Looks like The News-Sentinel and the Indianapolis Star differ slightly on the case of the Rushville teen who barely escaped prison time for what was intended as a harmless prank. Here's our editorial, which is in line with my earlier blog post stressing the consequences of his prank:
But let's give the school system some credit and consider things from the administrators' perspective. Before they found the doll, they were reacting to a security video showing a hooded figure bringing a package into the school. The school was locked down for three hours as a bomb squad and dogs scoured the building. His prank spread fear that something dreadful was about to happen.
And here's the Star's, which chooses to emphasize the potential miscarriage of justice:
The media's scrutiny of the case -- even Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Leonard Pitts wrote in defense of Morton -- may well have pushed this sensible solution to the fore. But what would have happened if the case hadn't attracted such a high profile? Even more important, what happens in thousands of other cases in which Indiana teenagers face overly harsh prison sentences?
During an Indianapolis Star Editorial Board investigation of sexual abuse in Indiana's juvenile prisons last year, state Department of Corrections officials argued that county judges and prosecutors push many teens into the state prison system who don't belong there.
Fine. We disagree. The original charges were too harsh, but school officials were justified in their anger. Different people will put a different emphasis on those two angles. But in making its case, the Star omits any reference at all to the aftermath of the teen's prank. Including that information might have diluted the "teens are being pushed into prison" argument, so the omission is understandable. But it's not playing fair.
Yes, before you ask, I've ignored or downplayed facts before that would have detracted from the point I was trying to make in a particular editorial. Most polemics suffer from that practice -- all of us of all political persuasions are guilty of seeing what we want to see more clearly than what we wish wasn't there. This case just seemed more blatant than most.
