Those friendly, fuzzy Muppets from “Sesame Street” have helped kids open up about all sorts of serious subjects, from hunger and divorce to military deployment.
But they’re now tackling a much more unexpected issue: incarceration.
Meet Alex, the first Muppet to have a dad in jail. According to a Pew Charitable Trusts report, one in 28 children in the United States now has a parent behind bars -- more than the number of kids with a parent who is deployed -- so it’s a real issue, but it’s talked about far less because of the stigma.
That’s why the Sesame Workshop says it created the “Little Children, Big Challenges: Incarceration” initiative, an online tool kit intended to help kids with a parent in prison find support and comfort, and provide families with strategies and tips to talk to their children about incarceration.
Alex is blue-haired and green-nosed and he wears a hoodie – you might think he’s just another carefree inhabitant of Sesame Street. But there’s sorrow in Alex’s voice when he talks about his father.
“I just miss him so much,” he tells a friend. “I usually don’t want people to know about my Dad.”
It’s easier for kids to hear such things from a Muppet than an adult, creators of the initiative noted.
“Coming from a Muppet, it’s almost another child telling their story to the children,” said Jeanette Betancourt, vice president of outreach and educational practices at the Sesame Workshop.
Alex will not be part of the regular cast on “Sesame Street,” but he’s playing a central role in the online tool kit.
Children of parents behind bars often feel sadness, shame and guilt about the situation, so they need to know they are loved and that the incarceration is not their fault, said Carol Burton, executive director of Centerforce, a non-profit dedicated to supporting families impacted by incarceration.
“There are several million children impacted by incarceration in this country,” Burton said. “No one is paying attention to them.”
The project and its unusual subject matter have garnered a lot of attention, with some observers calling it a sign of the times.
"Congratulations, America, on making it almost normal to have a parent in prison or jail," wrote a columnist on Reason.com.
Sesame Street has before tackled issues like this, I recall the episode where Mr. Cooper died, I want to say in the late 70's.
They did not actually show his death, but they showed the aftermath of it all, and Big Bird trying to understand and cope with the loss.
Ground breaking children's television at the time. It would not shock me if Alex made it to a few episodes of the show. I assume they are still making Sesame Street...
Step 1: Develop the privatized industrial prison complex for which the government is contractually obligated to keep at certain capacities full (something that still astounds and terrifies me)
Step 2: Society, over a generation or so, has to normalize to this.
Step 3: Loss
Mine was a generation raised by their mothers. I wonder what the next generation will be.
At first I thought this was stupid, but the Big Bird in mourning thing changed my 'tude. There are many children with kids in jail. This could be helpful.
Now if those kids could just get pulled out of there and adopted ito decent families they might have a chance.
They have always been good about being kid-friendly, but also progressive enough to tackle stuff that most other kids' shows won't touch no matter how helpful they could be.
They still produce new Sesame Street episodes, but only a fraction of what they once did. Kids just don't watch it much anymore.
Which is a shame because Sesame Street has from the beginning actually tried to teach children. They actually do research on their effect on kids!
I don't see the same effort from a lot of today's "educational" children's shows. Sure, Yo Gabba Gabba is cool and fun and gets some great bands and celebs to guest star. But there isn't much there after you get past the singing and dancing.
This is really cool. Kids need to know that having a parent in jail isn't their fault, and that having been to jail doesn't automatically make someone a bad parent.
Easy E wrote: Can we define or elaborat eon what a "bad" parent is?
No, because it is one of the most arbitrary things on the planet.
Any parent who doesn't miss the old days when you could just send them off to the coal mine at 8? Get out there kid, you gotta earn!
Nowdays you threaten the kids with the coal mine and they just scoff at you. Even worse, they'll have the temerity to poke you in the stomach as they pass by going "sure dad, never heard you say that one before..."
Incorrect. The fact you went to jail is a good indicator you're not a good parent. If nothing else, you weren't there to actually parent due to your bad behavior.
If having a character on SS allows a young kid to identify with something and help them deal with the anger, depression, and abandonment that comes from having a parent in jail, then ok.
That's a good thing, right? It's not like they're glamorizing it.
kronk wrote: If having a character on SS allows a young kid to identify with something and help them deal with the anger, depression, and abandonment that comes from having a parent in jail, then ok.
That's a good thing, right? It's not like they're glamorizing it.
That is indeed a good thing. Its not the kid's fault their parent is a loser and waste of skin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: There are plenty of people in jail who are not "bad" people. This is a fact.
Are you honestly advocating that going to jail = removal of parental rights?
kronk wrote: If having a character on SS allows a young kid to identify with something and help them deal with the anger, depression, and abandonment that comes from having a parent in jail, then ok.
That's a good thing, right? It's not like they're glamorizing it.
I think that's the point, yeah. I think the 'not glamorizing it' part is the really big sticking point, though. Personally, from my history watching Sesame Street, I trust them to 'do it right'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: There are plenty of people in jail who are not "bad" people. This is a fact.
Look, it's actually pretty difficult to go to jail. You have to either do some pretty dramatic stuff, like knocking over a gas station, or repeatedly perpetrate stupid actions, like multiple DUIs. Even the 'victimless crime' crimes, like pot use, pretty much require you to be incredibly blatant in your use (again, read deliberately stupid), or acting in some sort of systemic manner like actively dealing.
Are you honestly advocating that going to jail = removal of parental rights?
