Author Topic: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .  (Read 21926 times)

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1411
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #50 on: May 08, 2015, 08:16:39 AM »
But of course that doesn't explain the decrease of violent crime in general. The most compelling explanation I've read to explain that is higher incarceration rates.
Actually the high incarcareration rates in the US increase the rate of criminality, and I am not talking about statistical results or the bullshit "spit 3 times and get a month prison" sort of law.

There are basically 2 reasons for this
1) after you were in prison, its very hard for you to get a job and a place to live. So you get arrested again for beeing homeless... no, thats one of the statistical results. I mean then you are likely to be poor, depressed and drunk. Or you get drugs to get away from your bleak life. Which costs money you only can get through crime. And so on.
2) People orient themselves at their surrounding, if everyone behaves like A, A is normal (e.g. helicopter parenting). People submit to social pressure. If people experience brutality, they tend to be brutal to others. And so on. In short: Good people influence you to be good, bad people influence you to be bad.
Now guess where the highest rate of bad people are? Concentrated in a very frustrating environment?
BINGO! In the PRISON!
Prisons make big criminals out of small ones.
In the prison!

LiveLean

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
  • Location: Central Florida
    • ToLiveLean
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #51 on: May 08, 2015, 08:24:03 AM »
Someone threatened to call the police for child endangerment because my mother left me alone in a camper when I was 17. Someone actually came over and started questioning me because they couldn't tell if I was an adult or not. I was in my camper with the door locked. When I said I was 17 they made a huge deal about leaving children unattended in a camper and kept harassing me about it until my mother returned and then told her they could have her arrested.

When I was 17 and just out of high school (in 1987), I was backpacking with buddies through Europe. My parents wouldn't have known what country I was in on any given day....Like a previous poster, I too was biking to the supermarket or drugstore to buy baseball cards at 10-11. At about that time (1979-1980), my youngest sister was three and would wander around our cul-de-sac. My mom had to call around to the neighbors to figure out where she had landed for dinner, where nobody worried about food allergies because most kids weren't allergic to anything.

I'm now officially a grumpy middle aged dude.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #52 on: May 08, 2015, 10:17:46 AM »
As an American visiting Oslo, Norway a couple years back, I was surprised by the number of prams, equipped with babies, were left outside the local Starbucks, while mom's chatted inside.  I quipped to my host "...someone would call child services in the US is they saw an unattended stroller outside a Starbucks in the US"  He said something to the effect that "fussy babies need fresh air"...  and I could not find a fault with his logic.

I grew up in norway and think this is idiotic. Would these people leave their wallets on the sidewalk while they went inside? Probably not, but their baby is ok?
Sure, let 6 and 10 year olds run around as appropriate, but I'm not cool with leaving a defenseless baby unsupervised outside on the street. That's stupid. Especially Oslo which is a pretty shitty city full of beggars, homeless people and prostitutes.

And somebody tested the theory that babies sleep better outside in fresh/cold air (which my mom always says too) and didn't find any difference.

justajane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2147
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #53 on: May 08, 2015, 10:23:52 AM »
But of course that doesn't explain the decrease of violent crime in general. The most compelling explanation I've read to explain that is higher incarceration rates.
Actually the high incarcareration rates in the US increase the rate of criminality, and I am not talking about statistical results or the bullshit "spit 3 times and get a month prison" sort of law.

There are basically 2 reasons for this
1) after you were in prison, its very hard for you to get a job and a place to live. So you get arrested again for beeing homeless... no, thats one of the statistical results. I mean then you are likely to be poor, depressed and drunk. Or you get drugs to get away from your bleak life. Which costs money you only can get through crime. And so on.
2) People orient themselves at their surrounding, if everyone behaves like A, A is normal (e.g. helicopter parenting). People submit to social pressure. If people experience brutality, they tend to be brutal to others. And so on. In short: Good people influence you to be good, bad people influence you to be bad.
Now guess where the highest rate of bad people are? Concentrated in a very frustrating environment?
BINGO! In the PRISON!
Prisons make big criminals out of small ones.
In the prison!

