Submitted by Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Last night I had a situation that I found to be quite disappointing. Just after seven o’clock in the evening, I thought I would have dinner at a restaurant on the other side of town and drove over there to dine out. Along the way, I needed to merge onto a major interstate freeway in the metro area having four lanes and busy traffic. As I drove along in the outside lane, it was after dark at the time, I saw a man walking along the hard shoulder of the roadway. I worried that a drunk might veer off the travelled portion and hit him so I pulled over to offer him a ride. Thus began a conversation that really shows how we can often allow people to be put at risk because the county does not want to offer them a modicum of accommodation.
After I picked him up, the gentleman walking around the roadway told me that he had just been released from the county jail after serving time for driving while license suspended. He did not have someone to pick him up from jail so he had no other option but to walk back home. He lived twenty five miles from the jail. The only way he could get home, since he had no money with him, was to walk along a busy interstate freeway.
We previously wrote about the virtual debt peonage and endless circle of jail and further increases of fines with suspended drivers in an article HERE.
It would have taken him until after six in the morning to walk that far. So rather than drive him to the next exit to find another ride I just drove him home.
He was 57 years old, unemployed and had no family available to drive him. He had no other choice than to walk. I asked him if the jail offered him a bus ticket or some other accommodation to allow him to return home after release. He said the jail used to give bus tickets to people in his situation but stopped doing that several years ago.
We had a good visit with each other, but the entire time we were together I could not help but wonder why the county has a system as such that a person of little means is forced to walk twenty five miles home because no effort was made to arrange for his journey. The risk this man faced from being hit by a drunk driver, stopped by the state patrol for being a pedestrian on a limited access freeway, or simply collapsing from exhaustion is certainly not something that we should accept nor something a person released from custody should endure.
I recognize that the sheriff’s office is not a taxi service and has no obligation to provide transport for released inmates after their term has expired, but couldn’t the county at least take a few more steps to ensure that someone can either pick up the inmate or try to prevent a situation where a fifty seven year old does not have to walk twenty five miles to get home?
Is this too much to ask?
By Darren Smith
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
I’m not going to criticize anyone for what they did or would not do, what they think government should or should not do, but when I, as an agnostic and born Jew, can think of a Bible verse off of the top of my head, it stays with me:
“Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me either.”
I’m not suggesting, as a woman, that everyone here should have done what Darren did. I am suggesting, however, that the reader of this post thinks of the adage “There but for the grace of God…”
There’s also a Talmudic belief that “He who saves one life saves the world.”
So, the Christian Bible, the Talmud and an old adage all wind up with the same advice. Heavenly inspired, or just a good way of treating people and wanting to be treated? I don’t have an answer. I don’t know how much each of us individually, collectively, by way of charities or by way of government needs to do. Some might dismiss the man as a casualty of “tough love” or the jail system, or believe that he is a substance abuser. All may be true, but I really didn’t see many posts that addressed the man himself, other than by an attempt to label him to suit a preconceived viewpoint. Maybe we should all just be glad that he didn’t die on the side of the highway.
chestercat1 wrote: “I’m not suggesting, as a woman, that everyone here should have done what Darren did. I am suggesting, however, that the reader of this post thinks of the adage “There but for the grace of God…””
My wife picks up hitchhikers too. I support her in doing that. I tell her only do it if she feels comfortable about it. Women seem to have great intuition, IMO. In any case, I would rather die trying to love someone rather than never love because I was afraid. Fear is the wrong motivation for anything. My wife and I often exchange stories about the people we pick up, and sometimes we bring them home to stay the night, or two nights, or three…
BK, Kudos, dealing w/ addiction, both alcohol and drugs, in my family, sobriety is required for any communication or help. I have another requirement, honesty. I know, I know, lying is part of the addiction pathology. But, don’t lie TO ME. You want to lie and manipulate others, that’s their business. I have one family member, who is a MASTER liar and manipulator, who I will not deal w/. It breaks my heart, but my tough love conditions are not negotiable. It is difficult for most women to stick w/ tough love. But, you have found your comfort level and I applaud you. I know you don’t care, but I say what I think, both good and bad.
