Dahlia seems to miss a more straightforward conclusion: The govt doesn't particularly CARE about accuracy and consistency of justice--but only about its freedom to impose its will as it pleases. Regarding the cases in the article, the will it seeks to impose is sexual puritanism (to reflect a particular version of religious moralism) and demonization of political enemies beyond typical war definitions (they're muslim extremists, remember, not "soldiers").

The contrasts in this case show the use of "justice" as the expression of political power--not what people like to think of justice as really being.

FYI: Read all the replies between you and NJgal. Intereresting.

angle you rightly suspect in DoD spokespersons---she herself employs it regularly in her advocacy journalism. It's just not effective rhetoric for the situational ethicist to acknowledge the dynamic openly. Here, it's the application she cares about (Guantanamo Abhorrent) as opposed to the substantive principle (Child or Adult).

Diagnostic hypothesis----if a crew of antisocial 15-17 year-old white gun nuts shot up a black neighborhood they were cruising, hitting the national newswires by recklessly causing serious injuries or death, what do you believe would be the likelihood Lithwick would oppose the punks being charged and tried as adults? Would there be an article exploring the ethical/legal backdrop?

Perhaps there would be, but to justify "As An Adult" in that connection.

Thanks Inkberrow. You're right to point out those same faults in her own writings. She did "miss" the situational ethics because she would rather not admit to her own use of them.

I disagree. I've been reading Lithwick's columns for several years now, and she does discussions of juveniles being tried as adults in the context of the Supreme Court's decisions regarding the juvenile death penalty, etc. I think you'll find that she's not quite as one-note as you imagine. The point of the article was not that Guantanamo is bad, but that the law takes different, and inconsistent, views of teenagers depending on whether they are perceived victims or aggressors. The case of the guy imprisoned for throwing a grenade when he was 15 is illustrative; he is both a victim (as evidence: the child-soldier law) and an aggressor, but the government is treating him only as an aggressor.

But, I agree with Inkberrow that she still chooses her "victims" based on her own prejudices. The example given, of young white males on a spree in a black neighborhood, would be sure to "miss" any of her victim buttons for the white kids.

IOW, where does she give evidence that she WOULDN'T prefer to reserve the option to treat some kids as hardened criminals--if the crime met her personal conditions of irredeemability?

Inkberrow makes clear the application of situational ethics--and Lithwick DOESN'T. She claims confusion--for herself and for the law--and it's confusion about how to "consistently" apply situational ethics!

Inkberrow:

Diagnostic hypothesis----if a crew of antisocial 15-17 year-old white gun nuts shot up a black neighborhood they were cruising, hitting the national newswires by recklessly causing serious injuries or death, what do you believe would be the likelihood Lithwick would oppose the punks being charged and tried as adults? Would there be an article exploring the ethical/legal backdrop?

Kadr isn't being tried as an adult. If he were, he would be entitled to see the evidence against him and wouldn't have been subject to cruel and unusual punishment.

the Lithwick article in question. Fifth paragraph if you're short on time. Regardless, it's irrelevant to my Ersatz-Philosopher-King assessment of Lithwick the journalist.

I'm not even going to pretend that I know what the hell a "situational ethicist" is, but is justice really served by trying a 15 year old, someone so obviously brainwashed from an early age, as an adult? I'm not really sure that it is.

As regards the drive by, shoot out hypothetical, if it was discovered that one of the perpetrators was a kid, and that he been indoctrinated against whites from an early age, then I think yes, people would be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, and try him as a child. Sometimes I think that people, people who should know better, too often mistake justice for vengeance.

toss "situational ethicist" about as if it were a term of art with scholarly currency. I hope it was clear from the context that I meant by it "one who indulges in situational ethics".

Your addition to my hypothetical makes for a more compelling case, I agree, but whether here or in Afghanistan, defining the actual components of "radicalized", "brainwashed", and "indoctrinated" as they relate to criminal responsibility is a complex venture indeed. My point is that all-too many influential Americans, Lithwick in my opinion included, select a colorable principle to bolster whatever application or result they already favor for other, politically-correct reasons.

Another related hypo---consider the Jena Six once again. Reverends Jackson and Sharpton deplored "child-as-adult" prosecutions in generalized, ostensibly "objective" terms, when, as it turned out, the fate of a young black defendant was the specific application. Now imagine the very same social and factual Jena backdrop, the same timeworn animuses and noose-use, except this time it ended with underaged thugs of the white faction being the ones who kicked a sole (black) kid unconscious. Tell me, Einhard, would you hear one peep from the Right Reverends---or Lithwick---about child-adult culpability distinctions, or any other mitigating information whatsoever? Wouldn't the Reverend Racial Spokespersons get the same media bully pulpit and mainstream media validation either way, including quite possibly some tough reportage from Lithwick here outlining when historically crimes of such nonpareil heinousness warranted child-as-adult results?

I take your point about media commentators applying different standards depending on their own personal biases etc. Politicans do it too, and I've little doubt that all of this influences judges. Afterall, they aren't, and can't be expected to be, a race apart. However, this is exactly why it is so important to remove emotion and sentiment from the process of dispensing justice. I'm not American, so anything I post on matters such is this is very much from the perspective of the outsider looking in, but it seems to me that in America the decision to try a child as an adult or otherwise is entirely arbitrary, dependent not on the age of the accused, but on the gravity of the offence. Surely this is not conducive to the impartial administration of justice? Surely if we decide an offender is a child for one offence, he/she must be a child for another, more serious offence. Afterall, the accused hasn't changed, merely the charge.

which after all should be the main focus. It is one of the worst examples of illogic and question-begging in our criminal justice system, that the existence of "adult" culpability in a youth--or lack thereof---is to be deduced from the relative gravity of the offense in the adult world.

"I'm not even going to pretend that I know what the hell a "situational ethicist" is, but is justice really served by trying a 15 year old, someone so obviously brainwashed from an early age, as an adult? I'm not really sure that it is."

This is not about justice, this is about expediency. If we stop to pay attention to the person we are prosecuting, then we might, actually, have to stop any pay attention as to why we are prosecuting an unjust war and locking people up indefinitely...

"As regards the drive by, shoot out hypothetical, if it was discovered that one of the perpetrators was a kid, and that he been indoctrinated against whites from an early age, then I think yes, people would be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, and try him as a child."

I wish I could agree with you about people showing mercy to a child in the hypothetical. The reality is that there would be an immediate and loud demand, under no uncertain terms, that the child involved be tried as an adult. And the prosecutor would, immediately agree. After all, the only thing worse than being against anything that is "for the children" is to, actually, be interested in anything other than incarcerating and/or killing every perceived or real law breaker, regardless of their age.