Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Michelle L Devon (Michy), Texas on May 19, 2009:

You know, I have followed your zero tolerance writings for a long time now. I spent sometimes hours per day at the school with my son, fighting for his freedoms and rights and I lost the battle, but in a sense won it too--I pulled my child out of school and now homeschool. Never had those issues with my daughter; only had them with my son. I have written on zero tolerance many times. I just wanted to applaud your taking a stand on these issues.

As for the issues with the librarian... I am a fiction writer (novelist) who is writing a thriller. I have performed extensive research on weapons of mass destruction, terrorist attacks, biological warfare, conspiracy theories, Zietgist, the Patriot Act, the 'thought crime laws', and much more.

I've joked with my friends and editor that somewhere, on some government list, between my internet searching, telephone communications using 'key words' and my library research and checkout, my name is definitely added to that 'people to watch' roll call.

If we are judged based on what we read, find fascinating, or want to know more about... well, we're all guilty of something then. Reminds me a bit of the story in Minority Report - convict people prior to the crime so that the crime is never committed. We're safe; we're not free.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Good essay.

Posted by Cam, Baltimore, Md. on May 19, 2009:

Your school years--from elementary school through college--are when you are supposed to learn and develop your mind. Except in a few cases, once you leave school you transition to a life where you are supposed to use your mind to contribute to society, if only to earn enough to feed and house yourself.

I can attest that intelligence is not a factor of age. Granted you do mature and learn (hopefully) to make better decisions as you got older, but Zero Tolerance is a cop-out. It relieves the 'educator' of using his mind to make a decision. Great novels have portrayed the idiocy of a non-thinking bureaucracy. e.g., the fellow who was told he was guilty, but no one would tell him of what? Les Miserables where a man who stole only to feed his starving family, etc.

Posted by Darryl, Toronto on May 19, 2009:

I live in Toronto, ON, CAN and we have some of the most restrictive gun laws, and yet kids are still being shot all the time (last week a 14 yr old boy was shot and killed). Some of your posters have suggested that more stringent laws need to be passed is a farce.

I am glad that I did not grow up in this era. When I was a teenager, I was very interested in Vietnam, from when the British, French and Americans fought there. I read a lot from the North perspective, to try to understand what divided the country. I guess I would have been arrested as a communist.

Last item. I decided to look up Miranda Rights. I only had a bit of time, but Wikipedia will certainly muddle the issue for you a lot further, as that States have different wording, different meanings of when Miranda can be used. For this instance, the specific State Statutes regarding Miranda will need to be researched. But for the most part, Miranda is invoked when they are placed in custody (a custodial situation is one in which the suspect's freedom of movement is restrained although he or she is not under arrest -- Wikipedia). And from my understanding, this is exactly what happened to the boy.

---

Just so, and I'm unclear why Miranda doesn't (appear to) apply here. It bears researching. -rc

Posted by Bergman, Seattle WA on May 19, 2009:

Lee,

The "boy" in question is 17 years old. At 18, he would be considered an adult in the eyes of the law, and the legal system does not consider ignorance of the laws to be a valid defense. So he had best know the laws. 18 is also the age at which one can legally own firearms in the US; Why is it a bad thing to know one's legal rights and obligations?

As for age-restricting knowledge of one's own civil rights, that's an extremely alarming concept. Kids these days are considered by many in authority (incorrectly, by the way) to have no rights at all. If the kids don't know their rights, and their teachers won't tell them, how will they know they're being illegally mistreated?

---

Yet at the same time, prosecutors want to try juveniles as adults at younger and younger ages when they do commit crimes. Sounds like a lose-lose proposition for the kids. -rc

Posted by Ruth, UK on May 19, 2009:

I got in trouble a couple of times at school and the thing I noticed most was that I would be asked for "my side of the story" and then it would be completely ignored and I would be told repeatedly that I was wrong. I lost all respect for my headteacher over one such incident.
I did find that anything I put in writing was automatically public property, so I am still paranoid over security for my personal documents and my writing.

