I like when you post like a human being.
If the government forced them to, I’m sure it would.
If the government shamed them into it, then it should be fine.
I apologize, but you do realize you’re posting this on a primitive version of social media, right?
I mean, I will say I don’t have any social media accounts to any government official who asks, but this is technically a kind of social media.
But yeah, I had video equipment available to me at that formative age, but I at least had the good sense to not videotape and advertise my crimes even at those poorly formed stages of my psyche. I kind of understand the desire for applause, I’m a performer in every moment of spare time I can manage. But good lord, stop advertising your crimes, kids.
“Deterring” crime by harsh punishment!
A shame nobody tried that before.
It sounds so logical! It must work! My gut says it will.
You deter the people who wouldnt normally do it if their were consequences!!
So citizens feel safe on the streets!!
To take violent offenders off the streets for a long time!!
Dealing with anti-social elements is better than doing nothing. At the very least paying for damages and a few hundred hours of community service wearing a goofy looking outfit would be appropriate. We, as a society, are tolerating far too much theft, vandalism, and other crimes that impact everyone.
It’s not even just kids. Check out websites like WorldStar to see adults videotaping themselves engaged in serious crime. It’s disturbing.
The Librarian thinks that starting rumors that could have serious consequences and cause alarm in other students is a harmless prank. It could also lead to students not taking a real threat seriously. I wouldnt only throw the book at em I would hit em in the head with it.
It’s obviously a bad idea for crimes of passion, as no risk assessment goes on in those. But it’s less obvious for fads. Would a sufficient punishment deter people from wanting to risk it? Or would it inspire more daredevils to try it? I suspect it’s more a balancing act—that some level of punishment might reduce those who would try it.
So far, what I’ve seen being recommended is all rather petty stuff that is not expected to get the people in much trouble. It’s stuff like stealing something, taking a photo to prove you got it, then returning it. Or stuff like non-destructive or minimally destructive vandalism that can be easily remedied. I could see making the punishment more severe being a deterrent. I know that, whenever schools crack down on harmless pranks, they tend to decrease. Harmless hacking stops for a while when the guy who gets caught gets expelled.
On the other hand, these are teenage brains here. They often don’t consider the consequences. It should be obvious that, with all the cameras at school, they would be able to figure out who did what. It should be obvious that some kid might rat them out, or that it might be possible to trace them. Yet they do it anyways.
I just don’t see any reason to dismiss increasing punishment out of hand. But perhaps you are distinguishing between “harsher punishment” and “severe punishment.”
Give them the notoriety they desire by dressing their ass as a clown and making them pick up litter for the summer.
These kids see adults in the media - not just social media, I mean news media - get away with far worse crimes on the regular. If you want them to behave like civilized human beings, prosecuting the original instigators of this little “school vandalism challenge” fad isn’t going to do it. Not when you have the original instigators of the “Capitol vandalism challenge” fad still running free.
There must be a study somewhere that supports your kind of thinking.
Harsher punishment do not deter anything, this has been shown over, over and over again. It still sounds logical, but it really is kinda dumb to sprout this shit in 2021. To advocate picking out some “random” (it always end up being the black one) kid and punishing extra hard to “deter” others is disgusting.
So what do you recommend?
Yawn. You pick out the actual perpetrators. Punish them. Whats disgusting is allowing predators to destroy neighborhoods. Go live in your little fantasy bubble.
Now that I agree is obviously dumb. Singling out one person and punishing them extra hard accomplishes nothing, and said kid will very likely be someone that the punishment giver is already biased toward (and, yes, likely black). It makes it seem like the majority will get away with it.
But that’s not the same thing as arguing that a punishment that seems harsher than the crime cannot be a deterrent. I very much think you are oversimplifying with that argument.
But perhaps you can show some of these studies and change my mind. Or, perhaps I am misunderstanding that part of the argument, and you were always referring to the things mentioned in my first paragraph.
That’s true, in general - but if you’re a high school principal, while there’s very little you can do about the threat to American democracy, you can actually do something about vandalism to your school.
Sure, but a high school principal also doesn’t have the power to punish whatever rando originates a TikTok fad, so that’s moot. I was addressing the broader “social issue” part of the argument others had raised.
I’m not saying the perpetrators of the vandalism at a particular school shouldn’t be punished at the local level, the school principals should definitely apply whatever local punishments are appropriate, whether that be some combo of cleanup duty, monetary fines, device confiscation, detention and suspension/expulsion.
I wonder what the incidence of this fad are in a place like Japan where students are the cleaners who have to deal with the consequences of petty vandalism.
Yeah, that’ll work…
My own opinion as a juvenile detention supervisor - We need more social media.
Over the last 20+ years, the juvenile crime rate for all offenses has been trending downward. I have heard apocryphal stories that Texas saw this trend in-state and was touting the awesomeness of the harsher punishment-based approach they had been taking, while California saw this trend in-state and was boasting about the effectiveness of the more touchy-feely programs they had been putting in place. Then other states pointed out that their own juvenile crimes were also going down, and they hadn’t made any substantial changes.
My own theory is the declining juvenile crime rate may be inversely related to things like juvenile obesity and the amount of time people are spending on their electronic devices. I think kids are living their lives vicariously through their gadgets, which generally reduces how much they actually do physically, although an occasional TikTok or YouTube challenge may get them off their lard-butts in a negative manner.
Rather than getting rid of TikTok or YouTube, maybe we should do some social media judo and use it against its own negative aspects. Reward the creators who put effort into seeding social media with more positive pro-social content.
Oh, and here’s a link to some data about juvenile crime rates:
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05201
See, octopus, this is how you do satire. You exaggerate the stupid positions of your political opponents just a scotch, just enough to emphasize how dumb they are. Ha, ha, conservatives think that throwing the book at teenagers will deter other teenagers effectively, because conservatives don’t know shit about human psychology!
It’s funny because it’s so close to how conservatives think, and honestly, it almost reads like madsircool is actually a dumbass and not a satirist.
[edit: speaking of dumbasses, I originally replied to @The_Librarian instead of @madsircool. Fixing the quote didn’t change the “reply to” box, in case folks are wondering. My bad.]