|
Associated Press – May 13, 2008:
|
|
|
1
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
On its face, this is outrageous. You can rightfully order people to do and not to do things that are “within their control.”
Punishing “a” for what “b” does or does not do is repugnant and ridiculous. It “should be” illegal, but it takes money and general interest to fight such court orders. “Court Orders” in that no law was broken==only a creative judge’s ruling.
I think and wonder why the girl was not ordered to achieve the GED==why any other third party.
Something is not being reported. But even if the father “volunteered” and suggested this rememdy, no judge should have the power to impose such a rule, much less enforce it on sober reflection.
Only god can punish one person for what someone else did.
The truancy occurred back when she was a minor and ostensibly under the control of good old dad. Why not hold him responsible?
Further, an adjudication of delinquency can give the court in most states jurisdiction over the child until she turns 21. So, legally, she isn’t necessarily an adult anyway.
I’m sure that faced with either her going to jail or her dad going to jail, one would appeal more than the other.
We’re bringing up our kids to not have to face the consequences of their own actions – someone else will always pick up the tab.
“Truancy”?? Skipping school? The old man is going to the slammer for six months because his daughter skipped school (while she was living with her mother, and banging her “fiancé”)?? Christ, felons walk away with less of a prison sentence than that.
There must be something to this story that we’re not being told.
#2–rabsten==you ask: “Why not hold him responsible?” /// BECAUSE one person cannot control another person without doing physical/emotional violence==such authoritarian activities should only be undertaken by a court following due process.
The court could rightfully order the dad to report to the cops any day that the child does not leave home for school, or does not do her homework==ie==stuff that is within his own control, not stuff he cannot control.
I again join Mustard in suspecting we aren’t being told something–or I hope so but if enough people think like you that there is nothing wrong here, then, maybe there is nothing more to it?
How many kids will this kid have, all of which will probably be subsidized by the welfare system? The question is can you legislate personal responsibility? In case no one has noticed the jails/prison system is pretty damn full now.
Everone is going to jail in the good old USA.
The police state rules.
>>How many kids will this kid have, all of
>>which will probably be subsidized by the
>>welfare system?
What does that have to do with the old man going to jail for six months? The kid is 19 now.
Should we be putting the parents of Sirhan Sirhan or Jeffrey Dahmer in jail because their kids turned out to be ne’er-do-wells?
There is implied justification in that. Since her inability to pass the GED means her children will be raised on the taxpayer’s dime (governments money), does that not give the courts or the government cause to dictate her actions or behavior? And since the parent is the short term guardian of this child of our society, does that not make him responsible for her failure? After all, it’s not his child, it’s society’s child (it takes a village to raise a child), considering the government will be paying her healthcare and living expenses for the next several years.
The illogical extreme (see Jonathan Swift) results of the nanny state everyone craves. Government pays for your healthcare, they get to decide how you live (no smoking, lose weight, no trans-fats etc.) Government pays for your housing, they get to decide how you live in that house (no parties since it could damage governments’ property, no painting the walls as you like, must be government supervised etc.) Eventually, we are all just property of the government, just like everything else.
The father is going to jail because he did not follow a court order. He had months to go back before the judge and argue that he could not force her to get the GED, he also had months to appeal the decision.
Failing to do either he is in contempt of court.
#10–Gig==How do you “know” he could do any of those things? As in==were his options ever explained to him or do you expect everyone is comfortable with finding qualified attornies and spending money to find out just how fucked they are?
Rather than recite the obvious + assumptions, what do you think of judges “making up” remedies like this and punishing one adult for what a different adult (or child if you insist) does not do. Where is the practicality in that, the justice?
Given the level of education in the United States I think we have found a solution to the Iraq war and maybe the coming war with Iran. The majority of Americans do not have a higher education. Worse, many do not have a high school degree or equivalent. The solution is to simply mandate a level of commitment required to keep them a functioning, “autonomous unit” within our collective society.
Time spent in military (communitarian society)
a). high school dropout, no GED = 8 years
b). high school dropout, with GED = 4 years
c). junior college or tech = 2 years
d). college graduate = two summer sessions
e). Graduate student/professional degree candidate = exempt
If this does not work out, we could also decide instead to institute a new program of eugenics and simply put down individuals that do not receive at least a GED or similar degree.
=============================
(On a serious note)
No, I don’t think this is going to work. You could cite in local parentis as your justification, however, it likely would have to be before the child is eighteen years of age. Once she has reached this threshold of maturity, you can not punish her retroactively for failing to attend high school or getting a GED.
