First-grader suspended for turning in toy gun at school

[marplots]

The "But I didn't know" defense has real world consequences.

"The members of your website are transmitting files containing kiddy porn."
"I didn't know."
"But shouldn't you have known?"
"No, I set up the site so files are encrypted and anonymous. So that I wouldn't know, because knowing would just get me in trouble."
"So, you are making money with your service, precisely because you are facilitating crimes by avoiding policing that service?"
"Yep."
"Don't you care about the consequences?"
"How could I care? I don't know what's going on."
"Well, how about we shut you down and confiscate your servers because they contain kiddy porn?"
"It's not fair that you are punishing me for something I didn't know about."

 

[Totovader]

The "But I didn't know" defense has real world consequences.

"The members of your website are transmitting files containing kiddy porn."
"I didn't know."
"But shouldn't you have known?"
"No, I set up the site so files are encrypted and anonymous. So that I wouldn't know, because knowing would just get me in trouble."
"So, you are making money with your service, precisely because you are facilitating crimes by avoiding policing that service?"
"Yep."
"Don't you care about the consequences?"
"How could I care? I don't know what's going on."
"Well, how about we shut you down and confiscate your servers because they contain kiddy porn?"
"It's not fair that you are punishing me for something I didn't know about."

What if- in your analogy- the ISP(?) instead goes to the police and says "Omigosh, one of my subscribers is uploading KIDDIE PORN! I'm turning him in."

Police: "That doesn't matter, you're the owner. Put your hands behind your back, you're going to prison for owning kiddie porn."

That's a problem.

 

[lobosrul]

This seems to be a theme in the thread. It saddens me to think that honesty, responsibility and virtue are so easily dismissed in favor of "what's best for me?"

Here's an idea. We should do the right thing, even if we are embedded in a system which doesn't. Virtue should be its own reward. I see a value in this and I hope the kid does as well.

The focus on "what can I get away with" seems to me like the kind of cold calculation a sociopath might do. We are better than that and we should expect others to self regulate as well, even when it is painful to do so.

It saddens me to think that honesty, responsibility and virtue are so easily dismissed in favor of "one size fits all punishment"*.

Here's an idea. We should not punish people for doing the right thing, even if technically they violated a rule or law. Virtue should be rewarded, not punished. I see value in that, which I believe children will as well.

The focus on "the letter of the law", seems to me the kind of cold thoughtlessness of a rigid unfeeling society. We are better than that and we should expect authorities to take circumstance into consideration, even when it takes some thought to do so.

*(and yes I think ZTP can be dishonest, irresponsible, and unvirtuous)

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Marplots, this is something the Bush Adminstration (As in, the sort that kidnapped people and tortured them) would consider idiotic.

 

[marplots]

I'm glad there are people in the world who say, "I am going to do the right thing, even though I'm going to pay a penalty for doing so."

That's the fundamental principle which underlies some pretty laudable events - the civil rights movement and a host of whistle-blowers who knew they'd lose their jobs. Good people who said, "The system may be unfair and corrupt, but I don't have to be."

 

[marplots]

Marplots, this is something the Bush Adminstration (As in, the sort that kidnapped people and tortured them) would consider idiotic.

I'm not sure what the "this" is, in your statement. Clarify?

 

[lobosrul]

I'm glad there are people in the world who say, "I am going to do the right thing, even though I'm going to pay a penalty for doing so."

That's the fundamental principle which underlies some pretty laudable events - the civil rights movement and a host of whistle-blowers who knew they'd lose their jobs. Good people who said, "The system may be unfair and corrupt, but I don't have to be."

And I'm glad there are people in the world who say, "we shouldn't be penalized for doing the right thing". Which is why we have protections for whistle-blowers, and why its no longer illegal to drink from the wrong water fountain.

This is not analogous to the civil rights movement. They were using civil disobedience to change our laws and society. This kid doesn't care that toy guns are prohibited from school. He did not bring one in to effect change in the schools rules.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I'm not sure what the "this" is, in your statement. Clarify?

