Last week, the Utah Supreme Court voted 5-0 that having drugs in the home is NOT enough reason alone to remove children from the home. They ruled that drugs in the home must be ACCESSIBLE to the children in order to be reason enough to remove them.

Let’s think about this… How about if the parents are arrested for drug possession! Isn’t that the law? It seems to me that the children must be removed or some responsible person has to come watch them. Otherwise, they’d be left alone after the parents’ arrests and that would clearly be child negligence if the children are young.

The police know there are drugs in the home, but the parents are allowed to stay (and use those drugs, I presume), and the children can stay and watch them use drugs. Didn’t the government sponsor an ad campaign recently that said something like, “Parents who use drugs have kids who use drugs”?

Besides that, do you think parents who are under the influence of drugs will make the best decisions about putting them away and making them inaccessible to the children?

Where would you hide them that would make them inaccessible to children anyway? Apparently these judges never had children like mine. They can find anything I try to hide in the house. It’s the stuff I leave right under their nose that they can’t seem to find… Hmmm, maybe that’s the secret?

This is just one of those rulings that makes no sense at all to me.

You know how a judge might order someone to wear an ankle monitor that will notify police if they leave their home or somewhere?

Well, I got to thinking why don’t stalking victims take some kind of device with them that would notify them if their stalker got too close? Seems like with GPS and other technology, this should be possible.

If I had a restraining order against someone but was still scared they would try to hurt me, I would want to know when they came within the restricted area. If I was at the mall or store and my stalker came too close (innocently or not), my device would let me know and I would have some time to plan an escape, get with a group, or call police. By the time a potential victim sees a stalker it’s often too late to get any help - and the stalker undoubtedly knows this!

Haven’t we all heard stories on the news about a victim being attacked by someone with a restraining order against them? Restraining orders simply aren’t enough against someone who bent on harming someone and doesn’t care about the consequences.

Hopefully someone is working on pulling the technologies together to make this possible. Maybe I should patent this idea…

In the meantime, sometimes we don’t recognize or acknowledge the signs of stalking until it’s too late to head it off. If you’re concerned you or someone you know may be a stalking victim, here’s an assessment or quiz that can help learn the warning signs:

http://socialhealth.bizcalcs.com/Calculator.asp?Calc=Stalking

Cyberstalking is becoming a more frequent problem, so here’s an assessment to check the warning signs:

http://socialhealth.bizcalcs.com/Calculator.asp?Calc=Cyberstalking

And since stalking often begins with abusive relationships, here are some other assessments you may find useful:

http://socialhealth.bizcalcs.com

The sooner a potential victim can identify a problem and take steps to correct it, the less likely they’ll actually become a stalking victim.

The Crandall Canyon mine in Utah caved in 2 1/2 weeks ago. Since then there has been a massive effort to find some signs of life and to get them out, dead or alive. During that rescue effort, a second cave-in occurred, killing 3 rescuers and sending 6 others to the hospital.

I listen and read about this story and so many questions immediately just pop off the top of my head…

The mine owners now say they can’t send any more rescuers into the mine because experts say, “The mountain is moving…” and “The mountain is still alive…”

• Did this mountain instability begin with the first cave-in? It seems hard to believe that it became that unstable so suddenly.
• How often is testing done for this? It seems to me the stability of the mountain should be tested every few days or so to determine the safety of everyday miners.
• Doesn’t it seem like something is bound to happen when you tunnel 2 or 3 miles into a mountain at depths of up to 2,000 feet?

It was mentioned that the miners may have run toward an escape route…

• Why would I think an “escape” route would lead out of the mine? But it doesn’t seem to. So what is it an escape from exactly?
• These mine companies typically pay millions in fines. Why not build real escape routes with some of that money? This would never be acceptable in a public building. Houses must have multiple ways out. Even buses have to have an emergency door at the back and top.
• Why are these miners allowed to be in there 2 to 3 miles from the only entrance (it seems) and as much as 2,000 feet deep underground with no other way out? I’m surprised that’s allowed for obvious reasons.

