The Fire on the 57 Bus in Oakland
January 29, 2015 2:59 PM Subscribe
This happened where I work and live, it's a devastating read about ignorance, healing and forgiveness Well balanced NYT article about Sasha Fleischman, an agender teen who fell asleep on a city bus and was set on fire by a 16 year old named Richard Thomas.
> “I wish it had turned out differently for Richard,” Debbie said. “We got Sasha back. But poor Jasmine. She lost her son for years.” They hadn’t expected to be so moved by seeing Richard’s face again.
I'm in awe of people capable of this level of forgiveness. I guess you never know how you're going to react to something until you're forced to (*knock on wood*), but I doubt I'd be able to turn the other cheek like that if someone had done this to one of my loved ones.
On one hand I feel for this kid, because his life has probably been ruined by one stupid, impulsive decision he made when he was sixteen years old. On the other, there's regular impulsive teenage stupidity and then there's setting someone on fire for the lulz.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:24 PM on January 29, 2015 [31 favorites]
I'm in awe of people capable of this level of forgiveness. I guess you never know how you're going to react to something until you're forced to (*knock on wood*), but I doubt I'd be able to turn the other cheek like that if someone had done this to one of my loved ones.
On one hand I feel for this kid, because his life has probably been ruined by one stupid, impulsive decision he made when he was sixteen years old. On the other, there's regular impulsive teenage stupidity and then there's setting someone on fire for the lulz.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:24 PM on January 29, 2015 [31 favorites]
If you have never test burnt fabric (trying to figure out what the bargain bin fabric is made of) you just don't realize how flammable polyester is.
I remember hearing about women in India suffering terrible burns when their polyester sarees caught fire.
posted by Gwynarra at 3:31 PM on January 29, 2015 [10 favorites]
I remember hearing about women in India suffering terrible burns when their polyester sarees caught fire.
posted by Gwynarra at 3:31 PM on January 29, 2015 [10 favorites]
Huh. I think the NYT should probably take a moment to write a new policy on that.
It looks like they are getting around this by avoiding pronouns entirely? Everything seems to be "Sasha" or "the teenager" or like that. Which at least is better than using the wrong pronoun, but seems like it would be simpler just to use the preferred one(s).
posted by thefoxgod at 3:31 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
It looks like they are getting around this by avoiding pronouns entirely? Everything seems to be "Sasha" or "the teenager" or like that. Which at least is better than using the wrong pronoun, but seems like it would be simpler just to use the preferred one(s).
posted by thefoxgod at 3:31 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
Given that this story is about someone who was set on fire on a city bus, it's pretty hard for me to get too worked up over what pronouns are used. I know language is important, but I though the author handled that reasonably well in the service of telling the story, which is the really important part here.
posted by zachlipton at 3:32 PM on January 29, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 3:32 PM on January 29, 2015 [15 favorites]
I'm gonna guess (wrt the pronouns) that the writer fought to use Sasha's preferred pronoun set and was overruled by NYT editors. The fact that such pains were taken not to misgender Sasha given the constraint of not using their preferred pronoun set comes off to me as respectful overall. The editorial staff who made the decision to choose house style over an accurate description, otoh, gets the side-eye from me.
posted by KathrynT at 3:36 PM on January 29, 2015 [52 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 3:36 PM on January 29, 2015 [52 favorites]
Racial inequality in youth sentencing.
When it comes to holding children accountable for crimes they commit, race matters.
Of course it was a horrible, horrible crime, but if it had been committed by a white kid it's likely the result would not be the same.
posted by muddgirl at 3:37 PM on January 29, 2015 [29 favorites]
When it comes to holding children accountable for crimes they commit, race matters.
Of course it was a horrible, horrible crime, but if it had been committed by a white kid it's likely the result would not be the same.
posted by muddgirl at 3:37 PM on January 29, 2015 [29 favorites]
If you have never test burnt fabric (trying to figure out what the bargain bin fabric is made of) you just don't realize how flammable polyester is.
I remember hearing about women in India suffering terrible burns when their polyester sarees caught fire.
A friend of mine who is generally very smart, but is also very often drunk as fuck, was making a halloween costume. She was going to be Harvey Dent, i think.
She decided she wanted half the suit to be burned up... and had gotten a cheapo thrift store suit. She wanted the burns to be in aesthetically pleasing places while the suit was on, so she decided to burn the suit while it was on and just pat it out with a damp washcloth or something.
It burst in to flames. A big part of her arm literally looks like photos i've seen of iraq/afghanistan vets who survived explosions or IV drug users who got a massive infection around an injection site and have a huge scarred area... really kind of both. It melted to her skin, and pieces were flaking off for weeks. They didn't even try and get it all off at the ER.
It all happened in just a couple seconds, like less than 5 even.
Synthetic fiber clothing fires are Serious Fucking Shit. She's not the only person i know who has huge scars to prove it. This is literally the type of thing i have anxiety and nightmares about, i've had some very very close calls with this shit.(including, ugh, people making like they were going to set me on fire as a "joke")
Of course it was a horrible, horrible crime, but if it had been committed by a white kid it's likely the result would not be the same.
This sort of situation is one of the cases in which we need to start treating white kids worse, not young people of color better. It's one of the only ones i can think of off the top of my head. But yea, if you're like 16 and you do this, you should be tried as an adult for a hate crime.
posted by emptythought at 3:47 PM on January 29, 2015 [17 favorites]
I remember hearing about women in India suffering terrible burns when their polyester sarees caught fire.
A friend of mine who is generally very smart, but is also very often drunk as fuck, was making a halloween costume. She was going to be Harvey Dent, i think.
She decided she wanted half the suit to be burned up... and had gotten a cheapo thrift store suit. She wanted the burns to be in aesthetically pleasing places while the suit was on, so she decided to burn the suit while it was on and just pat it out with a damp washcloth or something.
It burst in to flames. A big part of her arm literally looks like photos i've seen of iraq/afghanistan vets who survived explosions or IV drug users who got a massive infection around an injection site and have a huge scarred area... really kind of both. It melted to her skin, and pieces were flaking off for weeks. They didn't even try and get it all off at the ER.
It all happened in just a couple seconds, like less than 5 even.
Synthetic fiber clothing fires are Serious Fucking Shit. She's not the only person i know who has huge scars to prove it. This is literally the type of thing i have anxiety and nightmares about, i've had some very very close calls with this shit.(including, ugh, people making like they were going to set me on fire as a "joke")
Of course it was a horrible, horrible crime, but if it had been committed by a white kid it's likely the result would not be the same.
This sort of situation is one of the cases in which we need to start treating white kids worse, not young people of color better. It's one of the only ones i can think of off the top of my head. But yea, if you're like 16 and you do this, you should be tried as an adult for a hate crime.
posted by emptythought at 3:47 PM on January 29, 2015 [17 favorites]
But the fact that we have a juvenile justice system in the first place means that we recognize that teenagers shouldn't be held to the same standards as adults. I could never figure out why the severity of the crime should matter. A teen who commits murder is just as young as a teen who robs a convenience store.
posted by muddgirl at 3:58 PM on January 29, 2015 [31 favorites]
posted by muddgirl at 3:58 PM on January 29, 2015 [31 favorites]
The editorial staff who made the decision to choose house style over an accurate description, otoh, gets the side-eye from me.
They aren't sacrificing accuracy here. They aren't misleading anybody either. While I do generally feel it's most respectful and compassionate to try to use the pronouns a person prefers, I also absolutely see why a newspaper's policy would not allow articles' subjects to dictate the terms used to describe them. So I'm pretty comfortable with the compromise of avoiding pronouns entirely.
But I would be a lot happier if they had left out the sentence "The New York Times does not use these terms to refer to individuals." Because now here we are talking about the NYT's grammatical policies instead of the actual events of the story.
posted by aubilenon at 4:00 PM on January 29, 2015 [8 favorites]
They aren't sacrificing accuracy here. They aren't misleading anybody either. While I do generally feel it's most respectful and compassionate to try to use the pronouns a person prefers, I also absolutely see why a newspaper's policy would not allow articles' subjects to dictate the terms used to describe them. So I'm pretty comfortable with the compromise of avoiding pronouns entirely.
But I would be a lot happier if they had left out the sentence "The New York Times does not use these terms to refer to individuals." Because now here we are talking about the NYT's grammatical policies instead of the actual events of the story.
posted by aubilenon at 4:00 PM on January 29, 2015 [8 favorites]
The initial hate crime was an act of flagrant stupidity committed by Richard Thomas, who thought it was funny to fuck with an agender kid for no reason, but who didn't know that synthetic fabrics turn into fireballs when exposed to flames. The further crime of imprisoning Richard Thomas for seven years was committed by people who knew full and well what they were doing and that it would do no one any good. The solution is not to "treat white kids worse." The solution is to use methods of justice that are actually effective at making things better, instead of imprisonment, which makes everything worse.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:02 PM on January 29, 2015 [123 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:02 PM on January 29, 2015 [123 favorites]
Perhaps we need a system that takes into account both age and severity--a 16 year old maybe shouldn't go to jail for, say, 10 years for something like this, but nor should they be out when they turn 18. At the same time there's also, I think, pretty reasonable concerns about housing relatively vulnerable teenagers with older convicts.
