General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJudge: 13-year-old girl gets lighter sentence if her ponytail gets cut off
By Gil Aegerter, msnbc.com
A judge told a girl who cut the hair off a three-year-old child that he would reduce her sentence if her ponytail was lopped off in his courtroom, and now the girl's mother says she has filed a formal complaint, NBC station KSL of Salt Lake City reports.
Kaytlen Lopan, 13, was accused in March of assault. Police in Price, Utah, said that Lopan and an 11-year-old friend met a 3-year-old girl at a McDonald's and used scissors to cut several inches of hair from her head, KSL reported Friday.
KSL said it was given an audio recording by Lopan's mother, Valerie Bruno, of a May 28 hearing on the case and another stemming from a series of phone calls Lopan was accused of making to another teen that included threats of rape and mutilation. In the tape, KSL said, 7th District Juvenile Judge Scott Johansen ordered Lopan to serve 30 days in detention, pay restitution and serve 276 hours of community service.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/23/12376142-judge-13-year-old-girl-gets-lighter-sentence-if-her-ponytail-gets-cut-off?lite
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
no_hypocrisy
(46,117 posts)(Let the punishment fit the crime = an eye for an eye)
tawadi
(2,110 posts)But this just bothers me. 
Octafish
(55,745 posts)He'd still be in jail.
PS: The 13 year old needs counseling.
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)tawadi
(2,110 posts)Lionessa
(3,894 posts)for not keeping track of a 3 yo?
tawadi
(2,110 posts)
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)But that doesn't change the fact that the 13 year old committed a crime and should be punished.
I have zero problem with this, because it wasn't mandated - all the mother had to do was say "No, she'll do the full community service sentence and keep her hair". She made the choice, now she's mad at the judge for putting the choice out there?
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)"rape and mutilation".
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I could care less at this point about the hair. That 13 year old needs serious counseling, and she needs to not be in a position to abuse others until she gets it.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)And how do you know the 3-yo's mother hasn't been "held responsible" for not keeping track of her??? Again, it's not relevant to the perpetrator's case.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)So yes, how she got access to cut a 3yos hair in a public McDonald's is a valid question.
I get tired of children being held 100% responsible when adults who should interject don't.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Have you been to mcdonalds lately? They have these things called a play palace. Which is a maze/climbing indoor playground frequented by families with children especially if it is too wet or cold or hot outside. That's pretty much the only way a kid would be out of an adults sight at McDonalds. It happens a lot.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)They have areas where the kids can climb, tubes they can go through, slides they can ride down, etc. Something like this can be done in 5 seconds. Or, do you support kids being chained to adults until they are 4? 6? 10? Can there be no controlled place, with ONE entrance, where a parent can let their kid begin to experience they responsibility of being a safe child.
My 9 year old was at a pool and another kid intentinally smashed him over the nose with a water gun, leading to 6 stitches and a $700 bill. Am I out of line for expecting the kid's parents to pay for it? Should my nine year old have been attached to me at the pool?
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)moment in busy public places. I certainly did, even at McDs play area. Age isn't the specific issue, so an age where this is reasonable to stop isn't available, but I am absolutely certain 3 yo isn't old enough for any child to be out of sight long enough to get her hair cut to the point that anyone would think it was assault.
Parents who think otherwise disgust me.
LOS=Line of sight
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Because she will be out of my "LOS" for 3484 milliseconds LOL 
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)Really your desire to argue is so great as to put up this BS. Thanks for giving me a clue about you.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I'm not trying to argue, just playing on the Intertubes LOL..
You series today
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)Clearly it's less than 5 minutes, but I would think somewhere around a minute or two.
And yes, I am not seeing the humor in waylaying an opinion with a exaggerative nit pick.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Like, if you say it's takes my IP PBX just a "moment" to respond to my invite I'm hoping we are under 4-500 milliseconds 
Or another example, I was looking at some traces a while back and you can see where a fragmented packet never got re-assembled properly because the buffer in the router filled up for just a "moment".
A second is a long time in my world LOL
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)It's just that they go into that maze and the parents are outside of it perpetually worried their kids will get lost or stuck inside. Every once in a while a parent will have to climb in and retrieve their kids.
Its free indoor play and exercise during bad weather.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)She assaulted a toddler. That is the subject of the court ruling.
If another crime was committed, ie, the parents of the three-year-old were neglectful that is a totally separate issue and in no way diminishes the crime of the 13-year-old.
Don't know what one has to do with the other. Unless you think that a toddler wandering around McDonald's deserved to have her hair cut off by total strangers.
A properly behaved 13-year-old, and I know many of them, would have asked the toddler where her mom and dad were and brought her back to the table or to the management.
Can't figure out why you are absolving the behavior of the perpetrator of the assault on the toddler.
crunch60
(1,412 posts)told me from a very young age, that I was responsible for my actions, and she was there to guide me along the way. Teens succumb to peer pressure many times, it's a pack mentality, parents aren't always to blame.
