Incredibly stupid post. Thanks for giving this idiot enough rope.
Oh brain hurts at the stupidity I just read.
Gentrification beats gangification any day. Gang violence among youths is getting out of control. Their communities are totally uncooperative in stopping it. So gentrify them away and lock up the offenders, whatever their age.
If only the people who just commented could see through their knee jerk reactions, and look at the waste of children. These young people will become the neighbors with whom you will be sharing the planet. Would you like to convert them into angry people, or have them be productive people?

Comments above are sad. Children are children. They should have chances to grow up to be happy, productive adults. It doesn't happen by putting them in prisons. It happens by helping them become productive adults. They need food, sleep in safe homes, people around them who care to teach them things about life that give them good social purpose, not cell walls, fear, hate, and lowered self-esteem.

They will someday be your neighbors. Do you want angry people around you or productive happy people around you? Your choice.
@4 That is a very stupid question and a poor framing of the debate. No one wants to convert anyone to an angry person, hence, you know, why they want to replace a horrific facility with a more humane one. One with less beds, but more ability to actually help kids. And while maybe in fantasy land we can never ever ever have to lock up a juvenile, in the real world sometimes kids need time outs when they do things that endanger the rest of us and I would much prefer that happen in a well built facility with the resources needed to get these kids some help. It might be a hell of a lot better then whatever fucked up home life they may have.

It's sad to see a PhD candidate not understand that trends like incarceration rates don't just extend to zero anymore than the fact that one might lose 5 pounds the first week of a diet means they will weigh nothing in a year.

I am also not sure what is so 'sneaky' about the city divesting itself of unneeded land so that we can have more density along a new streetcar line.
I ascribe to the view that that most juveniles should not be in jail, and the fewer that are, the better. What this post completely refuses to acknowledge is that it's not simply a new jail. There will be new family courtrooms that are desperately needed to help implement these alternatives to incarceration. There will be new education facilities so that juveniles will be able to keep learning in a good environment, not in the basement of a condemned building. There will be rooms for more integrated services so that families can seek advice from attorneys, social workers, advocates, and various social safety net programs. In short, there is a lot more than jail cells that will be built, and it will be a much greater resource to the youth and families that are trying to navigate the system. The argument above is akin to saying that a failing school doesn't deserve funding because I don't agree with what they teach. If you truly want restorative and transformative justice models more widely used, you should be chomping at the bit to support this.This is helping to create the space that allows those reforms to take hold. Check with people at Teamchild, Columbia Legal Services, Treehouse, Mockingbird Society, and any other youth advocacy organizations you can find, and they can tell you how bad this is needed.As far as I'm concerned, your self-righteous "no jails ever" mantra is going to hurt our youth even more in the long run when they are forced to be housed in sub-standard cells, receive poor education, and have no access to incarceration alternatives. A few more condos aren't the problem here, the problem is you and your unwillingness to see the benefits that come with this redevelopment.

Finally, this is not science fiction, this is real life. These kids could lose out tremendously in life, while you'll still be priviledged enough to write your dissertation and graduate with a PhD.
If you vote no for the proposition, $210 million doesn't just magically appear out of nowhere to spend on these mythical programs that proposition opponents suggest. Nothing happens. You only have two choices in this election:

A yes vote is a new justice center that is actually usable.
A no vote is continuation of the status quo, which includes a building that is literally falling apart.

