Author Topic: John Hubner Book- Criminal Youth  (Read 1201 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
John Hubner Book- Criminal Youth
« on: May 15, 2006, 08:49:00 AM »
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/037550 ... oding=UTF8

I would be interested in the thoughts of DJ and TSW, in particular, on this book. It is excellent, and reads like a novel. It deals with a different type of kid than is discussed on these boards, but some of the therapeutic methods may strike you as inappropriate. The program is very effective and unique.
I read this book in a context completely unrelated to struggling teens, programs etc., but found a lot of it relevant to some of the issues here.
I would say it is a "must read" for anyone interested in the therapeutic treatment of youth.
Karen
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
John Hubner Book- Criminal Youth
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2006, 08:52:00 AM »
DJ- your thoughts appreciated, too.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Nihilanthic

  • Posts: 3931
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
John Hubner Book- Criminal Youth
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2006, 09:13:00 AM »
Quote
Hubner focuses on Elena and Ronnie, two young offenders at Giddings, as they are forced to confront and make sense of their pasts, re-enacting the most traumatic scenes of their childhoods and their crimes.

Um... right. Confrontational, "cathartic" type 'treatment' is bullshit, and has been for a long time. This is just a texas toast version of it. Also, EMOTIONAL TRAUMA AND CONFRONATION is a good way to get people to buy the book, in sort of the same way guys go "OMG THERE WAS A CAR WRECK" and people come running.

Doesnt really bode well, lets read on...

Quote
Hubner underscores the TYC's success in contrast to national recidivism rates for youthful offenders, which hover between 50% and 60%; a 2004 study reported that only 10% of graduates of the school's Capital Offenders group have been rearrested for a violent crime after three years on parole.


I wonder what the recidivism rate is for graduates that commit crimes that DONT make it those three years on parole, and/or non violent crimes. Its a pretty empty statistic, because it is specific to violent crimes, and specific to those who make it through the three years of probation.

Also, I dont know what the rate was beforehand in the first place.

But hey... it manages to use abusive, ineffective treatment to make kids who manage to go through 3 yrs of probation not commit violent crimes 90% of the time after that.


Personally Id rather have a free, peer-reviewed study than a damn book, but thats just me.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
DannyB on the internet:I CALLED A LAWYER TODAY TO SEE IF I COULD SUE YOUR ASSES FOR DOING THIS BUT THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

CCMGirl on program restraints: "DON\'T TAZ ME BRO!!!!!"

TheWho on program survivors: "From where I sit I see all the anit-program[sic] people doing all the complaining and crying."

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
John Hubner Book- Criminal Youth
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2006, 09:17:00 AM »
Niles- read it and see what you think. I am really interested in your input. It is a very confrontational program, but when you read about the family history of these kids and the crimes they committed, it puts a different light on things. It is fascinating and does show the good and the bad of this type of therapy.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
John Hubner Book- Criminal Youth
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2006, 11:47:00 AM »
Quote
On 2006-05-16 06:13:00, Nihilanthic wrote:

"
Quote
Hubner focuses on Elena and Ronnie, two young offenders at Giddings, as they are forced to confront and make sense of their pasts, re-enacting the most traumatic scenes of their childhoods and their crimes.



Um... right. Confrontational, "cathartic" type 'treatment' is bullshit, and has been for a long time. This is just a texas toast version of it. Also, EMOTIONAL TRAUMA AND CONFRONATION is a good way to get people to buy the book, in sort of the same way guys go "OMG THERE WAS A CAR WRECK" and people come running.



Doesnt really bode well, lets read on...



Quote
Hubner underscores the TYC's success in contrast to national recidivism rates for youthful offenders, which hover between 50% and 60%; a 2004 study reported that only 10% of graduates of the school's Capital Offenders group have been rearrested for a violent crime after three years on parole.



I wonder what the recidivism rate is for graduates that commit crimes that DONT make it those three years on parole, and/or non violent crimes. Its a pretty empty statistic, because it is specific to violent crimes, and specific to those who make it through the three years of probation.



Also, I dont know what the rate was beforehand in the first place.



But hey... it manages to use abusive, ineffective treatment to make kids who manage to go through 3 yrs of probation not commit violent crimes 90% of the time after that.