Cutting her hair and community service, is a better punishment than a detention facility, where she might pick up some more bad habits.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)regardless, you should visit a play palace at any of these fast food places. It will explain to you very well how an adult could have lost sight of a kid.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)that someone else could have prevented you from, say, robbing that person, raping that person, or mudering that person. If someone accidentally leaves a door unlocked, is that person responsible for a home invasion that occurs thru that door?
People are responsible for their crimes. The guardian may at most be charged with negligence or something for failing to keep a close lookout. But she can't be charged for someone else's crime.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)blueamy66
(6,795 posts)they can disappear in a second...I've had a few scary moments while watching others' children at McDonald's....
No blame should be put on the Mother of the 3 year old.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Seriously folks, get over this "It's always the parent / guardian's fault!" complex. I know it makes you feel good to waggle a finger at someone you consider "bad parents" - after all, don't these people read parenting magazines in the checkout like all you good, hyper-vigilant parents who keep your kids frozen in carbonite?
Three year-olds have this funny habit of being mobile. They are usually very mobile. And amazingly, cranking a kid out of your crotch, while certainly a life-changing event that is beyond my capabilities, does not grant you actual super powers. In fact it probably dulls any super-powers you have, because you're watching this toddling nightmare made of fragile meat and mouthing compulsions most of your waking day (Well, most of the KID'S waking day; all of your days are now "waking"
. it can be tiring. Exhausting even. And surprisingly, parents are human beings, and not sitcom supermoms / wonderdads, and at times they look away. Or need to take a potty break. or simply fall over from exhaustion and the realization that their life as independent human beings is now over for another 17 years.
Cut 'em some damn slack.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)And instead blaming the children that get out of hand because adults and parents are too busy texting and talking on the phones, etc.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You sound like a Republican talking about Welfare;
"How DARE those people indulge themselves with - what is that - meat?!?! Those shiftless motherfuckers should be buying rice by the grain and wearing sackcloth and ashes!"
Wake-up call, Lionessa. Parents are human. The human condition comes with assorted weaknesses. What's more unforgivable is that their kids are human, too, and like humans, can often be prone to doing really dumb things.
You'll just have to accept that not everyone can meet the standard set by your own perfection, I guess.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)children back to their homelands that they've essentially never lived in.
I am on the childrens' safety side here (in that a parent doing it's job, this would never have happened), I've never known that to be anti-Democratic.
I get that the new thing here is to try to paint someone red, but darlin' you've so wrong that accusing me of it is beyond ludicrous.
And perhaps look in the mirror if you are so red, in your democratic thought processes, that you hold children more accountable than adults.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)They do not allow welfare recipients the luxury of humanity. You do not allow parents that luxury. Both you and they imagine that you are the pinnacle of achievement, perfectly-placed to waggle your finger in someone else's face for being "less" than you.
Do mind, I'm not accusing you of being a Republican or the like. But your argument follows the same trajectory. "I'm better than THOSE people, and as such I'm ENTITLED to make determinations of their human worth!"
One thing that sticks in my mind was when I was six or seven. A friend and I were playing in a field not too far from our houses. We had this stupid game where we'd break off these big hollow-stemmed milkweedy plants and launch them at each other like javelins. we thought it was perfectly fine, because the plants were so flimsy that they crumpled on impact. Unless it turns out, it hits someone in the eye.
I suppose the bloody eye that my friend received is his parents' fault for not being there?
Or was it MY fault for being a dumb fucking kid who thought throwing a three-pound plant stem at someone's head was fun?
Or maybe it was my parents' fault for not being there to whap me across the head and tell me "that's stupid!"
Perhaps it was my friend's fault - he didn't duck!
No, it wasn't our parents' fault. Our parents were doing exactly what you would expect; figuring that their children could play safely in their own neighborhood, without tethers and nannies and referees and alarms or whatever the fuck else. Oops.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)and I'm tired of hearing them.
Good day.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)We're not talking about cutting off hands here.
tawadi
(2,110 posts)But it was intimidating in a court room setting. And I don't think it was a positive way to handle the situation.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)The mother of the 13 year old was intimidated? Please. How hard can it be to say "No, she'll do the service hours"? It's not like the judge can do anythiing to the mom or the daughter if she doesn't cut off the hair.
Given the other accusations regarding the phone calls this kid made, cutting off her hair should be the least of her mom's worries.
But it's OK, the mom handled it - she grounded her. Probably sent her to her room with her laptop, her cell phone and her HDTV.
tawadi
(2,110 posts)More likely, it would make a teenager even more resentful of authority.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Or, it may make her understand, in some small way, how her victim felt, and make the light bulb come on that says "I don't want to make anyone else feel that way".
Either way, the mother could have said "no", and that would have been the end of it.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)felt. Empathy. She isn't getting her nose cut off and she can say no. I like the option.
BanzaiBonnie
(3,621 posts)that when someone does something that is an offense to another person, they all gather with the offender in the center of the group and they sing the birth song to that person to remind them of who they are. They are a being filled with life and value to the group.
If the purpose of justice is to bring the person back in alignment with the group, this would be the way to do it. God, we have a very broken and damaged culture. That eye for an eye stuff is crap.
I agree, counseling is definitely in order. And I also agree, where was the parent of the three year old?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)In my opinion, forgiveness and love is the path to happiness.