I am sure that one could, however, construct a reasonable argument that the age of adulthood needs to be moved back given that recent evidence that the brain does not fully mature until at least the mid 20s, and, therefore, is not as capable of making rational, calculated decisions necessary to be a sovereign person.
There are a number of countries that have delayed the age of adulthood. Two that come to mind are Iran (21) and Japan (20). Further, most of Canada has essentially an extra year of high school with the age of maturity pushed back to 19.
However, in order to incorporate these levels of maturity into the legal system would require massive changes in the understanding of thought processes. You essentially would have to charge a minor as such until at least they were sixteen, if not seventeen… no matter the crime (well, at least few exceptions). I am not sure the majority of Americans would be ready for this, though I could be wrong.
I think there was something else going on.
The father was initially charged in 2007 for “contributing to the unruliness or delinquency of a minor” according to the article.
Has to be something else going on or information or circumstances not in the article.
Toss her derriere in a cell. Let her out when she gets her GED. Could be a life sentence.
Scene from forgotten movie.
Reporter to scientist “Doesn’t this experiment seem like mind control?”
Scientist “What do you call compulsory education through the age of 18?”
Shoddy reporting. There is more to the story.
The fact that the daughter is 18 now is irrelevant. The father is being punished for actions he failed to do when his daughter was 16 while he had legal custody of her.
Butler County Juvenile Court administrator Rob Clevenger Jr. said Monday that the court still has jurisdiction in the case because Brittany Gegner was a juvenile when the truancy problems began. Juvenile Court Judge David Niehaus imposed the sentence.
Brian Gegner, of Fairfield, Ohio was sentenced last week to 180 days in jail for contributing to the unruliness or delinquency of a minor.
The original charge against Brian Gegner was filed in 2007.
He was ordered months ago to make sure his daughter Brittany Gegner, who has a history of truancy, received her GED. When that order wasn’t followed, Brian Gegner was sentenced to 180-days in the Butler County jail.
The mother said “the only thing that’s holding her back is she can’t pass her math test”. Brittany Gegner, who said Monday that she plans to take the GED test this month.
Looks like the judge’s decision helped motivate the kid.
The issue here is one of a statute of limitations. The father is clearly not “innocent.” He is unquestionably culpable for the truancy of his daughter which occurred while the girl was a minor and therefore his responsibility. The real question is whether the Court should have the authority to do anything about it now that the damage has been done and she is no longer a minor. There is no behavior change in the father that can take place so I fail to see how punishing the father has any benefit.
#12
There is some merit to forcing kids that do not get a HS diploma or GED to be forced into military service. That does not do much to the overall quality of the military but it would be a huge incentive for them to study.
Sometimes people need a kick in the pants, myself included. Looks like they got it.
>>which occurred while the girl was a minor
>>and therefore his responsibility.
Unless the mother had custody of the girl, where she was skipping school, banging the “fiancé”, getting pregnant, etc. She’s living with the mother, so one might assume she should go to the slammer too, if they’re going to start handing out jail terms when somebody’s kids skip school.
I dunno. Maybe this story deserves a “Police State” banner at the top. Christ Almighty, the kid was SKIPPING SCHOOL.
It’s not really a police state issue. This is really the case of another administrative judge treating the courtroom like their own private fiefdom.
While I agree with the general premise that court orders should be abided by, 180 days in jail because your kid is an uncontrollable brat is, perhaps, a tad excessive.
I firmly believe that if a human being is born “normal” that the basic rule of “Garbage in, garbage out” applies entirely. Who ever is responsible for that young human’s education and development is responsible for regardless of a date of birth for being off by a few months… Besides, some juveniles are tried as adult under certain circumstances, why would the other way around be so inconceivable?
I would consider the child as an adult after one intervention from the state, where the child would have been basically explained that his or her life is heading in the wrong direction where he or she can still take matters in his or her own hands and try to make a change. After that, the parents can be off he hook but even then, we al lknow who’s fault it is… remember the child that stole a SUV to have a good time?
I firmly believe that if a human being is born “normal” that the basic rule of “Garbage in, garbage out” applies entirely. Who ever is responsible for that young human’s education and development is responsible for regardless of a date of birth for being off by a few months… Besides, some juveniles are tried as adult under certain circumstances, why would the other way around be so inconceivable?
I would consider the child as an adult after one intervention from the state, where the child would have been basically explained that his or her life is heading in the wrong direction where he or she can still take matters in his or her own hands and try to make a change. That opens the question of weather or not would a young adult ever find any of the needed resources but that’s for another day.
