I looked at this and then sought out the video of the event on You Tube. I conclude from these that there is a strong case of doubt regarding the intentions of the guards, but I find the methods they employ to be etremely brutal. This could be a cultural thing, being Danish I know of no prison here that employs such methods, and most certainly not for juveniles, but even taking the American culture into account, I find it hard to see how this sort of behaviour is justifiable.

On the other hand, I have no idea how hard it is to control an aggressive 14 year old like that. For all I know the guards were acting with extreme caution and moderation and it just looks like unwarranted violence.

I don't agree with the accusations of racism being levelled at the jury. That is not the sort of sentiment one can ascribe with impunity to a jury without either one has examined all the same evidence, as it was presented or one is telepathic. Personally I find the notion that you can dust up twelve racists that easily to be patently absurd. Reading the autopsy results and then watching the video, I find the case to be highly amiguous. There was a nurse standing by the whole time. Unless she was incompetent, or a racist who just didn't care, then I can't see how any one can say this was a deliberate act of murder. It looks to me like a genuine accident brought about by heavy handed methods.

If any society DOESN'T have such a belief, it will collapse in violence and revolution. Red herring.



It is completely reasonable to assume that those in positions of authority got there because they warranted the position. In short, it is a presumption to be rebutted. Again, this is true in any properly functioning culture. Red herring.




Unlike you, I actually work in the legal system, and it works very well. While it always will have problems, which is true of any legal system, I would much rather be tried here than in South Africa or Saudi Arabia or dozens of other nations I can name. If you do not like certain elements of the system, work to change the problems. It is just plain stupid to throw the baby out with the bathwater.




Money and wealth help in every way in every culture. Wealth gets you state of the art medical care, the best armies, the best housing, the best vacations, etc. Since the beginning of time. That is why people work so hard to get wealthy. Duh. Our legal system does attempt to reduce the influence of wealth, in that everyone gets legal counsel, everyone gets a jury trial in criminal matters, etc.--the list of protections is long and thorough. That said, of course it helps to have the best counsel money can buy. So what? Maybe you need to read Wild Swans. Frankly, as I know many judges, I can tell you that white, black, or green, if you show up without a decent lawyer and sleepwalk through the process, you are less likely to get an acquittal or lenient sentence. This is intrinsic to our system, or any other legal system.

O.J. did not get a fair trial; he got acquitted when he was clearly guilty by a jury who didn't understand the facts presented or the jury instructions. If you want a better example, look at NFL wide receiver Tony Martin being acquitted on money laundering charges in 1999. Blacks get fair trials every day in this nation, although of course I am aware there are a number of historical examples to the contrary.




I see your emotions got the best of you. Oh, well.




Have you ever sat in a jury room? Next time you are called, try to be nice and get on the jury and see how it goes. I think you will be amazed at how well and seriously MOST juries take their job.






NT, our legal system is in many ways the best system on earth. Work to make it better?--of course; show your true colors by painting with such a broad and indiscriminate brush? Well, I've come to expect that from you....

There is that possibility. I am not educated as to how jury pools are created, and I don't know the make up of the jury pool that was used to find this particular jury. If the jury actually had the same statistical makeup of the community, your point might validate an investigation, but I am not a lawyer or a judge, so I don't have the knowledge to make that determination. Is there any record of the jury pool? I would be interested in seeing it.

For argument sake, let's assume 100 people were in the jury pool, randomly selected. With your argument 20 of those in the pool would have been black. I don't remember your statistics, but I would assume 65-70 would be white, and the rest a vast racial mix. In this perfect pool, it would be easy to assume the jury would have at least one minority. Without knowing the facts about the jury pool, we can't assume there were 20 minorities in the pool, so unless there is a record of the pool and the reasons the attorneys let some go, we will never know. Let us not forget that people get excused from the jury selection process for many reasons other than race.

Please define what "getting off" on a plea deal is, and please prove criminals also get off on technicalities all the time. A lot of times prosecutors will plea bargain because they don't have all the evidence they need to convict for a longer sentence, or someone doesn't want to testify (usually the case in child sexual abuse).


If there was incompetent representation I doubt you could retry them on it. Today competent representation is loosely defined.

Edited to add: Hey Mrs. P, had Carrion been tasered three times instead of shot, there would have been no basis for a criminal trial.

Individuals might favor animals, but society and its laws do not. Laws against animal abuse are far less severe than laws against people abuse. Is this actually seriously debateable? Tie a couple of kids up like they do in bloodsports in parts of Asia and make them fight to the death...think that might receive just a wee bit of bad press coverage and, maybe a higher penalty than Vicks received for his dog fights?