Of course, some people have certain mental problems, such as sociopathic tendencies, and may require a cage for everyone else's protection.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)"..threats of rape and mutilation." 
This kid needs more looking into.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)the girl's punishment should be limited to a conventional punishment, the judge should be disciplined, and the case assigned to a different judge for the punishment.
Are Utah judges not uniformly aware of the Eighth Amendment? Are they not uniformly aware that the U.S. Supreme Court held the Eighth Amendment is applicable to the states? See Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).
One problem with creative punishments is that they are not and cannot be imposed uniformly upon wrongdoers. Another problem is that those judges who substitute their own punishments for the punishments provided by the applicable statutes is those judges have been shown by history to come up with more and more unusual punishments to satisfy their creative urges.
If the judge doesn't want to follow the law, he should step down from the bench or be removed.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Because the judge didn't mandate it. He gave the option and the mother chose it.
The mother should be more concerned that she's raising a psycho than she is about her daughter having to walk around with short hair for the summer.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Eighth Amendment.
When a judge allows a person to chose an unusual punishment as an alternative to a second punishment, it can be presumed under the law that the second punishment is an excessive one.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)There is no violation of the Eighth Amendment here. The prohibition is against "cruel and unusual" not "cruel or unusual".
There was nothing cruel about this punishment in any way, shape or form.
And if you have cites that validate your claim that "When a judge allows a person to chose an unusual punishment as an alternative to a second punishment, it can be presumed under the law that the second punishment is an excessive one.", then please provide them.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)does not prohibit punishments that were in existence in the colonies at the time that the Bill of Rights was adopted, such as the flogging of seamen in the U.S. Navy and the burning of witches which had occurred earlier.
Under such reasoning, such punishments would be cruel but would not be prohibited because they would not be both "cruel and unusual."
Of all the Justices sitting on the Supreme Court throughout history, only one ever took a literalist approach to any provision within the Bill of Rights, and even then he applied his literalist approach to the First Amendment: Justice Black.
The phrase "cruel and unusual" is traceable back to the comparable language used in England in the 1600's. There is a historical context for it. The courts have repeatedly interpreted the word "and" in the disjunctive in a number of court opinions. There is nothing, other than your interpretation, to indicate that the courts would only interpret the word "and" in the conjunctive with respect to a case in which the Eighth Amendment is at issue.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Excessive? The ambiguity of your statement is large enough to drive a truck through; "chose an unusual punishment as an alternative to a second punishment"... what does that even mean, and how can it be stated without doubt that the second punishment is always excessive?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)is excessive. But you are wrong in assuming that the situation would raise a conclusive or irrebutable presumption.
Yes, there is precedent for the statement. Yes, I can cite one or more precedents for the assertion. Do I want to spend some time researching a principle of law and finding case law which I already know exists? Not really.
I'll tell you what, though. Since you seem to be operating under the belief that a judge who offers a choice between an unusual punishment and a punishment otherwise authorized by a criminal statutes does not raise an Eight Amendment issue, why don't you come up with a citation for your position?
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)You've got nothing to back up your claim.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Not saying this is definitive or all-encompassing, but for example:
Most sentencing challenges that invoke the Eighth Amendment come up in the context of excessive prison terms or other collateral consequences (such as receiving a life sentence for a "third strike" that was not a violent crime). And most of them fail; it's exceedingly rare for appellate courts to overturn sentencing decisions, particularly those that are specified by the legislature. Only a truly outrageous alternative sentence for a relatively minor crime would be a good candidate for a claim that it was cruel and unusual.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)a good candidate for a claim that it was cruel and unusual."
The alternative sentence was what?
(a) 2 hours of community service,
(b) 20 hours of community service,
(c) 27 hours of community service, or
(d) 276 hours of community service?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)And it's been my experience here at DU that the person who makes an assumption should be prepared to either note it is merely opinion, or provide an acceptable citation for whatever they're asserting.
I'm taking this response as answering in the negative.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)excessive?"
You, not I, used the word "always."
Since you re-phrased what I said in a manner inconsist with what I said, I answered in order to make it easier for you to understand that there is a difference between conclusive presumptions and rebuttable presumptions.
I did not answer in order to contribute to a continuation of your now-apparent obsession with the issue.
In contrast to you, it has never been my experiance here at DU that a person who makes an assertion "should be prepared to either note it is merely opinion, or provide an acceptable citation for whatever they're asserting."
If that is what you believe, good luck to you.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I don't have a cite.
Who's obsessed? I'm having fun.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)If so, why didn't you say so earlier?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)play with fools who refuse to back up bullshit claims that make no sense.
With you, I'm having the kind of fun a kitten has with a ball of yarn.
Are you through yet? Or would you like to be batted around some more...?
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Make a claim, when called on it, demand the other person prove your claim is wrong. Sorry, but life does not work that way. Try again.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)sense if the offender were 20 years older than she is. Equal justice under law is a fundamental principle of justice for adults.
But the girl is only 13, and the sentence was imposed in Juvenile Court. Don't kids deserve second chances after making mistakes? And don't the categories of adult jurisprudence often fail to captute the essence of youthful offenses? The 13-year old was charged with assault. But, just like a current Presidential candidate, she used a pair of scissors, not a baseball bat or brass knuckles.
