Black Children Were Jailed for a Crime That Doesn’t Exist(propublica.org)
propublica.org
Black Children Were Jailed for a Crime That Doesn’t Exist
https://www.propublica.org/article/black-children-were-jailed-for-a-crime-that-doesnt-exist
73 comments
"Criminal responsibility for failing to prevent someone committing a crime" sounds like something some reddit lawyer would dream up based on misreading of the law.
Why the capitalisation of 'black' and 'latino', but not 'white'?
Is there a grammatical rule, or is it just politics?
Is there a grammatical rule, or is it just politics?
Maybe it's because "white" people don't have white skin? I've literally never met anyone with #FFFFFF skin tone.
There's just people who think they're white and who others would identify as white.
Doesn't make them whiter...
So no, let's not give lying equal respect in grammar. Let's show the distinction and deny people who think they're white any kind of collective class recognition. If you want capitalization, here it is: people who THINK they're white.
There's just people who think they're white and who others would identify as white.
Doesn't make them whiter...
So no, let's not give lying equal respect in grammar. Let's show the distinction and deny people who think they're white any kind of collective class recognition. If you want capitalization, here it is: people who THINK they're white.
Lying? I don't understand anything you wrote, or how it relates to punctuation.
"white skin" is literally not true. Same for "I am white." These are constructs of white body supremacy. They're lies.
Oh right
Black people don't have #000000 skin tone, either.
They also didn't choose to be labeled by their skin color. It's the white body supremacy game where that came from. It's up to people who think they're white to start abandoning these lies because it's people who think they're white who persist the lies.
It's both! Fun fact: language evolves with its use and so does spelling.
Here's a longer explanation: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-capitalize-word-black_l_5...
It explains why Black is capitalized but it also explains the reasoning behind some style guides deciding one way or the other when it comes to (w|W)hite.
The short version is that prior to the move to capitalize Black white supremacists were already capitalizing White so doing it sends some mixed messages especially when you don't already have a clear reputation for being anti-racist (resolving the ambiguity). Additionally white and Black as racial categories work very differently: operationally, (to use a strained analogy I just now came up with that someone will surely try to poke holes into) white behaves as a racial category like bald does as a hair color (i.e. it's defined by the absence of other qualifiers, hence the "one drop" rhetoric).
If you want to better understand the reasoning behind treating white differently, I suggest looking into articles about decolonization but it can take some suspension of judgement to understand the full reasoning if you're used to thinking everything is fine and nothing fundamentally needs to change. If you already let out an audible groan when seeing the URL of the article I linked, I suggest moving on to a different topic and coming back to it when you're in a more curious mood.
Here's a longer explanation: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-capitalize-word-black_l_5...
It explains why Black is capitalized but it also explains the reasoning behind some style guides deciding one way or the other when it comes to (w|W)hite.
The short version is that prior to the move to capitalize Black white supremacists were already capitalizing White so doing it sends some mixed messages especially when you don't already have a clear reputation for being anti-racist (resolving the ambiguity). Additionally white and Black as racial categories work very differently: operationally, (to use a strained analogy I just now came up with that someone will surely try to poke holes into) white behaves as a racial category like bald does as a hair color (i.e. it's defined by the absence of other qualifiers, hence the "one drop" rhetoric).
If you want to better understand the reasoning behind treating white differently, I suggest looking into articles about decolonization but it can take some suspension of judgement to understand the full reasoning if you're used to thinking everything is fine and nothing fundamentally needs to change. If you already let out an audible groan when seeing the URL of the article I linked, I suggest moving on to a different topic and coming back to it when you're in a more curious mood.
I know the following technically violates the guidelines because I will take about voting behavior but HN itself hasn't been sticking to its guidelines since forever and no amount of wishful thinking will prevent people to vote based on political alignment rather than "productive participation":
This was literally the least offensive, non-political and middle of the road way to explain this yet it keeps getting downvoted and now sits at -2.
