The Slippery Slope – Amanda Green

The Slippery Slope – Amanda Green

I know, I know, this post is late. Blame me, not Sarah. When she asked for a post last night, I had just stumbled home after being away for most of the day and was about to fall face down in bed. So, here I am this morning, trying to get enough coffee into my system to make sense – and to keep reminding myself it isn’t good to throw my laptop through the TV screen because of the idiocy of the media and the double-standard of so many people.

I want to start by saying I have no respect for any man who lifts a hand to a woman simply because he can’t control his temper during an argument or he thinks it is his right to do so because of his maleness. I’ve worked with too many victims of abuse, adults and children, to have any sympathy for the abuser. However, I also have no use for media witch hunts using photos that are alleged to have been “police photos” but that are leaked by TMZ-like organizations without any verification of their authenticity.

In this particular instance, I’m referring to what the media has been doing for the last few days regarding Dallas Cowboys player Greg Hardy. For those not familiar with Hardy, more than a year ago he was arrested, tried and convicted on charges of domestic abuse. He appealed the conviction and it was overturned. Charges were then dismissed when his girlfriend refused to testify against him a second time.

Now, this isn’t a unique case. One of the major hurdles prosecutors have faced for years when trying domestic abuse cases has been the victim deciding not to testify after initially pressing charges. There are a number of reasons why. They range from the victim taking on the blame for what happened to agreeing to a payment from the defendant and being bound by a non-disclosure clause. Then there is also the situation, rare but valid, that the victim really isn’t the victim but has used the accusation to get back at the accused for whatever reason. In these cases, there are either no injuries or injuries that have been self-inflicted.

In Hardy’s case, it is pretty clear that he did hit his girlfriend. How many times, I don’t know and, frankly, I don’t care. He was in the wrong and he should pay for it. He had his day in court. He was convicted and the justice system determined there was an error in his trial and he should be retried. The girlfriend, for whatever reason, said she wouldn’t testify again. So the prosecutors decided not to retry Hardy.

In most situations, that would have been the end of the story. If Hardy were an accountant or writer, we’d never have heard another word about it. But because he is a pro football player, you have media mavens wondering why he was punished no more harshly than Tom Brady was for Inflategate. You have women’s activists saying they will never again cheer for the Cowboys for hiring this horrible person. For more than a week, national news has had story after story about Hardy and how wrong it is for someone like him to be playing pro football.

In other words, they want to remove the man’s profession because he hit a woman, went through the justice system and, when his case was reversed on appeal, the prosecution chose not to proceed. What he did was horrible and, in my mind, unforgivable. However, he had his day in court and should be allowed to follow his profession and, because of the safeguards the NFL has put into place in recent years, get the counselling and oversight he more than likely needs to help him learn not to do something like that again.

Look, folks, the truth of the matter is, the prosecutors made the decision not to go forward with the case. I’m not familiar with the law in the jurisdiction where the alleged assault took place. But assuming it is similar to that here in Texas, the case could have gone forward even without the cooperation of the victim. It would have been more difficult but it has been done before. The prosecutor could have called the responding officers, the detectives who investigated the case, the medical professionals who examined the victim, the victim’s friends and family – as well as the defendant’s friends and family. The prosecutor could even call the victim, albeit that would be a calculated risk because she would be a hostile witness and you don’t want to beat up on the victim in front of the jury.

All of this is a long winded way of saying that I’m tired of the double-standard. As I said, if Hardy were Joe Blow accountant or Certain Famous Writer, no one would bat an eye. He is the latest whipping boy of the media not so much because of who he is and what he did but because of the organization he works for. Ray Rice knocking his girlfriend/wife out in an elevator and Jerry Sandusky abusing who knows how many of his student athletes helped set the stage for the sort of response we are now seeing.

My question for those calling for Hardy to be drummed out of the NFL is multi-fold. First, why aren’t they going after every other employer who knows an employee has been accused of domestic violence – and why not add sex crimes to that? Second, if you remove a person from his source of income, what do you think is going to happen? Isn’t it better to leave him in a situation where he will be monitored and given counselling and supervision than to cut him off from work and income stream, thereby building his frustration and anger?

Yes, this is a roundabout way of wondering why those same folks who are screaming about all the Greg Hardys in the world aren’t doing the same about folks who openly advocate things like sex with minors or who were known to be abusing kids and yet those around them turned a blind eye. We will get up in arms over an NFL player raising his hand to a woman or kids sexting but those dirty little secrets that are known but ignored by the right thinking sort of folks are even worse. How many lives have been ruined because those folks have been protected because they were the darlings of publishing or any other industry?

Let’s look at the other side of the coin. Dallas is considering joining more than 100 other cities across the country that have removed the question on employment applications asking if the applicant has been convicted of a felony. The rationale behind it is that knowing from the beginning of the application process that someone is a convicted felon makes it too easy to dismiss them as an applicant despite their other qualifications. They have served their time, paid their debt to society and should be on even footing with every other applicant from the beginning. Besides, as city officials say, the question will be asked later in the process and considered if germane to the job being applied for.

Sounds reasonable to me. But I guess that same thinking wouldn’t apply to Hardy because he hasn’t “paid” for his crime. Well guess what, the fact he hasn’t is a direct result of the prosecutor from retrying him. I hate what he allegedly did. Hate it more than you can guess and for reasons only a few of you know. But he deserves the same treatment every other person in that situation gets. As long as he lives up to the contract provisions he has with the Cowboys and the NFL, he should be able to keep his job. We don’t have to like the man or his actions but we are going down a slippery slope when we start demanding people be removed from their profession without a conviction on their record – and he doesn’t have one.

149 responses to “The Slippery Slope – Amanda Green

  1. William O. B'Livion

    > The rationale behind it is that knowing from the beginning of the
    > application process that someone is a convicted felon makes it too
    > easy to dismiss them as an applicant despite their other qualifications.

    That may be the rational, but the reason is /RACISM/. Black males have a much higher rate of felonies than whites. Latinos a slightly higher rate.

    Frankly the idea of taking “are you a felon” off the application displays a stunning ignorance of *so* many things that anyone who suggests it ought to be fired or publicly mocked.

    • Right. If the felon question is asked at the interview stage a disproportionate number of minorities interviewed would be rejected, which would open the company up to discrimination suits.

      Here’s a question you’ll never see Hillary! asked: “Should a company be able to decline hiring someone convicted of domestic abuse?”

      • But the felony should only be cause for rejection if the felony is relevant. I’ve worked for companies where as long as the felony wasn’t for drug dealing or theft, it wasn’t a bar to employment. Our background check company wouldn’t even report a felony unless it was one of our “no-nos”. I’ve worked for other companies where even certain misdemeanors were a bar to employment, because of the nature of the business. Again, the background check company only reported a conviction if it was on the list provided to them. In interviews, we simply handed them a list of things that would prevent us from hiring them, and asked if any of them would pop up on a back-ground check.

        • Aimee, absolutely. Someone wanting to work where they have access to drugs but who has a criminal history of drug violations, they have to be viewed as a risk if for no other reason than liability issues for the hiring company. Same with fraud convictions and financial jobs. But, a conviction for a non-related, especially if it is a one-off thing and the applicant has been clean ever since should not be a bar to employment.

          • Perhaps it should be left up to the judgment of the employer whether it should be such a bar.