I see your point and largely agree with it. I had originally written that I was against the high rates of incarceration in this country, especially for drug crimes. But I deleted it, because it didn't relate to the topic at hand.

But if we extrapolate from what you're saying, if our incarceration rates were much lower, our crime rates would be at even historically lower rates. If so, why would you say this even more dramatic decline would be occurring? Human nature is a constant, so there must be another major change to our society that I don't see.

And the point still holds that if you incarcerate a rapist or child molester or murderer for life after their first offense, they will not re-offend. From what I understand, there are tougher sentences in place for these individuals, which would account for the supposed decreased amount of these offenses. At least it makes sense to me. And I'm not going to shed a tear for any of these parties if they spend their whole lives behind bars.

I agree with your analysis above about drugs charges, theft, etc. If they weren't hardened criminals when they came in, they are now. This is not good for them or for society as a whole.

Edited to ask LennStar - what is your suggestion then regarding incarceration of rapists, murderers and molesters? Should we not incarcerate them? They have already proven themselves to be a danger to society.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 10:32:11 AM by justajane »

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4777
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #54 on: May 08, 2015, 10:39:10 AM »
But of course that doesn't explain the decrease of violent crime in general. The most compelling explanation I've read to explain that is higher incarceration rates.
Actually the high incarcareration rates in the US increase the rate of criminality, and I am not talking about statistical results or the bullshit "spit 3 times and get a month prison" sort of law.

There are basically 2 reasons for this
1) after you were in prison, its very hard for you to get a job and a place to live. So you get arrested again for beeing homeless... no, thats one of the statistical results. I mean then you are likely to be poor, depressed and drunk. Or you get drugs to get away from your bleak life. Which costs money you only can get through crime. And so on.
2) People orient themselves at their surrounding, if everyone behaves like A, A is normal (e.g. helicopter parenting). People submit to social pressure. If people experience brutality, they tend to be brutal to others. And so on. In short: Good people influence you to be good, bad people influence you to be bad.
Now guess where the highest rate of bad people are? Concentrated in a very frustrating environment?
BINGO! In the PRISON!
Prisons make big criminals out of small ones.
In the prison!

I see your point and largely agree with it. I had originally written that I was against the high rates of incarceration in this country, especially for drug crimes. But I deleted it, because it didn't relate to the topic at hand.

But if we extrapolate from what you're saying, if our incarceration rates were much lower, our crime rates would be at even historically lower rates. If so, why would you say this even more dramatic decline would be occurring? Human nature is a constant, so there must be another major change to our society that I don't see.

And the point still holds that if you incarcerate a rapist or child molester or murderer for life after their first offense, they will not re-offend. From what I understand, there are tougher sentences in place for these individuals, which would account for the supposed decreased amount of these offenses. At least it makes sense to me. And I'm not going to shed a tear for any of these parties if they spend their whole lives behind bars.

I agree with your analysis above about drugs charges, theft, etc. If they weren't hardened criminals when they came in, they are now. This is not good for them or for society as a whole.

Edited to ask LennStar - what is your suggestion then regarding incarceration of rapists, murderers and molesters? Should we not incarcerate them? They have already proven themselves to be a danger to society.
I don't know weather to laugh, facepalm or what at this response.  There are not "tougher sentences" for rapists.  And that assumes they even get convicted.  Perhaps you did not hear about the 14 year old that was raped by an 18 year, even the 18 year old admitted she said no (and either way it was rape because she was underage and he was not) and the judge decided because she had sex prior, it was not rape.  No, rape is one of those crimes that we as society accept, not punish.

justajane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2147
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #55 on: May 08, 2015, 10:50:09 AM »
I don't know weather to laugh, facepalm or what at this response.  There are not "tougher sentences" for rapists.  And that assumes they even get convicted.  Perhaps you did not hear about the 14 year old that was raped by an 18 year, even the 18 year old admitted she said no (and either way it was rape because she was underage and he was not) and the judge decided because she had sex prior, it was not rape.  No, rape is one of those crimes that we as society accept, not punish.