My response to this topic would be rather different if it had been approached differently. Yes, I think minorities get the short end of the stick when it comes to the law. No, I don't think this verdict was necessarily racially motivated and I definitely don't think that everyone who disagrees with CR on this case is an automatic racist...interesting way for him to form his rebuttal though.



Sorry, I should have added a link. I found one here.

That guy who let the tiger out to eat JFK, got pictures of BigFoot, and that also is harboring the alien bodies in Langley.

Is it funny to anyone that people in America believe in things as abstract as conspiracies against Blacks and the Big Bang Theory as fact, but think that a book that has changed Western Society is fiction?

I'll never understand it .

Conspiracies exist, but mostly ones that put money in the pockets of people who are in on the secret. Usually, these things come to pass. Enron might be a good example. The S&L scandals of earlier times might be another.

Truthfully, the system is flawed. Mostly because punishment is dealt with in a moderate and acceptable manner. People know that if they steal a car or sell 10lbs of cocaine, a couple years in prison is what they'll get and that place has cable tv and recreation time... along with 3 hots and a cot.

People know that if they have no prior convictions, and their crime wasn't that bad, jail time isn't really that likely. (i.e. the Jena case? How many priors did the kid have?)

The problem that I have with arrest statistics posted is that every case is different, and rarely do they compare first time offenders in comparable situations. The stats I wanna see are people with no prior arrests, who are sentenced by race and then by income level. Then I want to see the document discuss court room decorum, sense of remorse, and the make up of juries. Usually, all we get to see is "black kids sentenced more for similar crimes, etc". Why? Is it because they're multiple times more likely to be repeat offenders? I dunno. Maybe not, but of course maybe so. Is it because they make statements that cause them to lose favor with judges and juries? Maybe. Maybe not. Is it because they have a crappy public defender, and similarly represented white people meet the same fates? I dunno. Neither do most statistics posted in this vain.

I’m curious, nighttimer, do you think it’s possible to care and have an opinion for more than one issue? Yes, I deplore dogfighting, and believe those who practice it should be forced to pay for their crimes, but I also feel that a teenager shouldn’t have to lose his life for joyriding in his granny’s car. I believe I characterized this case as a travesty of justice, but I guess that doesn’t matter, because I value animals’ lives, too? I don’t get it.

I’m not a lawyer, either. I am a retired special education teacher. Having been on a couple of juries, I know the process is more complicated than just the makeup of original pool. Here’s an interesting article from FindLaw.com that recommends some changes.



http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20040220.html

It occurs to me that a jury with a couple of minorities might have reached a different verdict, possibly a hung jury.

We will never know if your theory is correct, that still doesn't prove that this particular jury based it's decision on race. There is a possibility that you are correct, but just as much possibility that you are not in this particular situation.

You are again putting words in my mouth. STOP NOW! I have not said racism was definitely a factor, but that a different jury might have come to a different conclusion. Did you even bother to read the FindLaw.com article.

BTW: I am well aware that we'll never know. You aren't adressing elementry school kids, but some pretty astute people. I support the concept of not holding people in double jeopardy, but if different charges can be brought up in federal court, that's another matter.

What if you were on the jury? Would the out come have been different? I mean a white man. An old white man. An old white man from TEXAS!!!!! Why you'd have had the corpse exhumed and strung the kid up for dying on those officers and causing them pain.

I mean that's what any old white guy from Texas would do right? I mean every white guy from Texas is a racist redneck who just wants to get home, shoot his 12 gauge into the Budwieser cans he just slapped his old lady into setting up for him before he heads back into the house to watch the NASCAR race on his Plasma TV. Right? I mean how could 12 WHITE people POSSIBLY render a just verdict.

You've totally sold me on your theory.

BA this is a ridiculous hypothetical question. I have no idea. Why don't you guess for me?

So you don't think race was an issue in the outcome of this case?

Read my posts. I haven't said that either.

This thread, and people who don't reads threads, ask hypothetical questions, or put words in other people's mouths is indicative of why it's impossible to take a centerist position on much of anything.

BTW: scubatim have you attempted to find any information to quell your doubts on the issue? I haven't seen many links from you - just generalizations, blanket statements and an endless sea of opinions.

