8 ms·

For those of you who claim that the right thing in this situation would be to turn the child over to the authorities - what exactly do you think the authorities

by yelsgib 14y ago

For those of you who claim that the right thing in this situation would be to turn the child over to the authorities - what exactly do you think the authorities are going to do to make this situation better? The child obviously has some darkness that he needs to work through - to work through darkness he needs the support of a loving community. I find it very sad and disturbing that some commenters (who I assume are adults) believe that the right thing to do is to hand a child like this over to the police or mental institutions. This idea that the police are some sort of magical wand that you can wave at problems to make them go away is at the center of our (our here meaning the US & Britain's) social decay (c.f. the current treatment of drug abusers, ethnic minorities, and the "mentally ill" in the United States). Assuming this story is true, what OP did was the right, human, adult thing to do - to treat the child as a human being capable of change and growth and to see to it that the community accepted him and moved him towards change. Concepts like "justice" and "psychosis" are easy to throw around and are very practical, but their use is typically the root of more harm than good.

maskedinvader 14y ago
well said, the story seems a little too dramatic for me to believe is possible...wow ! I mean mailing stuff...May be the right thing to do is to show the damage done which the author did, and to let the kid off with some counselling and forgiveness allowing a chance for him to change his ways and have a shot at a bright future.
minitrollster 14y ago
I don't think the point people are making when they say he should be handed to the authorities is that they'll fix him. The point is that he should answer for his actions. Fixing the darkness or not, the kid DID make death threats and make someone's life miserable by unacceptable and criminal means. Criminals need rehabilitation, but they also need to be taught that their behaviour is unacceptable.
- yelsgib 14y ago
  It's unfortunate that you have such strong authoritarian beliefs. Can I convince you that your ideas that criminals (this child is 17 - he has not, by our own state's very definition - attained an age where he can be defined as a criminal or where he can knowingly enter into the social moral contract that binds adults) "need to be taught that their behavior is unacceptable" is a very modern one and - what's more - one that is supported by state propaganda? Do you actually believe that anyone who enters the prison system is "taught that their behavior is unacceptable?" Many sources indicate that the more common response to incarceration is "criminalization" - that this child has a high probability of connecting with negative forces which will push him further down the path of his darkness. I recommend you read "Discipline and Punish" by Foucault - I think it would open your ideas to the genealogy of some of the ideals underpinning your beliefs and apparent faith in the modern justice system.
  - akldfgj 14y ago
    You credibly describe the flaws of the prison system, but you don't offer any alternatives. Frankly, given the choice of a rock and a hard place, it is better to have a criminal in jail half his life and terrorizing society half his life, then terrorizing society for his entire life. We aren't looking at Jean Valjeans here.
    - yelsgib 14y ago
      In my opinion, to situate this conversation in a framework where "alternatives" are to be considered is to already assume an authoritarian stance. I believe that the model you are assuming is one in which there is some sort of established "government" which selects among alternative systems sharing the property that they are maintained by varying degrees of implicit/explicit use of force. I would never claim to know how to set up a working mental health system or a functional system of criminal rehabilitation. What I claim is that the properties that these institutions have in the U.S. are MAINLY determined by historical accumulation (trauma -> reaction) rather than by organic growth from well-defined principles. I advocate the decompilation of these institutions and the organic outgrowth of new, community-based (preferably non-governmental) institutions. I agree that there may be cases in which a "criminal" (your word, not mine) must be separated out from society [1], but that these cases are far, far rarer than most people believe. Most "criminals" in the U.S. are ethnic minorities suffering under an incoherent and evil system of drug criminalization. From an unsystematic/non-governmental standpoint, I also believe that society needs to do more work in increasing its acceptance of different psychological and mental needs from a younger age. I'm very lucky that I was put in a "gifted" program because, had such a program not existed, my rage would have been intense, long-lasting, and I honestly may have killed someone. If my talents had been treated as a "difference" in the way that most peoples' are (exclusion from social events, bullying, emotional and mental abuse, punishment, etc.) I would have turned out very differently indeed. Perhaps the reason that I feel so strongly about this topic is that there is a great deal of darkness in me (I don't believe everyone is like this). I throw a tremendous amount of personal effort at overcoming it/transforming it/thinking about whether it's really "darkness." During certain periods of history (including this one) homosexuality was seen as "darkness" in many places - now we think back on these periods as being backwards/bigoted/wrong. I must accept that some of my personal darkness is NOT bad/evil (e.g. some of my perverse sexual tastes) but that it only APPEARS bad to many people in society. I have come, through discussion and queer community support, to accept parts of myself that I have been ridiculed for and told were evil from a very young age - which ridicule and torment drove me deep into despair and hatred. I suppose that I am ultimately advocating acceptance of darkness because I don't really believe in darkness. I believe that if we accept what we currently think about as dark (ultimately, for instance, it would be great if we could accept death) then we will see that it is not so dark after all. THEN WE CAN LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER, THE END. ----- [1] Let me be clear, here. I can't even really name any. Maybe certain serial killers/mass murderers - but who else? Who, really, needs to be put in permanent time-out, anymore? Can you even name anyone?
- wpietri 14y ago
  Do you really think that after that long sit-down with his victim he doesn't understand his behavior is unacceptable?
zainny 14y ago
And your implication that a "loving community" can wave a magic wand and make this sick adult better is equally incorrect. I would suggest in fact that some of the signs this troubled individual would behave in this manner were probably already apparent to his parents, but they chose to dismiss it because no parent really believes their own child can be capable of such horrible behaviour. This is a person that needs professional help - from an objective third party. The authorities, while certainly imperfect, can provide this. For all you know, when this adult was confronted and "broke down" it could have all been an act. He could truly be a psychopath (and his actions certainly suggest that)
- muhuk 14y ago
  I would probably do the same thing, I would probably not report the child of my friend to authorities. But looking at this as a third person; I think he got away too easily. He did something evil, he got caught and what are the consequences? A slap on the wrist.
  - zainny 14y ago
    That's the problem with the "loving community will fix everything" theory in a nutshell. Parents or friends of a person who is dangerous to society will turn a blind eye, be more easily coerced, manipulated, etc. A loving community will see the signs of recovery in a person, not because there is necessarily any, but because it's what they want to see.
    - rooshdi 14y ago
      There are outliers, but love has contagious qualities in most instances.
      - tinco 14y ago
        What kind of persons downvote this comment? (please someone argument this I am really curious why this happened)
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Stop. Rewind. You are calling a 17 year old person a "child". This is wrong, and perfectly in keeping with the trend of failing to raise children into mature adults. 17 year olds will be able to vote on their next birthday. They can hold jobs, they can drive cars, they can fly planes, they can even serve in the armed forces with their parents' permission. 17 year olds fought in the battle of Iwo Jima. Calling this person a child diminishes them, and takes away their capacity for agency and responsibility. A big part of being a healthy, functional adult in society is responsibility. You can nurture them within a loving community all you want but if you protect them entirely from the consequences of their actions they will never become anything more than children.