Well, I'm glad I provided your humor/head injury for the day. But your characterization of me as out to lunch is rather misguided. Perhaps I should have said "more sentences" rather than "tougher sentences," as the former addresses frequency rather than severity. Clearly we have a long way to go in dealing with rape-- and your anecdotal example is a tragedy-- but that doesn't address whether or not incarceration rates for rape have increased or decreased over the last 50 years. I suspect they are up, even though they still don't reach the levels they should be. I will look around and see if I can find some concrete numbers either way.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 10:54:16 AM by justajane »

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #56 on: May 08, 2015, 10:52:37 AM »

 I'm not cool with leaving a defenseless baby unsupervised outside on the street.

Pfft, hardly defenseless.  Diaper grenades, projectile vomit, sonic assaults, the modern baby may as well be a marvel super hero.

Seriously though, a fussy baby cooped up inside all day, take them outside, settle right down.  And a fussy baby that's been outside all day, take them inside, settle right down.  It's about boredom.  When you can't use the internet yet you need a change of scenery every once in awhile.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #57 on: May 08, 2015, 10:58:49 AM »

 I'm not cool with leaving a defenseless baby unsupervised outside on the street.

Pfft, hardly defenseless.  Diaper grenades, projectile vomit, sonic assaults, the modern baby may as well be a marvel super hero.

Seriously though, a fussy baby cooped up inside all day, take them outside, settle right down.  And a fussy baby that's been outside all day, take them inside, settle right down.  It's about boredom.  When you can't use the internet yet you need a change of scenery every once in awhile.

1) Sure, take your baby outside, but I don't it's necessary to leave him/her alone to do so.
2) We have successfully entertained our baby inside as well, it's possible.
3) I was just quoting research. Every old wife in norway claim babies sleep so much better when you put them outside, especially in winter. (norwegians have somewhat of an obsession with "cold, fresh air", as if inside air is wildly different and will slowly kill you..). I'm sure there's not harm in it (if it's on your porch rather than the street), but the research found no better/longer sleep. I'm not sure how they measured it though.

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #58 on: May 08, 2015, 11:20:08 AM »
I remember reading awhile ago everything I could get my hands on regarding crime and the criminal justice system.  Part of my tackle one thing at a time, learn as much as I can, form an opinion, and move on.

What I realized is that I very rarely encounter knowledge anymore that increases my happiness.  The following webpage will start you down the road to a possible explanation on the decline in crime rates starting in the early '90's.  I'm not saying it is right, but the body of evidence is...significant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

What is very sketchy, is any research that tries to link the activities of the criminal justice system to crime rates.  I'm going to put out there for consideration that very little, if anything, related to the official punishment of a crime discourages people from committing the crime.  Going to prison isn't why I don't do bad things.  Mom is why I don't do bad things.  Dad is why I know which things are bad things.  Other proxies may have stepped up if Mom or Dad hadn't been there, I will never know.

As a building inspector, if I inspect your building, I will find something wrong with it.  That is my job.

Police are going to catch criminals.  Even if there were none.  If you build a prison it will fill up with prisoners.  Even if nobody needs to be imprisoned.

What I expected to find when I started my research was that liberals were whining about a non-problem.  What I found is that we should all be terrified of a world filled with bored cops who know we're facing a jury that just binge-watched law and order reruns receiving directions from a prosecutor that has dreams of being the next attorney general turned senator turned president of the united states.

I believe crime committed by the citizenry to be at an all time low, and injustice to be at an unimaginably high level.

Syonyk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3883
    • Syonyk's Project Blog
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #59 on: May 08, 2015, 11:31:27 AM »
3) I was just quoting research. Every old wife in norway claim babies sleep so much better when you put them outside, especially in winter. (norwegians have somewhat of an obsession with "cold, fresh air", as if inside air is wildly different and will slowly kill you..). I'm sure there's not harm in it (if it's on your porch rather than the street), but the research found no better/longer sleep. I'm not sure how they measured it though.

Easy. :)  If the baby is fussing outside, you don't hear them fussing as easily, so therefore you can safely assume they're sleeping well.

