Dope smoking is worse then sexual assault?!? WTF!

[calm kiwi]

A New Zealand high school has expelled a boy after he was caught smoking dope, off school grounds, out of school hours and not wearing school uniform. Yet 4 boys who indecently assaulted a 13 year old girl during school hours on school grounds were suspended for 4 days.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2564752a11,00.html

This is fucking insane! What kinda fucked up logic makes dope smoking worse then sexual assault. I know neither activity is a wonderful thing for teenagers, but I also know I'd rather my child attended school with a dope smoker then 4 little rapists-in-the-making. Fuck it I'd rather he smoked dope then went to a school that slapped children on the wrist with a soggy bus ticket for traumatising a girl in a place she should be able to feel safe.

I hope, now this has become public, that parents at the school raise fucking bedlam and force the arsehole board and principal to kick these hideous little arsewipes right out the door!

[Boo Boo Foo]

Sadly, there's no genuinely correct answer to this.

Any reasonable person on the planet would agree that the sexual assault case was just wrong, wrong, wrong.

However, in the interests of fairness, it should also be noted that the young lad who was busted for smoking a joint was in fact, a totally separate incident and it deserves to be treated as such.

Indeed, to attempt to link the two incidents is kinda disingenuous if truth be known. It's just not a situation which can be reasonably debated in my opinion, given the timelines and the circumstances.

But I will say this - New Zealand, by and large is a lovely, peaceful place and I'm sure there are some good people involved who'll try to impart some common sense.

[Ice Wolf]

The school in question has had problems before, including student suicides in the 1990s:

Most families were reluctant to take on the school in case they put their child's schooling at risk and that of their siblings.

"The school is big and powerful and most families are intimidated," Mr Simpson said.

Hopefully, the Ministry of Education will have the guts and balls to act on this and get things sorted out there.

[calm kiwi]

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
Sadly, there's no genuinely correct answer to this.

Any reasonable person on the planet would agree that the sexual assault case was just wrong, wrong, wrong.

However, in the interests of fairness, it should also be noted that the young lad who was busted for smoking a joint was in fact, a totally separate incident and it deserves to be treated as such.

Indeed, to attempt to link the two incidents is kinda disingenuous if truth be known. It's just not a situation which can be reasonably debated in my opinion, given the timelines and the circumstances.

But I will say this - New Zealand, by and large is a lovely, peaceful place and I'm sure there are some good people involved who'll try to impart some common sense.

I think that the two events can be compared if only because one happened at school and the other did not. Surely the school should have a higher level of punishment for something that occurs at school? If there were 2 dope smoking incidents, one at school and one not, I would expect a greater punishment for the one that happened at school (in fact I'm a little bewildered about why the school is dishing out punishment for things that happened off the grounds, out of school hours). I am just saddened at the message a 4 day suspension for a sexual assault must send to the rest of the pupils "Hey kids don't do drugs, but violence is acceptable"

[Ike Witt]

Was the pot smoker supposed to be in school when he got caught? Maybe therapists caught a break because they weren't truant.

Won't the assault victim press charges? I imagine that a court case or jail time would be an effective suspension.

[Boo Boo Foo]

Originally posted by calm kiwi
I think that the two events can be compared if only because one happened at school and the other did not. Surely the school should have a higher level of punishment for something that occurs at school? If there were 2 dope smoking incidents, one at school and one not, I would expect a greater punishment for the one that happened at school (in fact I'm a little bewildered about why the school is dishing out punishment for things that happened off the grounds, out of school hours). I am just saddened at the message a 4 day suspension for a sexual assault must send to the rest of the pupils "Hey kids don't do drugs, but violence is acceptable"

Nah, your logic still doesn't hold up. The only reason they're being compared is because you would PREFER them to be compared, but they were incidents which took place in entire isolation. By extension, we could also argue that someone who ran a red light and caused an accident should be compared say, to a someone who embezzled funds in the workplace. It's just not a workable connection.

Now, if, on the other hand, the same people had been involved, or it took place at the same time in the same school ground then yes, maybe there would be a tenuous link worth debating, but in this instance the link is too nebulous for the debate to hold up in my opinion.

To play one form of controversy off against another form of sympathy isn't good for either cause - it merely clouds both issues.

Just my two cents worth there of course...

[Little Plastic Ninja]

Boo Boo Foo, it is a workable connection. Laws/rules were broken both times. Why is it disingenuous to compare two dissimilar crimes with dissimilar punishments?

