But but but everyone other than me and you think there should be different rules for everyone...
But but but everyone other than me and you think there should be different rules for everyone...
Anyone who believes that how good a student someone is has anything to do with making there punishment less, is only a stones throw away from saying that a certain sect of people is better than/ deserves to be treated differently than others.
I'm not saying that I hope the girl is expelled and her future destroyed, but I have no pity for stupid people.
There are clearly a number of people saying BECAUSE she is an honor roll student she shouldn't have her future ruined by a mistake. I honestly don't think that this would ruin her future at all. Leave it up to Barry O and all of our futures are ruined, the republicans aren't any better though.
Personally, yes, I think it matters that she is an Honor Roll student. Why? Because character SHOULD count for something! Intent should count for something.
Zero tolerance policies put Honor Roll Students, and thugs with criminal records, in the same boat under the guise of "equality", and you agree with that??
Do you think Judges should not consider the testimony of character witnesses during a trial? Should Judges ignore criminal history? By your logic a career criminal who intentionally runs over his girlfriend during a fight should be punished exactly the same as a Minister who lost control of their car and accidentally hit a pedestrian. The action and the outcomes are the same, right? Both situations involved a car, hitting a person. Zero Tolerance, just consider the act, not the intent and sentence them both the same??
You are equating being smart (Honor Roll) with good character? I believe only intent should count. So a D average student should get punished more than a Honor Roll Student?
I don't agree with Zero Tolerance Polices; if you look at our laws, intent is codified into our laws. Isn't this why someone, based on intent, can be charge with manslaughter vs. Murder in the 1st Degree vs. Murder in the 2nd Degree?
You are equating being smart (Honor Roll) with good character? I believe only intent should count. So a D average student should get punished more than a Honor Roll Student?
I don't agree with Zero Tolerance Polices; if you look at our laws, intent is codified into our laws. Isn't this why someone, based on intent, can be charge with manslaughter vs. Murder in the 1st Degree vs. Murder in the 2nd Degree?
IIUC, the point is that if two students, one earning a straight 70% average and the other earning a 95% average both are found to be in possession of unloaded rifles in their vehicles ("found" by whatever means; I get that the student in the story told on herself) and both are suspended from school for identical periods of time, the A student is already punished more because while it is unlikely that the barely-C student will be trying to go to college where admission is competitive if at all, the A student probably has high aspirations that necessitate not only a university degree but that it be a university with an excellent reputation. Such a place would look disfavorably on the applicant with as much as a reprimand, let alone a disciplinary suspension. I would be surprised if the latter did not result in an automatic disqualification of consideration.
Intent is important when one commits a crime of violence, yes. Is it really so important when the crime is one that harms no one?
Being smart does not indicate good character, no. I look at it more that the C student could be of equal intelligence but lackadaisical in commitment. Far less likely that the student with a solid A average, honor roll, etc. is there without effort. Of greater value in indicating the girl's character is the fact that she realized she'd done something wrong and told on herself despite knowing it would likely result in punishment anyway. I think that while she may have been hoping for clemency, the fact that she told without a guarantee of it says far more than anything else here.
The problem is the laws. Not the act, not the intent, not the "zero tolerance" aspect... the laws themselves are wrong. They need changed.
Blessings,
Bill
No, I am not over simplifying it to that degree at all. I realize that Honor Roll Students can have bad character, however, I would think that usually that is not the case. Being on the Honor Roll isnt just about intelligences. It is about discipline and dedication as well. Both good character traits, yes?
Of course. My point is it should not matter about the character of the student unless it bears on intent. I'm a D avg. student. I am lazy. I am happy go luck and great kid that will do anything for anyone. I go hunting and forget my gun in my trunk. I inform the teacher. Should I be treated any different from the Honor Roll Student?
Or I am pretty much a A-Hole Student. Late many times. Skips School. I do the same thing above. Should I be punished more? If the answer is no than I misread your posts.
I agree with you except on the "not the "zero tolerance" aspect" part.
Zero Tolerance is a problem, and not just on this issue. Take for example, the little girl that got stripped searched in school looking for her Midol she brought to school, under their "zero drug tolerance" policy.
Zero tolerance is PC garbage that turns into laziness on the Official's part.
Zero tolerance is PC garbage that turns into laziness on the Official's part.
I see your point. Intent is WAY more important than the Honor Roll, I was just assuming Honor Roll implied good character in most cases.
If kid A, honor roll student, comes into school with a gun to act "bad" they should be punished more harshly than kid B, a lazy D student, who had an unloaded hunting rifle in the locked trunk.