But HN is a place of intellectual curiosity and doesn't have a racism or sexism problem. People just come here to share interesting facts and neat hacks and everything is apolitical. It's just a coincidence that openly white supremacist comments don't even get flagged and anything even remotely acknowledging racial issues gets downvoted. No, sire, nothing to see here, move along.
Ceterum censeo HN bad.
This was literally the least offensive, non-political and middle of the road way to explain this yet it keeps getting downvoted and now sits at -2.
But HN is a place of intellectual curiosity and doesn't have a racism or sexism problem. People just come here to share interesting facts and neat hacks and everything is apolitical. It's just a coincidence that openly white supremacist comments don't even get flagged and anything even remotely acknowledging racial issues gets downvoted. No, sire, nothing to see here, move along.
Ceterum censeo HN bad.
If this is true, it's insane. Really, in a "civilised" country ?
the evidence seems plentiful and high-quality. parts of the deep South are really weird and terrifying like this. there's snake-handling churches in the Georgia county my dad grew up in. the Baptist church was desegregated in the late '90s, and a school in another area apparently had segregated proms in the 2000s.
but then there's also Atlanta which is hip and developed. so the big metro areas are fine, things just get real weird in the sticks.
but then there's also Atlanta which is hip and developed. so the big metro areas are fine, things just get real weird in the sticks.
Rutherford County, TN isn't Deep South or even particularly rural; with a population of more than a third of a million, it's a one of the primary suburban/exurban appendages of metro Nashville and is home to the 2nd largest university in the state.
I don't see any reason to doubt the veracity of the story, though; it seems pretty well investigated and reported.
I don't see any reason to doubt the veracity of the story, though; it seems pretty well investigated and reported.
When there's no oversight by decent people, this can happen. Hence the importance of fair elections, education, and scrutiny, in particular for corruption.
One town in Rutherford Co re-elected the same corrupt mayor for decades on end; he was the longest serving elected official in state history. Over the course of his administration he stole the contemporary equivalent of millions of dollars from the small town, which had a population of a thousand or so during his tenure. He won his last election (with ~80% of the vote) while actively & publicly embroiled in the lawsuit that would ultimately cause the state supreme court to order his removal from office. After he was forced out, the town's elected council immediately appointed the town manager, his twin brother, as temporary replacement; his twin announced he'd just do whatever his deposed brother told him to do... and won his own election in this platform. One resident, when interviewed about the affair, admitted the former mayor was corrupt and a thief, but defended his record saying he was a good old boy and "never did anything bad-wrong" like murder. One of the town's major thoroughfares is named after this long-(self)serving mayor and he's still revered with nearly saint-like status in that town.
You may not know this but your question is somewhat ironic.
The narrative of doing this "for their own good" is a lot like the language used to justify abducting children from native families in North America to "kill the savage, save the child" and "civilize" those children in white schools.
"Civilized" is an extremely loaded term and it's worth reflecting on whom we label as "uncivilized" and how we actually behave in comparison.
The narrative of doing this "for their own good" is a lot like the language used to justify abducting children from native families in North America to "kill the savage, save the child" and "civilize" those children in white schools.
"Civilized" is an extremely loaded term and it's worth reflecting on whom we label as "uncivilized" and how we actually behave in comparison.
There was an incredible amount of what they call "white paternalism" from the the people in the article. Historically, natives and blacks were seen of as deserving of state backed abuse and destruction in the name of "civilization". Even General Lee wrote in his letter to his wife:
"The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."
when referring to African slavery.
"The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."
when referring to African slavery.
The judge, Davenport, sounds like an insane person.
No, she's just a racist. Motivated reasoning is an incredibly strong force.
(It's very tempting to regard people we strongly disagree with as insane, but it's a mistake that both impairs dealing with actual mental illness compassionately and fighting them politically. She's perfectly rational and sane, she's just reasoning from a set of beliefs and emotional values that you find abhorrent)
(It's very tempting to regard people we strongly disagree with as insane, but it's a mistake that both impairs dealing with actual mental illness compassionately and fighting them politically. She's perfectly rational and sane, she's just reasoning from a set of beliefs and emotional values that you find abhorrent)
Whilst the main story of the focus is the case involving black kids, the story also details the case of a white kid wronged by this person.