The penalty for stealing is different from the penalty for, say, murder. They aren't the same crime. But if a murderer is given community service whereas a thief is hanged, isn't it possible to compare the punishments? Isn't it reasonable to wonder if something's going on?

That being said, I imagine that the school has a "No-Tolerance" drug policy, but no actual policy on indecent assault. And it's unclear as to whether the four boys were caught...or whether they were merely accused. Not to say that this should matter, or that the girl might be lying, but these *might* be an explanation...

[cuauhtemoc]

Look, not-so-calm kiwi, it's perfectly simple. With sexual assault, you only hurt your victims and possibly yourself. But when you smoke dope, you hurt God. And Jesus, and the Bible.

Hey, wait a minute! I thought we were supposed to be the only Western democracy with hystercally fucked-up priorities regarding sex and drugs. Or maybe us and Turkey.

[Zsofia]

Most families were reluctant to take on the school in case they put their child's schooling at risk and that of their siblings.

"The school is big and powerful and most families are intimidated," Mr Simpson said.

Wow. Here in the US, parents are constantly taking on the school, often because their little darlings get bad grades for not doing the work and other miscarriages of justice, poor widdle things. The idea that parents wouldn't storm the place with lawyers is... surprising, here.

[Bongmaster]

[sarcasm]
Well, remember that people who smoke pot like me are very, very dangerous. Violent. Theiving. Unscrupulous. Willing to steal from dying old ladies to support our ravenous habit and all. Remember above all to avoid the dope fiend lest he convert you too!
[/sarcasm]

[doomraisin]

Boo Boo Foo, what are you talking about?

The school deals out lighter punishment for a far worse transgression. What can't be compared? Who cares what the school's policies are? The whole point of the OP was to point out the wildly misguided sense of justice. Additonally, your response kind of sounds like you downplay the seriousness of the assault against the girl.

The kid smoking pot produced no victims. Crimes which involve victims are more serious than crimes which don't. Who wouldn't agree with that?

Seriously, your line of thinking totally escapes me, and your tone is patronizing. Would you explain what you mean by "Indeed, to attempt to link the two incidents is kinda disingenuous?" Do you think the OP is trying to push a pro-drug agenda by pointing out that kids ought to get in more trouble for sexually assaulting a girl at school than for smoking pot away from school?

I'll go out on a limb and say that the punishments are absurd, that the kids who assaulted the girl should be punished more severly than the kid who smoked pot. Now what could possibly be your problem with that?

[DdDHellspawn]

I find this to be utterly disgusting. But this isn't the first time I have seen this. Unfortunately through personal experience I have seen this unjustice. And I appologize but I don't have any links.

In the states I have seen kids beat up fellow students, sexually assult classmates, and even attack teachers and much much more. Most of the time the punishment for fighting is 3 day suspencion followed by some detention of some sorts. But when I got in trouble for enjoying the sweet MJ I was suspended for 2 weeks, followed by a board meeting to see if I should be allowed back in school.

So the moral of the story is~

Student's beat up your classmates!
Moleste your fellow student!
Hell beat up your teacher!
But don't smoke grass or we'll destroy your future!



What the hell kind of morals are those??????

[calm kiwi]

Boo Boo Foo I honestly can't see why you can't see that there is a valid reason to compare these situations. They both occured with pupils attending the same school. Meaning the punishment was delivered by the same people. By my logic (and it seems I'm not alone) dope smoking and sexual assault are miles apart in severity.

I have no agenda concerning dope smoking. I don't smoke myself (not that I didn't in my younger days) but anyone can see that it is a victimless crime. Sexual assault is not....imagine how that girl feels having to see these shitheads at school everyday!

The school has its head up its arse and seriously needs to examine the messages it sends to its pupils.


hmmmmm maybe I will change my name to not-so-calm-kiwi

[Boo Boo Foo]

So what was the point behind creating this thread calm kiwi? Were you simply looking for someone to have a fight with? Or did you simply expect 100 people to write identical posts which all had boring variations on the same theme? As in "Yeah Calm Kiwi... I agree with you?"

So... let's examine your posts thus far... effectively you've said the same thing on 4 occasions in 4 different ways. The school has it's head up it's arse. Perhaps your agenda is that you don't like the school? I don't know, and I don't care. I agree with you that the school seemingly let the 4 offenders get off rather mildly.

