Recently, we had the case of Michael Brewer, a 15 year old boy who was doused with alcohol and set on fire by 5 other teens (4 15 year olds and one 13 year old) after he failed to pay $40 for a video game to one of the accused. Three of the teenagers face adult charges of 2nd degree attempted murder, a first degree felony.
Brewer was left with burns on over 65% of his body and to this day remains hospitalized and on a ventilator, of course still at risk for infections and organ failure.
Ok, so what are your gut reactions to this situation. Empathy for 
Brewer? Disgust with the teenagers who committed this torturous act? Are you thinking: those kids deserve life in prison? Better yet: "Heck yeah, send them to adult prison!" (and we all know what goes on there).
Brewer? Disgust with the teenagers who committed this torturous act? Are you thinking: those kids deserve life in prison? Better yet: "Heck yeah, send them to adult prison!" (and we all know what goes on there). So once you get through those first intial, passionate opinions that are based primarily on your values and beliefs, because those of us who are rational beings cannot feel sympathy for someone setting another person on fire, right? The only thing we can think of is that kid, Michael Brewer and how his life is going to be scarred (literally and metaphorically) forever. He will most likely suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and a list of other psychological and physical ailments. SO those 5 kids, they deserve everything they have coming to them.
Right?
Well, those initial, passionate opinions are what are considered the 1st stage of development of an arguer. What are we arguing here? Well, the simple question of justice. Do those 5 teens deserve to be tried and prosecuted as adults?
The problem with having a passionate and opinionated argument about this topic or any other topic is that it doesn't provide reasons or evidence why someone else should have the same opinion, it doesn't allow for growth or evolution, it doesn't allow us to see or hear various perspectives/angles of an issue but most importantly it asserts that there is only one right answer. YES these boys should serve time as adults. They were able to set this kid on fire, that's the least they deserve.
The reality though is that all issues have more than one "right" answer...instead let's call them solutions. So now let's pose the argumentative question differently: Is sending these boys to serve time as adults the RIGHT SOLUTION? By asking the question in this manner we are then forced to look at other variables.
For instance, if prison is supposed to be a system designed for rehabilitating criminals (at least that is what they claim) how could placing minors ( no matter how severe the crime they committed is) with adult criminals, going to rehabilitate them? This question can then lead us to question: But what are negative consequences that could result from placing them with other minors? And this in turn can lead us to question: What product (end result) do we want from placing minors in prison? In other words, do we want them to come out ater time served as educated, productive citizens?
Other questions that seem logical to ask is: What were these kids thinking when they set this kid on fire? Are they that sick in the head? Could they not comprehend the consequences? DId they not care? And if they don't care, how is that possible? What kind of living conditions are they being raised in? Is looking at the crime the only evidence that we should be analyzing in order to come to a conclusion? Or does it not matter? Because, after all, there is a 15 year old laying in Jackson Memorial's Burn unit with over 60% of his body burned, fighting for his life.
No comments:
Post a Comment