I'm happy to hear that young man in Connecticut is going to his prom.

[Capbyrd]

And there were about a million different ways that he could have been punished that did not include out-of-school suspension and banishment from the prom. Most reasonable, intelligent people understand the concept of progressive discipline. The punishment must fit the crime, as it were. Do you believe that Brian Aiken should still be rotting in a jail cell for having the audacity to transport a gun in the trunk of his car while driving through the great state of New Jersey? After all, he DID break the rules. How about beheadings for minor traffic violations? (Don't answer that one... )

The point of this absurdity is that it is incumbent upon persons of authority to exercise good judgment before meting out punishment. That is what we entrust them to do. Those who simply fall back on blanket "policy" without examining other factors such as harm caused, intent, and likelihood to re-offend are both lazy and irresponsible.

I still think you have completely missed my point. I'm not arguing that the punishment fit the crime. I am saying that breaking a rule is NOT the proper way to make a statement about the punishment.

Whether the punishment was too harsh or not is not what I am saying. I am saying that the punishment was laid out before the rule was broken. You can't cry that a punishment is too harsh just because you broke the rule.

[Seaslug]

I still think you have completely missed my point. I'm not arguing that the punishment fit the crime. I am saying that breaking a rule is NOT the proper way to make a statement about the punishment.

Whether the punishment was too harsh or not is not what I am saying. I am saying that the punishment was laid out before the rule was broken. You can't cry that a punishment is too harsh just because you broke the rule.

The point I think YOU'RE missing is that the punishment was NOT laid out before the rule was broken. The decision to suspend was the headmaster's alone, and it was a judgment call--not an application of policy. The only policy laid out beforehand was the rule that students who were suspended after April 1st would not be allowed to go to prom. If the headmaster had exercised better judgment initially and had the students clean up their mess, serve afternoon or weekend detention, and perhaps perform some other sort of active restitution such as litter clean-up or helping out the janitorial staff, then the whole prom/Facebook debacle would have never been an issue.

[Capbyrd]

Maybe its because I didn't get in trouble in school but I thought it was common knowledge that if you broke the rules you got suspended. Detention was only for tardiness.

[Seaslug]

Maybe its because I didn't get in trouble in school but I thought it was common knowledge that if you broke the rules you got suspended. Detention was only for tardiness.

Not sure where you went to school, but when I was in school, discipline short of out-of-school suspension could include writing sentences, after-school detention, weekend detention, "meetings" with the principal or assistant principal, "special" assigned seating in class, paddling, extra assignments, restriction from recess, shortened lunch periods, cleaning up school grounds, in-school suspension, running laps, or any combination thereof. Don't ask me how I know...

[Capbyrd]

I went to a Memphis City School. Up until my 3rd grade year, they were still allowed to discipline by spankings. After that, there was detention for being tardy. Anything outside of tardiness earned you an ISS (in school suspension) or an OSS (out of school suspension).