Okay, someone in Afghanistan finds a rocket launcher in their car and hands it over to the US military:

Reasonable option: interrogate the Afghan thoroughly, do not prosecute if found to have behaved in good faith and possibly hire him as an informant to investigate possibility of Taliban actions.

Marplots' option: Take him to CIA Black Site.

 

[marplots]

Okay, someone in Afghanistan finds a rocket launcher in their car and hands it over to the US military:

Reasonable option: interrogate the Afghan thoroughly, do not prosecute if found to have behaved in good faith and possibly hire him as an informant to investigate possibility of Taliban actions.

Marplots' option: Take him to CIA Black Site.

You've missed a step, the step where the Afghani checks his car and doesn't take the rocket launcher to school by mistake. The toy gun is perfectly permissible at the kid's home.

A better war time example would be someone who has a live IED in their carry-on for the flight home. "I didn't know it was in my bag, I thought I left it at the base."

If that soldier unintentionally put the lives of everyone on the airplane at risk, does she still get a pass? An airplane, like a school, is a controlled environment with very strict rules. Should it matter if you didn't know you had a gun in your briefcase, or should the pilot kick you off the plane when you turn it in regardless?

The benefit of a strict policy is that it avoids having to determine whether the "I didn't know" is a lie or not.

I'm smuggling cocaine. I get cold feet. I show the drugs to the authorities and claim I didn't know. Am I still guilty of possession? Should I have known?

This whole idea of dodging responsibility by citing ignorance is offensive.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Let's see, someone finds out something is wrong, brings it to the authority's attention out of good faith and gets punished for it. what does that teach them? That the state just punishes them "Because they can?". What happens if the kid gets bullied later on in life and doesn't report it out of fear of being punished as well because they fought back?

 

[marplots]

Let's see, someone finds out something is wrong, brings it to the authority's attention out of good faith and gets punished for it. what does that teach them? That the state just punishes them "Because they can?". What happens if the kid gets bullied later on in life and doesn't report it out of fear of being punished as well because they fought back?

I rechecked last year's taxes when I filed this year. I found out I'd forgotten to report one of my 1099s. If I fix the error on this year's taxes, I'm going to pay a penalty plus interest for not reporting it. Should I keep quiet and hope for the best?

The locus of control here is in the individual, not the policy which governs them. I can decide to be virtuous in an unfair situation or I can go down the road of a little taint being OK for pragmatic reasons. And maybe next time, I'll go a little farther down the road. I mean, why mention that error in the code when they client has already paid? I certainly don't want to look bad, and what if they want a refund? And if they discover it, I'll only pay the same penalty anyhow. After all, I didn't know the error had slipped in until after the product shipped.

This type of thinking is rampant in businesses where dodging responsibility or calculating the consequences of coming clean have become the norm. GM doesn't let me know about the bad air bags until the pain of keeping quiet exceeds the pain of fessing up. They calculate the cost of the lawsuits against the cost of a recall. And on and on it goes.

What company in their right mind would willingly expose a hazard to their workers, knowing the government will punish them for it? Best to keep quiet.

We need more virtue. We need people willing to face the music, even when it comes with an unfair penalty to them. We need citizens who are bound to the idea that they, themselves, will be honest and forthright, not because of any outside motivator or reward, but because those attributes define who they are.

Yes Virginia, character matters.

 

[lobosrul]

You've missed a step, the step where the Afghani checks his car and doesn't take the rocket launcher to school by mistake. The toy gun is perfectly permissible at the kid's home.

A better war time example would be someone who has a live IED in their carry-on for the flight home. "I didn't know it was in my bag, I thought I left it at the base."

If that soldier unintentionally put the lives of everyone on the airplane at risk, does she still get a pass? An airplane, like a school, is a controlled environment with very strict rules. Should it matter if you didn't know you had a gun in your briefcase, or should the pilot kick you off the plane when you turn it in regardless?

The benefit of a strict policy is that it avoids having to determine whether the "I didn't know" is a lie or not.

I'm smuggling cocaine. I get cold feet. I show the drugs to the authorities and claim I didn't know. Am I still guilty of possession? Should I have known?

This whole idea of dodging responsibility by citing ignorance is offensive.

