Locking Up 12 Year Olds

A few years ago a 14 year old kid in Florida was sentenced to life in prison for a murder that he committed when he was 12. Does this make any sense?

Proponents for this type of sentencing for juveniles repeat the mantra that “if you do an adult crime, you should receive an adult sentence.” Apparently, these people would also view the situation the same even if the murderer was seven.

People against this form of sentencing, including me, believe that the requisite level of intent which is necessary for a murder conviction is simply lacking in the vast majority of juveniles. One must comprehend one’s act and I don’t believe a 12 year old is capable of that, and surely not a seven year old. Of course, there is that rare ten year old that may have the ability to formulate intent just like an adult would, but should we have an ironclad rule just because one in a thousand might fit it?

This entire debate reminds me of the real crux of the pro-choice, pro-life issue: When is the embryo a human being and afforded protection of the laws? Pro-choice people say that happens at birth or shortly before birth, and pro-life people say it happens at conception or shortly after conception. This debate will never be solved even 3,000 years from now because it revolves around subjective definitions of what is a human being. You can argue birth, and you can also argue conception it seems to me, and the debate cannot be resolved by empirical data alone. It’s the subjective interpretation of that data fraught with spiritual and moral issues that is the genesis of the debate.

Can seven year olds intend their actions? No, you say. What about ten year olds? O.K., what about 12 year olds? 18 year olds? Sure, no problem there. So if we do have a universal rule for cognitive intent we know that the age is somewhere between seven and 18. I pick 16. Why? No special reason other than that I think we should always error in our rules in the light most favorable to juveniles. Should we try as adults the occasional 12 year old who the team of doctors says was capable of intent? I think not. The doctors’ opinion is also subjective and subject to debate. You will find another team of doctors who reach the opposite conclusion. Thus, let’s come up with an age and stick to it regardless of the heinous nature of the crime; which is of course, the real reason why we think we should suddenly deviate from common sense and send a 12 year old to life in prison.

An Alcoholic Brother

My older brother Richard is a crazy alcoholic. Lately he has been walking around his suburban Houston neighborhood with a bottle of vodka and passing out on various neighbors’ lawns and flower beds.

His wife is divorcing him for the obvious reason. She demands that he walk around with a better brand of vodka than Phillips.

Really, I have to laugh or I surely will go as nuts as Rich and you see, Richard was the model sibling. He studied to be a Jesuit priest for 11 years then left one year before ordination. My parents used to spend hours discussing the first Mass that he would say and what chalice they would buy him to consecrate the sacred wine.

He doesn’t need a chalice now, apparently he doesn’t even need a glass. He just needs a bottle.

He has a PhD in psychology and is 61 years old. None of us know what demons are haunting him. He was always a little weird but nothing like these past few months.

Right now he is in a Dallas jail because of a probation violation for a drunken driving charge.

Thank God my 93 year old Mother has Alzheimer’s or she would surely kill herself if she knew what was going on. Richard, the perfect child, has gone crazier than a shithouse rat.

When he gets out of jail he will be homeless because he has been court ordered out of his home. I am thinking of flying to Houston and trying to find him an apartment.

I doubt if I will.

Rich has not been close to anyone in the family for more than 30 years. He once said that he “divorced his family” when he entered the Jesuits and he has been true to his word. I barely know him anymore and I have absolutely no idea why the hamster fell off of the treadmill in his head.

O.K., I will probably make an attempt to “rescue” him, but I know that I will fail. Rich is pompous and contemptuous of everyone, particularly his little brother whom he always viewed as an annoyance before he ran off to join God when I was 13.

I believe he will be with God shortly, as he quickly and deliberately poisons his body from life.

NBA Gangsters

Remember when Michael Jordan, 38 years of age, came back a few years ago to play basketball for his beleaguered team, the Washington Wizards. The question I have is who cared. Well, the NBA for one. Ever since Mike left, it has been as exciting as a Shaq free throw and that’s about it. The stars of the game look, talk, and act like wannabe gangsta rappers (one of them, Allan Iverson, actually is). They run up and down the court fouling, traveling, palming the ball constantly, and scoring almost at will, and play a game that only loosely mirrors Nalsmith’s rules. It’s not basketball anymore; it’s arena football with talent.

The NBA needed Jordan to restore some degree of honor and professionalism to this New York hip-hop playground atmosphere gone crazy. Fans are losing interest. TV ratings are down. Nobody gives a damn if Shaq makes that free throw, or if Kobe raped that Denver woman. The players are for the most part uneducated, dramatically over-paid, pampered freaks and the arenas are their carnival tents.

I used to love pro basketball. I watched the Celtics, Knicks and Lakers all the time. Wilt, Russel, Walt, Willis, Magic, Larry, Earl the Pearl, these were the heroes of my youth. Classy guys on the court and off, who played a fabulous game without tattoos, steroids, or a punk’s attitude.

