Is it really a surprise that U.S.
District Judge David Doty overturned the arbitrary decision by the pro-management
arbitrator the NFL hired to hear Minnesota Vikings star running back Adrian
Peterson’s appeal of Roger Goodell’s trampling on his due process rights? But
it was a “victory” only insofar that the judge ruled (as occurred in the Ray
Rice appeal) that the NFL illegally imposed its “enhanced” punishment policy
retroactively on the players. As ESPN’s Kevin Seifert noted,
“It now seems clear that the
league overstepped its labor agreement in its haste to remove both Peterson and
former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice from the public eye. If its
strategy was to act first and deal with repercussions later, it has largely
worked. Neither Rice nor Peterson got back on the field in 2014. Their legal
victories can't change that. Now the NFL can move forward and (legally) use its
enhanced personal conduct policy for all future incidents.”
This is clearly a violation of
due process rights, but who cares if there is some public relations “gain” to
made from it. The broader question is why out of all the occupations a person
can hold, being a football player requires “enhanced” punishment from society.
No one seems to want to answer that question, although there does seem to feed
into the image of the sport as a particularly “male” occupation, thus a more
tempting target for gender activists who see an opportunity to destroy a person’s
life merely on an accusation.
But there is a much wider
question here that makes the hypocrisy on display just that much more obvious. Some
of us older people remember that "old school" corporal punishment as
a child was "accepted" and never questioned by society. I wouldn’t be
surprised if Peterson learned this "skill" from his own parents, and
his parents from their own. Furthermore, I think it is just hypocritical for
the NFL to legislate "morals" when football itself is legalized violence
(hockey is the same way). The civilian courts spoke, and the NFL should not
pretend to be something that it isn't: An arbiter of "ethics" and
"morality"—even if it is being forced upon it by hypocritical media
paladins and advocates with their own agendas that do not bear too close
examination. As I have observed, it seems that a certain category of adult is
more “precious” than children in the eyes of the law, the media and certain
advocacy groups. Andrea Yates—still residing comfortably in a Texas mental
institution after being found “innocent for reasons of insanity” of the murder
of her five children—is a case in point.
In barbarous, hide-bound Europe,
corporal punishment is illegal in the home in Germany and Spain, but is
still legal Britain and France. Can the U.S., with its mania with guns, at
least claim that it is more “enlightened” than France and the UK? Would you be
surprised to learn that physical punishment of children is legal in every state for a parent to employ? The
only slight “exception” is Delaware, where such punishment counter-intuitively
is not to cause “pain.” Elsewhere, court after court has ruled that laws
prohibiting domestic violence do not
prohibit parents from inflicting physical punishment on children meant to
“restrain or correct” a child’s behavior. These laws are often vague and open to
interpretation, using terms like “reasonable force” and not “excessive.” In
every Southern state except Virginia, corporal punishment by teachers on
children is also legal; it is also legal in Texas, Indiana, Missouri, Kansas,
Colorado, Wyoming, Arizona and Idaho.
In fact, truly excessive corporal punishment gravitating into "child abuse" did not evolve until
influenced by the Dennis Jurgens case in Minnesota in the mid-1980s, who from the time he was
adopted at age one until he died at the age of three-and-half, endured
sustained and repeated “corporal punishment” at the hands of his adopted
mother, Lois Jurgens, for what she perceived as his “faults.” These
“punishments” including physically stuffing food down his throat, and making
him eat his own vomit after such episodes. Yet when he was eating “too much,”
Jurgens monitored how much he actually ate—to the point that a coroner would
later find that Dennis was not only grossly underweight, but that he showed
evidence of starvation.
The “bad boy” as Jurgens
explained her behavior deserved his frequent black eyes, but being “bad” as a
toddler cannot explain Jurgens’ sadism in “punishing” his private parts. At a
new autopsy performed on the remarkably well-preserved body, at
the instigation of Dennis’ natural mother, Jerry Sherwood, 20 years after his
death in 1965, found that besides evidence of bruising and laceration all over
his body, his penis had what appeared to be “bite” marks, and there was
scarring on his scrotum. To stop his supposedly frequent wetting of his diapers,
an ordinary clothes pin was fastened to his penis to prevent annoying (for her)
urine ejection.
When Dennis died, the cause of
death was listed as peritonitis. Because people assumed that “punishment”
inflicted by a parent upon a child was “normal,” there was no attempt to delve
further. But even though the first coroner was troubled enough to classify the
death as “deferred,” no one could accept the thought that something much worse
than “normal” had occurred in the Jurgens’ house, residing in a comfortably
middle-class neighborhood.
