Thoughts of a victim advocate being interviewed by the Media

You get a phone call from a friend of a friend of a friend. Enough time has gone by that most of those you know don’t remember what happened or expect that you’ve “gotten over it” or put things behind you. But what stays in the minds of “most persons” isn’t necessarily what stays with you.

The gist of the friendly call is that some legislators (or those that have their ear) got the wild idea that watering down prison sentences and making it easier for offenders to become eligible for parole might save the public a little bit of money. Interested media persons (legislators and the public) need to hear a victims side of that argument.

I said “yes” and “thank you” and pretty much knew what to expect. When you comment publicly, there’s always a price. This “price” has nothing to do with how right or wrong what you say might be or what others really think of what you say. Rarely can others remember your exact words (or what you really looked like) anyway. The price includes one’s anonymity or privacy. Tomorrow I expect to hear some of my coworkers ask me about awful events that occurred years ago or maintain a more healthy distance (until they forget again). A life that was once “normal” was struck in a horrific way, and then allowed to reach some semblance of stasis for a time only to be rocked again. Sometimes the interviews seem like a new form of Chinese water torture. A gentler form of punishment but the memories linger. It’s a constant and cumulative process; the same one that created the grand canyon too. Measure it in tears or one crying family at a time.

There are no “professional victims” out there. This little “club” is constantly growing. Statistics might lull some folks into believing that we don’t need to be as vigilant as we could be. Few persons really believe that bad things will happen to them (or want to). The initiation sure “sucks”. Each meeting, each interview requires some fresh blood. You leave behind some emotional or “meat” each time you re-experience the past.

I don’t watch the evening news with the same perspective as I did before. Newspaper banners and television sound bytes have a distinctly familiar and more personal ring now. Too much so… and having ones name (and picture?) in the papers and being associated with events that occurred during some of the worst days of our lives exacts heavy emotional mileage over time. Few good things come easily.

Each comment or point during an interview begs for equal representation from the other side. Some persons call this “objective coverage”. I won’t say his name to the reporters. Everyone has their own interpretation of what is “fair”. The story eventually begins to revolve around the perpetrator; his name comes up more often (by his defenders) at certain times while victims are often instructed to remain silent until the courts have spoken. Arguments made on behalf of the accused usually trigger the most uncertainty or doubt (or ratings). If only this public posturing were over when the gavel was laid to rest. Appeals and anniversaries go by. You fool yourself into thinking that if you don’t initiate talk on this subject it might all “go away”. Attention is what the perpetrator wants or all he has left to look forward to. Why “feed him”?

If I were a legislator, a lawyer or a used car salesman (some might argue that all these persons are really the same kind of “animal”) a little bit of free publicity might be a good thing. This is not usually the case when you happen to be a relative of a victim of violent crime or someone that has suffered even more directly. Victims of violent crime don’t court the media very often. Too many times what’s mistaken for (or presented as) anger is a real fear that the offender might come back to repeat his crimes (not a desire for revenge). Experience can be an ugly (and mean) teacher.

No one can say for sure that the offender will never harm another person or escape. Years of uncertainty pass. Lawmakers think of full prisons as the problem instead of investing in ways to discourage those that are prone to committing crimes that require incarceration from harming more innocent victims.

You do what you can to advocate for those that are in similar circumstances. You warn those that might find themselves in harms way so that they won’t become another statistic. These problems affect more that a few other people. Hopefully, you can say a few things that they don’t have the time, the patience or words for. Not everyone will listen and there’s no joy in saying “I told you so”. The phone keeps ringing, more violence acts are committed on innocent people and tonight another news segment is aired. Hopefully the world is a tiny bit safer than yesterday or those that come to be harmed are better prepared to deal with it.

'I didn't do it!'

re: I didn't do it!

If the “basic premise to a fair criminal justice system is that it should do as good a job of protecting the innocent as punishing the guilty” is true in North Carolina, why would more proven murderers be released from prisons than there are on death row? Why would the citizens of North Carolina tolerate even the existence of the many inmates who have already demonstrated that they are a danger to themselves and other persons (and will remain a constant danger for as long as they are allowed to live)? A closer look at the judicial system might reveal that criminals get more access to due process (and/or fairness) than their victims ever do. The scales of justice often seem tilted in favor of those accused (or convicted).

Just because some offenders occasionally state “I didn’t do it” and are exonerated or released that doesn’t mean that they are actually innocent either. Offenders might use “father time” as a “weapon to spring themselves” (after all much evidence is perishable). Witnesses die, move away and memories fade too. Establishing an “Innocence Commission” that has no time limits on reviewing offender’s claims invites further erosion of the confidence we should have in the decisions (and sentencing recommendations) made in our courts.