You don't get any other options. To make the claim that the money from the proposition is better spent elsewhere, the opponents of the proposition have to tell how to spend that money via a citizen's referendum. They haven't done that. In other words, they are, as we all know, hopeless academic miscreants that have nothing better to do then complain about the society that allows them to pursue the non-productive life they have.
@7 I just nearly passed out trying to read that first paragraph in one breath...but, the point is there.
"She's writing her dissertation on prisons in science fiction"
No wonder we're called Generation Screwed.
Okay, what if, instead of the new detention facility, we tear down the old one and replace it with an open-range pasture for the kids to wander around freely. Sure, it'll be harder to collect their eggs, but you can make back a lot of the cost of the facility by selling their meat at an inflated rate. People will pay a lot of money for organic, free-range hoodlum.
I didn't really expect this to be a welcoming forum for this viewpoint. However, the comments about children here illustrate a certain detachment and callousness that is chilling. These are children who have probably been through some devastating social challenges thanks to capitalism and the state. Are we to turn our back on them so they end up in prisons as adults? The school to prison pipeline is a real thing. The prison industrial complex exists to cage and control people of color for profit. While I don't like falling back on analogies for every situation, the prison industry functions much like slavery did in the early years of this country's history. I imagine there were many people who excused and ignored the ethical question of how humane is it to strip people of their dignity for profit back then too. Look at yourselves and ask the question - what side of history do YOU want to be on?
@12, you are trying to fit the square peg of your undergrad boilerplate into the round hole of what this levy will actually DO for the kids you claim to care about. Set aside your prejudices and take a fresh look, is my suggestion.
I didn't see anything about the $210 million going to actually fund any of the programs that are supposed to help youth in the new building. In fact, when the county council talks about the project, they emphasize how great the building structure is going to be but they don't talk about any services that will reduce recidivism. We don't need a new building to make diversion programs and alternatives to incarceration work. And the alternative isn't just to keep kids in the current toxic facility; the county can close it. A juvenile facility in Richmond, VA was closed in April because of deplorable conditions and the youth were moved to other existing facilities. While I would prefer that the kids were just sent home, it goes to show that voting no on this levy isn't what's keeping kids in that shit-hole, it's a lack of political will.
I am so frustrated by how this issue if being framed and the outright lack of context that this writer displays. For a PHD candidate, she sure doesnt do much research. I worked with the Squire Park/12th Ave neighborhood for three years on this issue. It is complex and isn't all about "Juvie". Moreover, King County is on the leading edge of reducing incarceration rates for kids, hence the reduction in beds, but I guess that doesn't really matter when your position is that prisons should dissapear all together. Our system sucks, yes. Many kids of color suffer disproportionately because of this, yes. But treating the judges and social work staff that toil in this shithole daily is not the right path to transforming such system. My partner has spent hours with kids in this building, all of them and their families sitting in toxic mold infested rooms. How is that good for anyone?

I believe it is egregious that the County owns a 9 acre piece of land in the urban heart of Seattle. And it is poorly maintained and a nexus for criminal and shady behavior. If Ariel had bothered to do any research she would have contacted the neighborhood organizations who have for years wanted the county to sell it's land so it wouldn't be so blighted and a drain on the community. Why should a public entity be able to land bank in an urban area for a Parkin lot? As a tax payer I believe they should sell land to efficiently develop what they need for essential services. If you believe that constitutes a "land grab" I reLly hope you never run for office and have to manage budgets during times of limited or nonexistent revenue streams for things like services that you say you care so much about.

Secondly, king county has long worked with the neighborhood to talk about desires for family oriented affordable housing on this site. Organizations like Capitol Hill Housing and SHA have been part of those discussions demanding equity be part of the equation here. The 12th Ave neighborhood actually has an abundance of subsidized and affordable housing, particularly for the very low income. And anyone who works in neighborhoods knows that a balance of housing is good. So would some condos be a good thing here? Maybe. If Ariel had bothered to check with the neighborhood she would understand this.

Lastly, this levy will replace not only he jail but the adjacent admin buildings and facilities. These are the spaces where families and social workers sit and wait and counsel kids. I believe that these spaces should be clean and decent and safe so that kids can get services from people who care for them during these very hard times that they are experiencing. To neglect the importance of this is shortsighted at best, and outright harmful to the very kids she says she cares about. Shameful.
Okay, I fully support the general notion of increasing alternative programs and reducing the number of kids being incarcerated. In general, I agree that for many borderline misbehaving kids, incarceration probably does more harm than good. So yes, spending more money on alternatives to incarceration isn't a bad idea.


You are smoking crack if you think we can ever get to zero incarcerations. That is total dreamland fantasy that has little resemblance to the real world. While we might reduce the need for incarcerating kids, we will still need to have at least some capacity. And the jail we have is a completely inadequate shithole. This proposal for a smaller but better facility sounds like a great step in the right direction to me.
@15 - We DO need a new building to make those programs work. Were do you propose we get the new courtroom space? Where do we provide space for alternatives counseling? Where to we provide safe spaces for social workers to meet with youth?

There has been a huge divestment in our public buildings, and we have to start somewhere. These alternatives to incarceration take space, and we don't have any available. I don't care that VA closed a youth detention facility. We're strides ahead of most places in implementing alternatives to incarceration, and I want to continue that approach.

My partner has spent his legal career keeping kids out of jails and in schools. Every time he has to go to juvenile hall he comes home depressed and talks about how bad it is in there. We need to change that, and we can change that.

