Ben Roethlisberger is lucky to be white. If he had been a black athlete, accused by a white woman of sexual misconduct, I am not sure the law would have been so kind to him. Think Kobe Bryant. It appears that the DA in Milledgeville, Georgia, handled this carefully and judiciously. But the dearth of media attention and frenzy around Roethlisberger, on this yet another act of misbehaving in his life, has been staggering. Compare the experiences of Kobe Bryant, whose carcass was feasted on by the media (not to mention the DA in Colorado) for months under circumstances very similar to Big Ben's. Only difference? Black man accused of misconduct with a white girl as opposed to a white man being similarly accused. Kobe and Ben are both huge athletic stars. Kobe had to go to PR purgatory for years to rehabilitate his reputation from the media savagery. Ben, well, not so much. Virtually no coverage whatsoever. And we will not even go into the cases of men like Ray Lewis, who were targeted by a DA simply because of their statuses. And the fact that they also happened to be black athletes. We have come a long way in this country in racial matters. But we are not there yet. All men ARE created equal. The law inches closer to realizing that, but I am convinced that the media does.

Like all graduates of Lakeland (FL) High School, I am a Dreadnaught. We surely are the only school in America with that odd, but powerful, mascot. The experience of two current Dreadnaughts this week illustrates that America's understanding of sexual conduct involving minors has swung from one end of a pendulum to another. From a 1970's laissez-faire Polanski approach to a fully repressed Victorian renaissance in the 2000's. As a result, in our effort to protect children, we are not only targeting predators, we are targeting almost anyone. The two Dreadnaughts made news when they participated in an activity known to every high schooler since Socrates. Eric Arce and Kyle Wohlfarth-Simmons, two seniors at Lakeland High, went on a double-date with two girls. The girls' parents knew of the date and gave their permission. Later in the evening, the four students went “parking” in a rural area of orange groves to, uh, enjoy one another's company. All parties agree that a good time was had by all. Until the police arrived. Upon shining a spotlight into the vehicle, a sheriff's deputy discovered the four in various states of nudity. And the two young men were placed under arrest. Their dates were freshmen or sophomores. One girl was 15 years old, the other 14. Fellow high school students. And minors under Florida state law where the age of consent is 16. Both young men now face second degree felony charges of lewd battery for sexual contact with someone under the age of 18. Arce also was charged with felony lewd molestation. If convicted, both men could face incarceration for as many as fifteen years. Of course, they will also be registered, likely for life, as sex offenders. Because of the girls' ages, their consent cannot be used as a defense by the young men. In other words, because of their participation in the American tradition of “parking,” two high school seniors now may be planning for prison rather than for college or careers. Contrast the Dreadnaughts of 2010 with the case of Roman Polanski in 1977. Then 43, Polanski plied a 13-year old girl with champagne and quaaludes, forced himself upon her in various anatomical fashions, and then pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse. Without rehearsing the details of the case, suffice it to say that the punishment for such behavior in California was expected to be a sentence of 90 days. Polanski found even that sentence to be extreme and fled the country to avoid serving more time. Now that he is back in custody in Switzerland, this week will mark the 200th day of his “captivity” as he awaits extradition to America some 33 years after the crime. What does Polanski have to do with the case of two Dreadnaughts? A lot for illustrative purposes. In 1977, a middle-aged man could forcibly rape a 13-year old girl and face barely a slap on the wrist. In 2010, two high school seniors face years in prison and a lifetime wearing the scarlet letter of the sex offender for heavy petting in a parked car with willing participants whose parents knew they were out on a date with seniors. A lifetime of taint for one evening of common high school behavior. We have come a long way, baby. And one has to ask how, why, and whether we might have come too far. Perhaps we have allowed the pendulum of our defense of children to have swung too far. In some cases, we are targeting the wrong people. In “How Pedophilia Lost Its Cool,” Mary Eberstadt has ably demonstrated one of the few unintended positive by-products of the Catholic molestation scandal. Revulsion from both conservatives and liberals at the sexual misbehavior of priests has provoked serious response in many ways. First, schools, churches, and youth organizations all take far more seriously now their sacred trust to care for the well-being of children. Second, in contrast to Europe, whose attitudes toward adult-child sex can best be described as indifferent, Americans of all categories have rallied around the cause of the young and the innocent in a remarkable way. Finally, over the past decade or so, legislators have passed stringent laws regarding sexual crimes and activity, particularly in the area of sexual activity with minors. In some cases, one must ask if the legislators have not acted too swiftly, too broadly, and too severely without carefully considering some of the nuances of their sweeping new laws. Some of these laws have been written in the heat of the moment and their lack of accounting for some of the details reveals legislators blinded by emotion in reaction to our previous existence where we were too lax about sexual activity with minors. In some states, draconian residency requirements have driven sexual offenders underground for lack of ability to find a legal place to live. Studies demonstrate that a stable home is one of the greatest aids in preventing recidivism, but severe laws have unintentionally made a stable home nearly impossible for sexual offenders of all kinds. In other cases, hasty attempts by many state legislatures to go back and add “Romeo and Juliet” provisions to sexual offender laws to recognize that adolescents will be adolescents reveal that law-makers may have acted before having thoroughly thought through the ramifications of their new laws. Often, many of these laws have been written and enacted more out of political chest-thumping about being tough on sex criminals than out of careful moral and legal reasoning. More rabid hysteria than thoughtful law-making. To be sure, with very few exceptions (outside Hollywood), nearly all Americans agree that a more rigorous protection of children is healthy and good. Almost all Americans support the strong prosecution of violent sex offenders and heinous molesters. The problem arises when the laws have been written with such broad strokes that they lump all sex offenders into the category of the heinous and the violent. A serial pedophile is very different from a high school student parked in a car with his girlfriend with the full knowledge of her parents. The former can be described as statistically unusual while the latter can be described as commonplace. In every American generation, parents have discussed and debated the merits of allowing seniors to date freshmen or sophomores. Some parents see no problem; others impose limits on the age differential in dating their child. In every generation, mothers and fathers have sat with their teenage children to impart wisdom on boundaries, good behavior, and morals. Now those same conversations must include coaching on the legal statutes of the home state. “Son, be careful on your date tonight with your fellow high school student. If you hold hands, you should be in good shape. But if you touch here or kiss there, our next conversation may be held in the county jail.” Parental coaching conversations have risen to the level of providing legal counsel. A new era for high school dating to say the least. This most recent case in Lakeland illustrates the point. With the charges facing Arce and Wohlfarth-Simmons, it is clear that, in our well-intentioned effort to protect children, we have not taken enough care to consider that sexual activity occurs in a variety of circumstances. Some of those circumstances may be wrong but are certainly not criminal. The pendulum has swung too far.