Applied to kids, the logic of your argument would give eight-year-olds police rap sheets for "assault" for school-yard tussles. That actually happens in "zero tolerance" districts where local police, rather than School District safety personnel, are posted inside schools. Kids get labeled and groomed for iives of imprisonment before they even reach seventh grade.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)But in this case, she went before a judge who ordered that she "serve 30 days in detention" regardless of whether a choice was made to "serve 276 hours of community service" or to have her hair cut off.
Whatever "rap sheet" that she is going to have, it is going to reflect that she was ordered to serve "30 days in detention". That is unaffected by any choice that is made.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The lack of uniformity. Different punishments will affect different people differently. That kid might not mind having short hair for a while. Better she do the standard community service.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)She went along with it to get a shorter sentence. Nothing cruel about that. I'd say it was creative and unusual. It would have possibly been cruel if he had just ordered her hair cut off.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)This might be because the link leads to the reported story and the following dialog.
"Me, cut her hair?" Bruno asked.
"Right now," the judge said. "I'll go get a pair of scissors and we'll whack that ponytail off."
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/23/12376142-judge-13-year-old-girl-gets-lighter-sentence-if-her-ponytail-gets-cut-off?lite
crunch60
(1,412 posts)the mirror, she will remember that what she did to the 3yr old, is not acceptable behavior, and that it was shameful and hurtful.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)needs to be replaced or really cleared up. I always took that to mean either.
So we can be cruel as long as we aren't being unusual?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)horribly confusing the Constitution, especially with respect to criminal procedure and rights.
"So we can be cruel as long as we aren't being unusual?" See the death penalty.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Would that make the first one unusual?
So just make torture common then we can torture?
Cruel and unusual is something that is very open to intepretation.
crunch60
(1,412 posts)doesn't always work, and in many cases, it's a dismal failure. I agree that the Mother and the 13 y/o teen, both are in need of counseling. Threats of violence is a very serious red flag for future behavior.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)The girl was offered a choice.
If she didn't want to cut her hair, she can do the 276 hours.
She needs alot of help too.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)A little shaming goes a long way. And this girl clearly thinks she is the center of the universe. A little taste of her own medicine (which based on her behavior, she's never gotten) is probably in order. Empathy does not come naturally to everyone -- some people have to be taught that other beings have feelings.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)What the hell kind of fucked up judge is this?
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)EFerrari
(163,986 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I don't see how the mom cutting her own daughter's hair is assault or violent. Now if he had the 3 year old do it, that would be a whole different situation.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)by violating theirs. That just damages that kid and makes them more likely not to respect other people.
I'm running out of ways to put this. Here's one last try: Shaming a kid does not teach them to treat others well.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)She has no respect for other children. She attacks a 3 year old with scissors, and has threatened others.
She should have thought before she acted. You don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Really?
Shaming kids does not change their behavior for the better. Or adults, for that matter. Which is why there is an international standard to preserve the dignity of prisoners.
I can't believe the stuff I read here sometimes.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)A 'time out' and a piece of candy and a hug? Go to your room? Where there is probably a tv, computer & a phone?
She could have seriously injured that 3 year old with those scissors.
Her mother chose the punishment.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)are now invoking the mother as rationale.
Good grief.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)If she thought it was such a horrendous punishment, she should have "no".
And the "but I was intimidated" excuse is just bull, IMO. Any parent that is truly trying to protect their child, that is truly concerned for their well being, isn't going to be intimidated by anyone.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)especially the parents of acting-out teens.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)By having to make a choice in a courtroom full of people where no harm will come to her no matter what she decides?
Good call by the judge, and good call by the mother, even if she is too dumb to realize it. Of course, now that she's backed away from her choice, most likely at the behest of the little monster she's raising, she's shown the kid that there should be no consequences.
She's intimiated alright - most likely by her own daughter.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)a 3 year old's hair? Maybe we should slap some charges against Mom too?!?
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I think the Mom should be looked at. Why would this girl do something like this to a toddler? Then there are the threats of 'rape & mutilation'.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)How about the innocent 3 yr old that had her hair whacked off?
Save the children, cause they are all innocent babies....NOT
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I apologize if I was mistaken
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)It's not assault if it's voluntary.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)But we pretty much already know this family has problems, don't we?
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)But that isn't the judge's problem - he offered two options, and the mother chose one.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)She, on the other hand, assaulted a 3 year old girl.
She has the choice to either cut her hair and do less CS or not cut her hair and do the full 276 hours.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Forcing an 11 year old to choose between being assaulted and hundreds of hours of community service is ignorant and counter-productive. Where do these people come from and how do they get to the bench.
Ugh.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)The girl should have known better than to attack a toddler with scissors.
What are they supposed to do, give the 13 year old a 'time out'? She has also threatened other kids with rape & mutilation. Cut her hair, let her do the time, get her counseling before she harms somebody else.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)being ignorantly publicly shamed by this "judge".
