Interesting responce to evidence based policy

A

Asguard

Kiss my dark side
Valued Senior Member
Firstly i should explain the background to the story, there was a flamingo in a zoo which was beaten up alegedly by a group of adolessants in adelaide. Now the so called "family first" (AKA, religious nut case) in state parliment put forward a proposal to alow media outlets to publish the name of juviles who comit offences so that they could be publicly humilitated.

Anyway they were talking about this on ABC local and the responces went along the lines of "YEA tell us there names so we can go around to there place and beat the fuck out of them". Admitedly even the uper house MP who proposed this said that WASNT his plan but as the presenters stated, if his plan went ahead he would have to know this is a probable conquence. Well i happened to be on my way home and i got sick and tired of lissioing to the uninteligent comments made so i rang up myself.

Before i rang i got out my developmental psych book to double check my facts and when i rang i stated something along the lines of this

"I thought we lived in the age of public policy based on the best avilabe science.

Developmental psycology states that "The ceribral cortex, paticually the frontal lobe, doesnt fully develop until the late 20's. As this is the area of the brain which deals with impulse control its hardly right to treat even 18 year olds as we would someone in there 30s who commited the same crime, let alone a 16 year old"

At this point the presenter stated "but punishement does work in some cases, for instance L and P platers are the lowest group for drink driving because they are afraid they will lose there cars"

I responded "That is true and i dont mean that all behavor cant be controled at that age, but it is true that in adolessants and early adult hood a person has less ability to stop and rationalise the conquences of there actions. This is why a sciopath cant be diognosed till late adulthood. Futher more anacdotally how many of us can look back at this period of our lives and state there is nothing there, that with the same amount of evidence held at the time we would have acted in the same way"

Which he agreed with.

Now i wasnt surprised by the presenters comments but i was surprised by the comments that were made by the other callers

Firstly it was stated that i "oviously was a friend of theres" which is amusing to say the least. Now at this point the presenter guessed correctly that the real reason was that i was studying psychology.

Yet the "lych them" comments continued. One women did ring up and surport my statements but i find it quite said that although pollies state that they will base laws on the best science, these sort of bills are still comming up in the parliment

We should just change it to a "vengence" system not a justice system
 
Asguard said:
Developmental psycology states that "The ceribral cortex, paticually the frontal lobe, doesnt fully develop until the late 20's. As this is the area of the brain which deals with impulse control its hardly right to treat even 18 year olds as we would someone in there 30s who commited the same crime, let alone a 16 year old"
Click to expand...

Well, it seems to me if we use that thinking when "kids" commit crimes, then we should also use that same thinking in all facets of social life. I.e., "kids" should not be allowed to drink, drive cars, date, go to clubs, etc., without adult supervision and/or special permits. ...or perhaps with police guards all around all the time.

And just so you know, I don't believe all those mamby-pamby psycho-babblists who make "excuses" for everyone's horrible actions. To me, 16-yr old kids know right from wrong ...and if they don't, they should be locked up anyway (or even shot behind the courthouse).

Asguard said:
We should just change it to a "vengence" system not a justice system
Click to expand...

I've always wondered why we can't have a little of both. Joe murders Mike's brother - Mike is a witness to the crime - so Mike gets his gun, hunts down Joe and kills him. The society reviews the incident and deems that Mike acted in the true sense of vengence AND justice.

It's interesting, however, that in places like The Old West and in Australia, both places forged great nations using quick, simple concepts toward crime and criminals like vengence and hang-'em-high. And now we just want to abandon something that worked so well?

Baron Max
 
The problem is that we have a large number of "educated" people who have idealist notions about human capacity. A child that kills his own pet and dissects it isn't an evil little fuck, they are 'troubled'. I'm waiting for the day someone vociferously complains about the civil rights of pedophiles being impinged, because their nature has been declared illegal. I don't see Animal Rights activists streaming to Rat Island Alaska because there are plans to kill every rat on the island and bring in some birds. The most idealistic people are frequently the basest.

As for beating up a bird. Stupid children ran amok and beat up a damned bird. Why wasn't there anything protecting the bird? Put the stupid children on house arrest for a week, and put a damned fence around the birds.
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
I'm waiting for the day someone vociferously complains about the civil rights of pedophiles being impinged, because their nature has been declared illegal.
Click to expand...

Where have you been? That very subject is being discussed openly in courts and psychology schools all across the nation as we speak.

Mr. Hamtastic said:
Stupid children ran amok and...
Put the stupid children on ....
Click to expand...

I think that's the crux of this whole issue -- are those "children" or are they "adults" or are they "some middle thingie"?

