In the news today

[XanBcoo]

So a desperate crack addict breaks in to your house to steal your TV so they can get their next fix. They don't need to be shoot and killed, they need to be rehabilitated and given the ability to straighten their life out (uhg. I hate the sound of that phrase. it makes me sound like I'm some superior human who has the right to judge other people's life choices...). You might say "so what, it's just some insane crack addict who doesn't contribute anything to society anyways," and I'd say so the person made some bad calls when they were younger.

Actually, you know? druggies don't contribute anything to society. We should definitely just eradicate them. And mentally retarded citizens? they aren't worth the resources it takes to sustain them, we just kill them too. And anyone who isn't a proud white college-graduating patriot shoudn't be allowed in this country. Since this is the country for the privileged, and only real people who should be allowed to label themselves human.

Hey man, better put some gauze on that heart.

It's bleeding.

Edit for real response: In a world where someone can morally justify American soldiers murdering civilians in Iraq, shooting a kid in the back for stealing your Twinkies is a perfectly reasonable solution. I mean, you weren't there, so no questions asked. Fire away.

However, Ryll and Animeniax are absolutely right about jail. Go through some links from the search I posted. Our criminal justice system doesn't work.

Not complicated: You break into a home, you pay the consequences.

*puts on batman mask*
*shoots teenager in the face*

Sure, surrender would be ideal, but you don't know what's going on through their heads. You don't even know what they're carrying or what they're capable of. Unless you're going out there with a weapon, I highly doubt they'll surrender, so you need to be in a position of power before you can even challenge them. Now you have a weapon, and the targets might also have weapons, and now the situation escalades.

Then don't escalate the situation? I don't see what you're trying to convince me of with that example. If you recognize the danger in going into a confrontation where someone will almost certainly wind up dead, you should be smart enough to choose the less drastic option. If I had to decide between letting my tv get stolen or inciting a firefight I would be ok with the former. It has nothing to do with naivete or cowardice and everything to do with not murdering another human being or risking getting killed myself:

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

[Carnage]

*puts on batman mask*
*shoots teenager in the face*

Actually I am curious, does anyone have a statistic on how many of the break-ins in the United States are pulled off by teenagers?

[XanBcoo]

Actually I am curious, does anyone have a statistic on how many of the break-ins in the United States are pulled off by teenagers?

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/arrests/index.html

Haven't had a chance to poke through it yet, but the fbi has a list of crime statistics from 2009.

[Carnage]

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/arrests/index.html

Haven't had a chance to poke through it yet, but the fbi has a list of crime statistics from 2009.

Thanks, I took a look through it and found one for 2009 broken down by age groups:

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_38.html

1/3rd of burglaries are by people younger than 18, I'm actually surprised.

In suburban areas, its 1/4th. Still a much larger number than I would think.

[Splash!]

10 people under 10 yrs old arrested for forcible rape Its a small number but just the fact that it exists is pretty disturbing...

[Animeniax]

You could very well have done the same wrong yet easy to make choices had you been in their shoes. Don't try to act like because you come from a privileged upper-middle class (or even high class) family you're a better human than they are.

Actually, you know? druggies don't contribute anything to society. We should definitely just eradicate them. And mentally retarded citizens? they aren't worth the resources it takes to sustain them, we just kill them too. And anyone who isn't a proud white college-graduating patriot shoudn't be allowed in this country. Since this is the country for the privileged, and only real people who should be allowed to label themselves human.

You'd better not be talking to me with this post. I'm not white, upper-middle class, or privileged, but I do not make the bad choices whether or not I've been in their shoes. There are always opportunities to improve your situation, but some are illegal. The difference is in the choices you make to improve your situation (even if that's just getting your next fix), but some decisions will get you killed by someone like me who does things the legal and right way to improve his situation.

I agree with your stance on drug addicts, they should be strapped down and left to rot while their own addiction drives them crazy and eats at their bodies. I've long supported using the mentally handicapped and prison populations for science (in the interest of greater good for all humans). Btw, you should know that calling them "retarded" is offensive.

[enkoujin]

I agree with your stance on drug addicts, they should be strapped down and left to rot while their own addiction drives them crazy and eats at their bodies. I've long supported using the mentally handicapped and prison populations for science (in the interest of greater good for all humans). Btw, you should know that calling them "retarded" is offensive.

Coincidentally, I am reading a book about Henrietta Lacks. Up until the 1970's, physician-scientists did perform human experimentation such as injecting viruses and causes of diseases into prison inmates and volunteers often without consent for the "good of science".

