By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, October 12, 2021
The late Mike Quinn knew something about killers with
three names — you can see his Dallas Morning News coverage of
the Kennedy assassination at the Smithsonian. But Quinn, who later in life
became that most unusual of creatures — a useful professor of
journalism — had some less-famous stories about three-named criminals.
Some notorious criminals used their middle names
habitually — Lee Harvey Oswald was one, and John Wilkes Booth was another. Also
James Earl Ray and Sara Jane Moore, the failed assassin of Gerald Ford. But
mostly, we know infamous criminals by three names because of a newspaper
convention. There are lots of John Smiths in the world, and even people with
unusual names often have name-twins and name-triplets out there. Sometimes,
that’s because the name is only locally uncommon: If there is
a Muhammad al-Muhammad in Muleshoe, Texas, he’s probably the only one, but
there are lots of Muhammad al-Muhammads in the world. And if one of them does
something awful, you want to be as clear as possible about which one it was.
Hence the old print-journalism formula: “Police arrested 55-year-old Michael Ray
Collins of the 4300 block of 75th Street in Mulberry, Ala.” You want to do that
in order to spare the innocent: I just made up the name “Michael Ray Collins,”
but Google it and I guarantee you will find dozens of people with that name.
(There is no 4300 block of 75th Street in Mulberry, Ala.)
Quinn liked to tell two stories about double names, both
involving college newspapers. In the 1950s, the Daily Texan at
the University of Texas reported that a socially prominent young woman on
campus with the memorable name Barbara Booze was in some minor trouble with the
Austin police (unpaid parking tickets or something like that) and made a gentle
joke about it. Wrong Barbara Booze, as it turned out — and Papa Booze, a
politically connected lawyer, was not amused. In a less funny story, another
college newspaper at a different school learned that a convicted sex offender
with an unusual foreign name had been hired to work in a women’s dormitory, and
its editors ran with the story. They had the wrong guy: The dorm worker had the
same unusual name as the sex offender, but wasn’t him. Imagine being that man
seeing the newspaper first thing in the morning, and having to explain to your
family and friends that what’s in the newspaper, identifying you by your
unusual name, is not true. This was back when people mostly believed what was
in the newspaper. The lawyer’s advice in that case: “If he asks for anything
less than $1 million, just give it to him.” There followed the issuance of a
sincere apology and the cutting of a large check.
With that in mind, I was not at all surprised to find
that two out of the three men named as suspects in that horrible Minnesota bar
shooting had exact three-name matches for men convicted in prior violent
crimes. I don’t imagine that I am the only person whose first reaction to a
story like this is to Google the suspects. At the time of this writing, the St.
Paul police have not shared any specifics about their cases, but the department
did confirm to me that the suspects have “extensive criminal histories.”
(But these are not necessarily the crimes that turn up on
Google: Thanks to National Review’s news desk, I can
pass on that one of the St. Paul suspects shares three names with a man charged
in a violent crime in Florida but is not the same man — the two were born about
a decade apart. First, middle, and last name sometimes isn’t enough.)
The journalistic language in the coverage of the St. Paul
shooting was tediously familiar: “Gunfire broke out,” reported the
Minneapolis Star-Tribune. “This is an issue of gun violence,”
declared local do-gooder Molly Jalma. They write and speak as though those
triggers just pulled themselves.
But we know that isn’t the case.
A New York Times survey of police
records found that the vast majority — and here I mean more than 90 percent —
of the homicides in New York were committed by people with prior criminal
records. In Baltimore, the police find that both homicide perpetrators and
victims overwhelmingly have criminal records, mostly for violent crimes. It’s 85 percent in Milwaukee. The situation is the same in most other cities.
Nationally, more than a third of violent felons have an
“active criminal-justice status” — meaning they are on probation, parole, or
awaiting trial on another charge — at the time of their most recent offense.
The great majority (more than 70 percent) of violent felons have a prior arrest
record, the majority of them have been convicted of a crime, and more than a
third of them already have been convicted of another felony. Two out of three
murderers have a prior criminal history. So reports the Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
You may know the Fugazi song “Bulldog Front,” which
begins, “Ahistorical, you think this sh** just dropped right out of the sky.” I
think hearing that song was the first time I encountered the word ahistorical.
