Get a Gravatar from gravatar.com

United Future
Since: Aug 2007
Posts: 314

Feed for this Topic

BLOG: Early Intervention arguably the best

The recent deluge of violent crimes where teenagers have been the perpetrators, has been a sobering reminder that we face some really serious issues in NZ right now.
While there has been some tracking downwards of youth crime statistics, violent crimes by our youth are escalating.
Over the last few years in response to public pressure there has been a toughening of sentencing provisions and yet it does not seem to have had the impact advocates for such measures hoped for. Longer imprisonment does not appear to be a deterrent!
In part, that may be due to our clogged Court system that sees those guilty of a breach of the law often having lengthy waits for a hearing. This means that so much time elapses that the sense of consequence and connection to the offence are lost to the perpetrator.
Some years ago Celia Lashlie was considered controversial for suggesting that classroom teachers could pick a child as early as 5 years who is a high risk for future offending, particularly violent offending... Read the full text of this blog post.

Get a Gravatar from gravatar.com

Quentin Todd
Since: Nov 2007
Posts: 68

Send email

Judy,

Yes and Yes. We do need intervention early- it is just as well the charities Act will provide not for profit trusts to help in this regard- have teachers pass the problem kids to a reputable trust who will be able to work with them, teachers, parents. I am not sure if government would want to take on the expense but if some trust puts their hand up for the job then everyone will hopefully win. Also what are the main problems in the Manuerwa area for example, that could be targetted? I am thinking of a still pond in which in the positive, as it has in the negative, a stone is popped in and the ripples spread outward.

Get a Gravatar from gravatar.com

Brian Ward
Since: Dec 2007
Posts: 10

Send email

May I throw my ideas in..

Most children are 'disruptive' (terrible twos) and they are only challenging their surroundings to set up learning mechanisms. Humiliating discipline (put downs, constant negativity and physical violence) meted itself in response to this only hampers their development, they learn that they should not challenge anything therefore they become dysfunctional.

In many cases these are kids with probably a very high creative mind that requires careful nuturing. Parents have to nuture this challenging and for every reasonable no must be many positive yes's.

As an example a child who learns mostly through verbal expression and interaction will be disruptive in a reading classroom. Put all the verbalisers together!

A child who reaches their teens having been damped down will either externalise the frustration and lash out or internalise it and lose self esteem. Poverty plays a part in this.

Intervention is needed until such time as everyone understands human psychology and can set in place mechanisms to break the cycles. The message of the anti-smacking legislation will not benefit children of today anywhere as much as it will in 2 or more generations time.

Get a Gravatar from gravatar.com

Quentin Todd
Since: Nov 2007
Posts: 68

Send email

Brian,
very insightful lesson. Brought back memories of my own childhood. Brought home to me that this problem is huge and needs speedy thoughtful and appropriate intervention quickly.

how though?

Get a Gravatar from gravatar.com

Michael Martin
Since: Oct 2007
Posts: 15

Send email

I downloaded and read the White Paper from the Ministry of Social Development. Being familiar, myself, with the literature on ASPD and psychopathy, I find this document to be consistent with current peer-reviewed research. The science, medicine and social research behind this program are solid.

I am also encouraged by the policies John Key has set forth for pre-adolescent and adolescent offenders. His proposals show that he looks at social problems systemically (or at least listens to those who do).

The only worry I have is this - will the actual, on-the-ground implementation of these programs remain true to their conceptual foundations, or will it be distorted and derailed by short-term political expediency, public hysteria, the desire for quick-fix solutions and the collective passion for vengeance? In other words, do the people at large have the patience to persist in systemic, long-term solutions to our social problems, which won't necessarily bring instant results?

The current criminal prosecution of Jimmy Mason for "child assault" does not give me cause for comfort in this regard. I know I've been harping on this case a lot, but I am deeply disturbed by it. Let's set the scene for a moment. Mason was seen flicking his youngest son on the ear. A schoolteacher and an off-duty police officer both saw this event. Did either of them walk up to him and offer help or assistance? Did either of them even attempt to ascertain what was actually going on before flying off the handle and summoning **six**(!!!!) constables to the scene? No - apparently they just flew into an hysterical over-reaction, over an incident which could have been handled with an offer of assistance and (if need be) a man-to-man talk with Mason.