The $210 million isn't going to fund new programs, it's a capital investment. But right now, money that could be spent on programs is being diverted into maintenance of a failing structure. Your solution is to keep throwing money after a bad structure? That's just great.

No one argues that the criminal justice system is inherently racist, so that point is moot. We all know that. We all know that there are for profit prisons that encourage higher incarceration rates for profit. No one argues that in this context. What you're not acknowledging is that this ISN'T going to be a private prison run for profit, and it IS going to offer up spaces for programs for incarceration alternatives and reduced recidivism. This is the type of project to support. If they were re-developing with an intent to double occupancy, that would be another ballgame. This is a wise investment for youth in our community and has to potential to do a lot of good.

Of course we need a new facility. And we need to fund programs to keep kids out of it. That land is currently under-utilized, and market rate housing on it could conceivably generate enough property tax to fund some of the needed programs.

It had my vote to begin with, but it's interesting to read another perspective,
@12 Yes, these kids do have problems, and one way you solve problems with kids is discipline. Not mean discipline, but discipline that helps them to overcome their challenges and go forward. To do that we need a place for it to happen and sometimes that place needs to be one they cannot easily leave.

@15 We don't have another facility! That's the fucking point. I guess we could put them in a grownup jail, but that seems like a bad idea.

Personally I think we owe it to these kids to build a modern safe facility with the needed services to help them instead of just giving them some new age academic bullshit. I find your obsession with theory over things that actually help kids rather chilling too.
So your objection to building a smaller, more modern prison is that someone might successfully convert the old prison into more housing.

Another fascinating dispatch from the Vacant Lot Preservation Front.
As a former social service youth worker, I definitely agree that support programs are under-funded and that providing meaningful community engagement options is an important step in reducing the number of youth in the juvenile justice system. I hadn't thought before about what it would look like to remove juvie as an option before - this seems like a pretty well-written argument in favor. I have to do some looking into these community alternatives - anything that keeps kids out of prison while creating stronger community networks sounds like an option worth exploring to me.
Huge props to gus, CapHiller, and ReversePolarity for saying all the things I wanted to before I had to put in the effort. You guys rock.
@18. I think in a lot of ways we want the same things. I absolutely do not want to keep throwing money at a decrepit and toxic facility. However, I don't see that as the only other option. I disagree that we need courts to implement service programs, and if we were talking about building a facility that is entirely devoted to providing services to youth and families, that would be a different conversation. I want to keep kids out of the court system altogether because, incarceration aside, a lot of damage results from just having a record. Juvenile records do not seal automatically in this state, and even arrests that don't result in a charge and diversions show up in background searches. Even after a record is sealed, which can cost hundreds of dollars to do (hard to come up with if you don't have a job because no one will hire you because you have a record), it can still haunt you thanks to the internet. That's why we're talking about prevention and working on root causes, because whether we're throwing money at an old facility or a new facility, they're both just band-aid approaches. Do I know where else the county can house social service programs? No. Do I believe that there are no other buildings in King County that would be appropriate? No. Would I support building a facility that actually provides services that did not include putting kids through the criminal justice system? Yes. I also work with people in prison and I think your partner would find any facility depressing no matter how fancy it is. Jails and prisons are depressing by their very nature, and if it doesn't depress you, that's a problem.
@20. From my understanding, youth will be detained at the RJC in Kent if this project moves forward and a new juvenile facility is built. And, yes, I agree that it's a bad idea.
One of this poster's central points is that the County's selling its excess land to allow development equals support of prison-profiteering gentrifying developers.

Several decades ago King County razed dozens of homes and obliterated several blocks of public streets in order to build the Youth Services Facility and adjacent parking lot. Among all of the other things that passage of the levy would do is to help restore the urban fabric that was destroyed. Actually a lot of people in the neighborhood would look forward to replacing a vast asphalt parking lot surrounded by a chain link fence with homes for people. And, instead of a barren stretch of street-front serving no one but the people who drive their cars to park all day, maybe some retail services that we currently have to leave the neighborhood to find? The vision that the poster has of condos for the wealthy seems less likely than, say, the building about to be finished at 12th and Jefferson which will have (subsidized) apartments priced for the incomes of the people who work in the hospitals and university/college nearby. That sounds better to me than a parking lot.
@24 - I appreciate your effort to try and bridge the gap in our divergent opinions, but I have to disagree.

We absolutely DO need courts to implement service programs. That's not something we can change. There are state and federal statutes that determine this, not a county, or an individual facility.