Who cared if Jordan came back? We all should, but we know it’s too late. It’s David Bowie at the Alamo, way too outnumbered. Jordan can’t rescue this mess, the NBA wrecked it when they allowed the hoodlums to rule, and left the rules to the hoodlums. Where have you gone Elgin Baylor, a clueless league turns it’s desperate eyes to you? John Wooden doesn’t deserve to watch this monster. Thank God he says he doesn’t.

Anti Semitism

I saw the Passion of the Christ for the first time the other day. The most important lesson that I learned from it is to avoid crucifixion at all costs. Yes, the movie is bloody and difficult to watch. No, you should not take a child under 14 or so because he already gets enough violence playing video games. Yes, it is riveting but almost maudlin if you are not a Christian, and no, it is not anti-Semitic. More on this later.

Is it historically accurate? It depends. If one uses the Bible as your source of history, it is quite accurate except for a weird, lurking, androgynous devil and his/her harpy-like dwarfs. If you delve into historical sources, other than the Bible, there are some legitimate issues. Much is known about Pontius Pilate from other historical sources. He was truly a wicked guy, who would crucify someone for jaywalking, (Crucifixion, by the way, was a Roman, civil practice and not a Jewish religious practice). Pilate in the movie, however, is depicted as a conflicted, political, and almost decent, procurator of the Jews. He regards his subjects as pond scum and can barely wait to get back to Rome or any place other than Jerusalem. In the Bible and in the movie he does not see why Jesus should be condemned, and symbolically and famously washes his hands of the entire matter.

So, maybe the Bible account of Pilate is inaccurate, but, it is the Bible that’s Mel Gibson’s authority thereby making the Jews look like the real culprits.

O.K., let’s get to the real issue. A Jewish acquaintance of mine thought the movie was very anti-Semitic because, and he is right, the Jews, particularly their priests, are portrayed as blood thirsty, unreasonable thugs out to kill this Nazarene no matter what the facts. But, how should the Jews have been depicted? Why did the High Priests hate Jesus so much? Why didn’t they accept him as the Messiah like the new Christians did? The answers are quite simple and based on Jewish theology as revealed in the Old Testament. One, the Jews were looking for a Messiah who would be a great King here on earth, someone who would vanquish the Romans from their Holy land and restore the Jews as God’s chosen people. Jesus preached repeatedly that his Kingdom was “not of this world” and that he was talking about liberating souls not killing Romans. Two, the guy born in Bethlehem kept insinuating that he was someone divine or that he was Yahweh himself which the Jews, rightfully according to their tradition, found heretical. Sure the High Priests wanted him killed and for good reason. This “lunatic” had gained some followers with his blasphemous ideas. It’s not like the High Priests believed he was the Messiah and had him killed anyway as many Christians think. The Jews were convinced he was a blasphemous, wily nut undermining their authority with his nonsense. Put in this context of course the High Priests wanted Jesus crucified, just as the Crusaders wanted the Muslim infidels either converted or killed a few centuries later. As a Christian, I have no problem with the Crusaders made to look like blood thirsty proselytizers. They were!

Thoughtful Rabbi’s have weighed in on the subject and have found the movie innocuous. Even the Rabbi who leads the Jewish Anti-Defamation League was courageous enough to alter his opinion after more reflection and proclaimed the movie not anti-Semitic.

So, let’s get on with it. Jesus came to earth to die and rise from the dead according to Christian scriptures to atone for all people’s sins. If the Jews and Pilate had a hand in this, and both clearly did, Christians should thank them, not hate them. They helped fulfill scripture. The real hate-mongering has already come. Let’s see if the Jewish moguls in Hollywood allow Gibson to make another movie there, or cast him in their upcoming movies. It simply is not going to happen. Now, that’s prejudice.

What's up with SAT's

So what’s with this SAT flap? Suddenly some people from academia are calling for the abolition of this sacrosanct shibboleth that for years has determined whether you get into Harvard or Slippery Rock.

The fuss is about the purpose of the SAT and what exactly it indicates. Those in favor of this test state that it is the great equalizer in this era of grade inflation and unequal schools and unequal curriculum. Those against it state that it is WASP-ish and more of an I.Q. test than a validation of what one has learned or a predictor of how well one will do in college.

People who do well in high school tend to do well in college regardless of their SAT score and regardless of where they went to high school. That’s my belief based on my personal experience and common sense. Achievers simply achieve. If the bar is raised they tend to jump higher. I had a college roommate who had 1500 SAT scores. (1600 was perfect, then 1500 is great.) He graduated with a 2.4 G.P.A. from Notre Dame because he was a screw-off just like he was in high school even though he was brighter than all of us. I learned far more in high school and college than he did but the SAT indicates largely not what one has learned but rather the potential for learning. Sure, you have to have a decent vocabulary and know the basics of mathematics but the most important attribute of the test is the ability to analytically reason, which makes for good learners.

The world is full of people who reason brilliantly but do not do well in college or in life because of behavioral deficits. Otherwise, the world would necessarily be run by the brainy types and one only needs to look to the Bush White House and North Korea to see that that’s not true.

Think about this: Do those with the highest I.Q.’s run the Fortune 500? Sure, some are very smart, but the advocates of the SAT I think would have to state that they must have very high SAT scores and that simply is not the case. The SAT is not a predictor of success in college or in life.