May I suggest reading through this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

First of all, this thread is no longer about this boy and his toy gun specifically, but about ZTP and "strict liability". They are related, and I detest both of them (except for minor traffic violations, then "strict liability" can be appropriate).

Ignoring mens rea in favor of "strict liability" is IMO both unnecessary and leads to unintended consequences.

Your soldier returning home with an IED in his possession doesn't require strict liability. This is because he acted "negligently". Is it reasonable that a solider knows that he doesn't have any explosive devises before boarding an airplane? Yes. Is it reasonable for a 1st grader to check his backpack each and every morning before going to school in case his mom left something in there he can't take to school? No.

Your drugs smuggling example: No, you shouldn't just be let go. If in fact you knew you were smuggling drugs. Given a lenient sentence for turning them and giving testimony against whomever sold them to you, sure. But, you are ignoring the possibility that someone, at some point in history, has had drugs, weapons, or explosions planted in their vehicle or baggage without their knowledge. Should that possibility just be ignored and anyone who turns in a k of coke spend the next 10 years in prison, even if their story is plausible? No? Well you don't really support strict liability.

What if I am shopping at the grocery store and when walking out to my car I realize, they forget to charge me for that case of beer at the bottom of the cart. I'd go back and pay for it. But, under strict liability I shoplifted. If I thought there was a real chance that instead of thanking me for my honesty, the manager would call the police and have me arrested, forget about it. The store just lost out on some cash they could have had. Maybe you and a few other "Dudley-do-rights" would turn it in and face the consequences, the vast majority of people wouldn't.

 

[marplots]

May I suggest reading through this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

First of all, this thread is no longer about this boy and his toy gun specifically, but about ZTP and "strict liability". They are related, and I detest both of them (except for minor traffic violations, then "strict liability" can be appropriate).

Ignoring mens rea in favor of "strict liability" is IMO both unnecessary and leads to unintended consequences.

It seems to me the only fix needed would be to inform parents and students that they are not allowed to bring guns (toy or otherwise) to school, and it is their responsibility to ensure they do not do so. Akin to the warnings broadcast at the airport about not leaving your bag unattended and packing it yourself.

I'd guess that the "you are responsible for what you bring to school" is already assumed, but could be stated plainly. Would you support a "strict liability" policy under those conditions?

 

[lobosrul]

I rechecked last year's taxes when I filed this year. I found out I'd forgotten to report one of my 1099s. If I fix the error on this year's taxes, I'm going to pay a penalty plus interest for not reporting it. Should I keep quiet and hope for the best?

What if the consequences for admitting a mistake on your taxes was exactly the same as willfully and intentionally under reporting your income, something which can land you in the federal pen for a good long while? Would you hesitate to report it then? If not, do you think others would be persuaded to do so?

 

[lobosrul]

It seems to me the only fix needed would be to inform parents and students that they are not allowed to bring guns (toy or otherwise) to school, and it is their responsibility to ensure they do not do so. Akin to the warnings broadcast at the airport about not leaving your bag unattended and packing it yourself.

I'd guess that the "you are responsible for what you bring to school" is already assumed, but could be stated plainly. Would you support a "strict liability" policy under those conditions?

No, the boy knew he couldn't have a toy gun at school. I think that's made plain by the fact he turned it when he saw it in his backpack. I don't think its reasonable to expect a 1st grader to always know exactly what is in his baggage.

If after someone is found to have broken a rule or law, and you cannot answer yes to the following question: Did they knowingly, purposefully, recklessly, or negligently break the law/rule. Then they do not deserve to be punished.

 

[marplots]

What if the consequences for admitting a mistake on your taxes was exactly the same as willfully and intentionally under reporting your income, something which can land you in the federal pen for a good long while? Would hesitate to report it then? If not, do you think others would be persuaded to do so?

I think the consequences are the same now, aren't they? Does the IRS forgive you for mistakes? I assumed the default is, "You should have known."