Not generally, although at the extremes this could probably be warranted. I don't think any single person attempted to make this connection aside from you, though.
feeder wrote: There are plenty of people in jail who are not "bad" people. This is a fact.
Are you honestly advocating that going to jail = removal of parental rights?
Well they can just have made a stupid choice or been at the wrong place however this is the minority.
The majority intentionally did something illegal and put their thrill or gain ahead of the risk that they would be absent from their kids for a portion or all of their formative years.
No. But their lack of good decision making skills just raised the possibility of their kids graduating to prison just went up exponentially.
Lack of presence. Poor example. Kids filling the void with less than stellar role models
mega_bassist wrote: Umm...wasn't Martin Luther King Jr. only ever arrested for non-violent protests against segregation? I'd have to say that's a tad different.
Wait, are you implying that the reason someone is in jail could be important, and that just saying they are a bad person just based on having been in jail may be a flawed idea?
Ahtman wrote: Look look! The goal posts, they keep moving!
Actually the statement was always in present tense, even as it was made before Frazzled replied to it.
Looking over it, actually feeder's statement was the one in present tense, but it seems an odd metric to stick by: "Sure you can show that some people in the past that were jailed weren't bad people, but since you can't name someone currently incarcerated then suddenly it invalidates the argument." Seems a bit silly.
I would list people who were wrongfully imprisoned, but since they would be free now and not in jail anymore, they apparently don't count either.
Neither were in prison. Neither were in jail long enough to elicit the need for a Sesame Street character. Indeed Ali spent NO jail time. King spent 11 days in jail. Thats hardly relevant. Inversely, would you say the slightly longer incarcceration of John Gacy is an indicator he's not a great dad?
How about your average thief?
If you're in prison, its statistically likely you've done something bad. Regardless of anything else, that means you've taken time away from taking care of your kids because of your actions.
Yes you're a bad parent.
Ahtman wrote: Look look! The goal posts, they keep moving!
Actually the statement was always in present tense, even as it was made before Frazzled replied to it.
Looking over it, actually feeder's statement was the one in present tense, but it seems an odd metric to stick by: "Sure you can show that some people in the past that were jailed weren't bad people, but since you can't name someone currently incarcerated then suddenly it invalidates the argument." Seems a bit silly.
I would list people who were wrongfully imprisoned, but since they would be free now and not in jail anymore, they apparently don't count either.
Frazzled wrote: If you're in prison, its statistically likely you've done something bad. Regardless of anything else, that means you've taken time away from taking care of your kids because of your actions.
So someone who is wrongfully imprisoned is a bad parent? Seems like a pretty gakky thing to say about someone who didn't choose to spend time away from home. By this standard though our military men are bad parents because they also have to spend time away from their kids because of their actions.
Frazzled wrote: If you're in prison, its statistically likely you've done something bad. Regardless of anything else, that means you've taken time away from taking care of your kids because of your actions.
So someone who is wrongfully imprisoned is a bad parent? Seems like a pretty gakky thing to say about someone who didn't choose to spend time away from home. By this standard though our military men are bad parents because they also have to spend time away from their kids because of their actions.
I'll restate. If you're in prison its statistically likely you've done something bad. Regardless of anything else, that means you've taken time away from taking care of your kids because of your actions.
In most cases, Frazzled is probably right, but to me, you need to look at the whole situation and case of a person before you declare them to be one thing or another.
curran12 wrote: This all really comes down to context for me.
In most cases, Frazzled is probably right, but to me, you need to look at the whole situation and case of a person before you declare them to be one thing or another.
Oh I'm sure. However, if you're in prison odds are you probably suck at life.
Ahtman wrote: By this standard though our military men are bad parents because they also have to spend time away from their kids because of their actions.
Who's moving goalposts now?
And actually, it is often very difficult having a parent deployed overseas, which is exactly why the armed forces have created broader social and service networks for the remaining spouse to take advantage of.
Attempting to conflate the legitimately incarcerated with a tiny minority of the wrongfully incarcerated, especially the tiniest minority of wrongfully incarcerated that are also celebrities, and then by extension armed forces families with members in active service represents a truly warped worldview, in my opinion.
curran12 wrote: This all really comes down to context for me.
In most cases, Frazzled is probably right, but to me, you need to look at the whole situation and case of a person before you declare them to be one thing or another.
Oh I'm sure. However, if you're in prison odds are you probably suck at life.
Odds are, most likely, but then again there are those who do straighten their lives out or were wrongfully impassioned. And I'm one of those sentimental bastards who likes the idea of a second chance for people. That said, I'm not so big on third and fourth chances.
In his defense I think he's just playing debate game. While his world view is sick and twisted, it involves clowns and cheese dip, and not the topic at hand.
curran12 wrote: This all really comes down to context for me.
In most cases, Frazzled is probably right, but to me, you need to look at the whole situation and case of a person before you declare them to be one thing or another.
Oh I'm sure. However, if you're in prison odds are you probably suck at life.
Odds are, most likely, but then again there are those who do straighten their lives out or were wrongfully impassioned. And I'm one of those sentimental bastards who likes the idea of a second chance for people. That said, I'm not so big on third and fourth chances.
Second chances are for losers. To the Soylent Green Reform Academy for all prisoners, reprobates, politicians, and of course, Liechtenstein!