It's like how my daughter sleeps better with both her bedroom door and our bedroom door closed. ;)

(really, what happens is that my wife sleeps and I take the first watch with the baby monitor until said baby quiets down, but my wife can't sleep if she hears our daughter crying, so I go out of my way to make sure the doors are shut and white noise is on)

justajane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2147
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #60 on: May 08, 2015, 11:55:14 AM »
What is very sketchy, is any research that tries to link the activities of the criminal justice system to crime rates.  I'm going to put out there for consideration that very little, if anything, related to the official punishment of a crime discourages people from committing the crime.  Going to prison isn't why I don't do bad things.  Mom is why I don't do bad things.  Dad is why I know which things are bad things.  Other proxies may have stepped up if Mom or Dad hadn't been there, I will never know.

You make some good points that certainly explain why you and most people haven't committed a crime. I will say, however, that regardless of motivation, being in prison stops someone from committing a crime in the general public, at least as long as they stay incarcerated. I qualify this, because obviously crimes occur all the time in prisons. An interesting article I read equated prisons to cities - hidden cities that we know little about and where crime is rampant.

I did a little bit of reading of sentences for rape and found this succinct statistic from an academic study of sex crime policy in America: "[In California], the median time served for a child sex offender released in 1980 was 33 months, similar to 37 months for rapists. By 2004, time served for released child sex offenders had nearly doubled at 62 months and time served for rapists had increased for modestly to 53 months. These sentence increases are not unique to California.

So, based on that, I would say that yes, relatively speaking, sentences for rape have become tougher. Obviously they are not where I or most people would like them, and I imagine that class and race play a large role in who is sentenced and for how long.

I think we can all agree that this is a supremely complex issue with loads and loads of variables. I plan to read more of this academic work I found and elsewhere, but what I gathered from my brief reading thus far is that crime rates go up and down all the time, leaving experts, law enforcement, etc. scrambling to understand why. In my city, this year is an historically bad year for violent crime; yet a relatively good year for minor crimes. Why? No one really knows.

One of our friends who works in a middle school was talking about how they currently have a batch of 7th graders who are just insanely difficult. They defy authority left and right and just overall have tested the limits of the teachers and administration in ways that no class in recent memory has. Can they come up with a reason why? Is it that a few bad apples spoil the bunch? They will probably never get a reliable answer, because lots of variables are at work.

SpicyMcHaggus

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • Location: MKE, WI
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #61 on: May 08, 2015, 12:23:46 PM »
I walked home near a mile from age 6 on. Got lost a few times. Better off because of it.

MLKnits

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #62 on: May 08, 2015, 01:32:35 PM »
As an American visiting Oslo, Norway a couple years back, I was surprised by the number of prams, equipped with babies, were left outside the local Starbucks, while mom's chatted inside.  I quipped to my host "...someone would call child services in the US is they saw an unattended stroller outside a Starbucks in the US"  He said something to the effect that "fussy babies need fresh air"...  and I could not find a fault with his logic.

I grew up in norway and think this is idiotic. Would these people leave their wallets on the sidewalk while they went inside? Probably not, but their baby is ok?

To be fair, cash is vastly more useful to a stranger than a baby is.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1411
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #63 on: May 08, 2015, 03:06:46 PM »
Edited to ask LennStar - what is your suggestion then regarding incarceration of rapists, murderers and molesters? Should we not incarcerate them? They have already proven themselves to be a danger to society.

Oh dear, this is going to be longer ^^

What is the goal of the judicial system in a state with rule of law?

First we have to know what rule of law means (in german the word is much better: Rechtsstaat - especially as "Recht" (law) has connotations of justice).
It means that everyone is subject to the same law, in the same extent and same result. It also means, and that is imperative, that no one gets punished for things he has not done. That is where innocent until proven guilty comes from. If the average person is under scrutiny without special reason by e.g. police, we dont have a rule of law, that thing is called police state. The former GDR with the Stasi could be called such a thing. That is why the spying of the NSA on the germans is such a big deal here. (Of course, there are always people who say "I have nothign to hide, so I have nothign to fear, which always makes me headbang.)
As a result the state with rule of law (Rechtsstaat is better, did I mention it? is there a shorter phrase in english?) accepts that not all criminals get punished. Indeed, having one person punished for somthing she did not do is worse then having 100 criminals getting away with it. (btw. that is the main reason why I hold that death penatly is not compatible with rule of law, because errors happen and death penalty is unreversible)
It also means that the justice system has to use means that are proportional to the severity of the crime. You dont shoot a little kid for stealing bubble gum. You dont shoot anyone for stealing. 