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)She needs counseling because she assaulted a 3 year old with scissors, and has threatened other kids.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Obviously, that mother has crappy judgment and needs an intervention herself.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Do you have kids?
If some dumbass teenager cut one of my great nieces hair on a whim, I might do something I'd regret.
Save the poor children....bullshit...the 13 year old knew what she was doing.....serve the punishment
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Is that what you intended?
And yes, I have two sons that I raised myself as a single mom. They are in their 30s now but even in their teens they knew better than to respond to out of control behavior with more out of control behavior.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:24 AM - Edit history (2)
if an outta control teenager does something like this, they deserve to have it done back to them
I guess we agree
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:49 AM - Edit history (1)
If someone touched one of my great nieces or nephews, I'd go off on them. They are my world. They are innocent, trusting, lovable kids.....don't f**k with them....cause Aunt Amy will take care of them.
Teenagers are smart...they know what they are doing. Nip it in the bud (Barney Fife).
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)If the mother didn't want to cut it, she shouldn't have cut it, and the girl could have done the full community service obligation.
What would you consider an appropriate sentence for assault of a 3 year old?
crunch60
(1,412 posts)Mother and her 13 year old daughter.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)she knows right from wrong
quit coddling the kids....make them be responsible for their actions
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)IMO the 13-year-old needs to learn some foolproof method of impulse control. Can you think of a better way to teach her why she should not cut off anybody else's hair than to have to live with her own hair having been cut off? She'll learn how what she might do in a thoughtless moment can have long-lasting consequences.
Then maybe, for the rest of her life, before she does anything else as stupid as cutting off a defensless three-year-old's hair, she'll ask herself, "How would I feel if someone did that to me"? IMO the judge was not dispensing retribution but rather giving the 13-year-old a custom-built compass to help guide her behavior for the indefinite future. IMO the mother's inability to understand this true justice may help explain why her child did what she did.
What this judge did reminds me of another judge I heard about who sentences young people whose antisocial behavior seem to stem from fundamental trouble understanding other people's feelings. That judge makes them work for a cooperating flower shop for several months. Those sentenced get to experience vicariously grief (delivering flowers to wakes and funerals), joy (at weddings and other events), etc. Because of that judge, dozens of people who were missing something crucial of what makes a decent human being got chances to fix themselves before their antisocial behavior could escalate.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)You don't teach children compassion by hurting them.
Seriously, with a "justice" system like this one, no wonder 11 year old girls are assaulting younger children.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)I doubt she was "hurt" by having her hair cut. Embarassed? Probably so, and good.
Forcing someone to feel the same thing that their victim felt can indeed teach compassion. And this kid didn't even feel what her victim felt - she had a choice that she didn't give to the 3 year old that she assaulted.
And given that there is nothing in the article that indicates the girl had been in trouble before, it doesn't make sense to blame her assault of the 3 year old on any previous instances of "justice".
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)and yet the courts want to cut her hair w/out permission.
That would be akin to saying a sentence could be lighter for a wife beater, if his boss/father/uncle is given free reign to beat him.
Doesn't work out logically.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)In a truly democratic society, though, you CAN teach children social symmetry. See my post #61.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)as they learn relationship and identification. You aren't born with it, you learn it.
Okay, I'm done here.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I agree 100%.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)to society, IMO as brilliant as applications of symmetry in nature and in theoretical physics. It doesn't seem to be so popular in this DU thread, though.
You must have been raised on the Golden Rule the way I was. I was taught that my rights were no different from anybody else's and that I should never do to somebody else what I wouldn't want to happen if our roles were reversed.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I couldn't even fathom cutting some kid's hair off at a Mickey Ds as a teenager. Are you kidding me? My Mom and/or Dad would have smacked the shit outta me, grounded me and let the justice system do their job.
Not that I'd ever think of doing that. I was raised right.
This 13 year old needs serious help, as does her Mother.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)to having your hair cut in public. It's the opposite, in fact, because the former folds kids into society and the latter isolates them and shames them.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)EFerrari
(163,986 posts)It's that when you shame kids, their brain shuts down. They don't learn anything but to try to avoid that pain.
It's a useless way to go about changing their thinking let alone their behavior for the better.
Shaming does work and what exactly is the shame in having her hair cut voluntarily? You said "they don't learn anything but try to avoid that pain" which means it works because they won't repeat that behaviour. I'm more concerned that there is a 13-year-old hair lopper running around than whether or not said hair lopper is full of shame.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)And your use of "voluntary" in this context is disingenuous. Btw, you misunderstand. Shaming teaches kids to avoid getting caught because that will result in pain, not to avoid anti-social behavior.
cabot
(724 posts)They are a lot stronger than that. If your self-esteem rests in a goddamned ponytail then you have issues (not you..the generic you). And no, I don't misunderstand. Humiliation worked for me because I was completely embarrassed about what I did and my public mocking that I never did it again. Frankly, you should be more concerned about this 13-year-old hair lopper's psychopathic behaviour rather than her hair (or her shame. She should be ashamed. She acted like an asshole.)
Disclaimer - I was raised in an Irish Catholic family. Shame was typical and it worked.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)But I made a nearly full recovery.