So someone who is wrongfully imprisoned is a bad parent? Seems like a pretty gakky thing to say about someone who didn't choose to spend time away from home. By this standard though our military men are bad parents because they also have to spend time away from their kids because of their actions.
The difference is that they're god fearing earnest men who justly defend other god fearing earnest Americans from the likes of True Evil.
If someone I knew went to prison, I couldn't find it in me to hold that in judgement of them without knowing what they went to prison for.
Killed a guy? Sure. Bad person.
Had a dime on him when he got pulled over? Not really. I don't do it myself, but if I hated everyone who did things that I don't, I'd be a Republican.
Frazzled wrote: Liechtenstein just lets you think itws a half day. We are wise to Liechtenstein's true evil.
Any nation who's presidential plane is named "Cthulu One" is hiding something...
Can it really have a presidential plane if the nation is so small a landing strip can't fit in it?
Its in their secret mountain underground airport. Come on you know the ancient Chinese mantra: Never trust a Liechtensteinian. They always have hangers stuck in their mountains. Thats why they're evil.
I mean when Hitler goes "wo wo there Mannstein. Your plan has my panzers getting a little close to Liechtenstein. You don't want to mess with them" You know those are some evil ers.
Frazzled wrote: Liechtenstein just lets you think itws a half day. We are wise to Liechtenstein's true evil.
Any nation who's presidential plane is named "Cthulu One" is hiding something...
Can it really have a presidential plane if the nation is so small a landing strip can't fit in it?
Its in their secret mountain underground airport. Come on you know the ancient Chinese mantra: Never trust a Liechtensteinian. They always have hangers stuck in their mountains. Thats why they're evil.
I mean when Hitler goes "wo wo there Mannstein. Your plan has my panzers getting a little close to Liechtenstein. You don't want to mess with them" You know those are some evil ers.
Of course, this begs the question what YOU were doing there...with your Wiener Dog Tunneling Corps. Are you seeking to stop them, or usurp and take their dark throne? >.>
Are you seeking to stop them, or usurp and take their dark throne? >.>
Both? There have been reports Liechtenstein is building some sort of terrible cat weapon of mass destruction. Wiener dog scouts have been dispatched from Hamburg to check it out. Unfortunately wiener dogs, although perfect, are not the fastest and can sometimes get distracted. It may be awhile before they report back.
Remember boys and girls, worried about zombies hiding out in all the nooks and crannies of your basement? Then you need a Badger Dog!
feeder wrote: and that having been to jail doesn't automatically make someone a bad parent.
Well in reality it kind of does.
For once, I agree with frazzled. A parent should not end up en jail. My cousins baby-daddy(He isnt anything else to me). Ended up in jail for armed robbery(Who knew mace constituted armed robbery). He is a dead beat, he constantly kept my cousin and his kids on poverty, he stole from us and mooched of my moms good will.
He is a bad parent, just because he went off to fight fires to get out of jail doesn't mean anything to me.
Parents in jail deserve to loose custody rights of their kids.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: There are plenty of people in jail who are not "bad" people. This is a fact.
Really? Why are they in jail then?
It is actually REALLY hard to get into jail
"Bad" is too subjective a term. We're using "bad" as in "bad guys" as in people who break laws. There's undoubtedly more people who break laws outside of jail than in jail, evidenced by average speeds exceeding speed limits.
Okay, so not everyone who broke a law is in jail. Point granted.
Frazzled wrote: If you're in prison, its statistically likely you've done something bad. Regardless of anything else, that means you've taken time away from taking care of your kids because of your actions.
So someone who is wrongfully imprisoned is a bad parent? Seems like a pretty gakky thing to say about someone who didn't choose to spend time away from home. By this standard though our military men are bad parents because they also have to spend time away from their kids because of their actions.
I'll restate. If you're in prison its statistically likely you've done something bad. Regardless of anything else, that means you've taken time away from taking care of your kids because of your actions.
So if you find yourself in prison, despite being innocent, you're a bad parent. Good to know innocence, the facts of the case, evidence, are all arbitrary. Just make a generalizing judgement to fit them all. So lets see..
if you are in prison you:
-are statistically more likely of haven committed a crime as o'''pposed to have not
- have to spend time away from your kids...
you still haven't addressed the moral hazard of not spending enough time with your kids for voluntary reasons such as career... are those people bad parents ? for the same reason you have stated that prisoners = bad parents.
I typically think you're a pretty funny chap Fraz, but if this was all an attempt at trolling, it was in poor taste. I'm baffled by how anyone with a shred of intelligence could reckon that if you are a prisoner, you're automatically a bad parent, as if they go hand in hand. Regardless if they USUALLY do, or even 99.9% of the time they go hand in hand, you can't generalize the entire topic and pretend the .01% don't exist. They do.
kronk wrote: If having a character on SS allows a young kid to identify with something and help them deal with the anger, depression, and abandonment that comes from having a parent in jail, then ok.
That's a good thing, right? It's not like they're glamorizing it.
That is indeed a good thing. Its not the kid's fault their parent is a loser and waste of skin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: There are plenty of people in jail who are not "bad" people. This is a fact.
Are you honestly advocating that going to jail = removal of parental rights?
Name one.
well, a ton of patsy's/scapegoats .. I sure would imagine.. for starters. do a google search.
You haven't heard of the Salem witch trials huh? Would you not concede those women were imprisoned by their captors, and murdered in public? Despite being innocent... Terrible parents...
Come on...