DBQ, I have a close relative who has been addicted to several drugs and alcohol. I know of the heartbreak. He was self-medicating his bi-polar disorder. He still has relapses of alcohol as self-medication for the pain of lung cancer. I help him when he is sober, not when he’s been drinking. It’s hard to not answer the phone when he’s been drinking.
Darren, bless you.
Kinda similar thing happened to my best friend. Her husband was in the county jail (long story). His cellmate was being released and didn´t have a way home (4 states away). So, my girlfriend starts phoning cellmate´s family in that state. She talked to 22 family members of his who didn´t have $120 for the busfare. She said they sounded like the kind of people who really don´t have $120 extra. Or maybe they were afraid of him and were glad he was 4 states away. Who knows? In the end, she bought him the ticket herself. Not out of the kindness of her heart, but because she was home alone, since her husband was in jail, and she really didn´t want that cellmate to come knocking at her door.
Darren ~
In the words of Salt N Pepa: “What a man, what a man, what a man, what a mighty good man.” Seriously.
@ Eric
We don’t know. It could be possible. When she isn’t drinking (rarely) she is a great person to be around. She started drinking at a pretty young age. If we could get her to consent to a rehab facility there could be some treatment if that is the case.
It is very sad. But…..you can’t force someone. They have to be part of the process.
My mistake. There’s no “51/50 psychiatric hold”. It’s just (Section) 5150.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=05001-06000&file=5150-5155
Dust Bunny Queen: “We tried to have some reasoning talks with her. She refused then to accept her situation…..and still refuses to face that she is drinking herself to death. Blames everyone else. Insists that we are all ‘against’ her. She continues to sneak booze as if we don’t all know what she is doing.”
Does your relative have an underlying mental disorder, such as a relatively high-function paranoid schizophrenia, for which she might be self-medicating?
I ask because your description reminds me of aspects of actress Amanda Bynes’s behavior that are also symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. (Bynes was just returned to a 51/50 psychiatric hold in California.)
@ bettykath
Sometimes tough love is the only thing that will get through. I have a close relative who is an alcoholic. Very bad case. She needs a new liver and isn’t even 50 years old yet. Has lost multiple jobs because of her drinking. Went from being a in a highly paid professional occupation to lately losing her job as a night clerk in a quickie mart. She has wrecked several cars. Won’t stop drinking and has been in ICU several times from bleeding ulcers. Spewing blood everywhere. Still pouring alcohol down her gullet. The medical debt is astounding and going to ruin her family. Her husband and son are coping the best they can. We can only hope that her son (a wonderful loving smart young person) will be able to survive this emotionally….but we can’t interfere too much as the husband and son are very independent. All we can do is let them know that we are here if they need help.
We tried to have some reasoning talks with her. She refused then to accept her situation…..and still refuses to face that she is drinking herself to death. Blames everyone else. Insists that we are all ‘against’ her. She continues to sneak booze as if we don’t all know what she is doing.
You try and try to get through. You try to help. At some point you just have to say enough!. You are on your own. You have made your decision. You have refused any help. You have refused to go into rehab. You have refused to consider your son and husband and are ruining their lives too. You are a selfish self destructive bitch and I guess you are going to die. Too bad…..too sad. If you ever get your head out of your @ss we are here to help you. But until you are serious about stopping….stay away from us and do not contact us. We are not going to let you drag everyone down into the depths of Hell with you. We love you, but you have to make the steps and the changes yourself because WE can’t do it for you.
That is tough love. It is tough because no one wants to receive such love and we certainly don’t want to give it.
Sometimes society has to take the same tactics to make people face their problems and MAKE people change. Enabling and coddling are not the answers in some cases. Enabling and coddling may make us feel good about ourselves and our wonderful sensitive hearts, but often those sensitive actions are just making the problems worse.
