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 *
**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 :D. 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”:rolleyes: