Only in the SEC...

• LJ

  

  lhslep134;391285 wrote: The entire purpose of a zero tolerance policy isn't to fuck kids over, it's to deter them from committing the crime in the first place because at it stands, there's NOTHING in place to deter kids now. If you don't believe me look at the giant rap sheets of almost every major college football team.

  
  And all research shows that zero tolerance falls way short of that stated goal.
• lhslep134

  

  LJ;391453 wrote:And all research shows that zero tolerance falls way short of that stated goal.

  
  Really? Then why is there not much plagiarism in college anymore. Is it because of the zero tolerance policy? I wrote my thesis paper senior year in high school on college plagiarism and the statistics show that plagiarism, especially on papers, is down due to the zero tolerance policy in place by almost every university.
• LJ

  

  lhslep134;391460 wrote:Really? Then why is there not much plagiarism in college anymore. Is it because of the zero tolerance policy? I wrote my thesis paper senior year in high school on college plagiarism and the statistics show that plagiarism, especially on papers, is down due to the zero tolerance policy in place by almost every university.

  
  Uh huh sure you did, that's why you rebutted with that right away when I keep bringing up studies that show zero tolerance has a minimal impact at best.
• lhslep134

  

  FatHobbit;391450 wrote:I can agree that speeding is a conscious choice. (I guess you could accidentally speed.) But I think it's fairly obvious that zero tolerance is a ridiculous policy when applied to speeding. There are different levels of crimes and different levels of punishment. For some people they get a ticket and decide they never want to do that again. One warning was enough. Others think that the risk of getting a ticket is not so bad, so they need to be punished a little harder next time. I don't think anyone would argue that a murderer deserves the same penalty as someone who got their first speeding ticket. Different crimes (and patterns of bad decisions) deserve different punishments.

  
  We're not talking about the justice system here. We're talking about young adults being removed from the football (or whatever sport) team and being booted from their scholarship regardless of the crime.
  
  Take plagiarism for example. There's no jailtime or fine for it, but the zero tolerance policy in place states that you either get an F in the class or a 0 on the assignment (each school's policy is different).
  
  That's what we're talking about here. Anything you have to say about the justice system and punishments given out by judges is irrelevant, because we're talking about the punishment given by the sports team and university not the judge.
• LJ

  

  Defenders of the
  policies point to the larger threat posed by serious
  violence in our nation’s schools, suggesting that civil
  rights violations may be an unfortunate but necessary
  compromise to ensure the safety of school environments.
  Unfortunately, however, this latter argument is
  made somewhat moot by the almost complete lack
  of documentation linking zero tolerance with improved
  school safety.

  http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/ztze.pdf
• lhslep134

  

  LJ;391463 wrote:Uh huh sure you did, that's why you rebutted with that right away when I keep bringing up studies that show zero tolerance has a minimal impact at best.

  
  What studies? Please show me a study that says a zero tolerance policy in regards to plagiarism does not have an effect.
  
  The only instance I can foresee a zero tolerance policy not having an effect is if the policy is not fully pursued, i.e. there are still instances of someone committing the offense and then not getting the full extent of the punishment.
• lhslep134

  

  LJ, none of what you posted has anything to do with plagiarism, but rather behavioral problems in HIGH school and MIDDLE school students.
  
  
  This isn't high school, this isn't middle school, this is college. These are adults. They SHOULD know the difference between right and wrong.
  
  
  The zero tolerance policy has nothing to do with booting them out of school, but rather booting them off of the sports team and losing their scholarship, both of which are privileges, not rights.
  
  By committing a crime, I see no problem in the forfeiture of the those privileges, just like I would be if I committed a crime (I would lose my scholarship).
• LJ

  

  lhslep134;391475 wrote:What studies? Please show me a study that says a zero tolerance policy in regards to plagiarism does not have an effect.
  
  The only instance I can foresee a zero tolerance policy not having an effect is if the policy is not fully pursued, i.e. there are still instances of someone committing the offense and then not getting the full extent of the punishment.

  
  Actually I would like to see a study that zero tolerance works as I have posted 2 that say that zero tolerance has a minimal effect.
• LJ

  

  lhslep134;391481 wrote:LJ, none of what you posted has anything to do with plagiarism, but rather behavioral problems in HIGH school and MIDDLE school students.
  
  
  This isn't high school, this isn't middle school, this is college. These are adults. They SHOULD know the difference between right and wrong.
  
  
  The zero tolerance policy has nothing to do with booting them out of school, but rather booting them off of the sports team and losing their scholarship, both of which are privileges, not rights.
  
