Local educator, William G. Keczkemethy, wrote a column in Sunday’s Globe titled, Will you be the next victim? The column focused on “violent, anti-social behavior” and the inability of our legal system and public officials to adequately address such behavior.
Mr. Keczkemethy pointed out just how bad violent crime is in some places in the United States and how our criminal justice sometimes fails us, and he somewhat outrageously compared America to Somalia—a place which does not have a working government—saying, “And we think Somalia is barbaric and violent!”
He then wrote:
Many Americans have been programmed to question and debate anything and everything. Virtually every crime and criminal now has apologists and supporters… Some claim that criminals are not really bad, but compelled into criminality by forces such as poverty. This apologetic link between being poor and criminal is weak… Apologizing for violence undermines clear understanding between right and wrong…
Personally, I don’t know of anyone who believes that “criminals are not really bad” or who believes people are “compelled into criminality by forces such as poverty.” Some people do believe that there is a strong correlation between poverty rates and crime rates, but direct causation is not usually asserted, mainly because there is no way to “prove” such an assertion.
So, if Mr. Keczkemethy wants to take shots at sociologists or social workers, he can have at it. But unless he can name names and cite some authorities that authenticate what he is saying, he is merely arguing with straw men.
But it seems his real point is in the last sentence, “Apologizing for violence undermines clear understanding between right and wrong…”
This claim led to Mr. Keczkemethy’s presentation of “three basic principles,” which he says need to be “re-established” in our society in order to “reduce violence.”
I will summarize his three basic principles as I understand them:
1. Morality is absolute: “Activists have driven the Ten Commandments from open society.” “We must teach our children that hurting others is wrong, period.”
Without even considering his claim that moral relativism is at the root of our problems with violence (it isn’t*), I will just point out that Mr. Keczkemethy is implying that somewhere out there the “experts” are teaching children that hurting others is okay, that somehow violence is a legitimate means to an end.
He uses “gratuitous violence in movies, music and video games” as examples. I don’t understand the logic of this claim. Again, no “expert” or “activist” I know of is teaching children that it’s okay to employ violence to get what they want, and unless Mr. Keczkemethy is willing to censor movies, music, and video games, consumers of such things–including parents who allow their kids to purchase them–are responsible for tolerating any violence involved, not “apologists” or “experts.”
2. “Demand primacy of rights.” “The right of law-abiding citizens to be secure from criminal injury has primacy over criminals’ rights to overtly or covertly, directly or indirectly act in ways harmful to citizens.”
What? Who would disagree with that? We all—experts and apologists alike—agree that criminals shouldn’t have the “right” to harm others. Again, I don’t understand the point of this claim, unless Mr. Keczkemethy is suggesting that we preemptively arrest anyone we suspect may be harmful to “law-abiding” citizens.
3. “Guarantee swift and certain justice. Our criminal justice system has become overly complex, convoluted and filled with loopholes. “
Mr. Keczkemethy argues that criminals “play” the system and that we can do better.
Well, I’m sure we can do better, but the point of the justice system should be “justice.” If its primary concern was “protecting Americans,” as Keczkemethy suggests, then we wouldn’t have to worry too much about getting things right—justice—and could worry more about getting anyone who is simply accused of a crime “off the streets,” so that Americans could sleep better at night.
That approach might be “swift and certain,” but it wouldn’t necessarily comport with justice.
The tenor of his column suggests that Mr. Keczkemethy would be comfortable with a more intrusive government, one in which officials monitor and control our entertainment choices, somehow stop criminals before they commit crimes, and engineer a justice system that favors speed and certainty over deliberation and doubt.
I can only hope he is not teaching this stuff to his students at Joplin High School.