And now, the police are laying criminal charges against this man. Why? Is it just to save face, so they don't have to publicly admit how silly they have been? Are they truly unable to see, that in following up a gross over-reaction at the scene, with a frivolous criminal prosecution, they are digging themselves deeper in the hole and making themselves look even more ridiculous rather than less so? Or have high-ranking police commanders in Christchurch truly lost their basic common-sense, and succumbed to mass hysteria? I honestly don't know, but no matter how you look at it, the implications of this are disturbing.

Now, my interpretation of the case is based upon the accounts I have read in the NZ Herald. If anyone knows of facts in this case, which I have either got wrong, or don't know about, please feel free to publicly correct me. I am well aware that the newspapers don't always get the story right the first time! If my characterization above proves to be substantially inaccurate, I will not be ashamed to say so.

Nonetheless, my point remains. It wasn't Helen Clark or Sue Bradford who summoned six constables to the scene, who then subsequently made a second Mount Everest out of an ant-heap. It was ordinary citizens - your neighbors and mine! Even worse, it appears that the Police are even less rational than the general public in this regard.

One American blogger has expressed his exasperation at his fellow countrymen in this way: "Americans are vulgar people. They respond to quick fixes, political slogans and violent solutions to dauntingly complex problems." Unfortunately, this seems to be true of Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples generally (of whom I, of course, am one). English-speaking peoples have long been known for a "muddling through" mentality, which refuses (or perhaps is truly unable?) to address problems systemically. In addition, we have long been known to periodically succumb to bouts of "Salem witch-hunt" hysteria (see Arthur Miller's great play "The Crucible").

The latter is due to the pernicious historical influence of Calvinist doctrine, which feeds self-righteous egotism while denigrating the need for conscious self-examination and personal moral struggle on the part of the self-identified "Elect of God." (Incidentally, I am thoroughly convinced that Calvin was an archetypal example of the sort of "schizoid ideologue" of whom I spoke in another thread).

This combination of egotistical self-righteousness and refusal to think systemically makes society ripe for the spellbinding, destructive influence of simplistic ideologies. Anyone who doubts this need only look at the political history of this country since the mid-1980's.

So, it is encouraging that political leaders are finally seeing the need to think about social pathologies systemically rather than ideologically. However, important as that is, it is not enough. The people at large (and, most especially, the Police, Courts and social agencies) have to be sufficiently willing to give up their tendencies toward egotism, psychological projection, blame-shifting, scapegoating and crude lust for vengeance for these policies to have any chance to work. The case of Jimmy Mason tells me that this society has a long way to go in this regard.

One last thing. It has been known for at least 150 years (since the time of French neurologist Dr. Jean-Martin Charcot) that mass hysteria is highly contagious. I will no doubt be met with the response that, although the Christchurch Police are undoubtedly over the top on this case, that "still, we have to send a message that child abuse is not acceptable." I will remind such prospective correspondents, in advance, that many people in America in the 1950's offered the same lame excuses for Joe McCarthy's behaviour on the grounds that "after all, we have to do something about Communist subversion, don't we?" So, before anyone hits the "Submit" button, please stop and think. Would you have considered such behaviour rational even as recently as nine months ago, let alone nine years ago? Your candid and unhypocritical answer will give you all the indication you need of how far we have fallen, and how low we have sunk.

Get a Gravatar from gravatar.com

Judy Turner
Since: Aug 2007
Posts: 22

I agree that John Key made some suggestions worthy of further consideration, and I share your concern that any future government funding see beaurocrats tinkering with what is already working.

What both John Key and Helen Clark failed to address in their speeches was the fact that clear NZ evidence shows that if young people are going to disconnect from school it is most likely to begin in years 9 and 10 (the old 3rd and 4th form).
Proactive policy would see some real investment in those emerging adolescents.

There is some really interesting thinking going on around the establishment of Middle Schools that cater for 10 - 14 year olds. People like Professor Pat Nolan from Massey University have been banging on about this for some time.

Politicians need to learn to listen before speaking!

Get a Gravatar from gravatar.com

carol bennett
Since: Oct 2007
Posts: 56

Neither John Key or Helen Clark will listen.They are both too busy trying to gain political points.
These two supposedly intelligent people behave like 6 year olds at times playing 'tit for tat' in the classroom.Kiwis would be fools to vote for either of them.

Get a Gravatar from gravatar.com

Brian Ward
Since: Dec 2007
Posts: 10

Send email

Quentin

As a start its all about people acquiring knowledge, being open to new ideas and comparing the current dominant NZ cultural norms with other cultures. New Zealand suffers from the western 'dominating' or 'hierarchical' culture wherein creativity is largely stifled, partcularly in the public sector.