And as I pointed out to you earlier, you cannot enforce emotions on people, or you can try, but it just makes them shut down.
If you are truly concerned about this kid's violent behavior to others, you wouldn't be in favor of measure that make her less willing to relate to other people -- which is what shame does. It makes kids withdraw and wall themselves off. It doesn't make them more willing or likely to empathize. On the contrary.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)shop? Or is he related to anyone that does?
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)WHY SHAMING DOESN'T WORK
Shame doesn't teach about relationship or empathy.
While shaming has the power to control behaviour, it does not have the power to teach empathy. When we repeatedly label a child 'naughty' or otherwise, we condition them to focus inwardly, they become pre-occupied with themselves and their failure to please. Thus children learn to label themselves, but learn nothing about relating; about considering or comprehending the feelings of others. For empathy to develop, children need to be shown how others feel. In calling children 'naughty', for example, we have told the child nothing about how we feel in response to their behaviour. Children cannot learn about caring for others' feelings, nor about how their behaviour impacts on others, while they are thinking: 'there is something wrong with me'. In fact, psychotherapists and researchers are finding that individuals who are more prone to shame, are less capable of empathy toward others, and more self-preoccupied.
The only true basis for morality is a deeply felt empathy toward the feelings of others. Empathy is not necessarily what drives the 'well-behaved' 'good boy' or 'good girl'.
http://www.nospank.net/grille3.htm
snipped from: 'GOOD' CHILDREN - AT WHAT PRICE?:
THE SECRET COST OF SHAME
By Robin Grille and Beth Macgregor
First published in Sydney's Child, May 1, 2002
cabot
(724 posts)I think children and adults should be ashamed over bad behaviour. It worked for me when I was a kid. I think parents need to find out what works best for their child.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)is not the same as being shamed. Btw, you can't force other people to feel as you want them to feel.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Shame is when you feel bad about yourself - which isn't helpful.
Guilt is when you feel bad about something you've done, which is good feedback that helps you behave better.
Instead of saying "You're a bad boy!", you should be saying "I need you to stop doing this bad behavior! Look at how it affects other people."
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)For empathy to develop, children need to be shown how others feel.
Which is what I've said all along, i.e., now the 13 year old knows how the 3 year old felt. Perhaps knowing that, she won't want to make others feel that way in the future, which should be ultimate goal.
cabot
(724 posts)A person needs to find out what it is like to walk in another person's shoes to find out how that person feels.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)having the pain of others inflicted on you arbitrarily by ignorant people who have no idea how to get through to troubled children.
And you have no idea if the older kid knows how her victim felt because now you have introduced trauma into the situation and traumatized people don't learn well.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)The only trauma in the entire situation was introduced by this 13 year old and her friend. You think a 13 year old is going to be traumatized by having her hair cut (voluntarily) by her own mother? How about the 3 year old having her hair lopped off (involuntarily) by two young predators at a McDonald's?
You can't "show" someone how someone else feels - you can only try to make them experience it so that there is a chance they know how that person feels.
Hopefully it will work, but given that the mother is already complaning, I doubt it. Most likely, we'll hear about this kid again in 8 or 10 years, and not as a result of having her hair cut, but because her mother is an enabler for her unacceptable and anti-social behavior.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Mental health professionals have long wondered about the relationship between shaming children and their subsequent behavior. An article published in Medical News Today December 28, 2008, “Shaming Some Kids Makes Them More Aggressive,” examines this issue. The findings of this research were published in the December 2008 issue of Child Development. The researchers studied, “…..163 children ages 10 to 13, from Michigan middle schools. Almost all were white, and slightly more than half (54 percent) were males…A few weeks before participating in the on-line experiments, the young people filled out a questionnaire designed to assess their levels of self-esteem and narcissism…….For the experiment, children were told they would be competing on an Internet reaction-time game called FastKid! against an opponent of the same sex and age from a school in Columbus, Ohio (where the Buckeyes live!). In reality, there was no opponent; the computer controlled all events. Those who were randomly selected for the "shame condition" were told that their opponent was one of the worst players in the supposed tournament, and they should easily win; when they lost, their last-place ranking was displayed on a website they believed that everyone could see. Children were told they could blast their opponent with a loud noise after winning a trial.” And the results of the study? “ …
The narcissistic kids were more aggressive than others, but only after they had been shamed….Narcissists seem highly motivated to create and maintain a grandiose view of self…They tend to interpret social situations in terms of how they reflect on the self, and they engage in self-regulatory strategies to protect self-esteem when they need to. As shameful situations constitute a threat to grandiosity, narcissistic shame-induced aggression can likely be viewed as defensive effort to maintain self-worth…[the researchers] …found that high self-esteem increased narcissistic shame-induced aggression.” There are several important implications of this study. First, parents of children with high degrees of narcissism should not engage in shaming as a way to control their child’s behavior. Second, school professionals should also avoid shaming their students with high levels of narcissism. Third, mental health professionals who treat children and adolescents who exhibit aggressive behaviors should screen these patients any past events of shaming. And, last of all public health professionals should educate both parents and school professionals about the negative consequences of shaming.
