Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ludovico]

So it still boils down to whether you believe folks will make good or bad decisions, and the ultimate results.

[KK]

Of course.
It's always the individual. And it is always a decision, because even blindly following rules is a decision - the decision not to think about what the rule is meant for.

There is no perfect solution, but the problem is mostly made up of one thing: lack of common sense. The best way to improve common sense is education and raise people to think for themselves from a very young age.

Sadly, the more people follow a zero tolerance policy, the harder it is to raise children with the ability to think for themselves, because naturally that gets them in trouble when they confrong people following ZT (i.e. teachers). As smart children try to avoid trouble because it is inconvenient, they will realize that just following orders is so much easier. And that's where the snake bites its own tail in the long run....

As a tangent, I just remembered one of my fav quotes:
Reasonable people adapt to the world. Unreasonable people try to adapt the world to them. Therefore, any progress depends on unreasonable people.

[der Wandersmann]

As a friend of mine says: "I tried being reasonable. I didn't like it."

[t'Sade]

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/zero-tolerance.html

I love Bruce, he is intelligent and probably a lot more aware of things than me. The above article talks briefly about the stupidity of zero tolerance, but it also points out why we have ZT and what is wrong with it.

The reasons for ZT make sense. It avoids favoritism or biases. Such as only enforcing the "no weapons" policy for blacks instead of whites. Unfortunately, it also goes too far. As he mentioned, there is also "zero discretion" either. ZT rules don't allow for "it's just a kid" or "it is a plastic knife, it can't hurt anyone". I suspect that in many of these cases, the definition of a "weapon" is also something set in stone.

[Ludovico]

So it is an issue of the lesser of two evils. This tied in to your point about bigotry in the other thread.

In the case of schools, there is also the problem of some parents having way more influence than others, for a variety of reasons.

[t'Sade]

That is the squeaky wheel in general. People who are passionate about something are louder about it. And people respond to what is in front of them, so if you have a passionate person in your face, you have a tendency to respond to them.

Plus, I think there is a measure of CYA in that. Officials can't really afford to many scandals, so they'll bend over for the loudest majority, simply because there is usually no one else making the same level of noise.

Part of my belief is that emotions shouldn't be involved with the detection and punishment of things. People should have to justify their reasons and be willing to stand up to those justifications. But, they should also be allowed to be wrong; if they are willing to admit it.

[Ludovico]

That seems to be in favor of Zero Tolerance as the only way to remove emotions. Sort of Scotty vs Spock - unless we get Vulcans to make the decisions, emotions will way in.

[t'Sade]

That seems to be in favor of Zero Tolerance as the only way to remove emotions. Sort of Scotty vs Spock - unless we get Vulcans to make the decisions, emotions will way in.

Yeah, plus pointing out I'm wrong at the same time. The problem is, we have rules and laws made with emotions. Even if enforcing them is dispassionate, it gets frustrating. However, I don't have... the language to describe it entirely. I think the rules we made, such as ZT toward weapon in schools, as they stand today, aren't the right answer. But, I can't honestly tell you what the right one is.

I prefer punishments come from actions, not thoughts or situation. I think people should practically be crucified for driving drunk, but not punishing people for drinking. Likewise, I think people should enjoy whatever porn they want, be it violent, child, or even animal, as long as they don't actually hurt anyone. I don't think a teenage girl grabbing a picture of her breasts in her bathroom is grounds for being a registered sex offender for life. She didn't hurt anyone by taking them, but some feels that just their very presence breeds horrors.

Of course, if you wander through 4chan's /s/ channel, you see a LOT of them. Obviously the laws aren't stopping from people making or posting them. I can't tell you if someone is sixteen or nineteen; I never could. Hell, I have trouble with most things from 15-25 which is a pretty big group.

I think tolerance is an important aspect of the laws. I think there needs to be built-in discretion by those in charge, but I think they should have transparency. If you have a rule about no weapons, then instead of a zero tolerance, go with a low tolerance and document it. Find out if there is a systemic case for bigotry in the system. Then, respond to that statistics. True, people could "play" the system, as it were, but I think it would be better than ZTZD (zero tolerance, zero discretion).

[Ludovico]

Didn't mean to say you were wrong - only that a solution may be impossible. I agree with your ideas - but some folks will always go to far - in one direction or another. It's basically a lesser of two evils.

[t'Sade]

I've been thinking about this in general, mainly because in some ways I'm wrong about it. But, I think I have to take into account the fact that the punishment of ZT is usually extreme. Like automatic suspension from school (which really helps no one to kick them out of a structured environment) or sending them to a "deviant" school for six months. The punishments of ZT are usually a bit extreme for the first offense and rarely allow intent to matter.

Take child pornography. There is basically ZT for this in our country. So, what would stop someone from copying some child porn on their enemies computers and then reporting them? Or writing a virus to do the same (which I guess there are such things)? Hell, you don't even need to download it. Just make an "anonymous" tip to their employers that there might be child porn on the enemy's computer. For all purposes, it would probably be an nearly instant firing as people react emotionally first. Even if they find none, there is that "apple doesn't fall far from the tree" mentality.

I think ZT has to take the punishment into account. Extreme punishments, plus zero tolerance, plus zero discretion lead to a bad mess.

(One thing I love about intelligent discussion is it makes me think more about stuff.)

[necrocorpse]

Those two latest posts from t'Sade are right on.  There should be no laws regarding what people may view or distribute as long as they're not hurting anybody.

Part of the problem is that the laws do not recognize that there are different cultures, races and mores for different groups.  In general, a group of black kids does not act the same way as a group of white kids and the same would apply (perhaps to a lesser extent) to other groups.  It is unrealistic to expect the same rules to work equally well with all groups - and this is one big problem with integration.  Boys don't act the same as girls either.  So it is unrealistic to apply the same rules to each gender.  What we have now (by way of hyperbole) is a zoo where different animals are all kept in the same cage and expected to eat the same food at the same time and treat each other with respect.  The real world doesn't work that way - though racial/gender integration can (sometimes) work until around puberty.

[t'Sade]

It is hard to make rules for 300M people. Actually, it is impossible to make good, non-abusive rules for 300M without causing problems. One thing is, people still make all the rules 300 or even 300k people need for 300M instead of making less (but more generic) rules for the 300M.

Because (sorry, KK) that many rules does breed lawyers. And for all the "evil" lawyers, we need good ones, which means we need to breed more of them in hopes we get more of the good ones. I'm biased, I play RPG's too much and get hit with rules lawyers who take the letter of a rule (game system, legal system) and try to twist it into something for their own goals.

I think they come from catgirls.

[Ludovico]

I knew it had to be those catgirls! 

And for all the "evil" lawyers, we need good ones, which means we need to breed more of them in hopes we get more of the good ones.

Good lawyers?? 

Seriously, I think we have enough lawyers. Trying to make good laws is like the Monkey's Paw. I'm not sure if there is any answer but to keep trying.