Many political parties only work within the existing cultural 'system' and will not find the answers in there. The answers are a combination of interventions such as restorative justice, and policies that encourage 'learning' environments both at school and in the workplace.

One example is to open up the debate on workplace bullying and looking at the employment laws. An idea I had was to require employment contracts to be either transactional i.e. strictly contractual, or transformational where the employee is encouraged to grow as an individual, learn, offer ideas, etc.

Get a Gravatar from gravatar.com

Judy Turner
Since: Aug 2007
Posts: 22

Martin

I have given some thought now to your concerns about the Jimmy Mason case. While I wasn't there, and I don't know Mr Mason I admit to feeling a tad uncomfortable with anyone hitting/flicking a child around the head region.

As one of the handful of people who didn't support the amendment to Section 59 here in Parliament I am equally as concerned that who shared my concerns don't grasp at straws and quote cases with dubious credibility to garner support for future change.

I think Sect 59 of the Crimes Act could have been amended in a much more helpful way to send a clear message to anyone physically abusing children by stipulating that striking a child on the head, throat, chest, back, groin or any area that protects vital organs would be in breach of the law, as would any action that bruised, broke the skin, caused to bleed, caused swelling or fractures.

Instead the debate was about "smacking" which of course means different things to different people.

Let's get real here. Sue Bradfords bill passed with a handsome majority and neither John Key or Helen Clark want it back on the agenda any time soon. While Key has promised to fix it if it proves to be a problem, it will take some time to amass evidence that it is being mis-interpreted by police, CYFS, judges, juries and the like.

If every time Section 59 is applied, those who opposed the bill cry foul the credibility of opponents will be damaged. Sure if the law is inappropriately applied we should speak out but lets make sure we have our facts right.

Two people who work with children and the law saw the incident and were concerned.

Get a Gravatar from gravatar.com

carol bennett
Since: Oct 2007
Posts: 56

Here's an example of the stupidity of that act and the way some people have become 'policemen' on every corner.
A man and his son were walking down a street.They were having fun together,pretending to jostle each other. A woman walked up to the father and said she was going to report his behaviour to the police.He told her to go ahead and get help for him to stop his son from beating him up.
Let's get real here.
Has this bill actually stopped the abuse of children or just made criminals out of those who slap their childrens hands to prevent them from touching power points etc.

Get a Gravatar from gravatar.com

Quentin Todd
Since: Nov 2007
Posts: 68

Send email

Brian,
Thanks for the answewr to my question.

I am on the Invalids benefit, work 15 hours via Workbridge for a not-for-profit organization which in a sense has become 'transactional'- I give what they need they give me what I need, in that I am growing as a person first rather than for money only.I do see a creative approach to their wonderful ways of helping me as an individual,important factor for what I give.

this will work on a 16-25 year old age group, I am sure. You are right about the western culture. In my job I have seen this age group getting bored, lazy and destructive.

Some not-for-profits could be a more creative outlet for troubled peoples rather than employment outright,ie. 40-50 hour weeks for money only.This coming year of transition of government will need more researchers with creative ideas to advise MPs, PMs. This would be a great first step in changing the culture of public sector work.

Get a Gravatar from gravatar.com

Brian Ward
Since: Dec 2007
Posts: 10

Send email

I am hopeful also that the politicians look into these areas and gather in the mass of relevant research and information available internationally. We need to 'climb the mast' and take a 'birds eye view' of our culture.

One issue that a start has been made on is the culture of our schools. The new curriculum is heading in the right direction but it will take a major shift in personal thinking to support any positive change being strived for.

We live under a Western inherited cultural system where there is a 'success' or 'failure' criteria in our mindset based on the top ideal of high academic achievement to be achieved through a small window of opportunity in our learning life (our school years). If a child has been nurtured in its pre-school years and not damped down it will enter the school system with a learning mind.

If not, it may fall victim to the 'failure' tag and be 'discarded' by the system.

A child/teenager's individuality needs to be nurtured, and then that person will reach his/her potential and this should be celebrated and supported whatever that is. It may not be high academic achievement but whatever it is it should be equally treated as a 'success'. But today's society expects schools to hold high as examples only those who are at the so-called 'top' of the schools academic achievement.

Please login to post a reply. Go to Login page »