playing devil's advocate regarding 2 posts...what's your opinion?

okay...so 2 posts have really stood out to me as people's answers being inconsistent.

the first is the one regarding people arrested for DWI/DUI and having their names, photos and addresses published (as most criminals are). a good portion of posters said that they are innocent until proven guilty and weren't happy that this information was out there for the public to see. they didn't want to judge until AFTER trial.

the second is regarding the teacher "banning" the 5 year old from her class and making fun of him. i believe all of the posters are calling for her to be terminated and/or a harsh punishment. but isn't she also innocent until proven guilty? i haven't seen one person say let's not judge until all the facts come out. but her personal info is out there as well as a copy of the tape. shouldn't that be kept private until after any disciplinary hearings/trials?

now...yes, i am a teacher and i think what that woman did was horrible and disgusting and she should be disciplined, made to go to sensitivity classes and be put on probation, but not fired. that's just my opinion. but i also think that driving while impaired is 100x worse as you can kill someone and it's flat out against the law. you can't deny the results of a brethalyzer, which is why, IMO they are guilty as soon as they blow above a .08 or refuse the test.

just curious as to why you think many of us responded one way to one person and a completely different way with another. i am all about protecting kids...it's part of my job and i could never imagine doing what she did. it wouldn't ever cross my mind.

i'm not looking for you to agree or disagree with me per se, just for discussion as to why we call for innocent until proven guilty for one, but guilty and should be fired for another.

Message edited 6/1/2008 11:22:20 AM.

Re: playing devil's advocate regarding 2 posts...what's your opinion?

I think you raise some very valid points.

Personally, re the teacher, if she did do that, I do find it very inappropriate and wrong. But not a cause to be fired. Teachers are people too. They get frustrated. They have bad days. They can say stupid (or very smart) things, just as regular "parents" of chldren do. They can lack judgement or be having a really bad day. I think people expect teachers to be saints when they are just human and are capable of making mistakes.

Again, not saying IF she did do it (again, innocent until proven guilty, right) that it was right or I would be happy if it was my child. But I just don't believe it's a cause for her to be fired, by far. JMO

I also agree that a breathalyzer is actual fact and drunk driving is a way worse crime than the teacher's actions/words. I do feel that the posting of the pics MAY discourage some people from drinking and driving, which of course would be a great thing. Just would be unfair if it was at someone' else's expense if they were actually innocent (yet I don't know if this is even possible).

Message edited 6/1/2008 11:26:28 AM.

Re: playing devil's advocate regarding 2 posts...what's your opinion?

i am actually one of the ones who agreed that the pics should be posted in the paper... as you said, i believe that the second they blow more than a .08% on the breathalyzer, they are guilty.

i am also one of the ones who called for the teacher to be fired... maybe i, too, was jumping to conclusions, but it's so hard to be impartial when there is a child involved.

i think - and i am speaking for myself, not anyone else on here - that the reason behind the disparity is that in the cases of the drunk driving arrests, no one was hurt - thankfully! i didn't see anyone on this board saying anything about the drunk driver who hit Dani's brother Kenneth - no one is saying he is "innocent until proven guilty" - possibly/probably because he DID hurt someone, and very badly at that.

however, in the case of the teacher, a child WAS hurt, emotionally, and how severely i don't think we will ever know. that might be the cause for the even stronger reactions. i am not sure, it's just a thought.