Clearly we will never be able to convict all criminals for all of their crimes; but to conclude that impartial review does not already exist in the system for those who are convicted and where evidence suggests that justice hasn’t been served would be wrong too. Creating a “super court” of three judges that can reverse the unanimous decisions of 12 peer jurists undermines the idea of serving on a jury panel at trial. If the judicial system is forced to take on yet another form of post trial review by employing a new kind of commission (or appellate court?), its powers should be limited to recommending a new trial (or reversal). Juries should have their say in declaring guilt or recommending sentences for the guilty (wherever possible) and those powers should not be thwarted. The powers of an "Innocence Commission" be should limited (finite) and not dilute or trumpt the authority of Superior Courts (or higher) or the Governor.

When professionals involved in the judicial process (prosecutors, public defenders, judges and/or police) err in their work, they certainly risk their reputations or even their livelihoods (jobs). If some persons have found fault with the way that the North Carolina Bar Association demonstrates its authority and resolve to keep the public’s confidence in our courts, perhaps they should make their views known in a constructive manner to the appropriate persons (ncba@ncbar.org) instead directly to the the court of public opinion (i.e., media).

Instead of attacking the judicial system or faulting the courts when occasional cases result in reversal, acquittal, clemency, pardon or retrial, (with the “I didn’t do its!” ) persons truly interested in supporting justice or a fair system might add crime prevention to their list of priorities to support (instead of so-called Innocence Commissions). After all, prevention is where we all stand to do the most persons the most good. If our courts (and prisons) were less burdened, the public would certainly be better served.


1. 180 inmates are on death row.
2. http://crmis42.doc.state.nc.us/cgi-bin/hsrun.exe/crmis42haht/SimpleAbstractQuery/SimpleAbstractQuery.htx;start=HS_AbstractSubmit (page 13).
5. NC Bar Association, 8000 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513, (919) 677-0561,1-800-662-7407 ncba@ncbar.org.

Accountability?

Once upon a time (or when I was child), my father allowed me to hold a .22 rifle in my hands and shoot at tin cans on a canal bank. That was some 35 or more years ago so I expect that things have changed. It was also a very "controlled situation".

Parents today have more responsibilities (401k’s, child seats, Internet firewalls and Net Nanny’s) to attend to. Children certainly have more distractions (Nintendo’s, Home PC’s and IPods) too. We also use more crutches or excuses for not being accountable for our actions than there are letters in the alphabet (i.e., ADD, ADDHD, BMP, OCD etc).

Somewhere during these years that passed, the distinction between “gun” and “toy” was lost for a lot of us. Computers have turned fantasies into very realistic games and ordinary tools have become weapons of choice. We use cars run down enemies in these games (Grand Theft Auto?) now, we do more than just race around in virtual worlds. When things go wrong or not exactly as planned, we just hit a few keys and the entire world is “reset”. You start again at the beginning or at some predetermined starting point, so that you might improve the experience. No apologies are required; after all, it isn’t real, it's just a game. Right?

Walking into a public place (malls, theatres, and convenience stores) today involves some exposure to video arcades that provide customers (children and so-called adults) with games that reduce firearms (and automobiles) to “toys”. Is this progress, a meaningful expression or venting of emotions or is it just another way to stoke our society’s problems? It's not like there are any real adults to provide the players of these games with any constructive context to what is being played (or to keep the obviously too young to understand away).

I was introduced to firearms in a completely different context. Guns were never used on anything you didn’t want to eat or use as a target. Guns were most certainly not toys. I never had a plastic or toy gun. My brother and I were issued our first shotguns when we were 12 years old. Our natural curiousities for firearms was satisfied at an early age. It was understood that we didn’t have to be careless but once and we’d lose our hunting licenses for life. If we shot it, we had to eat it (warts and all). Life and the rules of it were simple. One should be held accountable for their actions. We understood that we would be held responsible for whatever happened downrange of our targets too.

We were brought up in an environment (a home) where guns were not things to be played with. Guns were used for hunting or for self protection. Cars were something that got you from point “a” to point “b”, (some were just faster than others) and if you were lucky they were pretty enough to get you some extra attention. The results of improper handling of firearms (or the cars) were more “real” then, not to mention permanent and painful. Death was not something that was dismissed or "made right" with an apology. We fully expected to get a bill (and to pay) for every mistake we made. If we erred it was on the side of caution. “I’m sorry” just didn’t “cut it”.

