|
Greymule,
I agree that the zero tolerance measures instituted in many school districts is, to say the least, an appeasement to the public. Here in my local school district (which my wife and daughter are employees of) we have had several questionable applications of the policy. But that does not mean that the policy is bad. There are some kinks to be worked out. They were instituted rather quickly in response to the various incidents around the country involving students and weapons brought into the school. Also, in my area, laws have been passed making the possesion of "weapons" (don't know the legal definition) on school property a crime. Thus not only does the school board exact their punishment but the courts will get involved also.
It seems to me that zero tolerence and specialized laws regarding official abuse are two different cans of the same worm - "preferential" treatment. But lets look at my example of the speeding fines. These streets have these added fines because of their location and connection to other roads. They are connector streets that go through residential neighborhoods, they have high volume traffic especially during rush hour, and constant traffic during other times. Sports officials are in a specialized location for a finite period of time why can't we have specialized protection for a finite period of time? If the courts are reluctant to impose a proper punishment on a sports official abuser, then the legislature should step in and make them do so. Whether they enact "value added" laws or just impose a zero tolerance motion for official abuse makes no difference to me.
Its unfortunate that the village has to raise the child because the parents can't or won't!
__________________
Dave
|