The Bottom Line: The results of this study suggest that shaming narcissistic adolescents may lead to aggressive behavior.
http://drjeffanddrtanya.typepad.com/dr_jeffs_and_dr_tanyas_bl/2010/01/does-shaming-children-have-the-opposite-effect.html
I can post professional literature all day, if you have the time.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)You're not going to change my mind, nor am I going to change yours. You believe this little monster will be traumatized by having her own mother cut her hair, and I think she won't. Someone that would do that to a 3 year old isn't going to be shamed by a haircut.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)You don't even know this kid. But the speed with which you dehumanize her disqualifies you from any serious discussion of this case, sorry.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)This wasn't just a spur of the moment act on the part of this kid. She asked an employee for scissors, and when they said no, she left to go buy some. All so that she could assault a three year old.
Not to mention the months of phone calls to another teen threatening rape and mutiliation.
I think the term "monster" fits the bill. YMMV.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Why would anyone make any excuse for her behavior????
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)Children need to learn "about relating, about considering or comprehending the feelings of others .... to be shown how others feel"
I don't understand how hou can post this yet condemn the judge who tried to put the 13-year-old inside the 3-year-old victim's head.
tawadi
(2,110 posts)Sorry if you disagree.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)tawadi
(2,110 posts)And working with victims of abuse.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)No justice for the 3 year old, just counseling for the predator?
tawadi
(2,110 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)I'm all for the community service, but it's not a punishment. It's good that she'll have to spend 30 days in detention - that's punishment.
Working with victims is not.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Making the 13 year old wear a sign that says "I assault toddlers" is shaming. Putting her in the position to feel what her victim felt is not, IMO.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)that don't involve shaming her or that don't introduce the experience of shame into the process.
If you read the whole article, you'll see that shame is actually a stumbling block to empathy. Shame makes a kid shut down, not sit up and take notice of others.
That's how.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)EFerrari
(163,986 posts)The evidence is that it just reroutes and can intensify aggression. Basically, when you shame a kid, you're not taking care of a problem, you're just adding another layer to the existing ones.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)They eventually grow out of the worst of their douchebaggery.
The more a kid (is allowed to) practice negative behaviors, the more those behaviors seem normal-ish to the resulting adult.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)I wonder how old shaming is, that we seem so attached to it. Probably, prehistoric.
While I agree with you that teens tend to settle down, imo what we consider normal teenage behavior is a social construct that needs to be revisited. Teenagers all over the world don't suddenly become nearly exclusively concerned with only themselves and trample on everyone around them. At that age, a lot of kids begin to work to support the family, become active in their community and take lessons from elders on how to be a human being. (How did our culture get so lucky, lol?)
The other thing that's problematic about how we let teenagers raise themselves is those years are the high risk years for the onset of serious mental illness. Those years that kids are watched the least -- so, there's a higher chance of the family missing the warning signs until some catastrophe happens to the kid.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)At every age we want to conform to the group norm, and shame is the feeling we experience when our actions inhibit it. When you're 13 and 14, it's upside down. A teen who sticks up for the kid being bullied or otherwise fail to conform feels shame, (it is only mitigated to some degree by the belief that we are right).
You cant avoid shame, so it's important to make sure that it's channeled and directed appropriately.
The boys on the video should feel ashamed. Until they're grown ups, avoiding fear, shame and pain are the only things that inhibit them from doing all the maladapted things that impulse control deficient adolescents do.
The fact that their frontal lobes aren't fully connected to the rest of their brains isn't a social construct. Since the frontal lobes aren't talking clearly to the animal parts of their brains, you have to reach the animal parts; pain, fear, shame. Of the three, shame is the least harmful.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)And no, avoidance of shame, fear and pain are not the only motivators for children that age. Similarly, you need to show evidence for your claim that shame is less "harmful" than fear or pain.
And while teens do walk around with immature brains, they've walked around with those for their whole lives. Yes, the expectations we have of teenagers is a social construct and one that isn't very useful either to them or to us.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)... but the hormones and peer influence are not.
The expectation that one can reason with kids the same way we can with adults isn't useful. Fear of the pain of punishment and shame of failing to meet social (or family) expectations are powerful motivators, in a way that "teaching" is not. It's not that they lack conscience, it's that they have no immediate way to communicate with it.
The kids on the bus aren't evil, and they aren't the conscious product of bully role models. They're incompletely assembled, and not in touch with their frontal lobes. You have to reach them where they are.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Further, fear and pain lack the ego wound that shaming inflicts, so, no, shaming is not a good way to reach kids if that is your goal. It's a good way to get them to shut down and isolate even more than normal in adolescence.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)(Setting aside the inherent premise for the moment) Everything you learn is trapped in your frontal lobes. In a conflict between recalling the empathy lessons and the impulse of wanting your 13 year old friends to laugh at your jokes, the impulse always wins.
Coming back to the basic premise, I dispute that you can learn empathy. You might learn something about others which makes you feel more or less empathetic toward them, but you don't learn the emotion, and besides, the stories about the others which were intended to make you feel more empathy toward them are still trapped behind the front-brain firewall.