But what is ALSO abundantly clear, is that you don't accept the assertion that what happened elsewhere is irrelevant. The law can't be administered by consensual committee based on what else is happening in other parts of the country, or at retrospectively at earlier points in time.

It seems to me that you've read an article, the one you linked us to, and you've chosen to buy into the all too familiar "unfair sentencing debate" and you don't like the fact that someone, in this instance myself, has the temerity to point out that the only reason the two incidents are linked is because the article you brought to our attention is designed to deliberately manipulate the reader into an emotional knee jerk response.

Accordingly, read my opening post ONCE AGAIN. I stated quite categorically that the sexual assualt was wrong, wrong, wrong. There has NEVER been any doubt on my part that this is the case. Indeed, the 4 offenders probably deserve a police case to be thrown at them.

Noentheless, I reserve my right to point out that my feelings on this matter would be the same regardless of whether the dope smoker was busted or not. My feelings on the matter would be the same regardless of whether a multiple gang rape took place in another school the next day. The fate which befell the dope smoker is NOT linked in any capacity, and it's outcome should NOT, in any way, affect the outcome of the sexual assualt case - either adversely or positively - because if it does, it says that manipulative journalism (and by extension threads like these) can always affect the law in manners above and beyond what the justice system intended.

Also, it's worth noting that if I was to look at the dope smokers matter in exclusion, my feelings would be the same. He deserved what he got. There's every chance he was a serial offender who had been selling dope at the school. But my feelings there are, again, independant of my feelings on the sexual assault case. My opinions on the severity of discipline handed down to the 4 offenders in the sexual assault case would be the same REGARDLESS of whether the dope smoker incident ever happened or not.

My issue here is that to introduce an emotionally manipulative comparison is disingenuous. You can argue to the cows come home calm kiwi that you're correct in attempting to do so, and certainly it will push a lot of emotive hot buttons, but if you're truly a fair citizen, you would be able to prosecute the sexual assualt case WITHOUT needing to resort to the dope smoking case to bolster your arguement.

[Evil Captor]

Boo Boo Foo, it's a real simple proposition: presumably, there's a link between the severity of an infraction and the severity of the penalties meted out against it. The penalty for the sexual assault was much less than the penalty for smoking dope, implying that the authorities feel that smoking pot is much more awful a thing to do than to participate in a gang sexual assault of a woman.

It simply doesn't make sense, and there's no amount of arguing you can do that will make it make sense.

Plus, you're pulling stuff out of the air: we don't know that the pot smoker was a dealer. If he's a dealer, let him get charged as such. Hey, maybe the rapists are all serial rapists ... that assertion makes as much sense as yours.

[calm kiwi]

Geeeeeeeeeeeeez Boo Boo Foo that's a mighty high horse you got there.

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
[b]So what was the point behind creating this thread calm kiwi? Were you simply looking for someone to have a fight with? Or did you simply expect 100 people to write identical posts which all had boring variations on the same theme? As in "Yeah Calm Kiwi... I agree with you?"

I started the thread for much the same reason as most peole do I would imagine. I read something (actually saw it on the evening news first) that I had an opinion on. No I wasn't wanting 100 people to agree with me, nor was I looking for an arguement. I was sharing (I'm kind like that).

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
So... let's examine your posts thus far... effectively you've said the same thing on 4 occasions in 4 different ways. The school has it's head up it's arse. Perhaps your agenda is that you don't like the school? I don't know, and I don't care. I agree with you that the school seemingly let the 4 offenders get off rather mildly.

Well you agree, how nice. Now we don't have to argue . But no the school is at the other end of the country. I have nothing against it, in fact I know nothing about it other then what was reported (much like you). As for my having said the same thing four times.....well that must be catching because here you for time number three.

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
But what is ALSO abundantly clear, is that you don't accept the assertion that what happened elsewhere is irrelevant. The law can't be administered by consensual committee based on what else is happening in other parts of the country, or at retrospectively at earlier points in time.

*sigh*
What is ALSO abundantly clear is you are not reading properly. There was NO OTHER PART OF THE COUNTRY mentioned in my OP. Just the ONE school.

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
It seems to me that you've read an article, the one you linked us to, and you've chosen to buy into the all too familiar "unfair sentencing debate" and you don't like the fact that someone, in this instance myself, has the temerity to point out that the only reason the two incidents are linked is because the article you brought to our attention is designed to deliberately manipulate the reader into an emotional knee jerk response.

The ONLY reason the two incidents are linked are because they happened at the SAME school, that invites comparison.

