Tuesday, October 24, 2006

I’m not responsible!

Monday, I posted a blog entitled “Our cheating nation.” It was based on an article in Parade magazine published on 10/15/06. Two other articles were published that day in the Peoria Journal Star. The first one was short and I’ll quote it in its entirety. It was published on page A2.

“Pregnant with her fifth child, Chytoria Graham often walked the streets of her working-class neighborhood, happily pushing her 1-year-old in a stroller while the other children walked alongside her.

‘I’ve never seen her without her kids,’ said Loretta Richie, who lives near Graham. ‘She always kept the girls’ hair combed, dressed real pretty.’ (Is the quote from Loretta Richie relevant? I guess it must be because the reporter, who is unnamed, put it in an extremely short article [or the editor left it in while editing out other information in the story].—my addition)

But now Graham’s children have been taken from her by authorities—except for 4-week-old Jarron. He is in the hospital in serious but stable condition after a horrific event that stunned police and prosecutors: Authorities say she grabbed the infant by his feet and swung him, hitting her boyfriend and fracturing the baby’s skull.

Police say Graham told them she had been drinking and ‘snapped.’ Her attorneys say Graham, who is unemployed and lives with her boyfriend, Deangelo Troop, 20, could be suffering from post-partum depression, and possibly battered-woman syndrome.”

First, she like everyone else who is accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. However, it seems the lawyers are already working to prove that it’s not her fault even if she carried out the actions.

Here we have a woman whose age is not given but who has five children and is living with a 20 year old man. She is unemployed although she has five children. She supposedly admitted to police that she had been drinking. She has at least two lawyers—it must be nice to have more than one. The lawyers are already throwing forth the possibility of either/or or both post-partum depression and battered-woman syndrome. And what is the apparent conclusion according to both her and her lawyers? Why, naturally, SHE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HER ACTIONS. She is not responsible for taking a 4-week-old child and using the child as a weapon. SHE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE. Oh, our cheating nation.

The second article is an opinion piece published on page A5. It is longer so I won’t quote the entire article just a couple of sentences from it. The opinion piece was written by Dr. Richard L. Grant. “Dr. Richard L. Grant of Peoria is a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria. He has been a faculty member at the medical school since 1983.”

The headline reads “Symptoms can be smokescreens for mental illness.” The sub-headline reads “Frank Picl case helps illuminate argument that alcoholism, gambling addiction hint at underlying psychiatric disorder.” (Frank Picl is an attorney who was recently convicted of stealing from one of his clients—my addition.)

“The symptoms of alcoholism and gambling act like a locomotive’s headlights, blinding those looking at them to the rest of the train. The underlying serious mental disorders that set the stage for these symptoms are woefully under-recognized by the laity, the law and health professionals alike. The publicized plea of Peoria attorney Frank Picl is the most recent case in point.”

“In different people, like Picl, the unique combination of brain disorders in each individual led down a path to illegal behaviors which in their “right mind,” they would not have committed. (I’m not sure how he knows this. But then, he claims to be an expert.—my addition) Now many reside in prison.”

What seems to be the conclusion of this article. Many people who commit crimes are NOT RESPOSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. In Picl’s case, he had a drinking problem; he had a gambling problem. Last time I knew, most people are not forced to either drink or gamble. Those are personal choices. Many people have chosen not to drink and not to gamble. But, of course, we must have a Constitutional right to do these things. Just because we choose to do them doesn’t mean we are responsible for what occurs later. Because as we all know, the trend today is to exclaim:

What is GOD’S position on our responsibilities? Just maybe, our earlier choices make us responsible for what we do today.

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)

What, GOD declares that our earlier actions will reap consequences that may not be to our liking. Is that possible? How can the evil that we do come back to harm us? Is that fair? IT IS ACCORDING TO GOD! “A MAN REAPS WHAT HE SOWS” Galatians 6: 7b (NIV) WOW, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ACTIONS!!!


Post a Comment

<< Home