Anyways, thats all the troll's-toll that I got today.
Frazzled wrote: If you reaching back what 200 years to have to support your argument, I'd dare say you lost your argument.
Again, would John Gacy's conviction give greater or lesser weight to the assumption he would be a good parent?
What about victims of false domestic dispute allegations? Which make up about 1/2 of domestic dispute cases these days I hear. How many men are arrested, incarcerated yearly over that gak? when they didn't do anything wrong, other than picking a crazy woman who pulls that crap when you break up with her/she has a bad day? Yes picking a improper mate was a poor decision, but that doesn't make that dad a bad parent.
What one random gak-head thinks, did, or didn't do has nothing to do with the over arching generalization that ALL PRISONERS DESPITE OF INNOCENCE ARE BAD PARENTS.
Frazzled wrote: If you reaching back what 200 years to have to support your argument, I'd dare say you lost your argument.
Again, would John Gacy's conviction give greater or lesser weight to the assumption he would be a good parent?
What about victims of false domestic dispute allegations? Which make up about 1/2 of domestic dispute cases these days I hear. How many men are arrested, incarcerated yearly over that gak? when they didn't do anything wrong, other than picking a crazy woman who pulls that crap when you break up with her/she has a bad day? Yes picking a improper mate was a poor decision, but that doesn't make that dad a bad parent.
What one random gak-head thinks, did, or didn't do has nothing to do with the over arching generalization that ALL PRISONERS DESPITE OF INNOCENCE ARE BAD PARENTS.
"You hear?" sorry that doesn't cut it, other than indicates you might have issues you don't want to go there with me on. (Frazzled's way more hardcore about violence against women then he normally is).
Uh... Frazzled. I have 4 sisters, and have 10 nieces. So you can't just cut that tough guy crap out now. I'm unsure if you're aware or not of the proliferation of false domestic dispute cases. I didn't just "hear" about it, but I'm not going to do your homework for you, look it up. Many dads/men are falsely accused of this and lose custody of kids, livelihoods, everything because of it. I'm very protective of women, and don't condone violence toward anyone.
in fact I brought up how the "ruling party" of salem, held trials, and MURDERED poor women for NO good reason... Now we have different rulers, and you know what? Sometimes they get things wrong. They aren't infallible. So what does that mean? That sometimes people who are innocent, go to prison... People who are good parents... who wouldn't of otherwise missed that large chunk of their kids life by their own choices... People who could have turned down high paying out of town jobs to stay in town to be around kids for instance... But all of that possibility is out of the realm of plausibility according to you, because if you go to prison, for any reason, you're a bad parent...
I'ts very offensive to claim that anyone to ever go to prison is a bad parent. I'ts just erroneous.
skyfi wrote: Uh... Frazzled. I have 4 sisters, and have 10 nieces. So you can't just cut that tough guy crap out now. I'm unsure if you're aware or not of the proliferation of false domestic dispute cases. I didn't just "hear" about it, but I'm not going to do your homework for you, look it up. Many dads/men are falsely accused of this and lose custody of kids, livelihoods, everything because of it. I'm very protective of women, and don't condone violence toward anyone.
in fact I brought up how the "ruling party" of salem, held trials, and MURDERED poor women for NO good reason... Now we have different rulers, and you know what? Sometimes they get things wrong. They aren't infallible. So what does that mean? That sometimes people who are innocent, go to prison... People who are good parents... who wouldn't of otherwise missed that large chunk of their kids life by their own choices... People who could have turned down high paying out of town jobs to stay in town to be around kids for instance... But all of that possibility is out of the realm of plausibility according to you, because if you go to prison, for any reason, you're a bad parent...
I'ts very offensive to claim that anyone to ever go to prison is a bad parent. I'ts just erroneous.
I have no proof of these false statements, indeed don't believe you a whit.
No on has proffered evidence that its statistically likely you're a bad person if you're in jail. You people need to work on your basic regression analysis confidence levels, and pronto!
Frazzled wrote: No on has proffered evidence that its statistically likely you're a bad person if you're in jail. You people need to work on your basic regression analysis confidence levels, and pronto!
Frazz premise: "People who are in prison are bad guys, and bad parents."
Counterargument: "There exist people who wrongly go to prison."
Frazzled wrote: No on has proffered evidence that its statistically likely you're a bad person if you're in jail. You people need to work on your basic regression analysis confidence levels, and pronto!
No but you and another poster have offered your OPINIONS, which are erroneous. (I realize it's silly to say someone's opinion is wrong, but... when you say your opinion that 2+2 = 5.... someone will provide evidence to the contrary... such as what dead posted)
If there's doubt about their imprisonment then they need to be release PRONTO Since there's doubt and not proof they were falsely imprison then there's no back pay.
Frazzled wrote: No on has proffered evidence that its statistically likely you're a bad person if you're in jail. You people need to work on your basic regression analysis confidence levels, and pronto!
Frazz premise: "People who are in prison are bad guys, and bad parents."
Counterargument: "There exist people who wrongly go to prison."
Frazzled reposte: agreed. there exist people who wrongly go to prison. However thats not a statistically sufficient number to invalidate the first premise. ergo you lose Funboy! Now geta job hippy!
Frazzled wrote: No on has proffered evidence that its statistically likely you're a bad person if you're in jail. You people need to work on your basic regression analysis confidence levels, and pronto!
