Written
No doubt I have seemed somewhat less than talkative to the population at large. Many of you are more than aware of my lack of regard for social niceties, but if the rest of you have felt slighted in some way, you have my apologies. I suggest you grow a thicker skin.
I've been rather preoccupied with what I am setting now to paper, and with my own duties as a warden aboard this ship.
I welcome any response you care to give.
First, allow me to ask: what determines whether we are suitable to be wardens? I recall many men and women before who should not have been in that position, whether because they, themselves, deserved to be inmates, or because they did not have the emotional or mental maturity to handle the task. That nitwit in the library comes to mind for the latter.
Is it simply a matter of warm bodies? Does the Admiral take on whoever seems willing to rise to the task? Is this an acceptable way to choose people who are granted power over the lives of the inmates here?
To address suitability, of course, we must look at those tasks which we are assigned. The purpose of having a warden on the Barge is to rehabilitate an inmate. This includes seeing to the needs of said inmate - usually on an emotional level, but not excluding protecting them in ports and floods, of course. We may look at the warden-inmate relationship as one of caretaker and ward. If someone is incapable of fulfilling the role of caretaker, should the ward assume that role over the warden? No, of course not.
Should a warden who is incapable of seeing past his - or her - own emotional needs be given dominion over an inmate who will likely suffer thanks to this lack of empathy? Again, no.
There is, of course, the further question of whether rehabilitated inmates should be wardens. I realize that this question is a double-edged sword of sorts, in that I am a part of this group - and while some, such as Maguire and Parker, have shown great moral fortitude in their current incarnations, others are yet of suspect moral fibre. Should an inmate, rehabilitated but still of questionable character, be allowed to assume the position of warden? One may be rehabilitated and still succumb to old habits. What if the inmate-turned-warden in question further falls into the category addressed previously - of suitability, or lack thereof? Even one who has redeemed himself - or herself - (granted, it may be only just redeemed) may still be incapable of providing for the needs of their inmate.
Is not the onus upon our colleagues to prevent us from running roughshod over an inmate who will not benefit from this sort of guidance - or again, lack thereof?
I leave it to you, for your consideration.
[Teal Deer: Some of the wardens here should not be wardens, and the other wardens should push them off the boat. He's not a nice man. :|]
I've been rather preoccupied with what I am setting now to paper, and with my own duties as a warden aboard this ship.
I welcome any response you care to give.
First, allow me to ask: what determines whether we are suitable to be wardens? I recall many men and women before who should not have been in that position, whether because they, themselves, deserved to be inmates, or because they did not have the emotional or mental maturity to handle the task. That nitwit in the library comes to mind for the latter.
Is it simply a matter of warm bodies? Does the Admiral take on whoever seems willing to rise to the task? Is this an acceptable way to choose people who are granted power over the lives of the inmates here?
To address suitability, of course, we must look at those tasks which we are assigned. The purpose of having a warden on the Barge is to rehabilitate an inmate. This includes seeing to the needs of said inmate - usually on an emotional level, but not excluding protecting them in ports and floods, of course. We may look at the warden-inmate relationship as one of caretaker and ward. If someone is incapable of fulfilling the role of caretaker, should the ward assume that role over the warden? No, of course not.
Should a warden who is incapable of seeing past his - or her - own emotional needs be given dominion over an inmate who will likely suffer thanks to this lack of empathy? Again, no.
There is, of course, the further question of whether rehabilitated inmates should be wardens. I realize that this question is a double-edged sword of sorts, in that I am a part of this group - and while some, such as Maguire and Parker, have shown great moral fortitude in their current incarnations, others are yet of suspect moral fibre. Should an inmate, rehabilitated but still of questionable character, be allowed to assume the position of warden? One may be rehabilitated and still succumb to old habits. What if the inmate-turned-warden in question further falls into the category addressed previously - of suitability, or lack thereof? Even one who has redeemed himself - or herself - (granted, it may be only just redeemed) may still be incapable of providing for the needs of their inmate.
Is not the onus upon our colleagues to prevent us from running roughshod over an inmate who will not benefit from this sort of guidance - or again, lack thereof?
I leave it to you, for your consideration.
[Teal Deer: Some of the wardens here should not be wardens, and the other wardens should push them off the boat. He's not a nice man. :|]