          • Bullpucky.
            Anyone hiring a felon without a lot of further investigation is a fool.

            • Double bullpucky. Look up the list of crimes that are felonies nowadays. They make more and more things felonies, because frankly the court systems are so busy that they don’t bother with much that isn’t a felony.

              Not all felonies should be a bar to employment, or even considered more than long enough to dismiss them as irrelevant. For example, I have a felony, at eighteen years old I caused a car wreck by driving 20 mph over the speed limit and crossing the centerline. I got charged and convicted (actually pled, because I was guilty, no real argument there) of Vehicular Assault. Now I did my time (which I never had problem with, I deserved punished) and have never been in trouble with the law since. Why should this affect my employability twenty years later?

              On the other hand, I do believe the employer should be able to choose who they employ or not, for absolutely any reason they choose. If they don’t want to employ me because I drove like a teenage idiot and didn’t get away with it, I would consider them a fool, but it should be their right. Same as it should be their right to not employ me because I am unqualified, or because I am male, or because I am white. We absolutely should NOT be able to force an employer to hire someone, regardless of the reasons they don’t want to; whether those reasons are justified, blatantly discriminatory, or simply idiotic, should be immaterial.

        • thephantom182

          In a free country, anything and everything can and should be cause for an applicant’s rejection. Employers are not machinery, they are human beings. Employers have -rights-, those pesky things that a certain political stripe is constantly trying to strip from one group and shower on another.

          Members of visible minorities have higher rates of imprisonment because they do more crime. It’s pretty simple. I’ll grant that when I was a kid in the 1960’s the deck was stacked against minorities, but since the 1980’s? Nuh uh, I’m not buying it any more.

          It’s been THIRTY FIVE YEARS since 1980. Thirty five years of ever-more-Liberal legal system. These days the reverse argument is true, a visible minority gets off -way- easier than a white guy, prosecutors pray to have white guys to prosecute.

          Visible minorities, despite actively being protected by the legal system, still fill the jails. In record numbers. The people in jail these days have to be -extra- useless to get there.

          Please note, this is primarily a -geographical- phenomenon. A quick glance at a crime map shows serious criminality is localized to certain small parts of high density urban areas, particularly where City Hall has been owned by the DemocRats for a really long time.

          Trolls and people who scream “racist” should consider this fact before going off. How people turn out depends partly on where they live. Otherwise covered by the old adage: “If you lie down with dogs you will get fleas.”

          • Visible minorities, despite actively being protected by the legal system, still fill the jails. In record numbers.

            The belief one can ‘get away with it” has long been correlated with higher propensity toward criminal action.

            For example, there are very few “white guys” who would imagine they could slug a cop with impunity, much less try to take away his weapon. Nor would many physically charge at that officer with overt intent to do bodily harm.

            Friends don’t tell friends “You don’t have to take that from him.”

            • The Other Sean

              However, apparently being an armed white guy arguing with cops over your cattle is enough to get you shot.

              • More of that story is coming out. Witnesses say he did not argue with the deputies. He was trying to euthanize the bull the deputies had already shot when the deputies came up behind him and grabbed his rifle. It went off when this happened, and the deputies went into firefight mode.

                • The Other Sean

                  Increasingly it seems like there does need to be weapons confiscation in this country – from the police!

                • Adams county, Idaho
                  The Idaho Statesman had a major article about it yesterday. Should be free to view.

                  • As is noted in the article, or the comments, I forget which, the officers are on paid vacation while this is investigated. If it was me or you, we would likely be in jail or possibly out on bail, our employers certainly wouldn’t be giving us a paid vacation, particularly one that doesn’t even use our regular vacation days.

                    In another article the Sheriff states that the deputies names are being withheld because of fear for their lives. Now I’m not saying this fear is totally unjustified, but do you think my name would be withheld to protect me if I was the one who had shot some guy in his driveway? Besides, in a small community, in a county with only seven deputies in the Sheriff’s Department, do you really believe that withholding the deputies names from the media is going to prevent any of the locals or anyone else who might feel like threatening or harming the deputies from finding out who they were? With multiple non-law enforcement witnesses who had spoken to the deputies?

        • A bank teller has to be bonded by an insurance company for handling the cash. Really not the bank’s call. If the crime is one the insurer considers to be a risk, no bonding, no insurance, no job.

    • Considering how many employers have gone to electronic applications, answering “Yes” to that question will get your application dropped right off the bat, regardless of race, color, creed, gender, sex, age, blood type, etc. By removing it, the applicant moves forward and is judged on his/her qualifications, with many of those judgements coming before anyone even looks at his/her name and makes a guess as to race, color, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

      • True. But there is the other factor that if a conviction is for an offense related to the job being applied for, and is such that it would bar the person from being hired, not asking the question right off the bat means you prolong the process for others who are qualified. Yes, I am playing devil’s advocate here. 😉

        • BobtheRegisterredFool

          HR aren’t lawyers. In some cases they may not even really know what the job is. Wouldn’t figuring out if an offense relates to a job be time and effort consuming, and potentially legally actionable?

          Early on, I made the decision that I never wanted to be in a position of supervision or hiring, because I believe that marijuana use adversely impacts the ability to do very many jobs, and I anticipate such my attitude would be a problem in such a position. (I also became convinced that my capacity for leadership and management is nil.) Marijuana is still illegal, and there are already legal restrictions against such discrimination in some places.

          Asking about felonies right away saves work.

          • Many jobs require a drug test before the employer will accept you. Fail it and you do not get the job. No appeal, though many have tried and have had the courts back the employer every time.

            • BobtheRegisterredFool

              Damage from pot is not only from having metabolites in the system. I just put in an application with a place that said that in California, the law forbid them from asking certain questions about marijuana crimes.

          • The Other Sean

            Just playing devil’s advocate, but why should any of us peons care about legality anymore? Our Federal government and many of our state and local governments don’t seem to, so why should we? I mean, other than getting shot or jailed. Too often police seem to arrest and shoot citizens when citizens disobey the illegal and immoral instructions of the police. Obviously, morals should continue to guide behavior, but when those charged with upholding the law ignore it, why should the average citizen respect it or those supposedly enforcing it?

            • BobtheRegisterredFool

              1) Rule of law may be reparable so long as a critical mass still believes. It is possible that such is valuable enough to be worth the attempt.
              2) Even if the legal process is rent seeking by people with law degrees, the appearance of legality is one way a famous entity can control its losses to such.
              3) If law is dead, why should druggies count as far as civic rights and responsibilities are concerned? Right now they are protected by the law. If none of us recognize the authority that concluded that, why not extend them all the rights and privileges of the outlaw under old Norse law? The flip side of the claim that legalization would stop gang violence is that the same thing would happen if the market was closed by killing the druggies.
              4) Playing the long game, it is not clear that the law is dead. I think we may have had problems as bad before, and found them fixable. You can’t hope to have much influence on rule of law in a far away area, like maybe a big liberal city. You can influence your neck of the woods. If you can keep clean elections and rule of law in your area, or at least promote a balance of power that inhibits massacres, you are ahead of the game.

              • With respect to the long game, “If you can keep clean elections and rule of law in your area” you will become a training ground for superior candidates for the governance of larger areas, as well.

      • So will answering that you are unemployed at the moment.

        The cure is economic recovery so that the job market is tight. When it’s loose, the employers have their choice of employed non-felons and will do anything to curb the pile of resumes.

