Juarez Sentenced to 17 Years in State Prison

I'm glad he got the medium sentence, it fits the situation. Although young, he made the decision to do things that ultimately cost another person their life. Coming down hard on gang members who commit violent acts is so important. It shows the intolerance and it will make some others think first before stabbing someone based on the neighborhood that they live in. The way of thinking that causes these types of territorial behaviors has to stop. It's not a kid's decision to choose which neighborhood they live in and they all know it so why are they killing each other over it? Stupid, stupid, stupid behavior that I will never be able to comprehend. I know the logic and the psychology behind it but it still baffles me. Let's hope that his situation serves as an example for local gangbangers and that they are afraid to get into trouble like he did, and will make better choices.

"If this (the undeveloped brain defense) was a valid defense, I wonder why most of them don't? Nice desperate attempt though."

The real tragedy is that they aren't *born* that way, but a combination of socio/economic factors, and political correctness is producing gang members en masse.

It hit me a couple of days ago when I signed on and read the article about how there is a veterinary tax being proposed, and then all the other bad news how clear it that humankind is really screwing up.

Apart from the noble efforts of those who try to help "our at-risk youth" (code terminology for gang members in training) nothing is done to address the underlying causes as this problem grows, and grows, and grows.

I was watching the last Board of Education meeting while the GATE program and Latino enrollment was discussed. The board members seemed largely in agreement that Latinos could only succeed in GATE if there was a "critical mass" (a convenient way to justify purging whites and Asians from GATE, as these groups have previously been driven out of the elementary schools.)

I thought this was relevant in that it revealed the casual racism of whites and self-hatred of Latinos, in that both groups view Latino children as unable to compete and with so little self-esteem that they would fall apart if exposed to too many non-Latinos. (I thought the whole point of diversity was to be exposed to people unlike oneself???) Similarly, Annette Cordero claims the achievement gap is due to the "system", and not the lack of good study habits among Latino children.

It is people who think like the school board who are partially responsible for the growth of gangs -- they believe Latinos are oppressed victims and are helpless to resist the pull of the "critical mass" of gangs. If we demanded more of Latino children, perhaps they would rise to the challenge? Could we at least be honest about what it takes to succeed in a first-world industrial society -- and not just blame everything on the "system"?

"Similarly, Annette Cordero claims the achievement gap is due to the 'system' , and not the lack of good study habits among Latino children." -revisionist-

I just read an interesting article by Annette Cordero which I am including at the end of this blog entry. Yes, she is right, it is the "system", and she is indicative of the mentality of the system.

I don't live in Ms. Cordero's head so I don't know what her intent is so I will hold off on saying she is playing the Latino race card for her own gain; she may just be a well-intentioned individual who doesn't see the damage the nice-sounding euphamism "multiculturalism", has done.

It's real simple: We have dumbed down our educational system because we've been told "Latinos" (or whatever the P.C. academic term is) are simply too handicapped to get ahead. The mentality Cordero espouses also manifests itself in the form of providing bilingual services in Spanish for the parents of these kids. If these parents can read the Spanish translations, they are certainly capable of learning English--especially when you consider that people come into this country reading languages that are not written anything like English.

If the parents don't learn English, and are told that either it's not important to do so, or that they simply can't, then what example does that set for these kids?

Here is another VERY politically incorrect issue I'm going to raise, much to the horror and annoyance of the pretentious academic types who side with Cordero: Mexican on Mexican bigotry. I went to Santa Barbara High school and believe me, if a Mexican did well in school, there would be other Mexican kids who would at the very least ostracize them for it--all the while the teachers remained silent. What is Cordero doing about that?

If Cordero, La Raza activists, and apologetic self-loathing Whites are so concerned about the plight of Mexicans/Spanish-speaking immigrants, then they should stop treating them as though they are mentally and culturally impaired.

It just gets very annoying after a while to hear this same old attack on common sense. Check out the link below.

http://www.sbsdk12.org/plans/diversity/b...

Two lives are destroyed now. One kid is dead, the other is going to a juvy facility and then for his 18th birthday, he gets to go to adult prison where we all know what kind of birthday gift is waiting and will happen to him.

When are we going to wake up and smell the BS and realize that the current model DOES NOT WORK?

billclausen makes several excellent points.

The article linked to above by Ms. Cordero should be published in the Independent and then a full-blown public discussion of same should ensue. I can think of nothing more crippling to an individual's educational and economic progress than adopting the race and "culture" obsessed attitude of Ms. Cordero. There is a clear link between the self-obsession, and dare I say it anti-Americanism of Ms. Cordero and the pathology that leads to gangsterism.

As to proposition 209, I don't owe Ms. Cordero or any Latino anything because their parents came from country A and I and my parents came from country B.

"When are we going to wake up and smell the BS and realize that the current model DOES NOT WORK?"

Which begs the question: What were we doing before this violence became mainstream?

(This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of use policy.)

sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2009 at 2:56 p.m.

I wonder what snugspout would think about this?