The drill holes have found no breathable air…

• Would preventive drill holes have kept the air breathable? Why are holes not always drilled close to where the miners are working?

Sue Dirks, a local resident, captured the essence of the problem with this rescue… “There is no right answer. If it was my family in there, I’d want them to get them out. But if it’s my family going in there to get them, you know, I don’t know.”

This has been an absolute tragedy. Everything seems to have been stacked against them from the beginning. Everything that can go wrong has gone wrong – since day 1.

I believe good can come from every situation, tragedies included. What good will come from this one?

Community and individual strength and character? Probably.

Mine safety? Hopefully.

This kind of event changes people – forever. Miners deserve better - if anything can be done to make mining safer.

Mary Winkler is free after serving 67 days, most of that in a prison hospital. (She was sentenced to 210 days and given credit for some 140+ days in jail before posting bail.) Her crime? She shot her husband in the back while he was sleeping. Her defense? She was an abused wife.

Winkler admitting shooting her minister husband, Matthew, with a 12-gauge shotgun on the night of March 22, 2006, in their parsonage home in Selmer, Tenn. She then drove to Alabama with her three young daughters, ages 8, 6 and 1, where she was taken into custody the following day.

She was indicted on a charge of first-degree murder, but on April 19, after eight hours of deliberation, the jury found her guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

There has been a lot of buzz about whether Mary Winkler got away with murder. The questions being asked are:

• “Was justice satisfied?”
• “Was her sentence too easy?”
• “Did she play the abuse card?”

The facts were presented, the jury deliberated, and the judge handed down a sentence that has been served. I wasn’t there and don’t pretend to know all the facts. I would just like to ask the bigger questions it raises for society:

• How can we stop someone from using the system to get away with murder?
• Can we tell the difference between a person who has been emotionally abused and a person with anger problems or not enough self-confidence?
• Can we punish someone for emotional abuse or is it the victim’s responsibility to seek help, walk away, or stand up to the situation?
• Should verbal or emotional abuse even enter into the equation in a case like this? Hitting someone is illegal, threatening someone with harm is usually illegal, but is yelling at them illegal? Is controlling them emotionally illegal? Even if you’re married to them? Should it be illegal or is that person suppose to take charge of their own situation and do whatever it takes to change that situation?
• Why does a victim stay so long that this level of control and helplessness takes over?
• How can professionals tell if these attributes still exist in Mary Winkler and will be rerun again in she gets involved with another man of similar personality?
• Unless medically unable, is a person ultimately responsible for their own care? Including not tolerating abuse of any kind – physical or emotional?

Controlling people tend to seek out relationships with people who can be controlled. That’s human nature. 

Trying to punish someone and label someone as emotionally abusive is a slippery slope. If no threats are made, what is the basis for believing you are in danger? Is it your own assumptions? If so, is that fair to the “abuser”? Maybe all you have to do is speak up and things will change. Maybe all you have to do is leave and he will learn his lesson. Without any kind of documented threats, cases like these come down to choices.

Relationships are complicated for sure and I don’t know how the jury came to their conclusion, but it’s kind of scary to me.

Off the top of my head, it seems that in our “educate the public” world, we should focus more attention on educating young girls and women to recognize abusive signs or tendencies early in a relationship. We need to teach them that if there’s something going on in their relationship that just doesn’t “feel” right, there’s probably something wrong. We need to teach them to take corrective action long before threats begin or the beaten-down attitude takes hold. We should teach young girls and women to tell someone, just like we teach our children to tell someone if they’ve been abused, and keep telling until someone listens!

This website has some simple assessments or quizzes to help anyone - women, men, young, or old - learn to recognize an signs of an abusive relationship…

http://socialhealth.bizcalcs.com/

Here’s another story from the August 10, 2007 edition of my local paper, The Daily Herald, a Provo, Utah-based newspaper. This story actually happened in Ogden, Utah.

Two young women were shot and killed and 2 others were injured at a post-wedding party. The suspect is a 19 year old gang member.