(You could get a fair bit of vocabulary from 1980s and 1990s punk music,
especially if you were a fan of Bad Religion. And I remember seeing the Dissent
record “Epitome of Democracy” and pronouncing the first word “eppy-toam” the
first time, until it occurred to me what it said. Usually, I have the opposite
issue: knowing words that I have seen in print but being unsure of how they are
pronounced.) Our discussion about crimes such as the one in St. Paul tend to be
ahistorical. But we have a lot of history, and a lot of data, when it comes to
violent crime. We just do not desire to acknowledge it.
In his famous essay “Politics and the English Language,”
George Orwell observes:
In our time, political speech and
writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the
continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the
dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by
arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square
with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to
consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.
Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out
into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with
incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are
robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they
can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers.
People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck
or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of
unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things
without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some
comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say
outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good
results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
While freely conceding that the
Soviet régime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined
to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to
political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and
that the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have
been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.
The inflated style is itself a kind
of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow,
blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear
language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s
declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted
idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing
as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics
itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.
As I have argued elsewhere (and at book length), a great deal of our political
discourse — most of it, in fact — is not an effort to talk
about things but a programmatic way of not talking about
things. You see this in the tepid language that so irritated Orwell, as
horrifying euphemisms such as “ethnic cleansing” become part of the ordinary
vocabulary. And this tendency is not limited to language: It is present in data
and data-collection as well. I have written from time to time about the
persistent tendency of police departments to produce not only occasional
criminals but full-blown organized-crime rings, and one of the things that is
most striking about the scholarship in this field is that there is . . . not
very much of it. There is no reliable data-collection on the subject of how
often the ladies and gentlemen we entrust with badges and guns abuse those
instruments in deliberate and sustained criminal enterprises; such information
as we have is mostly journalistic, along with a few desultory scholarly efforts
to aggregate news reports. You can learn a great deal about a society by
understanding what is not talked about and what cannot be talked about.
One of the things that is studiously not talked about is
the fact that our criminal-justice system works on a worst-of-both-worlds
model: It is simultaneously cruel and ineffective. Some of us might be inclined
to tolerate a liberal but underperforming system, and a great many Americans
would defend a vicious and cruel system if it were effective. Each of those
models has its problems. But who could defend the system we have? Our
criminal-justice regime ranges from the petty (reincarcerating paroled
offenders over minor noncompliance) to the monstrous (effectively turning many
prisons over to gangs, weaponizing rape) while failing to protect our cities
and other communities from criminal violence of a sort experienced in few if
any other advanced countries. (This includes advanced countries with relatively
widespread gun ownership, such as Canada, Finland, Austria, and Switzerland.)
Conservatives sometimes whisper among ourselves that this is not talked about
because of the relative prominence of African Americans among criminal
offenders. But it is, I think, much more the case that we do not talk much
about the facts of the case because those facts inconvenience some very
powerful actors: police departments and penal systems, the vast bureaucracies
of parole and probation, the vast workforce employed in our 2,000 state and
federal prisons, our 1,700 juvenile jails, our 3,000 local lockups, and our
hundreds of other incarceration facilities, along with countless parole offices, drug-testing centers, grant-dependent “social services” agencies that function as ATMs for the
politically connected and the corrupt, etc.
Personally, I’ll take a dozen honest drug dealers over
one corrupt parole officer.
What happened in St. Paul was the work of particular
criminals. But it also is the work product of a vast, vicious, ineffective
apparatus of criminal justice that is big on surveillance and officiousness but
not very big on achieving justice, or even securing order. We should stop
acting surprised by these episodes — and we should stop allowing our police,
mayors, city councilmen, social workers, and legislators to pretend that they
are surprised. There is no excuse for being surprised.
And we can begin by trusting the English language to
express that the men named as suspects so far in this investigation are Terry
Lorenzo Brown Jr., 33, Devondre Trevon Phillips, 29, and Jeffrey Orlando
Hoffman, 32; that this violence was not perpetrated by firearms or any other
inanimate object; and, above all, that this is not something that just
happens, that gunfire doesn’t just “break out.” Sentences have subjects, and
it matters that we get them right.
No comments:
Post a Comment