I don't think the issue is so clear cut on either side.
Yes, she did commit fraud, she knowingly put down a false address.
I'm from the Communist States of Europe (or, at least that's what I'm told they're called, by your Tea Party), so this is an honest question;
What normally happens with homeless people's education? Are they expected to go to a specially designated Welfare school, or go without?If you don't have an address, then any address is a false address, no?
If you're going to write 'Address: a bus shelter', then surely, the bus shelter in the good school district is just as valid as the bus shelter in Crack Central.
Why not go the whole hog, put your address as an underpass in Bel Air, then you can go to school with Will Smith?
I'm not sure if you are truly asking an "honest question" here, you seem to be filling your comment with a bit of snark. Of course this is the internet, and it is hard to judge someone's true tone.
Honestly, I don't know exactly what happens to someone that is homeless. My guess is it depends on the exact location. People in poverty can receive government assistance in the US, including in the form of "food stamps" (these are actually now more like gift cards). I imagine that the woman has to have an address, even if it is just a P.O. Box where the government contacts her. Her local homeless shelter could probably do a better job of answering these questions.
Also, many communities have anti-squatter laws, I don't think it would help one's case to admit to being a squatter.
I think the school district should seeking restitution of some sort, maybe assign the mother community service to be performed for the school district.Why not have her carry out duties in the school?
Dinner lady? Classroom Assistant?
They get work to the alleged value of the education allegedly stolen, she gets work experience, becomes employable, gets out of poverty, can put an address on next year's school application?
Why not fire a person already employed to give her a job? Yes, schools need volunteers, but they can not always afford to hire someone just because that person needs a job. There may not be any current job vacancies for which she is qualified for unfortunately. I imagine if there was a job open for which she could be qualified for, she would have already applied for it.
Many school districts won't take a homeless shelter as the required permanent address. Many of them don't WANT do deal with the children of the homeless.
In fact this was the issue that the movie "Beyond the Blackboard" highlighted. Salt Lake City set up a school in a homeless shelter. The main character was hired to serve as teacher in the facility which consisted ofone room, some chairs and a TV which witch she was essentially expected to basically "entertain the kids with TV, serve them the proscried box lunch, and basically be a babysitter for kids on a waystation on thier way to juvenile hall." She personally struggled and in many cases gave of her own time and resources to give them a functioning class room.
I imagine that does happen. I can't judge whether that is the case here or not as we just don't have any information. In any case, she should have tried to "scam" her local school district, at least then her standing would have been on firmer ground as she and her child would have actually been residence in the school district. Sadly, we are not a country that tends to be pro-active. It would be nicer to see these education-interest groups pressuring school districts to provide for schooling of their homeless as they are probably legal required to (or should be) instead of having to defend someone for going outside of their school district.
Well, right now the universities-for-profit are bilking the American taxpayer for tons of money, thanks to the Freddie Mac/Fannie May bailouts. You can read a lengthy article about it here:
www.counterpunch.com/whitney04152011.html
So, if it were up to me, I'd expropriate the University of Phoenix and send all of the homeless kids to Harvard.
The name Jean Valjean is springing to mind, as is this quote (well, paraphrase) from Anatole France:
The law, in its magnanimous equanimity, prevents both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think (at least it was the case) churches would allow homeless folks to use their address as a 'residence' (Yeah, those religious types 'you euros' enjoy mocking.)*
(aside, when my elementary school was condemned about 20 years ago, the town's churches opened themselves up to be used as classrooms until Somerset Elm was torn down and rebuilt.)
Like I said, I don't know the system currently. I also recall trouble kids who lived on borders between districts were passed back and forth between the districts. They actually had addresses.
*
|
This makes no sense to me. Where I come from in Utah, we have passed open enrollment laws that basically allow you to enroll your child in any school and district you choose so long as you bear the burden of providing transportation to and from school. While it does occasionally frustrate me because of the problems it creates for high school sports teams, it makes a lot of sense in light of cases like this.
