Stop Infantilizing Me

I was just reading about how my local lawmakers want to (and quite possibly will) pass restrictions on: cell phone use in cars, additional second-hand smoke amendments, how pets are treated (e.g. spaying dogs after one litter), where we can park our cars at home, etc. In the June 16, 2006 issue of Entertainment Weekly magazine, Stephen King groaned about how reviewers cautioned potential viewers of the post-9/11 movie United 93. He said, "Reading those notices again…helped me understand why I was so angry: Those reviews infantilize the American public."

That’s a darned good word, "infantilize." It clearly and succinctly describes the PC, judicial, and political pandering that goes on in the name of protecting us. The thing is, it comes at the expense of respecting us, of encouraging the use of common sense, and to accept that in this imperfect world, bad things happen…you can’t protect everyone, especially from themselves. "But," these perfidious purveyors of public pronouncements counter, "these aren’t laws to restrict the fine and upstanding citizens I represent, but to shield them from those members of society that aren’t so fine and upstanding…but not quite criminals (at least, not until my pet agenda becomes law)."

Perhaps the single most egregious example of this legislative brave new world are the "Zero Tolerance" (ZT) laws. While the intent of these laws is to avoid uneven verdicts and sentences from school kids to drug users, the real-world effect has been to take away situational interpretations and punishments from the people who are supposed to be responsible enough to make these sorts of distinctions.

I remember back a few years ago when the son of a good friend of mine was suspended from school because he tried to break up a fight where a larger and stronger boy was pummeling a smaller one. My friend’s son merely stood between the two, and blocked the assailant from inflicting further damage. He never even threw a punch. But…since he "was involved" in the fight, the ZT policy on fighting mandated that he be suspended—in spite of the principal acknowledging that he wasn’t actually one of the combatants. What kind of lesson is that for a young person? Don’t do the right thing, else you’ll get into trouble; better to stand on the sidelines and be a good and peaceful citizen. Guess what? Two months later, the same thing happened again. Guess he didn’t learn that lesson. Damn this miscreant for not following the rules, and instead acting morally. (Oh, and the kid getting beaten-up? He was suspended, too, for being in the fight.)

As most of you are well away, this is hardly an isolated case. I strongly encourage you to visit Randy Cassingham’s "This is True" site and it’s articles on ZT at:http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html. While at this site, do a search on "zero tolerance" to get a full sampling of the numbers of absurd rulings these sorts of restrictions create.

But ZT is just one aspect of the larger picture that has largely been painted by lawsuit-after-lawsuit. After all, in the take-no-responsibility society we’ve created, our primary reaction to anything not going our way appears to be suing anyone and everyone under the sun. In order to protect political asses from these sorts of intrusions, laws get passed. It’s not because they are good laws, but simply laws to try to provide a buffer from expensive lawsuits (at this point, it’s almost irrelevant if you win or lose…you get poorer, the lawyers get almost all of the money, and you’ve stressfully wasted a few years of your life). If you do the math, you find that there is about one lawyer for every 320 people in the U.S. That’s a lot of attorneys looking for work…clearly they need to do something, so many of them simply sue regardless of the merits. And that’s the easy path toward infantilizing a society.

Clearly, there is a need for legal reform. Before that happens, I don’t think anything else can be accomplished. Not only do we need to start limiting the number of lawyers we have, but there needs to be a way for judgements to be more fairly decided and divided (i.e. stop giving the lawyers all the frickin’ money). Once that’s done, there should be fewer silly lawsuits taking up court time. Additionally, I think there needs to be some restriction on plea bargaining…it’s now used as a time-saving device because the courts are so backed-up. Clear up some of the frivolousness, and then you have the time to actually try cases. Next, we start going back to sentencing guidelines, instead of mandatory sentences. Now, these can’t be quite as open-ended as they were in the past, but judges seriously need to have some wiggle-room when it comes to sentencing. And not just judges—school principals would benefit from a relaxing away from ZT.

As for the more mundane aspects of our lives? My feeling is that if a problem isn’t a serious societal problem, then don’t take away our right to seriously screw up.

• DWI laws? For the most part, a good idea, though I favor restitution over punishment in most cases.
• Second-hand smoke (i.e. smoking area bans)? As this is a public health problem, some restrictions are probably a good idea, but doing stuff like prohibiting smoking in open-air parks is simply dumb.
• Seatbelt laws? For adults, my feeling is that if they are dumb enough to not put on a belt, well, then they have no right to sue if they get hurt in an accident…make it a condition. For kids…honestly, while kids getting damaged or killed in accidents is a great personal tragedy, I don’t think it really qualifies as a societal one. Like with adults, make it a condition for the ability to file a lawsuit for damages on the child’s behalf. But if mommy or daddy wants to have the kid in their lap, behind the wheel, when they drive…well, almost all kids survive that.
• Cell phone laws? While you can pretty much pick any old study to prove whatever point you want to make, it does seem that yes, cell phones do distract drivers and increase the rate of accidents compared to those drivers not chatting away. HOWEVER, there is also evidence that cell phone users are mindful of this distraction and actually pay more attention than people tuning their radio, putting on makeup, and eating in their cars (I’d also include screaming kids in the back seats). So, this isn’t really any more dangerous than any other car distraction. I don’t think the time’s quite right for these laws.
• Pet sterilization? Wow…this is one I never saw coming. Mandatory pet sterilization. While I grant that the population explosion of dogs and cats is a problem, I also have a problem with the government saying that I have to force my pet into an operation and not provide a way to pay for it. Also, since neutering is less expensive than spaying, then this is an unfairly applied law (i.e. those with male dogs incur less expense than those with female dogs).
• Dog bite laws? I think this is one area where things often go too far. Just because a dog bites someone does not, ipso facto, mean the dog is vicious. Often, it’s simply being a dog. I don’t think that forced euthanasia is the answer in many of these cases. Some owner and dog education, yes, but I think some understanding of the non-humanness of the culprit is necessary.
• Punish the Parents laws? These are just dumb. While the intent is to force parents to pay attention to what their kids do…when in history have parents who haven’t imprisoned their kids (a crime in itself) been able to ensure their kids aren’t out causing mischief? Nope. Blame the kids, and have them make fair restitution when they screw up.
• Mandatory Suspensions/Expulsions? I’ve never understood these. We punish the troublemakers by removing them from the environment most don’t want to be in in the first place? No. That’s not the way. There need to be high-risk schools to keep the trouble-makers in school. Think a juvie hall but for education and not incarceration. They don’t get out of learning what society needs them to learn.

Whenever I think about the infantilizing of America, I can’t help but hear the words of Footloose‘s Rev. Moore: "If we don’t start trusting our children…how will they ever become trustworthy?" The same applies to us and those that have a say in restricting what we can do. If they don’t start trusting us to think, how will we ever be more than mindless automatons? Then again…maybe that’s the point. Those that govern seem to favor sheep. If we don’t complain about it, then who are we to ask for respect?