Er, sliding-scale justice is what I'm getting at I think. It's not a fully-formed thought; I guess what I'm saying is if you're say 17 and what you did is extreme you probably shouldn't be sentenced only as a juvenile, nor should you be sentenced as a fully grown adult. Especially given what we know now about how the brain matures.
And on preview, yeah, restorative justice instead of just caging people, please.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:03 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Er, sliding-scale justice is what I'm getting at I think. It's not a fully-formed thought; I guess what I'm saying is if you're say 17 and what you did is extreme you probably shouldn't be sentenced only as a juvenile, nor should you be sentenced as a fully grown adult. Especially given what we know now about how the brain matures.
And on preview, yeah, restorative justice instead of just caging people, please.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:03 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
But I would be a lot happier if they had left out the sentence "The New York Times does not use these terms to refer to individuals." Because now here we are talking about the NYT's grammatical policies instead of the actual events of the story.
Newspaper grammatical policies are absolutely part of the story; after all, Sasha has made it clear that they're participating in the coverage in part because of a desire to see stories in the news about agender people. And covering agender people means using the right pronouns.
If a newspaper adopted a policy against using "she" to refer to women, forcing writers to contort their language to avoid misgendering women, it would certainly be worthwhile for those writers to include a note about why certain sentences avoid pronouns or seem otherwise tortured/circuitous.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:06 PM on January 29, 2015 [20 favorites]
Newspaper grammatical policies are absolutely part of the story; after all, Sasha has made it clear that they're participating in the coverage in part because of a desire to see stories in the news about agender people. And covering agender people means using the right pronouns.
If a newspaper adopted a policy against using "she" to refer to women, forcing writers to contort their language to avoid misgendering women, it would certainly be worthwhile for those writers to include a note about why certain sentences avoid pronouns or seem otherwise tortured/circuitous.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:06 PM on January 29, 2015 [20 favorites]
Poor kids. Both of them.
It's really hard to see what locking Richard up for 7 years is going to achieve. I'm not arguing that he did nothing wrong; of course he did. He did a dumb, hurtful thing that went much worse than he thought it was going to. There's certainly a peer component to this - kids are far more likely to indulge in stupid, risk-taking behaviour with their peers around. But he doesn't seem like a budding psychopath and despite his claims of being homophobic, it doesn't seem like he actually is.
So how is putting him in prison going to help? Even if he's in a juvenile facility, prisons are brutal. I understand the part about protecting the rest of society from someone who is a threat, but Richard doesn't seem like a hopeless case and prison just doesn't seem like the place where he will learn how to make better choices, resist peer pressure and develop the inner fortitude to deal with the extra crap that has already started coming his way (friends, relatives being murdered, etc).
Sasha's parents seem awesome. And, this is really not the point of the article, but I have to say Sasha looks amazing - they've got a great sense of style! (And I love those tights.)
posted by Athanassiel at 4:09 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's really hard to see what locking Richard up for 7 years is going to achieve. I'm not arguing that he did nothing wrong; of course he did. He did a dumb, hurtful thing that went much worse than he thought it was going to. There's certainly a peer component to this - kids are far more likely to indulge in stupid, risk-taking behaviour with their peers around. But he doesn't seem like a budding psychopath and despite his claims of being homophobic, it doesn't seem like he actually is.
So how is putting him in prison going to help? Even if he's in a juvenile facility, prisons are brutal. I understand the part about protecting the rest of society from someone who is a threat, but Richard doesn't seem like a hopeless case and prison just doesn't seem like the place where he will learn how to make better choices, resist peer pressure and develop the inner fortitude to deal with the extra crap that has already started coming his way (friends, relatives being murdered, etc).
Sasha's parents seem awesome. And, this is really not the point of the article, but I have to say Sasha looks amazing - they've got a great sense of style! (And I love those tights.)
posted by Athanassiel at 4:09 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
And, this is really not the point of the article, but I have to say Sasha looks amazing - they've got a great sense of style! (And I love those tights.)
I actually did a double-take b/c Sasha is the doppelganger (or at least plausible sibling) of a chef I follow on Twitter--whose name is Luke. Coincidences are weird.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:11 PM on January 29, 2015
I actually did a double-take b/c Sasha is the doppelganger (or at least plausible sibling) of a chef I follow on Twitter--whose name is Luke. Coincidences are weird.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:11 PM on January 29, 2015
That just made me sad for every single person involved.
posted by mudpuppie at 4:17 PM on January 29, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by mudpuppie at 4:17 PM on January 29, 2015 [8 favorites]
(Except the D.A. She's gets to be all self-righteous and claim that she's ridding the city streets of a problem. Except she -- and the system she perpetuates and executes -- is the problem. That's just infuriating.)
posted by mudpuppie at 4:20 PM on January 29, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by mudpuppie at 4:20 PM on January 29, 2015 [11 favorites]
Don't talk to the police. If this kid had kept his mouth shut, he would at least not be facing the hate crimes multiplier, even if they had him on tape doing the deed.
Yet another point in favor of making rights inalienable. You should not be able to voluntarily waive your rights to counsel or self-incrimination, just because you are ignorant that you have those rights. Even the most overworked public defender would not have let his client offer a full confession, with the hate crime kicker, without some kind of plea deal on the table.
posted by rustcrumb at 4:23 PM on January 29, 2015 [13 favorites]
Yet another point in favor of making rights inalienable. You should not be able to voluntarily waive your rights to counsel or self-incrimination, just because you are ignorant that you have those rights. Even the most overworked public defender would not have let his client offer a full confession, with the hate crime kicker, without some kind of plea deal on the table.
posted by rustcrumb at 4:23 PM on January 29, 2015 [13 favorites]
And covering agender people means using the right pronouns.
Not to mention that the resistance of the newspaper to recognizing gender variation is a reflection of the attitudes that encouraged the crime in the first place. You can't encourage the marginalization of a group and then get righteous when a member of that group gets hurt.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:29 PM on January 29, 2015 [22 favorites]
Not to mention that the resistance of the newspaper to recognizing gender variation is a reflection of the attitudes that encouraged the crime in the first place. You can't encourage the marginalization of a group and then get righteous when a member of that group gets hurt.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:29 PM on January 29, 2015 [22 favorites]
Despite the editorial pronoun issues, that was a great (and difficult) read.
posted by Existential Dread at 4:33 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Existential Dread at 4:33 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
we discussed the crime against sasha when it happened. the only thing i'll add here is my comment about teens lighting my hair on fire.
posted by nadawi at 4:36 PM on January 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 4:36 PM on January 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
Why is Jamal, who apparently instigated the attack and who tellingly thought it was hilarious even after Sasha's skirt went up in a fireball, not also facing justice? Because he wasn't holding the lighter? What about Lloyd, who told the driver to open the back door so that Richard could escape?
This kid intended to commit a mean, dangerous prank, motivated by hate and bigotry. His actions resulted in much more terrible consequences than he foresaw; one of the reasons he was less able to foresee those consequences is because he's young. But he didn't conceive of this action alone, and I doubt he'd have done it at all -- and CERTAINLY doubt he'd have kept trying to set Sasha's skirt alight -- if Jamal and Lloyd hadn't been egging him on.
Richard's remorse is genuine, but clearly not enough; he does seem to be genuinely miserable that he hurt Sasha so badly, but not so much that he had the impulse to set their skirt on fire in the first place. But boy oh boy, if ever there was a case that cried out for restorative justice, it would seem to be this one.
posted by KathrynT at 4:41 PM on January 29, 2015 [28 favorites]
This kid intended to commit a mean, dangerous prank, motivated by hate and bigotry. His actions resulted in much more terrible consequences than he foresaw; one of the reasons he was less able to foresee those consequences is because he's young. But he didn't conceive of this action alone, and I doubt he'd have done it at all -- and CERTAINLY doubt he'd have kept trying to set Sasha's skirt alight -- if Jamal and Lloyd hadn't been egging him on.
Richard's remorse is genuine, but clearly not enough; he does seem to be genuinely miserable that he hurt Sasha so badly, but not so much that he had the impulse to set their skirt on fire in the first place. But boy oh boy, if ever there was a case that cried out for restorative justice, it would seem to be this one.
posted by KathrynT at 4:41 PM on January 29, 2015 [28 favorites]
Yeah, it really seems likely that Richard has a problem with impulsive behavior and would have benefited a lot from getting the right treatment.
The part about hate crime legislation in this article made me pretty uncomfortable. The way the author talks about how this legislation came into being as a response to a (possibly illusory!) increase in violence from far-right groups, and then goes on to say that "many of these [hate crime] offenders weren’t even particularly biased toward their victims but were following the lead of a more biased peer," sounds like they are trying to imply that maybe the laws are misguided or at least being misapplied.
But the issue, as I see it, is that when minority groups are being targeted for assault, it ends up threatening members of that group more broadly. In other words, hate crime legislation is saying that this additional consequence makes it a more serious crime. For example, I actually don't care whether a gay-basher is flagrantly homophobic to the depths of their soul, or just somewhat homophobic and very susceptible to peer pressure: if they end up targeting gay people for assault, their actions have the consequence of terrorizing one particular minority group, and I think that is a totally legitimate reason for the crime to be viewed as more serious than just a garden-variety assault.