Today we have generations of individuals who’ve never owned a real gun that associate firearms with toys. They don’t eat (or are forced to) what they shoot at either. Persons who have no understanding of firearms are allowed drive cars and kill persons just as dead as if they’d been shot too. The excuses are all pretty much the same and just as lame when a fatality occurs. “Sorry”, “didn’t mean it”, “it was his fault too”, “I was drunk” or “he wasn't raised to know any better” when it comes to explaining away the actions of the perpetrators. They come up all too often. Meanwhile prison populations grow… and motive seems fueled by equal parts opportunity and ability to avoid capture/accountability.

I understand that life is not always fair, and that not all of us born into wealth, endowed with a sense of situational awareness, normal depth perception or the kind of character that demands that we do what is right as opposed to avoid wrong. We can’t blame the demise of our society on the tools we use (or misuse). Our misdeeds are not the fault of the guns, the cars, the computers or the video games that we keep or play with. These "things" are only tools. The problems of our society are not the prisons, our parents or the judicial system. The values we encourage in our populace or in ourselves are what dictate where we end up in the “food chain” (manager/legislator, worker/constituent, retiree/consultant, or prisoner/ward). When persons rely on lame excuses and whining to explain their actions and avoid personal accountability should we allow them to propagate or rule?

Larry the Cable Guy

Friday night was a night I won’t forget. We went to see The Eagles at RBC Center in Raleigh, North Carolina. I’d never seen the entire band on one stage before; in fact I’d only seen Don Henley once before a few years back at Walnut Creek.

This was a "farewell tour" for The Eagles and in a way it signaled to me the end of an age where we could consider ourselves to be young. Members of the band are all in their mid to late fifties. The audience was quite diverse in terms of age, albeit more weighted more towards “aged”, as opposed to the youthful. Most of us were more "relaxed" a trait associated with experience versus "impatient", which is usually attributed to youth.

We stopped off along the way to the concert at a Cuban restaurant named “Carmen’s” to have a nice relaxing dinner. We were thinking that traffic would not be so heavy afterwards. Unfortunately we’d not considered the impact of a late afternoon rainstorm and were late to the stadium (about 8pm) and entered the stadium shortly after the band had begun playing. Up until this point, I believe I’d always, I emphasize “always” been early to see whatever group it was we’d purchased tickets to see. Our full stomachs and adult beverages that we took with our meal would come in handy.

The crowd was relatively subdued but focused on the music. The usual cheers, jeers and ignition of butane lighters were not heard or seen like when more rowdy bands play. I was reminded of the occasion where we saw an Allman Brother’s concert in Raleigh a few years back. To be blunt, the crowd following the Allman’s made me wonder if a local corrections facility had loosed its inmates on the event. I’d never seen such combinations of tattoos, hair (long, short, colored, braided) or clothes. The Eagles’ following was a bit older, a bit more diverse; some watchers were more refined while others were to be gracious “more casual” in their appearance. All that (what other folks happen to look or sound like) is not so important though. I am not in the habit of judging books or persons by their covers either but came to the eventual conclusion that some of these folks don’t get out much (and shouldn’t).

It will take some time to get around to how I came to that conclusion (again?). Previously I’ve criticized tall and “large” persons who happened to get front row seats to see Hootie and the Blowfish in a concert we attended last October. One of the differences between this experience (with The Eagles) and that one is the fact that the “annoyance” came from behind, was more vocal, and a less visual one.

It helps to set the scene by describing the mood. We were late. The band had already started playing and the folks who happened to be sitting behind us were “there” long before us. Maybe they’d been there too long? What I mean by that is it was easy to observe that these individuals (a man and his wife) were “ahead of us” in terms of celebrating the event. To be more to the point, they were drunk.

Being drunk is nothing to be ashamed of in the proper circumstances. And these persons obviously weren’t going anywhere; they certainly meant no harm to anyone. It’s probably a good thing that cameras and recording devices are banned from these events to protect the band from persons who’d record the show and might profit from it. I wonder if The Eagles would have objected if I’d merely recorded a few persons in the crowd?

As we sat down it became apparent that The Eagles weren’t the only ones who were singing. Not that this was completely unexpected; I mean after all, many members of the audience have been singing Eagles songs since their first few albums in the early 1970’s. What I mean to describe here are the “background vocals” from the “gentleman” behind us was providing in a drunken tone. I am not a trained musician so I can’t accurately explain the technical faults of the slurred wailing going on behind us but was helpless to do anything but smile and occasionally provide the man behind us with the “stink-eye”.

The “singing” never really abated. It got worse. The best description I can come up with for this man is that he resembled a comedian who makes fun of rednecks or white trash nationally. So from this point on I will refer to him as “Larry” in honor or “Larry the Cable Guy” from The Blue Collar Comedy tour. Except that the real Larry the Cable Guy is a comedy act and “Our Larry” was a little more close in terms of proximity and less of a joke.

