Adrian Haymond If you’d like to discuss
or just express your disgust, feel free to contact Haymond at
[email protected].
Click Here for more articles by Adrian Haymond
While “get-tough” sentencing laws cater to our
rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,”
it sometimes gets in the way of simple reason and fairness. Why,
one may ask, should anyone who has killed someone else be entitled
to fairness? Fairness, to continue the argument, would mean to
treat the murderer the same way as he (or she) treated the victim.
In many cases, this argument would seem to fit the ideal of
retribution and justice for grieving families deprived of loved
ones by callous, psychotic sociopaths one would barely consider as
part of the human race. But what if the “killer” is a
child?
Perhaps because of the attention given to sensational cases such
as the Lionel Tate case and the spate of school shootings (most
recently in San Diego), our policy regarding the handling of
violent juvenile crime seems to be reactionary and punitive rather
than preventive. In some circles, this has led to charges of racism
as district attorneys have clamored for years (with the backing of
alarmed citizenry) to try young gang members as adults. It appears
society has given up on trying to reconcile the stereotypical
hoodlum seemingly bred to steal, kill and maim from birth.
But, the recent decisions on Tate and the focus on the San Diego
school shootings (in which none of the perpetrators were anything
close to gang members) have reopened debate on how punitive youth
correction should be.
In Tate’s case, a judge in Florida sentenced him to prison
for killing his 6-year-old friend, Tiffany Eunick. The crime itself
was extremely cruel; Tate (12 at the time) beat the girl to death,
fracturing her skull and breaking her bones in several places.
 Illustration by JARRETT QUON/Daily Bruin
A clear-cut case on the surface, the age of Tate makes it most
troubling. The prosecutor decided to try Tate as an adult; as a
result, the judge felt bound to sentence him to life in prison,
blaming the prosecutor for his decision. In turn, the prosecutor
blamed the judge for not exercising flexibility. In the meantime,
the boy sits today alone in a prison cell, separated from the
inmate population, staring at a lifetime of incarceration in a
maximum-security facility.
Tate’s lawyer argued that his client took his actions from
seeing professional wrestlers bash each other on television. While
it is well known that the moves (and hits) of these
“athletes” are merely staged events, many children grow
up emulating them. In addition, videos are now being sold of people
jumping from houses and throwing trash cans, chairs, and tables at
opponents while trying to virtually decapitate them.
In such an environment, how can we expect a 12 year old (like
Tate at the time of the murder) to feel that their actions will
cause irreparable harm to others? The “athletes” shrug
off their injuries and get up. Sadly, Tiffany did not.
Meanwhile, San Diegans experienced what other schools across
this country have gone through as tragedy struck twice. Two gunmen
opened fire, shooting high school students and teachers during
class hours. Both seemed to enjoy what they were doing, and not
unexpectedly, parents, friends and other students were shocked and
aghast.
The two will probably be convicted as adults of first-degree
murder, sentenced to life in prison (at least). This makes sense at
first glance, but when looking more closely we see the gunmen were
not professional hit men or hardened criminals, but seemingly
typical high school students. Fellow students bullied one
incessantly; the other was a perfectionist who could not be
satisfied by less-than-excellent grades.
What are we to make of this? As a person who was bullied as a
child, I understand the frustrations that must have built up,
repressed for years with no apparent relief in sight. Finally, the
boy’s mind “snapped” and he took the only relief
he felt at hand ““ the ultimate equalizer.
The question posed is twofold: “How can we allow the
boy’s situation to become so dire ““ and why did he have
access to guns?”
The shooter at the other school should have been watched much
more closely, not only for what he would do to others, but also for
what he may do to himself. More often than not, if scholastic
perfectionists turn to violence, the act is against themselves.
For instance, there have been several instances of students at
UCLA taking their own lives for getting less than stellar grades (a
“B” instead of an “A”). But who would take
note of these signs and work to correct them, instead of
considering the person’s aberrations and doomed misfits, in
effect discarding them on society’s slag heap?
We forbid children from driving cars, from drinking and smoking,
and from entering establishments of adult entertainment, but we
will lock them up if their immature minds process information given
to them by others, causing them to act in a destructive manner.
It’s true that there should be some retribution or
punishment, but does life in prison help assuage wounds or assist
in maturing the minds of these young people? They are not your
typical hardened gang members, conditioned to appear as sociopaths,
but disaffected, emotionally troubled kids with immature minds
““ and we’re assuming they know the full impact of their
actions.
Why should children commit all of these crimes? In most cases,
the child’s mind is formed by the guidance and interaction
with affiliated groups, peers and the social environment. Some kids
escape the swirling firestorm of violence, but many do not. For
those who succumb, we blame them for failing to resist and are
quick to give the ultimate retribution to them without at least
trying to determine why they carried out such actions and judge
them accordingly.
Why should we expect perpetually persecuted children to always
submit meekly to their tormentors?
While I definitely do not condone such violent outbursts, should
it really be a surprise that our insensitivity and ostracism of
those deemed unfit by our definition of normality helps create such
explosive and deadly situations?
When we glamorize testosterone-driven, muscle-bound hulks who
curse and spit at each other while seemingly trying to maim
competitors in methods fair and unfair, why shouldn’t we
expect children to act out the exploits of The Rock or Mankind?
We should pay more attention to children and their environment,
for guiding a young child ““ and being there to discuss needs
and fears ““ does not hurt, and it can only help prevent the
normal “ups” and “downs” of childhood from
becoming destructive and terminal.
The victims of the shootings and the beating death certainly
deserve our sympathy. At this time, parents are heartbroken, trying
to be consoled, but finding such relief unattainable. After all,
lives with so much promise are over, snuffed out by immature minds
whose thoughts did not operate in the way we would have liked.
The boys should not be coddled, for they certainly must own up
to their actions. Nevertheless, do we consider these souls forever
“lost” or can we attempt to equip them in a manner that
allows them to pay their huge debt to society in a positive
manner?
The answer to this question will have a great impact on our
prison population ““ and ultimately to the rest of us.