To clarify, I think it's awful that this kid is going to be subjected to our adult prison system as a result of a mean, stupid, impulsive act, basically exactly as YCTAB said upthread, and the fact that he's black and from a poorer area of Oakland is an enormous and terrible part of why it happened that way. But I also think going after hate crime legislation because of this case would be a big mistake.
posted by en forme de poire at 4:50 PM on January 29, 2015 [23 favorites]
The part about hate crime legislation in this article made me pretty uncomfortable. The way the author talks about how this legislation came into being as a response to a (possibly illusory!) increase in violence from far-right groups, and then goes on to say that "many of these [hate crime] offenders weren’t even particularly biased toward their victims but were following the lead of a more biased peer," sounds like they are trying to imply that maybe the laws are misguided or at least being misapplied.
But the issue, as I see it, is that when minority groups are being targeted for assault, it ends up threatening members of that group more broadly. In other words, hate crime legislation is saying that this additional consequence makes it a more serious crime. For example, I actually don't care whether a gay-basher is flagrantly homophobic to the depths of their soul, or just somewhat homophobic and very susceptible to peer pressure: if they end up targeting gay people for assault, their actions have the consequence of terrorizing one particular minority group, and I think that is a totally legitimate reason for the crime to be viewed as more serious than just a garden-variety assault.
To clarify, I think it's awful that this kid is going to be subjected to our adult prison system as a result of a mean, stupid, impulsive act, basically exactly as YCTAB said upthread, and the fact that he's black and from a poorer area of Oakland is an enormous and terrible part of why it happened that way. But I also think going after hate crime legislation because of this case would be a big mistake.
posted by en forme de poire at 4:50 PM on January 29, 2015 [23 favorites]
Yet another point in favor of making rights inalienable. You should not be able to voluntarily waive your rights to counsel or self-incrimination, just because you are ignorant that you have those rights. Even the most overworked public defender would not have let his client offer a full confession, with the hate crime kicker, without some kind of plea deal on the table.
Maybe this is some gap in my reasonableness? This is the worst kind of bullying that makes the world a crappier place. If you're stupid, or cocky, or whatever enough to admit exactly why you did it you should get punished for those reasons.
The fact that no one told him not to say those things because it would sound bad and make it worse for him is kind of cathartic, in my opinion. Bullies are regularly taught early and often to lie, or omit the truth so they can walk away. That this kid didn't is kind of a play stupid games win stupid prizes thing to me.
Then again, i was bullied a lot like nadawi as a kid. I'm probably not an objective observer or whatever in being pretty satisfied with the outcome here. I hope he doesn't do prison time because that does no good, but having a hate crime on his record and the process running the course it has is absolutely deserved.
posted by emptythought at 5:05 PM on January 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
Maybe this is some gap in my reasonableness? This is the worst kind of bullying that makes the world a crappier place. If you're stupid, or cocky, or whatever enough to admit exactly why you did it you should get punished for those reasons.
The fact that no one told him not to say those things because it would sound bad and make it worse for him is kind of cathartic, in my opinion. Bullies are regularly taught early and often to lie, or omit the truth so they can walk away. That this kid didn't is kind of a play stupid games win stupid prizes thing to me.
Then again, i was bullied a lot like nadawi as a kid. I'm probably not an objective observer or whatever in being pretty satisfied with the outcome here. I hope he doesn't do prison time because that does no good, but having a hate crime on his record and the process running the course it has is absolutely deserved.
posted by emptythought at 5:05 PM on January 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
A friend of mine in high school lit a girl's sweater on fire because he was being an idiot and had been burning the fluff off his own. On his sweater it would flare up a tiny bit on a piece of fluff and then go out. On hers it apparently really started to burn (I wasn't there). I didn't really realize how serious it was at the time, but they were pretty lucky that she wasn't hurt.
posted by ODiV at 5:08 PM on January 29, 2015
posted by ODiV at 5:08 PM on January 29, 2015
i guess i want to say that in pretty much every case i'm aware of i'm against minors serving time in adult prisons or minors moving into adult prisons. i don't know what the answer is, like everything else in the justice system, it's fucked from the ground up. i do worry about how boys who aren't white, and specifically black boys, are fed into the system. like many who have commented, i would have preferred restorative justice.
having said all of that - i also understand that people like sasha are rarely protected by the law and they take a large burden of the shit this planet has to offer, so i also won't decry hate crime legislation, because it is important.
posted by nadawi at 5:26 PM on January 29, 2015 [12 favorites]
having said all of that - i also understand that people like sasha are rarely protected by the law and they take a large burden of the shit this planet has to offer, so i also won't decry hate crime legislation, because it is important.
posted by nadawi at 5:26 PM on January 29, 2015 [12 favorites]
If you're stupid, or cocky, or whatever enough to admit exactly why you did it you should get punished for those reasons.
If cops can get perfectly innocent people to confess to crimes they couldn't have committed, it seems to me like we shouldn't trust police interviews even of people who are guilty.
(That being said, I absolutely agree that hate crime legislation still has a place, especially for transgender and gender variant individuals who are disproportionately the victims of violence. And maybe this was a hate crime - why couldn't he still be charged in juvenile court? Why weren't his accomplices charged?)
posted by muddgirl at 5:41 PM on January 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
If cops can get perfectly innocent people to confess to crimes they couldn't have committed, it seems to me like we shouldn't trust police interviews even of people who are guilty.
(That being said, I absolutely agree that hate crime legislation still has a place, especially for transgender and gender variant individuals who are disproportionately the victims of violence. And maybe this was a hate crime - why couldn't he still be charged in juvenile court? Why weren't his accomplices charged?)
posted by muddgirl at 5:41 PM on January 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
also wow i had completely forgotten about the, essentially, "I don't like hate crime laws because punishing a poor black boy for attacking a private school attending presumable affluent white kid doesn't jive with my world views" thing in the original thread.
i seriously almost left over that.
posted by emptythought at 5:47 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
i seriously almost left over that.
posted by emptythought at 5:47 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
people making like they were going to set me on fire as a "joke"
emptythought, suddenly someone you don't know feels very defensive about you. I hope there is somehow less stupidity around you.
Gah, fire.
posted by datawrangler at 5:49 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
emptythought, suddenly someone you don't know feels very defensive about you. I hope there is somehow less stupidity around you.
Gah, fire.
posted by datawrangler at 5:49 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, little junior sociopath commits hate crime, admits committing It out of hate, gets tried as an adult and sent to actual prison as a consequence.
Sounds like the system worked this time.
posted by holybagel at 5:56 PM on January 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
Sounds like the system worked this time.
posted by holybagel at 5:56 PM on January 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
Holybagel, you have a very odd definition of "worked," given that everyone involved (except for people paid by the state to win convictions) agrees that the role law enforcement played made everything worse for everyone. If that's justice, then justice itself should be a crime.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:05 PM on January 29, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:05 PM on January 29, 2015 [6 favorites]
Kids can be monstrously cruel.
I don't understand the whole "trying a child as an adult" thing. We have legal definitions for the age of majority. It stands to reason that exceptions to this should be subject to due process, not prosecutorial fiat.
posted by scelerat at 6:13 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't understand the whole "trying a child as an adult" thing. We have legal definitions for the age of majority. It stands to reason that exceptions to this should be subject to due process, not prosecutorial fiat.
posted by scelerat at 6:13 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
KathrynT: "The editorial staff who made the decision to choose house style over an accurate description"
This is the same paper that obstinately insists on inserting possessive apostrophes into every plural abbreviation, irrespective of meaning, so them ignoring a person's gender specifier preference doesn't surprise me.
posted by meehawl at 6:21 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is the same paper that obstinately insists on inserting possessive apostrophes into every plural abbreviation, irrespective of meaning, so them ignoring a person's gender specifier preference doesn't surprise me.
posted by meehawl at 6:21 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
When I first heard about this case, just that a genderqueer person was set on fire on an Oakland bus, I was horrified and wanted maximum penalties, marches, shutting down bridges, etc.
Then I found out that the "monster" was 16.
Now, having read the article, I think this was some basic garden-variety teenage stupidity. Between lack of impulse control, ignorance of the consequences, and group-think, it's the kind of thing that I can imagine my younger brother having pulled, with no idea what would happen. (Thank providence he never had the opportunity.)
Life is more fucking complicated than we want it to be, sometimes. Sasha and their parents, however, seem purely awesome.
posted by allthinky at 6:31 PM on January 29, 2015 [10 favorites]
Then I found out that the "monster" was 16.
Now, having read the article, I think this was some basic garden-variety teenage stupidity. Between lack of impulse control, ignorance of the consequences, and group-think, it's the kind of thing that I can imagine my younger brother having pulled, with no idea what would happen. (Thank providence he never had the opportunity.)
Life is more fucking complicated than we want it to be, sometimes. Sasha and their parents, however, seem purely awesome.
posted by allthinky at 6:31 PM on January 29, 2015 [10 favorites]
The homophobic, hate crime committing monster human sixteen year old is in prison where he can't be further harm to Society in general and LGBT folk in particular will likely be tortured and turned into a more severe offender and then released unrehabilitated into the population.
Worked?
posted by IAmUnaware at 6:33 PM on January 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
Worked?
posted by IAmUnaware at 6:33 PM on January 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
That's such weak concern trolling.
But what about the poor kid! Disadvantaged background!
