Has the use of the word "teenager" by the old media given criminal teens a
sense of immunity? You see it again and again. Trayvon Martin is
constantly referred to as a teenager, as though that somehow absolved him of
his crimes.
Most male children, who are brought up in intact families, do not become
predatory creatures in their teens. But for those who do not have strong,
moral, male role models in their lives, especially if this is the default
position in their community, predation is a common role.
In a home invasion in Georgia, the homeowner grabbed his gun as his door
was broken down. As he confronted the three invaders, they yelled at him.
From wrdw.com:
"The first thing he hollered, we is teenagers, don't shoot me," Green said.
Green said he didn't care what age they were, they were breaking into his
home.
"If you are old enough to do a crime, age doesn't matter. Doesn't matter
whether you're a teenager, you're grown. If you can do the crime, your
punishment, it shouldn't matter. I had my gun in my hand and I just started
firing at them," Green said.
A six foot plus 17 year old can be just as dangerous as an older criminal,
maybe more. As I read media reports, it seems that being 17 should give
some special sort of invulnerability to bullets and jail. The juvenile
justice system may give some invulnerability to jail, for a time. But
words do not stop bullets.
The "progressive" position seems to be that "children" are inherently good.
That is not true. Children are inherently selfish and amoral. In
Christianity, this is recognized as original sin. Each child is a wild
animal that must be civilized and taught moral virtues. This is much harder
to do in a single parent home. If teenagers are told that they are
expected to steal, as many media reports seem to imply; and that it is
excused because they are "teenagers", we should not be surprised when large
percentages of them become actual criminals.
No comments:
Post a Comment