If stats were available to show black children in general were targeted, the piece would have included them.
Including 'Black children' in the title is unnecessary other than one of the arresting officers in this particular case wondered would this(arresting/cuffing at school over being an observer) happen in a white school.
She's an idiot. She may also be a racist but the article doesn't provide any evidence for that.
I wonder sometimes if people ever read past the headline and first paragraph.
If stats were available to show black children in general were targeted, the piece would have included them.
Including 'Black children' in the title is unnecessary other than one of the arresting officers in this particular case wondered would this(arresting/cuffing at school over being an observer) happen in a white school.
She's an idiot. She may also be a racist but the article doesn't provide any evidence for that.
I wonder sometimes if people ever read past the headline and first paragraph.
We are assuming the evidence exists, the article says the county and state have both discontinued reporting of juvenile detention statistics.
Sure, the only evidence we have of racial targeting is anecdotal, but if we use a Bayesian approach, the fact that the party that is conducting the profiling shuts off the data that would disprove that notion, it gives us a very strong prior.
Sure, the only evidence we have of racial targeting is anecdotal, but if we use a Bayesian approach, the fact that the party that is conducting the profiling shuts off the data that would disprove that notion, it gives us a very strong prior.
Davenport carries adultism. That's the word.
Ye. How does it work? Does she need to be reelected or is the chair for life?
Apparently, she's elected to an 8-year term and makes a whopping $176,000 a year. I've been told that if you fail the bar 3 times as a lawyer, you kind of become untouchable in some respects. The judge failed the bar 4-times, and is still allowed destroy lives.
She is up for re-election next year.
Now watch as she gets re-elected as she knows how to pander to conservatives on AM Radio.
Hey Americans protesting to "free" Australia, worry about your own country.
People can simultaneously want two things.
That's a very specific group to address. Who are these Americans protesting to "free" Australia?
[deleted]
Australia is currently being portrayed in the right-wing US media as being a police state due to the lockdown laws.
Most of the complaints are tone-deaf and completely ignorant of the actual situation on the ground, which has rustled a few of our jimmies.
Still, I don't see the relevance of that comment here. This article is about black kids getting thrown in juvie when it causes nothing but harm to both them and the community; a problem that exists here too (mainly in the NT).
Most of the complaints are tone-deaf and completely ignorant of the actual situation on the ground, which has rustled a few of our jimmies.
Still, I don't see the relevance of that comment here. This article is about black kids getting thrown in juvie when it causes nothing but harm to both them and the community; a problem that exists here too (mainly in the NT).
What everyone seems to ignore, because the discourse is all so cynically partisan, is that lockdown laws are enforced by the exact same police and courts that do things like jailing black kids who never committed a crime. (Countries like Australia are definitely no better.) There was even a high-profile case in the UK where a police officer used the restrictions as pretext to kidnap, rape and murder a random woman who'd done nothing wrong and none of our the folks who'd been loudly campaigning to abolish the police questioned giving them those powers. Instead the press attacked our justice secretary for not criminalizing "misogyny"...
Do you think if he hadn't had those restrictions available he wouldn't have kidnapped Sarah Everard? Surely he'd have just used something else?
Because Australia has no skeletons in the closet about how it treats black people right?
We don't have skeletons, we know about them and are actively addressing them. Not fast enough, or well enough IMO, but it is happening.
legerdemain(2)
This isn't surprising. Even before the Civil War, the justice system was used to target and disrupt the black community as well as line the pockets of the local white community.
We see this historical in this story where they trawl for charges that fit, and when they can't find one, they make one up "criminal responsibility for conduct of another.". Even the filter system they use is inconsistent in it's verbiage of "TRUE threat" and "TRUE threat" having no actual meaning.
