring and hocked it all to by drugs and alcohol. My dad was and still is in the firm "loving community" area with him. Selling my dad's car was the last straw and we sent him to a juvenile detention/rehab/detox center to recover. We feel this was actually worse because this is where he learned from the other people how to lie, cheat, and evade better than he would have on his own. For years he would comeback and steal from my dad knowing he would not be turned in or would at least be released to his care. Now he is career criminal and next chance for parole is in 16 years.
My brother needed professional help but I don't think he got it from that rehab center and sure as hell did not get it in subsequent trips to prison when he became an adult. For him he could act and say exactly the right thing to whoever he was talking too to convince them he was reformed yet again. Being sent away for rehab was probably the wrong action but we did try several things prior to that that never helped.
I think this kid is trouble and the parents knew it which is why they gave the author the option to engage the authorities. They maybe afraid to do it themselves not knowing if he would hold a grudge against them if they did it (my brother did). I don't know if engaging the legal system would help and certainly wouldn't if he was a psychopath. For the author though, this is probably the best option as he did not escalate the situation with the kid. He probably will not be the target in the future but hard to say really. If the kid really is capable of those actions then I would not want him on my enemy's list. The kid has just learned that there are no real consequences for his actions. I think the parents need to be the ones that take action and at least have him see a psychologist as a minimum.
Neither do imply nor do I believe that a "loving community" can waive a magic wand and make this sick child better. I do believe that it is more or less the only chance he has. There is ample evidence that our justice system and public mental health facilities are woefully inadequate for dealing with mental disturbances which are increasingly abundant in society. The idea that "professionals" are somehow intrinsically capable of dealing with these sorts of problems is one of the more troubling and pervasive myths in the United States (at least among people I know/have met/in the beliefs of the people as presented in the media). I'm not an expert, but my impression is that ther countries known for having better track records w/r/t criminal and mental rehabilitation (Norway, Finland, Japan) have stronger community structures and a more communal-based jail/asylum system.
What do you imagine happening to this child once he begins receiving professional help - (and let's be clear, here - I am advocating professional help - e.g. I think it's good that the child will go to counseling) - from the authorities that be? If he is put into jail he has a high probability of becoming criminalized (attaching to a community of criminals ) - if he is put into an asylum he has a good chance of becoming institutionalized. What is the root of your faith in our prison/mental health system? I honestly want to know.
It seems that your belief might stem in the idea that the child's parents are somehow morally or intellectually weak and that therefore the government has to step in and be the child's "strong father/mother." Is this correct? If so, why do you believe that government agencies deserve this sort of power? Have they earned it?
I would probably do the same thing, I would probably not report the child of my friend to authorities.
But looking at this as a third person; I think he got away too easily. He did something evil, he got caught and what are the consequences? A slap on the wrist.
I didn't downvote, but an assertion coupled with waffle words and with no citation doesn't add much to the conversation. Phrasing it as "in my experience, love is contagious" would at least frame the comment more accurately (individual experience and opinion versus universal axiom).
If he has any connection to his parents at all, the embarrassment of being outed in front of his parents might be more than just a slap on the wrist.
Also, is this the "an eye for an eye" theory of justice? Personally I hope that my kid will behave in a good way because he considers it the right thing to do, not because he is afraid of punishment.
It's not an eye for an eye. But it is actions and consequences.
If you take an extreme crime (like murder), I don't think you'll find many people who would say "there should be no consequences to that as long as the person is truly sorry for what they did". There must be some level of punishment, and there will be disagreement about what the appropriate level is.
Now this was not murder, but it was true terror over a period of 4 years. Do those actions have consequences? Or just give him a hug?
This 17 year old has problem, and he needs intensive psychological counselling at the very least. He didn't know why he did it? It was just a game? Those are scary answers and the problem needs to be fixed.
At least having him in the police database, fingerprints, IP address records, reports from his counselling sessions - would make it easier for someone else to catch him next time he does this. The next person he does this to will be starting from scratch trying to find out who this was, like the author was 4 years ago.
There seems to be an implicit assumption in your statement that either the only meaningful type of consequence comes from the authorities or that the parents will not enact any type of consequence themselves. Considering the reaction of the parents, I think it is quite likely that they will/did provide consequences more severe than a slap on the wrist.