What doubts do you think I need to quell? I have been unable to find the information that is needed to make an educated distinction of the questions that were asked at the beginning of the thread. I have asked those that think this was decided on race alone to provide the facts of the case as presented to the jury to prove that the jury was racist. Since I have been unable to find the court transcripts and those on the side of the fence that claim the jury is racist have been unable to prove that they were, I still don't have a solid position on the matter. I simply give benefit of the doubt to the justice system until proven otherwise. I have not argued that the jury wasn't racist either, I have simply raised the questions as to what proof there is in this case that they are. If I were to be arguing that they definately weren't, then I would provide links to that affect, but since I am not making that argument, I have not.

It appears you and I are both on the fence, our feet are just dangling on the opposite sides. Racism very well could have played a part in this case. I can't prove otherwise, but I can't prove it either. Since I am not arguing either way, generalizations, blanket statements and endless seas of opinions will continue. It is those that are adament that the jury was racist that should be providing the links and their facts.

The majority of the debating that I have been involved in are towards those that think the system is blatently unjust and minorities are never treated fairly. Within the parameters of the debate of this thread, I have not completely dismissed the possibility of the jury being racist, simply that probability that all 12 jurors were.

I'm trying my hardest here to stick with the facts of this case and not immerse myself into probability, assumptions, and faith.

As for the ammonia capsules. They used them several times on the kid and he didn't wake up. Common sense says if smelling salts aren't working, there are two possibilities.

1. He didn't just faint and is completely unconscious and should be taken to a hospital.

2. He is not breathing. Most likely what happened considering he was reported to be brain dead before he even reached the hospital in which he was taken off life support several days later.

In either scenario, even if the guards couldn't remember basic medical training, the nurse should have forced her way in and taken his vitals.


I can't stress enough the importance of the medical testimony during the trial. The defense had one theory on the cause of death. The prosecution's two medical witnesses had differing opinions on cause of death. Three causes of death and then the prosecution urged the jury not to consider ANY of the medical testimony during their deliberation. Which was the primary focus of the entire trial!!!

If this case didn't reek of reasonable doubt, I could probably entertain the idea that the jury somehow reached their decision on bias or emotional basis.

Based on the facts of the case, if I had been on the jury, I would definitely have charged the nurse with criminal negligence because despite his cause of death, it was ultimately her responsibility to make sure Martin was ok.

One last thing has bothered me, the fact that the sickle cell trait box on the medical form was not checked. I haven't found anyone's explanation for this yet, has anyone else? It may or may not have had an impact of the situation, but medical history is crucial for your safety when you go into jails or prisons. If you put it on the form before you go in, it's accepted as fact. But if you don't put it on the form and then later try to say you have an illness or disease of some kind, it's ten times harder to get it on paper. One reason being, they think you're just trying to get medication and are hesitant to waste time on you. Usually you have to get someone from the outside to provide proof and then submit it, which can take weeks. And if you don't have proof? It'll take an act of God or your collapse on the floor to get it done.

I went back and watched the video carefully. A few observations:

1) Who made this tape? It is surely the security camera of the facility, there to make sure abuses did not happen and to make sure if abuse was alleged, there was clear evidence to rebut it. If the facility were really worried that their officers did not follow procedure, they surely would have "lost" this tape....

2) What actually happened? Except for the one takedown--about 5 seconds of activity--the young man was not hit or abused in any way. He was apparently yelled at, did some calisthenics, and did some running. Basically, it looked like an old school football practice. This is supposed to be boot camp--it IS supposed to be physically abusive to a defined point. There was talk about use of pressure points but what is on the tape does not appear physically abusive, with the exception of the one takedown.

3) Many officers were involved--not one or two--and a nurse. The nurse checked his pulse and used a stethoscope to listen to the young man's heart. Anyone suspecting any problems with adhering to policy or procedure could have stepped in. And, of course, the officers were multi-racial.

4) The officers spend most of the time trying to revive the young man, not beat on him.

Knowing this, isn't it possible that a jury--any jury--could find that the officers followed procedure to the letter? After all, it is all on tape for everyone to see and their actions can be compared against their manuals. If so, is it unreasonable that a jury saw that, though tragic, there was no criminal intent in this death? In short, couldn't this be deemed an accident, at least in the criminal law? As we do not know the exact elements of the criminal charges brought, it is hard to be sure here, but anyone can see that the video does not depict some sadist beating some poor kid to death.

Now, the family will surely sue civilly for wrongful death and may win, as the burden of proof is lower for civil verdicts. But, I can surely see how a reasonable jury might acquit these men of ciriminal charges. They appear to be doing their job.