This facility is largely to accommodate alternatives to incarceration programs. Once again, incarceration will always be a part of the conversation. If you ignore that, there will be consequences for the kids you say you are trying to help.

Keeping kids out of the justice system is a far greater problem than addressing an aging facility. That touches on poverty, income inequality, institutional racism, economic opportunity, among others. That's something we should be working on regardless of this building.

If you honestly think that there are better county buildings in the city to house these programs, then you really have not done your research. Derelict space is at a premium because we haven't been keeping pace with demand. We keep saying that it's good enough, but it's not. If it were as easy as moving to a new building, don't you think that would be done? That's a fairly ignorant statement. If you are somehow suggesting that these types of programs are better addressed by the non-profit community, I invite you to sit down with 4C Youth Coalition, Treehouse, TeamChild, or Catholic Community Services (to name only a few) and see for yourself how they are bound by capacity limits and funding.

Records sealing - You are right. They aren't automatically sealed, and even if they are, they can be re-opened in the case of another offense. That's not King County, that's the State. My partner worked for years on the free youth records sealing legal clinic (…). This is one of the programs that will be given access to space in this new facility. This is a key example of how this facility can have a positive impact on youth, their futures, and their families. And I dispute your claim of it costing hundreds of dollars. It can be free, adn if you didn't know that, please share this information with any family/child needing help. They don't typically have a waiting list, and it'll be even more convenient when they can advertise their services as located in the same juvenile justice facility as the courts. As of now, families have to navigate the internet, find where the next clinic is located, and try to find transportation. Not very effective. Further, a sealed record is shielded from public scrutiny. The court can re-open it if another offense is committed, but if anyone is actively publishing a sealed juvenile record outside the court, they are in violation of the law and can be prosecuted.

We're going to have to disagree, but I'm making it a point to argue anyone who wants to kill this project because of theoretical academic zeal. This is an incredibly important step in the right direction, and I wish you could see that.
@26. I am fine with disagreeing, and I think this project is going to die because people don't want an increase in taxes. I would prefer it die because people want to work towards a different system, but people don't really seem to be moved by institutionalized racism and prefer to "stay the course." Non-profits are underfunded, perhaps they could use $210 million? I have also assisted people in sealing their juvenile records for free while volunteering with an underfunded non-profit, so yes, I know that it can be done for free in some instances. It can also cost hundreds of dollars if it's complicated and you have to get a lawyer. I am against this new facility not because of theoretical academic zeal, but because I don't think a new building does anything to address "poverty, income inequality, institutional racism, economic opportunity, among others." I don't think that youth would be better off in a new facility than they would be at home, in school, or at work. All a shiny new building will do is help ease liberal guilt about not addressing any of the underlying causes leading to youth incarceration.
@27 - You've proven yourself to irrelevancy and I feel like you've started making stuff up.

The point of the legal clinic for records sealing is that it is a FREE LAWYER. You work with law students under the supervision of a LAWYER. That means you don't have to hire one, even if it's super complicated, because you are already working with a LAWYER.

I have faith that our voters understand the importance that tax revenue plays and will vote to approve the levy. We've done it for parks, housing, education... Why not to help out disenfranchised youth? I'm very sure non-profits could use $210 million in funding. That could do a wealth of good for our community, but that's not how the system works, and I genuinely hope you know that.

Please don't Fox News me and use a quote out of context. I specifically said that : "Keeping kids out of the justice system is a far greater problem than addressing an aging facility. That touches on poverty, income inequality, institutional racism, economic opportunity, among others. That's something we should be working on regardless of this building." I was the one to point out that a new facility isn't going to address all of those problems, but it is going to make a world of difference for the youth that get caught up in the flawed system. We need to work on the other problems, but not throw kids under the bus while we do.

Keeping kids at home, in school, or in some instances working, is the goal. No doubt about that. Spouting Angela Davis' prison abolitionist viewpoints while completely ignoring the context of those arguments does not do anything to progress a smaller and smaller youth incarceration rate. Even she concedes that prisons shouldn't be the main anchor, that we need recreation centers, better schools, restorative justice models, all of which are being included in this proposal. If we really want to reduce the incarceration rate, this space is serious about doing just that. This can be turned into a monumental positive that reshapes the way King County approaches youth justice.