- anonymous 14y ago
  Just because he's 17 doesn't mean he has grown up. He obviously hasn't and treating him like a grown-up and expecting him to take responsibility when he obviously hasn't reached that part of his mental development would be very detrimental. That's why the article writer made sure to impress upon his parents that the boy needs counselling - to work through and correct whatever mental/behavioural issues he has. That argument of course only holds if your goal is utilitarian with regards to the well-being of society as a whole and that family in particular. If you just seek to satisfy your inner craving for "justice", by all means - call the cops, destroy his life, create another criminal and drug user and watch him and his parents lose any hope of normal life, while you laugh and twirl your moustache from atop the moral high tower.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    If it would be detrimental to him to "grow up" then will it not be detrimental to society to put him out in a world where he could do harm to others? Especially given that he already has a history of doing exactly that? If the premise here is that this man-child is too immature to take on the responsibilities of adult society (such as the right to own firearms, the right to drive automobiles, the right to drink alcohol, etc.), that he is in some way developmentally disabled, then should he not be kept away from society and denied the ability to hurt others? You are setting up a false dichotomy here. You are saying that the choice is either that this person be sheltered by a nurturing and loving community who protects him from the consequences of his actions and if not then his life will be ruined utterly. He needs to face the consequences of his actions. He needs to learn that it is necessary to abide by just laws in order to live in society and to fail to do so will result in very serious consequences. If he cannot accept any responsibility then he has no place in civil society. What are the possible consequences of someone being sheltered from the consequences of their vile, hateful, violent acts? That person can become mentally and emotionally twisted and their hatred and lust for wanton destruction can grow. And this can occur even within the sheltering arms of a loving community. And then the hurt they cause others and the irreparable damage they do to themselves becomes even greater until they become a monster. A rapist, a serial killer, or merely an outcast who cannot mesh with society. This is not about moral high towers, this is about ensuring that society does not become burdened with so-called adults who have never faced true responsibility and are incapable of functioning properly within society.
lwhi 14y ago
Retribution isn't constructive, rehabilitation is. If the authorities were able to enter him into a programme of psychotherapy, perhaps this would have been the better option. I think the young person who committed the abuse probably could be classed as someone with a (possibly extreme) personality disorder. Bearing this in mind, turning the other cheek and allowing him to continue unhindered isn't going to be that constructive. Counselling was mentioned - I really hope the perpetrator receives some; for his sake, and the sake of all those he comes into contact with.
giardini 14y ago
The authorities are precisely the proper people to turn the "child" over to. Only they would have the resources and skills required to determine whether the troll has performed similar acts before and whether he is a psychotic (of course the parents also likely know, but aren't likely to do anything effective). Also because it provides a record of his activity for future reference. I don't believe the "game" excuse - I think the troll is a full-blown psychopath.
anamax 14y ago
> For those of you who claim that the right thing in this situation would be to turn the child over to the authorities - what exactly do you think the authorities are going to do to make this situation better? The authorities are going to stop the harrassment. You seem to be under the illusion that harrassed people have some obligation to help their harrassers. Feel free to help this wayward person but you're way out of line in complaining that the victim didn't do so.