If you are committing hate crimes at 16, then prison is pretty much where you belong.
posted by holybagel at 6:51 PM on January 29, 2015
But what about the poor kid! Disadvantaged background!
If you are committing hate crimes at 16, then prison is pretty much where you belong.
posted by holybagel at 6:51 PM on January 29, 2015
For those playing the home-game please note the newest Mad Libs template we will be [ab]using for a while:
If you are ______ at 16, then ____ is pretty much where you belong.
posted by RolandOfEld at 6:59 PM on January 29, 2015 [6 favorites]
If you are ______ at 16, then ____ is pretty much where you belong.
posted by RolandOfEld at 6:59 PM on January 29, 2015 [6 favorites]
This "trying teens as adults" completely misses the point of having a juvenile justice system. If the reason teens had a separate system were that the crimes they commit are trivial then "try teen who did TERRIBLE crime as an adult" makes perfect sense.
But that's not why there's a juvenile justice system. There's a juvenile justice system because teens have poor impulse control (and a tendency towards stupid impulses) they frequently don't understand the consequences of their actions, they have poor judgement, and their brains/selves/judgement etc. is not fully developed. Given these things, it doesn't make sense to ruin a person's whole life for something they did as a teen when it's entirely possible that had they not had that stupid impulse that day, they would have kept out of trouble until their judgement grew into their capabilities and gone on to be perfectly acceptable adults.
Since that's the reason there's a juvenile justice system, that should be the basis of decisions about trying a teen as an adult: If there is reason to believe that this teen didn't just act on impulse, that they don't have these impulses all the time, that they actually did fully understand the consequences, think it through and decide this was a good idea, then ok, try them as an adult. If you can show they have an adults decision-making capability, then why not.
The standard for treating teens as adults should be about their developmental stage, not about the crime they committed.
But if the crime is a terrible one, and this surely is, but there's every reason to think the teen in question is not developmentally at an adult impulse-control and judgement stage of development, then there doesn't seem to be any justification for trying someone as an adult. If what you want is stiffer penalties for teens who commit terrible crimes, then increase the penalties available to youth courts, but don't move people with the judgement of children into a system designed to evaluate people against and adult's standard of judgement.
This kid did something HORRIFIC. But had he not been on the bus that day, does anyone really think he would have gone on to do something equally horrific another day to someone else? Had he been on the bus with Sasha another day, another time, is it self-evident that he would have attacked? I don't think this kid is inherently a horrific-thing-doer, I think he's a kid who had a stupid impulse, did a horrific thing and should be punished for it, but hopefully not by having his whole life ruined. I don't see him serially setting people on fire or being violent, unless he picks it up in prison.
This is all too sad.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:19 PM on January 29, 2015 [25 favorites]
But that's not why there's a juvenile justice system. There's a juvenile justice system because teens have poor impulse control (and a tendency towards stupid impulses) they frequently don't understand the consequences of their actions, they have poor judgement, and their brains/selves/judgement etc. is not fully developed. Given these things, it doesn't make sense to ruin a person's whole life for something they did as a teen when it's entirely possible that had they not had that stupid impulse that day, they would have kept out of trouble until their judgement grew into their capabilities and gone on to be perfectly acceptable adults.
Since that's the reason there's a juvenile justice system, that should be the basis of decisions about trying a teen as an adult: If there is reason to believe that this teen didn't just act on impulse, that they don't have these impulses all the time, that they actually did fully understand the consequences, think it through and decide this was a good idea, then ok, try them as an adult. If you can show they have an adults decision-making capability, then why not.
The standard for treating teens as adults should be about their developmental stage, not about the crime they committed.
But if the crime is a terrible one, and this surely is, but there's every reason to think the teen in question is not developmentally at an adult impulse-control and judgement stage of development, then there doesn't seem to be any justification for trying someone as an adult. If what you want is stiffer penalties for teens who commit terrible crimes, then increase the penalties available to youth courts, but don't move people with the judgement of children into a system designed to evaluate people against and adult's standard of judgement.
This kid did something HORRIFIC. But had he not been on the bus that day, does anyone really think he would have gone on to do something equally horrific another day to someone else? Had he been on the bus with Sasha another day, another time, is it self-evident that he would have attacked? I don't think this kid is inherently a horrific-thing-doer, I think he's a kid who had a stupid impulse, did a horrific thing and should be punished for it, but hopefully not by having his whole life ruined. I don't see him serially setting people on fire or being violent, unless he picks it up in prison.
This is all too sad.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:19 PM on January 29, 2015 [25 favorites]
16 is well enough mature to know that setting someone on fire is an extremely bad idea that can result in great harm or death.
I disagree with many here in this thread and believe that 16 year olds who set fire to people should be tried as adults. The arguments against seem to pretend that all of a sudden, culpability coalesces out of nowhere at midnight when someone turns 18.
posted by chimaera at 8:09 PM on January 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
I disagree with many here in this thread and believe that 16 year olds who set fire to people should be tried as adults. The arguments against seem to pretend that all of a sudden, culpability coalesces out of nowhere at midnight when someone turns 18.
posted by chimaera at 8:09 PM on January 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
To expand on my thoughts, there's ample evidence that full function of the prefrontal cortex in the human brain does not commonly appear until the mid-20s.
Eighteen-year-olds tend to have more difficulty making challenging long-term decisions, such as whether it is wise to undertake a large amount of debt for school, or whether to marry their high-school sweetheart.
People to achieve their full measure of brain function in their mid-20s, accumulating strategy and knowledge from the time they were infants. One of the last things people learn is strategic long term planning and the full complement of abilities to govern their impulses. One of the first things children learn is not to hit, not to bite, and, yes, not to set fire to something that they don't want to get burned.
You're going to have to go way, way less than 16 before I will grant that they didn't have any idea of the wrongness of their actions, or that taking out a lighter and repeatedly holding it to a piece of fabric to set it alight qualifies as impulsive rather than methodically intentional.
posted by chimaera at 8:17 PM on January 29, 2015
Eighteen-year-olds tend to have more difficulty making challenging long-term decisions, such as whether it is wise to undertake a large amount of debt for school, or whether to marry their high-school sweetheart.
People to achieve their full measure of brain function in their mid-20s, accumulating strategy and knowledge from the time they were infants. One of the last things people learn is strategic long term planning and the full complement of abilities to govern their impulses. One of the first things children learn is not to hit, not to bite, and, yes, not to set fire to something that they don't want to get burned.
You're going to have to go way, way less than 16 before I will grant that they didn't have any idea of the wrongness of their actions, or that taking out a lighter and repeatedly holding it to a piece of fabric to set it alight qualifies as impulsive rather than methodically intentional.
posted by chimaera at 8:17 PM on January 29, 2015
It seems to me like a lack of strategic long term planning and ability to govern their impulses is exactly why juveniles are tried in juvenile court, and maybe we should expand those protections to people in their mid-20s.
Juvenile court is NOT for people unaware of the wrongness of their actions. I mean, do people think that juvenile court is, like, a playground?
posted by muddgirl at 8:22 PM on January 29, 2015 [6 favorites]
Juvenile court is NOT for people unaware of the wrongness of their actions. I mean, do people think that juvenile court is, like, a playground?
posted by muddgirl at 8:22 PM on January 29, 2015 [6 favorites]
I like the people in this thread wanting Richard Thomas to be tried as an adult while the article notes that Sasha, xer parents, and prominent LGBT advocacy groups have said that they obviously feel like this is a complicated issue but they are definitely opposed to such an action and believe he should only be tried as a juvenile
presumably this is why we have a codified judicial system instead of anarchic vigilantism. because tl;dr
posted by saucy_knave at 8:38 PM on January 29, 2015 [8 favorites]
presumably this is why we have a codified judicial system instead of anarchic vigilantism. because tl;dr
posted by saucy_knave at 8:38 PM on January 29, 2015 [8 favorites]
i think 2 people have said they favor him being tried as an adult. most of the thread seems to think this is a really complicated issue that intersects a lot of different things.
posted by nadawi at 8:46 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 8:46 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't think the victim's wishes are terribly relevant in deciding sentencing, TBH. Prosecution is done by "the people" and not the victim, and sentencing is also for society not the victim.
I mean, if the victim's family was instead asking for the death penalty or something, would that change your view of what is appropriate? Or is it only because they happen to be asking for something you also think is reasonable?
I'm not necessarily in favor of trying him as an adult, but if victims are the ones making that decision it can be just as biased and arbitrary. The point of prosecution and sentencing is to make society safer (and in the case of hate crimes, to hopefully send a message both to those who commit them and those who are the targets that such things are unacceptable).
posted by thefoxgod at 8:46 PM on January 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
I mean, if the victim's family was instead asking for the death penalty or something, would that change your view of what is appropriate? Or is it only because they happen to be asking for something you also think is reasonable?
