http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/guest0813.htm
guest commentary
Doing nothing may be best option
By Paul Kelly
August 13, 2000 - I've been watching the lawsuits over Columbine with interest bordering on disgust. It seems the argument is that someone (preferably a government agent not affiliated with the Postal Service, or failing that, any random person with deep pockets) should have foreseen the future and intervened.
There are several problems with this argument.
First, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the kind of "it takes a village to feel your pain" intervention this country engages in these days is worth a glass of spit. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, every day in this country 16 people are murdered and more than 30 women are raped by paroled convicts. These are not guys who wore funny trench coats to school or wrote weird stories in English class. These rapists and murderers were actually convicted of crimes. That constitutes some pretty serious (but obviously, worthless) intervention in their lives.
In fact, we have social policies like the Brady Law predicated entirely on the absolute certainty that these parolees are going to continue victimizing citizens, that it is perfectly reasonable to release them knowing this, and that the only solution is to restrict everybody else's rights to better accommodate the convicted criminals wandering around loose.
You folks are expecting miracles from people so dumb they need to be sprayed for aphids.
The second problem is that at one time the Columbine criminals were caught violating the law and did receive our intervention. They were lectured on civic responsibility, and released with no supervision. But to ensure we were "sending the right message," we passed some gun control laws.
The two criminals noted the astonishing fact that liberals are really eager to be fooled, ignored the gun laws (and, incidentally, the very serious "message" we were "sending" with them), and escalated their crimes with barely a pause to even notice that they had actually been arrested somewhere in there.
Third, given the relative frequency of such events as Columbine and Waco, Texas, there's no guarantee that government intervention is merely ineffective. It's frequently counterproductive. Doing nothing may well be the best option available.
The fourth problem has to do with the impossibility of predicting the future while ignoring the relative frequency of events. I can guarantee you that violence arising from lawsuits is more common than events like Columbine. Does that make us negligent for allowing the lawsuit to continue? But what if stopping the suit angers one of those exercising their God-given right to cash in their victimhood? Are we then negligent for stopping it?
Since all of the school shootings in this country have happened in governmentrun public schools, isn't it negligent for any parent to send their kids to a public school in the first place? What if you switch your kids to private school and that trend reverses? Would you then be retroactively negligent?
We have a society where everyone is negligent all the time no matter what they do or don't do because it's almost certain that someone, somewhere will do something violent. (In fact, if Ruby Ridge and Waco are any indication, if citizens go long enough without doing something violent, an out-of-control federal SWAT team will twitch its way to the front of the line and start a slaughter itself.)
If this new "everybody's negligent all the time" social philosophy seems silly to you, it's probably because you're not a lawyer. To a lawyer this is like Halloween to a 10-year-old. "Just put the candy in the bag, lady. And hurry. There are still five families on this block I haven't sued yet."
Paul Kelly is a Boulder carpenter and former vice chair of the Boulder County Democratic Party. He was a member of last year's Colorado Voices. Guest commentary submissions may be sent to The Post editorial page.
Copyright 2000 The Denver Post.
guest commentary
Doing nothing may be best option
By Paul Kelly
August 13, 2000 - I've been watching the lawsuits over Columbine with interest bordering on disgust. It seems the argument is that someone (preferably a government agent not affiliated with the Postal Service, or failing that, any random person with deep pockets) should have foreseen the future and intervened.
There are several problems with this argument.
First, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the kind of "it takes a village to feel your pain" intervention this country engages in these days is worth a glass of spit. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, every day in this country 16 people are murdered and more than 30 women are raped by paroled convicts. These are not guys who wore funny trench coats to school or wrote weird stories in English class. These rapists and murderers were actually convicted of crimes. That constitutes some pretty serious (but obviously, worthless) intervention in their lives.
In fact, we have social policies like the Brady Law predicated entirely on the absolute certainty that these parolees are going to continue victimizing citizens, that it is perfectly reasonable to release them knowing this, and that the only solution is to restrict everybody else's rights to better accommodate the convicted criminals wandering around loose.
You folks are expecting miracles from people so dumb they need to be sprayed for aphids.
The second problem is that at one time the Columbine criminals were caught violating the law and did receive our intervention. They were lectured on civic responsibility, and released with no supervision. But to ensure we were "sending the right message," we passed some gun control laws.
The two criminals noted the astonishing fact that liberals are really eager to be fooled, ignored the gun laws (and, incidentally, the very serious "message" we were "sending" with them), and escalated their crimes with barely a pause to even notice that they had actually been arrested somewhere in there.
Third, given the relative frequency of such events as Columbine and Waco, Texas, there's no guarantee that government intervention is merely ineffective. It's frequently counterproductive. Doing nothing may well be the best option available.
The fourth problem has to do with the impossibility of predicting the future while ignoring the relative frequency of events. I can guarantee you that violence arising from lawsuits is more common than events like Columbine. Does that make us negligent for allowing the lawsuit to continue? But what if stopping the suit angers one of those exercising their God-given right to cash in their victimhood? Are we then negligent for stopping it?
Since all of the school shootings in this country have happened in governmentrun public schools, isn't it negligent for any parent to send their kids to a public school in the first place? What if you switch your kids to private school and that trend reverses? Would you then be retroactively negligent?
We have a society where everyone is negligent all the time no matter what they do or don't do because it's almost certain that someone, somewhere will do something violent. (In fact, if Ruby Ridge and Waco are any indication, if citizens go long enough without doing something violent, an out-of-control federal SWAT team will twitch its way to the front of the line and start a slaughter itself.)
If this new "everybody's negligent all the time" social philosophy seems silly to you, it's probably because you're not a lawyer. To a lawyer this is like Halloween to a 10-year-old. "Just put the candy in the bag, lady. And hurry. There are still five families on this block I haven't sued yet."
Paul Kelly is a Boulder carpenter and former vice chair of the Boulder County Democratic Party. He was a member of last year's Colorado Voices. Guest commentary submissions may be sent to The Post editorial page.
Copyright 2000 The Denver Post.