Does America care more about the death of a dog than the death of a 14yo black boy?

No.

Atleast according to google news search the answer is no as there were 80,300 articles concerning the case of the Martin Lee Anderson beating and only 2670 concerning Michael Vic and his dog. I think the disparity is seen in who talks about the cases. An article concerning the death of the child is not seen the same as a bunch of talking heads using the Vick case as a referendum on animal cruelty. Ask Paris Hilton or Hilary Clinton about Vicks and you're likely to get an answer, ask about the name Martin Lee Anderson and you're not so likely to get the name recognition. Is it racism in the fabric of America, or is it celebrity at work here? The outcry at the death of a dog from cruelty is worth funding for animal rights groups, the outcry over another useless death of a black outh is worth a bit of publicity for certain self-appointed leaders in the black community but is soon forgotten with the next outrage. Should those 7 have been convicted of something? I think yes, but I wasn't on the jury...too dark perhaps, not to mention a bit far from Florida. But since they have been tried and acquited that should be the end of it. Double jeopardy should come into play. Not just when it comes to retrial on the same charges, but when it comes to retrial on the same actions. There should not be an opportunity for reprosecution simply because a vocal segment of our population believes there was injustice. A segment that I include myself in. The American justice system is all too human which leads to human mistakes, bias, and weakness. Reasonable doubt exists as a legal requirement for a reason. It protects the innocent, but sometimes at the risk of allowing the guilty to go free. This is the price we pay for a jury of our peers and the confrontational legal system.

There have been arguments by Baphomet's Advocate, Aquilla, scubatim, quick and any other I haven't mentioned that the boy died from sickle cell trait and not suffocation from the guards. This was not murder and the guards were acquitted of any wrongdoing. So I just have one Tom Cruise to Jack Nicholson A Few Good Men type question:

If the guards did nothing wrong, why are they shutting the boot camp down?

When Martin Anderson died, about 130 youths in Florida were incarcerated in state-run boot camps. Before Anderson's death, the state had received more than 180 complaints about excessive force at the Panama City boot camp.[56]

In a letter to Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) head Anthony J. Schembri, McKeithen wrote, "I believe the integrity of the boot camp in Bay County has been compromised, leaving the effectiveness of this program virtually paralyzed.

*From Wikipedia

I'm not sure that any of the aforementioned posters actually made a definitive claim that sickle cell trait was the true cause of death. I certainly didn't. I don't know the cause of death, I'm not a pathologist and I didn't perform the autopsy. A pathologist who did perform an autopsy said the cause of death was related to sickle cell trait and therein lies the "reasonable doubt" on the part of the jury who heard this trial. The existence of reasonable doubt in this trial is a perfectly valid reason for a not guilty verdict. Nothing to do with racism as some here have claimed.

As far as the reasons for closing the camp are concerned, I don't know that either. I suspect the authorities decided it wasn't worth the hassle of keeping it open given the bad publicity surrounding this incident. Closing down the camp certainly doesn't rise to the level of proof of criminal wrong-doing. Maybe it was just a bad idea in the first place.


Aquilla

Am I debating Wikipedia or you, Baphomet's Advocate? Use quotations to cite outside sources so I know when you are stating something and when you are citing a source.

It's hard for me to figure out what you are saying here, since you didn't actually say it, but I'll try. In your first paragraph you reference a timeframe that would not back up your second statement. If there were 180 complaints "Before Anderson's death" how does that information assist the argument that the "integrity" of the boot camps had been "compromised?" If your information would have said, "after Anderson's death" there were X number of complaints, then you might have an argument. However, it doesn't say that, so if you could respond back, ummm, I mean, if you could copy and paste in an orderly fashion, I would appreciate that. Thanks.

Excellent response. Just a bad idea. 14 year old boy dies and it was just a bad idea. Life goes on. Ho-Hum. Please explain these events:
http://www.nospank.net/n-r28r.htm

So the guy who did the autopsy that left reasonable doubt in the jury's mind is going to celebrate with the guys he just got off. The sheriff that created the program resigned. Jeb Bush reversed his position on teen boot camps and the legislature agreed to pay $5 million dollars to the mother. If there is reasonable doubt, then this is reasonable guilt.

Yep, that's why we have trials where the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution. "Reasonable guilt" is called an indictment and a cause for having a trial. "Reasonable doubt" is called acquittal and a result of the trial.