Meanwhile, the judge and jailers keep their jobs and the cops involved serve a weekend's worth of leave.
>...At another meeting a commissioner said it would be “cool” if, instead of being a cost center, the jail could be a “profit center.”
To folks outside of the US, turning jails into profit centers would be abhorrent and incompatible with a country that claims to be "the freest in the world" or what have you. But when you look at the history of the country and it's actual principles, this is very much in line with history.
We see this historical in this story where they trawl for charges that fit, and when they can't find one, they make one up "criminal responsibility for conduct of another.". Even the filter system they use is inconsistent in it's verbiage of "TRUE threat" and "TRUE threat" having no actual meaning.
Meanwhile, the judge and jailers keep their jobs and the cops involved serve a weekend's worth of leave.
>...At another meeting a commissioner said it would be “cool” if, instead of being a cost center, the jail could be a “profit center.”
To folks outside of the US, turning jails into profit centers would be abhorrent and incompatible with a country that claims to be "the freest in the world" or what have you. But when you look at the history of the country and it's actual principles, this is very much in line with history.
It seems like everything is a damn profit center these days. Prisons, hospitals, whatever.
From the article: promotional video for the center, which is expanding as a business and contracting with other counties in neighboring states.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igoy0sq4noQ
The judge (Davenport) and facility manager (Duke) are still being paid well for their work in jailing children on dubious legal basis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igoy0sq4noQ
The judge (Davenport) and facility manager (Duke) are still being paid well for their work in jailing children on dubious legal basis.
Wtf.. is that a parody video? The US is insane on so many levels, it never ceases to amaze me.
“ I’m here on a mission. It’s not a job. It’s God’s mission”
So much for the separation of church and state. It’s like something from the Taliban
So much for the separation of church and state. It’s like something from the Taliban
The Taliban do not imprison children for crimes that don’t exist.
Somehow Blacks (kids in this case) are guilty of crimes they don’t commit.
Maybe that’s why the establishment supported Kamala Harris:
https://afropunk.com/2019/01/kamala-harris-has-been-tough-on...
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler...
Somehow Blacks (kids in this case) are guilty of crimes they don’t commit.
Maybe that’s why the establishment supported Kamala Harris:
https://afropunk.com/2019/01/kamala-harris-has-been-tough-on...
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny goes back a long way.
The US separation of Church and State only means that a specific church doesn't get doctrinal control. It's specifically against the Church of England setup. Doesn't mean that the voters won't insist on Christian hegemony, or even the particularly white supremacist flavours of evangelical/baptist Christianity, just that you get a choice of which Christian church to attend.
The US separation of Church and State only means that a specific church doesn't get doctrinal control. It's specifically against the Church of England setup. Doesn't mean that the voters won't insist on Christian hegemony, or even the particularly white supremacist flavours of evangelical/baptist Christianity, just that you get a choice of which Christian church to attend.
Its just another form of child abuse, there is gratification from having this kind of power to lock up even minors, and for no crimes at all, having adults, officers and parents obey.
What is missing is oversight, and strangely enough "a fear of the law" on the part of those charged with enforcing it. Officers and Judges.
What is missing is oversight, and strangely enough "a fear of the law" on the part of those charged with enforcing it. Officers and Judges.
I don't understand how the police are called for a playground fight? (not even serious!) And then they are allowed to arrest children? Isn't there a law against that?
It wasn’t even a playground fight it was a fight off school grounds. Police were sent to arrest the children on school grounds. I’ll quip, schools exist for the convenience of law enforcement, as it’s a place where children congregate so that they can be easily arrested.
The children were charged under “criminal responsibility”, which is not a crime, and they did not violate the law. The police did violate the law by locking the children in detention, which can only be done in very narrow circumstances, but there are loopholes, such as using the term TRUE THREAT.
The children were charged under “criminal responsibility”, which is not a crime, and they did not violate the law. The police did violate the law by locking the children in detention, which can only be done in very narrow circumstances, but there are loopholes, such as using the term TRUE THREAT.