Mr. Hamtastic said:
Stupid children ran amok and beat up a damned bird. Why wasn't there anything protecting the bird? Put the stupid children on house arrest for a week, and put a damned fence around the birds.
Click to expand...

Interesting concept, but I think it's highly dismissive of a horrible act of viscousness. We could use that same dismissive approach to lots of things ...check out below how I rewrote your concept:

Stupid children ran amok and beat up a (homeless man). Why wasn't there anything protecting the (homeless man)? Put the stupid children on house arrest for a week, and put a damned fence around the (homeless people).

Yes, it's different. Yes, it uses homeless people in lieu of birds. But that very principle is being perpetrated all over the nation ...homeless people are often the victims of such attacks. Did those same "children" do it? In many locales, the police think so ...that "children" are behind the attacks on the homeless people.

Baron Max
 
Homeless man kills one of the "children" Now what? Valuation of humans makes no sense to me anyway. Why didn't the children go beat up a pride of lions? or an Elephant? If they could decide what was the weaker target, they had a concept of right and wrong, and thus should be subject to punishment as adults. No, I take that back. They, and their parents, should be punished for attempted destruction of property at least.

Please, show me some evidence that pedophilia is being discussed as stated, so that I can have a more appropriate conniption. :D
 
Asguard said:
Firstly i should explain the background to the story, there was a flamingo in a zoo which was beaten up alegedly by a group of adolessants in adelaide. Now the so called "family first" (AKA, religious nut case) in state parliment put forward a proposal to alow media outlets to publish the name of juviles who comit offences so that they could be publicly humilitated.
Click to expand...
You mean this attack on a 78 year old bird, one of only 3 flamingos in captivity in Australia?

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24575174-5005961,00.html

Two were 17, the other two were 18 and 19.

At this age, impulse control issues should be developed enough to negate the carrying out of an action such as this.


Asguard said:
Developmental psycology states that "The ceribral cortex, paticually the frontal lobe, doesnt fully develop until the late 20's. As this is the area of the brain which deals with impulse control its hardly right to treat even 18 year olds as we would someone in there 30s who commited the same crime, let alone a 16 year old"
Click to expand...
Not being developed fully does not mean the ceribral cortex is not functioning. Your not going to try to argue that these guys did not know what they were doing was wrong are you? And if they are capable of doing this to an animal in a zoo, what other 'impulses' can they not control?

A good sound thrashing from multiple people (who have now lost the ability to enjoy 33% of all captive flamingos) should help increase these punks 'impulse control mechanisms'. Fear of retribution should help override the nagging 'impulse to injure' behavioral issues with these particular scumbags.

Asguard said:
Yet the "lych them" comments continued. One women did ring up and surport my statements but i find it quite said that although pollies state that they will base laws on the best science, these sort of bills are still comming up in the parliment

We should just change it to a "vengence" system not a justice system
Click to expand...
And yet you KNOW if anyone attacks these people, the justice system will pursue the attackers of these punk criminals and charge them with a crime. So its not really turning the justice system into a vengence system.
 
Asguard, you are a very kind-hearted fellow but I completely agree with Milkweed.

Each of those kids are PLENTY old enough to know right from wrong. And if one of them actually doesn't know, then he most certainly SHOULD be locked up - to protect himself AND society because he has a mental problem that goes far beyond just not being mature.
 
i was never suggesting that they shouldnt be punished at all, actually i was only barly refering to this case in paticular because the MP used it as an excuse to push his own ajender.

However it is a fact that at 16, 18 even 20 the control center of the brain isnt fully developed.

So lets say a kid gets angry and kills someone in a fit of rage, in australia (as in the US) there are provisions for this kid to be tried as an adult. In australia they get life (max being without the possability), in the US they get Death

Well, how EXACTLY do we know that in a few years this symply wouldnt have happened?

if the point is to a) teach right from wrong and b) to protect the community a few years in a rehab center could well solve that.

To many times have kids and even young adults been treated as lost causes before their brain is even fully developed. Where is the logic in that?

milkweed havent read the story but it probably is, interesting that they got the facts of the case so wrong however as they stated, that matter is before the courts. This was about a legislative proposal
 
Asguard said:
So lets say a kid gets angry and kills someone in a fit of rage, in australia (as in the US) there are provisions for this kid to be tried as an adult. In australia they get life (max being without the possability), in the US they get Death

Well, how EXACTLY do we know that in a few years this symply wouldnt have happened?
Click to expand...

We base our laws/justice system and its responses based on what actually happened.