Dennis wasn’t the only victim in
that house. During a twenty-year period from the 1950s to the 1970s, Lois Jurgens
was a serial abuser of a succession of adopted children, a story chronicled by Barry
Siegel in his book A Death In White Bear
Lake. Neighbors, family and friends knew or suspected what was happening,
but did nothing. Why? Partly out of fear of the clearly psychotic Jurgens—who
like many abusers see themselves as
the “victim”—and the fact that corporal punishment in the home was considered a
“normal” part of childrearing, and such matters were not a concern for those
outside the home. In fact, the term “child abuse” as an illegal act is of
relatively recent origin. Apparently corporal punishment only becomes a public “issue”
if a star football player is caught doing it, and it can be used to advance
someone’s political agenda.
Siegel wrote that Lois Jurgens
seemed to have had psychological issues that caused incidents of hypochondria and
mental unbalance, something rarely seen outside the home by neighbors who might
empirically observe a diminutive woman who might seem incapable of hurting a
fly. That is unless they insinuated anything untoward going on inside the
Jurgens home, which elicited threats of violent retribution from her. After concerns about her fitness of being an
adoptive parent, several doctors who examined claimed to be unable to find
anything physically wrong with her;
however, one doctor at the Mayo Clinic interviewed her and had the following
observation to make:
“A 26-year-old married woman with
a long-standing psychoneurosis of the mixed type, starting back to childhood as
evidence by enuresis (bed-wetting) until age 13, fears, nightmares, etc…It is
fortunate that this woman has not been able to carry through pregnancy at this
time as a child will only compound and complicate her emotional disturbance—she
would be a poor candidate for adopting a child at this time…They cannot afford
psychiatric care, which she desperately needs—she may without it go on to a
paranoid schizophrenia.”
Yet the same doctor would later
alter his verdict, saying that she had “improved” over time. The slightly-built
Jurgens also fooled many social workers by the impeccably clean house she kept,
which seemed to be an ideal home for children; ignored by those who ultimately
made the decision—including those who allowed four siblings to subsequently
live with the Jurgens merely because they agreed to take them all—was that this
could be evidence that Jurgens was an excessive “stickler” for order and
cleanliness, to the point of manic-obsession.
Even Lois Jurgens’ family and
relatives were cautious about what they said in her presence, and her husband,
Harold Jurgens, always seemed afraid of her and allowed her to dominate him.
For people who find it difficult to believe that a woman can be so abusive that
even a man much bigger than her can be cowed into fear and submission to her
will, Siegel notes that “Most of the
time he sat in the background, his legs crossed, as if trying to avoid
aggravating her. Those who had visited the Jurgens home swore Harold was not
allowed to use the front door or the upstairs bathroom. If Harold wanted to go
to a ball game after work, it was said he couldn’t go home first, for he’d
never be allowed back out.”
Why would he stay with her? It
was the opinion of a psychiatrist named Richard Teeter who examined the Jurgens
that Harold “has considerable resilience, warmth and tolerance. As such, the
marriage is well-balanced and durable.” In other words, the husband was a
complete supplicant to his wife’s desires and “issues.”
The question of “acceptable”
corporal punishment is how much is “necessary” to control a child’s
occasionally unpredictable and contrary behavior. Discipline is one thing; a
sadistic pleasure in inflicting pain and mental torture is quite
another—particularly when there is no fear of physical retaliation from the
child. In women, there it is often the “belief” that they have been “victimized” by society in some
fashion—an idea frequently expounded by the media, feminists and gender
activists. In cases such as this, children are seen as an agent of oppression,
and as such must be made to “pay” for their “crime.” They must “suffer” as she
“suffers,” except this time she is the one who will be in control of the
oppressing. Nevertheless, to adoption case workers Jurgens’ husband seemed amiable
and eager to please, which would “mitigate” Jurgens’ excessive rigidity and
inflexibility —not ideal characteristics for being a parent (let alone a
spouse), but clearly not based on reality.
Because Lois Jurgens was
personally examined by “objective” professionals seeking to gauge her fitness,
in her case one can draw reasonably accurate inferences as to her personality
in hindsight; unfortunately, such as is still the case today, there seems to be
a blindness concerning the “motherly” instinct without the benefit of past
experience. In the infamous case of Gertrude Baniszewski, she picked out one
her teenage boarders, Sylvia Likens, to act out her “frustrations” on. But
because she was technically not an adoptive parent, there was never any effort
by professionals to evaluate her fitness. Instead, you have amateur
psychologists like crime writer Denise Noe attempting to insinuate that
Baniszewski was too “weak” to control to the actions of children who should
know “right from wrong.”