Personally Id rather have a free, peer-reviewed study than a damn book, but thats just me. "


Niles--haven't read the book, not cheerleading for it, but with the "three years" you've completely misunderstood what they're saying.

What they're saying is that for everybody that graduated, they followed them for three years, and during that three years only 10% got re-arrested for violent crime.

This, if they're doing it right, should be compared to national recidivism rates of youthful offenders, that didn't go into their program, within the three years after release.

The latter would be their control group, effectively.

There *is* a flaw in their quoted success rates, but it's not the one you're alleging.

They're only focusing on the *graduates* of the Capital Offeners group.

How do we know that the really hard cases didn't drop out somehow without graduating?  How do we know their CO group is "succeeding" at doing anything but cherry-picking the least criminal of the youthful offenders?  We don't.

You see this problem of how places report their "success rates" in some drug rehab places, too.  Some of them report only the success rates among graduates, compared to spontaneous remission of untreated addicts.

The better drug rehabs report their success rates based on "intent to treat"---that is, they follow everyone who started their treatment, whether they graduated rehab or not, and compare those success rates to the spontaneous remission rates.

What we'd need to see, then, is the percent of re-arrest after three years on parole of all the kids who *started* participating in the Capital Offenders group.

That said, my whole point of opposing teen behavior mod Programs is that they treat teens who have never been convicted of any crime, in a fair trial, like convicted criminals---that Programs are essentially private prisons.

I don't have a problem with treating convicted criminals like convicted criminals.  Some people deserve real prison.

If they work, do these rehabs traumatize the convicted criminals?  My heart just bleeds for them.  I care more about their victims.  So long as the criminal is *choosing* the rehab program to get less time and has the option, always, of dropping out of that program and just doing his time.

Wild teens are not convicted criminals.

However, convicted criminals *are* convicted criminals.

To me, that's the whole point.

Julie
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
John Hubner Book- Criminal Youth
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2006, 11:51:00 AM »
BTW--My problem with the circumstances of the Florida Treasure mom's kid in a boot camp is that she was never given the option of serving a set sentence in normal juvenile hall.

She should have been given that option.

And she should have still had the normal options of appeals in court to ensure she got a fair trial and that the length of her sentence to juvie fit whatever crime she was convicted of (if any, after her various appeals).

If she chose the boot camp herself, she should always have had the option of leaving and going back to regular juvie.

Julie
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
John Hubner Book- Criminal Youth
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2006, 12:19:00 PM »
This is truly a different segment of society than what we discuss on these boards. These are perps of violent crimes and victims of horrific family violence and abuse themselves. They do discuss the victims, and there is a program where victims come and speak to the kids. They are ALL hardened criminals, but some DO not make it in this program and have to do their time. I think you would find it really interesting.
Karen
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Nihilanthic

  • Posts: 3931
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
John Hubner Book- Criminal Youth
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2006, 12:54:00 PM »
Quote
On 2006-05-16 06:17:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Niles- read it and see what you think. I am really interested in your input. It is a very confrontational program, but when you read about the family history of these kids and the crimes they committed, it puts a different light on things. It is fascinating and does show the good and the bad of this type of therapy."


CONFRONTATIONAL DOESNT WORK.

Just look at me telling any of the "Struggling Parents" they fucked up, or theyre selfish, or they made a mistake... or theyre not perfect and the victim and joan of fucking arc at all. :roll:

You can't justify something that intrinsically doesn't work or is inherantly abusive or causes sideffects because they committed one crime or another or they were abused or neglected in one way or another.

Cathartic shit is exactly that. Pathology is not personal growth. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eldon.braun/awa ... hology.htm
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
DannyB on the internet:I CALLED A LAWYER TODAY TO SEE IF I COULD SUE YOUR ASSES FOR DOING THIS BUT THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

CCMGirl on program restraints: "DON\'T TAZ ME BRO!!!!!"

TheWho on program survivors: "From where I sit I see all the anit-program[sic] people doing all the complaining and crying."

Offline Nihilanthic

  • Posts: 3931
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
John Hubner Book- Criminal Youth
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2006, 01:02:00 PM »
Quote
If they work, do these rehabs traumatize the convicted criminals? My heart just bleeds for them. I care more about their victims. So long as the criminal is *choosing* the rehab program to get less time and has the option, always, of dropping out of that program and just doing his time.


