Huh?

I live in a small town, which means our newspaper's generally not much. (Some days it is six pages long, and four of those pages are devoted to the local high school sports teams).

But the police blotter or stories about police actions are sometimes odd and, in their own way, thought-provoking.

One that was in the paper yesterday involved a juvenile who was caught in the act of burglarizing someone's home. I mean, caught in the act - he had apparently been using the bathroom, with the burgled items in his possession, when the homeowner came home. (And one of those items was a bottle of prescription pills - so it was pretty darn clear the stuff DID NOT belong to the kid, and DID belong to the homeowner whose home he was in).

So, as the paper said, the homeowner "detained" the boy, and called the sheriff (This being out in an unincorporated area of the county). The sheriff sent a deputy, who took the kid back to the sheriff's office and called his mom.

Okay, quick quiz: If you are a parent, what would your response be to this situation? Or, if you're not a parent, what would your parent/guardian's response be?


I know what my mom and dad's response would have been had I been picked up for even something as innocuous as jaywalking (which was technically against the law in the town where I grew up and technically you could be ticketed for it, though I never knew anyone who WAS). They would have first thanked the deputy for picking me up, then would have apologized profusely to him for my having caused trouble. Then they would have told him that whatever consequence I faced from the law, they'd see to it that I faced it - a fine, community service, whatever. Then, finally, they'd assure him (especially if he was just releasing me to their custody with no further penalty) that they'd see to it (said in ominous tones while giving me the stink-eye) that I learned never to do that again. (And I would have been scared witless.) Knowing that would have been the general chain of events is probably a big part of why I never got in trouble with the law when I was a kid.

But I'm willing to bet whatever you'd do with your kid - or whatever your parent would have done to you - is not what the mom in the news story did.

No, the mom "chewed out" the deputy (I think that was the phrase the newspaper used) because he had FAILED TO PREVENT HER SON FROM GETTING INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

Now, unless the deputy was the boy's father or uncle or something like that (apparently he was NOT, as it was stated he had not met the mother before), I can't see any good reason why a sheriff's deputy should have the responsibility of preventing all the young teenagers in his jurisdiction from entering a life of crime.

I mean, really: there are probably 40 or 50 kids of that age group in that area. Does she really think the deputy could manage that?

This (and the deputy's response, which I'll give in a moment) says something about the death of responsibility in some sectors of our society. She brought a kid into the world but can't be arsed to ensure that that kid doesn't become a criminal - but she gets angry when the law (which is, incidentally, already overstretched due to budget cuts) doesn't step outside of their normal realm of responsibility and be a parent to her child.

(The deputy's response to her tirade was: "Try being a parent sometime." I hope he doesn't get penalized for that, because that would be my response in that situation.)

But you see it so much - people saying "Someone should DO something!" when often that something - or at least part of it - is within their grasp. But they'd rather have the government step in and do whatever it is - because that means they're absolved from responsibility in the matter. (And, bonus: They can complain then if the thing's not done to their liking.)

I see it a little bit in my students - I've had to get very picky about how much I allow first-drafts of papers, or exactly WHAT I will do in terms of evaluating first drafts. Because I've had people give me what is ALMOST nothing more than a pile of notecards, with the assumption that I will do sufficient detailed critiquing so that they don't have to think about it, just write down what I wrote, and then they'll get an A.

I also see it in students who, when they miss a class, come to the next class and become ANGRY (and yes, I've seen them get angry) because I didn't happen to have a copy of the handout I gave last class with me. I will wearily explain it's up on the class website - but for some people, that's too much work, accessing a website and printing out their own copy. Or I tell them they need to come to my office to get it, and then they complain - my office is no more than 40 paces from the classroom.

I don't know. I guess I'm pretty much true to the GDIs* I belonged to in college (when everyone else was rushing sororities): I take care of things myself and don't like counting on other people. I especially don't like letting the government take responsibility for certain things, because responsibility for something often mutates into permission for them to do other things I'd not like. (Example: "Health care for all, for free!" coming with the "You WILL get an annual checkup, like it or not. And if your cholesterol is even a wee bit high, you WILL take statins. We don't care if you want to try diet and exercise first. We don't care that you're concerned about side effects. We're the government and we know what's best for you." attitude)

(* "Gosh-darned Independents" As opposed to people who were in the Greek system)

I don't know. I often see things as being signs and portents when they're really just dumb things. But it concerns me a little that a woman out in BFE country basically tells the local sheriff's office that it's their responsibility and not hers to see that her son doesn't become a criminal.