By Jim Berg
A young mother struggles to board a bus, carrying a small child and a bag of groceries. She has to put down the child and the groceries to reach into her pocket for her bus pass, then find a seat on the crowded bus. A young man stands and offers his seat near the front of the bus, for which she is grateful. After finally getting seated with child and groceries, she notices that the elderly gentleman who boarded the bus after her is twenty-five cents short of the required fare. She quickly reaches into her bag and produces a quarter, which she offers to the old man. Even though he speaks little English, his gratitude transcends language, and the bus driver is relieved of the conflict between sympathy and fare policy.
Meanwhile, in another part of town, an old man is pistol-whipped, clutching the steering wheel of his Lexus, which his tormentor is trying to take away from him. The thief is yelling profanities and threatening to kill the man if he doesn’t let go of the steering wheel. Finally, the thief makes good on his threat and shoots the old man in the head. He does so more out of rage and frustration than of a desire to take the car, because after a moment of realization, he runs away instead of pulling the body from the car and driving off. The first police officer on the scene thinks it was rather stupid of the thief to go so far as to commit murder, then not take the car. It’s not unusual to attribute poor decisions made in the panic-driven moments of committing a crime to stupidity on the part of the criminal.
One of these little scenarios is going to make the five o’clock news, where it will become symbolic of a time. It will be the lead story to define another day in the city and shape many people’s perceptions of the city in which they live. Both scenarios involve the interaction of human beings, doing very human things. Doing things that humans have always done. Yet one will be assigned much greater significance. The talking head — the news anchor — will put on the somber face and shake his head at the senselessness of the crime, and we, the viewer, encouraged by “get tough” politicians, will be expected to feel outrage akin to the hysteria of the victim’s immediate family.
No, thank you. Certainly, sympathy and comfort goes out to those who have been hurt by the actions of others, but the powerful emotions of victimization should not define the world in which we live. The appropriate response to crime is sympathy to the victims, but a sober, thoughtful response to the issue of crime in general. Justice has become a pseudonym for revenge, and, as a people, we should be above this bloodthirsty desire. This is something that almost all of the great moral traditions teach. When wronged, the higher response is one of forgiveness.
The fact is that most people stand a slim chance of being seriously hurt by crime, and it is on this fact that we should base our behavior and world view. There are some very basic things that can be done to drastically reduce the chance of being the victim of a crime. Don’t do drugs or alcohol, avoid abusive relationships, be aware and alert, especially after dark, don’t flaunt wealth, and treat everybody with respect.
One’s sense of security is largely defined by the media one consumes. Be selective. There are a plethora of choices, and more on the way. Choose to consume media that is empowering; media that reveals solutions; media that respects its audience. Reject media that is demeaning; that makes you feel powerless; that is disrespectful. But reject it in an affirmative way, by choosing an alternative or creating an alternative. Censorship or family values fascism is not the answer. We all have the ultimate power to turn off the media and children should be taught how and when to turn it off. By choosing wisely, we will influence the quality of the choices that are available. That’s the beauty of the system we have created.