Adolescence is a period in which the best case scenario is that the kids don't do something so stupid that it stays with them into adulthood, when they can reflect on their teen years and wonder what they were thinking. All you're trying to do is prevent bad behavior until age 20 or so.
If shame gets the job done, I'm okay with it.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)And I don't know that empathy can be taught but relationship is learned.
And shame doesn't do the job you seem to be looking for. It makes kids less available, not more. It makes them less responsive, not more. Hitting a kid across the chest with a 2X4 makes their behavior better, too, in the sense that it disables them. That's what shame does emotionally. If you're good with that, you aren't really interested in that kid or in the people that will have to live with that kid going forward.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I don't think it's useful to cast aspersions on my parenting ethics, a favor which I return.
In my experience, kids grow out of their antisocial behavior, not because they've "learned empathy" but because they've matured. The key is keeping the antisocial behavior in check during the transition.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)Expect more assaults like this in the future.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Since the assault happened in March, and the Romney story came out in May.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Okay, so Judge Cranky is off-base with his "creative" punishment -- apparently he's been in trouble before. If the kid's problem is humiliating others, teaching more humiliation doesn't seem like a good strategy to enlighten her.
BUT, what is this sidebar business about "Oh, and the 13-yr-old was also accused of calling someone in Colorado to make 'threats of rape and mutilation'?"
Something way beyond mishaps in the McDonald's playground and hair-abuse going on with this kid and her parent.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I sure would have. Saying, "You want to cut someone's hair off? Okay, let's cut someone's hair off. Let's see how you like it when some part of you is cut off against your wishes. I'll get the scissors."
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)by being as violent at they were, and worse, because you are supposed to be the adult?
Seriously?
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)like being on the end of damage.
Example: I called my chubby sister "fat" once in front of my uncle. He quickly told me, "You could stand to lose weight yourself." That hurt my feelings a lot. And it made me realize how hurtful what I said to my sister had been.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)I can still taste the Ivory soap in my mouth...
AJTheMan
(288 posts)One time, he ordered a porn thief to stand in front of the porn store blindfolded and wearing a sign that said "see no evil." Take the time that he ordered a woman spend a whole night isolated in the woods for abandoning kittens that were left at her doorstep. He also mandated that a man who ran from police should run in a 5 mile long marathon. The better he placed in the marathon, the less time he would spend under house arrest. Judge Cicconetti famously made a a man who called an officer a pig, walk around the sidewalk with a 350 pound hog. The pig was forced to wear a sign that said "This is not a police officer." He made three men wear chicken costumes because they solicited sex.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)He too, like Judge Scott Johansen mentioned above, has given those who he has convicted "choices" from time to time as to whether to be publicly humiliated or to be subject to punishments in excess of those that they would receive if they accept his alternative.
AJTheMan
(288 posts)Daninmo
(119 posts)Isn't 13 about a year away from highschool? She is too old for that kind of beavior, especially to such a young kid. I see no problem with her ponytail getting cut off. It will grow back, and it's not a hand or eye like mentioned earlier.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)At least she got punished. Romney didn't.
clang1
(884 posts)even a bit of common sense to it, but then I saw she is 13. No go. The kid needs serious counseling and probably a lot more than that, but not this. It's plain wrong.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)Where was the 3 yr old's mom?
How does two older children get to "meet" a 3 yr old at a place of business?
Did the just swoop in on an unsuspecting Mom & her kid?
The 3 yr old needs protection..and hair cut or not, it sounds like the older girls have serious "issues"..
LisaL
(44,973 posts)have play areas specifically for children to play.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)they were watched by us at all times, and there were rules about older kids being in there. It was for small kids only.. I remember once having our older son (he was about 8 or 9) actually being told that the play area was for little kids.. His younger brothers were 4 & 3 at the time.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)
And on edit, I guess sometimes adults get stuck in there
crim son
(27,464 posts)I like it. I would cut off the hair in my own home if one of my own kids had ever been so cruel.
Edited for unusually crappy wording.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)And it wouldn't teach your kid anything but to fear you.
I really don't understand why posters to this thread seem to believe that violence improves children or their behavior. Let alone, shaming children. it doesn't. People who hold that belief might want to go look at the last fifty years of research and see that no one in the field of dealing with bad behavior in kids thinks it does.
I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.
tawadi
(2,110 posts)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Sanity Claws
(21,849 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)I disagree with them, but I can see their point.
But you don't believe there should be ANY punishment for this assault against a 3 year old?
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)What if the scissors "slipped" and she cut the toddler?
No sentence for that either?
13? She's old enough to understand what the hell she is doing!
ecstatic
(32,705 posts)Instead of making her child really work to make things right, she pulls out a pair of scissors and cuts her hair? Then she doesn't take responsibility for the decision that SHE made? Very revealing. Like mother, like daughter.
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)Anything else is just punishment. I'm okay with judges that think outside the box.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)this was`t the first time she`s done an anti-social act and it won`t be her last. her mother has issues also and until these are resolved neither her or her child will stop .
xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)The video says the 13 yr old left the McD's; went to a nearby Dollar store; bought the scissors; came back to McD's; and then cut the 3 yr old's hair. There is quite a hole in this story.
