Klarinet Archive - Posting 000484.txt from 2004/11
From: Adam Michlin <amichlin@-----.com> Subj: Re: [kl] Trust Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:19:14 -0500
At 07:16 AM 11/13/2004 -0500, Dee D. Flint wrote:
>Well it's good to a point. If you leave your car unlocked and it is stolen,
>your insurance company will not pay out as they will consider it "your
>fault."
Insurance being an entirely different matter than appropriate punishment of
the perpetrator of a crime (even a well intentioned crime). Insurance would
not pay, but how would you feel if the police said "Your fault. We can't
help you."? Or if the judge said "You left the car unlocked, you invited
the car thief to take your car"?
There is a lot of room for discussion here, but I just can't accept a
"blame the victim" approach in this case. A student should be comfortable
leaving their instrument in the school classroom. As Tony would surely
point out, this should be because of trust between everyone in the room
(and the trust that people who don't belong in that room don't have access,
I am sure the door to the room is locked and breaking and entering is a
crime whether on school property or not).
Nonetheless, rules need to exist and they need to be clear and consistent
for those rare people who would violate this trust. Not having such rules
or having rules and not enforcing them creates an atmosphere of confusion.
Confusion creates an opportunity for all sorts of mischief, fully ranging
from innocent to felonious.
Do I think every last possible thing a student may do wrong should be
spelled out in rules? Absolutely not. Do I think there should be clear
rules about respecting other people's property (whether it be an instrument
or other property)? Absolutely. I am generally in favor of less rules and
laws, but I could never support the proposition of *no* rules and laws.
There is a reason anarchy does not work.
As a side, I've been meaning to point out that a ~$400 clarinet is a very
expensive item for some people. I can understand such people being very
concerned over a perceived threat, but even if it wasn't a lot of money for
them it is still their property and they have a right to be concerned about
the safety of their property. A criminal may be prosecuted just as fully
for grand theft auto of an old dodge pinto as they are for a grand theft
auto of a brand new porsche. Would we really want it any other way?
-Adam
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
|
|
|