But who was the adult teaching them what is right and what is wrong? Baniszewski first poisoned immature minds against the attractive Likens to make her “deserving” of punishment, then engaged in dehumanizing “punishments” which became more and more sadistic, and then encouraged those who might have only saw it all as a “game”—cruel as it was—to actively participate in it in order to please (and avoid abuse themselves from) Baniszewski, who was ultimately responsible.in every way. But because Baniszewski was never subjected to a psychological examination, opinions on her abusive behavior run the gamut from tiresome gender victimology to the embodiment of pure evil.
How to “explain” Lois Jurgens?
Siegel writes that she grew-up poor, was largely uneducated, and there were
conflicting stories of whether she suffered excessive “corporal punishment”
herself. But during her adult life, she lived a comfortable middle class
existence, and apparently wanted many children to make her life “complete.”
When she discovered that she could not conceive herself, the Jurgens opted for
adoption—with the results duly noted. After Robert had been removed from their
home upon the death of Dennis, the Jurgens fought to get him back. But Siegel
writes that yet another doctor opposed it, citing Lois Jurgens as a “chronic
neurotic” with a schizoid personality, self-centered and “lacking in
insight”—which likely would be a life-long issue. She was becoming “more
seriously neurotic” and could never “face the stresses and strains of raising a
young boy.”
Unfortunately, this view was not
universally held by those ultimately making the decisions, given that Jurgens
was such a slight person that she seemed incapable of doing the things that
others less sanguine had accused her of.
Notwithstanding doubts about the nature of Dennis’ death, Robert was
eventually returned to the Jurgens. Four more adopted children from a family in
Kentucky eventually followed; from personal experience, I was not amazed to
read in Siegel’s book how it reached the point where the children lied to
teachers and school counselors about where bruises came from out of fear of
retribution, and were even afraid to go home after school. When they did, they “relaxed”
when they saw that Lois Jurgens’ car was not there, and cringed when they saw
that it was (again, this brings back memories of my own). If Jurgens was not
home, they would have to wait outside, even in winter, until she returned. But
what was worse was if she was home, for she would likely have spent more time roaming
the house looking for things that in her opinion were “amiss”; if she found
something, they would soon hear—or “feel”—about it. Jurgens was “Mommy Dearest”
on steroids.
Siegel notes that Harold Jurgens would
occasionally intervene on the children’s behalf, but he was too weak a
personality for these interventions to be effective. The children sensed that
he too was afraid of his wife. He would tell her not to get all worked-up, to
not lose her cool, but she would just tell him to “shut up,” and he did. Jurgens
had the conceit to avoid appearing to be the sole “heavy” in the family,
occasionally tasking her husband to administer punishment; when she told him to
take one of the boys down to the basement and inflict a whipping on him, he
would administer the belt to his own leg while the boy would yell out. But when
they came back, Jurgens would complain that the victim wasn’t hurt “bad enough”
because there were no tears in his eyes.
But Siegel noted that Harold Jurgens
would stop short of telling the children that his wife was completely
wrong—they knew what made her angry, and they were wrong if they did it
anyways. But otherwise he did little to stop what was happening; it has been
suggested that “passive” people like himself derive “secondary gain” by
allowing their mate to do the actually “acting” on their own “repressed anger,”
although it is hard to make that accusation in this case.
Still, stories about Lois Jurgens’
abusive behavior occasionally leaked to social workers, and when Jurgens was forced to “voluntarily” go to a treatment facility for
several weeks, home life became tolerable for the children, almost “normal.”
When she returned, it was hoped that she had changed. Within hours it became
clear she had not, in fact she was already finding fault everywhere. According
to Siegel, a counselor at the treatment facility wrote that
“Lois denies and represses a
great deal. In counseling and in group therapy Lois never became amenable to
treatment, denying her need to change. She consistently blamed her childhood
experiences, her mother and father, her husband and in-laws for her angry
behavior. When she left treatment she continued to feel she had the ‘right’ to
feel the way she does. In general, it was felt that the patient’s response to
treatment was unsatisfactory.”
Ten days after her return, Robert
ran away and appeared before a family court requesting that he be removed from
the custody of the Jurgens. Soon after two more children ran away to hide out
with a neighbor, and eventually all the children were removed from the Jurgens’
custody.
Yet none of this was deemed a
matter of the criminal courts, and it was only after the hounding of local
media and law enforcement that Dennis’ natural mother forced a confrontation
that led to Lois Jurgens’ eventually being forced to answer for his death 20
years earlier. Forensic pathologists who examined the coroner’s original photographs
and Dennis’ exhumed remains agreed that he had been suffering in horrible agony
for hours before he died, and it was apparent from rigor mortis that he had
died at least ten hours before “help” was called for. It was also clear by the
positioning of his arms that he had likely died not in his bed on his back as
Lois Jurgens claimed, and somewhere else, probably on his stomach where his
arms hung down. The injury that caused his peritonitis required him to be on a
flat surface and struck by that was described as of “train wreck” intensity.