This makes no sense to me. Where I come from in Utah, we have passed open enrollment laws that basically allow you to enroll your child in any school and district you choose so long as you bear the burden of providing transportation to and from school. While it does occasionally frustrate me because of the problems it creates for high school sports teams, it makes a lot of sense in light of cases like this.
I think it depends a lot on how school money is distributed and collected. If 100% of the funding comes from the state (I don't know if that is the case in Utah), then that option works very well (of course I'm guessing they aren't so "open" to cross border students). If the majority of the funding comes from the local school district in the form of property and local sales tax, then I am not sure how good that works.
Then again, this can have damaging consequences, with destroying the feel of the local schools in some areas, if everyone is going across town or to the next town.
This makes no sense to me. Where I come from in Utah, we have passed open enrollment laws that basically allow you to enroll your child in any school and district you choose so long as you bear the burden of providing transportation to and from school. While it does occasionally frustrate me because of the problems it creates for high school sports teams, it makes a lot of sense in light of cases like this.
*face palm* That's why I haven't been able to wrap my brain around this! I'm in Utah also so I keep running into a mental disconnect on how this could even happen.
I was trying to highlight the ludicrousness of the entire event. This woman and her child need a home, not jailing and fines.
Holy S*%%! I think you might be on to something there. :)
Yes, she needs to get the maximum punishment according to the Law. Its like she broke into the school and stole $15,686 from them. That is Grand Theft, a felony, and it is punishable by up to 20 years. Our society cannot and should not tolerate people who break the law for any reason.* The fact that she is homeless and was trying to help her son have no bearing on the case. Obviously, the child is not to blame and he should be placed in an appropriate foster home.
Near as I can tell, that is insane. Authoritarianism: Look into it.
* Emphasis mine.
Yes, she needs to get the maximum punishment according to the Law. Its like she broke into the school and stole $15,686 from them. That is Grand Theft, a felony, and it is punishable by up to 20 years. Our society cannot and should not tolerate people who break the law for any reason. The fact that she is homeless and was trying to help her son have no bearing on the case. Obviously, the child is not to blame and he should be placed in an appropriate foster home.You're insane.
Even if it was just "like" that, I'd have a hard time believing someone should go to prison for 20 years for stealing $16,000. $16,000 just isn't that much money anymore.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge ends up tossing this case out of court. I'd be surprised if the district attorney wastes time on it even.
Director of Narrative
|
I’m no genius, but why try and sentence a lady who can’t even afford to live in the projects, to 20 years in jail because she “stole” $15,686 in education services for her kid, when it’ll cost $30-40 grand a year to house her in a correctional facility.
Something tells me this isn’t about the money.
First let me start by saying this is a snark free post, everythimng I am writing here is my true and heartfelt opinion(even the mis- or out right bad spelling)
First, while I sympathise with her she knowingly and willfully broke the law and should be punished.
If parents and school administrators created a enviroment that is superior to other in the region then haveing free loaders, illegal immigrants or other elements that don't contribute to that enviorment takes away from the sacrafices of those that do.
Second, At what point do we ignore the laws of the land if we allow her to get away with this. Yes I fully understand that she needs help however because of her criminal actions she is now a burden on society but hopefully the child will have a better chance in a foster care group home. case in point for every horror story you hear about them they for the most part do alot of good. My young cousin had to be sent away to one of those and he turned out to be a fine adult because of it.
I am all for tempering justice with mercy however the law MUST be upheld or the very foundation of the society we cherish is in grave and true danger.
I removed some posts by some deliberately incendiary political aliases.
Political discussion is a lot more useful (and, more to the point, civil) when no one tries to paint their opposition as fools or insane.
I also removed a post I missed on my first pass through this thread.
Your keen eyes are always appreciated, Mr. Byers.