Since you gave your background: I earned my Masters in Public Administration where I focused on developing mission-driven non-profits that fill gaps in the legal aid community for youth and immigrants. I've helped build capacity for youth mentoring programs to reduce recidivism rates, and have helped design procedural process flows for non-profits that help steer their clients out of the juvenile justice system and into alternative dispute resolutions. I only say this to illustrate that I'm not just pulling stuff out of my ass. I've been engaged in this community, and there is a lot riding on this for our kids.
@28. I am going to leave this conversation and I'll still be voting no, so our votes will cancel each other out. I did not think you were pulling information out of your ass, and I respect that you think this is what's best for youth. This conversation would probably be a lot nicer if it were not taking place anonymously over the internet, but in the end I think we would still disagree. I apologize for misquoting you, though I stand by my statement even without the quote marks. I hope that we can work towards building a better system whatever the election results may be, and despite our different approaches. As for the tangential record sealing issue, you don't have to take my word for it- ask Team Child if they have ever had to refer folks away to a private attorney that charges hundreds of dollars.
@29 - TeamChild are attorneys. The End.

Thanks for the apology about the quote, I hate being taken out of context.

And I look very forward to cancelling out your vote. I mailed my ballot this morning.
@8 Many of the people who are opposed to this levy and the building of a new youth jail are social workers, attorneys, youth workers, teachers, and advocates, as well as folks who have been detained in the toxic facility. I don't know your situation so I won't make any assumptions about how "productive" you might be, but folks who are organizing against this proposition aren't just engaging in a thoughtless academic exercise.
We don't need a juvi facility with less space for incarceration (providing more space for those jail diversion programs you're talking about) because we already use 35% of the one we have.

Less beds would increase the percentage of juvi beds being used! Is that what you want?! You guys are being brainwashed by the police state fascists! (And the fiendish fluoridators!)
Considering the OP is getting a PhD in what is apparently -- judging from her thesis topic -- the study of *imaginary prisons*, I'm not sure that she is a good authority on *real,* *actual* prisons.
425 condos is a good thing, not a bad thing, because that's 425 more households that will be able to live in the city and not be pushed into the suburbs. Far from being a "sneaky sale of public land" it's a well-advised privatization of some land that the city isn't using which the private sector will use more productively.
As we can see, amerikkkans hate their children and deserve to be killed by them.
It wouldn't take more than a few million dollars to take them out of a toxic building (can we please also talk about who gets to go to jail for putting children in danger of...death?) and we could save much more if we ended the program of taking away the freedom of children. Maybe if there were like 75 beds I would think it an acceptable compromise (assuming it could also cost half as much) and focus on getting the number down to 0 we could sell off the land for EVEN MORE CONDOS. You know how much Condos don't have any crime associated with them. Gentrification only happens if you don't have private security.
Jesus Christ. OP, you are a dumbass.
What moronic reasoning...
This levy will ensure that more services are housed in the same facility giving easier access for families and children needing a variety of family legal services. It will provide a safe and clean environment for those who are incarcerated. Private space will be adequate for those who do need to meet with a lawyer. At this point privacy is compormised, along with safety and health.
Thanks for this post, I am appreciative of this opportunity to explore alternatives to imprisonment, policing, and courts. Hoping to keep moving towards support and interventions that occur prior to any encounters with police, judges and guards.

Seattle, let's crowd out our jails and prisons, demilitarize our schools, revitalize education at all levels, provide free physical and mental health care to all, and move towards a justice system based on reparation and reconciliation (not retribution and vengeance.)

In the words of Angela Davis, "Imprisonment has become the 1st resort to far too many of our social problems." Let's come up with a proposition that helps us to create alternatives. No on KC Prop 1, NO on reform. Prisons are sexist, racist, classist, homophobic, transphobic extensions of chattel slavery.

Open our hearts and minds, close the jail! Stop prison construction, build alternatives.
Pro/Con: Vote 'no' on King County Proposition 1 to replace King County Youth Justice Center
By Louis Edelman and Kimberly Ambrose
Special to The Times

ON Aug. 7, voters will be asked to support a levy to replace the county's dilapidated juvenile court and detention buildings. It is reassuring to see King County officials acknowledging and acting upon the poor state of these facilities.

However, if we are trying to create a more effective justice system, we should fix a broken system — instead of broken buildings — that judges and families struggle against when trying to craft the best solution for each child.

Vote no on King County Proposition 1, a nine-year $210 million levy to replace the juvenile court and detention buildings. Merely replacing worn-out buildings does nothing to address the costly systemic problems with juvenile justice in King County.

