Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiefspants
Yep. Just read up on the situation. I'd feel every bit as disappointed with the Royals as I do with the Chiefs for drafting Tyreek. The nail in the coffin was his garbage denial when asked about the issue - which to me, was even worse than Tyreek's flippant responses to his personal situation in the months leading up to the draft.
|
Most of the where you'll find people falling on the situation comes down to how credible you find the denial.
I've told clients on several occasions that they have a 60/40 or 70/30 shot at a win but they're getting offered X and the X is good enough that they should just take the settlement and walk. They had a better case than the other guy, but a non-zero chance of losing and getting nothing.
Now I'd have a more difficult time doing that in a criminal situation but I can see a whole slew of situations where I'd at least consider that advice. And I have a hard time saying it's even 'bad' advice - had the information stayed private the kid would've almost unquestionably been better off for it and by all accounts this information was supposed to remain sealed.
And his former attorney would never be likely to come out and corroborate any of that even if it's true - it would paint him in a
terrible light.
But I think a key difference that's perhaps being overlooked here, and it applies to Duncan's question regarding the distinction between his case and Hill's, is the legal and moral distinction between adult and juvenile offenders. We as a society have pretty much universally agreed that young kids ought not be held to the same standard as adults. It's the entire foundation of our juvenile justice system and that's the system that he was processed through and held accountable in.
So if we're going to hold someone
morally accountable (or perhaps 'practically accountable' would be a better term) to the same level as someone who was adjudicated as an adult, why bother with a juvenile justice system at all? Societally we recognize the distinction and its benefit but when asked to actually practice what we preach here, we suddenly disregard the distinction?
Ultimately I'm not privy to any more information than has been made publicly available so I have no real way to make a credibility assessment here. Perhaps MLB teams have done interviews and simply don't buy his story, in which case the denial is troubling and maybe he shouldn't get a second bite. Then again, maybe several of them
do believe him and simply don't want to put up with the backlash from their fans.
But even if you don't believe him, it does seem odd to me that people are treating a guy who committed this act as a juvenile, an act with an exceptionally high rate of rehabilitation, as though he was an adult when he did it and refusing to consider any additional nuance.
I've not sat down and really formed an opinion as to whether or not I'd want him in the Cardinals organization specifically because that's just not something I imagine Bill DeWitt would ever sign off on. But to say it poorly, I do kinda think that I think I would want
some team to give him a shot. He truly might have been told to take a guilty plea and get his records sealed as a part of it; it's not beyond the pale at all. And even if he did do it, he was a juvenile who was was not actually guilty of a crime (that's not how it works in the juvenile system), who almost certainly presents no risk of recidivism and based strictly on merit has earned a shot.
I dunno - I think it's worth more discussion than simply "**** that guy..."