I don't think the point people are making when they say he should be handed to the authorities is that they'll fix him. The point is that he should answer for his actions. Fixing the darkness or not, the kid DID make death threats and make someone's life miserable by unacceptable and criminal means. Criminals need rehabilitation, but they also need to be taught that their behaviour is unacceptable.
It's unfortunate that you have such strong authoritarian beliefs. Can I convince you that your ideas that criminals (this child is 17 - he has not, by our own state's very definition - attained an age where he can be defined as a criminal or where he can knowingly enter into the social moral contract that binds adults) "need to be taught that their behavior is unacceptable" is a very modern one and - what's more - one that is supported by state propaganda?
Do you actually believe that anyone who enters the prison system is "taught that their behavior is unacceptable?" Many sources indicate that the more common response to incarceration is "criminalization" - that this child has a high probability of connecting with negative forces which will push him further down the path of his darkness.
I recommend you read "Discipline and Punish" by Foucault - I think it would open your ideas to the genealogy of some of the ideals underpinning your beliefs and apparent faith in the modern justice system.
You credibly describe the flaws of the prison system, but you don't offer any alternatives.
Frankly, given the choice of a rock and a hard place, it is better to have a criminal in jail half his life and terrorizing society half his life, then terrorizing society for his entire life.
>Frankly, given the choice of a rock and a hard place, it is better to have a criminal in jail half his life and terrorizing society half his life, then terrorizing society for his entire life.
If what you care about is the damage done to society, someone who spends half their life in prison and then gets out will (on average) do far more damage in that half-life than they would have done in a whole life spent outside prison. Prison is quite literally worse than nothing when it comes to preventing reoffending
(though community service is better than either prison or nothing, IIRC)
In my opinion, to situate this conversation in a framework where "alternatives" are to be considered is to already assume an authoritarian stance. I believe that the model you are assuming is one in which there is some sort of established "government" which selects among alternative systems sharing the property that they are maintained by varying degrees of implicit/explicit use of force.
I would never claim to know how to set up a working mental health system or a functional system of criminal rehabilitation. What I claim is that the properties that these institutions have in the U.S. are MAINLY determined by historical accumulation (trauma -> reaction) rather than by organic growth from well-defined principles. I advocate the decompilation of these institutions and the organic outgrowth of new, community-based (preferably non-governmental) institutions.
I agree that there may be cases in which a "criminal" (your word, not mine) must be separated out from society [1], but that these cases are far, far rarer than most people believe. Most "criminals" in the U.S. are ethnic minorities suffering under an incoherent and evil system of drug criminalization.
From an unsystematic/non-governmental standpoint, I also believe that society needs to do more work in increasing its acceptance of different psychological and mental needs from a younger age. I'm very lucky that I was put in a "gifted" program because, had such a program not existed, my rage would have been intense, long-lasting, and I honestly may have killed someone. If my talents had been treated as a "difference" in the way that most peoples' are (exclusion from social events, bullying, emotional and mental abuse, punishment, etc.) I would have turned out very differently indeed.
Perhaps the reason that I feel so strongly about this topic is that there is a great deal of darkness in me (I don't believe everyone is like this). I throw a tremendous amount of personal effort at overcoming it/transforming it/thinking about whether it's really "darkness." During certain periods of history (including this one) homosexuality was seen as "darkness" in many places - now we think back on these periods as being backwards/bigoted/wrong. I must accept that some of my personal darkness is NOT bad/evil (e.g. some of my perverse sexual tastes) but that it only APPEARS bad to many people in society. I have come, through discussion and queer community support, to accept parts of myself that I have been ridiculed for and told were evil from a very young age - which ridicule and torment drove me deep into despair and hatred.
I suppose that I am ultimately advocating acceptance of darkness because I don't really believe in darkness. I believe that if we accept what we currently think about as dark (ultimately, for instance, it would be great if we could accept death) then we will see that it is not so dark after all.
THEN WE CAN LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER, THE END.
-----
[1] Let me be clear, here. I can't even really name any. Maybe certain serial killers/mass murderers - but who else? Who, really, needs to be put in permanent time-out, anymore? Can you even name anyone?