I am reminded that 150 years ago we had another case of the law being wrong here in the United States with regards to the idea of equality for all. 618,000 men died in the struggle that ensued over that particular law, both trying to change it and trying to preserve it, morally objectionable though it was. Countless others suffered horribly, and as with any issue of this nature, a select few attempted to profit off of the whole deal.
These days we have exponentially more laws on the books than we did back then, and as a matter of course some of them will turn out to be every bit as morally objectionable as slavery. The real question is how many people will have to suffer, and who will be trying to profit, as we work on having the laws changed as well as the circumstances that arose for such a law to be deemed necessary and right?
In my mind the fact that all public schools are not created equal flies in the face of rationality in a country where we profess to embrace the idea that all men are created so. If men are to be equal, shouldn't their opportunities for basic education be so as well?
That young man should be able to attend any public school within the boundaries of this entire country and rightfully expect to be treated to the same experience as any other student citizen attending any other school. The fact that this is not the way it plays out in reality simply shows me that reality is wrong, and needs to evolve. The problem is not just that the laws dictate that his mother cannot freely choose public school the boy can attend, but that there is a reason for his parents to make such a decision to begin with.
Yes, until we have robot children and robot teachers to teach them, reality will continue to fall short.
Yes, until we have robot children and robot teachers to teach them, reality will continue to fall short.
And as long as the prevailing attitude towards the situation is to hide behind excuses, it will certainly fall much shorter than it should.
Just because perfection is unattainable does not make it the right course of action to cease striving for it.
I’m no genius, but why try and sentence a lady who can’t even afford to live in the projects, to 20 years in jail because she “stole” $15,686 in education services for her kid, when it’ll cost $30-40 grand a year to house her in a correctional facility.
Something tells me this isn’t about the money.
Just a minor point...who says she'll serve 20 years? Depending on her record and such I doubt she'll serve more than the minuim(and probably be released for good behavior if she is the saint people like to build up poor people as...
I agree she should not go to jail...but there is a lot of middle ground between 20 years and not going to jail. Not even including plea bargins.
Sending your kids to school is one of the things that hit us hard. If we don't feel our kid has any kind of future in the school society wants to offer, then there are many who would do what she did.
Criminal? Possibly. Understandable? Definitely.
This is the thing about laws that very few lawmakers understand. They see laws more or less only as a normative concept. They make a law because they feel that is how people should act, and they expect people to do so. In reality, however, laws are a reflection rather than a decree. The laws should be in harmony with what the people in society see as lawful, orderly and proper. Moral. Laws that do not do this are an exercise in stupidity, and get ignored, ridiculed, and lower the respect of the people for the legal system in its entirety.
Why should schools not all be of some quality? Why should a poor child not be able to choose school? Do we really need society to push poor people into poor schools?
Blah.
First let me start by saying this is a snark free post, everythimng I am writing here is my true and heartfelt opinion(even the mis- or out right bad spelling)
First, while I sympathise with her she knowingly and willfully broke the law and should be punished.
If parents and school administrators created a enviroment that is superior to other in the region then haveing free loaders, illegal immigrants or other elements that don't contribute to that enviorment takes away from the sacrafices of those that do.Second, At what point do we ignore the laws of the land if we allow her to get away with this. Yes I fully understand that she needs help however because of her criminal actions she is now a burden on society but hopefully the child will have a better chance in a foster care group home. case in point for every horror story you hear about them they for the most part do alot of good. My young cousin had to be sent away to one of those and he turned out to be a fine adult because of it.
I am all for tempering justice with mercy however the law MUST be upheld or the very foundation of the society we cherish is in grave and true danger.
So what are your thoughts on slavery, when it was legal? I mean, if you lived during those days?
Also societies are not built on a foundation of law, rather, laws are built on a society. And when society changes, so must the law.
This story is disgusting, and shame on the people advocating it.
I would be out in the street in protest if that happened in this country.