There's a longstanding trend of treating black children like adults. It gets them into the school-to-prison pipeline earlier.
Laws aren't real unless there's someone willing to enforce them, which is why police don't follow laws. In this case there was no crime to arrest them for in the first place.
Even those who support qualified immunity should find it difficult to support continued qualified immunity for those repeatedly breaking laws. I don’t understand how the individuals of the article can repeatedly break the law yet still not be held personally responsible.
> Even those who support qualified immunity should find it difficult to support continued qualified immunity for those repeatedly breaking laws.
If the logic of QI (the “qualified" refers to the legal clarity of the violation) applies at all, it applies to every offense that meets the qualification. There is no coherent argument otherwise.
If the logic of QI (the “qualified" refers to the legal clarity of the violation) applies at all, it applies to every offense that meets the qualification. There is no coherent argument otherwise.
So then you’re saying that they aren’t covered by qualified immunity here? They appear to be repeatedly breaking the same laws after all.
> qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".
After so many reports, investigations, and hiding their own statistics because they were embarrassing, it's clear they "reasonably should have known" about the childrens' rights. Qualified immunity shouldn't help them here.
After so many reports, investigations, and hiding their own statistics because they were embarrassing, it's clear they "reasonably should have known" about the childrens' rights. Qualified immunity shouldn't help them here.
andyxor(2)
Sending 8 year olds to jail?
This is horrendous, even for 2 days. Trully despicable.
[deleted]
Judge Donna Scott Davenport was reported in the article as having disobeyed a ruling from a higher court.
> Davenport, finding that a mother had neglected her daughter, granted custody to another couple. Two higher courts disagreed and ordered Davenport to reunify the mother and child. Instead, Davenport terminated the mother’s parental rights.
I looked her up, she’s still serving as a judge (term is up in 2022). I am surprised that the judicial system keeps judges around that disobey higher courts. You would think that violating a basic foundation of the legal system would grant swift rebuke, but no.
> Davenport, finding that a mother had neglected her daughter, granted custody to another couple. Two higher courts disagreed and ordered Davenport to reunify the mother and child. Instead, Davenport terminated the mother’s parental rights.
I looked her up, she’s still serving as a judge (term is up in 2022). I am surprised that the judicial system keeps judges around that disobey higher courts. You would think that violating a basic foundation of the legal system would grant swift rebuke, but no.
For all those who don't understand how this could happen, there's an important word nobody says and it explains everything:
Adultism.
There's clearly racial components to this story and others like it, but let's be very clear: this is the result of a society that doesn't value children, treats them largely like objects, and for sure doesn't care for their needs.
How can I make these claims?
There's a pandemic and yet school is still in session and in person. Did we reorganize society to protect the children? Temporarily, but when the economy started getting shaky, it was back to school for everyone so the parents could get back to work. Even if the claim of "not letting the children fall behind in school" is genuine, it's to enforce standards cultivated by adults for the sake of creating a certain type of person.
Are the systems deciding the fate of those people under the age of 18 AT ALL informed by those people under the age of 18? They are explicitly not. People under the age of 18 are there for the systems to do with as they choose. There is no solidarity with children or respect for their individual autonomy/consent.
And it's very easy to prove the systems don't care about the childrens' needs:
Humans have a finite set of needs. What are they? If you don't know, you weren't taught them. By systems designed to do something other than care for you and meet your needs. Any system dealing with children that can't produce a list of human needs is responsible for carrying a culture of adultism.
Adultism.
There's clearly racial components to this story and others like it, but let's be very clear: this is the result of a society that doesn't value children, treats them largely like objects, and for sure doesn't care for their needs.
How can I make these claims?
There's a pandemic and yet school is still in session and in person. Did we reorganize society to protect the children? Temporarily, but when the economy started getting shaky, it was back to school for everyone so the parents could get back to work. Even if the claim of "not letting the children fall behind in school" is genuine, it's to enforce standards cultivated by adults for the sake of creating a certain type of person.
