Quote:
|
Originally Posted by P_Funk
I think that Skybird gets the point somewhat. but I am hesitant to throw kids in jail without question.
There needs to be a purpose in sentencing. It isn't just good enough to say "Lock 'em as long as we can".
|
I have not said that, I said exactly the opposite, somewhat!!! I said a penalty is not meant to brake a fist-time juvenile offender, let's say a thief, and that he should not go to jail for months and years, but maybe for just a half a week or a week, so that he gets a taste of it. for many 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 year old, that could be an experience that makes an impact, but does not damage their psychological future developement.
Also read my last reply above ,(which came after your posting, so no hard feelings).
If there is no aversive conseqeunce after a thief is caught, he will learn: "I can steal and get away with it". Again, a bad lesson that is. the negative quality of the consuequence must be felt, unconditonally, and as fast as possible.
Sorry guys, but I had to deal with this kind of theories for years, I am no fan of behaviorism, by far not, but i must admit that on some issues the data it collected is simply overwhelming so that even different schools of psychology have stopped to oppose it in these areas - except pedagogy. If in a legal system schoolchildren start competitons of how often they can manage to get picked up by the police during one sem,estre, that system's deterrent efect is nil. Zero. Rien. Nada. Non-existant. We have had extreme cases were the pedagogical system gave over 40 suspended penalties to juveniles before they reached the age of 18. Here it is neither about doing justice, or helping a struggling young man/girl, but it is ideological tren ch warfare by which pedagogy tries to enforce itself being seen as the proven, winning system. The statistic is totally unambigious on the future fates of such person. Most of them end up in making a criminal career of constantly growing seriousness.