As for mentally handicapped people, I am in a conundrum with what to do with or treat them because their situations conflict my morals.

I can't really go into details with my opinions on social issues, but to fix most issues in society, there should be more focus on preventing devastating situation x with preventitive measures y - e.g., revamp the educational system to reinforce the value of education through borderline indoctrination, which will lessen the rates of crime.

I mean, seriously, the reason why we have shitty kids today who indulge in debauchery and all this crime is because some parents couldn't raise their children properly. Because of this, you, your neighbour and your bretheren are the ones who have to pay for the product of someone's unplanned or terrible child-raising techniques. This is something that doesn't sit quite well with me.

You don't have to be rich or poor (though it helps) to raise children the right way - you just have to have to instill plain old discipline and good morals into them through the use of moderate child physical punishment.

I can't really say much, since I'm not an expert on social issues, but my suggest is that the government should enforce mandatory parenting classes for those expecting their first born children so we have less crime going on.

Furthermore, I agree with using guns to kill people who tresspass on your property. If someone you don't want is on your property and is doing (most often) some bad shit in your house, you have the right to protect your own property.

[Animeniax]

I mean, seriously, the reason why we have shitty kids today who indulge in debauchery and all this crime is because some parents couldn't raise their children properly. Because of this, you, your neighbour and your bretheren are the ones who have to pay for the product of someone's unplanned or terrible child-raising techniques. This is something that doesn't sit quite well with me.

You don't have to be rich or poor (though it helps) to raise children the right way - you just have to have to instill plain old discipline and good morals into them through the use of moderate child physical punishment.

I agree with you on all points. Republicans like to say that other peoples' kids are those peoples' problems, they shouldn't be a burden on everyone else. But if you don't take care of those kids, they will become criminals and cause more trouble for the good people. So in raising up the lowly to succeed, we help society as a whole. I'm not a Democrat, but I do agree with that line of thinking. Improve the conditions for the worst of society, and that improves the condition of all of humanity.

I also think we need to go back to physical punishment of children, ie paddling at schools and belt lashings at home. Timeouts do not work.

[Kraco]

I also think we need to go back to physical punishment of children, ie paddling at schools and belt lashings at home. Timeouts do not work.

Forbidding physical punishments is fucked up. It's exactly the kind of thinking that has no practical basis, only theoretical. Also the kind of thinking that seems so saintly it might get you a few votes from voters who don't anymore or yet have kids of the significant age. But I don't know how a politician proposing removing the ban would fare in the next elections.

[Ryllharu]

Coincidentally, I am reading a book about Henrietta Lacks. Up until the 1970's, physician-scientists did perform human experimentation such as injecting viruses and causes of diseases into prison inmates and volunteers often without consent for the "good of science".

Henrietta Lacks as in the immortal HeLa cancer cell line? She didn't die well because of her the type of cervical cancer she had and the inadequate treatments available at the time, but she was by no means mistreated.

She was given the array of standard procedures of the time.

Stuff like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, that's totally different. The case with Henrietta Lacks is nothing like that. Even if you do view it that way, her cells are getting their revenge on medical science anyway, but they've also done a great deal of good.

[Animeniax]

Henrietta Lacks as in the immortal HeLa cancer cell line? She didn't die well because of her the type of cervical cancer she had and the inadequate treatments available at the time, but she was by no means mistreated.

She was given the array of standard procedures of the time.

Stuff like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, that's totally different. The case with Henrietta Lacks is nothing like that. Even if you do view it that way, her cells are getting their revenge on medical science anyway, but they've also done a great deal of good.

I've wondered about the uproar over the Tuskegee syphillis experiment, particularly the issue people have with not informing the subjects or providing the cure when it became available. If the guys didn't know about the treatment anyway, what's wrong with not telling them? People need to educate themselves, not wait for others to tell them what's what.

[enkoujin]

Henrietta Lacks as in the immortal HeLa cancer cell line? She didn't die well because of her the type of cervical cancer she had and the inadequate treatments available at the time, but she was by no means mistreated.

She was given the array of standard procedures of the time.

Stuff like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, that's totally different. The case with Henrietta Lacks is nothing like that. Even if you do view it that way, her cells are getting their revenge on medical science anyway, but they've also done a great deal of good.

The book (Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot) about Henrietta Lacks discussed other medical events like the Tuskgee syphilis experiment and Southam's [other] experiments - I never said that Henrietta Lacks was the subject of unfair human experimentation.

