From the Washington Post comes an article about a mom and her ex-husband who are going to jail. Here are the basic facts (I'll discuss her reasoning in a moment). Elisa Kelly and George Robinson decided to host a party for their son Ryan's 16th birthday. Ryan asked his mother to supply alcohol. Elisa and George supplied wine and beer upon the condition that none of them could leave the party. The police were called and found that nine of the sixteen party attendees had alcohol in their system, though none met the legal limit for intoxication.
There are assertions that she lied to the parents of the attending teenagers in saying that there would be no alcohol and also that she told the kids that gargling with vinegar would cover up the alcohol, though she denies both in this article. And if the history they give in that article is correct (substitute teacher, baseball coach, never had a parking or speeding ticket), I am inclined to believe her. After all, she has never denied what she did and has only contested the sentence (more on that to come).
Her reasoning is what really makes me think. She indicated that she believed that they were going to go get drunk whether she provided the alcohol or not. In fact, she notes in the second article that she would pick up these kids from other parties and they would be drunk. By her providing it, she was able to keep tabs on how much of what was consumed and, perhaps more importantly, she could control driving. In fact, according to her interview on this website, she went around collecting car keys and had other plans
I remember a friend of mine, Jerry (not his real name), losing his father while we were in high school. His dad suffered a heart attack while out horseback riding. The family was one of those families that welcomed anyone into it who needed some support. Consequently, there were about half a dozen other teenagers who felt as though they had lost their father figure. I remember stopping by that night and his mom walking up to me with a bucket full of keys, asking for my keys. She explained that her son and his friends were going to go out and get drunk to deal with this death whether she liked it or not and that there was nothing she could do to stop him. So instead she bought the beer and had them come to the house. That way, she could keep an eye on them and make sure no tried to drive home. I explained that I wouldn't be drinking and she told me that as long as I didn't even touch a bottle or can of anything, I could hang onto my keys. I conveyed my condolences to Jerry and talked with him and the other people there for about 20 minutes before I left.
It took me a while to process her reasoning, but in the end, I really agreed with what she did. Yes, she was breaking the law, but given her choices, she chose what I believe to be the lesser of the two evils. I don't know if any of those teenagers would have gotten killed driving home drunk had she not done what she did, but I do know that every one of them was at her house and not driving because of what she did.
Back to the 16th birthday party, I am left wondering the same thing about this woman and her son's party. The first article indicates that the judge was angry about the death of a teen the year before who was driving drunk. So, despite the prosecuting attorney's recommended 90 day sentence, the judge sent them each to jail for 8 years. Upon appeal to the Circuit Court, it was dropped to 27 months, the suggested 90 days plus 2 years.
So, to sum up, we have judge who wrongly lets a previous, completely unrelated incident of a teen killed while driving drunk sway his opinion in sentencing a man and woman who broke the law by throwing a party designed to keep teens from driving drunk. Anyone see anything wrong there?
I talked with a friend from Germany the other day who told met hat the legal age to drink in Germany is 16. The legal age to drive is 18. She told me that she went drinking at a club before she was 16 and there was a police sting. They simply made the under 16 leave the club but didn't do a thing about the fact that alcohol had been served to those under age. It simply isn't a big deal over there. You really don't even get carded. And drinking at home with your parents is the norm.
She went on to say that binge drinking isn't a problem over there. Drunk driving isn't either (although I am sure a better public transit system plays into this as well). Because it is open and accepted, teens don't have to find ways to sneak out to drink and then they don't feel the pressure to drink as much as they can because they may not be able to drink again anytime soon. They can learn to drink openly and (speaking generally) responsibly.
I wonder if that would work here in the United States. Would allowing teenagers to learn about and how to drink before they learn to drive and in a controlled and open manner reduce drunk driving and drunk driving deaths? I bet that more teens would be calling home asking for a ride instead of desperately attempting to make it home with their car and sleep off the buzz before their parents realize what they were out doing.
I realize that this is a rather controversial topic and there are probably a few of you out there with some differing opinions on the matter. I'd love to hear from as many of you as possible regarding whether you agree or disagree with me on any of my points above. Just be sure to include in your comment why you believe what you do. Purely visceral responses don't lend themselves towards productive discussion very well.
***Disclaimers***
Let me state explicitly for those who do not know or may be wondering at this point, I do not drink and have never tasted alcohol. I hope and plan to raise my children to do the same.
