controversy: July 2007 Archives

I was thinking today, after reading the recent articles about Nicole Richie being sentenced to jail time and it sent the wheels in my braining to spinning. I wonder how much celebrity status has to do with crime and punishment in Hollywood. Of course it goes without saying that celebrities, compared to common, hard-working folks, get off pretty light when they get themselves in trouble. I'm not really going to try and dig up any real reasons of substance why this is true. Could be money . . . could be industry influences . . . could be brain waves from alien spacecraft. It doesn't matter. Let's take a look over the past few years at some notable celebrities . . .

Robert Downey Jr

Now here's a guy that has had his fair share of run-ins with the law for stuff ranging from drugs to weapons possession. He's served time in both jail and prison and has gone to rehab a few times. Given his long list of drug offenses, you'd think that he'd still be in prison. But his career still thrives. His latest film, Tropic Thunder, is being filmed.

Mel Gibson

Mel's not a career criminal. For the most part he's a guy who likes to toss a few back and then go for a leisurely drive on the Pacific Coast Highway. If he happens to get pulled over, however, you might see the side of him that is a bit anti-semitic. During his last drunken drive he got pulled over and went off on the officers. For this he received 3 years probation, one year of AA meetings, and a $1300 bill to pay in fines and restitution. While he may have received some bad publicity, his most recent film, Apocolypto, has earned 27.9 million as of December 2006.

Michael Richards

Michael's another guy who isn't chasing after any lifetime criminal achievement awards. That doesn't change the fact that even though his career is drawing to a close he's playing it low key. He does share one common trait with Mel - he likes to go off on people simply because they're different. During a recent comedy performance he apparently displayed his lack of affection for black people. As with many celebrities, he has an excuse but it isn't drugs or alcohol. He has rage issues. He didn't answer to a judge, however, he answered to the court of public opinion and apologized.

Paris Hilton

I know you all wanted to hear about her. You can't possibly be sick of her yet. We all know that Paris got busted for a DUI and got her license taken away. But that didn't stop her, she drove anyway. What did we all expect from a gazillionaire princess? Apparently the judge wasn't payed off chose to throw her in jail. Even after trying to subvert the process, she couldn't manage to stay out from behind bars for 23 days. Evidently Paris' escapades with the sex videos and drugs and drunken driving have brought shame over the whole family and Grandpa Hilton has revoked her privilege to her big, fat inheritance.

Nicole Richie

Paris' ex-BFF has her own drunken driving problems. But she likes to do it driving the wrong way on the freeway. Hey, if you're gonna do it you may as well have fun doing it. Right? She's getting off pretty light if you think about it. She'll serve 4 days in jail, 3 years probation, pay a fine of $2048 and will attend 21 days of alcohol education courses. Something tells me she already knows how to use alcohol. After all this is her second offense in 4 years.

Lindsey Lohan

I'm sure you're all sick of her too, but she's actively chasing poster child status for problem Hollywood starlets. She's earned her second DUI arrest in a few months. Topping that with the cocaine they found in her possession, she's well on her way to getting a very, very hard slap on her precious, little wrist. Perhaps she believes that if she goes to rehab again it'll be ok or the slap won't be quite as hard? Everyone in California should know by now that if Lindsey's behind the wheel of a car they should find a safe place to ride out the storm. She's had at least three car accidents within one year. Time will tell what Lindsey receives from her most recent DUI. Will it garner the same punishment as Nicole, Paris or Mel?

The other day I ranted a bit about how kids are held to different standards than I was when I was their age. One of the cases I used to illustrate my point was that of two middle-schoolers that could potentially face jail and be required to register as sex offenders for slapping their peers on the ass - which, as it turns out, is a pretty common thing in their social circles and not to be taken as a sexual advance but rather as nothing more than a greeting of sorts. As I said, to each their own.

In reading the comments that followed the story online it appeared there were fairly mixed opinions. Some people believed that there was no need to push this issue and felt the school and law enforcement were going too far. Others felt that the kids should do their time since they should know better. As someone who has two children aged 9 and 12 I would contend that they often do know better. And parents teach their children better. But sometimes kids don't do what they're told. Sometimes they make bad decisions in order to conform to the rest of the pack so they will fit in, as I so often hear, "with the cool kids." I thought perhaps I was in the minority when I chastised those Oregonian school administrators and legal administration. In essence I suggested that those kids' lives could be ruined because they made some bad decisions which could be addressed by something as simple as a suspension rather than locking them up and labeling them as sex offenders. It appears I was wrong. I wasn't in the minority.

The comments from Bradley Berry outraged the parents of the two 13-year-olds, Ryan Cornelison and Cory Mashburn, who with their lawyers were deluged with calls from ABC, CNN, Fox, Court TV and radio stations across the country a day after a story about the prosecution appeared in The Sunday Oregonian.

Perhaps there's hope. Was it simply a school administration or legal office that wasn't quite so dogmatic in their approach to dealing with kids that they decided to rethink what they were doing? Was it the dedication of people who see our little world getting out of hand when it comes to raising our kids? Perhaps the school system was afraid of a law suit? Who knows? Maybe the district attorney feared that his career would end up going the same direction of Nifong's. Regardless, it's a good thing when people wake up and smell the coffee. Of course sometimes a nice, sharp smack on the ass can help.