by yelsgib 14y ago

maskedinvader 14y ago

well said, the story seems a little too dramatic for me to believe is possible...wow ! I mean mailing stuff...May be the right thing to do is to show the damage done which the author did, and to let the kid off with some counselling and forgiveness allowing a chance for him to change his ways and have a shot at a bright future.

minitrollster 14y ago

I don't think the point people are making when they say he should be handed to the authorities is that they'll fix him. The point is that he should answer for his actions. Fixing the darkness or not, the kid DID make death threats and make someone's life miserable by unacceptable and criminal means. Criminals need rehabilitation, but they also need to be taught that their behaviour is unacceptable.

yelsgib 14y ago
It's unfortunate that you have such strong authoritarian beliefs. Can I convince you that your ideas that criminals (this child is 17 - he has not, by our own state's very definition - attained an age where he can be defined as a criminal or where he can knowingly enter into the social moral contract that binds adults) "need to be taught that their behavior is unacceptable" is a very modern one and - what's more - one that is supported by state propaganda? Do you actually believe that anyone who enters the prison system is "taught that their behavior is unacceptable?" Many sources indicate that the more common response to incarceration is "criminalization" - that this child has a high probability of connecting with negative forces which will push him further down the path of his darkness. I recommend you read "Discipline and Punish" by Foucault - I think it would open your ideas to the genealogy of some of the ideals underpinning your beliefs and apparent faith in the modern justice system.
- akldfgj 14y ago
  You credibly describe the flaws of the prison system, but you don't offer any alternatives. Frankly, given the choice of a rock and a hard place, it is better to have a criminal in jail half his life and terrorizing society half his life, then terrorizing society for his entire life. We aren't looking at Jean Valjeans here.
  - yelsgib 14y ago
    In my opinion, to situate this conversation in a framework where "alternatives" are to be considered is to already assume an authoritarian stance. I believe that the model you are assuming is one in which there is some sort of established "government" which selects among alternative systems sharing the property that they are maintained by varying degrees of implicit/explicit use of force. I would never claim to know how to set up a working mental health system or a functional system of criminal rehabilitation. What I claim is that the properties that these institutions have in the U.S. are MAINLY determined by historical accumulation (trauma -> reaction) rather than by organic growth from well-defined principles. I advocate the decompilation of these institutions and the organic outgrowth of new, community-based (preferably non-governmental) institutions. I agree that there may be cases in which a "criminal" (your word, not mine) must be separated out from society [1], but that these cases are far, far rarer than most people believe. Most "criminals" in the U.S. are ethnic minorities suffering under an incoherent and evil system of drug criminalization. From an unsystematic/non-governmental standpoint, I also believe that society needs to do more work in increasing its acceptance of different psychological and mental needs from a younger age. I'm very lucky that I was put in a "gifted" program because, had such a program not existed, my rage would have been intense, long-lasting, and I honestly may have killed someone. If my talents had been treated as a "difference" in the way that most peoples' are (exclusion from social events, bullying, emotional and mental abuse, punishment, etc.) I would have turned out very differently indeed. Perhaps the reason that I feel so strongly about this topic is that there is a great deal of darkness in me (I don't believe everyone is like this). I throw a tremendous amount of personal effort at overcoming it/transforming it/thinking about whether it's really "darkness." During certain periods of history (including this one) homosexuality was seen as "darkness" in many places - now we think back on these periods as being backwards/bigoted/wrong. I must accept that some of my personal darkness is NOT bad/evil (e.g. some of my perverse sexual tastes) but that it only APPEARS bad to many people in society. I have come, through discussion and queer community support, to accept parts of myself that I have been ridiculed for and told were evil from a very young age - which ridicule and torment drove me deep into despair and hatred. I suppose that I am ultimately advocating acceptance of darkness because I don't really believe in darkness. I believe that if we accept what we currently think about as dark (ultimately, for instance, it would be great if we could accept death) then we will see that it is not so dark after all. THEN WE CAN LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER, THE END. ----- [1] Let me be clear, here. I can't even really name any. Maybe certain serial killers/mass murderers - but who else? Who, really, needs to be put in permanent time-out, anymore? Can you even name anyone?
wpietri 14y ago
Do you really think that after that long sit-down with his victim he doesn't understand his behavior is unacceptable?

zainny 14y ago

And your implication that a "loving community" can wave a magic wand and make this sick adult better is equally incorrect. I would suggest in fact that some of the signs this troubled individual would behave in this manner were probably already apparent to his parents, but they chose to dismiss it because no parent really believes their own child can be capable of such horrible behaviour. This is a person that needs professional help - from an objective third party. The authorities, while certainly imperfect, can provide this. For all you know, when this adult was confronted and "broke down" it could have all been an act. He could truly be a psychopath (and his actions certainly suggest that)

muhuk 14y ago
I would probably do the same thing, I would probably not report the child of my friend to authorities. But looking at this as a third person; I think he got away too easily. He did something evil, he got caught and what are the consequences? A slap on the wrist.
- zainny 14y ago
  That's the problem with the "loving community will fix everything" theory in a nutshell. Parents or friends of a person who is dangerous to society will turn a blind eye, be more easily coerced, manipulated, etc. A loving community will see the signs of recovery in a person, not because there is necessarily any, but because it's what they want to see.
  - rooshdi 14y ago
    There are outliers, but love has contagious qualities in most instances.
    - tinco 14y ago
      What kind of persons downvote this comment? (please someone argument this I am really curious why this happened)