Are the systems deciding the fate of those people under the age of 18 AT ALL informed by those people under the age of 18? They are explicitly not. People under the age of 18 are there for the systems to do with as they choose. There is no solidarity with children or respect for their individual autonomy/consent.
And it's very easy to prove the systems don't care about the childrens' needs:
Humans have a finite set of needs. What are they? If you don't know, you weren't taught them. By systems designed to do something other than care for you and meet your needs. Any system dealing with children that can't produce a list of human needs is responsible for carrying a culture of adultism.
> There's a pandemic and yet school is still in session and in person.
I thought the risk to children is super low though?
And if it is, wouldn't switching to a remote setting be way worse, because school at the lower levels isn't about teaching topics but about learning how to interact with people?
One or two years go by quickly as a working adult, but it's an incredibly long time for a child, having only online contact with people for such a long time will surely be worse for them, no?
I thought the risk to children is super low though?
And if it is, wouldn't switching to a remote setting be way worse, because school at the lower levels isn't about teaching topics but about learning how to interact with people?
One or two years go by quickly as a working adult, but it's an incredibly long time for a child, having only online contact with people for such a long time will surely be worse for them, no?
Maybe, but coming out with a chronic condition like an autoimmune disease is maybe not so comparable to emotional trauma that can be healed from. Also, why is school still in session? There are other ways to meet needs besides school and they're way healthier than how we do school anyway. That's why I advocate for large pandemic bubbles designed to be as self-sustaining as possible, and not isolation or remote learning.
The adult world's perspective is super skewed. The options most people consider are isolating, bubbling small, or denying the risks. There's more we can do.
The adult world's perspective is super skewed. The options most people consider are isolating, bubbling small, or denying the risks. There's more we can do.
>There's a pandemic and yet school is still in session and in person. Did we reorganize society to protect the children?
I don't think it's fair not to point out that covid is drastically less dangerous for children.
I don't think it's fair not to point out that covid is drastically less dangerous for children.
You can think that.
We don't understand the long-term effects because we haven't gotten there in time, yet. Pretending to know these things is dangerous for children.
I think your point ignores the fact that none of this is up to the children, regardless of risk, and they are also an infection vector which allows the virus to continue spreading and evolving. The virus is less dangerous for children, so it makes sense to let them get it and spread it? Is this the point you're trying to make?
We don't understand the long-term effects because we haven't gotten there in time, yet. Pretending to know these things is dangerous for children.
I think your point ignores the fact that none of this is up to the children, regardless of risk, and they are also an infection vector which allows the virus to continue spreading and evolving. The virus is less dangerous for children, so it makes sense to let them get it and spread it? Is this the point you're trying to make?
The virus is less dangerous for children, so it's not fair to say that schools were opened just so parents could work. Schools were opened, in part, because policy makers know that in person contact poses unequal danger to children and adults.
Oh. Ok. Noted. Fairness achieved and that changes nothing about my points.
The decisions are economically driven, instead of wellbeing/needs based. This is the point. Even if I noted all things weighed and considered, the issue would be that we effectively went back to the same ways of life. Policy makers are carrying on with persisting adultist systems and making decisions without deep consideration of human needs or direct input from the youngest among us.
The decisions are economically driven, instead of wellbeing/needs based. This is the point. Even if I noted all things weighed and considered, the issue would be that we effectively went back to the same ways of life. Policy makers are carrying on with persisting adultist systems and making decisions without deep consideration of human needs or direct input from the youngest among us.
A single Christian narcissist is allowed to be the judge and jury for all underage black people. What could go wrong here?
When you elect your judges those judges will tend to:
* Loudly and publicly show how well they are doing their job, which will often be interpreted as fighting crime.
* Only bother non-majority groups that can not vote them out of their position while doing that job.
* Loudly and publicly show how well they are doing their job, which will often be interpreted as fighting crime.
* Only bother non-majority groups that can not vote them out of their position while doing that job.