But we use punishment. Why? There are 3 reasons:

1. protection of the public - if you are in prison, you dont go around doing criminal things, at least in theory (for the sake of argument we will not talk about Mafia bosses directing their underlings from prison or inner-prison crimes). That aims at the criminal individual and aims to prevent repeating.

2. Deterrence. The punishment makes it too expensive to be a criminal. This aims at people who do not have done a specific crime so far. The amount of how good that works is determined by the severity of the punishment (and a public apology can be more deterrent then a prison sentence, in part most people dont know how it is in prison) and the how big the chance to get cought is. Sorry, how big the possible criminal thinks the chance is. Very important distinction.

3. Revenge. Most people would not admit it, possibly saying they want justice, but in 99% it boils down to revenge. The feeling that the criminal has got what he deserves. I dont blame a mother wanting the killer of her child dead. Thats human. But its still not justice.

Unfortunately all our societies put a certain amount of weight on 3. Perhaps sometimes in a future far, far away that will not be the case, but for our lifetime it will. Even Gandhi and Buddha had a streak of it. But that is neither justice nor good.


Lets have a look at these 3 things with the question: How good is the goal achieved?

3. Well, revenge could easily be done. (You dont even need the real criminal, as long as you sentence someone. Wrong was done once, "justice" was done once, if it hits the right person, thats a lucky coincidence. Dont take that too seriously, please, its just there to hint you at possible interpretations of justice and legal system.)
The "problem" here lies in the simple fact that everyone has rights. You should have heard it:
Quote
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Revenge always confronts with these, and the question is: Is your right of revenge bigger then this?
In my eyes it is never.
So under rule of law point 3. is not usable as a reason for (severe) punishment.

Number 2: deterrence
Does a big sentence deter - what was it - rapists, murderers and molesters from doing their offense?
Of course, a certain amount is deterred, no question. But i think more possible criminals are deterred by their shame, morality and so forht, which can bloom in freedom, but wither in prison. What I mean is that open discussion about these topics, education and help programs for those who have problems stopping their natural urges helps more to prevent the actual crime then a big punishment.
Does giving these types of people a second change result in more crimes of the same type by these people? Yes, it does. Same applies to stealing bubble gum.
But on the other hand, how many crimes are not committed by being open about that, by helping affected possible criminals? If you hush this up, offer no help etc. a lot of people will not get the help that would have prevented the crime. That is especially true to "psychological" based crimes like rape. You have to give the would-be criminal a chance to be no criminal. If you dont do it... well, then we have one of the puzzling things of medieval times, where chopping off hands did not stop poor people from stealing. And whipping also did not make them get a job to earn money, for whatever reason, possibly the lack of jobs.
In the case of murders, most of them are not murders but manslaughter, done in the heat of the moment, and there is no deterrent effect at all for them.
btw: For deterrent you also dont need the punished to be the criminal that did the action. Psychologically a certain rate of unconnected punishment works even better. Its the same mechanism as in terror attacks and police states. You may have nothign to hide, but the important part is: Does the police know it? And can they be sure that their knowledge that you have nothing to hide is real? Hint: No, they never can be. Thats why you always have to fear something.

So, all in all, deterrence works only so lala.

Number 1: prevent crimes from the same person.
Of course, imprisoning someone (or killing him) prevents crimes from that person. But it also is a violation of his basic, unalienable rights. And, not to put too fine a point on it, prison is expensive. Both in money and psychological stress to people connected to the imprisoned.
Best would be we can prevent repeating with as less prison as possible, right? The word used for this is reintegration.
Well, you know I mentioned it already: help programs, psychological help, other methods...
Definitely try to not use prison for everyday crimes against things and small people-directed crimes. But it can also be used for the biggest crimes. Not in all cases. For murder for example, the planned killing of a human, you need a big, bad sentence as deterrent. For manslaughter, as I wrote above, prison does not really work as deterrent for others and seldom for the individual, because the occurence is mostly one of a kind (and thats also a reason why the sentence is a lot shorter.). For everything else we put these people not in prisons but in psychological institutions.