        • Shucks, then — raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and importing tens of millions of off-the-books immigrants* to do unskilled labor ought clear that problem right up!

          *Findings of the 13 Investigates report include:
          The IRS accepts millions of tax returns – and issues tax refunds – even when taxpayer documents show clear warning signs of identity theft
          Confidential IRS policies instruct IRS employees not to tell taxpayers when someone else uses their social security number to earn income
          The IRS allows illegal immigrants to “borrow” social security numbers that do not legally belong to them
          The IRS is discontinuing a program to notify taxpayers when their social security number is used by someone else to gain employment

    • I see good reasons to take it off and bad. There are certain jobs, be they government or private sector, where a criminal history is something to consider from the very beginning of the application process. On the other hand, there is the undeniable fact that a lot of applicants are instantly dropped to the bottom of the list because of their history. But the same is true when it comes to credit history. Someone can be the best for the job but if their credit check comes back bad, it doesn’t matter why — there are some jobs they won’t be hired for.

      • Maybe — and I know this is a crazy idea — if the government didn’t intrude itself into the employment process and instead allowed companies to determine their own standards and procedures for recruiting, hiring and firing employees, then maybe none of this would be a problem.

        I know, I know: letting employers arbitrarily decide who they want working for them is an idea which could cause the collapse of Civilization. What next – allowing the Catholic Church to determine transgendered women can’t become nuns, or that priests must believe the sacraments of the Church?

        • thephantom182

          You radical, you!

        • What an outrageous thought!! I want my safe room! I want my warm puppy! I want my bubbles!

          • The Other Sean

            I don’t want to know what you’re doing with a warm puppy and bubbles in the safe room.

            • One of the local radio stations is an “all-comedy clips” format. This morning, while driving to work, I heard part of a routine that included, “… and I had to spend twenty minutes cleaning the dog’s butt. (pause) Well, I didn’t have to …”

          • I’ve heard that “Happiness is a warm puppy” is applicable in more than one context. I won’t mention the context here…but I will say that I realized that another context is compatible with a book titled “101 Ways to Wok the Dog”….

        • Catticus Finch

          OMG! Patriarchal microaggression! Why was there not a trigger warning?!


          • Possibly proper answer to “that’s a microagression” is “Thank you. I wasn’t sure if I was pulling the punch appropriately.”

            • I think it more appropriate to respond to them at their own level of intellect and maturity.

              “No, you microaggressed. I’m telling teacher.”

      • Barring some sensitive government/law enforcement/similar jobs where bribery might be a valid concern, I entirely fail to see what the purpose of doing a credit check on someone to give them a job or not is, other than to have a reason (like criminal history–again, within reason) to drop them off the pile.

        Speaking as someone whose credit rating ended up in the toilet some years ago on account of a medical emergency, I find it troubling, the attitude implied–that one must already be financially ‘successful’ in order to have a good, or even decent, job. (Even more so when ‘credit’ history comes into play whether or not you have ever had a credit card. I’ve almost never used them–because they are a dangerous temptation–but that doesn’t matter. If I’d never used them, never had loans, etc, I’d be in just as bad a situation: no credit is as bad/worse than bad credit, as it turns out…)

        It’s one thing when it comes to, say, a landlord wanting to determine the likelihood of whether or not a prospective renter is going to pay their bills/rent or not. I think it’s a whole other ballgame in regards to gainful employment…

        • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

          Well, “Bad Credit” could be a problem for somebody that is to be trusted to handle other people’s money.

          Fortunately, I never had a job that require a Credit Rating Check.

          • And good credit could be a problem for salesmen. . . .

            Really. I’ve heard of places that wouldn’t hire them if they were conservative with their money, because they wanted them hungry for commissions.

          • Bad credit is also a strike against you in a job with a security clearance. The assumption being if you need the cash you might do something stupid…

        • My younger sister, having used a debit card all her life, had to get a secured card for six months to get one in her late thirties. But she concluded she wanted the credit rating.

        • Matter of whether you can trust someone to do something (like pay back a loan) that they said they would. Works only on averages, there are always special cases where the credit rating problem wasn’t caused by poor judgement or values, which means it should be a flag to enquire further, not a disqualifier.

  2. You don’t understand. Football is a uniquely American pastime and thus a uniquely American Evil which all Good People are required to deplore.

    Besides, applying the same (more or less) standard to all people before the Law is sooooo republican. Where would such a thing lead? Before long we’d demand that talented Hollywood directors be treated the same as talentless hacks, that politicians who protect the right of women to murder their unborn children be held to the same standards as those who think “What if those fetuses are people?” Why, some might even insist that the leading candidate for the Democrat presidential nomination adhere to the same security protocols as the lowest staffer.

    That way lies madness, madness I tell you.

    • I know, I know. It really is unreasonable of me to expect them to apply the same standard to Roman Polanski — who the darlings want to be rid of all accusations against him — that they do to Greg Hardy or even Joe Blow walking the street. I really must adjust my perceptions.

  3. William O. B'Livion

    > All of this is a long winded way of saying that I’m tired of
    > the double-standard.

    I’m not.

    Do you know that[1] an NFL player was arrested EVERY MONTH from sometime in **2009** to September of 2015?

    George Bush once said something to the effect of “I’m not going to tell kids that they can do drugs and still be President”.

    Your accountant or your mechanic aren’t looked up to by 1000s or millions of children. They aren’t role models to an entire generation.

    Professional Athletes *are*. Whether they should be or not, they are, and I have no problem with the notion that they should be held to higher standards.
    [1] At least according to one source, I don’t follow it that close

    • There was a book that I leafed through at the bookstore once, and wish that I had bought (and may yet still purchase as it there are cheap used copies available on Amazon) – The Pros and the Cons: The Criminals Who Play in the NFL (Jeff Benedict and John Yeager) …
      It was simply disturbing, how many professional football players had criminal records.

      • This has less to do with the NFL and more to do with the Society in which those players are raised.

        From early adolescence most of them exist in a favored status. Starting in Middle School they are granted byes in all zones of life not involving the athletic field and the effect simply gets more pronounced through High School and College.

        Academically there are few standards maintained, socially they are not only excused most excesses, they are idolized by peers and many adults. Like a warrior caste they are taught that only strength is worthy of their respect and that their strength is the reason they are respected.

        Moreover, athletics is one of the few areas in American life where a convicted criminal is allowed redemption — not by reconfiguring his life but achieving Glory. They exist in a system which exploits and profits from their abilities and communicates that their social value is how they perform fourteen Sundays a year.

        The more astounding fact is that there are many who do not commit criminal acts. Which still doesn’t mean we get to hold the innocent accountable for the sins of the guilty.

      • Gosh, gladiators might have violent proclivities?

    • I doubt we want to institute a policy of corporate guilt, in which all NFL players and employees are condemned by association.

      I do not know how many NFL players there are (shucks, i don’t even know how many teams, much less players per team) but granting they “count” begins in January 2009 we’re only talking about what, 80 arrests? Assuming there are no repeats (for all I know it is the same NFL player arrested every month) that seems a fairly small percentage.

      I bet you there is a teacher arrested every effing day during that same period … and they are paid to be role models.

      • Instapundit has writing a series on female teachers who have been caught abusing students and yet men are the the evil ones to be kept out of the schools.