He says disrespectful words often trigger gang violence. “That’s how innocent people get hurt all the time,” Riqo Mariano Perea told the newspaper. “It’s a matter of respect when you’re in a gang. You got to keep the respect.” Apparently, he is justified in doing whatever it takes to keep that respect – no personal responsibility, he had to do it, that’s the way it works.

Perea said guns were fired because someone from a rival gang shouted an insulting, disrespectful expletive. The insult ended with, “Big time Norte.” “Saying ‘big time’ is like saying you’re the hardest,” Perea told the newspaper. “None of that stuff that night would have happened if [that] dude hadn’t said nothing.”

Off the top of my head, I thought, “What’s the problem, why is that an insult? Don’t these gang members want to be seen as ‘hard’, tough, or whatever?” If not, they sure are doing everything wrong!

Perea also said he was born into his gang because his mother was once a member, although his father is a member of the rival gang involved that night. Again, no responsibility for his decisions – it’s not his fault.

In November, Perea was charged with attempted homicide, when he was accused of shooting into a car with 5 people, wounding one of them.

I have always wondered why a criminal gets a lesser charge for attempted murder,  attempted rape, or attempted anything. He gets off easier because he got lucky and wasn’t able to succeed at his plan? Something sounds unjust about that to me. He attempted, and would have succeeded, except for circumstances beyond his control. The victim was able to fight back, run, duck, or whatever. Maybe the shooter isn’t a good enough marksman or someone else interrupts them in the act.

I don’t think a criminal should get credit unless they stopped themselves short of finishing their crime. The charges should be exactly the same as if they had succeeded.

This story highlights why I believe that… He got off easy before. It’s only August, November was only 9 months ago. I don’t know the details of that story – if he’s been tried, served his time, or what. But for some reason, 9 months later, he’s out again and this time he apparently succeeded in killing someone. Give him more practice and, like most people, his aim has improved.

These two women could still be alive if he had been in jail from the first attempt. But he was rewarded for his failure in that case. Is that the message society wants to send? If you’re a failure, don’t worry, you’ll get another chance, just hang in there. That’s a good message for everyday failures and shortcomings, but not in cases of violent behavior.

This guy, as in most similar cases, seems to accept no personal responsibility. If you’re in a gang and someone says the wrong thing, intentional or not, you get to start shooting.

Some facts about gangs:

• There are more than 24,500 different youth gangs around the country, counting more than 772,500 teens and young adults as members.
• Youth gangs are responsible for much of the serious violence in the United States and pose one of the greatest threats to the safety and security of average Americans.
• Teen gang members are much more likely to commit serious and violent crimes than other teens.
• A survey in Denver found that while only 14% of teens were gang members, they were responsible for committing 89% of the serious violent crimes.
• Violence between gangs is common, and gang members are at least 60 times more likely to be killed than the rest of the population.

You can help slow the spread of gang violence by learning what a gang is, what the signs of gang involvement and gang activity are. If you are concerned that your teenager, your friend, or someone else may be involved with a gang, take this quick assessment to learn more about the warning signs and help you determine if your child may truly be getting into gang activity…

http://parentingteens.bizcalcs.com/Calculator.asp?Calc=Gang-Involvement&Group=Parenting-Teens-Assessments

Finally,  a judge with a little common sense…

This story ran in the August 10, 2007 edition of the Provo, Utah-based newspaper, The Daily Herald.

Remember California’s infamous “3 Strikes and You’re Out” law from a few years ago? I believe it was ruled unconstitutional shortly after it was enacted. Creating a law so that it can be named with a nice baseball cliche may have been a little shortsighted. And maybe 3 arrests for ”low-level” crimes is a few too few, but the idea was not all bad – get these people off the streets once their pattern of behavior and attitude shows a lack of regard for laws and they just keep doing whatever they want. We’ve slapped their wrists so many times they don’t even feel it any more. It’s time to stop assuming these people are going to change and protect the rest of us from them.

This is the story of a local guy, Michael Pino, who has been arrested 29 times in the last 9 years and convicted of 3 felonies and 11 misdemeanors. The judge has apparently had enough and sentenced Pino to up to 35 years in prison for a handful of drug and burglary-related charges. Just this arrest alone, he was charged with possession of meth in a drug-free zone (a second degree felony), possession of marijuana, burglary, theft, and possession of stolen property (all third degree felonies). He still has another pending case for burglary and theft.

