Tuesday bothered me. It wasn’t so much the topic matter as it was the stance made by more than a few callers. They seemed to think that Florida’s January 6th felon convict (another first for FLORIDA MAN) was somehow justified by inaction in other cases against other violators of the law.
Tampa’s Paul Hodgkins entered a plea agreement with the government accepting responsibility for his actions in the DC “riot.” He was sentenced to 8 months in prison and a $2000 fine. He got off easy compared to the potential 20 years he faced at trial.
He was truly remorseful, regretting his actions on that day and he admitted that the emotion of the moment got him carried away. Plea agreements work that way and with his cooperation in the investigation earning him a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines, he avoided a much harsher result.
The admission that the emotions of the moment led to his illegal behavior raises a lesson for us all. How many decisions made in haste, or when emotions are running high, are good ones? I would submit the answer is very few. Are emotions a mitigating factor in allowing such behavior? I think not.
Then there were the callers pointing to other law breakers in different circumstances not facing conviction or in some cases even arrest. The argument was that fairness demanded this man not be convicted and sentenced.
Action in other cases is not justification for inaction in this one. Yet, the argument was being made. I scratched my head.
Is it fair that other cases are handled differently? Maybe not, but that’s life. None of us were promised fairness or equity in all things.
There’s a bigger story here and it’s getting lost in the passion of politics. Right is right and wrong is wrong. The scale doesn’t slide based upon what goes on with anyone else. We all have a moral compass of one degree or another. We know the difference in right and wrong. When we allow whatever motive we have to blur that line, the individual alone is responsible for making that decision. We also stand individually to bear the consequences of the actions we take.
Conservatives preach personal responsibility and accountability. Yet in this case, people who claim to hold conservative views are making excuses for a bad judgment call made by this now-convict. It doesn’t coincide with what these same people claim to espouse.
That’s a problem, for if there is no definitive line of right and wrong, no absolute standard of behavior, there is no accountability to be had. If we don’t accept it in this case, can we even hold ourselves accountable? I’d say not.
Paul Hodgkins stood up, admitted his wrongdoing and faced the music like a man. But after our Tuesday conversation I’m left wondering just how many of us are capable of the same.