After that, the parents can be off he hook but even then, we all know who’s fault it is… remember the child that stole a SUV to have a good time?
#18 said “Christ Almighty, the kid was SKIPPING SCHOOL”
That is the sort of attitude that permitted the kid to continually avoid an education, get pregnant and then shack up with her loser boyfriend in the mother’s house and finally end up in court. I can see welfare in the girl’s future. And the innocent baby will be facing a terrible life.
What’s the harm? It’s kind of obvious.
Yep, Thinker, someone got a kick in the pants alright. Bet she’ll straighten up now and fly right. She’s learned, learned, as an adult, that someone else can go to jail for her screwups. But not her!
Anyway, what if she CAN’T pass the GED??? Has it really been proven that everyone in the US has the ability?
Also, what if the result of Dad’s bad parenting had been, say, that she took a gun and blew his arm off. Man, HE’D BE FACING ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON. Whew!
It seems this judge has decided to test the notion that parents can take on criminal charges for the results of their “bad parenting.” I mean, we all accept the responsibilty for the civil charges brought against our kids. This is just one step further, right?
I would like to point out, though, that I happen to know this guy’s bad parenting was actually as result of his dad’s bad parenting which was a result of HIS mother’s bad parenting, so really we have the wrong guy here, judge…
As the non-custodial parent of a troubled teen I must say:
I am gonna keep my daughter home from school all I can and STICK IT TO THAT S.O.B. EX of mine!!! My daughter HATES school anyway so all I need now is an IDIOT JUDGE!!! Shouldn’t be too hard to find! Ex will LOSE HIS JOB, have a criminal record… Oh, the hits keep on coming!
If these stories didn’t get published, what would the smug Internet blog crowd read when they wanted to feel superior to everyone else.
The pink-haired girl is hot.
Can someone please help me understand why this man didn’t get a trial… with a jury? Did he forfeit his right to a jury or did he have a full trial and waived his right to a jury?
I’m not a lawyer and don’t know what the process is.
#9, Caitlin,
There is implied justification in that.
There is nothing implied except for your imagining things. Until and unless someone commits an infraction (breaks the law) the government’s right of interference is very limited.
And since the parent is the short term guardian of this child of our society, does that not make him responsible for her failure?
Only to the limit of tort malfeasance. If she commits a crime it will be her butt hauled before a court. If she breaks a window, the father will pay.
After all, it’s not his child, it’s society’s child (it takes a village to raise a child), considering the government will be paying her healthcare and living expenses for the next several years.
Pure wing nut argument.
First you have no idea what the next “several years” will bring. Second, if, as you suggest, she is “Society’s child”, why is her father being singled out?
The illogical extreme (see Jonathan Swift) results of the nanny state everyone craves. Government pays for your healthcare, they get to decide how you live (no smoking, lose weight, no trans-fats etc.)
The government already decided that juveniles can’t smoke, automobile passengers must wear seatbelts, and certain foods may not be sold. And the funny thing is, THEY AREN’T PAYING MY EFFEN HEALTH CARE !!!
I seriously doubt you know who Swift is or could name three of his writings without looking up a reference.
Government pays for your housing, they get to decide how you live in that house …
The government already says I can’t grow pot in my basement, broadcast my punk band full blast, sell hamburgs in the front yard, have a cemetery in the back yard, or nude dancing 12 y/o s on the windows.
What you propose as extremes are stupid. They are what society has asked for and most have a good reason for being banned and / or regulated. Your smoking pollutes MY air, trans fats are harmful, growing pot is illegal, playing loud music is very disrupting, and cemeteries have a habit of polluting the ground water.
There is implied justification in that. Since her inability to pass the GED means her children will be raised on the taxpayer’s dime (governments money), does that not give the courts or the government cause to dictate her actions or behavior?
In that case we need to round up everyone who has not achieved at least a GED. No one is above the law.
And since the parent is the short term guardian of this child of our society, does that not make him responsible for her failure?
Let us know when you decide what level of education constitutes “success” so that we may prosecute those who fall short. And, what if she is incapable of passing the GED? The judge determined from her failure that her father did not help her study (which is what he ordered). Poor logic, probably doesn’t have a GED himself.
After all, it’s not his child, it’s society’s child (it takes a village to raise a child), considering the government will be paying her healthcare and living expenses for the next several years.
And who will pay Dad’s bills from now on since he will likely lose his livelihood over this.