      • William O. B'Livion

        I did the math (assuming 80 arrests since 1 Jan 2009 to 30 Sept. 2015) and it turns out that NFL players get arrested at .3 percent (not 3%, point zero three percent. .044 v.s. .047) more often than the general public.

        Which kind of surprised me.

        But that’s not the point. That number should VERY LOW because Owners and Coaches SHOULD hold them to a higher standard.

        And often when teachers are convicted of crimes they *are* fired. Usually over the objection of the teachers unions, but that’s a different rant.

        One of my high school biology teachers was arrested and convicted *of smuggling an endangered bird across state lines*. After he got out of prison he got his job back. Even as a young adult (he was arrested the year after I took his class, and was back teaching before I got out of the Marine Corps) I felt that was wrong.

        Like training, one does not *rise* to the level, one descends to it. If you want better behavior you have to insist on it.

        And note that none of the people mentioned here were busted for obscure bullshit like ruining a protected waterway (draining a large wet spot in their back yard) or improperly calculating earnings on long term capital gains on investments that were tax shelters but later not or whatever.

        We’re talking about assault, drug use (both performance enhancing and recreational) and in a few cases murder.

        And yeah, who would have thunk that Gladiators would be less than peaceful people off the field. Well, I would. Was a Marine, among other things and never *ever* hit a partner. Broke some stuff, screamed a bit, scared the living hell out of other people, but never *ever* hit anyone who wasn’t already engaged in an act of violence.

        • Tweeeeet! Procedural Error!

          The proper comparison is not NFL players to General Public, it is NFL players to Men Aged X to Y* … more properly, men of the same racial/ethnic distribution.

          N.B. – none of this should be interpreted to constitute endorsement of the crimes committed; rather it represents an aversion to penalizing third parties for the misdeeds of others.

          *Where X and Y represent the lower and upper limits of the age demographic.

        • Let me point out that last time I checked, NFL players were still private employees of private corporations*, why should the government (or for that matter the general public, except for through boycotts) be able to tell them who to hire or fire?

          *Why should the government pay to build a private corporations place of business is a whole ‘nuther rant.

          • The Other Sean

            IIRC, the Green Bay Packers are owned by Green Bay.

            • Actually, they’re owned by a non-profit corporation that people in Green Bay can own shares of. They were given an exception to the NFL by-law that requires single ownership of teams, or ownership by a small group, one member of which owns at least 1/3.

          • William O. B'Livion

            Yeah, because I’m well known for advocating government intervention. In fact it’s about all I ever write about–how the government should step in and fix broken markets.

            Oh, wait, it’s not Opposites day. Never mind.

            I think that the *OWNERS* should do the right thing and enforce contracts with their coaches, staff and players that include strict morals, dress and behavior clauses both on the field and off.

            I think that fans ought to grow the f*k up and simply refuse to reach into their pockets and throw money at teams.

            Michael Vick is STILL playing for the Pittsburg Steelers. **UNSUPPORTABLE**.

            But we get what we want because we keep paying for it. And at the same time bemoaning the coarsening of the culture.

            • Well, I personally found Michael Vicks punishment absurd in the first place, so I don’t have a problem with him playing after he erved his time. (I also haven’t watched a football game since I lived in a state that voted NOT to pay for a new stadium, and then the governor decided we didn’t really know what was good for us, so the state should pay for it anyways). No I don’t support dogfihting, but I also consider it a minor offense, certainly not comparable with rape which I distinctly recall another football player being found guilty of at the same time, and not only did he get considerably lesstme for that, but there was very little media coverage, and no media outcry. Now I like dogs and with the possible exception of my mother, value my dogs lives over that of any persons; but IMHO anybody who thinks a dog bred and raised for pen fighting is worth more than a woman getting raped, should be taking Michael Vicks place in prison.

              • I have no real problem with dog fights so long as they are conducted under Marquess of Queensberry Rules, with American Athletic Union certified refs and appropriate gloves, mouthpieces and headgear.

                In lime jello.

    • Here’s where I’m going to get into trouble again. Parents need to help their children find true role models. Football players, sorry, aren’t. They are professional athletes, out to play a game for as much money as they can earn. Too many of them leave the game, either because of age or injury, never to be heard from again. They don’t have a plan for afterwards and they don’t pay it forward. You ask most athletes and they will tell you they don’t want to be role models.

      As for the arrest figures, again, big deal. You have the same sort of thing with actors and writers and bankers and whoever. We hear about it with football players because of who they are. We are the ones who put them on a pedestal. Perhaps it is time to knock them off of it.

      But here is the thing and this is what bothers me the most about the Greg Hardy situation. The media that is using him as the current whipping boy is overlooking the fact that there is now NO CONVICTION on his record. It was reversed. The State chose not to go forward and try him again. The NFL has punished him for violated its policies.

      Am I glad he is with the Cowboys? Hell no. But I also don’t think you toss a person out of a profession without a valid conviction on the records — or a long and well-documented history of such aberrant behavior. To the best of my knowledge, the latter is not in the possession of the NFL.

      Personally, I wish no team had picked him up but I don’t like witch hunts — which this had turned into in the media — and I fear the downward slope this could turn into. No conviction, I have an issue with kicking someone out of a job. But that’s me. I wouldn’t ask Hardy to sit at my table but I will him make a living and, right now, the NFL will keep an eye on him and require (hopefully) counselling.

      • The Other Sean

        I’m glad he’s with the Cowboys, at least to the extent that it means he’s not affiliated with any team (or its host city) I care for.

        • Given the way the Cowboys are playing, he’s probably not going to be doing anything post-season either, so that further reduces the odds if seeing him.

          • I live in a suburb of Dallas. I don’t follow football but I dislike stains on my city’s reputation. I was born in NYC I know that there are evil/criminal people everywhere and that they are a certain percentage of the population.

            btw am finishing Cat at Bay. It’s very good.

            • Valid point. The team name is the “Dallas” Cowboys, after all, not the “Metroplex” Cowboys. And apparently no one remembers Michael Vick or a few other guys with on-the-record legal infractions.


              • The Other Sean

                I remember back after the Michael Vick story hit the news, somebody suggested treating Vick like one of his dogs. If he has a bad day and loses, he gets taken out back and shot. I laughed hysterically when I heard. It seemed like both poetic justice and overreaction.

        • I expect that the Cowboys grasp the W.W.W.* rule — it doesn’t matter whether they root for you or against you so long as they buy tickets.

          *World Wide Wrestling

      • William O. B'Livion

        Here’s where I’m going to get into trouble again. Parents need to help their children find true role models. Football players, sorry, aren’t.

        Yes, they are. Doesn’t matter whether you WANT them to be, doesn’t matter wether they SHOULD be.

        They *are*.

        Football players, Basketball players, Baseball players, Politicians, Actors/Actresses. Even *fake* ones (this is the nice thing about Frozen. Pictures of Anna getting a train run on her by the LA Lakers while on a coke binge will never…*probably* never get posted to pastebin) fill our children’s lives and shape their minds and expectations of how they should behave and what they can expect.

        They are professional athletes, out to play a game for as much money as they can earn.

        Which, in a capitalist society (and I’m as big a fan of capitalism as there can be. Not the most articulate defender, but a HUGE fan) is right and proper.

        But in a *society* it is also right and proper that everyone around them should stop and f*king think about what message they are sending and how that’s going to impact things down the line.