Also, I do realize that this line of reasoning can be easily extended to drug use. I realize that and I have chosen not to write about that. It very well may be addressed in a later post, but this one is too long already.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
On Veteran's Day
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to talk with a veteran of the United States Navy who also happens to be a Pearl Harbor survivor. This was rather poignant being that it was Veteran's Day weekend and that there are fewer and fewer World War II veterans living. Vere Gardner, my wife's maternal grandfather proudly served on the USS Salt Lake City, the ship that took part in more engagements than any other ship in the fleet. By his own account, he witnessed with his own eyes the attack on Pearl Harbor , during which he happened to be on shore, and the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima (yes, the famous picture).
While it was fantastic to hear from Vere about his experiences, the veteran that I still admire the most is my father. During the Vietnam War, a massive draft took place in order to recruit the troops necessary. My father, instead of waiting to see if he would be drafted, took it upon himself to enlist in the United States Army. This has been a great point of pride for me in my father.
My father hasn't told us, or at least me (I suppose I shouldn't speak for all of the kids) much about his time in Vietnam. The only stories I remember him telling us about Vietnam were funny stories most often from while he was on leave. The only times I have been able to learn anything about his service has been from letters of commendation and citation award letters and clippings from my dad's old hometown newspaper of articles about his citations that my mom has tucked away.
I never understood his reluctance to talk about his service until we visited Washington, D.C. as a family. We were touring the National Mall and Memorial Parks and were approaching the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. As you begin to approach the memorial, the sidewalk forks with one arm leading down to the memorial and the other leading up toward the rest off the mall with the first arm joining back up later. As we approached the fork, we all started down toward the Vietnam memorial but my dad slowly peeled off and kept walking towards the rest of the mall. Not knowing what else to do, I remember simply standing at the wall and staring at the names. I touched a couple of them, though they held no personal significance to me. I remember thinking that there were names somewhere on there of people that my dad knew and fought with. People that he laughed with, and then mourned with, and then mourned over. While the thought had come to me before when considering my father's service, this was the first time it deeply impacted me that one more than a few occasions, a couple of seconds, a flip-of-the-coin decision, and pure luck meant that someone else's name was on there and not my father's. There was probably someone's name up there who offered to trade my dad positions and thus etched their name on that wall over his. That was when I first started to see how potent and powerful his memories of his service still are. It was then that I first began to realize how difficult it must be for him to reflect on those he went to Vietnam with and even more so, those he came home without.
I made the decision back in high school after considering the military that it was not the way for me but that should a draft ever be instituted that I am eligible for, I would enlist. While I have never regretted that decision, I often feel that never having served has drawn a line in the extent to which I will be able to identify with and ultimately understand who my father really is like he was able to with his father. There is something there that I have yet to and most likely never will experience and thus internalize. I think that is why I am drawn to occasionally push the line on what movies I view and watch Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers[1] or another film that shows war with some semblance of realism, as a way of trying to catch even a glimpse of understanding of what they experienced that made him, for better or worse, who he is.
I hope that at some point my dad will sit down and write about his service, even if it is in a private journal that is not shared until he is no longer with us (which better be a long ways off).
I always feel a bit foolish saying thank you to a veteran. I still tell them but in comparison to all that they have sacrificed and done for this country, and consequently for me, a verbal thank you seems so weak and insufficient. So, I buy a VFW poppy and thank them for their service and hope they know how grateful I truly am.
To any veteran who reads this and especially to my father, thank you for the sacrifices you made and for your service and may you have a very happy Veteran's Day.
Footnote [1]: Yes, I realize that both of those movies are from World War II and that my father served in Vietnam, but until someone comes out with something about Vietnam that portrays the soldiers accurately instead of criminalizing them, they'll have to do.
While it was fantastic to hear from Vere about his experiences, the veteran that I still admire the most is my father. During the Vietnam War, a massive draft took place in order to recruit the troops necessary. My father, instead of waiting to see if he would be drafted, took it upon himself to enlist in the United States Army. This has been a great point of pride for me in my father.
My father hasn't told us, or at least me (I suppose I shouldn't speak for all of the kids) much about his time in Vietnam. The only stories I remember him telling us about Vietnam were funny stories most often from while he was on leave. The only times I have been able to learn anything about his service has been from letters of commendation and citation award letters and clippings from my dad's old hometown newspaper of articles about his citations that my mom has tucked away.