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
Accordingly, read my opening post ONCE AGAIN. I stated quite categorically that the sexual assualt was wrong, wrong, wrong. There has NEVER been any doubt on my part that this is the case. Indeed, the 4 offenders probably deserve a police case to be thrown at them.

Damn look there you are agreeing with me. You foiled my evil thread-creating-spoiling-for-a-fight plot.

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
Noentheless, I reserve my right to point out that my feelings on this matter would be the same regardless of whether the dope smoker was busted or not.

And again! Ya spoilsport.

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
My feelings on the matter would be the same regardless of whether a multiple gang rape took place in another school the next day. The fate which befell the dope smoker is NOT linked in any capacity, and it's outcome should NOT, in any way, affect the outcome of the sexual assualt case - either adversely or positively - because if it does, it says that manipulative journalism (and by extension threads like these) can always affect the law in manners above and beyond what the justice system intended.

*sigh* It invites comparison because (once again with feeling) it was the SAME school NOT another school. But of course the dope smokers punishment should not be affected by the sexual assault. It can however, be compared and on comparison be evident that the school seems to fish punishments out of a hat and doesn't seem to bring in severity of the offence into it at all

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
Also, it's worth noting that if I was to look at the dope smokers matter in exclusion, my feelings would be the same. He deserved what he got. There's every chance he was a serial offender who had been selling dope at the school.

I agree teenagers smoking dope is not desirable. (hey Bongmaster how's the life of crime going )

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
But my feelings there are, again, independant of my feelings on the sexual assault case. My opinions on the severity of discipline handed down to the 4 offenders in the sexual assault case would be the same REGARDLESS of whether the dope smoker incident ever happened or not.

Bugger there you go agreeing with me again.....you Aussies just don't argue fair

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
My issue here is that to introduce an emotionally manipulative comparison is disingenuous. You can argue to the cows come home calm kiwi that you're correct in attempting to do so, and certainly it will push a lot of emotive hot buttons, but if you're truly a fair citizen, you would be able to prosecute the sexual assualt case WITHOUT needing to resort to the dope smoking case to bolster your arguement.

I am sorry I will never be an unfair citizen by expressing an opinion on a news report ever again.

Thank you for your condescending tone btw......it was a nice touch
Lots of love from the non-arguing ever so calm kiwi

[Boo Boo Foo]

Boo Boo Foo, it's a real simple proposition: presumably, there's a link between the severity of an infraction and the severity of the penalties meted out against it.

Obviously there is a link between an infraction and the severity of punishment meted out. I've never once argued that such a thing is open to debate. Morever, I've never once argued that the punishment in this particular sexual assault case is most likely profoundly inadequate.

Equally true, however, is that you can't allow the punishment meted out in other matters to influence your decision making when dealing with a matter which lays before you. If that were the case, the entire basis of Western Canon law would be thrown out. We would no longer feel compelled to search for impartial jury members at trial for example. And we would also feel thoroughly comfortable about introducing non-related matters into a trial just to manipulate a jury.

Nope, this is a classic case of a sympathy arguement at work here. Time and time again, people are attempting to introduce the dope smoker's matter as somehow being tangibly linked to the sexual assault case - and it isn't - except for the wishes of those people who would wish that it is. The fact that it happened at the same school seemingly makes the matters linked, but they aren't. If the school got it wrong on the sexual assault case, they got it wrong regardless. You can try and introduce any number of previous decisions to amplify the arguement, but the outcome is binary - they either got it wrong or they didn't.

The unfairness here is that the dope smoker is now being tried in the court of public opinion - AGAIN. If the sexual assault case had never happened, he would never have been mentioned in public, and could have got on with his life without a hitch. But not now... he's being held up as a yardstick and in doing so, his life is now pretty shitty I'm assuming.

New Zealand has a world class judicial system and Police Force. I am totally confident that if a police matter needs to be created, then it will be. Until then, I point blank refuse to allow an emotionally manipulative article to "undo" the punishment meted out to the dope smoker. I'll gladly concede that my earlier assertion that he was possibly a dealer was speculation... but he got what he deserved. The fact that the same school board stuffed up on the sexual assault matter is NOT the dope smoker's fault and it does NOT deserve to be entered as a mitigating factor in his ongoing damnation.