        When *money* is your only standard a talented prostitute can out-earn a CEO, and with reasonable investment when she’s young as well as avoiding hard drugs and cigarettes, and working to maintain her figure and appearance, by the time she’s “too old” she’s going to be very, very well off.

        Going to suggest to your daughter that she start studying how to blow a man’s, uh, mind?

        Of course not. Because while we may be capitalists, we also believe that there are moral ways to live one’s life and that NOT behaving morally should have immediate consequences.

        You ask most athletes and they will tell you they don’t want to be role models.


        They don’t want the *responsibility* of being a role model, but they want the money and the fame and the endorsements.

        And it’s the fame and the face time that makes them role models.

        William “Refrigerator” Perry and Jim McMahon were role models. James Maness? Who?

        Frankly what makes them role models is the money and the fame. When you see your father[1] CHEERING for one or another player, when BOTH your parents are wearing their ONE HUNDRED DOLLAR team jersey: (really? REALLY?), what are kids supposed to think?

        It’s the money, the cars and the women (in other words the fruits of capitalism) that make them role models.

        For doing what little kids pay (well, their parents do) for free.

        Because we (men) (mostly) want to be like them. Hero of the Gridiron/Court/Diamond. (I’d rather be a Lt. Colonel in the Marine Infantry, but I stood a better chance of being on a basketball team despite being 5’9, white and having no depth perception)

        Perhaps it is time to knock them off of it.

        Until I sat down and wrote this I would have agreed with that 100 percent.

        After having to think it through, no. Except for the entitled mindset, the bad attitudes, poor sportsmanship and the occasional GF with a black eye, why *shouldn’t* they be role models?

        They work VERY hard to be the VERY best in their professions, they start training from a young age, and while they do get some advantages they also take a lot of risks.

        This is what we expect our children to do–work hard, focus on success and do their best.

        But we also want our children to play by the rules, to be gracious winners, be graceful in defeat, love puppies and kittens, know when the rules don’t apply and to shoot bad people in the face.

        We shouldn’t be knocking them OFF the pedestal, we should make them live up to it.

        And if they don’t want to be held to higher standards than the hoi polloi, well they can go join them.

        The media that is using him as the current whipping boy is overlooking the fact that there is now NO CONVICTION on his record. It was reversed.

        Yeah, OJ had *NOTHING* to do with Nicole’s murder.

        One can be innocent as hell and still be an utter dirtbag, and frankly if we don’t start insisting on higher standards in public life, ALL of public life, then we’re going to get what we deserve.

        [1] My father was odd, he didn’t cheer for people or teams, he cheered for good plays. He also pretty much stopped watching pro sports and only watched college).

        • Part of why players get the Big Money is because they are role models. They may not like it, they may not enjoy admitting it, but it is a fact. That is why the games have their “heroes.” It is why players who cheat, whether by steroids or dirty play, are denounced. It is why fans queue up for autographs and memorabilia.

          Maybe the players didn’t start it, maybe they don’t want it, but fans get involved in, spend money to support those teams because the players are role models.

          Among other things, it is why players get lucrative endorsement contracts. Nobody bought Nikes because they wanted to “Play like” Michael Jordan; they wanted to “be like Mike.”

          We might intelligently discuss what sorts of role models these players are, but it is absurd to deny that they are.

        • As I think about it, I think we would be better off teaching our children what would make a good role model, and act appropriately, than we would be to insist that others beyond our control be good role models. There are too many people out there, including actors, business people, writers, and even neighbors, who can be both good role models and bad, that can be either good or bad role models. We would do better to learn to choose good role models, much like we need to choose good friends.

          But then, I don’t like football, or sports in general. (Well, I have an interest in shooting sports, and HEMA, but that’s probably about it…)

          • The thing is … certain so-called role models can be used as a BAD EXAMPLE! You can point to them, shake your head sorrowfully, and say, “Oh, dear … don’t ever do (whatever) … because THIS is what happens to people who do…”

            • And in certain cases, like Daryl Strawberry, they can actually change from bad example role models, to good examples. Those actually can make the very best, because you can point to the same person and say, “don’t screw your life up the way they did” and also say, “see, just because you screwed up/did something wrong, doesn’t mean you should give up trying, you can still turn your life around and do something worthwhile; but it would have been easier to do if you hadn’t screwed your life up in the first place.”

              Admittedly, these are rare, but that is what makes them stand out in the first place, kind of like what makes top athletes become role models, because they are exceptional.

  4. The MSM being quite the fans of the theory of guilty in the court of public opinion in spite of being innocent. Charges are always above the fold page one. The facts that disprove those charges are printed back with the want ads if at all.

    • The MSM being quite the fans of the theory of guilty in the court of public opinion …

      Of course they are; they run that court, they sell the popcorn to the spectators and they sell indulgences to the accused. Besides, they aren’t in the business of justice or fairness, they’re in the business of selling attention.

      And even so their businesses are failing.

    • Eventually, unless you are either a true believer or terminally foolish you start to add up all the inconsistencies and compare their “truth” to your lying eyes. We have long since reached that tipping point with both our elected officials and our media pundits. Explains why surveys indicate that public confidence in both is approaching single digits.

      • The Other Sean

        This involves actually seeing the inconsistencies. Many live such circumscribed lives that they don’t see around the narrative. Alternately, they may believe the facile explanations of the narrative as to why a problem exists in their area but not in others.

    • William O. B'Livion

      Not guilty is a far cry from innocent.

      Especially in this case.

  5. This ALL, IMHO, falls under the ‘selective outrage’ category. If you want to make it standard, I’d agree, but not just the male abusers, I’d add the female abusers too… Re the criminal question on job apps… How well do you think that is going to go over applying for a LEO position? Or a FIRE/EMS position… One handles a gun, the other drugs… Just think about it… Or a job with a significant security clearance… Can you say blackmail???

    • Absolutely about female abusers. If I failed to make that clear, my apologies. And I agree with you on the LEO apps and the rest of it.

      • The Other Sean

        A colleague’s daughter recently graduated from college and got a job as a librarian. Her actual start was delayed for about 3 weeks due to a background check.

        • There was a story on the news this morning about how a whole group of physical therapists have found themselves with lapsed state licenses because the government decided they needed to do fingerprint checks on them. Didn’t let the folks know it would increase the amount of time needed to process the licensing applications/renewals. As a result, some have been placed on leave, others have lost jobs. Now, finally, the State says they will reinstate the previous licenses long enough to process the new apps. Yet another reason I have issues with the State getting involved in the process.

          • Sure – Because the unholy scourge of unlicensed physical therapists is so terrifyingly monumental that only the full coercive power of Government can keep it in check.

            And don’t even get me started on unlicensed hair stylists. The horror…the horror…

            • Then maybe I can interest you in these pamphlets on the dangers of unlicensed interior designers?

            • William O. B'Livion

              Are you ok with unlicensed doctors?

              • BobtheRegisterredFool

                If we are to legalize recreational drug use, it would be most rational if combined with repealing the Food and Drug Act, and suspending the licensing requirement for the practice of medicine and pharmacy.

              • scott2harrison

                Yes. I would rather see their malpractice insurance bill than their licence.

                • William O. B'Livion

                  Had a friend of my dad’s who was widely regarded as one of the best OB/GYNs in the state (allegedly). Worked at a teaching hospital for a while, ran his own practice for a while.