Julie, do two wrongs make a right?

If you can justify effectiveness in light of abuse for convicts, whats to stop that from being used on 'druggies', or chidlren with certain diagnoses, or kids with bad grades, or depressed kids... or everyone?

The only way I could justify effective yet abusive treatment is if the only alternative is locking them up for life, but thats ANOTHER slippery slope arguement.

Im fairly sure there are ways to go about doing it without abuse, and without any potential side effects, and without rehashing the same old shit programs have been using to no good effect, breaking the law and violating their rights, for the past 30 years.

Also, I find it funny you speak of victims... what about those who went to jail or bootcamp for non violent offenses? Isn't that group the whole point  of your post to mine?

I dont want a klepto or a stoner getting fucked over! I can live with violent or malicious people getting some licks if it means they wont hurt people anymore (the only thing I hate, is hateful/harmful/malicious/apathetic people thmselves, and hate itself, plus their suffering would prevent the suffering of others...) but not someone whose been hurt by others and acted out, a  kid who used drugs, someone who stole, or just some kid who tagged a school building.

Ill put it this way: Imagine people with the same fucked up problems most straightlings have running around, but justifying that because it 'worked'.

Some evils are necessary but Im not so sure this is one of them.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
DannyB on the internet:I CALLED A LAWYER TODAY TO SEE IF I COULD SUE YOUR ASSES FOR DOING THIS BUT THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

CCMGirl on program restraints: "DON\'T TAZ ME BRO!!!!!"

TheWho on program survivors: "From where I sit I see all the anit-program[sic] people doing all the complaining and crying."

Offline odie

  • Posts: 179
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
John Hubner Book- Criminal Youth
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2006, 03:40:00 PM »
Anybody that knows anything about the facility in question knows if something works that changes even one of these kids...use it. Giddings is a Level 6 Facility. You will not find your snot nosed kids of wealthy parents looking to fix their kids at any cost. There you will find murderers, rapists, arsonists, and yes child molesters. And remember they are all kids. So if something works on them who is anyone on this board to say it shouldn't be done. Do you think they will end up more fucked in the head or something?...sheesh!

It sucks when decent, hardworking people get screwed over like that. Because that means pricks like us don?t stand a chance.
 


http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com' target='_new'>Jim S. watching the devastation of the recent tsunami on the television at JR?s

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
die

Offline AtomicAnt

  • Posts: 552
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
John Hubner Book- Criminal Youth
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2006, 11:18:00 PM »
1. Okay, they compare the program against no program. That only says something is better than nothing, but doesn't mean this is the best something.
 
2. A basic tenet of juvenile justice philosophy is that the offenders are too young and immature to understand the consequences of the their actions and are therefore not entirely culpable. This means, and it is stated, that the severity of the crime is not as important as the state of the offender and should not necessarily be taken into consideration when deciding the best intervention.

For Example: A boy of teases another boy about losing a baseball game and there is a scuffle. One boy has a bat. He swings it and the other boy dies. The killer is 13 years old. Is this really murder, or an accident? The boy had no prior history of problems. In theory, those dealing with this kid are supposed to consider his potential for rehabilitation as well as his maturity level more than the seriousness of what happened. Do you mess up the rest of the offender's life by treating him as a cold blooded murderer? Is that in his best interests? Is that in society's best interest? In the real live case, the kid got the maximum juvenile sentence of 8 years. He was not charged as an adult.

3. Julie has a very strong point when she mentions they only tracked graduates. I read a critique in Salon.com about a faith based rehabilitation program that did the same thing. The study showed good results for graduates, but Salon pointed out that when drop-outs of the program were included, the recidivism rate was actually worse than the control group (no rehab program). Salon then described the length and difficulty of the program and pointed out that those who graduated were probably the most dedicated to their own success in the first place. It would take a great deal of self-discipline and motivation to complete the long and difficult program which required continuous employment, daily meetings, and many hours of church/community service. Their conclusion was that post release support programs are better than no post release support programs for those with the desire to fully use them. Gee, no big surprise there.