We often hear “horror” stories
about parents who caused injury by shaking a child, but Dennis’ life was one
such episode after another, and no one did anything to stop it. Robert—who was
five at the time—remembered that Dennis seemed to be punished much more often
than he was; he also testified at Jurgens’ trial about the incidents immediately preceding Dennis’ death:
Not long before Dennis died, he saw Harold Jurgens having to help Dennis
relieve himself in the bathroom, apparently due to this ongoing trauma. He also
recalled awakening the morning of Dennis’ final day to horrible screams; he did
not know if these came from Dennis or Lois Jurgens. He went into Dennis’
bedroom and saw Jurgens “looking over Dennis and hitting him on the back and
grabbing and shaking him” for a long time. Jurgens was apparently very “angry”
about something, but this was not unusual when it came to Dennis. Jurgens “then
picked Dennis up and held him and then started to pound his back several
times.” That night, he testified to seeing Dennis being thrown down the
basement steps and repeatedly struck by Jurgens, and who then repeatedly
submerged Dennis’ head in a laundry tub. This was perpetrated on a boy three-and-a-half years old.
Robert did not recall seeing
Harold Jurgens during this time. Although one should be cognizant of the fact
that Robert was only five at the time and there are some minor discrepancies
between his testimony and the medical evidence, there is no doubt that the
condition that examiners found Dennis’ corpse in was beyond shocking, short of
dismemberment, and there certainly were things that Jurgens had done to Dennis
that Robert was not privy too. Although Harold
Jurgens defended his wife, he admitted that he was not at home when Dennis
died, but in fact in another state when his wife called him to inform about a
“problem” she had with Dennis the next day.
The family doctor—who apparently
had not found anything “wrong” with Dennis’ physical condition before—was called
to examine him that night, but police were not informed until quite later. Lois
Jurgens’ brother Jerome was in fact a police lieutenant and stated flatly that
he was going to do whatever was necessary to keep his sister out of jail, and
he apparently stole pertinent files and evidence that would have been extremely
incriminating. But more in her favor, it simply could not be fathomed that such
thing could happen in a “nice” neighborhood.
So there was a time when it
simply was not believed that a parent could deliberately abuse a small child
and cause their death, especially in a well-to-do environment. It is different
than when a teenager like Likens suffers “punishment” that verges on torture
and dies from it; it is more believable and takes more obvious effort on the
part of the abuser. But with a child as young as Dennis who could never speak
for himself, even when there was clear evidence of longstanding abuse, people
would find rationalizations for it—young
children bruise more easily, are more likely to injure themselves, etc.), and
they were just “bad” kids who would not learn to “behave.”
As for Lois Jurgens herself, she was
unrepentant to the end, rarely altering her impassive countenance during her
trial as one witness after another testified to the abuses they “suddenly”
remember witnessing against Dennis. She believed she had done nothing wrong,
and saw everyone who testified against her as “evil.” Jurors held little regard
for her husband, who “allowed” all of this to happen, although they couldn’t
know his own psychology—and they didn’t see his wife still ordering him about
even while she was being led away to prison—and some jurors actually felt “sorry”
for her because of her alleged childhood abuses, and that she was now a
“harmless old woman.” Yet they could not ignore the fact that Dennis had died
so horrible death at her hands that it was clearly not explainable under any
circumstance. In 1987, Jurgens was found guilty of murder in the third degree. But
she would only serve eight years of her prison sentence, released for “good
behavior.” She was fooling people to the very end.
For a long time there was an
unwillingness to recognize deliberately-inflicted traumatic injuries to small
children and infants by their parents. It was assumed that such events were
“accidental,” caused by a drunken or incompetent parents. Siegel mentioned a
case in 1960 at the Colorado General Hospital, where a pediatrician named Kempe
repeatedly tried to convince a hospital psychiatrist to examine the parents of
children brought into his ward who had severe injuries. In one case, a 3-month-old
infant arrived in the emergency room with a broken femur and required immediate
brain surgery for subdural hemorrhaging. A “pleasant and attractive” young
woman who was his mother seemed impossibly “nice” and “normal” when discussing
the case, when she was clearly responsible for the injuries. As if to explain herself, she engaged in a
speech about her own childhood, that her own mother regretting giving birth to
her, and acted out her regret with fists and everyday household objects. What
surprised listeners was that on the outside she seemed “normal” and not being
asked the right questions seemed perfectly “sane” and “predictable” in her
answers.
But underneath the façade was a
very disturbed person who acted out on an infant what she remembered
experiencing as an older child—and would continue to do so because that was how
she was “taught” to discipline. It never occurred to her that despite the fact
that she had been (allegedly) traumatized, she felt the need to inflict pain
herself without considering how the child was traumatized in turn.
No comments:
Post a Comment