I apologize for any misunderstandings you may have had, Ryllharu.

If the guys didn't know about the treatment anyway, what's wrong with not telling them? People need to educate themselves, not wait for others to tell them what's what.

From what I've read in the book, some of the inmates from the Ohio pentitary volunteered to be medical lab rats. They hoped that by being experiments, they could redeem themselves from the crimes they've done. I wonder why we don't have criminals with such nobleness in this day and age.

[Animeniax]

From what I've read in the book, some of the inmates from the Ohio pentitary volunteered to be medical lab rats. They hoped that by being experiments, they could redeem themselves from the crimes they've done. I wonder why we don't have criminals with such nobleness in this day and age.

I don't think it matters if they consent or not, they are protected by ethics committees and the law against this sort of thing. I think being in prison qualifies you as having diminished capacity to make your own decisions, effectively preventing you from choosing to participate freely in experimentation.

[UChessmaster]

4 year old girl gets sued for negligence

Only in America.

[Kraco]

Only in America.

They'll soon start to sue animals as well, like they did in medieval Europe.

[Buffalobiian]

People under the age of 17 can not be sued here, for better or worse.

[Assertn]

4 year old girl gets sued for negligence

Only in America.

Family sues a genie
Only in... Saudi Arabia?

Edit: Also, I don't know if you actually read your article but, uh... the old lady died as a result of the kids severly injuring her. It sounds like the old lady was in plain view, too. Of course, the power of the media makes it easy to just isolate a sentence and extrapolate a completely different tone for the article, doesn't it?

[Death BOO Z]

Family sues a genie
Only in... Saudi Arabia?

If I had to guess, I'd say that the family knows pretty darn well who's harassing them, but cannot sue directly because it would constitute as dirt slinging, or might be accounted in a different trial going on between the two fractions. So, by blaming it on 'natural spirits', they publicly force the justice system to look into it, and dig out the "real" culprit, who they already know very well.

...to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street

well, that sure is risky behavior, running!
I think that the training wheels should be the key point here. the children were not professionally qualified to use and control bicycles, and they have announced it by using the training wheels. any “reasonably prudent adult,” who presumably lived in the age before cars and mass transportation , should know that children can bump into people when riding their bicycles.

[Buffalobiian]

Edit: Also, I don't know if you actually read your article but, uh... the old lady died as a result of the kids severly injuring her. It sounds like the old lady was in plain view, too. Of course, the power of the media makes it easy to just isolate a sentence and extrapolate a completely different tone for the article, doesn't it?

That sentence was apparent, but wasn't dwelled on. Whether the lady died or not only impacts on the severity of the action and the resulting compensation, not whether or not someone is qualified to be negligible for that said action.

To me, the problem lies with the arbitrary line of responsibility that is "4 years of age". Is there some sort of evidence to back up that line? Some study that indicates children above the age of 4 are capable of being responsible for their own actions and comprehending the consequence like and adult? At the same time, that those under this age of 4 are equally unable to do so and therefore should be exempt from responsibility or negligence?

While the age of 18 here is still "arbitrary" to an extent, it's commonly accepted as being more reasonable. You can choose your own education. You can move out of home. You can drink. You can vote. You can marry. While there may not be any physiological evidence that behaviour over the age of 18 should be more reasonable than 17, you're expected to exercise reasonable judgement (and be accountable for it) since you're given the right to the above actions that make you a free adult.

I really can't say the same for a kid below the age of 5.

[Assertn]

That sentence was apparent, but wasn't dwelled on. Whether the lady died or not only impacts on the severity of the action and the resulting compensation, not whether or not someone is qualified to be negligible for that said action.

Well, maybe, but the point is that its not so strange for the position of the prosecution once you put in a little more context. People see the tagline "4 year old was negligent" and immediately default to "oh, kids will be kids" without any sort of context. Of course that context can still range from rough-housing on the monkey bars to pummeling the neighbor's cat with a baseball bat. Yes, kids do stupid things, but there should be some primitive sense of right and wrong present there, even if its not as attuned in a 4 year old as it is in an 18 year old.

Also, in defense of the prosecution, I think the whole intention of filing a lawsuit was not necessarily to ruin these kids, but to bring attention to the situation in court and allow it to properly compensate the victims.

@Death BOO Z: Now that you mention it, I seem to remember reading about the mud-slinging paranoia of that culture. Supposedly its not too uncommon to blame abstract things in favor of the obvious culprit.