Judging by the Entertainment....Follow

I don't think orange vested highway trash pickup is a sentence handed down by a judge, but just part of the incarceration process.

Also, I've not really checked but I think most psychologists would be in agreement that humiliation does not produce positive behavioral changes.

But mostly what bothers me the most about these weird sentences is it seems like the courts are no place to be playing around with arbitrary and capricious decisions

Maybe we should be bring back stockades (modified for ergonomic correctness of course).

The great thing about parenting is that you know your child well and have a better chance of choosing something that will produce good results. I'm not sure how we can relate that to law enforcement though. I mean, a one-size-fits-all approach is certainly attractive for fairness sake. Arguably it isn't going to get consistent results though, as people are going to react differently to the same punishment. So to what degree do you allow a judge to recognize that the traditional tools may not work in a situation, and offer up a novel punishment?

Most studies show that negative reinforcement of behavior is much less efficient in correcting behavior than positive reinforcement, but of course our penal system is based on negative reinforcement.

Well first of all I wouldn't put a hair-cut into the assault category. Second, as other's mentioned, if I was a judge and this case came before me, I'd be thinking of punishing the mother of the three year old for neglect. I'm not sure, even as a judge if I would consider a hair-cut in this instance a crime. I wonder if the three year old gave her consent?

To answer your question though, simple assault by a minor is often punished with community service, a fine, suspension of a license if a vehicle is involved. Heck, take her cell phone away for a week and she'd probably be as docile as a bunny after that.

Bullying, which this was, is considered simple assault. Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.She got the community service, a fine wouldn't be a punishment for her since I'm going to go ahead and guess she probably isn't a professional hair stylist and doesn't have her own income, and there was no vehicle involved. And taking her cell phone away seems as arbitrary and capricious a punishment as her hair getting cut.

And that where there's a bit of mystery. I suppose one would like to assume that a judge providing a novel punishment has some idea of the consequences, or has good reason to believe that the particular situation warrants this novel punishment, for whatever reason. You know, something beyond feeling overly bored, frustrated or sadistic that day.

In this case, it just seems odd overall. I mean I can see a judge rolling their eyes because given all the problems in the city they have to take time to hear a case about some borderline neglectful parent who goes tries to press charges on a couple of misbehaving teenagers she let watch her daughter. I don't know, as silly as the case is, it does make me wonder how you actually rule in such a case. I mean, it's not like you can turn away if the law says a crime was committed. At the same time it a little bit of a odd situation to begin with.

It's almost something you'd think would it thrown out if at all possible, but if you have to rule on it, what punishment is really appropriate in this case?

Edited, Jun 27th 2012 10:27am by someproteinguy

I know I'm smarter than most of the people here, and it's intimidating, but I'm not psychic. At least not at that kind of distance. Who knows? Maybe there are a lot of people in queue for community service and there isn't much space for a thirteen year old girl? Maybe he wanted to reduce her interaction with people with drug problems and other community service applicable reasons? Maybe he's secretly gay and hates women with long hair? Maybe he wanted to show her that there are people who are bigger than her in the world and she can't just do whatever she felt like? Maybe he's an alien and it's easier to attach mind probes on people with shorter hair? Maybe the three year old cried about the hair cut and the judge wanted the thirteen year old to do the same thing? Maybe he's a pedophile and just really likes short hair? Oh, maybe it's going to be really hot and he felt she'd be more comfortable with short hair?

Edited, Jun 27th 2012 1:42pm by lolgaxe

Yeah, it could have been any one of those. It clearly wasn't because it was SOP or because it's proven to be effective punishment in the deterrence of serial hair-cutters. It didn't give anything back to the community (unless they turned over the hair to Locks for Love in which case I might have been able to get behind the decision). It probably didn't give the 3 year old crime victim much satisfaction - though the toddlers mother seemed over-pleased with the sentence.

So one could conclude that the judge arbitrarily gave out a random punishment. That's a problem for me.

I wasn't talking about this particular case - as I've already mentioned.

You're running out of stuff to argue with me about and I still got an hour and a half of work left.

This reminds me of a story my barber told us when I was taking my son for his first haircut. He told us to make sure one of us was holding his hands at all times. He said that the day before he was giving a little boy his first haircut, and the kid decided to reach up and grab the scissors. Poor kid had to be taken to the hospital for stitches because they couldn't get his hand to stop bleeding.

Thanksfully, my son survived that first haircut with all of his limbs intact and now, at 3, he actually likes getting his haircut.

My thought on why that's a terrible statement:
"Hey little girl, want some candy?"
We don't need to be giving the peddlebares any ideas for excuses.

In Iran, where Sharia law applies, a guy threw acid in a woman's face. He asked her to marry him, she refused, and later he tossed the acid in her face. Anyway, this time the law was on the woman's side. Her face was melted and she was blinded for life. In a direct "eye for an eye" sentence, the judge sentenced the man to be strapped down in hospital, sedated unconscious, and enough drops of acid be carefully dropped in each eye to blind him for life. By the woman he blinded. The judge also ordered the man pay her compensation money. The woman refused to take compensation money from him, but agreed to be guided to drop the acid in his eyes with her own hand, as she wanted him to directly experience what she had to live with so he understood what he had done to her, and in hopes that the increasing number of acid attacks on women would stop. Human rights organisations world wide protested the sentence and asked that it be commuted.

An article.

Edited, Jun 28th 2012 4:29am by Aripyanfar

Just pointing out that you seem okay with arbitrary punishments, maybe not this specific one.