I'm not necessarily in favor of trying him as an adult, but if victims are the ones making that decision it can be just as biased and arbitrary. The point of prosecution and sentencing is to make society safer (and in the case of hate crimes, to hopefully send a message both to those who commit them and those who are the targets that such things are unacceptable).
posted by thefoxgod at 8:46 PM on January 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
(Er I mean "whether to try as an adult" really, not sentencing, although it applies there too)
posted by thefoxgod at 8:47 PM on January 29, 2015
posted by thefoxgod at 8:47 PM on January 29, 2015
We have a codified legal system in case even ultra liberal hippie dippie "nobody ever deserves to be punished for anything ever" parents don't get to choose whether criminals get charged, tried, and if convicted, pay the consequences, the law does.
posted by holybagel at 8:49 PM on January 29, 2015
posted by holybagel at 8:49 PM on January 29, 2015
I've spent over a decade teaching kids a lot like Richard (in Oakland and the surrounding area). I really don't believe Richard thought through the potential outcome of his actions. He had an idealised version of what could happen, though that sounds like something he created afterwards. At the time? He probably didn't even think about what could happen.
I show this video to my students, and their reaction is relief - that they understand that they have some advantages over adults, but they also don't have the connections to the pre-frontal cortex. And it's the boys like Richard - the ones who struggle to articulate their thoughts, who lack impulse control, who like to play the clown in their peer group - that struggle the most with that lack.
I also have the experience of my brother going through the criminal justice system. He was in juvenile hall and group homes as a teenager after threatening me and my mother with a knife, and ruining property, and setting fires...but you know why he did it? Because of PTSD and anger issues stemming from long-term sexual abuse in his early childhood. He never learned emotional regulation and also had a brain that was slower to build those connections with his pre-frontal cortext due to that early trauma.
He's now in prison for life on trumped up charges, which used his juvenile record against him. His lawyer didn't meet with him or call a single witness. He unknowingly waived his Miranda rights. There were Brady violations. The post-conviction lawyer we found was shocked that something like this could happen - he found over 30 violations of his civil rights in the trial alone.
The person who sexually abused him (and many others) is living free right now. And my brother is in prison for something he didn't actually do. And we need to stop pretending that prison is in ANY way about rehabilitation.
When I read the paragraph in the article about what could happen to make his sentence longer, I nodded along. All those things happened to my brother. He was punched in the face, and because he restrained the guy instead of just letting him continue to punch and kick him, he got written up. I guess that anything you do that's not "sit there and let it happen" is his problem. He's been written up for his cellmate having winemaking in his cell, even though he didn't know about it and isn't required to turn him in anyway.
It's taken a kid who was angry and scared and made him into someone who is hardened by the senseless regulations, the violence, and the injustice of it all.
And as much as I can rail against the injustice of it all, I'm completely impotent. My parents don't have the resources for the appeal, but they've figured out a way to make it happen by selling most of what they own. That's all anyone can do.
I'm scared and sad for Richard because I've seen where he will end up. I've known so many kids like him, and I'll know many more in the next 30 years I spend teaching.
This is not a system that works. One stupid impulsive thing will ruin his life. No one should be happy about that. And fuck that DA who did a bait and switch with the plea. That kind of shit pisses me off so much I can't even.
God bless Sasha and their parents for the way they've been able to forgive and move forward. That's such a beautiful story of grace in the wake of such a tragedy.
posted by guster4lovers at 8:54 PM on January 29, 2015 [25 favorites]
I show this video to my students, and their reaction is relief - that they understand that they have some advantages over adults, but they also don't have the connections to the pre-frontal cortex. And it's the boys like Richard - the ones who struggle to articulate their thoughts, who lack impulse control, who like to play the clown in their peer group - that struggle the most with that lack.
I also have the experience of my brother going through the criminal justice system. He was in juvenile hall and group homes as a teenager after threatening me and my mother with a knife, and ruining property, and setting fires...but you know why he did it? Because of PTSD and anger issues stemming from long-term sexual abuse in his early childhood. He never learned emotional regulation and also had a brain that was slower to build those connections with his pre-frontal cortext due to that early trauma.
He's now in prison for life on trumped up charges, which used his juvenile record against him. His lawyer didn't meet with him or call a single witness. He unknowingly waived his Miranda rights. There were Brady violations. The post-conviction lawyer we found was shocked that something like this could happen - he found over 30 violations of his civil rights in the trial alone.
The person who sexually abused him (and many others) is living free right now. And my brother is in prison for something he didn't actually do. And we need to stop pretending that prison is in ANY way about rehabilitation.
When I read the paragraph in the article about what could happen to make his sentence longer, I nodded along. All those things happened to my brother. He was punched in the face, and because he restrained the guy instead of just letting him continue to punch and kick him, he got written up. I guess that anything you do that's not "sit there and let it happen" is his problem. He's been written up for his cellmate having winemaking in his cell, even though he didn't know about it and isn't required to turn him in anyway.
It's taken a kid who was angry and scared and made him into someone who is hardened by the senseless regulations, the violence, and the injustice of it all.
And as much as I can rail against the injustice of it all, I'm completely impotent. My parents don't have the resources for the appeal, but they've figured out a way to make it happen by selling most of what they own. That's all anyone can do.
I'm scared and sad for Richard because I've seen where he will end up. I've known so many kids like him, and I'll know many more in the next 30 years I spend teaching.
This is not a system that works. One stupid impulsive thing will ruin his life. No one should be happy about that. And fuck that DA who did a bait and switch with the plea. That kind of shit pisses me off so much I can't even.
God bless Sasha and their parents for the way they've been able to forgive and move forward. That's such a beautiful story of grace in the wake of such a tragedy.
posted by guster4lovers at 8:54 PM on January 29, 2015 [25 favorites]
Of course the parents in this case never said anything remotely like "nobody ever deserves to be punished for anything ever". And the codified legal system we have allows for juveniles to be sentenced for juvenile crimes. The fact that there is discretion involved as to whether or not that happens shows that even the legal system is not as black and white as some people like to think. I'd like to get the bang for my tax buck with regards to the legal system making sure fewer crimes are committed. I don't believe sending this kid to jail for seven years is likely to do that, and the prosecutor essentially admitted as much when she couldn't name any "programs" he might take advantage of with the longer sentence.
posted by oneirodynia at 8:58 PM on January 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by oneirodynia at 8:58 PM on January 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
I guess I'm supposed to get more conservative as I get older, but all I find is that the older I get, the more I think "What we have been doing does not work, so doing more of that is not better." I don't think that people should end up in a consequence-free place, but we have tried and tried and tried places of harsh consequence, and especially for juveniles, it ought to be clear that that shit does not work. If by "work" we mean "produces people who are empathetic and productive and less likely to randomly hurt people for fun than not." I think the kid who set Sasha's skirt on fire should not be sent off with "okay, all good!" but should also not be locked up for a zillion years because what good does that do? For whom? To whom? In a context when they have probably been told their whole lives that they are shit and they don't matter and no one cares about them, what message do we think we're sending? We're so fucking stupid
posted by rtha at 9:21 PM on January 29, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by rtha at 9:21 PM on January 29, 2015 [12 favorites]
16 is well enough mature to know that setting someone on fire is an extremely bad idea that can result in great harm or death.
I disagree with many here in this thread and believe that 16 year olds who set fire to people should be tried as adults. The arguments against seem to pretend that all of a sudden, culpability coalesces out of nowhere at midnight when someone turns 18.
I'm sure he knew that setting someone on fire is an extremely bad idea that can result in great harm or death. I am much less sure that he conceived of what he was doing, at the moment he was doing it, as "setting someone on fire." He said he thought it would just smolder a little and they would wake up and stamp it out. That seems like a plausible belief one would have, and someone in the thread has already reported knowing an adult who believed this about setting their clothes on fire. So while he may have known that setting someone on fire is bad, I don't think he understood (something that requires processing in that moment, not just abstract factual knowledge) that he was setting someone on fire and that was bad.
Basically, this:
I really don't believe Richard thought through the potential outcome of his actions. He had an idealised version of what could happen, though that sounds like something he created afterwards. At the time? He probably didn't even think about what could happen.
Is far more likely than that he thought "I'm going to set this person on fire and cause them great injury." Does anyone think he thought that?
I can respect the idea (which I understood you to express), that he should be tried as an adult because he understood the consequences of his actions (though I don't agree that he did). My point was (in addition to saying I don't think he understood he consequences), that if he should be tried as an adult for setting someone on fire, he should be tried as an adult for shoplifting if he takes a bag of chips. The "adult" vs. "youth" standard should be about understanding and impulse control, not about the severity of the crime. Similarly, if you would charge him as a minor for shoplifing, then he should be charged as a minor for assault and mayhem. Either he has the capacity for judgement that one expects of an adult or he doesn't. It should be about that capacity, not about the severity of the crime.
I don't understand why the severity of the crime seems to be the predominant factor in deciding who is tried as an adult. It doesn't make any sense at all.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:28 PM on January 29, 2015 [12 favorites]
I disagree with many here in this thread and believe that 16 year olds who set fire to people should be tried as adults. The arguments against seem to pretend that all of a sudden, culpability coalesces out of nowhere at midnight when someone turns 18.
I'm sure he knew that setting someone on fire is an extremely bad idea that can result in great harm or death. I am much less sure that he conceived of what he was doing, at the moment he was doing it, as "setting someone on fire." He said he thought it would just smolder a little and they would wake up and stamp it out. That seems like a plausible belief one would have, and someone in the thread has already reported knowing an adult who believed this about setting their clothes on fire. So while he may have known that setting someone on fire is bad, I don't think he understood (something that requires processing in that moment, not just abstract factual knowledge) that he was setting someone on fire and that was bad.