Even if it was just "like" that, I'd have a hard time believing someone should go to prison for 20 years for stealing $16,000. $16,000 just isn't that much money anymore.Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge ends up tossing this case out of court. I'd be surprised if the district attorney wastes time on it even.
Honestly, the money means less to me than the LAW. Parents have routinely broken the LAW and lied about where their kids lived in order to get them into better schools. There is no way around this; they are breaking the LAW! The reason that this homeless mom was arrested was to send a warning to other parents who are doing the same thing; if you are caught, you will get arrested and severely punished. They are going to make an example out of her, and I applaud them for it. She stole valuable resources from that schools, almost $16,000, and that is against the LAW.
[b] They are going to make an example out of her,........
Going after a homeless woman is not exactly getting their point across. It is making them look like bullies, and the point is being overshadowed, if that is the case. When you make an example of someone your point gets across better if you show intent. In other words go after someone who it can be proven committed the crime intentionally if that is the reason. At least that keeps the issue at hand in the forefront if that is what it is about.
It would be just like if some guy punched a kid in the face. I am not going to think "don't mess with him". I am going to think he is bully.
Honestly, the money means less to me than the LAW. Parents have routinely broken the LAW and lied about where their kids lived in order to get them into better schools. There is no way around this; they are breaking the LAW! The reason that this homeless mom was arrested was to send a warning to other parents who are doing the same thing; if you are caught, you will get arrested and severely punished. They are going to make an example out of her, and I applaud them for it. She stole valuable resources from that schools, almost $16,000, and that is against the LAW.
Even if it was just "like" that, I'd have a hard time believing someone should go to prison for 20 years for stealing $16,000. $16,000 just isn't that much money anymore.Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge ends up tossing this case out of court. I'd be surprised if the district attorney wastes time on it even.
I think you are joking, though it is hard to tell. A law certainly isn't going to stop me from doing what I want. Unless, of course, the law would benefit me, in which case I observe it.
Honestly, the money means less to me than the LAW. Parents have routinely broken the LAW and lied about where their kids lived in order to get them into better schools. There is no way around this; they are breaking the LAW! The reason that this homeless mom was arrested was to send a warning to other parents who are doing the same thing; if you are caught, you will get arrested and severely punished. They are going to make an example out of her, and I applaud them for it. She stole valuable resources from that schools, almost $16,000, and that is against the LAW.
Even if it was just "like" that, I'd have a hard time believing someone should go to prison for 20 years for stealing $16,000. $16,000 just isn't that much money anymore.Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge ends up tossing this case out of court. I'd be surprised if the district attorney wastes time on it even.
So what have you ever done wrong in your life? What laws have you broken? I ask because I KNOW that we all have broken some laws, no matter what we do. Have you paid the price for breaking those laws? How much jail time have you done? What fines have you paid? Come on. Fess up. We all what to hear just how perfect you are.
I'm not from the US (or wherever this is taking place) - so I'm not sure what the legal problem here is.
Is this correct: The woman does not pay tax in the relevant district, and thus may not send her child to school there?
Is the lack of paying the problem, or the locality? Because if it is the locality, she should be re-imbursed the money she saved by not sending her child to the school that she's legally allowed to do so.
Not American, so I'm reading this article and going ".......what."
While this is one of those situations where we are all definitely allowed to shout "The law IS an ass!", I do believe that while we should all follow both the Spirit and Wording of the laws, being able to turn around and say "Yes, but in this case ...." is also valid.
Again, I must say, being illegal to send your child to a school from a different district? Even Government schools? Seriously, does the village idiot get a welfare job putting random scribbles into the idea box or what? One more nail in the coffin (idea) that the people who are running our societies are still connected to them.
That said, as we go down through the article, the child in question is now with family and going to a different school, but even the teachers are at a loss. While I can understand that people seem to be thinking 'this is a theft', there is also the consideration that the woman is herself of low education, meaning she lacks the knowledge-base to understand the larger ramifications of her actions.