                  Quit delivering babies because the insurance was too high. It was costing him 7 MILLION a year for liability insurance because if the baby came out imperfect no matter WHAT the reason, he got sued.

                  I (personally) knew another doctor who more than a few at the hospital I worked thought was a butcher because he had the worst won/loss record of any surgeon in the place.

                  Come to find out that was because he’d take cases no one else in the state would touch. You in a bad way? Everyone says “Inoperable, you gonna die”? This guys says “Yeah, you probably going to die, but I’ll give it a shot”.

                  So yeah, his mortality rate was high, but you had a fighting chance.

                  So no, I’d rather not let the sort of people who do risk analysis for insurance companies pick my doctors for me.

                  • Once read a column about how double referals — you twice get sent to another doctor — had the worst outcomes. Commentariat shrieked, “WELL, DUH.”

                    OTOH, my great-aunt had pancreatic cancer, and the first doctor said, You’re going to die, about then, the second doctor tried a bunch of stuff, and it turned out the first one was right.

              • “Are you ok with unlicensed doctors?”


  6. thephantom182

    “…and to keep reminding myself it isn’t good to throw my laptop through the TV screen because of the idiocy of the media and the double-standard of so many people.”

    You should do what I do, no cable TV. Strictly Netflix and Sirius radio. Your spleen will thank you.

    • No cable, no satellite, and no “free air” signal here for a few years. XM set in the car (usually set to ’40s). Amazing how little “media” induced stress there is with that arrangement. News? There’s this web thing.

  7. c4c

  8. Great post Amanda – and I have to say, I couldn’t agree more. I had this exact conversation (metaphorically anyway) with someone I’ll call Famous (Liberal) Author, wherein I took the position that if you only believe in the justice system when it produces results that fit your world view (rather than the Law) then you don’t really believe in justice or the rule of law at all. It was a bit of a fruitless exercise. The discussion never moved past the point of disagreement that even people whose conduct you don’t agree with (as long as it’s not criminal) have the same rights and protections as people with whom you do agree and approve of. The irony that this particular person makes a lot of hay off speaking out about the evils of “othering” groups just blew me away.

  9. There are so many people I have heard bemoaning the return rates to prison… yet they want to make sure no one can ever survive an accusation without their life being permanently ruined, much less a conviction. If you want someone to reform, you have to make an avenue to reform them, or you should just shoot them and have done with it rather than prolong the agony. Justice is a cold and heartless, but she’s not deliberately malicious which is what a lot of what’s being pushed is. (Yes, I agree with you. This should be long done with. I’m just seeing a bigger pattern of which this is simply one symptom.)

    • This is why I’m in favor of prison reform–shouldn’t the goal to be to rehabilitate as many as possible, instead of turning them into repeat offenders? That’s not to say that personal decisions/free will don’t enter into the equation–a person chooses to break the law, generally speaking–but stacking the deck against any efforts made to become a law-abiding citizen doesn’t seem right to me. (Barring, obviously, certain professions where any kind of a criminal record is, indeed, problematic. Law enforcement, for example…)

      Something I felt they touched on nicely with the Ant-Man movie, actually: sure, in his case it worked out because he was being set up to become a superhero…but the point early on was that all his efforts to abide by the law were coming up zeroes, because he was losing jobs (even crappy ones). (Admittedly, most employers would have very valid concerns about hiring an ex-thief, but…)

      • The problem is we don’t actually know how to rehabilitate people. Churches SOMETIMES manage it.

        • The great difficulty is making someone what to change themselves, when they’ve been conditioned since toddlerhood that [bad thing] is, if not fully approved of, at least tolerated if accomplished successfully. And even more when the surrounding culture lauds those who commit [bad things] if done against “those people.”

          • Yes. Rehabilitation will *never* occur without the willing, nay, determined cooperation of the guilty. And the likelihood of that is definitely low in the current justice/prison system (though there are amazing exceptions), let alone the wider culture, as you said.

            Something that definitely helps is good role models. There’s a tenuous connection between cultural myths, history, and moral behavior, but I believe it is there. This is what worries me over the current fad of tearing down the Founding Fathers, and any other historical figure that once was held up as an example of what a man should be.

            Which leads back in to moral relativism (tired brain, skips around a bit), and the idea that if you’ve got nothing to stand for, anyone else who does will come along and trump you with their belief, even if that belief is remarkably stupid…

        • I don’t think that rehabilitation is possible in most cases. Some do straighten themselves out but many don’t.

        • Rehabilitate – a : to restore to a former capacity. In other words, get them back out there in the hood. O, there are other definitions, but this one seems to apply the most often. Studied Criminal Justice in college, and it seems like the same theories are recycled every 50 years or so – with none of them working. I’d raise the point in class that any effective behavioral mod would require mind control – and do we trust the government with that. Always got an interesting moment of silence with that question.

          • Strictly speaking, I have a problem with saying that rehabilitation is impossible…but, strictly speaking, I also have a problem with the idea that we, as a society, have the ability to turn criminals into upstanding citizens, without taking into account the proclivities and personality (or even personalities) of the individual criminal.

            I would suspect, however, that a system where the criminal makes restitution to his victims, and where he is taught redemption and forgiveness and letting go of evil things…and where steps are taken to help the criminal get back on his feet after the crime is committed (taking into account that the criminal must also earn back trust from the community)…such a system *might* have lower recidivism rate than other programs.

            Having said that, I’ve never studied Criminal Justice, so I don’t know to what degree such a system has been tried, or to what degree it would be to even try such a system.

            Now that I think of it, I recall hearing that if we were to take the population that used to be in mental hospitals, and add that to the population that used to be in prison, we get about the same number of people that we have in prison right now (now that we’ve pretty much closed asylums). This makes me think that any attempt to lower recidivism without taking mental illness into account is bound to do poorly…

            • Er, “…to what degree it would be to even try…” should say “…to what degree it would be practical to even try…”

            • Rehabilitation isn’t impossible, but it is only possible with the active cooperation of the criminal. If the criminal doesn’t want to change their ways and become an upstanding citizen, they aren’t going to rehabilitate.

              At a total WAG with no evidence except my own random and anecdotal observations, I would guess the rehab rate for criminals* is around 10-15%.

              *percentage figured per criminal going through the system, not per crime. Meaning many criminals go through the system multiple times, but for the purpose of my WAG, they are counted as 1, same as the guy who only goes through the system once.

        • Nonsense! of course we know how to rehabilitate people. If they are progressive we declare them rehabilitated; if they are conservative we declare them nonredeemable until they renounce their conservative ways.

          Whether a person can be rehabilitated or not matters less than what we communicate to the world about ourselves by excusing (or not) their transgressions.

          Because Proglodytes deny individual human agency, rehabilitation is always by caste, not by individual.

      • BobtheRegisterredFool

        We know how to kill people. If we wanted, we could rapidly empty the prisons into mass graves.

        We can probably do horrible mind destroying things to people, that would make killing look clean. It’d cost a lost, and take time, but it could be done.

        When some has been told not to do something their whole life, and goes ahead and does very bad things anyway, we do not know how to make them stop by saying ‘stop’ yet again.

        It is a problem of persuasion and force.

        There are people who do not want to do very bad things. There are people who will want to, but will persuade themselves not to do them. There are people who will not persuade themselves, but will allow society to persuade them. The folks who end up in prison tend to be the remainder, especially the incompetent part of the remainder.

