Solo puedo responder por el poco tiempo que tengo en la escuela pública. (He sido educado en casa para más de la mitad de mi escuela primaria y la mayor parte de mi carrera en la escuela secundaria.) No recuerdo mucho sobre mis años de primaria.
Durante los tres meses que estuve en una escuela secundaria pública, me di cuenta de que había cambiado mucho en los 5 o 6 años que había estudiado en casa. Casi todo lo que usamos son computadoras portátiles, a menos que tomemos notas o hagamos un proyecto manual de algún tipo. Parece que hay camarillas, que no me gustan. Por ejemplo, las personas realmente populares evitarán a otros fuera de su grupo de amigos, a menos que en ciertas circunstancias. Aquí están algunas.1) Los populares son amigables.2) Tienen que hacerlo porque los maestros quieren que lo hagan.3) Están impresionados con algo sobre ti.Los nuevos niños, parecen tener su propia camarilla, en la que se quedan, a menos que sean atrevidos y dispuestos a hacer amigos con otros que han estado allí por más tiempo. Luego hay algunos que salen con quien quieren, (como yo y algunos de mis otros amigos). En la escuela secundaria, es similar, pero no exactamente igual. He estado en mi escuela secundaria desde el 28 de agosto, y he notado muchas diferencias. Por un lado, para mi gusto, parece haber mucha menos blasfemia. Creo que tiene más que ver con la cantidad de estudiantes en el programa ROTC. Por otro lado, parece ser más despreocupado y amigable. Otra es que los estudiantes de cualquier grado pueden elegir cualquier electiva si tienen que estar en la misma clase que los estudiantes más jóvenes o mayores. ¡Es asombroso!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The English version may not equal out to the Spanish version 100%, but I tried my best.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can only answer for the short time I've been in public school. (I've been homeschooled for over half of my elementary, and almost my entire middle school career.) I don't remember much about my elementary years.
During the three months I was at a public middle school, I realised thing had changes a lot in the 5 or 6 years I'd been homeschooled. Almost all we use are laptops, unless we're taking notes, or doing a manual project of some sort. There seems to be cliques, which I don't like. For instance, really popular people will avoid others outside their group of friends, unless under certain circumstances. Here are a few.
1) The popular kid(s) are kind hearted.
2) They have to because teachers want them to.
3) They are impressed with something about you.
The new kids, seem to have their own clique, which they stay in, unless they are bold and willing to make friends with others who've been there longer. Then there are some who hang out with whoever they want, (like me and some of my other friends). At the high school, it's similar, but not exactly the same. I've been at my high school since August 28, and I've noticed a lot of differences. For one, much to my liking, there seems to be much less profanity. I think it has more to do with the amount of students in the ROTC program. For another, it seems to be more carefree and friendly. Another is the students of any grade can choose any electives whether they have to be in the same class as younger or older students. It's amazing!
Probably the noblest and most humane purpose of punishment in the criminal law is rehabilitation. When a citizen's criminal tendencies are "cured" (in a manner of speaking) so that he or she never has the urge to commit crime again and, even further, becomes a productive member of society, then society is not only protected from future harm but it's also made richer by the successful re-entry of one of its members. It's a win-win situation in which both society and criminal offenders benefit.
Idealogically, rehabilitation is a very sound goal for punishment. It's pleasant and beautiful to imagine the successful general rehabilitation of society's criminals. If only adult criminals could be successfully rehabilitated, then the phenomenon of crime could be all but eliminated, and criminal offenses restricted from then on to juvenile delinquency and the occasional act of passion.
Ah, if only. While few seriously argue against the utility of reforming criminal offenders, there are powerful arguments against placing too much importance on rehabilitation, not the least of which is that it tends not to work. In 1994, over sixty percent of criminal offenders who were released from U.S. correctional facilities were arrested again within three years or less. Fifty percent went back into the system. High recidivism rates are a powerful argument against the effectiveness of rehabilitation in the criminal law. It is time-consuming and dubious effort to meaningfully reform serious criminals, and it costs more for tax-payers. However fine and noble the idea of reforming criminals into productive members of society may be, the statistics alone speak out strongly against the attempt.
On the other hand, it is probably a bit much to argue that criminal offenders are fundamentally unworthy of the efforts of rehabilitation, and that it's good for them to suffer for what they've done without any help or reprieve. Perhaps. In the real world, many criminals may be truly un-reformable, and any attempt to rehabiliate them would be a waste of effort and resources. Also, the pain of crime victims and their loved ones cannot be ignored or reasoned away, and to deny them some feeling of satisfied vengeance could be seen as an abject failure of the justice system. But, all things considered, it is at least feasable for a society that cherishes the precept "innocent until proven guilty" to some day place equal value on the precept "reformable until proven otherwise." Of course, the only way to prove this is to try.
Answer:
Yo te hablo ..puedo hablar espanol pero me gusta mas el ingles.
Explanation:
