Juvies (there’s a train a’comin)
http://www.juvies.net/index.php
What makes a criminal a criminal?
First and foremost, it’s the breaking of the law, the social compact that holds things together. We’re examining this in class, at breakneck speed due to the shortness of the term. Not much time for learning to craft the kind of answers they’re looking for.
So, with that in mind… Be wary of Dr. Fersch; he’s crafty. He steers you towards the kind of answers he wants to argue with, not necessarily the ones that he supports. I cringe before raising my hand, knowing that whatever I say, whatever throughts I’ve let him coax me into concluding, he will have a carefully worded, well-supported disagreement prepared to deal with. Don’t let this shut you up. He teaches for a reason.
Dr. Corbett, on the other hand, is a refreshing breeze of a teacher. He calls you by your first name, and listens to your thoughts. He’s exactly what one would hope for in a former probation officer: authoritative, without being authoritarian. He gives the impression of stability, of kindness without concession. This is a powerful thing, one which Dr. Fersch cannot offer. But Dr. Fersch doesn’t need to. He’s still there for our own good. It’s peculiar, to be in a class about the use of an institutional system, as we pass through this institutional system. So on one side, we have dry and wiry wit, and on the other, warm and substantial support. Dr. Fersch is correct that they mix well, and that we get a lot from alternating between the two, probably more than we would learning from either individually.
I like Dr. Corbett. That doesn’t mean that I learn best from him, but it certainly means that I lean that way. At the very least, it means that I’m not nervous in his class room. I can enjoy learning there, the same way Dr. Fernald teaches psych: warm, hands-on, peacefully challenging. I don’t like Dr. Fersch, yet, but I can see why many, many people do. He’s brilliant, determined, and perceptive. He may play mind games, but he plays them well, and not necessarily to our detriment. There’s something to be said for a person who can take apart your answers and put them back together better, no matter how objectionably painful the event might be.
So, we learn. We sit in our seats and we learn. I have a lot of respect for the students. They are amazing.
The most amazing thing is where they are from, personally. There’s an astonishing number who have seen the inside of the juvenile justice system, or the juvenile social services. I’m amazed by these people, strong enough to come back for more, wanting to fix what they saw broken. It takes guts to do that, doesn’t it? To not just survive it, but to go back for the others. It’s an underground railroad, of sorts. I think about this, as we watch heart-rending videos about delinquents, as we examine the film Juvies, an advocacy piece with good intentions. I agree with some of those intentions, but I’m more interested in the railroad itself, made of these students going back for degrees.
I’ve held down my stops on it. Heck, I rode it out of my own wasteland. I’m not a conductor, but I am a fervent supporter. I am amazed to see people return, to see people pick up others.
What is it that makes a delinquent? We’re examining this question. At the same time, we are not looking at the flip side of that question: What makes a law-abiding human being? What makes someone go that extra mile, to not just uphold the law, but convince others to uphold it? What makes someone teach it?
How do you convince people to go from one extreme to the other?
That’s who I’m in class with, the people who have come in from the wastelands. Some of them have answers to these questions. Others will have them, and good answers.
At the same time, there are people in this class who are only just now learning what those wastelands are like. We hear about Kip Kinkel, we hear about Damien Bynoe. And while some of us have known the badlands, there’s others whose eyes have never had these tears before. It’s different, the waters from the badland tears. It’s harsher. We break our hearts listening, and then try to think with our heads. We listen to the stories of probation hearings and try to decide whether kids are prepared for the outside world. Are they? How do we know? Is earnestness and honesty enough? What if you’re a bad k id with a good plan, or a good kid with a poor one? Are we weighing how badly the kid wants to be in society, how much society wants the kid, or neither, or both? Do we care if they obey the rules for the right reasons, or only if they obey the rules?
These are hard questions. Humanity has been asking them since the dawn of time, and it’s unlikely that one seven week course will solve them. But we’re learning to ask, and that’s a start.
In the meantime, there’s Drs. Corbett & Fersch (if you go in alphabetical order) or in order of course billing, Fersch & Corbett. And neither is giving an inch, because these are hard questions, and the answers are important.
On our side, the questions are just as hard. Does it matter why the conductors of this lifelong return-and-rescue cycle in the world want to save kids, or does it only matter how effective they are at it? Does it matter why they want to go back? Does it matter what wasteland they each came from? How much difference does it make? Ultimately, which is more important, what they get on the exam, or where it points them to help?
I guess that’s the whole point. Like our experience as a mock parole board, the answer is that both matter. That there is no one answer, but a kid can only be served by being held accountable for real actions while better motivations and better reasoning get learned. First, we focus on the grades by studying the material. Only by getting the grades can a student become more than a student. But to only have good behaviour isn’t enough, and to only have good grades isn’t enough- there must be some kind of engagement, some place for the work to go, some end for the railroad. Some reconnection to life, where ttheory becomes real work. And that’s where they come in, these return trip students, building the track as they go. They get good grades studying the kids who don’t, so that maybe they can help.
I can respect that. I can even believe that this connection to society, this use for information, is why they teach it. Without knowledge of these things, we’re left with social doctors who have amputation as the only option. And it isn’t enough to treat; we must have doctors who teach doctors. We must have people teaching other people how to ask these questions, whether we reach answers or not.
On the subject of the advocacy work, Juvies, it raises important questions, and was a good choice for showing to anyone studying the covergence point of psychology and law. Beyond that, I’m not prepared to evaluate it. It’s appropriate for class, that’s for sure. I would classify this class as a law class, touching on psychological issues, and not a psychology class touching on legal issues. It’s a fine distinction, but one worth paying attention to when choosing classes.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.