Law Blog - Part 3 School: Guilty until proven innocent

@ Tiger
I'm saddened by your bleak outlook on humanity. You're obviously a believer of the "born evil" argument.
School is so much more than a place to regurgitate facts and figures. School is an essential component in developing the necessary
social skills one would later utilize in life. Thus, it important that our learning - knowledge, morality, self-worth - is undertaken
within a model similar to the society which we would be soon venturing into. As to your view that the school is an empty prison
to keep students in... Cheer up buddy - there's more to life than this; you just have to look for it.

@ Tiger & Yue
"what is a committee composed with students without fundamental powers decide? Empty promises and rules?"
"In a real democracy, we would have real power such as dictating which teachers represent us"

Most of your points are well said and with conviction, but they are irrelevant because they only point out the INHERENT problem.
What we need now if SOLVENCY. How do we SOLVE the problem? Thank you for recognizing the unfairness and lack of democracy,
but it would be a logical fallacy to say that BECAUSE there is no democracy, there CAN'T be democracy in the future.

I am saying YES there is NO democracy NOW, and YES, there SHOULD BE democracy in the FUTURE.

@Tiger
"Just as we can vote out a politician, we should be able to vote out a teacher, if it were a representative democracy."

^ YES this is what I'm talking about. This would be too radical a change to implement now, but eventually, democratic education should
be able to a point where this happens. We may not be able to VOTE OUT a teacher directly, but we should be have certain control over
our quality of teachers. FOR EXAMPLE, student EVALUATION of teachers, where part of a BONUS would be proportional to the RATING
teachers give them. In this way we would have a REAL REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. This may never happen in our time, and certainly
not in a lethargic, conservative nation like Canada, but hopefully it will be taken on by some progressive, forward thinking educational
system.

Law Blog - Part 2 School: Guilty until proven innocent

The basis of the above argument lays in the "fact" that students have NO fundamental powers within the educational system. It lays in the belief
that students cannot, or should not have a say in their own education. Now, I think the fallacy of this belief becomes evident when one examines
the purpose of our educational system. Our educational system is created as an institution where learning takes place for the students. The focus
of this institution is to instil in students knowledge and skills necessary to become productive and homogenous members of society. If the said
institution has the purpose of bettering students, then would it not make sense for said group to become an active part of its own betterment?

The school should very much be a democracy. The status quo suggests that even the school board will not deny the fact that the school system
should be a democracy. The fact that students sit on the school board meetings and are required to provide student feedback is a gesture which
hints at the school board's realization of democratic education. Here is why the "three objects" stated above - which purportedly undermines any
possibility of the school becoming democratic - do not hold water.


1. "Students do not take the role of adults"
- First of all, society is composed of children and seniors in addition to adults. The government is forced to recognize those groups just as much
as they would "adults." For example in the No Child Left Behind Act, or the Seniors Disability Act, Social Security Act, etc. Thus, using such a literal
distinction between age is a weak argument in undermining the power of students in schools. Now that we have proven the age argument moot,
we can establish the composition of society as its citizens, the group which the government is forced to recognize and protect.
- I concede that students cannot take the role of adults within the same parameter of one society, but when split into the microcosm of the school
in comparison to the macrocosm of society, their relationship as contemporaries can be clearly seen. Adults within society are rewarded for good
behaviours, and punished for bad behaviour. Similarly, students within the school are rewarded for good behaviour, and punished for bad behavior.
(monetary v. corporeal / grades v. discipline)

2. "School not democratic because its decisions not sovereign"
- This is clearly taking one whole and forcibly separating it into two parts. The administration and teachers (under normal circumstances) behave in
accordance to the Vancouver School Board. As such, their decisions can be seen as one. Any "repeal" of decision is a check on one branch of gov't
like any good government in a democracy would have. This strengthens the argument for democracy.
- Furthermore, the checks made by the government are moot because they have nothing to with the microcosm of the school. The only government
intervention occurs in criminal or financial matters. In financial matters, the school or school board then become one whole entity in the larger
society which has to then answer to the government. In criminal matters, the individual faces the government as one part of the larger society, and
not as part of the microcosmic school.

