...will be the students who didn't do their homework.



I'm not sure why you'd have to actually put your face on the wall but, aside from that, I don't have much of a problem with it. If my son had a teacher with that policy, I'd recommend to him that he gets his homework done. There's a potential, of course, that a kid is in some home situation where it's a real problem to get homework done or something but hopefully the teacher is able to pick up on something being up after a short string of missed assignments.

I'm OK with this, but I have to wonder, what's wrong with detention?

Why didn't he do his homework?

I would expect a parent to be involved in Grade 6.

it is parents like these that are turning kids into a bunch of @#%^ing pussies. I can understand not beating your children as a punishment, but it seems that we are tending towards a more slippery slope of "all punishment is harmful to children"

it's ludicrous.

Nope, must have been another reason.


Did you read the article? She has no issues with her son being punished, she just doesn't like this one form.

Edited, Oct 29th 2009 6:14pm by Uglysasquatch

It isn't like he was missing much at recess anyway.

yeah, but she gave bullsh*t reasons for it. Does that mean when I have kids I can say that I don't agree with detention as a punishment and then force them to make an exception for my kid?

If she is this anal about disciplining her kids then they shouldn't be out of her sight or under the control of another adult. ever.

Lame. Instead of having the kid sit there and pick his nose for 20 mins force him to do the homework during recess. Or make him read. Write a report.

I didn't say you said anything so I'm not sure why you feel the need to point it out.

My perception, unless I missed the double layered sarcasm, was that you seem to be of the type who believe children are being too coddled. So I was pointing out that insufficient punishment has proven to be more effective at creating long lasing behavioral changes. Have I misunderstood your position?

When I was in elementary school, we lost one recess for every piece of homework we didn't do. We had to sit in the classroom and copy down some sort of report thing from a book. One report for every piece of homework not turned in, and you didn't get recess until your reports were done. The teachers wouldn't monitor the classroom.

I didn't have recess for all of the fourth grade. We just sat around talking the whole time. Half a dozen of us never did our reports, one guy would write others' reports for a couple dollars.

We used to have to copy pages from the dictionary. That may have had an effect, now that I think of it.

Nice idea.

I've thought about it and yes, I still think you're a complete idiot.


Being an overprotective parent has absolutely nothing to do with politics. That's the problem with people like you and Varus and Gbaji - you think everything is politically motivated when in fact it's not. Ergo, you're an idiot.

Oh the humanity... not the wall! Anything but the wall...

Well it's little more than a good opportunity to maximize videogame time.

I'm very sad, but when I read this post I was reminded of the film "Kindergarten Cop" and Arnie shouting "YOU LACK DISCIPLINE!" to the children.

It's funny because in most cases of petty crime or vandalism, restorative justice is far more efficient, beneficial to society, and cheap, than prison. In cases of drug use, rehabilitation and councelling and much more efficient, beneficial to society, and cheap than prison. In most criminal cases save for murder and rape, prison is actually the most inefficient, detrimental to society, and expensive solution.

And you know the reason why despite decades of research proving those things over and over again we still use prison? Because of people like you, and arguments like these.

Hmm, no, technically he said "I predict that in the future, punishment for crimes is abolished", using rape and murder as the most extreme examples of said crimes. I can't find any clue to him implying that his statement applied only to those and that these examples were exclusive.

My take on it is that it's not something worth fighting for. In some utopian theory, I broadly agree with pensive that punishment is not the best course of action for people who an barely the consequences of their action. But in reality, it doesn't matter. People who rape, people who commit sexual offences on minors, people who commit what most would consider atrocious crimes, should really be the last ones we "fight" for.

What we should do is isolate the "horrendous" cases from the vast majority of cases, which are quite banal. These are the ones that cost the society a disproportionate amount of fund, for whom prison is a revolving door at best, and a Crime University at worst. If we're ever going to argue for restorative justice, or for treating drug use as mental health issue, we have to start with the lowest level of offending. Accepting the other's side premise that this system would be viable for rapists and murderers is the best way to lose the argument for another generation. Let them rot in jail while we sort out the others. Once we're done with those, we can move on the more problematic cases.

Kinda seems we agree then.

Nono, I mean, if he's smart, then that's what he "meant" you see. It's clearly just "intended" to be a condemnation of severe crimes without actually making some vapid generalization about the methods of punishment in general - clearly.



Precisely, and as long as this is your reason, it's not retributive. It's practical and even has room to be nominally compassionate, but there's no reason at all to have malice in one's heart. Prison is just something we do as a necessary evil. In the terms of the justice ideal especially that formulation is helpful, but the attitude of a jailor can't help but influence the practice, also.

I don't see any reason we can't have a dilemma between restorative justice and.. pragmatic justice (I guess) instead of acting as if retribution is the place of a government at all.

Sure, but we don't lock people up for 30 years for rape, as I assume you know. Should we be actively advocating increased sentences for rapists alongside our restorative justice for small time crooks?



I assume you could just take a really hard look at their taxes in future.

Edited, Oct 30th 2009 2:43pm by Kavekk

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: The "rapist" situation is another facet of prison which is problematic. Sticking someone in jail for 30 years without psychological treatment, or opportunities for education, or any opportunity to do something productive for society is a waste of time and ressources, in my opinion. I do think that jail sentences for rape, for lots of sexual offences, and for quite a few murder cases, should be increased. Part of the reason they are so short is jail overcrowding, of course, which would be solved through restorative justice for small-time offenders. Another part is the fact that jail is so basic nowadays that sticking someone in there for 30 years would effectively end their any chance they might have of being properly reintroduced in society.

I personally think the whole concept of jail should be changed, and that this change should be effected with a lengthening of prison sentences for certan crimes, and an abolition of prison sentences for others. I agree with Pensive that the whole "punishment" aspect should pretty much be done away with. It's hard not to generalise on this subject since there are so many kinds of offences, or reason why people commit those crimes, and of offenders. But I think the solution should be tailored to the problem. The prison today is far too generalist, it's a blanket solution for a problem which has dozens, if not hundreds, of facets. If we start adapting solutions to problems, we have a much better chance to diminish the harm in society. And we should use all the tools available to us, psychology, drugs, education, punishment, etc... Being locked in a box for 5 years will work on some people. Others might request, and should be offered, chemical castration. Others probably need to go on strong pharamceutical drugs. There might be some people that we just don't know how to help, and they should be treated accordingly.

But, fundamentally, the idea that the best way to deal with "criminals", any and every criminal, is to stick them all together in one enclosed space and then release them in society without any help or supervision, is as retarded as can be. It's the kind of sh*t Varrus would come up with.

I disagree. It's much more expensive to kill them.

I'd argue that one murder is much more damaging to society than several petty crimes committed over a lifetime.

I absolutely think prisoners should be given constructive ways to occupy their detention. Work programs, education programs, therapy, etc... are all good. But when I hear stories of "rec rooms" with TV and computers with potential internet access, I think the concept has been taken a bit too far.

Of course, I've never actually SEEN a TV in prison, so there's that.