Working with Kids
Counseling, inspiring and teaching kids.
807 topics in this forum
-
- 0 replies
- 137 views
-
- 3 replies
- 207 views
-
- 0 replies
- 295 views
-
- 0 replies
- 231 views
-
- 3 replies
- 545 views
-
- 32 replies
- 1903 views
-
- 7 replies
- 723 views
-
- 6 replies
- 609 views
-
- 5 replies
- 690 views
-
- 1 reply
- 474 views
-
- 3 replies
- 449 views
-
- 14 replies
- 1115 views
-
- 26 replies
- 1674 views
-
- 10 replies
- 894 views
-
- 105 replies
- 6190 views
-
LATEST POSTS
-
By Troop75Eagle · Posted
I would like to suggest that more sympathy to the victim needs to start with, as a glaring example, of actually following through with justice in the correct sense of the word. There have been many cases of investigative police jurisdictions not processing thousands of rape kits, but letting them simply accumulate. Justice, properly defined, would entail having the processes established followed so that the legal process could move on. Whatever the reason: gross negligence, incompetence, depraved indifference, lack of staffing or even vindictiveness...this is not justice.’ As it is commonly used, ‘no justice’ seems to imply that the justice system is supposed to have a foregone conclusion with the justice system as only a rubber stamp for popular opinion. -
I don't think we need harsher sentencing. 18 year sounds just about right for armed robbery. The problem isn't with the sentencing. The problem is with what happens after the sentencing. This story is a good example. Sympathy with the victim would require the convicted felon (his lawyers, his advocates, and everyone else who is trying to spring him from jail) to have no contact whatsoever with the victim. No contact at all. It is bad enough that the victims have to relive the experience for several years while the trial is going on. They shouldn't have to go through it again 10 years later when the criminal is seeking a reduction in sentence. Programs like this not only allow the perpetrator to contact the victims, they encourage and incentivize it. Programs like the one in this story should be illegal. -
By Troop75Eagle · Posted
Yes. I agree. With choice of terms, I wanted to think of something that was so powerful that one couldn’t easily find an exception. Thanks for the upvote. -
One might think that being tagged with that ridiculous title would be punishment in itself.
-
By Sentinel947 · Posted
I live in Dan Beard Council. Her Foundation would be the ones to decide. They said in the article you cited, said her Foundation supports organizations removing her name. "The Marge and Charles J. Schott Foundation released a statement Tuesday, saying they support the organizations who remove her name. "While we cannot make excuses for the rhetoric made by Mrs. Schott decades ago, we can ask you to learn from Mrs. Schott’s mistakes as well as her great love for Cincinnati." They didn't object to the University of Cincinnati (my alma mater!) removing her name from the baseball stadium there. I don't think they'll object if things in the Council are renamed. If the Board does decide to rename things, I still would like to see them recognize her contributions in some way. While she had some very nasty views, and said some nasty things about Black people, she was a very generous donor to Dan Beard Council. A generation of youth have benefited from her charitable giving, and will continue to do so. https://www.fox19.com/2020/06/23/trustees-discuss-marge-schott-name-change-uc-baseball-stadium/#:~:text=Marge%20Schott%20Stadium%20was%20named,name%20from%20UC's%20baseball%20stadium. Also in the broader context of whether it's right or not.... who's going around asking for gift's back, unless there is some sort of contract that requires it? If I give a friend of mine a gift, or give an organization money, and we have a falling out, since when do I get to demand they return those gifts to me? That's not a gift, that's a loan.
-
-
Who's Online (See full list)
There are no registered users currently online