  By committing a crime, I see no problem in the forfeiture of the those privileges, just like I would be if I committed a crime (I would lose my scholarship).

  
  straw man
• enigmaax

  FatHobbit;391450 wrote:I don't think anyone would argue that a murderer deserves the same penalty as someone who got their first speeding ticket. Different crimes (and patterns of bad decisions) deserve different punishments.

  
  I don't disagree with any of this. The direction of the conversation has been drunk driving and zero tolerance as it relates to remaining on a particular sports team. LJ says zero tolerance is a cop out and each case should be looked at individually. I don't see it as a cop out as much as it is a statement that some things will not be tolerated.
  
  One side says that coaches are mentors and when kids make these "mistakes" they should be nurtured...or something. I would just say that kids have to bring some type of morals or value system to the table already. Most people are taught that stealing is wrong at a young age. I don't buy the "kid mistake" argument for an 18 year old, regardless of how much he stole, when my seven year old knows that stealing is wrong.
  
  Drunk driving is a pretty popular issue. Its on billboards, tv, radio, pretty much everywhere you go. So aside from the legal implications, if there's a zero tolerance policy on that particular issue in order to play football, I don't know what is unfair about it. If a coach doesn't want a player who makes that type of bad decision, I certainly understand it. You probably aren't going to see a zero tolerance policy for a college football team that says, "if you get caught speeding you are off the team".
• Speedofsand

  

  LJ;391449 wrote:Cops are not zero tolerance with speeding. A cop can decide whether or not to give you a ticket, a written warning or a verbal warning. Bad comeback IMO.

  
  Drive 45 in a 25 zone and blow .18 and .19 and see if a cop gives you a warning
• FatHobbit

  

  enigmaax;391490 wrote:I don't disagree with any of this. The direction of the conversation has been drunk driving and zero tolerance as it relates to remaining on a particular sports team.

  
  I'm going to back off of my original statement. I apparently did not read the entire thread, and thought we were talking about zero tolerance for any crime. You can't accidentally drink and drive. I don't know if zero tolerance is necessary, but if you know that going into the program I agree that it's not hard to not drink and drive.
• LJ

  

  FatHobbit;391569 wrote:I'm going to back off of my original statement. I apparently did not read the entire thread, and thought we were talking about zero tolerance for any crime. You can't accidentally drink and drive. I don't know if zero tolerance is necessary, but if you know that going into the program I agree that it's not hard to not drink and drive.

  
  Unless you have an actual problem.
• enigmaax

  LJ;391900 wrote:Unless you have an actual problem.

  
  I guess I don't believe in "actual problems". It is way too easy for people to blame poor decisions on problems and the publicity that these "problems" continue to receive just illustrates a growing resistance in our society to take blame for our own actions.
  
  I'm interested in your opinion as to what extent any example of "an actual problem" should be considered (this is probably going to get off the topic of sports and punishment). For example, do you feel that an alcoholic should have that condition considered when weighing the penalty/punishment for a DUI?
• TheMightyGators

  If university A has a policy that you will get a warning for drunk driving, and University B has a no tolerance policy on drunk driving, which one do you think will have the greater number of DUI offenses?
• LJ

  

  enigmaax;392122 wrote:I guess I don't believe in "actual problems". It is way too easy for people to blame poor decisions on problems and the publicity that these "problems" continue to receive just illustrates a growing resistance in our society to take blame for our own actions.
  
  I'm interested in your opinion as to what extent any example of "an actual problem" should be considered (this is probably going to get off the topic of sports and punishment). For example, do you feel that an alcoholic should have that condition considered when weighing the penalty/punishment for a DUI?

  
  Yes. especially if it is the first time have have hit bottom.
• LJ

  

  TheMightyGators;392127 wrote:If university A has a policy that you will get a warning for drunk driving, and University B has a no tolerance policy on drunk driving, which one do you think will have the greater number of DUI offenses?

  
  Zero tolerance is not the difference between a warning and a punishment, zero tolerance just states that a harsh punishment is handed down for every like offense no matter what. So they treat every situation the same, and a good amount of time the punishment is too harsh, and sometimes it's not enough, but because it is 'zero tolerance' they are just all treated the same without the coach or admin having to actually spend any time dealing with it.
  
  The being said, in the ACTUAL example of what i am talking about, university A has a policy where every situation is treated based on the facts of the situation and University B has a zero tolerance where everyone is treated the same, i would be that they have the same amount of incidents. Look at the links i have already posted and it will back that up.
• enigmaax

  LJ;392173 wrote:Yes. especially if it is the first time have have hit bottom.

  
  So, what about a serial killer? Isn't that driven by an impulse that is really out of the person's control? So, should we take it easy on people like that because it isn't really their fault?
  