When children are arrested on suspicion of committing a crime or violating their probation conditions, the court must decide what to do with them. Frequently, they are held 24/7 in detention, a jail-like environment, until their cases are resolved or a judge releases them.

Secure detention is by far the most damaging and expensive option for youth and, in turn, for all of us. The high expense comes not just from the cost of buildings and staff for a detention center, but also from the high re-offense rates of youth who were previously held in detention.

Being held in juvenile detention is a better predictor of recidivism than gang membership, carrying a weapon regularly, or having a poor relationship with parents. A 2001 study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy included re-offense rates in its long-term cost analysis of detention and several alternatives, and found that detention's cost-benefit ratio is among the worst.

The cost is not limited to mere dollars; a study by the Justice Policy Institute found that detention increases the likelihood a youth will commit more crime later on. Concentrating delinquent youth together results in a phenomenon the study calls "peer deviancy training," where detained youth bond with and learn from the troubled youth around them. The logical conclusion from this is that pretrial detention should only be done in the most serious cases where youth are a danger to themselves or the community; for others, detention is unnecessary, damaging, and expensive.

This negative impact falls largely on black and Latino youth, who are consistently detained at much higher rates than their white peers. Although juvenile arrest rates have decreased significantly over the past 15 years, the percentage of minority youth detained has increased. A system that has a disproportionate and harmful effect focused on certain minority groups falls short of achieving justice.

There are a number of proven, cost-efficient alternatives to secure detention. One of the county's problems is that the population has expanded away from the current East Alder facility. Youth from outlying areas have a much harder time making it to court dates or counseling services, resulting in more trouble for these youth. Another problem is that some youth don't merit being placed in a secure detention facility, but may not be able to go home — these children are often kept in detention because there is no where else to take them.

One alternative that could work in Seattle is juvenile reporting centers, where youth awaiting trial report for counseling and supervision for part of the day, usually during evening hours when most juvenile crime occurs. These centers have been implemented in other areas of the country. These jurisdictions built reporting centers closer to neighborhoods with youth crime problems, so that services and supervision were more available for youth who did not need to be locked up.

Instead of just replacing obsolete buildings, we should replace obsolete policies and improve the juvenile-justice system so that it actually achieves justice and results for more children and families. Rather than build more jail cells, the county should direct its scarce resources toward proven services to restore families and put children back on track.
Louis Edelman, top, is a 2012 graduate of the University of Washington School of Law. Kimberly Ambrose is director of the Race and Justice Clinic at the UW School of Law.
@16, 20:

For all your talk about the affected "community," have you ever stopped to ask currently or formerly incarcerated JUVENILES what they think? Like, say, ones involved in this campaign?

I didn't think so.

Also, @16, 18: How many accounts you got, friend? You must like representative politics and "run[ning] for office" so much you decided to represent an entire town's worth of profiles on this blog.

Actually, people *are* getting pushed out of the city center (and jobs), and ultimately out of the city altogether. Not to the Eastside. But to Renton, to Tukwila. That's what gentrification is doing. These condos raise the rents in the surrounding area and push the people who *can't afford* to commute ... to places where they have no choice.

Gentrification is a classist assault on self-determination, with condos at its forefront.
If being against building more prisons for children(predominantly poor, African American, Latino, teenage girls forced into prostitution etc) makes me prejudiced than I don't want to be "liberal" and "enlightened". Yes I vote Democrat and oppose Tea Party grumps who refuse to pay a few cents more in property taxes to spend on our kids, but building them more prisons not what I had in mind. It seems to me liberals want to build shiny prisons so they don't have to feel bad about the fate these kids are being subjected too, statistically speaking return trips to Juvie and then a trip to the big house few people come back from. Juvies are meat grinders, there like pounds people send stray dogs and cats too to be taken care of when you know what awaits them is a cyanide pill and the barbecue. A whole heck of a lot of psychologists and experts get some pretty good salaries to "help' them and a bunch of prison guards get a decent working class wage to keep them shut up. Each kid in Juvie pulls down about 150k in tax payer money a year to pay all these well meaning adults and all the construction companies that build our prisons. It brings to mind these endless wars, wars both political parties adamently support. I've noticed wars started by Democratic presidents have "humanitarian" aims, ie the bombing of Yugoslavia and Libya. The Republicans tell us we are fighting wars to protect ourselves, which is a lie too but one that quite frankly is less disturbing to me. Its more disturbing to me to bomb people in the name of helping them than it is to bomb them in the name of defending ourselves

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.