We make a distinction in this country between children and adults. We do this in the belief that it takes a certain level of maturity to be able to make reasoned decisions, and before that maturity is reached a person is less responsible for their actions–that is the province of a responsible adult, typically a parent.

The principle is codified: rights come with responsibilities, responsibilities confer rights. It is this principle that is the basis for withholding some rights for society’s younger members when we do not hold them responsible. It is a matter of equity and a recognition of human development.

In our society, we set that legal milestone based on age, as basing it on “maturity” would be virtually impossible to implement.

But then we sometimes choose to prosecute underage defendants in criminal cases as adults. The presumption is that the crime was so abhorrent, or the attitude of the defendant so callous, that they must face the penalties that an adult would face.

Let me reiterate the principle in a different syntax: if you do not have the right, you cannot be held responsible. Conversely, if you have the responsibility you must have the right.

But, while we hold these youthful defendants to adult responsibilities, we do not then give them the rights of adults.

While we can certianly have spirited debates about what age the young become adults, and assume the responsibilities of adulthood along with the corresponding rights, is there really any basis for holding an individual responsible as an adult without granting them the rights that go with that level of responsibility?

What do you think?

Recently, a Portland, Oregon, man had his computer repaired at a local factory-authorized dealer.

The first time he used the computer after he had it back he noticed that the screen looked different. A little exploration revealed that the information on his hard drive had been completely replaced with information from someone else’s computer. The information belonged to a professional, and contained confidential records about clients.

When asked, the dealer explained that the wrong data had been restored to the customer’s computer after the repair was done. Human error.

When asked why this kind of error had happened, and not been detected before the computer was released to the customer, no explanation was offered. When the manufacturer, who presumably has standards for it’s authorized dealers, was asked about this incident, they had no comment.

These are the folks who handle all our personal data. They provide the hardware and software that allows us to create records, and to transmit them to others, assuring us of the confidentiality of the data.

Gives you a warm feeling of security, doesn’t it?

This links to the practices of various companies that require you to give them a broad array of personal information before they will do business with you. They assure you that the information will be protected, and not released to anyone “not authorized” to have it.

In most cases they cannot tell you why they need it other than “it’s our policy.” On the rare occasions that they do supply a reason it is usually vague (e.g. “for continuing support”) or false (they do not need your social security number to run a credit check.)

They can’t usually tell you who is “authorized”, nor how they will protect the information, and they won’t agree to compensate you for any time or expenses needed to clean up the damage done by their failure to adequately protect the information.

Here comes that warm feeling of security again.

My usual response it to refuse to do business with these companies.

It works for me. If it works for enough of us, the companies will change their practices, or go out of business.

What do you think?

Two Oregon events have recently come to my attention, and it set me thinking.

The first was the trial of two parents for the death of their child. They were charged with manslaughter when their child died, because, as members of a religious sect that believes in prayer, not Western medicine, as the way to restore health, they did not seek medical help for their child when they knew the child was ill.

I was not at the trial, and I do not know the facts presented to the jury. I do know that the jury found them not guilty of manslaughter, although they did find the father guilty of criminal mistreatment. As I understand it, the parents were not aware of the seriousness of the illness, and that was a factor in their acquittal.

But the point here is that they were prosecuted. They were prosecuted because law enforcement officials felt they had violated the law in not taking their child to the hospital because of their religious beliefs.

Keep in mind that there is no law that says that if your child is ill you must take your child to the hospital. There are numerous laws about being responsible for the welfare of your children.

Yesterday, another child was lost. A 5-year-old child was playing in a river, parents nearby. It appears that the child fell in “knee deep” water and was pulled into the current. The child drowned. At some point the parents noticed that their child was missing. An aunt recovered the child. Medical help arrived, but was unable to save the child. It is estimated that the child was underwater for 5 or 10 minutes. The child was not wearing a flotation device.

What are the chances that these parents will be charged with manslaughter?

After all, they allowed a 5-year-old child into open water without a flotation device, a practice that has led to a number of drownings in this area in just the last few weeks. Media stories regularly warn people of the danger of entering the water without a flotation device. In fact, there are laws about flotation devices for children in boats, although not, to my knowledge, for wading in rivers.

And they lost track of the child for at least 5 minutes, and perhaps 10, knowing the child was in the water.

In the first case, the child died when the parents did not call on medical help. This was considered so neglectful of the child’s welfare that they were tried for manslaughter. Let’s ignore for a moment the unstated assumption that if they had taken the child to the hospital the child would have recovered, an outcome that by no means is assured – children (and adults) die every day in hospitals, often from diseases they contracted in the hospital. In this case law enforcement officials chose to charge the parents with manslaughter. After all, seeking medical care for children who are ill is the common practice in this country – the norm.

In the second case, the child died when the parents allowed a 5-year old to play, unsupervised and unwatched, in a river, without a flotation device. There has been no call to see the parents charged with manslaughter. After all, letting children play unsupervised, and without floatation devices, is the common practice in this country – the norm.

It appears that the first child’s death is criminal. The second child’s death is just a terrible accident.

Kind of like when drunk drivers kill people.

What do you think?