  I just think that whole card is a lot of bullshit and way overplayed. It is amazing how much of a crutch the problem becomes when someone wants to avoid trouble.
• Speedofsand

  

  from my local paper today...
  http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/east-volusia/2010/06/16/trial-begins-over-mans-traffic-death.html
  
  The impact was so fierce that both of Schneider's legs were chopped off below the knees. Schneider was thrown upward, and his head was severed by the open sunroof of Wheeler's 2007 BMW, according to testimony. Schneider's head was found on the floor of the car, which rolled over and hit a fire hydrant at the intersection of Ocean Avenue.
  Wheeler's lawyer, Mike Lambert, argued before the trial that the blood evidence of an alcohol level of 0.16 should not be admitted because police did not have a legal reason to draw blood.
  
  This guy was less drunk than Hammond. His "mistake" should take 4 to 15 years to correct.
• LJ

  

  enigmaax;392204 wrote:So, what about a serial killer? Isn't that driven by an impulse that is really out of the person's control? So, should we take it easy on people like that because it isn't really their fault?
  
  I just think that whole card is a lot of bullshit and way overplayed. It is amazing how much of a crutch the problem becomes when someone wants to avoid trouble.

  
  I don't call it a "card" when it is an actual chemical dependency or actual mental problem. So you are saying that you think mentally handicapped people or people who have chemical dependencies are just using a "card" and faking it so they can get leniency? I mean, that is all I get out of what you are saying. If that isn't what you mean, please correct me.
• enigmaax

  LJ;392300 wrote:I don't call it a "card" when it is an actual chemical dependency or actual mental problem. So you are saying that you think mentally handicapped people or people who have chemical dependencies are just using a "card" and faking it so they can get leniency? I mean, that is all I get out of what you are saying. If that isn't what you mean, please correct me.

  
  Well, it certainly is used as a card. Faking it, maybe not, though I would bet it happens. Using it as a crutch when it comes time to face a "mistake", hell yeah, all the time. I have real addictions, I know what the bottom is like. In my experience, I still feel as though I make the decisions at the critical moments. If there's consequences, I face them. Some things haven't turned out the way I wanted them to, but I always feel as though if I wanted - REALLY wanted to beat something I could...and I do. The problem I have in some of the situations we've discussed is that it is one decision after another. I understand the person who hits that point of really needing a drink. That is one thing. But then the decision to drive gets tacked on...oh well, I'm an alcoholic and I was drunk and so it wasn't my fault - I couldn't resist from driving. Or, I'm an alcoholic and when I'm drunk I'm violent, so I got drunk and beat up my wife. We're supposed to say, oh okay, its not your fault. It IS your fault.
• LJ

  

  enigmaax;392348 wrote:Well, it certainly is used as a card. Faking it, maybe not, though I would bet it happens. Using it as a crutch when it comes time to face a "mistake", hell yeah, all the time. I have real addictions, I know what the bottom is like. In my experience, I still feel as though I make the decisions at the critical moments. If there's consequences, I face them. Some things haven't turned out the way I wanted them to, but I always feel as though if I wanted - REALLY wanted to beat something I could...and I do. The problem I have in some of the situations we've discussed is that it is one decision after another. I understand the person who hits that point of really needing a drink. That is one thing. But then the decision to drive gets tacked on...oh well, I'm an alcoholic and I was drunk and so it wasn't my fault - I couldn't resist from driving. Or, I'm an alcoholic and when I'm drunk I'm violent, so I got drunk and beat up my wife. We're supposed to say, oh okay, its not your fault. It IS your fault.

  
  I've never said that we should say it isn't their fault. I am saying these are the people who need help and mentors, not just punishment.
• TheMightyGators

  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13588386/georgia-ad-evans-charged-with-driving-under-the-influence?tag=globalNav.collegefootball;headlines
  
  Looks like the Georgia AD needs some help.
• FairwoodKing

  LJ;390786 wrote:What if the kid truly has a problem?

  
  If that kid drinks and drives while I'm on the road, then I have a problem.
  
  Most college football players are under 21 and are not legally allowed to drink under any circumstance. Even the ones that are 21 know that drinking and driving don't mix. If they drink and drive, then they should be kicked off the team.
• FairwoodKing

  I have a lot of health problems and I'm on 18 prescription medications. I never use illegal drugs and I don't drink. Here in the state of Washington, it is illegal to drive while impaired, even if that impairment is caused by taking legal drugs. When I'm impaired, I don't drive. I don't use it as an excuse that I have health issues. I know the law and I abide by it.
  
  College football players are legally bound to do the same.