if you can't do the time...

When I was a kid, there was some kind of PSA-type saying (maybe it was even promoted by McGruff, the crime-fighting dog) that went: "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

(We actually used to make a joke out of it, saying it when kids got detention and stuff).

But like a lot of simple sayings, there's a nugget of truth there, and it seems there are a number of people around who have forgot it.

This morning, on the local news program (and NOW I know why I watch - to bring my blood pressure up out of the pit to which it sinks while I am asleep) they were talking about some doctor who was convicted of sexually abusing a couple of teenaged girls. He was given probation for it. (Probation! And he was allowed to continue practicing medicine. I assume that that means the girls were not patients of his)

Well, he now wants off the probation. His lawyer was on and was talking about it. Nowhere did the lawyer EVER claim his client was not guilty, or that he had been rail-roaded, or anything like that. (So I assume that means the guy did it.)

Instead, the lawyer was talking about all the "hardship" his client has faced: his practice has suffered (well, duh. If my doctor were convicted of that, I'd find a new doctor...). His family has been hurt. He even had to move! (oh noes!)

And you know? This kind of thing kind of makes my head spin around.

Look: the doctor apparently did what he was convicted of doing. Should he NOT face some kind of hardship in return? I think probation is getting off pretty easy.

(Standard disclaimer: I don't know the situation 100% but I'm going with my gut on this).

What about the girls? There's nothing that can be done to wipe out what happened to them. (I presume they weren't willing participants because the charge was something like "lewd molestation" rather than "statutory rape"). They probably - the rumor mill being what it is - have suffered at school. Doubtless their families have suffered. I could even see a situation where the family would decide it was best to move in order to make a fresh start.

But the victims and their families, they don't have the option of "getting off probation." If, as I said, the girls were unwilling participants in this, they have the entire rest of their lives they are going to be thinking about it - and even if they get therapy, move on, etc., etc. - It's still there. It's still in the back of their heads.

(I had a few things happen when I was a young teen - nothing on the magnitude of this - but even though I've "moved on," sometimes those memories DO catch me a little short. You really don't ever "get over" some stuff.)

And the whole situation brings to mind a much more famous situation. That of the spoiled-rotten heiress who was sent to prison, went home, got sent back.

Look, honey: just shut up and take the punishment. It makes it a whole lot worse - and it endears you to few people - for you to scream and cry over it.

You did what you were accused of - all the evidence points to it. Just suck it up and do the time.

I saw a bit of a news-story about the different "grades" of justice that seem to exist in California (and again, disclaimer: I don't know how truthful the person being interviewed was, but for purposes of argument, I'm going to assume that she was basically telling the truth). They were interviewing a young woman who had been arrested - either they didn't say why or I didn't hear it - and she talked about her experience in LA county jail.

The jail was overcrowded so she was sent to a holding area for something like 5 days. She said she was in a large room with perhaps 35 other women - one toilet, one sink for all of them. She had to sleep on the floor. (I presume the people were given camp-mattresses or pallets or something though the news program intercut a shot right there of someone curled up and trying to sleep on the bare concrete).

And you know - I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who commit crimes. But I will say (especially if there wasn't some effort to provide at least a bedroll), it is pretty unpleasant - and unpleasant over and above what someone who committed a minor crime deserves - to be stuck in a room with that many strangers and made to sleep on the floor for several days. (I assume the woman's crime, whatever it was, was minor, because she was back out on the street when interviewed).

And they talked about the spoiled-rotten heiress, and how she got a cell to herself - and showed a photo of the type of cell. And I will say - with the exception of the lack-of-bathroom-privacy issue (which is just another reason for me to remain a law-abiding citizen. By far not the most important reason, but the thought of having to pee where a guard could see me would definitely be a deterrent), it didn't look all that different from some summer-camp or old-school dorm rooms I've seen.

But yeah - the lack of privacy and the lack of being able to go where you want, big deterrent. Too bad the spoiled-rotten heiress didn't think of that before hopping in her car to go to the In-n-Out Burger that night.

When I was in junior high school, they used to do a program in my town for what you might call the "at-risk" kids (well, the kids at risk of becoming juvenile offenders). I never went along of course (I was about as straight-arrow, goody-two-shoes as they come), but I knew the basics of what happened (because the teachers told us). They took the kids in to speak to a judge and learn what was involved with sentencing and how jury trials worked. They showed the kids the lock-up. They talked about what the day's schedule was like in the pokey. They had the kids go and stand in a jail cell and they closed the door and told them to look around them and imagine living there. They also had the kids talk with some reformed criminals, to get a first-hand account of what the court and jail system was like. (I think later on - at high school age - they also took the kids to the morgue). It was one of those "scared straight" type programs. No idea how well it worked but I kind of think it would be a good idea to take a kid who's going down the wrong path and show him or her that jail is not easy, not glamorous, and it's not cool to have a record.

I think the other thing - having grown up in a wealthier town - that surprised a lot of the kids is how little their parents' money would do (or so the judge claimed) to get them off. I think that's actually part of the problem: spoiled-rotten heiresses and others who have dough may come to expect that there's a separate, and more generous, justice system for them. (Well, I suppose in some respects there IS, but I also don't think a person should count on it. And they certainly shouldn't feel they have "immunity" from the consequences of their actions because of their wealth - that it's only "little people" who get charged with crimes).

It does frustrate me, though - oh, I know there is a certain percentage of people who are arrested, charged, even convicted who are not guilty of the thing they are accused of having done - but when people who did something wrong, who broke the law (especially when they harm someone else or put others at danger) who then claims that it's "too hard" for them to face whatever punishment comes as a consequence. Stop whining, people. Stop whining and suck it up.