Aquilla

First, I have never stated as a fact that the guards did nothing wrong, barnaby2341, if I have stated that, please point it out.

Second, with all of the negative press that came of this case, the government decided to put an end to this program to save face with the public would be my assumption.

Since Anderson’s sickle cell has been bandied about, and I don’t know much about the condition, I found this site that explains:

I don’t suppose we’ll ever know why this wasn’t noted on his medical form, but it’s obvious that intense physical activity exacerbates the condition. And ammonia capsules worsened it Regardless of whether sickle cell was a contributing factor in Anderson’s death. If he had asthma, the same events may have occurred. Would people still defend these guards if that had been the case? I still believe the guards and the nurse acted in a callous, uncaring manner when it was clear that the boy was in distress.

These teenage “boot camps” are dangerous. Kids aren’t Marines or soldiers who made an informed decision to be brutalized by drill sergeants. Kids shouldn’t have to pay with their lives because they shoplifted once, or took a joy ride in someone’s car. Teens’ bodies are still developing and aren’t suited to the draconian measures these boot camps take. And obviously, boot camp personnel care little for the health of the kids entrusted to them. Sadly, these places probably attract the kinds of people who enjoy brutalizing.

I believe that every person in authority in a boot camp where a child dies is responsible and should be punished by the law. Unfortunately, that is seldom the case. This camp closed; I hope the rest of them follow…and soon.

Here's where I adimantly and passionately disagree. Have you seen that discovery channel special about kids in boot camps in Wisconsin (or maybe Michigan) and how few go back?

The real issue with many kids who get into trouble is confidence, team and people skills, and discipline. Sure, some kids go right back to their old ways, but some get the confidence of accomplishment that these programs give them.

Boot camp, both Army and Marines at least, often transforms the men and women that enter them. Usually the kids that go to these camps chose to go in leiu of prison. It's really not about brutalizing, but rather shaping their minds and bodies to understand the value of hard work manifested in actually changing their bodies and completing a course for once in their lives.

I find it to be the best and most influential alternative to prison. Kids that go to jail end up learning more about being a criminal. Kids that go to boot camp learn that they can run 10 miles, work as a team, and get along with others. Know what I mean?

Old school football (even as late as when I was in HS a dozen years ago) practices were as bad or worse than what these kids do. Football coaches changed many young mens' lives through the hardening of mind, body, and spirit. Kids are in a way like steel, in their raw form aren't much but can be forged into something motivated and successful. Without a process of this nature, most kids will never reach their potential.

I don't expect all kids that get out of boot camp to have $100K+ jobs and live the White Collar American dream. I do however, know many Marines that would've amounted to a hill of beans had it not been for a drill Sgt that allowed him them to understand that they were worth something.

Teens bodies ARE still developing. Good point, but umm... that's precisely why these kids need to learn that physical activity is important. Doing push ups and running isn't fatal to someone healthy. If there's room for these camps to improve, maybe it's in pre-screening applicants.

Shutting these places down is like throwing money into the toilet. Putting the kids in traditional jails is asking for them to come back to prison at the price of $35-45K/year if not more. I'm sick of hearing about a "bright young man" who ended up going down the wrong path. How many kids just don't know that working hard isn't the end of the world? Maybe their parents didn't work very hard and they don't understand that it's necessary?

Basically what I'm saying is that really there are millions of kids in the US that should go to boot camp, either in a state form (like the one in question) or in the Military. It would do them some good. Boot camp isn't just push ups and getting yelled at. It's a system that breaks down a man and then scientifically builds him back up into an individual that both is self-sufficient but also a team player.

I personally think that the USMC should get a crack at all of the kids that are 17+. Give them a 3-6 yr (reserve if need be) hitch as an alternative and put them in specific units designed to make them into something. How many of these kids grew up in broken homes and shattered lives, where making ends meet was a daily chore? In the Corps, there is no worry about your next meal, immediate safety (excepting combat), or financial security during your term. It would be their choice to join, but all the benefits of the Corps should be then compared with a jail that doesn't include cable tv, good meals, and rec time. I think jails being to comfortable is a big part of the lack of deterrent.

And I passionately disagree with your view. How many kids’ lives is it worth to you for the ones who manage to survive these camps?

“Working hard” shouldn’t include sitting on the ground in 115 degree heat to the point you start to hallucinate and think dirt is water. As far as I’m concerned, that crosses the line between “working hard” and being tortured.