Frazz premise: "People who are in prison are bad guys, and bad parents."
Counterargument: "There exist people who wrongly go to prison."
Ok, So what, that is very little of the population of prison, The people who do commit crimes and go to prison are horrible parents, they left their children for some stupid thing, whether it be drugs, shoplifting.
So what if a small minority has dont no crime, we are talking about people who do commit crimes and have kids, whihc im willing to be is more likely.
Point is, ou are a bad parent if you do a crime and get sent to jail, you have kids, you cant do whatever the hell you want.
Frazzled wrote: No on has proffered evidence that its statistically likely you're a bad person if you're in jail. You people need to work on your basic regression analysis confidence levels, and pronto!
Frazz premise: "People who are in prison are bad guys, and bad parents."
Counterargument: "There exist people who wrongly go to prison."
Ok, So what, that is very little of the population of prison, The people who do commit crimes and go to prison are horrible parents, they left their children for some stupid thing, whether it be drugs, shoplifting.
So what if a small minority has dont no crime, we are talking about people who do commit crimes and have kids, whihc im willing to be is more likely.
Point is, ou are a bad parent if you do a crime and get sent to jail, you have kids, you cant do whatever the hell you want.
A lot of the argument/debate seems to stem from the association with going to jail at all and being a bad parent, as opposed to being a bad parent because you were associated with committing heinous crime A, B, or C.
Some have put forth the premise that JUST being in prison all of its own, is reason enough to be labeled a bad parent. Regardless if you were framed, a patsy, a victim of circumstance, etc.
Your premise "[Y]ou are a bad parent if you do a crime and get sent to jail, you have kids, you cant do whatever the hell you want." is more true IMO, as it contains "if you do a crime"... I still wouldn't agree that just because you went to jail for a crime, that it makes you a bad parent. I would determine whether or not you're a bad parent or not on an individual level. Not a collective one.
I honestly believe that it's a bit of a collectivist notion to lump everyone together and just say, BAD!
The dad who went to jail because he lost his temper and assaulted someone who said something very cross to his underage daughter? I wouldn't put him on the same level of a "bad parent" as John Gacy, or someone who traffics heroin for instance. Its a case by case scenario...
Some have put forth the premise that JUST being in prison all of its own, is reason enough to be labeled a bad parent. Regardless if you were framed, a patsy, a victim of circumstance, etc.
Your premise "[Y]ou are a bad parent if you do a crime and get sent to jail, you have kids, you cant do whatever the hell you want." is more true IMO, as it contains "if you do a crime"... I still wouldn't agree that just because you went to jail for a crime, that it makes you a bad parent. I would determine whether or not you're a bad parent or not on an individual level. Not a collective one.
I honestly believe that it's a bit of a collectivist notion to lump everyone together and just say, BAD!
After this thread and the GITMO thread....I've no idea. Only hard confirmed idea I can go by. Is not be "That Guy" to wind up in either places Only back up hard evidence we can go by of releasing prisoners would be ICE.
Frazzled wrote:I would. He still effectively bailed on the situation because he got caught.
Now I'll go with 'people not falsely convicted' in my prison statement, but otherwise it holds just fine.
So, Murdering 30+ people Gacy-style, and punching a twit in the face are equal crimes? Sorry I disagree.
Getting caught has nothing to do with anything. Maybe the dad hit the guy, and stayed around to "get his punishment" like he should, to be a ya know, good role model for his childrenz?
daedalus wrote:
Jihadin wrote: So those with questionable/in doubt conviction should go free?
Are they proven guilty, at that point?
Cause, that's what we do still right? Presumption of innocence, and all that? That's still around?
Frazzled wrote:I would. He still effectively bailed on the situation because he got caught.
Now I'll go with 'people not falsely convicted' in my prison statement, but otherwise it holds just fine.
So, Murdering 30+ people Gacy-style, and punching a twit in the face are equal crimes? Sorry I disagree.
Getting caught has nothing to do with anything. Maybe the dad hit the guy, and stayed around to "get his punishment" like he should, to be a ya know, good role model for his childrenz?
A good rolemodel would not have hit a guy for just saying something to his daughter
Frazzled wrote:I would. He still effectively bailed on the situation because he got caught.
Now I'll go with 'people not falsely convicted' in my prison statement, but otherwise it holds just fine.
So, Murdering 30+ people Gacy-style, and punching a twit in the face are equal crimes? Sorry I disagree.
Getting caught has nothing to do with anything. Maybe the dad hit the guy, and stayed around to "get his punishment" like he should, to be a ya know, good role model for his childrenz?
A good rolemodel would not have hit a guy for just saying something to his daughter
I agree. I didn't mean to infer he was a good role model, but that in order to be a good role model, he should stay and "take his licks"
My point was that the dad who struck a man for saying something to his kid, is not as "bad" of a parent, as a man who murdered 30+ people. You can't simply say they are both equally bad parents because they both wound up in prison. One is clearly a worse person/parent.