My beef here is NOT whether the School in question got it wrong. My beef here is that the article in question played the public sympathy card by unfairly comparing the dope smoker's plight to the young girl's plight. To do such a thing opens a pandora's box where all sorts of felonies are constantly being appraised in the public domain in terms of net worth of nastiness. And in doing so, it means that you allow the dangerous arrow of "retrospective condemnation" to manifest itself.

That the sexual assault case will sort itself out here is a no brainer. But the dope smoker is currently being crucified in public as he unwittingly plays the role of yardstick. That's the unfairness.

[Boo Boo Foo]

Originally posted by calm kiwi
I am sorry I will never be an unfair citizen by expressing an opinion on a news report ever again.

Thank you for your condescending tone btw......it was a nice touch
Lots of love from the non-arguing ever so calm kiwi

Forgive the tone... it's a relatively legal debate after all, and one tends to adopt a very formal tone in such debates so as to be as circumspect and incisive as possible.

By all means express as many opinions as you want on news reports in the future. Go nuts. I do it all the time. If I overstep the mark I expect to be pulled into line. The challenge I face is being magnanimous and acknowlegding when a fair point has been made. I always make the effort to conced such a thing.

But... if I reckon there's more fight in the fish I'll gladly dole out some more line if you know what I mean.

[calm kiwi]

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
New Zealand has a world class judicial system and Police Force. I am totally confident that if a police matter needs to be created, then it will be.

Boo Boo did you even read the article linked to in the OP?

Four students at Invercargill's James Hargest High School, involved in an indecent assault on a 13-year-old girl, were still attending the school, her mother claimed yesterday.

The woman said she was saddened when she read about the fate of a 14-year-old third form student who was excluded from James Hargest for smoking cannabis outside school hours, away from the school grounds and out of uniform.

"I feel as though my daughter has no worth."

The girl was assaulted in May.

Two boys held her daughter down, one held up her skirt while the fourth indecently assaulted her, the mother said.

The assault only stopped when other students intervened.

James Hargest principal Paul O'Connor told the mother a four-day stand-down was as far as the matter would go.

"I asked to take it to the board of trustees. He indicated that he could take the matter no further."

As a result she complained to police about the assault.

The boys were spoken to and made to write letters of apology to the girl. Youth Aid recorded the incident and Child, Youth and Family was notified.

Both the school and the police are sending the same message to other pupils.

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
Until then, I point blank refuse to allow an emotionally manipulative article to "undo" the punishment meted out to the dope smoker. I'll gladly concede that my earlier assertion that he was possibly a dealer was speculation... but he got what he deserved. The fact that the same school board stuffed up on the sexual assault matter is NOT the dope smoker's fault and it does NOT deserve to be entered as a mitigating factor in his ongoing damnation.

At NO point did I argue that the dope smokers punishment should be changed or "undone". Nor did I in any way imply that the dope smoker was in any way at fault or should be a mitigating factor in the punishment the school handed down to the rapists-in-the-making. My point was to say that the school needs to re-examine its policy on punishment and accept that serious events need to be dealt with seriously even if they do cause embarrasment to the school.

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
Obviously there is a link between an infraction and the severity of punishment meted out. I've never once argued that such a thing is open to debate. Morever, I've never once argued that the punishment in this particular sexual assault case is most likely profoundly inadequate.

Yes this is my point..there is a link between the severity of an infraction and the severity of a punishment. This school does not see that link however.

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
Equally true, however, is that you can't allow the punishment meted out in other matters to influence your decision making when dealing with a matter which lays before you. If that were the case, the entire basis of Western Canon law would be thrown out. We would no longer feel compelled to search for impartial jury members at trial for example. And we would also feel thoroughly comfortable about introducing non-related matters into a trial just to manipulate a jury.

Yes you can allow punishments to be compared, and fitted to the severity of the crime.....otherwise they would still be sending Poms to Aussie for stealing a loaf of bread. (they finally realised that made everyone want to steal bread and so they sent them to jail instead )

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
Nope, this is a classic case of a sympathy arguement at work here. Time and time again, people are attempting to introduce the dope smoker's matter as somehow being tangibly linked to the sexual assault case - and it isn't - except for the wishes of those people who would wish that it is. The fact that it happened at the same school seemingly makes the matters linked, but they aren't. If the school got it wrong on the sexual assault case, they got it wrong regardless. You can try and introduce any number of previous decisions to amplify the arguement, but the outcome is binary - they either got it wrong or they didn't.

The ONLY way I am trying to link the cases is through the board and managements seemingly clueless approach to meteing out punishments. Yes they got it wrong. And no that doesn't mean that they were wrong in the dope smokers case, his case just serves to illustrate the schools inconsistincy.