Yes, the woman should be made to pay the money back. Yes, she should be punished for her actions, depending upon her previous record and her willingness to co-operate with the authorities. And yes, this incident should also give impetus to the government and school boards looking to see if there are more incidents like this within their boundaries and how the matter can be handled discreetly, legally and without causing shame to the parents and students involved.
NEVER should we punish parents for pushing to get the best educations possible for their children, but at the same point we can't allow the system to be rorted. The collective wealth of societies around the world is staggering, yet we still have homeless in the streets, food shortages around the world, lack of wide-spread cheap medical treatment and whole generations from regions within our own nations that are being 'left behind' to cover for the mistakes of the governments and beauracratic fools more interested in profit margins and party politics than the lives of their fellow humans.
|
|
Honestly, the money means less to me than the LAW. Parents have routinely broken the LAW and lied about where their kids lived in order to get them into better schools. There is no way around this; they are breaking the LAW! The reason that this homeless mom was arrested was to send a warning to other parents who are doing the same thing; if you are caught, you will get arrested and severely punished. They are going to make an example out of her, and I applaud them for it. She stole valuable resources from that schools, almost $16,000, and that is against the LAW.
Even if it was just "like" that, I'd have a hard time believing someone should go to prison for 20 years for stealing $16,000. $16,000 just isn't that much money anymore.Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge ends up tossing this case out of court. I'd be surprised if the district attorney wastes time on it even.
Okay I'm begining to think you're being sarcastic especially since every time I see you capitalize law I hear it like this
Otherwise, I think your position is one that leads to great Volgonity.
Honestly, the money means less to me than the LAW. Parents have routinely broken the LAW and lied about where their kids lived in order to get them into better schools. There is no way around this; they are breaking the LAW! The reason that this homeless mom was arrested was to send a warning to other parents who are doing the same thing; if you are caught, you will get arrested and severely punished. They are going to make an example out of her, and I applaud them for it. She stole valuable resources from that schools, almost $16,000, and that is against the LAW.
Bus to Mega City One boarding from this point.
Amusing disclaimer: I live in a complex that pays Columbus taxes (crappy schools) but goes to Westerville schools (much better schools).Columbus is funny that way. I used to live in the area. My mailing address was in Powell, I attended Dublin schools, and we paid Columbus taxes.
Ah yes. Been there, done that. It used to be a Westerville zip code, Columbus taxes, and Worthington schools.
Honestly, the money means less to me than the LAW. Parents have routinely broken the LAW and lied about where their kids lived in order to get them into better schools. There is no way around this; they are breaking the LAW! The reason that this homeless mom was arrested was to send a warning to other parents who are doing the same thing; if you are caught, you will get arrested and severely punished. They are going to make an example out of her, and I applaud them for it. She stole valuable resources from that schools, almost $16,000, and that is against the LAW.
Even if it was just "like" that, I'd have a hard time believing someone should go to prison for 20 years for stealing $16,000. $16,000 just isn't that much money anymore.Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge ends up tossing this case out of court. I'd be surprised if the district attorney wastes time on it even.
Okay I'm begining to think you're being sarcastic especially since every time I see you capitalize law I hear it like this
Otherwise, I think your position is one that leads to great Volgonity.
He's a Rushdoony fan. He t/r/ol/le/d you this, right? ;)
*dips toe into the mess*
(long post to illustrate the problem to our non-local Paizonians)
Locally, (not in her locale but it sounds similar), our school districts are funded at a base level ($ per student) by the state. Local districts can try and get millages approved to receive additional funding ($ per taxable value of house/business) from the local district taxpayers, (not all the city), to supplement or improve the quality of their education program.