3. "Parents better represent the 'citizens' than do students"
- Although parents have an inordinate amount of influence over students, parents cannot take the place that students hold in the education system.
When the parent complains to the school board, the parent is acting on behalf of the interests of the student, not as the corporeal entity of the student.
The parent is representing the student in NAME ONLY and not in body. Thus, the student retains his position in the micro-society.
- This is similar to a lawyer representing his client in court. The court will ASK what the lawyer wants KNOWING that the lawyer is REPRESENTING the
interests of his client. The court will know that the lawyer is acting on behalf of his client when he steps out onto the floor. In very much the same way,
the parents represents the student when speaking before the school or school board, as a spokesperson to the interests of the student. He or she is in
no way capable of replacing the student as an entity of that micro-society.

"in this sense there is a very good check and balence"
Ongoing dialogues between schools and parents are far from effective means of checks and balances. What I am concerned with is practical force and
effect in the hands of students which can make a impact NOW. Change that we are able to see. Granted, parents complaining to school boards are seen
as the way to change, but that is ineffective and time-consuming. When the school holds the power, why would it go out of its way to please its students,
or for that matter, the parents of its students? In the public school sector this is IMPOSSIBLE.

"the students demanding a board such as gary had mentioned is infact not justified"
I would like to think of it as politely requesting a means to achieve a democratic end. An "Honor Code Committee" would be a jury of one's peers, something
close to a right, and not merely a privilege. The school should be a democracy, and as such, the board is justified. I'm surprised to hear this from you Yue...
My fellow VDSC rep, we're supposed to be championing student voice, student voice as a tool to democracy, not tearing down the notion of democracy upon
which many of the century's most advanced civilizations were built.

Law Blog - School: Guilty until proven innocent

I like what Anna and Tiger said regarding the microcosmic representation of society within a school system. The students are essentially
the governed, while the administration and teachers work collectively as the government. There is a simple explanation for why students
are guilty until proven innocent. It is because our school system is not a democracy, but rather an oligarchy. In this oligarchy, there are no
checks and balances, namely any system of judicial review. The courts were developed in democratic nations to essentially prevent them
from reverting to an oligarchy. Without courts to check the power of the governments, the governments would be able to exercise law in
a way most beneficial to them. And the most expedient method would be to assume someone "guilty until innocent."

Our surprise at this concept is rooted in our familiarity with a justice system which purports the opposite. However, in many other countries,
the system of law dictates that the onus is on the accused to prove his own innocence. So for those people, the way justice is brought about
in our school system would seem natural.

Although I agree with Tiger's comment in that strict liability makes sense for acts of truancy to be processed using reverse onus for the sake
of expediency, I believe that expediency cannot outweigh fairness. Students accept the reverse onus, and often try to prove their innocence.
However, they are denied their right to an impartial judge or jury. Can anyone else see the inherent one-sided-ness of having a person who
acts as JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR? So in order to preserve fairness and also maintain expediency, it is my view that a student jury be set up for
cases of relative weight - such as decisions regarding expulsion, suspension, and cheating.

In the United States, many schools have a jury of peers called the Honor Code Committee, wherein 7-8 students sit on a board with 2-3 teachers.
Major disciplinary decisions are undertaken by this de jure "court." I am currently trying to propose this idea to the Vancouver School Board, is
there anyone who thinks this may be beneficial to keeping our education fair and democratic?

Death Penalty Arguments For

1. "Government punishes killing, so therefore it should not support death penalty."

FALLACY
This argument confuses the killing of INNOCENT civilians with the punishment of GUILTY criminals.

To better understand this fallacy, take into consideration similar punitive measure which are largely accepted within society as normative.

The government punishes stealing, but it also condones FINES. Fines are in effect "stealing," but why is seen as acceptable. The exclusion here
exists because the forcible taking of wealth is imposed on the GUILTY. When forcible taking of wealth is towards the INNOCENT then it is stealing.
Would you say that fines are unethical and unequivocally wrong? Probably not.