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
The unfairness here is that the dope smoker is now being tried in the court of public opinion - AGAIN. If the sexual assault case had never happened, he would never have been mentioned in public, and could have got on with his life without a hitch. But not now... he's being held up as a yardstick and in doing so, his life is now pretty shitty I'm assuming.

Nobody is trying the dope smoker in the court of public opinion...they are saving that paticular roast for the school management and board. His life probably got pretty shitty when he was caught smoking dope.

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
My beef here is NOT whether the School in question got it wrong.

But that is my beef.

[calm kiwi]

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
Forgive the tone... it's a relatively legal debate after all, and one tends to adopt a very formal tone in such debates so as to be as circumspect and incisive as possible.

Oh I'm sorry for misreading your tone. See I thought this bit was condescending.

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
So what was the point behind creating this thread calm kiwi? Were you simply looking for someone to have a fight with? Or did you simply expect 100 people to write identical posts which all had boring variations on the same theme? As in "Yeah Calm Kiwi... I agree with you?"

I'm soooooooooooo glad I was wrong and you were merely being "formal"

[SecularPriest]

My head is spinning.

[Larry Mudd]

Yeah, calm kiwi, I agree with you.

That being said, I think that I can see a twisted sort of logic in the school's decisions:

From the POV of the board, kids are going to need a strong disincentive to discourage them from smoking pot. A significant percentage of people consider it to be an acceptable, even attractive, thing to do.

They are no doubt taking it as granted that their student body, by-and-large, has an unambiguous opinion about sexual assault, and don't imagine that other kids may take it into their heads to commit assaults, if the school doesn't make an example of offenders. (This is largely predicated on the hope that the four accused are going to be facing a police investigation.)

School administators aren't likely to think as much about what (we would hope) is an isolated incident, but you can bet your ass that managing the "cancer" of weed smoking is something that gets them good and worked up.

All the same, even when you consider to the two things in isolation from each other, they're both outrageous. Either one warrants its own thread. Sheesh.

[macabresoul]

Boo Boo Foo You don't have to be a dealer to get expelled for smoking weed. Most schools have a no tolerance policy about drugs... get caught once and you are gone!

These 2 events are linkable because it goes to show that sex offenders are given less harsh punishments than dope smokers. That girl might have some emotional problems from being assaulted.... Shit, what they did was 1 step away from rape.

You are right in saying that the kid who smoked dope wouldn't be in the news if the sexual assault case wasn't made. but the simple fact is, the article is NOT about him, it's about the girl who was sexual assaulted.

Stop talking so much about the dope smoker, you have totally missed the point of kiwi's argument by a mile.

So yea the dope smoker knew the punishment for breaking thier no-tolerance rule... so he deserves what he gets. But you can sexually assault another student and get minimal (yes, suspensions are stupid punishments, sit home and watch tv for 4 days, wohoo) punishments.

However, Education Minister Trevor Mallard dismissed the need for "a whole new legal system" to deal with such cases.

Actually Trevor my dear boy, you DO need a whole new legal system to deal with such cases.

[Boo Boo Foo]

Originally posted by doomraisin
Seriously, your line of thinking totally escapes me, and your tone is patronizing. Would you explain what you mean by "Indeed, to attempt to link the two incidents is kinda disingenuous?" Do you think the OP is trying to push a pro-drug agenda by pointing out that kids ought to get in more trouble for sexually assaulting a girl at school than for smoking pot away from school?

I'll go out on a limb and say that the punishments are absurd, that the kids who assaulted the girl should be punished more severly than the kid who smoked pot. Now what could possibly be your problem with that?

I have no problem with that at all. I have no problem agreeing that the kids who assaulted the girl should be punished more severly than the kid who smoked pot. What you guys have a problem with is that you can't accept that there was no need to mention the dope smoker's case to begin with. If the sexual assault case is as serious as the linked article would have us believe, introducing the dope smoker's case merely demeans the plight of the poor girl. In my eyes, the article managed to reduce the matter to a tacky form of tabloid journalism.

Hence in my eyes, either, the sexual assault case was not as serious as the paper would have us believe, or it was and the school has fucked up. Either way, I didn't need to know about the dope smoker's case to feel a sense of sympathy or moral outrage for the poor girl. I didn't need to know about the dope smoker's case to somehow make the sexual assault case more worthy of news time.

