|
Post by steckdad on Mar 20, 2009 21:47:41 GMT -5
The fallacy in that line of thinking is that passage of the Senger bill is not required to support the victim. Her bill was aimed at moving an accused child into an alternative school prior to a trial. There has always been the ability of the SB to move the accused to a regular middle school away from the victim; the SB just has chosen not to do it. And though I have vehemently urged the SB/admin to make the move, I am not completely comfortable going as far as the Senger bill would allow. The accused do have rights, and unless there is an immediate grave threat (which I assume would result in no bail, or whatever the juvenile equivalent is), then I think the fairest solution to all parties is the one the SB has decided against. transferring the accused is weak IMO because now my kid has to go to school with an accused sexual predator....It spreads fear throughout the new location and ticks off a whole new group of parents. the ability to isolate is the best of both worlds....
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 26, 2009 1:37:31 GMT -5
The fallacy in that line of thinking is that passage of the Senger bill is not required to support the victim. Her bill was aimed at moving an accused child into an alternative school prior to a trial. There has always been the ability of the SB to move the accused to a regular middle school away from the victim; the SB just has chosen not to do it. And though I have vehemently urged the SB/admin to make the move, I am not completely comfortable going as far as the Senger bill would allow. The accused do have rights, and unless there is an immediate grave threat (which I assume would result in no bail, or whatever the juvenile equivalent is), then I think the fairest solution to all parties is the one the SB has decided against. transferring the accused is weak IMO because now my kid has to go to school with an accused sexual predator....It spreads fear throughout the new location and ticks off a whole new group of parents. the ability to isolate is the best of both worlds.... 1. Key word is "accused." The accused still have rights, and sending them to an alternative school prior to a trial is almost certainly unconstitutional. Sending them to another regular school until trial, however, is completely legal and the fairest thing to do for both victim and accused. 2. If the transfer had been done immediately (or close to winter break as I suggested earlier), no one would know. And you could have had a staff member "shadow" the accused, as they are purportedly doing at Gregory. This would have been easily the best solution for all parties, but instead we have an impotent SB/admin, cowardly hiding behind lawsuit paranoia.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 26, 2009 6:47:03 GMT -5
transferring the accused is weak IMO because now my kid has to go to school with an accused sexual predator....It spreads fear throughout the new location and ticks off a whole new group of parents. the ability to isolate is the best of both worlds.... 1. Key word is "accused." The accused still have rights, and sending them to an alternative school prior to a trial is almost certainly unconstitutional. Sending them to another regular school until trial, however, is completely legal and the fairest thing to do for both victim and accused. 2. If the transfer had been done immediately (or close to winter break as I suggested earlier), no one would know. And you could have had a staff member "shadow" the accused, as they are purportedly doing at Gregory. This would have been easily the best solution for all parties, but instead we have an impotent SB/admin, cowardly hiding behind lawsuit paranoia. Are you suggesting that this should have been done covertly, not notifying the parents at the new school (the one that you think the accused should have been moved to)? Is that "easily the best solution" for the kids & parents at the new school? What if you were a parent at the new school and you somehow found out after the fact about this? Would you be upset? Might you or others from your school go to an SB meeting and lash out? People have spoken about how horrible this act was, and some people from Gregory spoke at the SB meetings about how they didn't want "sexual predators" at their school (it wasn't all about separating the victim & the accused) - but it's ok to move (accused) "sexual predators" (not my words) to another MS? That's "easily the best solution"? I don't think there's an obvious, best solution, given the current laws, otherwise it would have been done.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 26, 2009 7:51:05 GMT -5
Yes.
If someone were assigned to shadow the accused, my concerns as a parent would be reduced. It would be extremely unlikely the person would strike again (assuming, of course, he was guilty of the first crime).
Unless I am wrong, you seem to be advocating that the accused children should be put to death or removed from society forever. I have been outspoken about the disgust I have for these kids...but until they are actually convicted, or unless a judge throws them in detention with no "bail" until trial, there is precious little that can be done other than what I have suggested.