I know this.
Is there an issue of alcohol/drug offenders exchanging tickets or using bus/train fare on alcohol or drugs?
Bettykath:
Most of us moms hope that if our kids ever end up with the wrong crowd, that they have the courage to walk away, like that teenager. We also hope there will be people to help him if he needed it. Glad you nudged that cop’s conscience.
Paul, You’re telling me what I should be grateful for? You’re not qualified.
Paul,
There isn’t enough information in Darren’s story to say that his rider is an alcoholic, but since you made that assumption, let’s talk about it.
Alcoholism and addiction aren’t mutually exclusive. Alcoholism IS an addiction. Addicts relapse, it’s part of the disease. There is no cure.
http://www.helpguide.org/harvard/how-addiction-hijacks-the-brain.htm
West Wing had an interesting on-going sub-plot on alcoholism. An observation made by the chief of staff, an alcoholic, is that when you first go into rehap, everyone is there for you with lots of understanding and support. But you have a relapse and end up in rehab again, all those people disappear. You’re on your own. It doesn’t mean that you don’t need understanding or support, you do. But it isn’t there and staying sober is harder.
bettykath – I really would not go to TV for my information on anything. I just saw a legal review of the new show How to Commit a Murder and they have ripped it from one end to the other for the wrongness of the things the characters are being made to do from a legal standpoint. Last week, there were 4 ethical violations, so the later murder of the professor’s husband should not come as a surprise. 🙂 So, don’t go to West Wing for info on the treatment of alcoholism or alcoholism as a disease. The show is fiction.
Paul, so glad you’re not my neighbor.
bettykath – you would be grateful to be my neighbor. My neighbors love me. 🙂
I used to occasionally pick up hitchhikers. I rarely do that now.
Man knocked on my door after midnight asking for a ride home. He said he had a fight with his girlfriend and she kicked him out of the car. It was about a 10-15 minute ride over a country road. I declined telling him that I didn’t know him and I wasn’t getting in a car with a stranger. It was cold. I called him a cab.
Another time, about 3am, another cold night, I had just returned home to find I had been burgled. Called the police. While giving the report, a teen approached for help. He left a group of teens who were into something that he didn’t want to be in on, so he left them. He didn’t know where he was and he needed help. Cop told him that town was in “that” direction and he should walk. I disagreed with the cop, out of hearing of the teen. Kid needs help, he did what he was told by asking cop for help and cop tells him to take a walk. I didn’t argue but said, “ok, when we’re done here, I’ll give him a ride.” Cop changed his mind and gave him a ride. Not sure where they went or the condition of the kid when they got there, but no bodies have turned up.
Darren you are good man. You walk the walk.
Darren you a good man. You walk the walk.
“It has be said that one can judge a culture or a society by how it treats the “least” or the most vulnerable of its people.” – Justice Holmes
Which are its animals (Civilization Is Now On Suicide Watch).
Darren points out that sometimes people are the most animalistic.
In this context, the word “animalistic” shows that we have insufficient regard for both.
I break for Darren’s Post.
Sounds like it is time for the creation of a “get them home safely” bank, like a food bank.
In this case a bus would be made available, and qualified volunteers would be the driver.
Perhaps every hour or so they would drive people like this person to their home or as close as possible.
The heartless say “The yeast of ye shall be the greatest” but the greatest say “the least of ye shall be the greatest.”
Understanding the Good Samaritan Parable
The Good Samaritan parable is one of the most beloved gospel stories for young and old alike. The story is told in Luke 10:29–37: A man going from Jerusalem to Jericho is attacked by robbers who strip him and beat him.
A priest and a Levite pass by without helping him. But a Samaritan stops and cares for him, taking him to an inn where the Samaritan pays for his care.
The parable offers … a vision of life rather than death. It evokes 2 Chronicles 28, which recounts how the prophet Oded convinced the Samaritans to aid their Judean captives.
