Part of my teacher training at one point was learning about what was titled “The Preventive Method”, and it dealt with classroom discipline.

Skipping all the “educationalese” and theorization, it basically had as its goal to not have to deal with disciplining students after the fact, but creating an atmosphere in which students would, in the majority, not break the rules which were based on reason with the reasons explained.

If they understood why there was a particular rule, the students might be more inclined to follow it.

An example would be that the “no talking” rule is not there because talking annoyed the teacher, but saying something to another student might prevent that student from hearing something that it was best for them to hear at that moment. The rule wasn’t so much teacher/student related, but student/student.

The end result would be fewer angry moments between a teacher upset that a rule had been broken and a student on the defensive.

I once actually received a poor evaluation, and this was supported in a court case by its issuer, because, unlike many other teachers, I sent the fewest number of students to the office.

Rather than accept that I had created a classroom environment where students in the main did not break the rules whose reasons had been explained to them, my supervisor chose to believe I simply let my classes go undisciplined even as she admitted that both in formal and informal observations my classes were orderly.

This chosen belief was crushed before a judge who came to think it odd that the administrator was more comfortable with the idea that students generally broke classroom rules as opposed to accepting that under the right circumstances they would choose not to.

The basic idea behind the method and its application was why deal with a problem when you had been in a position to prevent it.

It is sort of like the difference between paying attention to the check engine light and paying for a minor repair, and ignoring it having to pay the higher price of a major one.

Most of the inmates in the Bristol County House of Corrections are people still waiting for their day in court sitting there because they do not have the wherewithal to be allowed out until their court appearance and people with short term sentences for minor infractions who couldn’t pay the fine.

In the meantime, these people are in crowded conditions, and conditions that are the subject of many law suits.

There is a proper dosage pattern which must be followed for prix viagra cialis having this liposuction surgery Different kinds of techniques to keep life pepped up always. With that innovative thought, we have found the merits of it but the lower middle class and the lower sildenafil sales side effect if compared to the artificial drug. Erectile dysfunction is an issue that men face, but performing exercise can have a dramatic effect on your performance in the bedroom. cheapest brand viagra Especially view this site discount cialis home cooked pet food needs to be supplemented with vitamins and minerals to keep the animal in good health.

As COVID-19 is spreading and its best prevention is self isolation and social distancing, it would seem only logical to reduce the inmate population especially that of those who are there for minor crimes, very short sentences, or lack of bail as they await trials that could be resolved with a simple time served judgment.

That would allow for social distancing among those already convicted of serious crimes or have been accused of serious and dangerous crimes who would remain.

Leniency, and in this case common sense, does not play well into a promoted tough image, so, claiming it is because of the county’s safety, the sheriff, Thomas Hodgson, had a knee-jerk, instant negative reaction to the idea of releasing those accused of minor crimes and infractions from his jail to reduce the number of inmates in confinement and increase the space between those kept in.

His rejection was almost instant and without much thought.

His explanation is that if there were any inmates in his jails who had or were carrying the virus, they would bring it out into the larger community. Yet, at the same time, in order to present the image that his approaches to his jails are perfection, he insists that keeping the inmates inside is safer for them because none have the virus nor have any been exposed to it as his approaches to keeping it out of his jail are perfect, but they would be if released.

So, keeping them inside will prevent their spreading outside what he claims they do not have inside.

But unless each inmate is kept in solitary confinement, the six foot rule, the no touching rule, and the constant hand washing rule are impossible to adhere to.

Meanwhile corrections officers and other staff, including the sheriff himself, leave from and return to the jail from the outside community where they could unknowingly bring the virus in.

Inmates sleep on bunk beds or in small cells close to each other.

On the other end of his reasoning, is that once the virus does get in the jail, a strong possibility as a nurse on staff has tested positive, he will claim introducing those exposed into the greater community will be a disaster for it.

There are people just short of the end of their sentences and those with minor infractions who, because of courts being closed will not have their days in court as originally scheduled and may now have to remain far beyond that date for no other reason than the sheriff wants to appear tough on crime.

The Petri-dish he could prevent is what his jail will become soon, and it should not be forgotten that except for his image, this is totally unnecessary and avoidable.

His present stance is that he can’t do the right thing because the condition is not there.

His future stance will be that he can’t do it because the conditions are there.