We hear of cases like this too often and the only thing that
distinguishes this one from most in my mind is that it's from Canada, a country
that I somehow am inclined to see as more rational, less hysterical than
the United States. Perhaps I'm wrong, but if a 16 year old girl sends
'explicit' JPEGs of her 17 year old boyfriend's ex-girlfriend to a few
of her acquaintances via cell phone it isn't the kind of "child
pornography" we pass draconian laws to suppress. It's perhaps more of an
example of adolescent lack of control and the kind of hurt that young
people are likely to feel at rejection.
Canadian courts have none the less found her guilty of distributing child pornography and she is awaiting sentencing.
Somehow I agree with her attorney that although the deed was inappropriate and
perhaps actionable in some way, the kid isn't a "child pornographer" and
that the laws in Canada and the US weren't designed to punish such
childish acts with huge prison sentences.
Is there
really a "law" of unintended consequences? I have no idea, but there's a
strong tendency to write bad law in proportion to the ire of the
zealots and activists that draft them. There's a strong connection
between "zero tolerance" for misdeeds and zero forethought. There's a
strong tendency to force events into the scenarios provided by our own
fears and loathings and anger and it applies not only to failing to
discriminate between people who prey on children and children doing
childish things. The six year old who plants a kiss on another six year
old isn't a rapist and doesn't deserve to be branded as one. The 12
year old who takes a picture of herself, of another kid isn't a
pornographer and deserving of our pious rage and punishment.
Perhaps
sometimes our own best motivations make us blind, stupid, pompous and
inhuman.
"Fisher said the case should serve as a warning to teens about what they text and post online."
ReplyDeleteBullshit. Adults who know nothing about teens. A deterrent to crime? More bullshit. Hell, the human brain does not full reach full maturity until age 24, and these idiots are hell bent on criminalizing a 16-year old! There is a body of opinion that questions whether or not human beings are actually capable of adult behavior. Just look at human history ...
They're certainly -- I should say we're not as capable as we think we are of being rational as I think Daniel Kahnmann has established pretty well. Particularly as concerns matters of sex.
ReplyDeleteThis wouldn't be the first time some young person had his or her life ruined by laws intended to protect them. As much as conservatives love to talk about too much government, they sure love inflexible and draconian laws.
Seems bullshit is the preferred word of the day.
ReplyDeleteZero tolerance laws, designed to protect society against itself can have life altering consequences for a 15 year old caught up in something foolish. I know, the 15 year old was my oldest son. Its a long story, but suffice to say 22 years ago I thought zero tolerance was bullshit. Still do.
My 37 year old son is a successful, happily married father. In spite of zero tolerance. A testement to his basic character and tenacity.
As a father, grandfather and someone with a long history of foolishness I know what you're talking about. The law seems to be set up by people who don't give a damn about ruining lives as long as it protects them.
DeleteMandatory sentencing, zero tolerance -- it's all about keeping decency, common sense and any trace of wisdom out of the law.
"There's a strong connection between "zero tolerance" for misdeeds and zero forethought."
ReplyDeleteJust look at the states where grammar school children have been handcuffed and brought to police stations for acting like a child, or suspended and charged with "sexual assault" for kissing in the schoolyard, .
Here are more examples of draconian behavior by school authorities in reaction to typical childish behavior:
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - A 13-year-old was handcuffed and hauled off to a juvenile detention for burping in class, according to a civil rights lawsuit filed against an Albuquerque public school principal, a teacher and a city police officer.
The suit was filed Wednesday, the same day the district was also sued by the family of a 7-year-old autistic boy who was handcuffed to a chair.
These examples illustrate how insane "zero tolerance" is, and probably how the current population of "adults in charge" are totally clueless as well as stupid where child behavior is involved.
Sure, any kid with a nail clipper is a terrorist, with an aspirin a drug dealer and in a culture where everyone is hugging everyone all the time, a hug is rape.
DeleteToo many activists, too much hyperbole, too much hysteria, too much willingness to see causality where it doesn't exist, too much theory-induced blindness and not enough sanity.
School is a place to teach kids, not to sort them out and dispose of the ones who annoy you. It bugs me that I pay many thousands every year to pay for schools that abuse kids.
I'm trying to remember when we took a turn from child misbehavior to child criminals. Remember when the most horrible thing would be to have a cop catch you tossing eggs or some other prank and threaten to take you home to your parents? When bad behavior meant no phone, no seeing your friends, no going out as in you are grounded? Or being assigned to community service? How about we put this charming twit in a soup kitchen for a month and take away her phone? What is the matter with people? Ruining a child's life over nonthreatening behavior is wrong on so many levels. WTF?
ReplyDeleteI think it has origins in the "Law and Order" insanity of the late 60's when things were perceived to be going to hell what with everyone growing their hair long. Of course there was an increase in juvenile crime what with the increase in juveniles and that goddamn war fostered such contempt for the government and the law itself. It was a needed distraction of course and it worked. All the rhetoric about not "tying the hands" of law enforcement and the horseshit about Liberal, activist judges did this to us, but the blame is and always is with the voters -- the people who are too goddamn afraid of freedom to tolerate any personal risk and don't give a damn about gross injustice as long as they can feel safe.
ReplyDeleteWe are a nation of cowards, now more than ever. Cheap, petty, vindictive and selfish cowards.
Just read this morning about busting up an overseas ring that was buying children and raping them live for subscribers on a webcam. Only in America do we confuse such things with some kid with a cell phone. It's shameful, it's disgusting and it ought to stop. As passionate as the defenders of children are they can't see the hypocrisy. Ruining a young life to protect young lives.
ReplyDeleteDamn, I'm tired of humans.
How stupid does a law have to be when it can't make such fundamental distinctions as the one referenced? Pretty damn stupid, I'd suggest.
ReplyDeleteStupid people make stupid laws, but so do the less than stupid when whipped into a frenzy of fear by incessant, relentless propaganda. Often it's well intentioned propaganda by activist groups and political groups who insist the only solution to a problem is their solution. Crime? why you need to vote for our crime bill and if you don't vote for our crime bill, you're "soft on crime." We fall for it every time.
ReplyDeleteCaptain, I think you have zeroed in on a major premise that powers the enacting of draconian zero tolerance laws with no thought as to the perhaps unintended consequences. In our own state legislature, whenever zero tolerance policies for public schools or zero tolerance criminal laws are proposed, few elected officials dare oppose such legislation for fear of being labeled as soft on school discipline or soft on crime. The public generally gets whipped into a frenzy that passage of the proposed legislation will cure all societal ills and that failure to pass the bill will result in the end of civilization as we know it.
DeleteIt's a form of blackmail, isn't it? Framing everything in terms of strong and weak, hard and soft means you have to agree with them or lose the argument. Smart or stupid, effective or worse than nothing don't enter into the picture. That's how Fox makes their "polls" come out the way they want and why they're so often different from other polls.
Delete