If I Had a Hammer

March 27, 2009
Posted by Jay Livingston

I’ve commented before (here, for example) that the American tendency to define problems in moral terms leads us to come up not with solutions but with punishments. I realize that if all you have is a hammer, you tend to treat everything as though it’s a nail. But surely there must be a variety of approaches available, especially when we need to deal with kids. Yet under policies that go by names like “zero tolerance,” we empty the toolbox of everything else, and we wind up with the Supreme Court deciding whether it’s O.K. for school authorities to strip-search a 13-year-old girl because they think she might be carrying Advil.

Now we have this from yesterday’s New York Times. Investigators in the office of George Skumanick, DA for Wyoming County, PA, found a picture on a girl’s cell phone – a couple of girls age 13 or 14 at a slumber party. The picture shows them from the waist up, and they are wearing bras. One of the girls is Marissa Miller, now fifteen.
Mr. Skumanick said he considered the photo “provocative” enough to tell Marissa and the friend, Grace Kelly, that if they did not attend a 10-hour class dealing with pornography and sexual violence, he was considering filing a charge of sexual abuse of a minor against both girls. If convicted, they could serve time in prison and would probably have to register as sex offenders.

The Times story doesn’t say exactly how the investigators got their hands on this salacious photo. Presumably, a teacher confiscated the phone because a kid was using it in school. Then school officials looked through the stored photos on the phone (a sort of iStripSearch), found the picture of the bra-clad girls, and called the DA’s office.

Wyoming County is just north of Luzerne County, home of Wilkes-Barre, where a juvenile court judge was sending kids to for-profit juvenile jails for the slightest infractions. The judge was getting payoffs from the firm that ran the jail.

Unfortunately, the hammer-obsessed are not confined to Northeast Pennsylvania. At Scatterplot, Drek posted a not-so-uninteresting item about the way Sheboygan, Michigan responds to teen sex – two court cases involving consensual sex between a 17-year-old and a 14-year-old. Drek was concerned about the unequal treatment. The 17-year-old girl with the 14-year-old boyfriend faced up to nine months in jail. The 17-year-old-boy with the 14-year-old girlfriend faces 25 years in prison.

Do any other advanced countries rely on extreme criminal penalties to deal with consensual sex between teenagers? Even if it’s sex that most adults don’t approve of, isn’t there some less destructive way to deal with it?

Know Your Limits

March 26, 2009
Posted by Jay Livingston

Just in case you haven’t seen this instructional video on gender roles that has been getting wide distribution on the Internets. It’s from Harry Enfield and Chums, a British TV show of the 1990s. I post it here without further comment.

Weight for the Bus

March 26, 2009
Posted by Jay Livingston

Bus shelters are great places for advertisements and other public information. But what if it’s information that you don’t want to publicize . . . like your weight?

(Click on the image for a larger view.)

This is in Amsterdam (that woman weighs 68 kilos, not pounds), and I’m not sure what the inscrutable Dutch have in mind. Maybe it's supposed to encourage people to forget the bus and walk instead. Or to do what just about everyone in Amsterdam does – ride a bike (like that one at the right edge of the photo.)

(Hat tip: Marcel Maréchal at La Pub des Idées)

Omerta at JAMA

March 24, 2009
Posted by Jay Livingston

If you thought sociology journals don’t respond well to criticism, try the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A medical researcher, Jonathan Leo, at some obscure school in Tennessee (Lincoln Memorial University in Harrogate) reads an article in JAMA about the use of antidepressants in stroke patients. He finds some flaws in it. He goes online and discovers that the author of the article has been on the payroll of Forest Laboratories, the makers of Lexapro and other antidepressants. He publishes a letter about this in BMJ (aka British Medical Journal).

Does JAMA welcome this revelation and vow to be more open when it comes to conflict-of-interest charges? Think again. Instead, they go all Goodfellas, as a matter of policy.
Medical Journal Decries Public Airing of Conflicts

The Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the world's most influential medical journals, says it is instituting a new policy for how it handles complaints about study authors who fail to disclose they have received payments from drug companies or others that pose a conflict: It will instruct anyone filing a complaint to remain silent about the allegation until the journal investigates the charge. (emphasis added.)

That’s from a story by David Armstrong in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. (The rest of the article is gated.)

Kathy G. at The G Spot has more information, though I’m not sure what her source is.


The editors at JAMA deny making these threats, but they are on record with their policy: don’t say nothin’ to nobody “while an investigation is under way.” JAMA’s investigation into the antidepressant matter had taken five months. When did it finally publish a correction and an acknowledgment from the author that he had received and not reported payments from Forest Laboratories? A week after Dr. Leo’s letter appeared in the BMJ.