"Children should neither be seen or heard from - ever again" said W.C. Fields.Surprisingly, our activist Supreme Court has begged to differ. It was only five years ago that the Supreme Court finally decided that killing kids for justice was a bit behind the times, but of course some "Conservative" states have continued to sentence juveniles to life without parole. Chief amongst those states is Florida, which houses about 70% of them.
It would be hard to describe Florida as a particularly child-friendly state. Although I can't say it's particularly friendly to those who prey on them or neglect them, the poverty, substance abuse and ignorance that abound isn't child friendly either. Certainly "55 and older" communities are everywhere and as communities of older people are more likely to be afraid of the noise wild behavior and petty crime, there's a certain hostility. There's a certain feeling of helplessness and even terror amongst older people that can lead to hostility. It's a terror that overrides conscience in some cases and that sides with a draconian justice system while whimpering about a less powerful government.
Of course there's a big difference between chasing those brats off your lawn and locking them up in a cage for as long as they shall live, and that bit of casual inhumanity has at last drawn Supreme attention. Terrance Graham was implicated in armed robberies when he was a minor and has been sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. The court voted 5-4 on Monday and Kennedy, writing for the majority said:
"The state has denied him any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a nonhomicide crime that he committed while he was a child in the eyes of the law. This the Eighth Amendment does not permit." (as a cruel punishment)This decision was a majority one because Chief Justice Roberts sided for once with the liberals although with the qualification that it should not apply to all non-homicide crimes. That of course makes the decision less than decisive. It's a step forward, but a timid and qualified step toward humanity; toward sometimes, in some cases allowing a second chance to someone who got caught doing what millions of others have got away with and never done again. That's just the sort of thing conservatives object to: making the law and justice more congruent; making the law for man and not man for the law -- and that's just the reason we need to balance the angry, self righteous and fearful elements on the court.
It's remarkable just how consistent the "conservative" (i.e. reactionary) members of the Supreme Court are -- in my view, anything that sounds respectful of common humanity and the little person against gigantic, faceless, authoritarian or amoral entities, they can be counted on to oppose. It's good to hear that C.J. Roberts has broken that pattern at least this once.
ReplyDeleteMaybe he remembers his own childhood.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to add corporal punishment to this discussion. Outlawed throughout Europe, in Japan, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, among other countries, the practice was upheld by the SCOTUS in 1977 (Ingraham v. Wright) which ruled that school corporal punishment is exempt from the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments. Thus, paddling is still allowed in 22 of these United States, including Florida.
ReplyDeleteThere is a link between conservative politics, fundamentalist theology, and harsh childrearing practices that views children as inherently sinful and defiant and demands absolute obedience to authority. Here are a few examples:
Reverend Jack Hyles - “The spanking should be administered firmly. It should be painful and it should last until the child’s will is broken. It should last until the child is crying, not tears of anger, but tears of a broken will.”
James Dobson - “a dime-sized bruise on the buttocks of a fair-skinned child may or may not indicate an abusive situation … that bruise may have no greater psychological impact than a skinned knee …”
The goal of authoritarian childrearing practices, ostensibly, is to make a child strong and better able to function society. All clinical evidence demonstrates an opposite effect. Children raised by authoritarian methods “lack social competence with peers: they tend to withdraw, not to take social initiative, to lack spontaneity.” It is a common Fundamentalist misconception that strict rules and punishments will produce a strong conscience. The opposite is true. Children raised with strict rules and punishments demonstrate less conscience, tend to be angrier and more aggressive, sometimes prone to violence, and far more subject to mental health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and dissociation.
I don't know that corporal punishment goes on in Florida public schools. Perhaps it's because so many parents think the way I do: touch my kid and die.
ReplyDeleteOf course I have sympathy for schools that have to deal with really wild and aggressive students
but one doesn't break anyone's will that way, but strengthens it -- nor is anyone's will something a school has a right to break, IMO.
Now is the time to remind him that education is less costly than incarceration. Giving young people meaningful activities makes incarceration a less likely event.
ReplyDelete