To expound upon that, and before you reply with what I know you're going to reply with, there are many times that law enforcement is not effective or available. For one, there is a dangerous subset of people who genuinely only understand a show of force. Law enforcement might not be entirely sympathetic. The guy just gets held overnight and then you have to watch over your shoulder the rest of your life wondering when he's going to get back at you. I have actually witnessed this happening.
daedalus wrote: To expound upon that, and before you reply with what I know you're going to reply with, there are many times that law enforcement is not effective or available. For one, there is a dangerous subset of people who genuinely only understand a show of force. Law enforcement might not be entirely sympathetic. The guy just gets held overnight and then you have to watch over your shoulder the rest of your life wondering when he's going to get back at you. I have actually witnessed this happening.
daedalus wrote: To expound upon that, and before you reply with what I know you're going to reply with, there are many times that law enforcement is not effective or available. For one, there is a dangerous subset of people who genuinely only understand a show of force. Law enforcement might not be entirely sympathetic. The guy just gets held overnight and then you have to watch over your shoulder the rest of your life wondering when he's going to get back at you. I have actually witnessed this happening.
I am confused about what you are saying.
Sorry. That's meant to be read as attached to my example for when it becomes okay to hurt someone for saying something to your underage daughter.
Read it as if I assume, between the two comments, the next thing you're going to say is "that's when you call in the police."
Wasn't there a case in Texas where a Dad beat a guy to death for molesting his daughter. The dad knowingly going to beat the guy to death. At a barn. Knowing the police were going to be late to show to stop him. Bare knuckle death beat down. At a barn...
Seems whole town agreed father was not at fault... So they wouldn't think the father in my example is as bad as John gacy... I would reckon at least. ( a jump I know, someone talking like they going to molest as opposed to catching them in act.. Seems like they'd approve of a scaled response though is my point, ie slugging someone for saying it vs beating them to death If ya caught them
Why I believe...if I remember correctly...he got away with murder. He didn't use any farm implements....horse shoes...2 by 4....whatever have you in a barn. That dad went and stuck with pure anger and wanted the satisfaction on beating the guy to death with bare knuckles...think Texas have a law for that benefiting the guy that protecting his daughter.
Jihadin wrote: Why I believe...if I remember correctly...he got away with murder. He didn't use any farm implements....horse shoes...2 by 4....whatever have you in a barn. That dad went and stuck with pure anger and wanted the satisfaction on beating the guy to death with bare knuckles...think Texas have a law for that benefiting the guy that protecting his daughter.
Well h is probably in the right according the the law, excessive force to protect someone
Apparently Texas authorizes deadly force in response to sexual assault, which is what protected this dad.. Who was only 23!! Crazy. Just a kid still really
See exactly. Meantime all the ones in jail still suck. Because they're bad. which is not good. Unlike queso which is good. You know what else is good? Benadryl, when you get six wasp stings. Rum is good for that too. I know. I know.
Depends on the daughter view....she got molested by an adult male. Her father is an adult male that just killed another Adult Male. Something in back of my mind though telling me the daughter was there an saw it go down. So we have one adult male who was a child molester (woot dead) but now a father that's a killer. Some people perception would consider it murder
edit
Here's a sig on me for that one. That was due I'm harden enough not to be bothered by dead kids. I've seen enough them shot or blown the hell up on their school bus. Quite a few beheading to. It just really really makes me hate Insurgents (I also throw AQ and the Taliban in that mix)
Jihadin wrote: Depends on the daughter view....she got molested by an adult male. Her father is an adult male that just killed another Adult Male. Something in back of my mind though telling me the daughter was there an saw it go down. So we have one adult male who was a child molester (woot dead) but now a father that's a killer. Some people perception would consider it murder
So convicts are good parents and Dads killing child molesters in the process of molesting their child are murderers.
100% glad I don't live anywhere near your worldview.
My daughter expects me to kill anything that hurts her. Young children are not the least bit nuanced.
I rather knee cap them. I've enough on my plate of killing. Killing them is a cop out for them. Knee capping them still going to put the fear in them when they hit general population in prison
Jihadin wrote: Depends on the daughter view....she got molested by an adult male. Her father is an adult male that just killed another Adult Male. Something in back of my mind though telling me the daughter was there an saw it go down. So we have one adult male who was a child molester (woot dead) but now a father that's a killer. Some people perception would consider it murder
So convicts are good parents and Dads killing child molesters in the process of molesting their child are murderers.
Well, that depends, did these parents get convicted because they followed the hypothetical example from earlier, except lived somewhere other than Small Town, TX, and as a result got the book thrown at them for defending their child?
I think I still want to see the Sesame Street puppet added for "Alienated upper-middle class kid who's sees his dual-income goal-orientated parents approximately 20 hours a month with about half of those hours involving signs of one or more half-covered-up affairs."
Jihadin wrote: Depends on the daughter view....she got molested by an adult male. Her father is an adult male that just killed another Adult Male. Something in back of my mind though telling me the daughter was there an saw it go down. So we have one adult male who was a child molester (woot dead) but now a father that's a killer. Some people perception would consider it murder
So convicts are good parents and Dads killing child molesters in the process of molesting their child are murderers.
100% glad I don't live anywhere near your worldview.
My daughter expects me to kill anything that hurts her. Young children are not the least bit nuanced.
My daughter expects me to duck and get out of the way. Her skills with a 9mm are excellent.
My daughter expects me to duck and get out of the way. Her skills with a 9mm are excellent.
Good parents have kids who know they can always depend upon them for help with their insurmountable problems, while great parents have kids who don't need to.
If you are guilty of the crimes that resulted in a prison sentence you probably are not a very good parent. However, you may not be worse of a parent than many that have not been convicted of a crime.
Not everyone in prison is "bad" some have just made stupid choices, like one of my students that decided to supplement his income by growing pot in his basement. In every other way he was very decent in his behavior but he succumbed to the lure of easy money.
