Published: June 01, 2006 05:03 pm            

Grand jury sends twisted message

Decision is understandable but shouldn’t everyone be accountable?

Most of us learn from an early age that when we get sick people treat us differently and we sometimes get benefits we wouldn’t get otherwise. For example, parents might relax television time limits or hand out extra treats like lollipops and ice cream. But I don’t think any of us realized being sick could be a way to avoid being indicted in Clark County for stealing and misappropriating public funds.

Now, I don’t particularly have any resentment that the grand jury decided not to indict the fellow who may have illegally handled Teen Court money. Compassion for the sick is a good thing. (I do wish people would be consistent with their compassion though, and not harass sick people who discover that medical marijuana helps them cope with their illness. But that’s another article.)

If I was sitting on this grand jury, I might have decided not to indict an old man with serious health problems too. An elderly sick man creates quite a strong image in the mind. Such an emotional image makes people think of their own family and friends. And who wants to kick someone when he is down?

In contrast, on the other side of this crime there is no correspondingly clear picture because it was the public at large who was the victim. It’s difficult to form an emotionally charged image when you’re dealing with a collective group of people, and when matched against an old sick man, there is no comparison. So naturally the grand jury favored the accused. But it’s likely that in any other situation where he may have stolen from an easily identifiable victim, say, another old man, the outcome may have been different.

Moving forward with this indictment apparently just seemed like revenge. Restitution is what matters anyway. If someone steals the property of others, it makes the most sense that the individual pays back the funds plus interest and any relevant penalties based on factors directly related to the harm caused. If the gentleman does indeed give satisfactory restitution, then perhaps that’s the best we can expect. I do wonder though, without an indictment or some sort of judgment, will there be any legal backing if restitution is not paid? How is the restitution determined without a court case?

It would be interesting to see if this man would receive the same treatment if he was a business owner who stole from the public. When private business owners are accused of similar crimes, the ire and anger are often so harsh that grand jury members, even if they felt compassion, would likely feel the need to hand down an indictment. But even if they didn’t indict, and we believed the business’ problem was systemic in nature, we have the freedom to make voluntary choices which gives us more control. We know that when a business in the private sector proves untrustworthy, we have the power to go elsewhere. We understand the part that competition plays in regulating the market and have the ability to shut down entire operations when a business is shown to be corrupt. But we have no alternate choices when governments misuse our trust.

Although I understand the grand jury’s decision, there is another danger in not handing down an indictment. It sends the message that it’s possible to get away with infringing on the rights of others in certain situations. This creates quite an ironic predicament since the funds involve Teen Court, where the purpose is to teach youth how government court systems work. But then again, maybe they have.

Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson feels compassion for any readers who are now experiencing a sick feeling. You can contact her for ways to deal with the nausea at Daharbeson@yahoo.com

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.