I never understood his reluctance to talk about his service until we visited Washington, D.C. as a family. We were touring the National Mall and Memorial Parks and were approaching the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. As you begin to approach the memorial, the sidewalk forks with one arm leading down to the memorial and the other leading up toward the rest off the mall with the first arm joining back up later. As we approached the fork, we all started down toward the Vietnam memorial but my dad slowly peeled off and kept walking towards the rest of the mall. Not knowing what else to do, I remember simply standing at the wall and staring at the names. I touched a couple of them, though they held no personal significance to me. I remember thinking that there were names somewhere on there of people that my dad knew and fought with. People that he laughed with, and then mourned with, and then mourned over. While the thought had come to me before when considering my father's service, this was the first time it deeply impacted me that one more than a few occasions, a couple of seconds, a flip-of-the-coin decision, and pure luck meant that someone else's name was on there and not my father's. There was probably someone's name up there who offered to trade my dad positions and thus etched their name on that wall over his. That was when I first started to see how potent and powerful his memories of his service still are. It was then that I first began to realize how difficult it must be for him to reflect on those he went to Vietnam with and even more so, those he came home without.
I made the decision back in high school after considering the military that it was not the way for me but that should a draft ever be instituted that I am eligible for, I would enlist. While I have never regretted that decision, I often feel that never having served has drawn a line in the extent to which I will be able to identify with and ultimately understand who my father really is like he was able to with his father. There is something there that I have yet to and most likely never will experience and thus internalize. I think that is why I am drawn to occasionally push the line on what movies I view and watch Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers[1] or another film that shows war with some semblance of realism, as a way of trying to catch even a glimpse of understanding of what they experienced that made him, for better or worse, who he is.
I hope that at some point my dad will sit down and write about his service, even if it is in a private journal that is not shared until he is no longer with us (which better be a long ways off).
I always feel a bit foolish saying thank you to a veteran. I still tell them but in comparison to all that they have sacrificed and done for this country, and consequently for me, a verbal thank you seems so weak and insufficient. So, I buy a VFW poppy and thank them for their service and hope they know how grateful I truly am.
To any veteran who reads this and especially to my father, thank you for the sacrifices you made and for your service and may you have a very happy Veteran's Day.
Footnote [1]: Yes, I realize that both of those movies are from World War II and that my father served in Vietnam, but until someone comes out with something about Vietnam that portrays the soldiers accurately instead of criminalizing them, they'll have to do.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Bystander Apathy: Good Men Doing Nothing
One of my favorite phrases has always been "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." That saying and its numerous other versions have been erroneously attributed to Edmund Burke.
Authenticity and origin aside, I find the sentiment very true. Evil is an ever progressing force in the world and evil acts will always be attempted and committed. One can either sit idly by or take an active role in fighting against it. And no, complaining to your neighbor or friend about something doesn't count as "doing something."
One horrible form of this has been termed "bystander apathy." There is an article at uncommon-knowledge.co.uk that gives a good introduction to the phenomenon. I refer to it as a phenomenon as it is a measurable reaction that can be replicated. It is not isolated incidents.
Put simply, it boils down to the fact that if you are in a group of people when someone needs aid, you are less likely to do something. According to a study conducted shortly after the Kitty Genovese murder, which first brought bystander apathy to light, you are 54% more likely to receive aid from somone if they are the only one there than if they are in a group of four or more. In other words, the more people around you, the less likely anyone is to help.
Bystander apathy seems to stem from the idea that someone else will help, someone more qualified or better than them. This social phenomenon is technically referred to as "diffusion of responsibility" and another version of it is the "I was just following orders" justification that many Nazis used to explain their horrible actions in the Holocaust.
This bystander apathy has been seen again and again. There's this account of a stabbing on the upper level of a London bus. The author of the article admits to hearing the screams for help repeatedly over a period of time and just sitting there.
There's a report from just last August of a rape and stabbing, this one in the St. Paul, MN area that took place in an apartment building hallway. Five to ten people saw the attack and did nothing. The Associate Press coverage of the attack notes one witness walked up to see what was going on and then just pulled the hood of their sweatshirt up, turned around, and walked away.
Perhaps the most disturbing, at least to me, is from last July. A stabbing victim was laying on the floor of a convenience store. Five store customers simply step over her to continue with their shopping. Not turn around or walk around, they step over her. If that isn't appalling enough, one of them stopped and took a picture of her with a cell phone camera and still continued shopping.
