Tag Archives: convict

Dakota

Dakota: (n) a former territory in the United States—in 1889 divided into North Dakota and South Dakota.

I spent nine days in the Dakotas.

I only did it once.

Please don’t misunderstand—my singular visit does not portray my feeling about the region.

I just don’t think anybody there liked me.

I’m sure that’s not true—it isn’t like I saw them head over heels in enthusiasm, dancing in the street about anything.

My grandpa would have said they were “sturdy people.”

You’d have to be. Lots of storms. Regularly over a hundred degrees in the summer and below zero in the winter months.

A rural atmosphere.

Close-knit groups, many well aware of each other or even related.

So about five days into my visit, I became a bit paranoid about the treatment I was receiving. I asked one of the sponsors who brought me in for the concert series what was up with the populace.

Interestingly enough, he didn’t say, “Well, what do you mean?” Or, “They seem fine to me.”

Instead, he replied, “To be honest, these people have been alone, abandoned, unnoticed and even made fun of so often that they can’t imagine why anybody from the outside world would choose to come into their area unless that person was an escaped convict or a fraud.”

I crinkled my brow and replied, “So what you’re saying is, they think I’m trouble because I came to their state.”

“They figure if people had a choice, they would never visit.”

He nodded his head.

So I went to my concert that night and tried to address this dilemma with the audience. I would like to report that my dialogue made all the difference in the world.

But it didn’t.

They seemed to resent the fact that I was aware of their insecurity and preferred me to shut up, get back into my van, and travel on to more appreciative places.

Still and all, I managed to learn a lot about Mount Rushmore, and also the Battle of the Little Bighorn, with General Custer, which happened right over the border in Wyoming. Matter of fact, I took a couple of hours and read up on both things so I would seem knowledgeable.

It did increase my conversations by a few more sentences. But then they froze up and once again nervously stared at me.

If I may draw a conclusion:

Perhaps one of the worst things we do to people is make them feel “less” because we don’t think they live where there’s “more.”

What I uncovered in my journey to the Dakotas was this:

There are children born—therefore there are people having sex.

There are radio stations—so music does penetrate the silence.

And the grocery store was filled with all sorts of meat, from cow to bear to rattlesnake. So someone likes to hunt and eat.

You see?

If you work at it, you can find things you have in common with almost anyone, anywhere.

(Pass the steak sauce.)

Admissible

Words from Dic(tionary)

dictionary with letter AAdmissible (adj.): acceptable or valid, especially as evidence in a court of law.

Now THIS is interesting.

What if we conducted our relationships with one another with the same meticulous style that evidence is procured, packaged and presented in a courtroom?

What does constitute a case?

In relationships we think that all we have to do is express that we FEEL something, have an inkling, “we’re afraid,” or we’re just in a bad mood. We consider that to be sufficient circumstantial proof that our partner should bend his or her will in our direction.

Of course, that would never be admissible in a court room.

Can you imagine the prosecuting attorney rising to his or her feet and turning to the jury box and saying, “I don’t know.,.. maybe it’s because I didn’t get enough sleep last night, but I just really feel like Bob, sitting over in that chair, killed his friend, Phil, and even though I’m not positive, if you love me, you’ll go along with it …”?

No, that wouldn’t be acceptable. The defense attorney would lodge an objection which would be sustained by a judge, who would frown at the prosecutor for such presumptuous allegations.

So if we DID conduct our personal affairs with the same litigious demands required in the justice system, would we be better or worse off?

  • First of all, we couldn’t make accusations without evidence. And by the way, that particular proof would have to be obvious AND not merely hearsay on what our friends and neighbors allegedly believe.
  • Secondly, it would help if the culprit’s fingerprints were all over the weapon. The fact that our loved one OWNS a knife does not necessarily mean that he or she used it to kill somebody.
  • How about this one? We’d have to allow for cross-examination. Once we presented our case we’d have to be willing to listen to someone disagree without copping an attitude or stomping out of the room.
  • Eye witnesses would be helpful.
  • Photo evidence?
  • A video loop?
  • Past deeds could not be brought into play, because prior acts cannot be used in a present case.
  • And no allegation can be spoken aloud without evidence already being put forth and accepted.
  • We then would have to turn it over to either a judge or a jury of our peers, who would not be in our back pocket, but would swear impartiality to both parties.

In other words, we’d have to make a case instead of just have an attitude.

In order for our particular assertion to be admissible, it would have to be based on the facts instead of merely our feelings. We would probably end up with fewer fights … but more grudges.

Please make note: I am not suggesting that we do this, but I am saying that the same amount of effort it takes to convict someone of shoplifting should be granted as a courtesy to anyone we love.