      • Life sucks.
        Displacing that fact from the person who has actively don’t wrong, and putting it upon an innocent employer is not Just.

      • William O. B'Livion

        > (Admittedly, most employers would have very valid
        > concerns about hiring an ex-thief, but…)

        I’ve worked with several people over the years who had a felony on their record, and at least one of them was in a job that paid well above the average.

        Having a felony on your record doesn’t automatically disqualify you for many jobs, and the further in your past it is the less impact it’s going to have.

        Hell, it doesn’t even disqualify you for a freaken SECURITY CLEARANCE:

        What may not disqualify you but may delay the receipt of a DoD clearance?
        * You have significant foreign national contacts (immediate family members living in other countries)
        * You own property in another country
        * You have been convicted of a felony within the past 10 years
        * You have a significant history of financial problems with heavy indebtedness and late payments (over 180 days), bad debts, fairly current tax liens, repossessions and garnishments

        But what as noted someone has to *want* to reform, and make the effort to get out of the lifestyle (family, friends, neighborhood) that made those sort of choices seem more reasonable.

        The Ant-Man movie WAS F*CKING HOLLYWOOD. A bunch of white, hard left idiot f*king liberals with an agenda that even when they AREN’T pushing it still leaks out around the edges.

        Here we find comments like:

        A large proportion of former prisoners have low levels of educational
        attainment and work experience, health problems, and other personal
        characteristics that make them hard to employ. For example, 40 percent of
        state and federal prisoners have neither a high school diploma nor GED, nearly a third have a physical impairment or mental condition, and over half reportedly used drugs in the month before their arrest (Petersilia 2005). Once in the community, not only are many employers reluctant to hire convicted felons, but many former prisoners are legally barred from certain occupations.

        So we have people with poor education, little/poor work experience, “health problems” and it’s ONLY the felony that keeps them from being employed?

        The median age was 35 years. … About half had at least a high school education prior to prison. About three in five respondents reported using illegal drugs more than once a week in the six months leading up to their imprisonment, with marijuana and cocaine each
        accounting for about a third of reported drug use. This number increased to
        about two in three respondents when alcohol intoxication was also considered.


        Many respondents had a significant history of criminal
        activity before the current incarceration. Eighty-four percent
        had prior criminal convictions with about a third having four
        or more previous convictions. Sixty-eight percent had
        served a prison term before (28 percent had served three
        or more prior prison terms), and 47 percent had been
        returned to prison for a parole or probation violation at
        some point. About a third (34 percent) had served time in a
        juvenile correctional facility, and the median age at first
        arrest was 17 years.

        Starting to get a picture of the kind of folks having this problem?

        Many of the Returning Home respondents had an active
        employment history before entering prison. More than two thirds
        (68 percent) had worked in the six months preceding
        their incarceration, … The majority (70 percent) had held a job
        for at least one year prior to entering prison, and the
        median hourly wage was $9 per hour. Besides employment,
        respondents reported a variety of other sources of income
        (figure 1). Illegal income was a source of financial support for
        over a third (35 percent) of the sample. However, only 11
        percent reported that all of their income came from illegal

        So what did the the study find?

        Two months after being released, 43 percent of respondents
        had been employed at some point since leaving prison, but
        only 31 percent were currently employed.


        Eight months after release, more respondents had
        successfully found employment than at two months
        postrelease. Sixty-five percent had been employed at some
        point since release; however, less than half were actually
        employed at the time of the interview. While the majority
        reported that their criminal history made the job hunt more
        difficult, 80 percent of employed respondents said their
        employer knew about their criminal history.

        So really when you consider the *general* quality of this labor pool, yeah, the felony holds them back a bit, but not nearly as much as their lack of education, poor job skills and demonstrable lack of judgement.

  10. Perhaps related, per Instapundit, the feminists have recently learned to their shock and astonishment that ibarcerated felons and unemployable ex-cons can’t and don’t pay child support.

    “We mast have outsmarted ourselves there , Sister Erinys.”

  11. We also don’t know if it’s a case of reciprocal abuse, as from what I’ve been reading, most cases of domestic violence are — if anything, the female partner is more likely to have initiated it. But of course that doesn’t make good SJW press.

    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

      I remember reading about a study concerning “domestic abuse” where when the “abuse” was one-sided (ie one person mostly at fault) the split between men doing and women doing was about 50-50.

      Of course, the woman was more likely to be throwing things than the man.

      On the other hand, men are “blamed” for “abuse” even when the woman starts it.

      Note, I don’t approve of men “beating on their wives” but women aren’t always the “helpless victims” that certain people want to make them out to be especially when it comes to emotional abuse.

      Final note, I read about another study that had such things as “storming out of the room” as abusing the wife. Huh? A guy gets extremely mad and leaves the room so he doesn’t hit his wife is the same as hitting his wife? Idiots.

      • That last bit makes as much sense as saying that if a guy says, ‘no, thanks, I don’t want to have sex” he can be brought up before the college kangaroo* court on charges of sexual assault and harassment.

        *with deep and profound apologies to all kangaroos and wallabies, even those who do not practice law.

        • But “withholding sex and affection” is abuse!

          Mind you, the college that had that on their public website finally took that part down.

      • Storming out of the room denies her closure and entails serious emotional harm to her. In fact, anything other than admitting his failure to fulfill her needs and promising to do better (there is no try, there is only do or not do!) is abuse.

        It is also abusive if he caves in to her demands/complaints too readily as this implies he is merely catering to her and not treating her as a fully equal human.

      • My late brother’s ex got him drunk one evening, and then proceeded to needle and hit on him for several hours until he finally retaliated by slapping her face.

        She then left, woke up the on-duty cop in the town they lived in and got him arrested while his handprint was still on her face. He beat the rap, only because the next door neighbor testified in his favor.

  12. I hate the phrase “I’ve paid my debt to society”.
    No, you have not.
    You have been punished for the damage you’ve done to others. That does not “re-pay” a fricking thing.

    By all means, repay your debt to society.
    But you damnsure don’t do that while rotting in prison. That’s something you can only do one freed, voluntarily.
    And I must note that very few people who claim they’ve “paid their debt to society” have ever actually offered restitution to their victims after being punished by the judicial system.

    • You can’t repay your debt to society if you murdered someone.

      • William O. B'Livion

        What is your debt to *society* if you murdered a pedophile, the leader of a drug cartel, or someone engaged in “human sex trafficing”

        Frankly society is in YOUR debt in those cases.

        But more accurately we can *very closely* determine exactly how much a person is worth to society (and to a lesser approximation their family). So it is possible, though unlikely that one could repay one’s debt.

        BTW, civil courts do this sort of thing all the time, so it’s not just me being contrary. They may have formulas that have greater or lesser degrees of fidelity to reality, but it’s done.

  13. I want to start by saying I have no respect for any man who lifts a hand to a woman simply because he can’t control his temper during an argument or he thinks it is his right to do so because of his maleness.
    I think that’s perfectly OK if he holds it up and only says “Now, waitaminit!”
    Hitting is right out.

  14. BobtheRegisterredFool

    Whereas Mizzou shows that college football players are disproportionately sympathetic with bullies who commit violent crimes under the influence, and that university presidents will not stand up to them,

    Whereas the situation isn’t going to fix itself,

    I move that it be resolved that Football games where one or more players have been convicted of drug violations shall not count.