Pino’s attorney asked the judge to consider the small amount of drugs he had and the low cost of the stolen items, around $1,000 worth. On the other hand, the prosecutor reminded the judge of Pino’s criminal record and his attitude toward the judicial process. Pino considers himself a victim of the system and feels the system hates him and thinks he is “some sort of monster”. Where would he get that idea? The prosecutor said, “He is some sort of cancer on society. He has been a real problem for a very long time.”

The defense attorney pushed for concurrent sentences because Pino’s crimes were “low-level”. But the judge rejected that request, saying, “I don’t find you to be a monster. But to be truthful with you, I do believe that you are a person that doesn’t recognize or refuses to accept the principles that society lives by.” “Society is entitled to be protected from those people who commit low-level crimes.” (especially when they commit them over and over again)

I don’t claim to understand the ruling and sentencing by precedent thing that goes on in courtrooms, but I believe it has gotten us in trouble more than once. Think about it, some stupid judge makes a bad ruling, it’s upheld on appeal for whatever reason, and now every other judge with a similar case is stuck with that precedent and is required to rule in a similar way, no matter how much the judge knows it’s wrong?! How can that ever get fixed? And attorneys scour the books looking for those rulings and throws it in the judges’ faces, either at the original trial or the appeal.

As one of the members of society who is entitled to be protected from career criminal like Pino, I would like to send up a cheer for this judge – Let’s hear it for Judge Stott! Way to go! Thank you!

My family and I can breathe a little easier, pending appeal of course, knowing that at least one judge in this country is showing a little common sense and respect for us law-abiding citizens.

I first heard this on a segment of the “Today” show this morning… Matt Lauer asked John McCain in an interview if McCain thought it mattered that none of Mitt Romney’s 5 sons have served in the military. Fortunately, McCain answered that he didn’t think it did.

Should it matter? Shouldn’t children choose their own careers?

Romney’s response was the first thought that popped off the top of my head when I heard about this ridiculous question, ”My sons are all adults and they’ve made decisions about their careers and they’ve chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard.”

If a parent expects or pushes their children to serve in the military (or anything else) to benefit their own career, wouldn’t that be selfish? That sounds like helicopter parenting at its worst. And those actions would not demonstrate the leadership skills we should be looking for in the next President of the US.

I also have 5 sons and I would hate for someone to judge my ability to do a job because my children didn’t choose a certain career.

The world’s largest toy company, Mattel Inc., has recalled 967,ooo plastic preschool toys made in China because their paint may contain too much lead.

I saw a clip on our local news where a reporter went to a family’s home and interviewed a mother. As the reporter named the specific toys listed in the recall the mother pulled the toys out of a box…

Reporter: Big Bird

Mother: Here’s one.

Reporter: Elmo

Mother: There it is.

Reporter: Dora or Diego

Mother: Here’s Dora. I know we have Diego somewhere.

Of the 10 or so toys named, the mother, within seconds, pulled out all but one. And even that one she said was in the home somewhere.

This Chinese toy recall is just the latest in a series of public relations nightmares for products made in China and imported to the US (and presumably around the world):

First, we had the pet food recall. Every day it seemed a new brand was found to be contaminated.

There was Chinese-made toothpaste that was poisonous.

And huge numbers of defective tires, which sound pretty harmless compared to the others until you realize, “So much is riding on your tires.” Your family’s safety often depends on tires wearing out over time, not shredding or exploding without warning. After all, when is this going to happen to your tires? When the car is sitting in the garage? Not likely – it will be when you and/or someone you love is travelling in that vehicle!

The very latest isn’t a recall (yet anyway), but no less alarming. It seems that about 1 million pounds of frozen shrimp, catfish, and eel made it to store shelves and dinner plates despite an FDA order that every shipment be inspected. The seafood arrived under the FDA’s “import alert”, meaning the FDA was supposed to hold EVERY shipment until it had passed an inspection for banned drugs and chemicals. But one of every four shipments got through without being stopped or tested. The amount of uninspected seafood is enough to satisfy the seafood cravings of 66,000 Americans for one year.

