Nuts!!!

I read an article yesterday about a 19 year old guy that had been sentenced to four days in jail for simple assault. The assault in question occurred when the guy heard that a fellow high school student suffered from a peanut allergy. He took someones peanut butter sandwich, stuck his fingers in the peanut butter, and then rubbed it on the student with the peanut allergy.

When I was 19 years old, I probably would not have thought that a peanut allergy was particularly serious. On the other hand, I would not have tried to inflict an allergic reaction on somebody. As an older adult, I know that peanut allergies can even be fatal.

I figured that this was probably just a bully and four days in jail would probably teach him a lesson, even if it seemed a little harsh. Perhaps some community service would have been more appropriate.

Then I read this article in the Seattle Times and changed my mind. Here is a quote from the article:

Harmon said she honored the four-day jail sentence recommendation in part because a recent mental health evaluation concluded that Hickson suffers some cognitive deficiencies.

What the heck are "Cognitive Deficiencies"? I think in layman's terms, it would mean "The guy is a Dumb-Ass". Why is being a dumb-ass a defense for criminal activity?

The guy denies he actually committed these actions, in spite of several eyewitness reports to the contrary:

In court Tuesday, Hickson denied touching the boy. But several witnesses told police he did.

Still, these weren't the parts of the article that changed my mind. The part of the article that changed my mind was the part that showed me that he was not only a dumb-ass, but an unrepentant dumb-ass:

"What were you thinking when you did this?" Judge Nancy Harmon asked Hickson before sentencing.

He did not answer, only grinning and shaking his head. Harmon pressed, several times questioning Hickson about his motivation. He did not answer.

What kind of person would grin when being asked by a judge why he committed a crime? What kind of a judge is going to stand for that kind of disrespect in her courtroom? It would appear that the guy is a bully that still thinks what he did was funny. I am a little surprised that the guy didn't get forty days instead of four days.

Then, I read a follow up article in the Seattle Times today. Imagine my surprise when I saw that the part of the story that jumped out at me had been altered:

"What were you thinking when you did this?" Judge Nancy Harmon asked Hickson before sentencing.

He did not answer. Harmon pressed on, several times questioning Hickson about his motivation.

Now there is no mention of the kid grinning about his little prank in front of the judge. I guess the newspaper thought that including something that shows the true character of this bully was unnecessarily inflammatory. I am pretty disappointed in the Seattle Times. Now it seems to portray the guy as a dumb kid that screwed up instead of the bully that won't accept responsibility for his actions and still thinks he is funny.