Basically, this:
I really don't believe Richard thought through the potential outcome of his actions. He had an idealised version of what could happen, though that sounds like something he created afterwards. At the time? He probably didn't even think about what could happen.
Is far more likely than that he thought "I'm going to set this person on fire and cause them great injury." Does anyone think he thought that?
I can respect the idea (which I understood you to express), that he should be tried as an adult because he understood the consequences of his actions (though I don't agree that he did). My point was (in addition to saying I don't think he understood he consequences), that if he should be tried as an adult for setting someone on fire, he should be tried as an adult for shoplifting if he takes a bag of chips. The "adult" vs. "youth" standard should be about understanding and impulse control, not about the severity of the crime. Similarly, if you would charge him as a minor for shoplifing, then he should be charged as a minor for assault and mayhem. Either he has the capacity for judgement that one expects of an adult or he doesn't. It should be about that capacity, not about the severity of the crime.
I don't understand why the severity of the crime seems to be the predominant factor in deciding who is tried as an adult. It doesn't make any sense at all.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:28 PM on January 29, 2015 [12 favorites]
I don't think that seven years is an unjust or unreasonable punishment given the severity of this crime (too short if anything). The questionable notion of attempting to "heal" someone capable of casually lighting sleeping strangers on fire doesn't outweigh society's interest in making that criminal pay adequately for what they did, and in keeping the streets safer for as long as possible.
Nor do I think that the media is required to mess with the English language by opening the door to a kaleidoscope of invented pronouns in order to cater to a very tiny subset of the population. Pronouns for an object or a group referring to an individual person or made up pronouns would be disruptive and/or confusing to the majority of readers. English doesn't accommodate a unique pronoun for every unique snowflake. I think the author made the right choice by forgoing pronouns and noting the issue to make readers aware of that decision.
posted by knoyers at 10:24 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
Nor do I think that the media is required to mess with the English language by opening the door to a kaleidoscope of invented pronouns in order to cater to a very tiny subset of the population. Pronouns for an object or a group referring to an individual person or made up pronouns would be disruptive and/or confusing to the majority of readers. English doesn't accommodate a unique pronoun for every unique snowflake. I think the author made the right choice by forgoing pronouns and noting the issue to make readers aware of that decision.
posted by knoyers at 10:24 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
The questionable notion of attempting to "heal" someone capable of casually lighting sleeping strangers on fire doesn't outweigh society's interest in making that criminal pay adequately for what they did, and in keeping the streets safer for as long as possible.
What is adequate payment? And how does locking this defendant up for seven, seventeen, 70, or 700 years keep the streets safer?
Nor do I think that the media is required to mess with the English language by opening the door to a kaleidoscope of invented pronouns in order to cater to a very tiny subset of the population. Pronouns for an object or a group referring to an individual person or made up pronouns would be disruptive and/or confusing to the majority of readers. English doesn't accommodate a unique pronoun for every unique snowflake. I think the author made the right choice by forgoing pronouns and noting the issue to make readers aware of that decision.
How is that "messing with" the English language, other than that it offends your sensibilities because it "caters" to "unique snowflakes"? I'd rather see a rain forest of novel English-language pronouns than to have one more instance in which the dead-horse "special/unique snowflake" cliché gets trotted out.
posted by blucevalo at 10:35 PM on January 29, 2015 [8 favorites]
What is adequate payment? And how does locking this defendant up for seven, seventeen, 70, or 700 years keep the streets safer?
Nor do I think that the media is required to mess with the English language by opening the door to a kaleidoscope of invented pronouns in order to cater to a very tiny subset of the population. Pronouns for an object or a group referring to an individual person or made up pronouns would be disruptive and/or confusing to the majority of readers. English doesn't accommodate a unique pronoun for every unique snowflake. I think the author made the right choice by forgoing pronouns and noting the issue to make readers aware of that decision.
How is that "messing with" the English language, other than that it offends your sensibilities because it "caters" to "unique snowflakes"? I'd rather see a rain forest of novel English-language pronouns than to have one more instance in which the dead-horse "special/unique snowflake" cliché gets trotted out.
posted by blucevalo at 10:35 PM on January 29, 2015 [8 favorites]
Why is it questionable that we might want to heal someone? Is that notion incompatible with making them face the consequences of the harm they've caused? At what age do we give up on trying to heal - if 16 is too late, then what age is young enough?
I don't know the answers to these questions. I'll be fifty in a few years. I used to think I had a handle on those questions.
This, though, I'm fine with pronouncing judgement on: Nor do I think that the media is required to mess with the English language by opening the door to a kaleidoscope of invented pronouns in order to cater to a very tiny subset of the population.
That judgement is: Stop being so fucking precious. You're certain that a 16-year-old can just be thrown away, and equally certain that English as we know her will somehow be destroyed if we find a way that both respects what people wish to be called and communicates clearly to readers what is being discussed, and whom. I'm sorry you think so little of readers and writers, who must in your estimation be too stupid to read or write for context.
posted by rtha at 10:39 PM on January 29, 2015 [13 favorites]
I don't know the answers to these questions. I'll be fifty in a few years. I used to think I had a handle on those questions.
This, though, I'm fine with pronouncing judgement on: Nor do I think that the media is required to mess with the English language by opening the door to a kaleidoscope of invented pronouns in order to cater to a very tiny subset of the population.
That judgement is: Stop being so fucking precious. You're certain that a 16-year-old can just be thrown away, and equally certain that English as we know her will somehow be destroyed if we find a way that both respects what people wish to be called and communicates clearly to readers what is being discussed, and whom. I'm sorry you think so little of readers and writers, who must in your estimation be too stupid to read or write for context.
posted by rtha at 10:39 PM on January 29, 2015 [13 favorites]
would it seriously make some of you feel better if every potential victim of a transmisogynist hate crime made sure to unambigiously use "he" or a "she" to protect your feelings about the precious english language?
posted by thug unicorn at 10:45 PM on January 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by thug unicorn at 10:45 PM on January 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
And how does locking this defendant up for seven, seventeen, 70, or 700 years keep the streets safer?
I think that Richard would do something like this again if he was not caught. I don't believe that this behavior represents any treatable mental illness, and even if it did the state would not be well equipped to address it. As long as he remains in prison, his threat to society is averted. Hopefully by the time he gets out, advancing age will have made him less dangerous. But I think that punishment suffices as a reason to incarcerate someone who lights other people on fire, for a long time. His pathological actions could easily have caused Sasha to burn to death, agonizingly. Richard is lucky, maybe too lucky, that he will be freed while still a very young man.
would it seriously make some of you feel better if every potential victim of a transmisogynist hate crime made sure to unambigiously use "he" or a "she" to protect your feelings about the precious english language?
I am all in favor of people using whatever words they like to describe themselves but I don't think that institutional media like the Times needs to sacrifice coherence to cater to the personalities of a small set of individuals who use a variety of eccentric pronouns. Repeating the name and avoiding pronouns seems like a better option than allowing the confusion of xe, hir, they, etc., and the amount of explanation that would be required to cater to this. The Times should adapt itself to common usage, not very individualistic and rare usage that requires explanation to be understood at all.
posted by knoyers at 11:07 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think that Richard would do something like this again if he was not caught. I don't believe that this behavior represents any treatable mental illness, and even if it did the state would not be well equipped to address it. As long as he remains in prison, his threat to society is averted. Hopefully by the time he gets out, advancing age will have made him less dangerous. But I think that punishment suffices as a reason to incarcerate someone who lights other people on fire, for a long time. His pathological actions could easily have caused Sasha to burn to death, agonizingly. Richard is lucky, maybe too lucky, that he will be freed while still a very young man.
would it seriously make some of you feel better if every potential victim of a transmisogynist hate crime made sure to unambigiously use "he" or a "she" to protect your feelings about the precious english language?
I am all in favor of people using whatever words they like to describe themselves but I don't think that institutional media like the Times needs to sacrifice coherence to cater to the personalities of a small set of individuals who use a variety of eccentric pronouns. Repeating the name and avoiding pronouns seems like a better option than allowing the confusion of xe, hir, they, etc., and the amount of explanation that would be required to cater to this. The Times should adapt itself to common usage, not very individualistic and rare usage that requires explanation to be understood at all.
posted by knoyers at 11:07 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, i think if a person really cared about the english language, and not about grandstanding against "special snowflakes", they would realize that using singular pronouns other than "he" and "she" is not a big deal let alone individualistic or rare.
posted by thug unicorn at 11:15 PM on January 29, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by thug unicorn at 11:15 PM on January 29, 2015 [10 favorites]
I'm about 90% sure the NYT has respected a preference for the singular they in the past. It's 4am and I'm in bed, but it was some article about a musician. The refusal here is bullshit grandstanding, just like the belief rampant here that locking this kid up and throwing away the key supports trans and gender non-conforming people or whatever you think it's doing for those of you who are also moaning about pronouns. How about we actually bother finding the adults who kill trans people? Or refuse to accept trans panic as a defense? Everything about this case has "kids are impulsive and we taught them gender non-conformity is bad" written all over it. We have a juvenile justice system precisely because the former can lead kids to do criminal things and we can make an effort on the latter.
posted by hoyland at 2:41 AM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by hoyland at 2:41 AM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
> sacrifice coherence to cater to the personalities of a small set of individuals who use a variety of eccentric pronouns
It's a small number of people, but somehow coherence would be sacrificed? And god forbid we respect them as people by calling them what they wish to be called. I assume that's what you mean by "cater to their personalities"?