So, I dont know if I have lost the thread in all this or not LOL, but I this is always an answer that has to be given with reasons.

Quote
what is your suggestion then regarding incarceration of rapists, murderers and molesters? Should we not incarcerate them? They have already proven themselves to be a danger to society
So, the answer is: Yes, all these people must be put in prison, if only for reason 2. If they are nuts, they must be put in the psychological care.
For those who arent, there are projections of how likely they will do a crime again. If it is likely, they must remain in prison, for reason 1.
If these say they will not, then these people have to be released after the smallest possible time in prison (which includes comparison to other criminal activities).
And yes, I know that these projection can be wrong. If they are wrong it can mean that people die.
I live in a town that is unfortunately "famous" for having "prisoners" escape from the psychological care, including sex offenders. In most cases they just visit their mum or girlfriend. Some just wanted to take a stroll. Which proves a lot of different things, especially that a human being is never fully rational and as such never fully predictable, but it does not prove that they are dangerous. 

But, you see, in a Rechtsstaat, under the rule of law, you can only aim for the smallest possible sentence. If you not do that, you go in the other direction, where you put the prevention of crime as as the highest goal which, because of its inherent logic, will always (if you dont stop on that way) end in things like Stasi and Maoist correction camps or even chopping heads off for a stolen loaf of bread.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 03:22:53 PM by LennStar »

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2412
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #64 on: May 08, 2015, 03:32:42 PM »
This is a good explanation of the lead hypothesis.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #65 on: May 11, 2015, 08:24:18 AM »
Thanks for your contribution LennStar.  Danke.  Guten tag.  Ich muss in die toilette gehen.  And that's all the high school german I can remember...

Here's a youtube video I recommend watching once a year or so, and certainly before serving on a jury.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc


Norrie

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 348
  • Location: The Bible belt
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #66 on: May 11, 2015, 08:38:10 AM »
We started our parenting career as helicopter parents, because of a health condition that required pretty much constant monitoring. We're trying to move towards a much more "get out there and see the world, and let us know if you need a hand" approach, but I'll admit that it's incredibly hard to let go after years of hovering. We're pushing through, though, because we see how important it is for kids to grow up with that level of confidence in themselves. They've got to learn to navigate their way around their environment and through social situations without parents at some point.

Where we live, there is no age requirement for kids to be left at home/go out alone. Many states in the U.S. have similar laws, and it's left up to the parents to judge their kid's level of maturity/readiness.

Our 11 year old is about the size of an 8 year old, and is pretty timid. It's been awesome to see him head out alone on his bike over the past year. He throws a little flip phone and some snacks in a back pack, and is gone with his neighborhood friends pretty much all day every Saturday. We call him the mayor of the neighborhood. His confidence has sky-rocketed from these experiences.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3395
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #67 on: May 11, 2015, 08:47:47 AM »
We started our parenting career as helicopter parents, because of a health condition that required pretty much constant monitoring. We're trying to move towards a much more "get out there and see the world, and let us know if you need a hand" approach, but I'll admit that it's incredibly hard to let go after years of hovering. We're pushing through, though, because we see how important it is for kids to grow up with that level of confidence in themselves. They've got to learn to navigate their way around their environment and through social situations without parents at some point.

Where we live, there is no age requirement for kids to be left at home/go out alone. Many states in the U.S. have similar laws, and it's left up to the parents to judge their kid's level of maturity/readiness.

Our 11 year old is about the size of an 8 year old, and is pretty timid. It's been awesome to see him head out alone on his bike over the past year. He throws a little flip phone and some snacks in a back pack, and is gone with his neighborhood friends pretty much all day every Saturday. We call him the mayor of the neighborhood. His confidence has sky-rocketed from these experiences.