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Stop. Rewind. You are calling a 17 year old person a "child". This is wrong, and perfectly in keeping with the trend of failing to raise children into mature adults. 17 year olds will be able to vote on their next birthday. They can hold jobs, they can drive cars, they can fly planes, they can even serve in the armed forces with their parents' permission. 17 year olds fought in the battle of Iwo Jima. Calling this person a child diminishes them, and takes away their capacity for agency and responsibility. A big part of being a healthy, functional adult in society is responsibility. You can nurture them within a loving community all you want but if you protect them entirely from the consequences of their actions they will never become anything more than children.

anonymous 14y ago
Just because he's 17 doesn't mean he has grown up. He obviously hasn't and treating him like a grown-up and expecting him to take responsibility when he obviously hasn't reached that part of his mental development would be very detrimental. That's why the article writer made sure to impress upon his parents that the boy needs counselling - to work through and correct whatever mental/behavioural issues he has. That argument of course only holds if your goal is utilitarian with regards to the well-being of society as a whole and that family in particular. If you just seek to satisfy your inner craving for "justice", by all means - call the cops, destroy his life, create another criminal and drug user and watch him and his parents lose any hope of normal life, while you laugh and twirl your moustache from atop the moral high tower.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  If it would be detrimental to him to "grow up" then will it not be detrimental to society to put him out in a world where he could do harm to others? Especially given that he already has a history of doing exactly that? If the premise here is that this man-child is too immature to take on the responsibilities of adult society (such as the right to own firearms, the right to drive automobiles, the right to drink alcohol, etc.), that he is in some way developmentally disabled, then should he not be kept away from society and denied the ability to hurt others? You are setting up a false dichotomy here. You are saying that the choice is either that this person be sheltered by a nurturing and loving community who protects him from the consequences of his actions and if not then his life will be ruined utterly. He needs to face the consequences of his actions. He needs to learn that it is necessary to abide by just laws in order to live in society and to fail to do so will result in very serious consequences. If he cannot accept any responsibility then he has no place in civil society. What are the possible consequences of someone being sheltered from the consequences of their vile, hateful, violent acts? That person can become mentally and emotionally twisted and their hatred and lust for wanton destruction can grow. And this can occur even within the sheltering arms of a loving community. And then the hurt they cause others and the irreparable damage they do to themselves becomes even greater until they become a monster. A rapist, a serial killer, or merely an outcast who cannot mesh with society. This is not about moral high towers, this is about ensuring that society does not become burdened with so-called adults who have never faced true responsibility and are incapable of functioning properly within society.

lwhi 14y ago

Retribution isn't constructive, rehabilitation is. If the authorities were able to enter him into a programme of psychotherapy, perhaps this would have been the better option. I think the young person who committed the abuse probably could be classed as someone with a (possibly extreme) personality disorder. Bearing this in mind, turning the other cheek and allowing him to continue unhindered isn't going to be that constructive. Counselling was mentioned - I really hope the perpetrator receives some; for his sake, and the sake of all those he comes into contact with.

giardini 14y ago

The authorities are precisely the proper people to turn the "child" over to. Only they would have the resources and skills required to determine whether the troll has performed similar acts before and whether he is a psychotic (of course the parents also likely know, but aren't likely to do anything effective). Also because it provides a record of his activity for future reference. I don't believe the "game" excuse - I think the troll is a full-blown psychopath.

anamax 14y ago

> For those of you who claim that the right thing in this situation would be to turn the child over to the authorities - what exactly do you think the authorities are going to do to make this situation better? The authorities are going to stop the harrassment. You seem to be under the illusion that harrassed people have some obligation to help their harrassers. Feel free to help this wayward person but you're way out of line in complaining that the victim didn't do so.