Once as a graduate student I taught a continuing education class at a maximum security prison (Menard, Illinois). I will say that most of the students were pretty much world class screw ups because you had to be actually serving at least 5 years to land there. This means you probably murdered someone or had multiple felonies. While the cons were polite to me as their teacher I sure would not want them raising children. Not a few of them were pretty damn scary individuals and not exactly remorseful.
I disagree, you did something, that conflicted with your childs needs, that lnaded you in jail.
And how can you be a good parent if y'know, not there.
Like my cousins baby-daddy, he not only committed a crime, but he got arrested with his 3 year old son in the carm nearly traumatizing him.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I disagree, you did something, that conflicted with your childs needs, that lnaded you in jail.
Considering the sheer amount or ways and reasons a person can land in jail, it is possible to land in jail because of something regarding your child's needs. There is no singular incident that all people in jail fall into and can be described so easily.
IT is actually very hard to get into jail, yuo have to do some serious gak to get to jail, like that assault mentioned earlier? That would likely just get you parole over here
hotsauceman1 wrote: IT is actually very hard to get into jail, yuo have to do some serious gak to get to jail, like that assault mentioned earlier? That would likely just get you parole over here
You keep saying this. I'm not sure where you got this idea.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I disagree, you did something, that conflicted with your childs needs, that lnaded you in jail.
And how can you be a good parent if y'know, not there.
So you are of the opinion that absent parent = bad parent? Parent chooses to do things that put them in jail, bad parent. Parent chooses career that takes them away for long periods, bad parent?
hotsauceman1 wrote: IT is actually very hard to get into jail, yuo have to do some serious gak to get to jail, like that assault mentioned earlier? That would likely just get you parole over here
You keep saying this. I'm not sure where you got this idea.
From my Criminiology Proff, who is a cop and has first hand experience in the system
hotsauceman1 wrote: I disagree, you did something, that conflicted with your childs needs, that lnaded you in jail.
And how can you be a good parent if y'know, not there.
So you are of the opinion that absent parent = bad parent? Parent chooses to do things that put them in jail, bad parent. Parent chooses career that takes them away for long periods, bad parent?
Are you a parent?
I am not a parent, no, but I do help with my cousins kids, who i see first hand how a parent in jail affects them, the second oldest always cries when he has to leave visiting his father. It isnt like the military, or a job that takes you away, in the former you are doing a noble thing in helping your country, while securing your families future, the former you are providing for your family, and very few jobs take you away for 5-10 years where you can only visit between glass.
Good old Cali, I live in the Bay area(San fran area)
Gotcha.
The problem is, and I'm no expert on the matter, but we seem to have a difference of opinion on this. See, I read the news, and I see stories about 14 year olds who are threatened with a year of jail time for daring to talk back to a police officer (granted, not a wise idea, but, I mean, really?) and geniuses from MIT who kill themselves to avoid the lengthy prison sentence they're being served up for breaking a EULA on a online service. While those are high profile situations, I can't help but wonder how many there are that don't make the news just like that.
While my world view is most certainly rooted in anti-establishment thought and news, perhaps even bordering on socio-anarchic at times, I'm willing to realize that my perspective is not entirely impartial. At the same time, could you suppose there exists the possibility of your professor being in particular biased, due to being on his side of the shield?
hotsauceman1 wrote: I agree, as is mine biased because i see my cousin(Who is practically my sis) got her life nearly ruined by a guy in jail
That's fair. I've never personally known anyone who's gone to jail for anything beyond what was supposedly trumped up drug charges, so I've never been personally affected by such a thing.
I need to go to bed. As discussion seems possible, I would like to continue the discussion tomorrow.
poppa G wrote: I believe the puppeteer for elmo was accused of child molestation.
In November 2012, 23-year-old Sheldon Stephens alleged that he had been in a sexual relationship with Clash which began when Stephens was 16. Sesame Workshop had initially been presented with the allegation in June, and its investigation found the allegation to be unsubstantiated. Clash acknowledged that he had been in a relationship with the accuser; however, he characterized the relationship as being between consenting adults.[44] Stephens later recanted his accusation, but two weeks later, Cecil Singleton and two additional unnamed men made similar accusations and lawsuits were filed against Clash.[46]
Clash resigned from Sesame Workshop on November 20, 2012, and released a statement saying, "Personal matters have diverted attention away from the important work 'Sesame Street' is doing and I cannot allow it to go on any longer. I am deeply sorry to be leaving and am looking forward to resolving these personal matters privately."[46] Sesame Workshop also released a statement: "Unfortunately, the controversy surrounding Kevin's personal life has become a distraction that none of us want, and he has concluded that he can no longer be effective in his job and has resigned from 'Sesame Street.'"[46] They stated that other puppeteers had been trained to serve as Clash's understudy and would take over his roles on the show
hotsauceman1 wrote: who is a cop and has first hand experience in the system
And I know criminal attorneys who are also professors and have first hand experience in the system that will tell you otherwise.
Is it fair to say that in some places, people might be surprised how much you have to feth up before landing in jail, while in other situations people might be surprised how seriously the will come down on a fairly minor offence? That it depends on the specifics of the crime, the personal circumstances of the law breaker (parents and people who are otherwise productive members of society are likely to be given a suspended sentence), and the judge and jurisdiction the law breaker finds himself in?