For some reason, this account really moved me. That is great to hear about you and you child growing. Very cool!

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #68 on: May 11, 2015, 09:53:54 AM »
I was 11 in 1971.  No cell phones.  In the summer mom would let me run the neighborhood for at lease 4 hour stretches of time.  We had a large wooded area which we called "the woods" behind our house and I would explore it endlessly.    Mom said I knew it like the back of my hand.   

I must admit we lived in a suburb that appeared very safe.     

My daughter who is 13 now, began baby sitting our younger son at age 11.   

My grandson, who is 9 rides his bike to his other grandpa's house unescorted for about 1 mile.   

Still I must admit I think it is very dependent upon where you live,  how mature your kid is etc...   11 can be a pretty immature age for some kids.  I can see having my 11 year old daughter ride her bike around the neighborhood but would not allow her to do so in a "city" type setting.    There are many places, either because of traffic or crime that I myself would not venture to. 

So yeah,  it depends.

But the 17 year old one cracked me up.  Who the hell goes around bothering people at campgrounds?   

As a complete aside --- I am totally against 16 -17 year old boys driving.    It is crazy that we allow this.   Incredibly dangerous.   Over the years,  I have seen just too many local tragedies involving teen driving. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14316
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #69 on: May 11, 2015, 10:01:10 AM »
If you look at the stats, drivers over 75 a much more dangerous behind the wheel than teens.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #70 on: May 11, 2015, 06:37:37 PM »
... So I'd bet 75% are driven. Walk? A MILE????

I assume you're replying to my "if you live in the City of Atlanta and within a mile of the school, you pretty much have no choice but to walk because the school buses don't stop for you" comment.

It's worth noting that most of the (poor, black) public-school kids don't get driven because their parents are too busy taking the bus to work themselves, and most of the (rich, white) kids that do get driven would have been driven anyway since they're going to a private or charter school farther away.

(There are some upper-middle-class white kids who walk -- especially in my neighborhood, on the dividing line between the rich and poor halves of the city -- but broadly speaking, what I wrote above is true.)

Syonyk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3883
    • Syonyk's Project Blog
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #71 on: May 11, 2015, 07:04:44 PM »
Fair.

I live near enough a school that the backup from parents dropping off and picking up their kids backs up the main road twice a day.

I'm pretty sure some of the cars I see are from my neighborhood, under half a mile away. :/

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8833
  • Registered member
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #72 on: May 11, 2015, 07:08:07 PM »

 I'm not cool with leaving a defenseless baby unsupervised outside on the street.

Pfft, hardly defenseless.  Diaper grenades, projectile vomit, sonic assaults, the modern baby may as well be a marvel super hero.

Seriously though, a fussy baby cooped up inside all day, take them outside, settle right down.  And a fussy baby that's been outside all day, take them inside, settle right down.  It's about boredom.  When you can't use the internet yet you need a change of scenery every once in awhile.

And if a baby is fussy both inside and out, eject them into orbit.  My gran always used to say "fussy babies need the cold vacuum of space."

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1411
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #73 on: May 12, 2015, 01:42:10 AM »
Thanks for your contribution LennStar.  Danke.  Guten tag.  Ich muss in die toilette gehen.  And that's all the high school german I can remember...

Here's a youtube video I recommend watching once a year or so, and certainly before serving on a jury.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
I hope you "enjoyed" it ^^
Judging from the title of your video, that would be a german version of it
http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2006/23C3-1346-de-sie_haben_das_recht_zu_schweigen.html#video

"Everything you say can be used against you" is something you should take very serious. The more the prosecution has from you, the more they will weave a case out of it, if you have done it or not. And today you can get arrested as terror leader for having access to a library and using words that are normal vocabulary in the field of science you are paid to work in. Or not taking your phone when you go meeting friends (not trackable is suspicous, right?).

If you want to refresh your german, you can try duolingo.com

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14316
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #74 on: May 12, 2015, 05:56:34 AM »

 I'm not cool with leaving a defenseless baby unsupervised outside on the street.