Once upon a time not very long ago, the Times and other institutional media also refused to us Ms. rather than Miss or Mrs, for very much the exact reasons you lay out. As you can see, no one can understand anything the Times says anymore, and that's surely why.
posted by rtha at 5:49 AM on January 30, 2015 [11 favorites]
It's a small number of people, but somehow coherence would be sacrificed? And god forbid we respect them as people by calling them what they wish to be called. I assume that's what you mean by "cater to their personalities"?
Once upon a time not very long ago, the Times and other institutional media also refused to us Ms. rather than Miss or Mrs, for very much the exact reasons you lay out. As you can see, no one can understand anything the Times says anymore, and that's surely why.
posted by rtha at 5:49 AM on January 30, 2015 [11 favorites]
I'm surprised anyone can read the snippets from his police interview and come away with the sense that he had any idea what the consequences of his actions might be. Like many in this thread have said, we try people as juvenile because we recognize that they don't completely understand how the world works.
This exchange made me want to tear my hair out:
“What would even remotely make you think about setting something on fire like that — someone’s clothing?” Anderson asks. “Was it because the dude was wearing a dress? Did you have a problem with him?”
“I don’t know.”
“People do things for a reason,” the officer says.
Frankly, for kids, that's utter BS. Adults seem to just choose to forget this. Kids (lets put that arbitrary line at 18, but I think it's really more like 20) don't have reasons for doing a lot of things other than poorly controlled impulses. From that interview I'm left with the very strong impression that he wanted to pick on (scare) a kid who was "wierd" not that he wanted to lynch a generqueer person because of their gender identity. All of that "homophobic" nonsense was some one trying to fill the expectations of the adults that insisted he had to have a "reason" for his actions. They steered him to that.
This seems so much like one of those tragedies in which someone does something stupid and ruins two lives. And part of the ruin is perpetrated by a prosecutor going "Oh Boy! I can really throw the book at this kid and people will cheer me for it!"
posted by ghostiger at 6:39 AM on January 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
This exchange made me want to tear my hair out:
“What would even remotely make you think about setting something on fire like that — someone’s clothing?” Anderson asks. “Was it because the dude was wearing a dress? Did you have a problem with him?”
“I don’t know.”
“People do things for a reason,” the officer says.
Frankly, for kids, that's utter BS. Adults seem to just choose to forget this. Kids (lets put that arbitrary line at 18, but I think it's really more like 20) don't have reasons for doing a lot of things other than poorly controlled impulses. From that interview I'm left with the very strong impression that he wanted to pick on (scare) a kid who was "wierd" not that he wanted to lynch a generqueer person because of their gender identity. All of that "homophobic" nonsense was some one trying to fill the expectations of the adults that insisted he had to have a "reason" for his actions. They steered him to that.
This seems so much like one of those tragedies in which someone does something stupid and ruins two lives. And part of the ruin is perpetrated by a prosecutor going "Oh Boy! I can really throw the book at this kid and people will cheer me for it!"
posted by ghostiger at 6:39 AM on January 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
the kids being set on fire for being weird are often queer kids, you can't separate the two. i wish he'd been tried as a juvenile, but i'm frustrated at how far some are bending over to soften his horrific hate crime.
posted by nadawi at 7:02 AM on January 30, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 7:02 AM on January 30, 2015 [8 favorites]
On a different note, editorial decisions about pronouns aside, this is one of the best articles I've read in a really long time. Powerful in part because the author does such a fantastic job of presenting the story with minimal (or at least transparent) editorializing. Bravo, Dashka Slater.
posted by ghostiger at 7:02 AM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by ghostiger at 7:02 AM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
i mean what are we supposed to tell genderqueer/agender/trans kids who are dying at an alarming rate? cis het teens aren't attacking you because your queer, they're doing it because you're weird! that's the sort of distinction that only matters on the side of the aggressor, not from the view of the victim.
posted by nadawi at 7:09 AM on January 30, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 7:09 AM on January 30, 2015 [9 favorites]
you're not supposed to tell them anything, this isn't Sports Center for the Oppression Olympics. you're supposed to recognize that we have a judicial system that isn't capable of recognizing the complications at the intersection of gender and race. it's a messy story about a white, middle-class agendered individual was almost killed by an emotionally traumatized black kid, both of whom live in an incredibly segregated city whose populations have immensely variegated access to different kinds of resources and very rarely bridge that vast gulf of social capital because their only interactions are when they're both riding public transportation
both victim and perpetrator are individuals irrefutably harmed by fucked up systems of oppression. if the story is asking for anything, it's being mindful of that fact and not to leap to the conclusion that such and such should be sent to death row (fucking gross reaction, imo) and such and such shouldn't be let out to walk scot-free (which nobody has remotely come close to saying, afaik)
posted by saucy_knave at 9:43 AM on January 30, 2015 [10 favorites]
both victim and perpetrator are individuals irrefutably harmed by fucked up systems of oppression. if the story is asking for anything, it's being mindful of that fact and not to leap to the conclusion that such and such should be sent to death row (fucking gross reaction, imo) and such and such shouldn't be let out to walk scot-free (which nobody has remotely come close to saying, afaik)
posted by saucy_knave at 9:43 AM on January 30, 2015 [10 favorites]
Thanks for the powerful article. I love how it presents multiple perspectives of the story. This is clearly a tragedy for everyone involved. I can't help but feel injustice at the criminal justice system, public school system in Oakland and discrimination against the LGBTQ. Instead of focusing on the broken criminal justice system and fixing people who cannot be fixed, maybe we need to think about how to promote peace and acceptance in our culture. But having grown up in Oakland (in the flatlands) and being a former student of the perpetually broken school district, I can say that the culture of poverty and crime in the city (and the family situation of many of these students) is not conducive to warmth and acceptance. This is a much greater social problem on many, many levels.
posted by wye naught at 9:44 AM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by wye naught at 9:44 AM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
not to leap to the conclusion that such and such should be sent to death row
not sure why you're directing that at me since i have clearly said a few times i don't think juveniles should be tried as adults and i would have supported restorative justice in this case.
posted by nadawi at 10:40 AM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
not sure why you're directing that at me since i have clearly said a few times i don't think juveniles should be tried as adults and i would have supported restorative justice in this case.
posted by nadawi at 10:40 AM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
sorry nadawi, I wasn't clear. I wasn't talking to you about the death penalty (I think that comment may have been deleted), I was just characterizing the dichotomy of disputes here. my engagement with you was just about whether or not we should use this story as a lesson about the relative political capital of non-heteronormativity within the US justice system and society at large which I don't because this story is a lot messier and complicated and such
posted by saucy_knave at 11:21 AM on January 30, 2015
posted by saucy_knave at 11:21 AM on January 30, 2015
well i wasn't speaking about using this story as a lesson about political capital. i was really saying - hey, some people in here keep trying to act like this wasn't a transphobic/homophobic hate crime and i vehemently disagree. kids might not have the words for it or would say it's just because their victim was weird or that they were just playing a prank - and adults might be glad to line up and cosign that - but the fact of the matter is that queer kids take the brunt of this sort of violence and trans* kids get an even bigger share. no matter how complicated the racial/economic issues are, no matter how much i wish that he would have been tried as a juvenile (and that the others involved had also gone through the juvenile system), no matter how much i think we have to redo our entire justice and imprisonment systems - i still think richard is guilty of a hate crime. i still think we have to care for the life of the victim at least as much as we care for their attacker and part of that is not minimizing the crime against sasha.
posted by nadawi at 11:40 AM on January 30, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 11:40 AM on January 30, 2015 [11 favorites]
sure nadawi, and I would agree with that on a moral/ethical/etc level as would anybody else here. but from a pragmatic standpoint, you me and everybody we know knows that our current prison system is atrocious and it does nothing to heal anybody. in an ideal world where our prisons were not panoptic monstrosities where we locked away our undesirables to rot away into nothingness, I'd have no issues with what you're saying. but our present reality is monstrous and we know it, which is why it's better to err on the side of compassion rather than idealized justice
posted by saucy_knave at 11:58 AM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by saucy_knave at 11:58 AM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
i don't think everybody else here agrees which is why there's so much focus on his prefrontal cortex and whether or not he knew it was a hate crime or if he just went after someone weird. i'm not talking about punishment. please stop twisting my comments to fulfill the part of the conversation you want to have.
posted by nadawi at 12:09 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 12:09 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
16 is well enough mature to know that setting someone on fire is an extremely bad idea that can result in great harm or death.
No. No no no no no.
As multiple people have noted above, if you've never experienced shitty synthetic fabric fire, you have no idea how fast it burns. As evidenced by the person who set herself on fire. We don't live in an age where synthetic fabrics often meet open flames.
When I was a young joe in the Army, we used to routinely hold lit lighters to each other's uniforms, sometimes without asking, if we saw threads hanging - because with our uniforms, it would perfectly burn the loose threads, and stop at the actual fabric. I don't think I, myself, as an adult, realized how fast fabrics burn until I read historical accounts and heard them telling us why we couldn't wear those underarmor shirts (because they melt and stick to skin).