But none of you can see that can you? The article was deliberately designed to push a hot button emotive angle, and THAT is the subtle observation which is beyond most of you. Ask yourself this... would you still be writing what you're writing if the article had mentioned the sexual assault case in isolation with NO MENTION EVER of the dope smoker case?

I suspect some of you would have, but I doubt that this thread would have had the moral indignation that it did. It would have been more a case of "that's just so wrong" and it would have hovered at that level of outrage. But by introducing the dope smoker case, the matter has been elevated ABOVE what it would normally have achieved. And I suspect there are many other cases of sexual assault in New Zealand in the last month which are far more serious that never got the same airtime. Hence, you can't eat your cake and have it too - you can't lambast me for NOT displaying the same amount of moral outrage whilst you yourselves largely go uninformed about more serious cases which aren't making the airwaves.

I'm sure, given a few days of research, that I could come up with a litany of sexual assault and domestic violence cases within New Zealand in the last month which way, WAY outdo either of the matters listed in this thread in terms of deserving moral outrage. And yet, I'm not seeing any threads dedicated to them, am I?

And in the interests of fairness, I'm sure that there are even more cases of injustice happening here in Australia too. But the problem is, in terms of shipping units of newspapers, not all of those cases make for a quick, convenient 15 second sound bite of moral indignation - hence, they don't make the front page so easily.

But not this one. This one was written straight out of NewsPaper Mannah From Heaven mode.

My issue here is the cynical tone of manipulation which the story is using to get the media proprietors more airtime. But none of you can see that. It's as though you've all been programmed to think exactly what the newspaper wants you to think, and that's as far as your powers of observation can go - anything beyond that falls into "does not compute" territory. You guys who are spilling your buckets or righteousness on my head from great heights can't cope with the fact that in myself, there's someone who's looking beyond the cynical manipulation angle and calling it for what it is - a circulation booster.

You guys are all making the same flawed assumption - anyone who doesn't IMMEDIATELY say the exact same thing as you in this thread, by default, must be a cold heartless bastard - and that isn't the case. The poor girl has all the sympathy in the world from me - but I also have pure disdain for the media proprietors who have exploited this matter - and have done so smiling all the way to the bank.

[Boo Boo Foo]

I'd just like to say, as quickly as possible that the comments in my last post were generally addressed to the posters in this thread prior to the last 30 minutes or so.

The two posters who contributed in the last 30 minutes were eminiently reasonable and I recognise you as being such.

[calm kiwi]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Okay so now I am officialy not-so-calm-kiwi. YES fucking newspapers add a slant to sell papers, YES we all act morally outraged when the media tells us to from time to time. Yes the media does it's level best to manipulate public opinion
But JESUS FUCK that was not the point of my OP and you are the only one that can not grasp that concept. You are so full of anti-media venom (I'm starting to wonder if you had a nasty brush with the paparazzi that you might like to share) that you can't see the fucking woods for the trees. The school was WRONG and I don't need the fucking media to wave a dope smoker at me in order to recognise that point.

Tell ya what- you start a "Don't you hate it when the media manipulates public opinion" thread and I will be right there with you. In this case I'm still saying the school had their head up their fucking arse!

K deep breathing commencing to regain my calm status

oh but then you added this (seeing it on preview........

"I'd just like to say, as quickly as possible that the comments in my last post were generally addressed to the posters in this thread prior to the last 30 minutes or so."

The two posters who contributed in the last 30 minutes were eminiently reasonable and I recognise you as being such."

I seriously don't know how I managed to crawl up your arse and "push your hot buttons" but let me out! I made perfectly reasonable and logical rebuttals to all the points you made.......hmmm maybe I just smell funny

[Boo Boo Foo]

Well calm kiwi, you might think they were perfectly reasonable and logical, and that's your right. I gotta say though, for all your assertions that I have supposedly missed your point, the unbiased reader here will acknowledge that I've never actually disagreed with you - merely that the methods used in this thread, both by yourself and the paper in question are open to scrutiny. It's your right to disagree with my position - it's no skin off my nose.

But you know something... I suspect that only one of us is actually getting upset at the moment. No one in this thread has pushed any hot buttons regarding myself. The only hot buttons were those which were cycnically provided in the original story.

Sometimes, on a debating messageboard such as this - ya just got to learn to roll with the punches and not get too worked up.