I'm not a saint. I have, however, confessed to stuff because not confessing weighed on my conscience - a different sort of penalty we haven't brought up. The objective in these situations is to return, as quickly as possible, to a state of not being contrary to law (or policy). Sometimes, that journey means you pay a price. But it's worth it, or should be, to say "I did the right thing. Others did not and the policy is unfair. But I did the right thing and would do it again in the same circumstances."

We are also missing the larger picture where instituting the policy with the kid has generated much in the way of attention. It gives those concerned a chance to reevaluate things and decide if they want to keep the status quo or abandon it for something less draconian. That's also a function of doing what you are supposed to - it illuminates the situation. If the kid had remained quiet and the toy only discovered later, the entire example is polluted and made toothless.

A good way to attack a policy is to follow it to the letter and ask, "Are these the consequences you intended? Do you like this result?"

 

[The Norseman]

Cause I turned 8 last week and I've matured some.

Oookay.

This seems to be a theme in the thread. It saddens me to think that honesty, responsibility and virtue are so easily dismissed in favor of "what's best for me?"

So wrong it's not even wrong. What's being argued is "what's best for everyone?"

Again -- where was the honesty, responsibility and virtue of the adults in this situation? What great role models they were! Did any of them step up and do the right thing and ignore those overbearing, unfair and unjust rules?

Why in the hell are you wanting to put pressure on a six year old child rather than the fully grown adults who should know better?

Here's an idea. We should do the right thing, even if we are embedded in a system which doesn't. Virtue should be its own reward. I see a value in this and I hope the kid does as well.

Why leave the adults out of your rainbow filled utopia of self-rewarded virtue?

The focus on "what can I get away with" seems to me like the kind of cold calculation a sociopath might do. We are better than that and we should expect others to self regulate as well, even when it is painful to do so.

It's a foolish set of rules that does nothing to teach these virtues but reinforces a message which you seem to dislike. Why continue the farce?

I'm glad there are people in the world who say, "I am going to do the right thing, even though I'm going to pay a penalty for doing so."

That's the fundamental principle which underlies some pretty laudable events - the civil rights movement and a host of whistle-blowers who knew they'd lose their jobs. Good people who said, "The system may be unfair and corrupt, but I don't have to be."

Sure. I bet you use your GPS tracker and, at the end of the week, you add up all the times when you accidentally went over the speed limit and then you merrily head to the local courthouse and pay the fines, right?

The benefit of a strict policy is that it avoids having to determine whether the "I didn't know" is a lie or not.

Huh. I guess that... I dunno... maybe evidence could be sought. Nah. Too hard.

This whole idea of dodging responsibility by citing ignorance is offensive.

Offensive? What's putridly offensive is blindly following a bunch of rules that are inherently unjust and unfair.

 

[lobosrul]

I think the consequences are the same now, aren't they? Does the IRS forgive you for mistakes? I assumed the default is, "You should have known."

No, they are not. I thought this was common knowledge. Making a mistake on your taxes is not a criminal offense. Tax fraud is.

"Intentional filing of materially false tax returns is considered tax fraud, and is a criminal offence. Any person convicted of committing tax fraud, or aiding and abetting another in committing tax fraud, may be subject to forfeiture of property and/or jail time. Conviction and sentencing is through the court system. Responsibility for prosecution falls to the U.S. Department of Justice not the Internal Revenue Service."

Maybe we're splitting hairs here but filling your taxes incorrectly can be construed as negligence (unless you hire a CPA to do it for you). So can bringing an explosive on a plane, but I don't think a small child not checking his backpack every day can be.

 

[marplots]

Maybe we're splitting hairs here but filling your taxes incorrectly can be construed as negligence (unless you hire a CPA to do it for you). So can bringing an explosive on a plane, but I don't think a small child not checking his backpack every day can be.

Thanks for fixing my tax example. But as to bringing the toy gun to school, I think it could be viewed as negligence, if not centered on the kid, then attached to his parents. If the item in question were immediately harmful, we'd certainly be focused on how it got into the backpack in the first place instead of the "reveal."

 

[Old man]

So, it seems that, if the neighbor sneaks onto my property, plants cannabis (which I discover at a later date), marplots and NYG would think that I should be jailed and my property confiscated if I report it!