After reading this, I can only say one thing: you're living in fantasyland. This is the real world, not some libertarian utopia. And regarding your last point, what about pedophiles? Rapists? Should we just surround them with love and forgiveness?
Yes, I believe we should surround them with love and forgiveness.
We also should -have- provided them with love and forgiveness so that they would feel comfortable talking about their problems before they could result in severe issues.
What do -you- suggest we do? Beat them up? "Teach them a lesson?" What will that accomplish, exactly?
---
Let me just say that I sense a great deal of pain in you. This is not an attack. Your points seem to be based in fear and anger - you are being very reactive rather than clearly laying out a well-reasoned argument. E.g. contrast your response to my own - yours relies on ad hominem and caricature and then finally a straw man argument. You seem sad. I hope you're OK. Hope!
Sometimes what's best for society isn't what's best for the individual. Society benefits from having sadists removed from the equation. It doesn't matter much, from a societal standpoint, whether they're rehabilitated or incarcerated, as long as the sadistic entity is removed from the equation.
If there were no examples of sadists who could not be rehabilitated, your point would be obviously true. Unfortunately, there are many examples of sadists who resist rehabilitation. These people exist now, whether or not they could have been rehabilitated earlier by love and forgiveness. Even if you were strictly correct, you'd still have a bootstrapping problem, in the form of what to do with these people today.
I contend that there will always be people who become sadistic outside the reach of whatever institutions you attempt to create to shower love and forgiveness on them, and I further contend that many people who, once they become sadistic, cannot return to a state of empathy. For the first point, I only have to point to hunger. Food and shelter are obviously tractable problems, yet we continue to have a problem with hunger and homelessness. To think we can eradicate more complex social problems than those is really quite naive.
As to the second point I am open to scientific evidence to the contrary, but please bear in mind that from society's standpoint, a recidivism rate greater than zero may still be less preferable than lifelong incarceration for sadistic criminals. Most people would agree that once you've taken a few lives for the fun of it, it's not worth the risk to another member of society to "find out" whether you've been successfully rehabilitated.
As such, this is also one of the arguments for the death penalty. If that risk you speak of is too high to see any chance of rehabilitation, what good does incarceration do?
Still, this child has no repeat history that we know of, and probably wasn't reprimanded for his behaviour before. It is likely that he could be a psychopath with everything he said, but it is also likely that the veil of anonymity made him less sympathetic to the human plight of his victim, just as we all take what we see on the internet with a grain of salt.
EDIT: Ok, maybe not really a child, but in the eyes of the law you might as well consider a minor a child. However, I sure know few hackers who exploit their status as a minor as best they can to avoid legal consequences.
The point of not killing is that you can free the wrongly incarcerated when you discover a mistake. But I'm not arguing specifically for or against the death penalty here--my thoughts are so confused on that particular issue I could probably argue either way. Otherwise I agree with what you're saying here.
What if, due to his incarceration, the terrorizing he does for the half of his life where he is not in prison, is twice that of the terrorizing he would have done over the course of his whole life, where he never imprisoned?
Here's the thing: actions have consequences. Bad actions result in bad consequences. Such is the learning process of lots of species. Do you think training pets by reinforcing good behaviour and punishing bad behaviour is modern and supported by "state propaganda", whatever that means?
I do believe that prison systems can be good at rehabilitation. Maybe not in the US, where you seem to be from, but it's working in many other countries in the world, look at the Nordic countries' prison system if you want proof. And even if the prison system doesn't manage to rehabilitate the person, it serves as a punishment. I don't see what's wrong with punishing behaviour that has been deemed unacceptable by society. At least it's better than doing nothing, and in my opinion has more of an impact than doing nothing and surrounding him "with a loving community".
The concept that one class of humans is the "punishers" who are teaching the other class(es) underlies most (if not all) fascist/authoritarian/racist ideologies of the last 3 centuries.
Of course you don't see what's wrong with punishing behavior that has been deemed unacceptable by society. Unfortunately, behavior that society is largely OK with (e.g. drug use) is punished nontheless - unfortunately, society can (and has often been) quite wrong about what should be punished (homosexuality, female sexuality, prostitution, sexual "perversion," drug & alcohol use, to name a few).