So, this thread hasn't worked out exactly as you expected? Big deal. Nothing which has been written in this thread is even remotely going to adversely affect any of the parties which the thread relates to. I don't have any problems with you - none at all. These are just words on a screen.

As I said, I've never actually disagreed with you. I simply chose to talk about aspects of this matter which went beyond the immediately obvious. Sadly, my lack of FORTHRIGHT "HELL YEAH" agreeance with you has kinda done your head in.

I chose to talk about what I wanted to talk about. You didn't like it. It's no big deal. I don't hold grudges. If we come across each other in another thread I assure you I'll be extraordinarily civil.

[calm kiwi]

Likewise Boo Boo. I don't think I said anything that disagreed with you either, other then your inevitable "But the media was twisting the situation" point. Which btw I didn't disagree with....it just wasn't a valid point to the OP.

In reguards to your point about the thread "not working out exactly as I expected" . HMMMMM I didn't know I had to have an expectation in order to post. I have clearly failed in that respect cause I done went and came expectationless.

I didn't give myself the moniker calm kiwi for nout, I enjoy reading diverse opinions hence my time-since-registered vs post count low ratio. I rarely read something that sends me into a fit (and prefer to lurk actually)........and yep that includes this thread. All calm on the Southern front. Relax baby, no heads were "done in" in the making of this thread.

You are very civil (if a little condescending) and you feel free to keep debating point B while point A is being discussed.

calm kiwi.....rolling while waiting for the punches

[maleinblack]

well <B> Boo Boo </B> first let me make it clear that not everyone in the world is a moron to think exaclty the way the newspapers want you to think.well i agree the newpsapers might spice up things to boost circulation but they certainly dont force you to take their point of view and stick to it.
if u read the linked article you can easily see what a foolish thing the school in question did.Boo dont you think its is absurd to let rapists/molestors away by awarding a 4 day suspension ( a holiday they might have enjoyed as well!) and asking them to write a letter of apology.well i feel its absurd just by its own merit and when you compare the harsh action against the doping kid you really feel that (to quote <B> calm kiwi </B> )"the school is having its head up its arse".the op just called attention at the gross injustice the school is doing on the doping kid and highlighting the schools head in the arseness by letting serious offenders get away lightly.
to sum it all up i think <B> calm kiwi </B> is right with her point of view and i am with her on her stand.

[refusal]

Boo Boo Foo says it's unfair for the newspaper to bring the dope smoker in when considering the severity of the penalty for the sexual assault. But if any story had been posted saying "A school gave a punishment of XXX for YYY" then one of the first things people would have asked - or at least should have asked - is "Give me some context: so how does this punishment rate compared to other crimes?" Because you need to know that to make sense of the school's discipline policy. Maybe the newspaper could have done its report comparing the sexual assaulters with a kid who talked in class or who cheated in a test rather than a dope smoker. But would that have been a better comparison or have made it any nicer a story?

[Boo Boo Foo]

That's a rather weak position. Any fool can tell, regardless of what happened to the dope smoker, that the punishment meted out to the sexual assault perpetrators was wholly underwhelming.

Indeed, by such logic, we could actually implement a philosophy of diminished responsibility in the future... for example, School X has a sexual assualt problem - they hand out a punishment which is wildly under strength - they get hauled over the coals for it - and in an effort to excuse their behavior, they argue "But we've never had these sort of problems before and as a result, we didn't have a sliding scale of relativity to use as a yardstick oh how much punishment to apply..."

Most reasonable people would agree that such an excuse would be lame in the extreme - as it is here in this instance. Even calm kiwi conceded that they didn't need to know about the dope smoker's plight to recognise that the school had it's head up it's arse.

The issue then is why mention the dope smoker's plight? My cynical response is because it allowed the story to get greater airtime than usual, and all of us have bought into it.

[calm kiwi]

A whole day later and you are still arguing point B I see

[Boo Boo Foo]

Oh well, people keep mentioning my name... what's a guy supposed to do? It's a point of honour! But yes, I fear that I'm beginning to resemble a broken record...

Still, whilst my point is a subtle one in terms of having to distinguish issues when making a judgement, I offered it for a reason... imagine how hard it is sometimes for a magistrate or a judge to come down with a correct finding when such innately emotive issues are manifest? Imagine if a judge presided over a trial regarding this sexual assault case, and if the prosecution kept trying to introduce the dope smoker's plight into the evidence? It would be a hard role for the judge I suspect.

[calm kiwi]

And with that I shall wish you au revoir.....catch you on the next thread