I mean, I haven't read anything substantial on the issue, just a lot of people's experiences over the years, and I've found that well, the law is just another great big bureaucracy with all sorts of end results that no-one really intended, and no great consistency from place to place, or time to time.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I disagree, you did something, that conflicted with your childs needs, that lnaded you in jail.
Considering the sheer amount or ways and reasons a person can land in jail, it is possible to land in jail because of something regarding your child's needs. There is no singular incident that all people in jail fall into and can be described so easily.
If you're selling drugs
If you're a cartel member
a thief
a murder
sorry who exactly goes to prison for selling weed again?
The two women were arrested for drug distribution and because Spottedcrow's children were in the home, an additional charge of possession of a dangerous substance in the presence of a minor was added.
oh and this part is nice. Nothing like involving your kids in the drug trade.
Starr handled the transaction and asked her 9-year-old grandson — Spottedcrow's son — for some dollar bills to make change for the $11 sale.
Mmm... looks like they were selling weed form the house you live at with your kids to be a pargon of good parenting. Now they are in jail. Thanks for supporting my argument Ahtman!
That people can be sentenced and spend time in jail for selling that sweet chiba? You're welcome. You never said that they wouldn't also have other charges against them, just that it doesn't happen, and I gave four examples where it does.
The 'no one goes to jail for selling weed' argument has nothing to do with your ridiculous 'everyone in jail is a terrible no good bad parent'. The refutation of that was never that there are no bad parents in prison, but that it is to broad a statement to merit taking seriously, as there are all sorts of reason why good people end up in jail sometimes. Most will be pretty gakky people, but to say they all are is just facetious. Since you have trouble seperating them I will help.
"No one goes to jail for selling weed"
- examples of people going to jail for selling weed given. Argument refuted
"All people in prison are bad parents"
- examples of why people may end up in prison and not be bad parents given. Argument refuted
- reasons given for why all people in jail are bad parents also shown to be fallacious and applicable to many people that aren't in jail (heavy workload, career military). Underlying assumption refuted.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I explained why heavy workload/ military is not applicaple, in jail
The metric was they were bad parents becuase they made choices that lead to not being around their kids for long stretches, which is still quite applicable. The rest is arbitrary goal post shuffling. The reason the definition has to keep chaning is becuase the underlying argument (all people in jail are bad parents) is untenable.
hotsauceman1 wrote: you not contributing anything to your child, in the other two you are.
Unless you are putting your life in order in order to be a better parent such as getting off drugs or getting an education. Forgetting that for a second if (something as incredibly vague as) contributing anything to your child was the measure of a good parent, then the Menendez brother's parents, and all other rich parents, would be the best, and yet, I can think of several examples of truly awful well off parents.
Here's a compelling premise: There surely exist gakky parents that are not in prison.
With that in mind, what if, for those set of people, being imprisoned WOULD be contributing positively toward the future of their child(ren), simply by virtue of them not being present during their upbringing?
That people can be sentenced and spend time in jail for selling that sweet chiba? You're welcome. You never said that they wouldn't also have other charges against them, just that it doesn't happen, and I gave four examples where it does.
The 'no one goes to jail for selling weed' argument has nothing to do with your ridiculous 'everyone in jail is a terrible no good bad parent'. The refutation of that was never that there are no bad parents in prison, but that it is to broad a statement to merit taking seriously, as there are all sorts of reason why good people end up in jail sometimes. Most will be pretty gakky people, but to say they all are is just facetious. Since you have trouble seperating them I will help.
"No one goes to jail for selling weed"
- examples of people going to jail for selling weed given. Argument refuted
"All people in prison are bad parents"
- examples of why people may end up in prison and not be bad parents given. Argument refuted
- reasons given for why all people in jail are bad parents also shown to be fallacious and applicable to many people that aren't in jail (heavy workload, career military). Underlying assumption refuted.
I will cede on the point in that I was wrong that no goes to prison for weed. However the actual article brilliantly supports my argument.
1. Selling drugs out of the family residence.
2. getting the kids involved.
As Yoda would say "As parents suck they do."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: Here's a compelling premise: There surely exist gakky parents that are not in prison.
With that in mind, what if, for those set of people, being imprisoned WOULD be contributing positively toward the future of their child(ren), simply by virtue of them not being present during their upbringing?
Perhaps absence IS an asset of sorts.
I could see that. However, they are still bad parents, prison just keeps the bad parenting away from the kids.
In interesting note in the Spottedcrow case, the judge who originally sentenced her to 12 years in prison had just previously, totally let a highway patrolman's wife off the hook for possession of more than $31 of pot. How close these 2 cases were together on this judges' docket was quit appalling, I wish I could find the articles on it. All the articles on spottedcrow now I find have to do with her early release/parole/the incarceration rate of women in OK.
We also were the ones to sentence that wheelchair bound-sickly fella to 96 years in prison for growing pot for his own medicinal use.. Who after some time,got parole, and extradited back to OK from California or somewhere, for violating parole by leaving the state of OK (to go to a state where he could legally acquire the marijuana that helps his disorder, MS or something I can't recall off the top of my head).. Oklahoma has a really bad reputation for this sort of gak.
In any event, I think it's been explained/argued plenty by now, that going to prison doesn't make you a bad parent in-of-itself. it's really more based on numerous factors, and why you go to prison is just one very relevant factor.
ers.
