Black Children Were Jailed for a Crime That Doesn’t Exist
propublica.org
propublica.org
We see this historical in this story where they trawl for charges that fit, and when they can't find one, they make one up "criminal responsibility for conduct of another.". Even the filter system they use is inconsistent in it's verbiage of "TRUE threat" and "TRUE threat" having no actual meaning.
Meanwhile, the judge and jailers keep their jobs and the cops involved serve a weekend's worth of leave.
>...At another meeting a commissioner said it would be “cool” if, instead of being a cost center, the jail could be a “profit center.”
To folks outside of the US, turning jails into profit centers would be abhorrent and incompatible with a country that claims to be "the freest in the world" or what have you. But when you look at the history of the country and it's actual principles, this is very much in line with history.
Adultism.
There's clearly racial components to this story and others like it, but let's be very clear: this is the result of a society that doesn't value children, treats them largely like objects, and for sure doesn't care for their needs.
How can I make these claims?
There's a pandemic and yet school is still in session and in person. Did we reorganize society to protect the children? Temporarily, but when the economy started getting shaky, it was back to school for everyone so the parents could get back to work. Even if the claim of "not letting the children fall behind in school" is genuine, it's to enforce standards cultivated by adults for the sake of creating a certain type of person.
Are the systems deciding the fate of those people under the age of 18 AT ALL informed by those people under the age of 18? They are explicitly not. People under the age of 18 are there for the systems to do with as they choose. There is no solidarity with children or respect for their individual autonomy/consent.
And it's very easy to prove the systems don't care about the childrens' needs:
Humans have a finite set of needs. What are they? If you don't know, you weren't taught them. By systems designed to do something other than care for you and meet your needs. Any system dealing with children that can't produce a list of human needs is responsible for carrying a culture of adultism.
I thought the risk to children is super low though?
And if it is, wouldn't switching to a remote setting be way worse, because school at the lower levels isn't about teaching topics but about learning how to interact with people?
One or two years go by quickly as a working adult, but it's an incredibly long time for a child, having only online contact with people for such a long time will surely be worse for them, no?
The adult world's perspective is super skewed. The options most people consider are isolating, bubbling small, or denying the risks. There's more we can do.
I don't think it's fair not to point out that covid is drastically less dangerous for children.
We don't understand the long-term effects because we haven't gotten there in time, yet. Pretending to know these things is dangerous for children.
I think your point ignores the fact that none of this is up to the children, regardless of risk, and they are also an infection vector which allows the virus to continue spreading and evolving. The virus is less dangerous for children, so it makes sense to let them get it and spread it? Is this the point you're trying to make?
The decisions are economically driven, instead of wellbeing/needs based. This is the point. Even if I noted all things weighed and considered, the issue would be that we effectively went back to the same ways of life. Policy makers are carrying on with persisting adultist systems and making decisions without deep consideration of human needs or direct input from the youngest among us.
So much for the separation of church and state. It’s like something from the Taliban
The US separation of Church and State only means that a specific church doesn't get doctrinal control. It's specifically against the Church of England setup. Doesn't mean that the voters won't insist on Christian hegemony, or even the particularly white supremacist flavours of evangelical/baptist Christianity, just that you get a choice of which Christian church to attend.
Somehow Blacks (kids in this case) are guilty of crimes they don’t commit.
Maybe that’s why the establishment supported Kamala Harris:
https://afropunk.com/2019/01/kamala-harris-has-been-tough-on...
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igoy0sq4noQ
The judge (Davenport) and facility manager (Duke) are still being paid well for their work in jailing children on dubious legal basis.
> Davenport, finding that a mother had neglected her daughter, granted custody to another couple. Two higher courts disagreed and ordered Davenport to reunify the mother and child. Instead, Davenport terminated the mother’s parental rights.
I looked her up, she’s still serving as a judge (term is up in 2022). I am surprised that the judicial system keeps judges around that disobey higher courts. You would think that violating a basic foundation of the legal system would grant swift rebuke, but no.
What is missing is oversight, and strangely enough "a fear of the law" on the part of those charged with enforcing it. Officers and Judges.