For the record, I'm in the UK, I had good grades and I finished secondary school in 1999. I am also a small, lightweight girl and always have been. It amazes me that I could get into trouble for threatening to hurt someone if he picked on me again (yeah, he was only about a foot taller and a couple of stone heavier), yet the school did nothing when I was being forced to do PE with a broken rib (the rib was actually visibly forcing the skin out; I think I was eventually given a detention because I refused to raise my arm because it hurt too much) and also did nothing during the times I was being bullied. Nobody noticed that I was anorexic for at least three years either.

If anyone had profiled me under zero-tolerance rules, aside from being female, I'd probably have hit all the alarm buttons - loner, quiet, bullied, making threats, writing stories about violence, researching knives/guns/other weapons. However, in my entire school life, the worst I ever did was back-fist someone who was hovering behind me while I was working - and then I didn't actually aim to hit him - I was trying to make him go away, as I'd already *told* him to go away several times. I just didn't realise how close he was. I put my left fist back to shoulder level and his face was there. Needless to say, I got isolation for that. I remember isolation as one of my favourite parts of school - I'd be put in an empty classroom, get all my work for the day at the beginning, finish it all during the first two lessons and then I could draw or write in peace for the rest of the day. It was a nice break from all the horrible people in my year. I don't think that was the actual purpose of isolation, though!

Posted by Mike from Dallas on May 19, 2009:

You mentioned that prosecutors want to prosecute kids as adults for crimes at an increasingly younger age, that it's a lose-lose proposition for the kids. I recommend a speech given by Dick Gregory back in 1970 shortly after the Kent State incident in which the National Guard killed 4 university students.

As Mr. Gregory expressed it, it's a function of the Cowboys & Indians mentality. Unfortunately, the Indians finally were either killed off or ended up on the reservation. So the government needed some new "Indians" to pursue. Not something that people would cheerfully volunteer for. But for a while, the Negro folks took the job since, at least, THEN they'd be able to use weapons to defend themselves. But they caught on quicker than the Indians about forming political groups to influence American society.

So, then, the government was back in a position of needing some new "Indians" again. And then they discovered the perfect "Indian". A group that had no weapons. Didn't know anything about politics. Had been taught from birth by our own educational system to never fight back. Our own kids. The beauty of this new "Indian" for our government to fulfill its mandate to fight was that our kids are continually renewing. We'll never run out.

This, at a time when the legal age of adulthood was 21, yet kids who were too young to legally leave home without parental permission could be drafted by our government against parental wishes and sent to die in a war in which they had no vote. Nearly 50 years later, and we still haven't run out of ideas for ways to kill off our children or otherwise destroy their lives.

Posted by Frank, Charles Town, WV on May 20, 2009:

I'm thinking that a civil rights lawsuit against the library and the librarian who "brought the man" into the life of this innocent kid would be a good idea.

Open and shut case, violation of a FUNDAMENTAL civil right, triple damages. Maybe enough bad publicity to get the librarian fired.

Posted by Ron, Phoenix on May 20, 2009:

I remember back when the Patriot Act was first passed, and librarians protested the provisions relating to the government's right to request library records. The ACLU sued, the ALA protested, and librarians across the country sanctimoniously shredded patron's records so that the government couldn't get them.

I guess their concerns over patrons' reading records were just a bit selective.

Posted by Andara - Long Beach, CA on May 20, 2009:

While this boy was treated poorly, you can see a much more egregious treatment of children in the case of the murder of Stephanie Crowe in 1998. For whatever reasons, the police focused on her brother and coerced a confession from not only him but also two of his friends. There have been some changes to what authorities are allowed to do when dealing with minors, but there is still far too much they are allowed that is completely unacceptable.

Posted by rewinn, Mercer Island on May 20, 2009:

Ron, Phoenix - I rather doubt that the lone librarian in this article was one of the majority who object to our government spying on you.

Rest assured that had the boy in this article been punished for his reading matter, the ACLU and ALA would have been in his corner, as they would be in yours in the same situation.