Maybe some of these camps are better run than others, but it seems to me that they are the exception. There are state or federal funded camps, and then there are private ones, where licensing and restrictions aren’t so important. Parents are paying big bucks to have their children “reformed”, not realizing that they are paying to have their child brutalized. Some of these camps’ directors don’t have any expertise in juvenile counseling; a lot of them are former military who figure they can stomp discipline into a kid, sometimes literally. Read the Reader’s Digest article. It’s chilling, and yet balanced.

For a less balanced, but equally chilling view, see this site:

My question to you would be, how many kids die in prison? As a percentage is it more or less? How many kids die due to criminal activity that have been the penal system as opposed to these camps?

Why do these camps even exist? Well, simply because they work.
Here's a great quote:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/197018.pdf


Sure, this article sites that recividism didn't shrink, but what about those who stayed "clean"? Were they better people? It seems so.

Here's another good quote from the same link:


I admit I haven't read the Readers Dig article, but don't suppose it matters. The fact is that it can't be worse than jail, and even if it's marginally better it's still better.

I'd have to assume that just like real boot camp, there are kinks to work out and jails have had centuries to figure it out. This one is a no-brainer.

The article goes on to talk about it being a little bit cheaper, and reduce prison populations even if marginally.

I think the problem is that boot camps don't have ENOUGH military style training. The Boot camp a Marine goes to gives the recruits skills they didn't have when they arrived. Maybe these kids need to get training that qualifies them to not be in the same "unmarketable" category that might have helped lead them to crime? Yelling, physical work, etc are good but also have to be accompanied with a "building up" process.

Sure, there are probably some unsuccessful programs, but is it the idea or the people running the camp? Think of what a kid gets out of going to juvenile hall (or worse- being sent to adult prison). Nothing really. Quite the opposite of positive really, as they may learn to traffic drugs, fight, steal cars, or find themselves associates with more hardened criminals. Boot camp doesn't give them time to learn how to steal a car or make methamphetamine (sp?). If they spend 45% of their waking hours working, 45% learning a skill, and 10% grooming and eating, that leaves no time for diagraming a cocaine cutting operation.

From your own source, boot camps goals are to 1) reduce recidivism, 2) reduce prison population and 3) reduce costs. Two out of three ain't bad, I suppose, if you aren't one of the victims of the system.

No significant difference in recidivism rates. Seems like if you can't do that, the other two "met" goals aren't going to mean a hill of beans, because those re-offenders will be back in the system costing more money. The report actually admits this with a section titled "Reducing Recidivism - An Unmet Goal" on page 4. They claim attitude and behavior were improved as a result of these camps. Well...yeah, if you're scared spitless of the people who are brutalizing you, then heck yeah, you're going to behave yourself unless you're a masochist!

All in all, the report isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for boot camps, either adult or juvenile (see conclusion).

See... this is interesting that you won't concede that:
1. The boot camps at least save $$
2. The people seem to leave with better attitudes
3. They can't learn NEW criminal skills

The report does say there are benefits to boot camps. Frankly, I think it needs to be privatized with specific goals for payment. Recidivism should be one. I'd love to take the challenge. I've been to boot camp, played HS football, and believe that one think lacking from these gigs is the "building up" process.

Teach the kids to work hard, break them down. THEN build them back up and give them some sort of plan to make a living wage and/or be successful upon release. Hard work Daffy, and maybe you've never been through this kind of physical training, is rewarding in itself. Marines that go to Basic Training flabby and tired come out knowing that they're in better shape than 99% of people on the planet. They made it through all kinds of physical tasks that most people would never be able to do. (oh- and they got practical training that they'll use in their jobs... did I mention that? of course)

Most kids aren't hurt, but quite the contrary. How many kids get hurt/killed in conventional prisons? Give me a comparison, but I'd be willing to bet my lunch that boot camps ARE safer overall.

Whether something was done that was "wrong" is not the issue; the issue is were the guards guilty of violating specific criminal statutes under which they were charged. I think I made a reasonable argument as to why the guards could be found not guilty absent any racism or flawed analysis by the jury.

Whether the guards did something "wrong" is for people in their subjective analysis to decide.





This is a red herring argument. There is little evidence anything we've ever done in our corrections system in an significant numbers has ever reduced recidivism in any meaningful way. Indeed, when I took my undergrad sociology class in criminal behavior, the stats were quite clear that rehabilitation was a joke.

The boot camp was simply another attempt to do something before another crop of young people went too far down the path to be helped. It may well not work--but neither has anything else.

It reminds us that criminals are made long before the criminal justice system runs into them....