The fact is that the kid involved in this story didn't do anything "wrong" that could be easily trained out of him. Probably he has a whole set of complicated complexes of problems. For instance, one thing that many people in the US and UK (and other places) seem to suffer from is sexual/touch deprivation. Maybe if the kid were getting laid instead of playing on his laptop he wouldn't have engaged in such weirdo behaviors. I'm just sayin' - legalize drugs and prostitution and 99% of these problems go away.
>The concept that one class of humans is the "punishers" who are teaching the other class(es) underlies most (if not all) fascist/authoritarian/racist ideologies of the last 3 centuries.
So I'm Hitler now.
>legalize drugs and prostitution and 99% of these problems go away.
Do you think kids should be trained like pets? It seems a lot of people do, they also think they own their kids somehow. Sad...
As I said in another comment: personally I hope my kid will end up doing what is right because he believes it the right thing to do, not because of fear of punishment.
Not saying that punishment is never necessary (I am not sure). Obviously it works, because people (and animals) can learn from pain. You learn if you touch the stove that it is hot and will burn you, so you will not touch it again.
Smart people might realize that their parents or society punishing them is not quite the same as a stove burning them, though. The one is a law of nature (heat burns), the other is just man made laws that can be resented and broken. Once you have installed that resentment against society and obedience in a person, you might have a real problem on your hands.
I do not think that kids should be trained like pets. They are more intelligent and react to a more nuanced approach. My point about punishment just means that bad actions should be sanctioned and good actions rewarded.
My parents never physically punished me, but as soon as I was old enough to understand what was going on, just knowing that I'd disappointed them would make me feel extremely bad. There's no resentment there. They taught me how to behave in a way that is acceptable in society and if I misbehaved I was aware that I was wrong. Hopefully that's how everything would go.
But as always, there will be bad apples (and good ones, too). What do you do when someone's such a sociopath that they don't care when they hurt other people? That's when I believe that punishment should be carried on by the society and not the parents, in the form of jail, probation, juvenile court, etc.
Operant conditioning isn't actually harmful, as long as you're not operant conditioning your kids into doing harmful things or into not doing important things.
Well it seems to go against my values. I want my kids to think for themselves, not merely be executors of my authoritarian commands. I am not their boss.
Children are not small adults. There's a point in their lives when not throwing temper tantrums in public is what you want out of them and they're just not mature enough to negotiate with reasonably. This is also the age where hopefully you're going to have to install some sort of conscience, since kids aren't really born with one, either.
The authorities are precisely the proper people to turn the "child" over to. Only they would have the resources and skills required to determine whether the troll has performed similar acts before and whether he is a psychotic (of course the parents also likely know, but aren't likely to do anything effective).
Also because it provides a record of his activity for future reference.
I don't believe the "game" excuse - I think the troll is a full-blown psychopath.
Retribution isn't constructive, rehabilitation is. If the authorities were able to enter him into a programme of psychotherapy, perhaps this would have been the better option.
I think the young person who committed the abuse probably could be classed as someone with a (possibly extreme) personality disorder.
Bearing this in mind, turning the other cheek and allowing him to continue unhindered isn't going to be that constructive.
Counselling was mentioned - I really hope the perpetrator receives some; for his sake, and the sake of all those he comes into contact with.
> For those of you who claim that the right thing in this situation would be to turn the child over to the authorities - what exactly do you think the authorities are going to do to make this situation better?
The authorities are going to stop the harrassment.
You seem to be under the illusion that harrassed people have some obligation to help their harrassers.
Feel free to help this wayward person but you're way out of line in complaining that the victim didn't do so.
well said, the story seems a little too dramatic for me to believe is possible...wow ! I mean mailing stuff...May be the right thing to do is to show the damage done which the author did, and to let the kid off with some counselling and forgiveness allowing a chance for him to change his ways and have a shot at a bright future.
Assuming this story is true, what OP did was the right, human, adult thing to do - to treat the child as a human being capable of change and growth and to see to it that the community accepted him and moved him towards change. Concepts like "justice" and "psychosis" are easy to throw around and are very practical, but their use is typically the root of more harm than good.