Asguard said:
if the point is to a) teach right from wrong and b) to protect the community a few years in a rehab center could well solve that.
Click to expand...
This doesnt seem to have anything to do with your point, which is whether their names should be published in the paper.

Asguard said:
To many times have kids and even young adults been treated as lost causes before their brain is even fully developed. Where is the logic in that?
Click to expand...
Too many? Link please.
Asguard said:
milkweed havent read the story but it probably is, interesting that they got the facts of the case so wrong however as they stated, that matter is before the courts. This was about a legislative proposal
Click to expand...
Wonderful. You brought up the flamingos as an example, I looked it up and found these were not just 'kids'.

Please post a link to the legislative proposal.
 
Asguard said:
i was never suggesting that they shouldnt be punished at all, actually i was only barly refering to this case in paticular because the MP used it as an excuse to push his own ajender.

However it is a fact that at 16, 18 even 20 the control center of the brain isnt fully developed.

So lets say a kid gets angry and kills someone in a fit of rage, in australia (as in the US) there are provisions for this kid to be tried as an adult. In australia they get life (max being without the possability), in the US they get Death

Well, how EXACTLY do we know that in a few years this symply wouldnt have happened?

if the point is to a) teach right from wrong and b) to protect the community a few years in a rehab center could well solve that.

To many times have kids and even young adults been treated as lost causes before their brain is even fully developed. Where is the logic in that?

milkweed havent read the story but it probably is, interesting that they got the facts of the case so wrong however as they stated, that matter is before the courts. This was about a legislative proposal
Click to expand...

Every single one of those are strawman arguments, Asguard. "Fully developed" or not - the only real issue is knowing right from wrong. And each one of those boys is well PAST the age where they would know their actions were wrong!!:bugeye:
 
well i will ask you as i asked the presenter, between the ages of 16 to 26 is there anything you did which a) was wrong (both legally AND morally) and b)that there is no way you would do now if put in the same situation with the same avialable infomation?
 
baron said:
It's interesting, however, that in places like The Old West and in Australia, both places forged great nations using quick, simple concepts toward crime and criminals like vengence and hang-'em-high.
Click to expand...
In point of historical fact, the transition to "great nation" status was marked by ridding themselves of those quick, simple, and stupid concepts of "justice".

Concepts which were kept by other places, especially places that never did find themselves enjoying "great nation" status; and until they can find a way to establish decency and reason in their handling of (especially juvenile) crime, probably never will.

I grew up in sorta Western and throwback area, and the concept of "kids did it" as an all-purpose description of crazy stuff that we all had to live with in society was a solid part of the community spirit.
 
Asguard said:
well i will ask you as i asked the presenter, between the ages of 16 to 26 is there anything you did which a) was wrong (both legally AND morally) and b)that there is no way you would do now if put in the same situation with the same avialable infomation?
Click to expand...

And the answers to those questions, one way or the other, changes nothing. What those kids did is simply wrong, and they're both old enough to know better.

What's still interesting to me is if we consider kids as so developmentally "young", then we should also consider that same aspect and not allow them to drive 2 ton vehicles on the roads and streets. And the same goes for voting ...they're too young to vote if they can't tell right from wrong.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
What's still interesting to me is if we consider kids as so developmentally "young", then we should also consider that same aspect and not allow them to drive 2 ton vehicles on the roads and streets. And the same goes for voting ...they're too young to vote if they can't tell right from wrong.
Baron Max
Click to expand...

But that's exactly what society does, at least here in Australia. There are age limits on when you can consume alcohol, drive a motor vehicle, vote, have sex with adults, etc etc.
 
Baron Max said:
Read through the thread, you'll get it.

Baron Max
Click to expand...

Get what, exactly?

I'm simply pointing out that legal restrictions are placed on children, supposedly because they are too dumb to reason clearly and appreciate the consequences of their actions.
 
Asguard said:
well i will ask you as i asked the presenter, between the ages of 16 to 26 is there anything you did which a) was wrong (both legally AND morally) and b)that there is no way you would do now if put in the same situation with the same avialable infomation?
Click to expand...

Where is the link to the legislation you speak of? I would like to read it myself to see exactly which juvenile offenders will have their names published.
 
Asguard said:
well i will ask you as i asked the presenter, between the ages of 16 to 26 is there anything you did which a) was wrong (both legally AND morally) and b)that there is no way you would do now if put in the same situation with the same avialable infomation?
Click to expand...

No, I didn't - because I knew right from wrong. And I raised four kids that didn't either.

That totally shot down THAT idea of yours!! Next question??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top