To me, this is unbelievable. Where is the sense of moral decency in these people? Where is any semblance of concern for their fellow man? The apostle Paul certainly called this when he foretold that in the last days that "men shall be lovers of their own selves" and "proud."
To be fair, bystander apathy isn't a new development. Christ's parable of the good Samaritan shows two examples of apathetic bystanders who happen upon a man in need of medical care. Both pass by and leave the man for dead. Thankfully, a Samaritan does choose to help.
While there are no shortages of bystander apathy examples in our society, it is nice to hear about the occasional story of a good Samaritan. Such is the case coming out of Salem, OR that occurred in the early morning hours a week and a half ago. A 22 year old woman on crutches was making her way down the road when she was attacked and nearly raped by a 37 year old man. A van with five people in it stopped and three men from the van jumped out, pulled the attacker off of the woman and then held him for police.
I would hope that the last story is an example of the rule and not the exception to it, but I wonder. Are the cases of bystander apathy in the news more because they are the exception or are they really more common? Is concern for one's fellow man really so far gone in our society or are these isolated incidences? And then I have to wonder if our country's general trend of demanding that the government fix all of our problems is an extension of this bystander apathy. But that would be another post entirely.
Authenticity and origin aside, I find the sentiment very true. Evil is an ever progressing force in the world and evil acts will always be attempted and committed. One can either sit idly by or take an active role in fighting against it. And no, complaining to your neighbor or friend about something doesn't count as "doing something."
One horrible form of this has been termed "bystander apathy." There is an article at uncommon-knowledge.co.uk that gives a good introduction to the phenomenon. I refer to it as a phenomenon as it is a measurable reaction that can be replicated. It is not isolated incidents.
Put simply, it boils down to the fact that if you are in a group of people when someone needs aid, you are less likely to do something. According to a study conducted shortly after the Kitty Genovese murder, which first brought bystander apathy to light, you are 54% more likely to receive aid from somone if they are the only one there than if they are in a group of four or more. In other words, the more people around you, the less likely anyone is to help.
Bystander apathy seems to stem from the idea that someone else will help, someone more qualified or better than them. This social phenomenon is technically referred to as "diffusion of responsibility" and another version of it is the "I was just following orders" justification that many Nazis used to explain their horrible actions in the Holocaust.
This bystander apathy has been seen again and again. There's this account of a stabbing on the upper level of a London bus. The author of the article admits to hearing the screams for help repeatedly over a period of time and just sitting there.
There's a report from just last August of a rape and stabbing, this one in the St. Paul, MN area that took place in an apartment building hallway. Five to ten people saw the attack and did nothing. The Associate Press coverage of the attack notes one witness walked up to see what was going on and then just pulled the hood of their sweatshirt up, turned around, and walked away.
Perhaps the most disturbing, at least to me, is from last July. A stabbing victim was laying on the floor of a convenience store. Five store customers simply step over her to continue with their shopping. Not turn around or walk around, they step over her. If that isn't appalling enough, one of them stopped and took a picture of her with a cell phone camera and still continued shopping.
To me, this is unbelievable. Where is the sense of moral decency in these people? Where is any semblance of concern for their fellow man? The apostle Paul certainly called this when he foretold that in the last days that "men shall be lovers of their own selves" and "proud."
To be fair, bystander apathy isn't a new development. Christ's parable of the good Samaritan shows two examples of apathetic bystanders who happen upon a man in need of medical care. Both pass by and leave the man for dead. Thankfully, a Samaritan does choose to help.
While there are no shortages of bystander apathy examples in our society, it is nice to hear about the occasional story of a good Samaritan. Such is the case coming out of Salem, OR that occurred in the early morning hours a week and a half ago. A 22 year old woman on crutches was making her way down the road when she was attacked and nearly raped by a 37 year old man. A van with five people in it stopped and three men from the van jumped out, pulled the attacker off of the woman and then held him for police.
I would hope that the last story is an example of the rule and not the exception to it, but I wonder. Are the cases of bystander apathy in the news more because they are the exception or are they really more common? Is concern for one's fellow man really so far gone in our society or are these isolated incidences? And then I have to wonder if our country's general trend of demanding that the government fix all of our problems is an extension of this bystander apathy. But that would be another post entirely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