In our small city we have 2 districts. Yes, stupid politically-driven decision by azzhats decades ago. They've switched places as to which has the best funding/programs. The poorer district (where my spouse works) has open enrollment, taking kids in from anywhere to keep the funding rolling in as the local population declines. The quality of the programs has declined significantly over the years. As a result, residents try to get their children into the better district, which is closed. When they're caught the child is expelled after a hearing process, UNLESS residency gets changed legally.
I've never heard of criminal prosecution until this. Hopefully a judge treats it accordingly.
As an added item, our local school districts are facing severe cuts in state funding, and possibly having the state board FORCE the districts to merge. What happens then? Does the closed district get forced to become open? Do they get forced to take on the extra students from the other districts open policy? Do the local residents of the open district get forced to pay the extra millages? Does the 'better' school district become more 'normalized' by reduced funding/additional strain? Heady questions.
I served a short stint on a school board some years back. It amazed me how complex the system was. Local boards, county boards, and state boards. Local control held sway over them all. Even fighting against state and federal-mandated testing standards. Unions fought against parent volunteers for sports programs. Populations declined significantly. Taxable values declined significantly. Leading to the money running out and desperation.
[/end rant]
EDIT: I should point out that disparity btwn school environments and safe neighborhoods is even more extreme when you consider where the 'out of district' students of the open district hail from.
the LAW. blah blah... the LAW and lied about blah blah they are breaking the LAW! The reason blah blah... if you are caught, you will get arrested and severely punished. They are going to make an example out of her, and I applaud them for it. blah blah and that is against the LAW.
I kissed a black woman in 1989 in South Africa. The law says I should have served a ten year sentence under the Immorality Amendment Act, Act No 21 of 1950; amended in 1957 (Act 23).
I also performed oral sex without it leading to intercourse in Singapore.
I committed aggravated trespass in Oxford England by walking in the door of Corpus Christi college.
I also smoked marijuana a few times as a teenager.
I left a building in Kho Phan Ngan, Thailand with no underwear under my wetsuit.
Altogether, that nets me about thirty years in prison.
Robert Mugabe is a tyrant, and should be shot.
That sentence would get me twenty years or a death sentence in Zimbabwe.
|
|
This makes no sense to me. Where I come from in Utah, we have passed open enrollment laws that basically allow you to enroll your child in any school and district you choose so long as you bear the burden of providing transportation to and from school. While it does occasionally frustrate me because of the problems it creates for high school sports teams, it makes a lot of sense in light of cases like this.The events of the movie "Beyond The Blackboard" took place in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Yes, in 1987 before the law was passed.
Edit: In fact, IIRC those events were one of the things that got the ball rolling on the law. I did not move to Utah until about 5 years after so I can't say for certain.
I'm not from the US (or wherever this is taking place) - so I'm not sure what the legal problem here is.
Is this correct: The woman does not pay tax in the relevant district, and thus may not send her child to school there?
Is the lack of paying the problem, or the locality? Because if it is the locality, she should be re-imbursed the money she saved by not sending her child to the school that she's legally allowed to do so.
It's difficult to say exactly what the legal problem is, because education law varies greatly from state to state or even county to county within the United States (as evidenced by responses from the posters from Utah). However, it does boil down to locality.
In my state of North Carolina, for example, county regulations vary widely depending on your region. In Johnston County, school districts are drawn largely upon regional lines, but parents generally can get a reassignment request with little difficulty if they go through the proper channels. Additionally, because some of the schools in that county consistently underperform far below the threshold on standardized testing, parents are given carte blanche to request that their children be removed and placed in another school that meets higher standards.
In Wake County, though, just 20 miles or so to the northwest of Johnston, school districts are virtually meaningless (or at least, they were, prior to the changes being enacted by the current school board) because each school's student population is reformulated on a year to year basis to create a balanced mix of economically diverse students. The upside to this is that it has created more integrated communities; the downside, though, is that some students end up being bussed far away from home and extending their school day by as much as four hours if one includes bus ride time in that calculation. Additionally, another negative side of this rebalancing act is that some kids ended up being extreme minorities in the schools to which they were bussed, and became the victims of racially motivated bullying and violence.