The parents at whichever middle school was forced to accept the accused have no more rights than the parents at Gregory. No one wants the accused kids to be near their kids--not the parents of the victim, not the parents of other students at Gregory, not the parents at any other 204 MS, not even the parents at any proposed alternative school. We get it. But he has to go somewhere. Why not at least separate him from the victim? It unequivocally solves one problem, and makes the other problems no worse.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Mar 26, 2009 7:55:00 GMT -5
..... The accused still have rights, and sending them to an alternative school prior to a trial is almost certainly unconstitutional. Sending them to another regular school until trial, however, is completely legal and the fairest thing to do for both victim and accused. . Interesting thought, about the constitutionality of the Senger bill. You could be right (but none of us are constitutional law scholars). I do have faith in Rep. Senger, and I think she is a better legislator than that....I would hope she would not push forward a law that was "almost uncertainly" unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 26, 2009 8:01:51 GMT -5
Yes. If someone were assigned to shadow the accused, my concerns as a parent would be reduced. It would be extremely unlikely the person would strike again (assuming, of course, he was guilty of the first crime). Unless I am wrong, you seem to be advocating that the accused children should be put to death or removed from society forever. I have been outspoken about the disgust I have for these kids...but until they are actually convicted, or unless a judge throws them in detention with no "bail" until trial, there is precious little that can be done other than what I have suggested. The parents at whichever middle school was forced to accept the accused have no more rights than the parents at Gregory. No one wants the accused kids to be near their kids--not the parents of the victim, not the parents of other students at Gregory, not the parents at any other 204 MS, and even the parents at any proposed alternative school. We get it. But he has to go somewhere. Why not at least separate him from the victim? It unequivocally solves one problem, and makes the other problems no worse. I agree with asmo here too. If they had moved him as soon as they could have...they could have come up with a different reason (one that pops to mind is the following event that DID happen at school) Juvenile laws prevent names and info to be released. So even if parents at the new school asked - the official answer from the SD would be he was moved due to an incident and that are prohibited by law to divulge further. The new school could put shadow on the kid to make sure of no other problems. The biggest thing is that if it had been handled early like several (including myself) suggested, it probably would never have reached to the level of ferver it has.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 26, 2009 8:03:29 GMT -5
Maybe that's why it is getting such a tepid response from lawmakers. Many ideas that sound good on the surface (who wouldn't want to get rid of a sexual predator?) don't pass legal muster. AIG bonuses? Outrageous...but even Obama concedes they are contracts that are hard to legally break.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 26, 2009 8:03:44 GMT -5
..... The accused still have rights, and sending them to an alternative school prior to a trial is almost certainly unconstitutional. Sending them to another regular school until trial, however, is completely legal and the fairest thing to do for both victim and accused. . Interesting thought, about the constitutionality of the Senger bill. You could be right (but none of us are constitutional law scholars). I do have faith in Rep. Senger, and I think she is a better legislator than that....I would hope she would not push forward a law that was "almost uncertainly" unconstitutional. They do it all the time....many laws get thrown out on constitutional grounds.........moreso when enacted in haste..........
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Mar 26, 2009 8:04:52 GMT -5
There is no perfect solution, but transferring the accused takes care of one of the two issues, and that is separation of the accused from the victim (albeit it does not take care of the second issue, that being the accused being a "possible" threat to other students).
Doing that (covertly or overtly) would have been a better than the "solution" Admin came up with (shadowing the accused at all times & "attemptiing" to keep them physically apart - which worked only marginally, hence the court order requiring the accused stay 100 ft from the victim).
Personally, when I heard straight from the SB attorney's own mouth that these students could have been transferred to another school within the district, my first reaction was "we've been lied to for 2-3 months now" as this was contrary to what was being said over & over again.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 26, 2009 8:18:37 GMT -5
There is no perfect solution, but transferring the accused takes care of one of the two issues, and that is separation of the accused from the victim (albeit it does not take care of the second issue, that being the accused being a "possible" threat to other students). Doing that (covertly or overtly) would have been a better than the "solution" Admin came up with (shadowing the accused at all times & "attemptiing" to keep them physically apart - which worked only marginally, hence the court order requiring the accused stay 100 ft from the victim). Personally, when I heard straight from the SB attorney's own mouth that these students could have been transferred to another school within the district, my first reaction was "we've been lied to for 2-3 months now" as this was contrary to what was being said over & over again. I have said all along....if they really wanted to find a reason to move him...they could have. Honestly I think there is much more to this whole saga (on both sides) that we will never know.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 26, 2009 8:22:04 GMT -5
I'd be interested to see how many parents agree with you on that. Unless I am wrong, you seem to be advocating that the accused children should be put to death or removed from society forever. Not sure how you pulled that from my post, but no. The parents at whichever middle school was forced to accept the accused have no more rights than the parents at Gregory. No one wants the accused kids to be near their kids--not the parents of the victim, not the parents of other students at Gregory, not the parents at any other 204 MS, not even the parents at any proposed alternative school. We get it. But he has to go somewhere. Why not at least separate him from the victim? It unequivocally solves one problem, and makes the other problems no worse. So, your plan is to just piss off a different set of families? Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 26, 2009 8:50:14 GMT -5
People get pissed off all the time and there's nothing that can be done about it. That armed robber who just got out of prison and moved next door to you? Good luck trying to force him to move. You either move or you deal with it.
I'm still waiting to hear why having one set of parents pissed off is any worse than having another set pissed off. You do realize the parents of the accused could voluntarily move into another 204 MS zone, right? (Similar to the one whose family moved into D203.)
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 26, 2009 9:12:14 GMT -5
I'm still waiting to hear why having one set of parents pissed off is any worse than having another set pissed off. And I'm waiting to hear why it's obviously cut-and-dry better. I'm not trying to appear insensitive to the victim & his family, although I'm sure that I am - just trying to look at this from several different perspectives. Interestingly - the brief court case on this was in the news today: www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/1496358,2_1_AU26_COURTS_S1.article Should the pool & tennis club that the victim & accused are both members of not allow the accused in? Should he have to go to another club, as long as it's not arbitrary?
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 26, 2009 9:36:16 GMT -5
There are x number of kids/parents at Gregory. There are also x number of kids/parents at the "new" middle school where the kid could be sent. There is no difference between the rights or concerns of one group vs. the other. None. Moving the boy is a wash in this respect.
Now, the advantages: 1. Victim and attacker are separated. 2. Attacker gets a fresh start, assuming his new classmates are unaware of his alleged crime. I assume this boy is an outcast at Gregory (understandably so).
The only minor issue I see to be worked out is transportation, i.e., bus routes.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 26, 2009 9:38:31 GMT -5
A private club can make its own rules as long as they don't discriminate based on race, etc. As far as I'm concerned, the club can do nothing or they can ban the accused. Either way, it's their choice. Public school is another matter.
|
|