It got worse. Larry found it appropriate to make sure that we knew the name of each song as it struck him. We heard Larry announce songs like “Hotel California” and some of the members of the band like “Glen Frey”. During one of my “stink-eye exchanges” with Larry, he decided that it was time to become more “social”. In fact Larry decided that he knew or recognized me and asked me a number of questions. I didn’t want to be rude and was well aware of the fact that regardless of physical outcomes or the quality of verbal exchanges that one never actually wins an argument with a drunk so I kept things “polite”. Larry offered that he’d actually seen me before and in fact knew which county I frequented. It slowly became more and more apparent that being rude would become more like defecating in ones own mess kit. So I indulged Larry when he mentioned that there was close to about twenty thousand other persons in the stadium and that between tickets and concessions that each patron was dropping on average about one hundred dollars. The Eagles and TicketMaster must be rich! He seemed awed. Slowly the “beer buzz” settled Larry down and he was content to sing a bit more quietly and leave us all alone.

Larry wasn’t alone though. Larry’s wife was the person who initially caught our attention because Larry’s background vocals at least mimicked (or were intended to) the sounds the band. Larry’s significant other (let’s call her “Mary”) was using her cell phone while the band was playing. Mary certainly had more to say than those around her wanted to hear, even Larry. I guess that’s why Larry was intent on staying drunk and singing. Mary on the other hand was not the least bit concerned about Larry or anyone else around her that might be annoyed by her loud bellowing into the cellular phone. It was all I could do not to tell the woman to “turn the thing off” or put it where the sun had never shone. Eventually, Mary’s phone calls ended; she’d let all her friends or relatives know that she’d finally made it to see The Eagles and that she was “just thinking about them”. All these “important messages” seemed to me like they could have waited until after the concert was over.

It’s been five or six months since we’ve been to a concert. We don’t “get out much” either but it’s apparent that some folks get out a lot less than we do. I suppose we are more tolerant of the eccentricities of others or more so than most but it seems like we’ve had a bad streak of luck recently. As I get older, I appreciate social graces more and more.

57 Channels

http://www.brucespringsteen.net/songs/57Channels.html

I guess that impartiality is coached in journalism school and that students are often taught to remain as objective as possible. One thing is for sure; if you want to raise the dander of a reporter, challenge their objectivity. Everyone is human, perceptions will always vary and as passive as this might sound there will always be questions about how fair articles are written. Words or text don’t always express all of the facts or all of the emotion. I guess we shouldn’t shoot the messenger for what he says is the news, but there’s no reason why we should always buy what they are selling if it isn’t truthful, complete or if its purpose is not just to inform but to get us coming back for more. Fear, uncertainty and doom are infectious.

There’s a constant challenge to writing or recording events that will be broadcast to the masses. When attention spans (or a lacking one) require that segments or articles be edited, once what could have been replayed or recited verbatim evolves into something less than scientific or more like a work of art. Not knowing the truth and reporting/repeating allegations has become the new variation of lying (when truths are easily verified, i.e. "Rathergate")

Many factors affect the “art” that some media types call “reporting” today. The competition for ratings and revenue drives rival agencies and channels for something more or different or spectacular. The escalation process is endless and the variations are infinite. The stories are different but over time they all blend together unless the media does something to make them stand out. Different people and different subjects are reported. Each article gets its own title, date and byline. Many titles are purposely incomplete or sensational so as to encourage our curiosity (attention). These titles become teasers and their correctness is secondary to their purpose, which is to gain interest in what’s been published.

Somewhere in this strange mix of events, the real story takes a distant second place. Truth if it is ninety nine percent of the equation gets only half of the coverage. Since when did “fair” mean that each story should be split into two equal halves (pro and con) and the judgments and reasoning behind conclusions are merely “reported” but not challenged. Truth becomes diluted by hype and obfuscated with lies. Truths that give confidence or reduce anxiety get less exposure so that some stories might live longer.

One has to wonder what the agenda of the news services has become now that we have fewer outlets and the stakes in the competition are just that much higher. The price of not triggering doubts can cost newspersons their jobs. News is not news anymore. It has become more “crafted opinions packaged in partial facts or recent happenings”, but it’s not always real or comprehensive information on a singe subject or event. It’s what two sides with an agenda with equal time and space have to say in a 30 second sound byte. It’s about how a woman or a gang member mutilated a male victim’s genitalia, a beheading, a suicide bombing or just another murder on the wrong side of town by one of the usual suspects. The same old lies about global warming or pollution get repeated (over and over and over again).

What have we (the public) become when pedophiles and murderers are the main news? 57 channels and nuthin’s on… just because that’s what the media’s selling doesn’t mean we should be buyin’… put the needle on the record. Time for something "new".