I watch these shows from time to time: Man vs Wild and Survivorman. They say they can teach you how to survive singlehandedly in environments like cold arctic regions, desert ranges and alligator infested swamps. In every episode either of the two, Bear Grylls ( Man vs Wild ) or Les Stroud ( Survivorman ), are dropped in a remote location and given a time frame in which they must either find civilization or survive until found. They are not usually given any of the conveniences that your modern camper would have. They both are normally equipped with a knife, a container for water and Bear usually brings some flint. Les has often been stranded with equipment. For example, he was "stranded" in a desert when his motocross bike "broke down". Therefore, he was able to use parts from it in order to survive. However, neither of the two men have ever acknowledged that they received outside assistance from any of the crew that film the series.

But . . . in this BBC news article an entirely different story comes to light. In one instance when Bear was supposedly filming on a deserted island:

However, he was actually in Hawaii and spent some of his time there in a motel, Mr Weinert alleged.

Who would have thought that these "reality" shows aren't really all that real? Perhaps Bear isn't quite as much man as say, for example, I am . . . because as I've pointed out before, on my off days I wrestle bears.

Some recent events have caught my eye lately. Not long ago a reader of my blog followed up on a post I wrote that pointed to an article I linked to about people who were born before 1980. The article was a bit of a sarcastic congratulations. "How could people who were born before 1980 possibly have survived?" Rinsem followed up with a post that suggested we take a very serious look at how we raise our kids to produce children that will take risks and explore the world without fear. I wholeheartedly agree with Rinsem. I try to give my kids the freedom they need to try things and experience life. I may ask them to wear a helmet when they ride their bikes or come in from the rain, but I consider that common sense rather than fearful hovering.

In response to Rinsem's post, I commented to a specific point:

We are raising a generation who will not take a risk because they've been warned throughout their lives that the risks are dangerous. While this can be good, they simply don't understand the difference between a good risk and a bad risk because they don't have the life experience.

My comment on his post was:

The only thing I'd add here is that the price we paid for poor decisions or mistakes was much smaller when I grew up. At the very most, I might receive a generous spanking ( at least that's how my parents dealt with things ) or a very stern talking to. However, now our kids have to deal with "no tolerance" policies, litigious pricks who want compensation for everything little thing and little understanding that kids will make mistakes even when their parents teach them otherwise.

While I'm sure Rinsem understood what I meant, I want to use a couple examples that best represent what I mean. Recently a sixth-grade girl faced being sent to an alternative school for four months. Her crime? She wrote, "I love Alex" on a wall at school with a marker. The school has since changed their mind after the story got the attention of local media and citizens. She faced the same punishment that those who fight, make terroristic threats, and are caught with drugs. Granted, she shouldn't write on school walls. So give her a detention, some soap and water, and have her clean the mess. Thankfully the school eventually made the right decision. But what about the fate of these two 13 year-old kids?

Evidently childish behaviors, like slapping your peers on the ass, now warrant sex charges. It seems, based on the statements of several kids at the school, the norm is to slap your friends on the ass ( regardless of their gender ) as a form of greeting. Well, when I was younger we only did that on the football field or basketball court, but hey . . . to each their own.

So what should happen to these kids? Well, here's what could happen:

Police arrested Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison of McMinnville and if convicted could be permanently marked as sex offenders, The Portland Oregonian said Sunday. The teens also could spend as long as 10 years in juvenile detention if found guilty.

That's the way to do it. Brand them as sexual offenders and stick them in the system. Evidently the district attorney is ready to prosecute:

While the boys' parents have opposed such a harsh penalty, McMinnville District Aattorney Bradley Berry said such youthful acts could have longstanding consequences for the alleged victims. "These cases are devastating to children," he said. "They are life-altering cases."

Damn straight they are. Branding them "sexual offenders" and institutionalizing 13 year old kids for acting stupid does alter their lives. But hey, you gotta get tough with these kids these days don't you? You need to punish them so severely that they would never think of making that mistake again. Zero tolerance. That's the ticket. Brand them for life the first time they step out of line. Honestly, when do we make the distinction between what is criminal and what is a product of bad decision making when it comes to kids? Why should we always resort to ruining someone's life in order to discipline? Couldn't a simple suspension have sent the message that their behavior was inappropriate?

Evidently I'm not the only one that has noticed this story. If you visit that link you'll also find a more in-depth news article about the incident.

When I was growing up my family moved around a lot. My father was an accountant and he was constantly chasing a better paying job. Up until I was about thirteen it was pretty cool. Never living in the same place for more than a few years had its virtues. If ever you did anything that made you look like a complete and utter fool, it was ok. It wouldn't be long before you could have a fresh start in a new place with new people who knew absolutely nothing about you.

Incidentally, my father was often drawn to cities like Houston, Salt Lake City and Chicago, where it was not only a larger place but your anonymity was amplified by the sheer volume of people. Way back then the children-should-be-seen-not-heard doctrine pretty much ruled. In the event some kid forgot that, well . . . corporal punishment was employed as a reminder. Let it be said that I had a short memory and a sore ass to show for it. Times changed as I grew older and I think it's great that teachers aren't allowed to use corporal punishment anymore. And there's been a movement to foster kids' self esteem in the hopes that children will think better about themselves and what they can accomplish.

But, have these changes produced a generation that not only gives little thought to their own privacy but also gives little thought to anyone but themselves?