is it ok to lock up innocent kids?

[felines are superior]

according to this article, the cops can put an innocent kid behind bars for 24 hours, more on the weekends.

 

http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_38/Article_22/38-2242.html

 

read section 2, near the end.
the child may be placed in a juvenile detention facility or other secure facility pursuant to an order of protective custody for a period of not to exceed 24 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays.

 

This wouldnt happen if the cops take the kid to children services and leave him there, instead of taking him to juvenile jail, wait for as long as the law allows, and then call children services. there are so many shelters and foster homes and group homes and whatnot.

 

and if the kid's life is at risk, they can take him to a faraway foster home/shelter in a faraway city without telling anyone where he is. if that's not enough, there's police protection.

 

and the article doesnt even state the kid has to be in danger from an abuser if to be placed in prison, only that the kid has no one to take care of him. could be the parents are dead or in the hospital and not even abusive.

 

should the cops be ordered to take the kid to children services instead of jail?

Edited January 2, 2015 by felines are superior

[Laddo]

I'm not sure children in these cases will actually be locked up along with the offenders. I think it just means that they will be kept supervised in a secure part of the facility, and only then if there are no other suitable services, although I could be wrong about this. The article does mention a few times that the child cannot be taken into custody unless there is significant evidence to suggest the child is at risk of harm. If the child's parents are dead or in hospital, it still means they are not around to take care of the child and the police would have to act accordingly to ensure the child's safety.

As much as I dislike the police, I think they are doing the right thing in this case given the resources they currently have. Plus the law may have changed since this article was published - it seems to be from 2009

[Mihaela]

I've studied trends in British and American child protection policies at some depth, as well as children and autistic people within the criminal justice system, and I don't like what I see. This country tends to follow the US model in many areas, although thankfully it's less extreme and less pathologically punitive. However, the English-speaking world still has a long way to go until it reaches the more enlightened and humane European standards. Europeans look in horror at the British mentality - where 'child protection' has become a lucrative 'industry' that only too often does more harm than good.

I'd go along with your words, Laddo: As much as I dislike the police, I think they are doing the right thing in this case given the resources they currently have.

... except that I'd say "I think that they may be doing the right thing..." However, "doing the 'right' thing" when constrained by finite resources, may be very different to 'doing the right thing' in a moral sense. It may in fact be morally wrong - and damaging.

[Laddo]

... except that I'd say "I think that they may be doing the right thing..." However, "doing the 'right' thing" when constrained by finite resources, may be very different to 'doing the right thing' in a moral sense. It may in fact be morally wrong - and damaging.

 

What is more morally wrong though, allowing a child to continue to be abused or placing them in protective custody for 24 hours until more appropriate services become available? These type of things often simply cannot become immediately available

Edited January 5, 2015 by Laddo

[felines are superior]

 

What is more morally wrong though, allowing a child to continue to be abused or placing them in protective custody for 24 hours until more appropriate services become available? These type of things often simply cannot become immediately available

children services have a list of foster homes that have already agreed and signed and been screened, so finding a home is a phone call away. and there are 24/7 shelters. i dont believe in the whole country they dont find a home, and if they dont, social workers will let the kid stay in children services office, which is accompanied non stop by social workers. the cops should take the kid to children services or call them and wait in the child's home till they get there. shelters take kids immediately.

 

i know foster home must be screened, and it takes time. but they have a list of homes that have been approved already and another list of foster homes waiting to be approved. and they just go to the right list right away. and the shelters dont need to be screemed or anything.

 

if they can be sure they'll find a kid a place in 24 hours, then there are places for them.

 

from my experience, cops are very lazy and look for ways to get out of doing things. i worked in a dangerous area in a fast food restaurant, and the cops came in and ate, and my coworker thought she heard a noise in the back and asked the cops to check it out, and they said they will, and then they left without checking it. it ended up being nothing.

 

we called them in my ex building and the supervised in my converted hotel complained that one of the tenant brought gangsters. i went to her because i heard guns clicking through the wall and the neighbor talking about oozies, "just bought this morning, they're great." and a prostitute hanging around threatened a man with a knife, and they said we dont have evidence and if the man doesnt complain, there's nothing they can do.

 

a woman in the building was terrified because her ex was circling the building and called the cops. they said he has the right to circle the building, and she said he beat her yesterday, and they said that was yesterday, not today. and she said but today he's circling the building, and they said again he has the right. they were going to leave, but then he stumbled out of the alley drunk and cussed them out, and they arrested him because of that.

 

there was a guy in my ex building that went nuts and started burning the bible on the stove and set off the fire alarm, and the police came and made him leave the buliding. it was January in Chicago, and the guy didnt have a coat or common sense to call for help. he completely freaked out and didnt know where he was. the cops were going to dump him on the street in the middle of the night. my neighbor asked them to put him in a nearby mental institution, and one of the cops yawned and turned his back, and the other one said nastily, we're not social workers. they were going to let him freeze to death. my neighbor argued, and they finally agreed to take him to a nearby hospital, to get my neighbor off their backs.

 

if the cops took the kid to children services and left him there, and then they called and said there's no place for him anywhere in the country, and they cant let him stay in children services office, then it's ok to put him in jail, but this is a scenario that's not going to happen. i checked on the net. i live in Israel, small country, there is a huge list of foster homes, shelters and emergency centers, and all kind of place that calll themselves by different names. the list goes on and on. the police have no business taking a kid to jail, they should take him to children services and leave him there. it's not too much to ask.

[Laddo]

The Child Protective Services page of the Kansas Department for Children and Families website says this regarding the matter:

 

 

When a report of child abuse or neglect is made, an initial assessment is made to determine if Child Protective Services should become involved. If the report meets the criteria for agency involvement, the case is investigated by a social worker or special investigator. Law enforcement may also investigate if a joint investigation is warranted. If it is determined that a child is unsafe, then a recommendation is made by Child Protective Services or law enforcement to the court regarding what action should be taken regarding the child's safety.

So it seems that the state does consider whether removal from the home will be emotionally distressing for the child.

I do agree that police are often lazy, but I don't think they are in this case.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Laddo