Read the statement and the instructions that follow it, and then make any notes that will help you plan your response. Begin typing your response in the box at the bottom of the screen. You have 45 minutes in which to complete the essay.“A person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labor.”It is all too often heard in society today that criminals have broken a social contract. It is thus purported that, resultant of this breech, the individual abrogates their rights to civil liberties, as well as the aspects of social participation afforded to the general citizenry. Such a line of reasoning is problematic on a number of levels which will be considered in the text that follows.
We are all born to our respective nations as a matter of happenstance. There is no primordial briefing wherein the individual is asked about their destined society, their social status or potential stratification. Similarly, there is no contract issued forth at any point, prior to or after birth. We are born into a vast spectrum of socioeconomic diversity, with no personal say whatsoever as to where on that spectrum we will fall.
Perhaps we will be born into a family that makes millions of dollars annually. Perhaps, instead, we will be born to blue collar workers. Another variation still, we might be born to a single parent who works several jobs and is almost never home. Yet a more horrific potentiality, we might be raised in an outright abusive environment, or one that simply does not meet even our basic needs of sustenance (to say nothing of our emotional needs). Those who propagate such a position as the aforementioned are almost without exception members of society born to privilege. When hungry, they were fed. When rent or mortgage was due, their parents paid it. Nary a though was given to whether the heat, electricity or water would be turned off. No dread was felt on the first day of school over high-water pants or toe compressing shoes.
Further, the school environment - itself a product of socioeconomic stratification and segregation born out of unequal distribution of taxation for Public Schools - is strikingly different for privileged members of society. In affluent districts there are many concerns that do not effect resident students. "How will I get to school? There is always a convenient ride from mom or dad on their way to work. If worse comes to worse, I could ride the bus." Yet in failing districts even busing has become a luxury. In Dayton City Schools, students are told they must get to school by paying bus fair on their own.
Such a striking contrast in socioeconomic backgrounds - between the members of society deemed in breech of contract, and those in the position to strip them of civil rights - is at the forefront of what we must consider in approaching this issue. Save in the case of the grossly venal and sociopath statistical rarities, the bulk of criminals have come to crime out of some perceived sense of necessity. Many non-violent offenders in jail on Misdemeanors have found themselves there on such ambiguous charges as bouncing a check for anywhere from $50 to $500. With compounded bank fees, a simple mistake or family emergency could result in exorbitant bills. Should the individual wish to repay the check, they must also pay the fee for the check which might have resulted in additional checks bouncing. Such ambiguous circumstances are not the least bit rare in impoverished communities. Indeed, such gray-area issues as these are the norm; with most below the poverty line having found themselves in similar situations.
Furthermore, suppose one had an unexpected pregnancy. Raising a child can easily accrue unexpected fees. These might come in the form of medical fees, or simply food and clothing. With hungry mouths to feed, much petty crime comes in the form of stealing for necessity; literally stealing to feed hungry mouths. Again, this is not something which "Tough On Crime" politicians and moralizing Suburban Evangelical have typically been exposed to.
In states like Ohio, with nearly 7% unemployment rate, the bourgeois mantra of "Get a job" simply does not conform to the topography of reality. "Get a job? Where? If I make over $800 a month then State aid for food and medical will be cut. What if my child is sick? What if they have a cavity? Taking this job for $1,300 will deprive them of these benefits in exchange for a position that affords me none. Am I thus better off working a job with less pay and less opportunities for the sake of my family?"
These are the sorts of questions which need never be asked by such hypothetical, aforementioned interrogators. For their children too, no concern will ever have to be paid to how they fill their bellies when mom is working her second shift job. They will never be forced with the moral dilemma of putting food in their pockets or going hungry under the new Food Stamps come. They will never be forced to come up with money, as Junior High School students, just to ride the bus to school. All of these facets of socioeconomic disparity lend to a situation where those who have are in no position to forever strip the rights away from those who have not.