  15. On April 23 of this year, Jalita Johnson of Jonesboro, GA, bought a 9 mm Glock plus a 50 round drum magazine and other stuff at the direction of her boyfriend, an out-of-state convicted felon. He gave her the money for the gun. In May, he used that gun to kill a cop in Omaha, Nebraska, and was promptly killed by the cop’s partner. A week ago, Jalita was sentenced by federal judge Elizabeth Ross for the federal crime of making the straw purchase.
    Guess what her sentence was?
    Nope, you are WRONG! No jail time at all.
    40 hours of community service, six month’s house arrest, one year probation. That’s all THAT felon got. Google the woman’s name and you can verify for yourself that’s true. Now: who committed the greater crime against society? Jalita Johnson, or Greg Hardy? But, unless you CAREFULLY read your NRA newsletter, or are a cop in Nebraska, you don’t know nuthin about the case.
    I want some frappen righteous media anger about this. Frap, I want a frappen mob with burning torches.
    (Note: there are more inflammatory details about this case, but I will leave you to the internet to discover them.)

  16. To rehabilitate people, we currently lock them up for years in a harsh micro-society full of criminals and near-criminals (some of the guards) and expect them to feel punished, while taking away the tools they might use to redeem themselves (respect of family and friends, a job, a law-abiding community.) This, not surprisingly, doesn’t work — but it does form half of an underclass life support system, the other half being welfare, notably AFDC, which keeps the underclass generating more fatherless children.

    What might work is short, sharp punishment – something painful and public – which immediately puts the convicted back into the life they know, with people who can help guide them. But nooooo, that’s uncivilized! 🙂

    I wrote something about the Ray and Janay Rice case back in the day. Sports stars seem to be immune from discipline until they’re older, when suddenly taking them down becomes profitable for the media.

    • Unfortunately,most people who make the point, (just) that our justice is not rehabilitative are arguing for leniency.

      • So breaking up a family for years (if the criminal has one) and leaving his children without guidance, entering them all into a paternalistic welfare system and making sure they never, ever escape their rotten ghetto schools is somehow kinder and gentler than a few strokes of the lash?

        One thing our system requires, though, is lots and lots of public employees whose unions donate to the party of government. So it grows.

        • William O. B'Livion

          You’ve got to be joking.

        • BobtheRegisterredFool

          We don’t execute minors because ‘teens are not mentally the same as adults’, but use only the form of punishment that would be least real to them. (I can tell you I didn’t get time the way I do now; I didn’t really appreciate the cost of years spent not working productively.)

          • BobtheRegisterredFool

            ‘If you do bad things, we will confine you to a building, and not permit you to use your time for any gainful activity.’

            ‘You mean like you already do to me, just for being alive?’

            ‘No, that is entirely different.’

            ‘I am not allowed to work. If I am not where you want me to be, you will use force to put me there. I fail to see the difference.’

            • Discussing incarceration as if it served a rational purpose is irrational. It is designed (by committee) to meet a variety of human social needs, primarily punishment for disobeying Society’s rules, but secondarily as efforts to provide some opportunity for redemption, rehabilitation, justice and protection of society from those who would live among it and prey on its members in destructive ways … among others.

              As there is no way any system could meet any given one of those functions for all prisoners, much less all of them, it is easy for the fool* to mock. Yet what alternative can the wise man propose?

              * “a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement”

              • BobtheRegisterredFool

                I am not wise.

                I think the supreme court decision that prevented capital sentences for minors was bullshit. At least we can look forward to that being reversed on the grounds that ISIS is changing the precedents of international law. 🙂

                I think capital punishment is irreplaceable for certain applications. Like military law and civil wars.

                I’m not wedded to corporeal punishment, and I can see a lot of practical concerns that need addressing. It still seems like it should be useful.

                One of the arguments for confinement over execution is security. Obama is thus an argument for execution, as we cannot prevent the next Obama, and cannot be sure who would get released when.

                The status quo is a consensus, and is a better alternative than giving me a free hand.

            • False analogy. You can engage in gainful activity without being hired. Furthermore, in one case, you are prevented from it; in the other, it is merely that no one is compelled to assist you.

              Besides, prison restricts you a lot more.

              • BobtheRegisterredFool

                A teenager of the sort likely to commit a crime is likely to have a very different perspective on schooling than a middle aged intellectual, especially of the sort involved in legal matters.

                I was rule abiding by inclination, and perhaps mentally ahead of my age group. I could understand physical pain and death well enough to prefer to avoid them. I did not understand imprisonment much, and absolutely did not understand the pain of long term unemployment.

                Corporeal or capital punishment then seemed more compelling than confinement.

        • I agree with you, Jeb, of course, but you can’t sell it. Fake compassion rules the day.

  17. The truth about most spousal abuse was summed up by a cop friend thusly: 95% of all such cases are cases of two idiots fighting, and the smaller idiot losing.

    I used to support the local battered women’s shelter by doing volunteer work like shovelling snow from the sidewalks, picking up donations, and doing other small odd jobs as designated by the counsellors. I quickly learned the cop was right. Maybe one woman in 20 was a legit victim of abuse! Most were doing drugs, or loud, obnoxious idiots that abused their children…and weeks would go by where there were no women there at all that actually belonged there. The ‘victims’ were just shrews that were taking advantage of a system that wasn’t meant for them. I finally quit in disgust.

  18. The problem is that people pay attention to the dog and pony show that is our media. One that “cares” more about disposable coffee cups, transsexuals and the foibles of modern gladiators*. The media feds the “outrage” and crisis mentality that they create. There’s little or no investigation of facts nor any true sense of propriety. And the sheeple eat this shit-o-rama up like it’s a holiday fest.

    (As a side note, I find it disgusting that locally we had less the 4% of the population show up to a election that decided the allocation of billions of dollars. One municipal bond issue worth millions passed by 16 votes in a city where there are 30,000 registered voters.)

    *( With brain and other damage that football players suffer, they are gladiators. Unfortunately only the best and luckiest ever get paid. I don’t care to watch anymore, it’s just entertainment with car crashes on every play and very time consuming.)

    • The Other Sean

      Where I live, this year’s ballot included a township trustee, fiscal officer, the school board, and 3 state issues. There were no bond issues. About 30% of the total township population voted – as a percentage of eligible voters, that’s probably more like 45%.

  19. William O. B'Livion

    I’m going to leave this here because it’s related. Really it is:–Line/dp/B00IT08O5Q

    And they ain’t even WIRELESS.

  20. I didn’t read the comments to know if anyone else has offered these up, but two quick corrections:

    (1) Hardy wasn’t retried because “the justice system determined there was an error in his trial and he should be retried.” He was retried because he originally elected a bench trial, and the state of North Carolina has a provision that allows for someone who is convicted in a bench trial to simply elect to have a jury trial after that fact. You essentially get two chances to be acquitted – once by a trial by judge, and then, if you’re found guilty there, then also by a trial by jury.

    (2) It is widely reported that Hardy paid his victim a very handsome sum of money to go away for his 2nd trial. THAT’S why this situation is so different – because he has been able to escape his deserved fate not due to a fair and equitable clearing under the law, but by using his extreme wealth to literally buy his way out of punishment. If you don’t see the difference between this and Joe Schmo being found not guilty in a fair trial, then I dunno what to tell you.