I had a 1200 SAT score, not bad, but not Princeton-like who rejected me from admission. I graduated from Notre Dame with a 3.85 G.P.A. I would have graduated from Princeton with the same or better. It had nothing to do with the SAT; it had to do with my work ethic, sense of purpose and the mission of doing well as the paramount goal of my life at the time.

The SAT score said that I could not do the work at Princeton. Bologna. I didn’t have the right analytical genes. Success in anything, college, business, sports, life, is more a matter of attitude and desire than innate ability. Does any sane person dispute this? Otherwise, how do you explain 5’6 Mugsy Bogues who was in the NBA or George W. Bush in the White House? Think about it, but not too analytically.

Death and Taxes

Let’s talk about estate taxes because I am really steaming. Bush tried to eliminate estate taxes. The Bush logic was why on earth should people be taxed merely because they died on money that has already been taxed at least once. The deceased and her heirs are being punished for the poor person dying. Makes sense to me, but I’m not Warren Buffet, George Soros, Bill Gates, or Ted Turner, all of them billionaires and all of them outspoken critics of the estate tax elimination. In brief, their argument is that just because somebody is wealthy should not give that person the right to pass on all of her money to whomever she pleases. Buffet and Gates and the rest of these kooks think that the government should get the money. Why, did the government earn it? No. Then why does the government deserve any of it?

Their argument has a special appeal to people who believe that just because your parents or grandparents are wealthy does not mean that you should be entitled to this wealth. It smacks of royalty and dynasties, perpetuating legendary family names like Rockefeller and Kennedy. We Americans are not Europeans, we don’t believe in royalty and that stuff. Now look, I’m just as repulsed , and “O.K.” jealous, of the trust fund baby who never has had to work a day in his life, never did, and waltzs between his haunts in Monte Carlo and Aspen, looking down on us working blokes from his Gulfstream IV. But, you know, life is unfair and some people are simply luckier than others. What about the guy who worked 60 hours a week for 50 years, but just kept making the wrong decisions and/or was unlucky, verses the 25 year old .com idiot who got thousands of people like the first guy to invest in his idea, sold out in two years for 50 million and left the rest of us with shattered dreams and empty bank accounts. Should this 2nd guy be forced to give the first poor schmuck some of his .com millions if he did nothing illegal? I don’t think reasonable people would say so. It’s just another example of life that is unfair.

In addition, Soros, Buffet, Gates and others come across as pretty disingenuous about this whole matter. Remember, these guys are billionaires. What do they care if the government gets a billion or two, as long as they can pass the rest on to their chosen heirs? Now, if anyone of these guys were to leave all of his money to charities and not one penny to spouse,children, grandchildren, or friends, and never gifted one penny to them when he was alive, I would say that they are not disingenuous—however they are still dead wrong.

Depression and Homicide

A Texas woman admittedly drowned her five children a few years ago. She was being treated for depression and psychosis. As someone who has fought dark depression for most of my life, though not psychosis, it’s difficult for me to see how depression alone could cause such an atrocity.

Those who are severely depressed and not psychotic typically do not have the energy to wash their hands let alone drown five children. And then call the police? It doesn’t make sense. Depressed people don’t want to get off the couch. Picking up the phone and talking to anyone is exhausting.

No, this woman is or was psychotic. The amazing thing to me is that her husband seemed to have no clue. Even though he knew his wife had severe trouble with postpartum depression this guy kept having kids. If he was not depressed and/or psychotic, you think he would have slowed down the progeny thing for the sake of his wife and his other children. How anyone can be this clueless or insensitive is remarkable. I can only conclude that he is crazier than his wife, because he exhibited no signs of craziness. The profoundly crazy are sneaky; they never give us any clues until it is too late. Think Ted Bundy. Or Scott Peterson.

Killing your own children in a methodical fashion has to be the definition of insanity. Mothers do not eat their young. They protect them from the promiscuous father who may eat them. I am, frankly, and this will be most disturbing to the majority of you, most concerned about this case because it gives depression a bad rap. People will think that severely depressed people are not just weak-minded and of a defective character, but that they are dangerous as well. Let’s lock them up like we did in the 1st half of the 20th century. In truth, depressed people are too lethargic to pick up a gun and too confused to plot mayhem against anyone but them self. This woman may have been suffering from depression, but there were other demons at work here, and it was those demons that were responsible for this ineffable tragedy, not melancholy. Depressed people steel themselves to block out the nothingness, the hopelessness, the bulky weight of life. They don’t kill others. This poor woman was nuts in addition to being depressed.

I know what you’re thinking. What about the depressed ex-boyfriend who kills his ex-girlfriend and their only child, and then turns the gun on himself? That’s not depression folks, that’s anger and revenge and lunacy too. Depressed people hide under the covers, afraid of the light of tomorrow and the pain that it will bring. No, depressed people are not more prone to violence than other people, and they don’t kill other people more than normal people; they only kill themselves to obliterate the incessant shroud of darkness.