I think most of us understand the connection Atkins tried to make with Caufman's testimony. Not sure if it is paid testimony or not, but that kind of liberal interpretation of brain activity spells big T-R-O-U-B-L-E if used judiciously. I am shocked it was even allowed.

I also don't think the punishment fits the crime. I can only guess what a youth detention facility looks like and the culture of inmates. I sense the prison teen culture would give Juarez props for his act and perpetuate the gang mentality, us vs. them. I might be wrong, but I have images of teens laying around all day, doing nothing.

I don't see the adult prison life changing and the inmates treating him any differently. I think prisoners have as much right to cable tv as any of us. I'm sure working is voluntary. Hard labor? Make them work for their cell and food? Unless my perception is wrong, I don't see too many role models looking after him. In fact, my sense is that unless he is given exceptional counseling and kept away from the mainstream, he will become a more hardened gangster. He will develop survival skills by aligning to whichever group accepts him. If this is the case, I certainly would not feel any satisfaction or any safer knowing this kid will walk out in 14 years. Bottom line, he will get 3 hots and a cot, be protected, and wait out his term.

The undeveloped brain defense was used because the Twinkie defense wasn't available. Hey, it's all about originality & novelty right? :) henry

The problem with the "brain defense" is that it takes attention away from the fact that a society exists that is creating more and more of these kids.

These kids were not born emulating the gang lifestyle, they learn it. Our American culture, the same culture that has produced unbelievable technological and medical advances, keeps on turning out people who start out life normally but learn from their older siblings/kids in the neighborhood that it's cool to emulate violence and of course in the process develop a perverted sense of "pride" and "honor"; once again, this was not the case a few decades ago, I'm not saying individual act of this didn't happen, I'm saying that it wasn't an everyday concept. Meanwhile there are the people alluded to earlier in this blog such as Annette Cordero, who come a dime a dozen in the academic world--which is the only refuge many of these kids have away from their often broken and dysfunctional homes--who keep harping on the idea that these kids cannot be expected to blend in with the rest of society and put lables on them, and when a Mexican/Latino/Hispanic/etc, kid does well academically and goes on to college, that kid is treated as though they are an intellectual anomaly thus furthering the myth that Mexican kids are intellectually less capable than the other 100+nationalities living in the U.S.

Also per the brain defense: From my causual observations of a lifetime of reading the news, it seems that killers usually don't start plying their trade until they are adults, so if this is the case, it blows holes in that defense.

Once again, as Holly points out, the current model isn't working, and we need to go back to how kids were raised before we accepted the concept of "at-risk" youth, as being inevitable and mainstream.

Is this where we write down inflammatory social heresies? OK, I got some. But first, I remember the Cordero sisters as stellar students at SBHS back in the Golden Age (and equally cute, amazingly). And whatever brains I have come from the Mexican half of my family tree. But bell curves have two tails, while ethnic groups have none. And Mexican evolutionary history differs from European... different founding populations, different selective environments in recent millenia. It's unreasonable to suppose that complex cities don't reward (reproductively, ultimately) intellectual capacity more than wilderness does, and Meso-America has had city life for less time than Europe has. (I'm talking about times before social safety nets.) No, this effect hasn't been proven, but let's be reasonable. And the IQ theory never was a racist plot; IQ really measures facets of intelligence (though athleticism and musicality are cerebrally influenced but not factored into IQ). The average Mexican IQ is a good bit lower than that of "Anglos." So, given human pride, a counter-culture develops here en este lado, an anti-intellectual one, worsened by the fact that professionals and business people generally stay in Mexico, while excess labor emigrates. Counter-examples exist, of course. Finally, machismo is the ace in the hole for a great many Mexican males, and Anglos just would not believe how every facet of the Universe seems to relate directly to machismo for some guys... it gets really tedious sometimes.

I offer no answers, just a few factors to consider. It might help to remember that when gang bangers gone wild get sent to Mexico or C.A. to live with granma, the neighbors say "Oh, no... here come the Americans!"

Adonis_Tate writes: "So, given human pride, a counter-culture develops here en este lado, an anti-intellectual one,"

This was exemplified in the sport of boxing, when Oscar De La Hoya and Fernando Vargas were scheduled to fight. Vargas accused the bilingual/bicultural De La Hoya of being "not Mexican enough" (or words to that effect) despite the fact that De La Hoya had always acknowleded his Mexican roots. The reason?...perhaps because De La Hoya clearly has intellectual pursuits outside of boxing and can converse on a wide variety of subjects. Ironically, Vargas also shows he's capable of the same, but the machismo stigma of being a vendepatrias (sellout) prevailes and one ends up cutting one's nose off to spite their face.

Gangs would lose some appeal if there was more vocational training in public schools, giving certain kids a future that looks promising to them, instead of trying to make little mathematicians and orators out of all students. Yeah, it's important to challenge kids, but stop challenging when they shut down, attitude-wise.

(This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of use policy.)

sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2009 at 2:56 p.m.

sixdolphins said: I wonder what snugspout would think about this?

================

Good question. Let's ask Winbills over on EdHat.