Pfft, hardly defenseless.  Diaper grenades, projectile vomit, sonic assaults, the modern baby may as well be a marvel super hero.

Seriously though, a fussy baby cooped up inside all day, take them outside, settle right down.  And a fussy baby that's been outside all day, take them inside, settle right down.  It's about boredom.  When you can't use the internet yet you need a change of scenery every once in awhile.

And if a baby is fussy both inside and out, eject them into orbit.  My gran always used to say "fussy babies need the cold vacuum of space."

I would totally hang out with your gran.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8010
  • Location: United States
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #75 on: May 12, 2015, 06:29:17 AM »
Fair.

I live near enough a school that the backup from parents dropping off and picking up their kids backs up the main road twice a day.

I'm pretty sure some of the cars I see are from my neighborhood, under half a mile away. :/

There is often a line up of cars to pick kids up at the bus stop for our neighborhood.  We only have one stop, and so it is a 5 - 15 minute walk to the houses.  On very very cold days, it makes sense to pick up the kindergarteners or the first graders, or maybe when there are thunderstorms to gather the kiddos, but otherwise I find the practice a bit absurd.

LiveLean

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
  • Location: Central Florida
    • ToLiveLean
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #76 on: May 12, 2015, 10:15:59 AM »

As a complete aside --- I am totally against 16 -17 year old boys driving.    It is crazy that we allow this.   Incredibly dangerous.   Over the years,  I have seen just too many local tragedies involving teen driving.

Agreed, though at 16 I was driving 35 minutes through tough Northern VA traffic each way to school. But in this era of smartphone-addicted, distracted driving, I'm terrified of my 12-year-old son driving in a few years. Not because I think he'll be irresponsible -- he hasn't gotten a phone yet -- but because of all the distracted idiots on the road. Seems teenage girls are more addicted to their phones than boys, so not sure I'd single out the dudes at this point when it comes to teenage driving.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #77 on: May 12, 2015, 10:48:42 AM »
Fair.

I live near enough a school that the backup from parents dropping off and picking up their kids backs up the main road twice a day.

I'm pretty sure some of the cars I see are from my neighborhood, under half a mile away. :/

There is often a line up of cars to pick kids up at the bus stop for our neighborhood.  We only have one stop, and so it is a 5 - 15 minute walk to the houses.  On very very cold days, it makes sense to pick up the kindergarteners or the first graders, or maybe when there are thunderstorms to gather the kiddos, but otherwise I find the practice a bit absurd.
I've seen parents sitting in their cars next to the bus stop while the kids are waiting,   and I don't understand it. These are middle and high schoolers. The only thing I can think of must be that their kids have a mental handicap, in which case it makes sense. What other possible reason would there be for watching your 14 year old waiting for the  bus??

enigmaT120

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Location: Falls City, OR
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #78 on: May 12, 2015, 12:03:05 PM »
I wonder if they don't trust their kids to not skip school. 

Sam E

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Re: Hyperprotectiveness of children gone wild . . . again . . .
« Reply #79 on: May 12, 2015, 12:36:23 PM »
Fair.

I live near enough a school that the backup from parents dropping off and picking up their kids backs up the main road twice a day.

I'm pretty sure some of the cars I see are from my neighborhood, under half a mile away. :/

There is often a line up of cars to pick kids up at the bus stop for our neighborhood.  We only have one stop, and so it is a 5 - 15 minute walk to the houses.  On very very cold days, it makes sense to pick up the kindergarteners or the first graders, or maybe when there are thunderstorms to gather the kiddos, but otherwise I find the practice a bit absurd.
I've seen parents sitting in their cars next to the bus stop while the kids are waiting,   and I don't understand it. These are middle and high schoolers. The only thing I can think of must be that their kids have a mental handicap, in which case it makes sense. What other possible reason would there be for watching your 14 year old waiting for the  bus??

At one time I had a bike commute through a couple neighborhood roads and I could not believe the number of people I saw driving their kids a block, or even half a block, from their house to drop them off for the bus in these quiet suburban neighborhoods. Sometimes the car would then drive off, but other times they would drive right back home and go back inside. It's truly mindblowing to me.