Remember, this is the same country that recently executed its former food and drug safety chief for taking bribes!

What would companies like Mattel do if Americans refuse to buy products made in China? Parents don’t like anyone messing with the health of their kids! And hopefully they will close their wallets on this latest “Made in China” fiasco.

Is this the outcome so many greedy American companies envisioned when they sent the work overseas so they can get it cheaper? Why not? Off the top of my head, it sounds like the old saying, “You get what you pay for”, is still true.

It’s not just what’s getting out of China either… I read a report of a restaurant cook running out the back of his building, grabbing some cardboard off the street, soaking it in water and chemicals to break it down, then adding it to the meat he was cooking and serving on buns. Obviously, you make more money because cardboard from the street is free. I guess he figured he was cleaning up the litter in his neighborhood and turning a little profit on it – win, win for him and the city. Lose for the consumer who has no clue what he’s getting. Makes you wonder what’s really in that cereal that actually tastes like cardboard, doesn’t it?

While China continues to insist their products are safe, the Beijing Olympics one year countdown started today.

Just off the top of my head, I’m glad I’ll be home watching the 2008 Olympics on my “Made in China” television. And I’m glad I really hate seafood – Chinese imported, fresh caught, or anything in between.

In the latest in a string of cases, a Liberian man’s child abuse case was dropped after a 3 year search for an interpreter of the Vai language. An interpreter was finally located but the judge dismissed the charges anyway and the interpreter was used to inform the accused of the judge’s decision. He was accused of assaulting two relatives, a 7-year-old girl and a 1-year-old girl, in Maryland in 2004.

The first thought that popped off the top of my head when I read this story was – you search for 3 years, finally find what you’re looking for, but now it’s too late!? So we’ll just pay all this money for the search, the arrangements to get the interpreter here, and only use them to tell him he’s free to go!

Why didn’t they just send the interpreter right back home (they’ll have to pay for that anyway), tell Mr. Mahamu Kanneh in English that he’s free to go, and when he sits there because he can’t understand, lock the door again?

In the judge’s opinion the 3 year search and related delays violated this man’s right to a speedy trial. Was 3 years the limit? Or was there discretion to be applied by the judge? If it was judge’s discretion, why does he suddenly release this man just when the interpreter is found and brought in?

Apparently their right to a speedy trial is violated no matter how hard the court system is attempting to locate an interpreter, spending tax dollars all along the way.

Federal law requires public agencies receiving federal money to provide equal access to people with “limited English proficiency”. The courts have ruled this means that a defendant has the right to understand and that interpreters should be available for all court proceedings, usually at the court’s expense.

Perhaps federal immigration laws should be changed to allow people into the US only if the are fluent in a language for which the court systems have interpreters on hand? That seems fair, it’s our country and we should only let in people we can deal with.

This guy has a right to understand. But why doesn’t he have the responsibility to be able to understand? Perhaps they should be expected to speak English if they’ve been in the US more than, say, a year or two? After that, no more money for interpreters.

I don’t know how long he has been in the US. I do know he was in jail for 3 years but apparently didn’t take all that free time to learn some English. His opportunity and how he would do that in jail, I must admit, I’m not sure, but it was a lot of free time. There are people in jail who learn a lot about law and such.

How could it take 3 years for court officials to find an interpreter? There are several factors:

• There are only 100,000 people in the world who speak Vai. And I don’t know how many of those speak English as well (99,999 at most, since Mr. Kanneh apparently doesn’t), which is obviously a requirement to be an interpreter.
• Interpreters must be familiar with the legal system and court terms so they can translate phrases like “blood splatter”.
• They must be able to keep a running translation of what is said.
• They must be able to consistently make it to court. They usually have other jobs so the courts have to work around their schedule.
• Ideally, courts hire full-time interpreters who are certified by the state or a professional organization. They then look for agencies, lists by state judiciaries, or online services to find interpreters. With rare languages, they begin contacting community organizations or embassies which often proves unreliable and they end up hiring people with little or no court background.
• The search gets expensive too. Courtroom personnel must be assigned to the job and interpreters often must be flown in for cases.