However, the educational funding of the entire state is derived from state taxes, seized assets from criminal investigations, and funds generated by the state lottery. So if this were to occur in North Carolina, it would really just be robbing Peter to pay Paul, and frankly no actual harm is done except to the goals of those who have set up the education system as a social engineering tool.
I'm fairly certain that it's a crime to do in Wake County what this woman did in her locale, but that's not really the issue at stake.
What is at stake is that in this case, the weakest among our citizens is being pilloried by the most powerful, with the help of an authoritarian legal system, to an end that serves neither society nor the individual. It really does feel like this particular family is being used to "make an example" and put poor people in their place - which, frankly, is something we're seeing occur a lot lately in American politics, especially as legal precedents like the Citizens United supreme court case grant more and more privileges of personhood to corporate interests without also bestowing upon them the responsibilities of personhood. Meanwhile, actual persons are seeing their responsibilities increase as their rights and privileges are being slowly eroded.
Unfortunately, America loves to blame its poor for its problems and exalt its wealthiest members of society as paragons of virtue. That's why we don't perceive outright theft, like price fixing and speculatory market predation, as being as bad as owing money on a bogus mortgage. Cases like the one being discussed in this thread simply serve to illustrate that brutish reality.
Please go with my fondest regards when you catch the next time shuttle to Mega-City One.
LOL.
Thanks, I needed that. :)
A law certainly isn't going to stop me from doing what I want. Unless, of course, the law would benefit me, in which case I observe it.
Are you saying that you only obey laws that are convenient or benefit you? I'm a little confused, because that would put you in the same camp as most thieves, rapists, murderers, anti-socials, etc. I realize this is a strong comparison, but you have made a rather strong statement.
A law certainly isn't going to stop me from doing what I want. Unless, of course, the law would benefit me, in which case I observe it.Are you saying that you only obey laws that are convenient or benefit you? I'm a little confused, because that would put you in the same camp as most thieves, rapists, murderers, anti-socials, etc. I realize this is a strong comparison, but you have made a rather strong statement.
Yes Tanner, that is exactly what I'm saying.
I must say, I am a bit surprised to hear the amount of support for vouchers in education in this thread. For those that don't know, the idea of vouchers is that money is given to families to be used to decide where to send their children, instead of money going directly to schools. Parents then can decide where to send their children, even to private schools, with the money being paid by the state (the parents have to pick up the difference if the private school charges more). Thus students and parents can abandon poor performing schools. It should be noted that most public school supporting groups as wells most teacher's unions are against the idea of vouchers.
It must be fun to able to just obey the laws that you like. There are laws that make so sense to me, but I obey them anyway. This homeless mom knowingly broke a law. She lied about where her son lived. Then she sent her son to that school, where he used up almost $16,000 in resources. Those are the facts.
Now, multiple that by 1,000 or 10,000. Do you believe that she is the only parent lying about where they live? No, she isn't. They arrested her for two reasons. First, she broke the law and must pay for her crimes. Second, she is an example to other parents doing the same thing. By giving her the maximum possible punishment under the law...it would be doing a great service to a lawful society.
It must be fun to able to just obey the laws that you like. There are laws that make so sense to me, but I obey them anyway.
The thing you are missing, of course, is that there is a middle ground. I obey plenty of laws that I don't "like," or for which I can discern no logical basis. I will not, however, obey laws that result in irrational, counterproductive, or even morally objectionable outcomes.
Throwing this woman in jail for twenty years would be all three.
And it isn't like I'm occupying a fringe position. One needn't search long to find examples clearly unjust laws (or for law-abiding folks later prosecuted for following them). In short, I will not relinquish my values in the name of following orders -- nor should anyone. Laws are important, but they are the means to an end, not an end in themselves.
Edit: Oh, and:
<lip curl>
</lip curl>