Certainly any society must have laws, and those laws must prohibit such crimes as theft and bouncing checks. Yet in our modern era we have abolished many antiquated forms of prosecuting inadvertent crimes. In States such as California, petty theft is a ticketable offense, freeing up prison space for violent offenders. Furthermore, debtors prisons have been abolished altogether. Perhaps one day we will look back on this as an antiquated era when a simple bounced check could land a mother with three jobs in jail, with insurmountable legal fees; a hole from which such families generally never climb out.
Any true form of justice must be tempered both with compassion and with reason. Many criminals do not commit crimes out of whimsical choice, but out of circumstance. A hardline, "Three Strikes and Your Out" approach to social reform has proven (in states which have implemented it), to increase crime, not to deter it. There is no social contract, there is no alternative for the poor and disenfranchised. There is no alternative society for such people to flee to should they refuse to sign this imaginary contract. Therefore, as forced participants in society, all should be treated in a manner that takes into account their circumstances.
All crime is not created equal, and strictness of punishment should not be a matter of policy, but a matter of case-by-case judgment. This judgment should manifest from members of a Justice System from the communities which they serve. Anything else defies the spirit and meaning of "Justice." Anything else serves only the interests of the bourgeois who seek to have Law Enforcement and a broken Justice System fix the social ills resultant of stratification which they benefit from.
Read the statement and the instructions that follow it, and then make any notes that will help you plan your response. Begin typing your response in the box at the bottom of the screen. You have 30 minutes in which to complete the essay.The following is an excerpt from a letter sent by the principal of Greenwood School to the parents of all incoming Kindergartners.“We have decided to institute a policy of all-day kindergarten, instead of half-day kindergarten, for all students at Greenwood School . All-day kindergarten will help all our students achieve at their highest levels. The classes will be ‘tracked’ so that average students are together, but high-achieving and low-achieving students will be put together in classes. In this way, the high-achieving students will be able to help pull the low-achieving students up to their level, so that no student falls behind. The all-day kindergarten classes will cover the same material previously covered in the half-day kindergarten classes, but will go at a slower speed to accommodate learning differences. In addition, the students will receive extra instruction in music, art, and physical education. One of the greatest benefits of the plan, however, is that students will be in a structured environment for longer hours, reducing the numbers of hours that otherwise would be wasted at home or in day care.”The fallacy of the Principal's argument, though prevalent throughout the letter, is highlighted in the closing remarks. To phrase time at home as "wasted" is incredulous and demonstrates a backwards and unsupported view of education. Much of the learning experience of children takes place at home. This occurs through interaction with parents, siblings and neighborhood friends.
Instruction in Music, Art and Physical Education are facets of Public Education which should already permeate the half-day Kindergarten experience. Studies as well as statistics in School Achievement demonstrate clearly that full day Kindergartens are rarely mandated in schools ranked "Excellent." This absence demonstrates that full day attendance does not preclude academic achievement, neither does half day attendance exclude it. Such a perspective is sophomoric at best, and at worse alarmingly ignorant.
While studies have shown schools ranked as "Failing" have improved with added hours, and even days, to the school schedule, they do not account for why schools with the highest rankings almost never maintain such a rigid schedule. It serves to reason that if there are schools - even a majority of excelling schools - which achieve the highest rankings without ever employing such measures, then there are other factors involved which lower academic performance. Addressing these factors directly may not be necessary to create improvement in performance. Indeed, just as prescription medicine may temporarily unclog arteries, it does not address the underlying problem. The reason why there are people who do not have clogged arteries is not because of their preemptive use of such pharmaceuticals. Similarly, the reason why schools ranked "Excellent" excel is not because of implementing such measures as increasing the length of the school day.
Instead of looking for such quick fixes, we should analyze the structure of the classes in schools that succeed. We should investigate their curriculum, the caliber of their teachers; indeed even interviewing their teachers. Why did these successful teachers gravitate towards their schools? What do they do differently that the Failing schools do not? These are the types of questions we should be asking. However, much to the detriment of our children, those in charge of administrating Failing school districts rarely want to look at their own system as the problem. Unless and until they consider this possibility, any improvement will be negligible at best.