Teenagers have the most experience lighting cigarettes - which don't always light right away, and you have to suck in on to get it started, and it burns slowly. Teenagers don't generally set fabric on fire, which means they have no clue what the hell the consequence of this is.
It is literally monstrous to try this kid as an adult for a hate crime and sentence him to jail for seven years when this is a perfect example of "dumb idiot does something dumb that he wouldn't have done if he knew better."
posted by corb at 9:52 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
No. No no no no no.
As multiple people have noted above, if you've never experienced shitty synthetic fabric fire, you have no idea how fast it burns. As evidenced by the person who set herself on fire. We don't live in an age where synthetic fabrics often meet open flames.
When I was a young joe in the Army, we used to routinely hold lit lighters to each other's uniforms, sometimes without asking, if we saw threads hanging - because with our uniforms, it would perfectly burn the loose threads, and stop at the actual fabric. I don't think I, myself, as an adult, realized how fast fabrics burn until I read historical accounts and heard them telling us why we couldn't wear those underarmor shirts (because they melt and stick to skin).
Teenagers have the most experience lighting cigarettes - which don't always light right away, and you have to suck in on to get it started, and it burns slowly. Teenagers don't generally set fabric on fire, which means they have no clue what the hell the consequence of this is.
It is literally monstrous to try this kid as an adult for a hate crime and sentence him to jail for seven years when this is a perfect example of "dumb idiot does something dumb that he wouldn't have done if he knew better."
posted by corb at 9:52 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Basically, it's about intention. If the kid intended to actually set Sasha on fire and watch them burn? Then fuck that kid sideways. But if it's a prank gone horribly wrong, the correct response is to teach them actions have consequences by having them help pay for Sasha's physical therapy or medical bills or something. Not sending them to jail.
posted by corb at 9:58 AM on January 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by corb at 9:58 AM on January 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
It seems obvious that he wanted to leave a burn mark on the agender kids clothing, which is an asshole move, but had no idea he would set them alight.
Again, stupid kid equals juvie, not "incurable psychopath, throw away the key".
Also, in reference to pronouns, preferred pronouns are one thing, but there is a long history of reasons why we don't call people "it", and it could too easily be interpreted as dehumanising in print. Avoiding gender terms sounds preferable, and I am on the side of "they".
posted by Elysum at 8:33 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Again, stupid kid equals juvie, not "incurable psychopath, throw away the key".
Also, in reference to pronouns, preferred pronouns are one thing, but there is a long history of reasons why we don't call people "it", and it could too easily be interpreted as dehumanising in print. Avoiding gender terms sounds preferable, and I am on the side of "they".
posted by Elysum at 8:33 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
The thing that stuck out to me was the fact that the kid wrote *two* letters of apology. It's not really mentioned in the article, but a while back, I think in this post, there was a video about not talking to the police, where a police interrogator came in and talked about some of the things they do to build a case. One of them was to try to coerce the person into writing a detailed apology letter, even leading the alleged perp to believe it will help them wrt sentencing, which they then take and use as a written confession of guilt in court. It looks like that's exactly what happened here in with that first letter.
posted by mcrandello at 11:22 PM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by mcrandello at 11:22 PM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think calling it a "prank gone wrong" is pretty minimizing. This certainly wasn't an innocent joke between friends. Based on what we know about the facts here, regardless of whether he meant to set Sasha on fire vs. just annoy them and mar some of their clothes, it seems unavoidable to me that Thomas committed an assault, and that this assault -- even totally discounting his confessed remarks -- was motivated by bias. I don't consider that so benign.
The main issues I have are his being tried as an adult and having his sentence extended to include time in an adult prison, as well as obviously not getting help that he needed before this incident. Those are pretty awful, I think, but they don't mean that he didn't actually commit a bias crime. You don't need to contest this description of what he did in order to think that his punishment was too harsh, for reasons that amount to structural racism, or to think that an underage person should not be exposed to the adult prison system.
(From reading this thread, especially emptythought's anecdote, it does seem like the extreme flammability of synthetic clothing is something that needs to be hammered home in schools and PSAs. People should know the extent of what could happen, just like it's common knowledge not to mix ammonia and bleach.)
posted by en forme de poire at 4:19 PM on February 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
The main issues I have are his being tried as an adult and having his sentence extended to include time in an adult prison, as well as obviously not getting help that he needed before this incident. Those are pretty awful, I think, but they don't mean that he didn't actually commit a bias crime. You don't need to contest this description of what he did in order to think that his punishment was too harsh, for reasons that amount to structural racism, or to think that an underage person should not be exposed to the adult prison system.
(From reading this thread, especially emptythought's anecdote, it does seem like the extreme flammability of synthetic clothing is something that needs to be hammered home in schools and PSAs. People should know the extent of what could happen, just like it's common knowledge not to mix ammonia and bleach.)
posted by en forme de poire at 4:19 PM on February 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
From reading this thread, especially emptythought's anecdote, it does seem like the extreme flammability of synthetic clothing is something that needs to be hammered home in schools and PSAs. People should know the extent of what could happen, just like it's common knowledge not to mix ammonia and bleach.
While there's no harm in educating people, I do think there's a certain amount of teenagers-are-real-dumb-dumbs-sometimes that no amount of education would likely fix. I was talking about this article tonight at a family dinner and my aunt told the story of how her son once set someone's HAIR on fire with a lighter as a sort of joke. Fortunately, she was not hurt as someone nearby was in lucky possession of a wet towel. My cousin did not go to jail. He is now a responsible father and grandfather and AFAIK has never set anyone on fire since.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 5:45 PM on February 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
While there's no harm in educating people, I do think there's a certain amount of teenagers-are-real-dumb-dumbs-sometimes that no amount of education would likely fix. I was talking about this article tonight at a family dinner and my aunt told the story of how her son once set someone's HAIR on fire with a lighter as a sort of joke. Fortunately, she was not hurt as someone nearby was in lucky possession of a wet towel. My cousin did not go to jail. He is now a responsible father and grandfather and AFAIK has never set anyone on fire since.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 5:45 PM on February 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think that anecdote actually supports, rather than argues against, my point.
posted by en forme de poire at 6:14 PM on February 1, 2015
posted by en forme de poire at 6:14 PM on February 1, 2015
I didn't quite mean to argue against your point. As I said, education is never really a bad idea. My point was that even if you teach teenagers not to set synthetic fabrics on fire, they'll find some other dumbass thing to do. So while shortening the list of dumbass-things-they-might-do by one is a good thing, we shouldn't underestimate the length of the list.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:44 PM on February 1, 2015
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:44 PM on February 1, 2015
Regarding setting shit on fire as an adolescent on the bus, I'm having flashbacks to my best friend's stories (it was 1985; "BFF" was not a thing) about riding the bus in a suburban East Bay community (okay, it was Castro Valley) and having the troublemakers doing shit like "oh, hey… the back of each bus seat sags down and makes a little reservoir — let's spray it full of Aqua Net and then SET IT ON FIRE!"
Adolescents are seriously stupid when it comes to fire.
posted by Lexica at 7:24 PM on February 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Adolescents are seriously stupid when it comes to fire.
posted by Lexica at 7:24 PM on February 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm horrified that we live a world where trans women and gender non-conforming but read-by-many-as-male people are under constant threat of not just assault, but murder. This is totally real and we as a society should be throwing ourselves completely into ending this. I want to be the best ally I can in supporting trans people to end this.
But we have no reason or evidence, in the scientific sense of evidence, to believe that prison is an answer to that problem. Just as we have no reason or evidence to believe that prison is a solution to other assaults, murders or cruelties.
I want a solution that works. And that does not simply mirror or amplify the racist inequities of the prison system as it now exists.
posted by latkes at 6:05 PM on February 2, 2015
But we have no reason or evidence, in the scientific sense of evidence, to believe that prison is an answer to that problem. Just as we have no reason or evidence to believe that prison is a solution to other assaults, murders or cruelties.
I want a solution that works. And that does not simply mirror or amplify the racist inequities of the prison system as it now exists.
posted by latkes at 6:05 PM on February 2, 2015
From the NYT Public Editor: The Times and Transgender Issues (Part 1 of 2): On Pronouns
In general, [standards editor] Mr. Corbett said: “We try to follow settled usage that’s familiar to a large majority of our readers. We’re not at that point.”posted by rtha at 9:55 AM on February 13, 2015
My take: The Times’s own guidelines – to use the preference of the individual whenever possible – should rule the day here. The Times, after all, uses the honorific preferred by women – Miss, Mrs. or Ms. – something that was not always the case, as several readers pointed out. (They recalled the vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, for a time, being referred to as Mrs., when her preference was Ms.)
This situation presents different challenges, but they certainly can be surmounted. During the transitional period, as usage is becoming more settled, a very brief editor’s note at the beginning of an article could clue readers in. Conversations with advocacy groups would also be helpful as the new style is developing.
I strongly suspect that a year from now, this situation will have evolved considerably – and it should.
« Older A bad day and a dark, dark tango played on the... | The Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental to Replace Air... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Huh. I think the NYT should probably take a moment to write a new policy on that.
posted by wrabbit at 3:15 PM on January 29, 2015 [78 favorites]