4."TYC's success in contrast to national recidivism rates for youthful offenders, which hover between 50% and 60%; a 2004 study reported that only 10% of graduates of the school's Capital Offenders group have been rearrested for a violent crime after three years on parole."

This quote from the review on Amazon.com is comparing apples to oranges when it limits the second part (10%) only to graduates and only to violent crimes and compares it to all other youthful offenders nationwide. Keep in mind for example, the new Missouri system reports only a 32% recidivism rate overall. So, time and place make a difference.

5. I'm not sure if I can buy into the psychodrama stuff, but I did not see where they used 'confrontational' or 'attack' therapy. The latter is basically sitting in a chair while people scream at you (the Scared Straight model, which does not work). The re-enactment stuff is a bit different. I went through some of the psychodrama, re-enactment stuff at a retreat for couples once. It seemed powerful, but it was not life changing. Looking back on it years later, as I do now, it seems hokey. I got the divorce, so if outcome is a measurement of success, I count among the technique's failures. I don't think the re-enactment stuff is necessarily abusive for the offender. For a victim to be forced to do this, it would definitely be abuse.

6. As for odie's remarks:
"So if something works on them who is anyone on this board to say it shouldn't be done. Do you think they will end up more fucked in the head or something?...sheesh!"

This smacks of programs parents 'last resort' arguments. Two wrongs still do not make a right and the ends do not always justify the means. As horrible as their crimes were, they are still children. They are still human beings. They still have feelings and clearly suffer from a lot of emotional pain. If torture 'worked' would you advocate for it?

7. On a final philosophical note. We are talking about growing kids. There is always the issue of physical/emotional growth playing a strong role in improvements regardless of the type of program. As for those that don't make it and go on to prison, think a bit. Are there some people that simply cannot ever be helped? Perhaps some people have a specific biology or psychological damage (sociopaths?) that prevents any form of rehabilitation from being effective. And if that is true, perhaps there are kids that are genetically/psychologically so easy to rehabilitate, that almost any kind of rehabilitation program would work. Of course, there would be kids everywhere in the range between.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Re: John Hubner Book- Criminal Youth
« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2008, 11:01:09 AM »
Life Stories - Empathy - Thinking Errors

I'm about half-way thru the book. The program is run a lot like CEDU. The kids aren't from normal dysfunctional families. These are children who have been brutalized.

The author gives credit for the low recidivism rates to the shrink stuff but the atmosphere at the facility is nurturing and the kids are treated respectfully so if you hacked the shrinks to death you might get the same outcome. I dunno.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX8tZqXTopE
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Che Gookin

  • Global Moderator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 4241
  • Karma: +11/-3
    • View Profile
Re: John Hubner Book- Criminal Youth
« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2008, 02:33:58 PM »
Interesting.. I might just buy the book..
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline seamus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 824
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: John Hubner Book- Criminal Youth
« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2008, 03:33:15 PM »
see heres the problem that no body wants to address,
I went about 20 months thru Straight Inc and never in that time did any body ask me "seamus what is wrong with you" I HAD issues
and all I got was a 1 size fits all group "therapy" that consisted of some no-nothing asshole screaming at me.I left straight as a confused sad and angry X -staff trainee.I went on to be a WORSE junkie,a big time thief ,an armed robber and a 200$ a day night mare. At a point I said fuck all of this Went to detox and decided about how I was gonna live. I went FURTHER down a real bad road because I didnt get treated, I was mistreated,by a fraudulent "system" that paid no attention to me as an idividual.Needless to say thying to convince me that a program is a "good" program is ,well at best , a hard sell.

It eats me up some times that some poor depressed sob of a teenager is getting the same treatment some where,and he (or She) has yet more shit coming their way.Its FRAUD,and in my opinion IT IS CRMINIALY NEGLIGENT. Some body writes a "novel" like its no big deal,well at the risk of sounding like Im talking out of my ass,as Ive not read that novel,IS'Nt that at least really flippant to come here and spout such shit? Goddamn its my life being treated like a used car.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
It\'d be sad if it wernt so funny,It\'d be funny if it wernt so sad

Offline Anorexic Cokehead

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: John Hubner Book- Criminal Youth
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2016, 12:18:54 PM »
For the truth about The Giddings State School read Nell Bernstein's Burning Down the House.