Most of you probably believe that holding people in prison is a reasonable measure of punishment. Imprisonment by government of the GUILTY
is considered normative, but holding people against there will, such as unwarranted police detainment or KIDNAPPING is considered a criminal
offense. The exclusive element here is the distinction between INNOCENCE and GUILT. Those who are GUILTY should be imprisoned while those
who are INNOCENT should not be imprisoned. Would you then go on to say that people should NOT BE IMPRISONED for their crimes because
IMPRISONMENT is UNETHICAL? No.

I think that it can then be easily concluded that the death penalty is not hypocritical, as it is the DUTY of the government to PUNISH the GUILTY,
and PROTECT the INNOCENT. We PROTECT the INNOCENT by PUNISHING the GUILTY.


2. "Not deterrent to Crime" @ Eric

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE - Regression Model
"Ehrlich reexamined U.S murder and execution statistics for the period 1933-1969, together with measures of social factors such as unemployment
and per capita income, and then tried to establish a mathematical model relating the murder rate to all these variables, including execution rates. His
model revealed a slight negative relationship, which he found to be statistically significant, between the murder rate and the execution rate. Ehrlich
concluded that "In light of these observations, one cannot reject the hypothesis that punishment, in general, and execution, in particular, exert a unique
deterrent effect on potential murderers."
- Professor John Lamperti, 2004 (Dartmouth)
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf

Eric check your sources again they may be outdated. Although many studies have been done, the argument of whether capital does indeed act as a
deterrent to crime has been rendered MOOT. The problem with earlier studies is that they fail to acknowledge the ROOT CAUSE for capital punishment
and its deterrence. Most of the studies were done in state were capital punishment was IMPLEMENTED B/C of HIGH CRIME RATES. Of course, when states
with inherently high crime rates are compared with state W/O capital punishment but inherently low crime rates, a regression model cannot be shown
because it is similar to comparing apples and oranges.

Occupy - At Its Core

I had previously thought that the Occupy movement held no purpose other than to disturb the peace. However, I encountered
a man from the International Socialists last weekend who radically changed my viewpoint on this issue. We talked extensively
concerning the goals of the Occupy movement, and about the common misconceptions people have towards this movement.

The organizers of Occupy simply want to raise awareness at the most basic level. They want to let everyone know of the vast
economic disparity which exists in capitalist nations such as Canada and the US. Frankly, less than 1% of the population control
more than half of the nation's prosperity. This is in no small part attributed to the fact that our governments have become
increasing friendly towards big businesses. Whereas Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Taft were trust-busters, breaking the
consolidation of powerful conglomerates, current policies help big businesses survive at the expense of smaller businesses.
As evidenced by the numerous bail-outs during the 2008-2009 fiscal year, the government is spending vast amounts in order
to keep the well-established corporations alive. As a result, the rich keep getting richer while the poor plummet down the ladder.

This is the economics behind Occupy. Now, many people complain that no solutions are being proposed. This is the furthest
thing from the truth. The leaders of Occupy are trying to pressure the government into applying an even more progressive tax.
This would mean that people in the higher brackets pay more percentage of income tax than those earning in the lower brackets.
Another suggestion being made is for governments to divert more oversight towards smaller businesses, as the influx of cash
can be more readily found there. ESSENTIALLY, when the government values large businesses to the extent that the country's
stability relies on it, there is a problem. When this happens, the government becomes the dog, and large corporations the owner.

I think that if we actually investigated the issue, instead of listening to mindless mainstream jabber, we would find that the
Occupy movement is something worth supporting. If we give up our right to influence the government, we no longer exist as
citizens of this nation. We become mere slaves to those who control the gold.

I feel that at its core, Occupy has a crucial and progressive agenda. However, once surrounded by mindless followers who build
tents and spew worthless rhetoric, it becomes a bad apple. I challenge all of you to look beneath the skin of the apple - to find
its core. Let me know what you find.