It insists that enemies can prove to be neighbors, that compassion has no boundaries, and that judging people on the basis of their religion or ethnicity will leave us dying in a ditch.
” my seeming lack of compassion is known as ‘tough love.’ It is a recognized valid treatment for addicts and alcoholics. ”
The question is not whether there is a valid treatment method known as tough love.
The question is whether being released and making ones way home is a reasonable part of punishment and rehabilitation.
I would argue that there is no reasonable basis to believe simply tossing someone out after release has any use in rehabilitation. In the first place individuals are released at various distances from their homes with different resources available to assist them in getting home. The complete lack of uniformity and relation to the offense demonstrates this is nothing more than arbitrary cruelty.
Second, the society provides little or nothing in the way to allow a safe, lawful passage home. If it were simply a matter of walking along safe, well lighted routes one might possibly develop a defensible policy. But in many communities there is no safe route home and in some communities there is not even a legal walk home.
Some here seem to support the idea that if you do something wrong then you deserve what ever happens to you. If you feel that incarceration is not sufficient you should propose an orderly policy. But don’t pretend that tossing someone on the road with no legal way to walk home is a good policy or reasonable treatment.
An orderly society requires reasonable alternatives for every one, especially those who have violated our norms.
The harder we make it for those after they have served their time the less likely it is that they will return to orderly society – and that is bad for all of us.
If you don’t provide a legal way for those who have violated to return to normal society then – one way or another – they will continue to violate. That seems pretty obvious to me. So what really matters to you? What do you really want to accomplish?
bfm – as far as the jail is concerned, the guy lives around the corner. Nothing that is being done is for punishment or rehabilitation. You are over-thinking this.
@Paul: “as far as the jail is concerned, the guy lives around the corner. Nothing that is being done is for punishment or rehabilitation. ”
Well maybe I am confused – it wouldn’t be the first time. But I thought the original article related the story of a person who lived miles from the release point and was walking on a restricted access highway.
And you mentioned ‘tough love’ as part of your reason that you would not help a person in a similar situation. But I though ‘tough love’ was an approach to rehabilitation.
My point is that leaving random people stranded with no safe or legal way home is not a policy and not likely to lead to rehabilitation.
Nevertheless, I am pretty sure you are a good neighbor anyway.
bfm – tough love is my approach to picking him up, not the problem of the county. 😉 First, I would not have picked him up, but I probably would have called the non emergency number for the local PD to check him out. They probably would have at least gotten him off the freeway.
Had I been Darren (who I am not) and had I picked him up (when told his sad tale of woe I would have given him two choices, back out on the roadside or a N
A or AA meeting. He could have his choice. I would stay with him and then drive him home if he did the meetings.
@Paul: ” tough love is my approach to picking him up, not the problem of the county. ;)”
Unfortunately I did make remarks that seemed to criticize your, hypothetical, actions toward an individual in that situation. I do not believe that you or any other person has an obligation to any particular person. I should have been more thoughtful in my discussion which seemed to blame you.
However, some, perhaps you too, seem to think that it is appropriate to, in effect, dump people on the street. The support for that approach seems to vary from ‘he deserved it’, to ‘it will give him time to reflect’, to ‘it is consistent with a recognized approach to therapy’ – namely ‘tough love’.
My remarks were really intended to point out that simply dumping people on the street is so random in effect that it cannot reasonably be considered a policy and is unlikely to have a predictable or positive effect. If we really want to hammer that kind of approach into a policy we need to assure that people in similar situations are treated with some consistency, and provide safe and legal means for those in that situation to work their way back to legal society.
As always your remarks force me to reconsider my own point of view and sometimes restate them.
Thanks again.
It is astounding to me, you would be a good Samaritan but your “kindness” comes with a caveat even without knowing if this man had an addiction issue. How sad. Who are you to decide for him, if he indeed had addiction issues, how he is to deal with them and that his safety is of concern to you only if he does what you have deemed it is necessary for him to do?