Apparently Mr. Kanneh is not a US citizen since there is an English proficiency requirement for citizenship. What’s wrong with deporting these non-US citizens when the burden to defend or prove the crime is too great? It’s the safest thing to do and non-US citizens should not have all the same rights that citizens do.

I thought we allowed people into the US because they can contribute to our country, their communities, etc. How can anyone make a significant contribution to our society and way of life if they can’t, don’t, or won’t learn English?

Here are some other cases that have been threatened with dismissal when interpreters for extremely rare languages can’t be found:

•  In Arizona, a judge threatened to drop human smuggling charges against 3 men because of problems locating Mayan dialect interpreters.
• Arkansas authorities have struggled to find an interpreter for 2 men from the Marshall Islands accused of killing children.
• Prosecutors in Louisville, Kentucky finally found a Bantu interpreter for a Somali man accused of killing his 4 children.

Prosecutors have appealed this case against Mahamu Kanneh, let’s hope they get it reinstated and the interpreter is still willing to show up.

Court officials say it’s becoming more common to see defendants who are native speakers of rare languages and finding interpreters can be extremely difficult. We need some changes to the laws to allow more time for these cases.

When a judge drops a case like this, maybe justice would be served best by removing him from the judge’s bench and giving him the job of finding an interpreter. Then perhaps, the judge would understand just how hard it is.

Here’s a story that made me wonder about an interesting, if unintended, consequence of global warming…

The arctic is one of the earth’s last energy frontiers. Some estimates put 10 billion tons of oil and gas in about 460,000 square miles of the Arctic shelf. As the Arctic’s ice melts and recedes, presumably due to global warming, it’s becoming more likely those waters can be navigated and that oil and gas extracted.

Russia wants to send a miniature sub to the seabed under the North Pole and leave a titanium capsule containing the Russian flag – a symbolic claim of the Arctic Ocean floor for Russia. Russia has claimed this polar region since at least the days of Bolshevika and stated that claim in 2002 in an application to the U.N. committee that administers the Law of the Sea. The U.N. rejected that application citing lack of evidence. This expedition is scientifically important as well as politically important. Russia’s claim to the Arctic floor riches may depend on whether the expedition, subject to dispute and verification of course, determines that the Arctic’s ocean floor in that area is a continuation of the Lomonosov Ridge, a 1,240 mile underwater mountain range connecting Russia and Greenland.

I’m doing some of the simpler things, striking a balance with nature if you will. I drive a hybrid car; my family has a recycle garbage can along with a regular and a yard waste garbage can; I use compact fluorescent light bulbs wherever they will work in my home. Many weeks there are 3 different colored garbage cans outside our house.

Our recycle garbage is always full and sometimes we even have to sneak a few pieces into the neighbor’s recycle can. In fact, I bet we recycle more than twice what goes in the black, non-recyclable can. Oftentimes, our black can has only one lonely bag from the kitchen garbage representing our 7-person family’s entire non-recyclable garbage for a whole week.

Though it may sound like it, I’m actually not a fanatic about global warming and environmental issues. I believe global warming is real. I believe people play a role in that and I believe we should do what we can about it. On the other hand, I don’t believe global warming is a big crisis, I don’t believe people are as responsible as the alarmists would have us believe, and I really don’t believe we can completely go back to the lifestyle that would be required to really make a difference.

I tend to believe things usually work out pretty much the way they should – whether by nature’s hand or God’s. Our earth has an amazing way of renewing, cleansing and taking care of itself and us. And people have an incredible way of inventing what’s needed when it’s needed to solve the problems of the day. I think if we all balance our actions without worrying too much about using the earth’s resources, we’ll have enough of what we need.

The battle over the Arctic’s resources could start a new cold war, but that’s a problem with people, not with nature.

Could this be the silver lining in the global warming phenomenon? Off the top of my head, I think it just might be.