If the logic of QI (the “qualified" refers to the legal clarity of the violation) applies at all, it applies to every offense that meets the qualification. There is no coherent argument otherwise.
After so many reports, investigations, and hiding their own statistics because they were embarrassing, it's clear they "reasonably should have known" about the childrens' rights. Qualified immunity shouldn't help them here.
but then there's also Atlanta which is hip and developed. so the big metro areas are fine, things just get real weird in the sticks.
I don't see any reason to doubt the veracity of the story, though; it seems pretty well investigated and reported.
The narrative of doing this "for their own good" is a lot like the language used to justify abducting children from native families in North America to "kill the savage, save the child" and "civilize" those children in white schools.
"Civilized" is an extremely loaded term and it's worth reflecting on whom we label as "uncivilized" and how we actually behave in comparison.
"The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."
when referring to African slavery.
The children were charged under “criminal responsibility”, which is not a crime, and they did not violate the law. The police did violate the law by locking the children in detention, which can only be done in very narrow circumstances, but there are loopholes, such as using the term TRUE THREAT.
* Loudly and publicly show how well they are doing their job, which will often be interpreted as fighting crime.
* Only bother non-majority groups that can not vote them out of their position while doing that job.
(It's very tempting to regard people we strongly disagree with as insane, but it's a mistake that both impairs dealing with actual mental illness compassionately and fighting them politically. She's perfectly rational and sane, she's just reasoning from a set of beliefs and emotional values that you find abhorrent)
If stats were available to show black children in general were targeted, the piece would have included them.
Including 'Black children' in the title is unnecessary other than one of the arresting officers in this particular case wondered would this(arresting/cuffing at school over being an observer) happen in a white school.
She's an idiot. She may also be a racist but the article doesn't provide any evidence for that.
I wonder sometimes if people ever read past the headline and first paragraph.
Sure, the only evidence we have of racial targeting is anecdotal, but if we use a Bayesian approach, the fact that the party that is conducting the profiling shuts off the data that would disprove that notion, it gives us a very strong prior.
Is there a grammatical rule, or is it just politics?
Here's a longer explanation: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-capitalize-word-black_l_5...
It explains why Black is capitalized but it also explains the reasoning behind some style guides deciding one way or the other when it comes to (w|W)hite.
The short version is that prior to the move to capitalize Black white supremacists were already capitalizing White so doing it sends some mixed messages especially when you don't already have a clear reputation for being anti-racist (resolving the ambiguity). Additionally white and Black as racial categories work very differently: operationally, (to use a strained analogy I just now came up with that someone will surely try to poke holes into) white behaves as a racial category like bald does as a hair color (i.e. it's defined by the absence of other qualifiers, hence the "one drop" rhetoric).
If you want to better understand the reasoning behind treating white differently, I suggest looking into articles about decolonization but it can take some suspension of judgement to understand the full reasoning if you're used to thinking everything is fine and nothing fundamentally needs to change. If you already let out an audible groan when seeing the URL of the article I linked, I suggest moving on to a different topic and coming back to it when you're in a more curious mood.
This was literally the least offensive, non-political and middle of the road way to explain this yet it keeps getting downvoted and now sits at -2.
But HN is a place of intellectual curiosity and doesn't have a racism or sexism problem. People just come here to share interesting facts and neat hacks and everything is apolitical. It's just a coincidence that openly white supremacist comments don't even get flagged and anything even remotely acknowledging racial issues gets downvoted. No, sire, nothing to see here, move along.
Ceterum censeo HN bad.
There's just people who think they're white and who others would identify as white.
Doesn't make them whiter...
So no, let's not give lying equal respect in grammar. Let's show the distinction and deny people who think they're white any kind of collective class recognition. If you want capitalization, here it is: people who THINK they're white.
Most of the complaints are tone-deaf and completely ignorant of the actual situation on the ground, which has rustled a few of our jimmies.
Still, I don't see the relevance of that comment here. This article is about black kids getting thrown in juvie when it causes nothing but harm to both them and the community; a problem that exists here too (mainly in the NT).