I came across this list from Peter Kreeft and liked it. So I share with you. It speaks to where we are as a culture. And it also speaks to why the Allen Hunt Show casts a new conversation in the talk radio waters. 1. Morality is necessary for society to survive. The alternative is barbarism, decadence, and chaos. 2. Morality is not sectarian (religiously) or partisan (politically). It is both universally known and universally binding. We all know in our hearts what good and evil are, and we are all responsible for living the way we know we ought to live. 3. Morality is natural, or based on human nature. There is a "Natural (moral) Law". Morality is discovered, like stars, not invented, like games. It is not man-made, arbitrary, and changeable. Its laws are intrinsic to human nature, as the laws of hygiene are to the nature of the body or the laws of physics are to the nature of matter. 4. Morality is liberating, not repressive. For it is a set of directions given for the purpose of making our human nature flourish and helping us to reach our full potential. A law like "don't drink poison" is not repressive to your health. Poison is. 5. Morality takes effort. Like love, morality is work, not feeling. It is a fight against the forces of evil in all of us. Today it has become a fight against forces in our culture. 6. Morality gives meaning and purpose and direction to life. It is a road map. Without a map, we wander aimlessly, hopelessly. 7. Morality gives human beings dignity. Its basis is the intrinsic value of the human person. It commands us to love people and use things, not use people and love things. People are ends, things are means. 8. Morality is reasonable. It is not blind but intelligent. It perceives a real difference between good and bad actions and lifestyles. It "discriminates". (Discrimination between people as good or bad may be foolish, but discrimination between acts as good or bad is simply moral sanity.) We are a nation born in a struggle for freedom, so we continue to value personal freedom very highly, and rightly so. But we cannot have freedom without truth. A surgeon cannot free you from a disease without light to operate by, accurate X rays, and a knowledge of anatomy. Moral skepticism is the death of freedom. 9. Morality is not simply about "freedoms" and "rights" but about duties and responsibilities. Victor Frankl says the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast should be completed by a Statue of Responsibility on the West. 10. Morality is not legalistic. Its essence is not a set of rules but a vision of the good life and the good person; not only laws but also character. No set of rules will work without personal virtues. Morality is about how we can be real heroes. It's about how to avoid flunking Life despite getting A's in all your courses.

At age eleven, in 1975, I sat in a classroom or on a ball field. At the same age today, Jordan Brown sits in a jail cell. Charged an an adult with criminal homicide by the state of Pennsylvania. Last week, it appears that Jordan tragically shot and killed his father's pregnant live-in girlfriend, Kenzie Marie Houk, while she slept. Houk leaves behind two daughters from a previous relationship. Today, Jordan is dazed and bewildered in the aftermath of this horrific tragedy. Police say he used a 20 gauge shotgun to murder Houk and her unborn child. After the murder, Jordan got on a school bus with one of Houk's daughters and promptly went to school. Today, he simply wants to be able to go home. Instead, he sits alone in an adult jail, separated from the rest of the incarcerated adults for his own protection. The law requires juveniles charged as adults to be housed in adult facilities. The jail warden says, "I think even for an adult, for the first time, it's probably a frightening experience." Jordan Brown is 11 years old. Until last week, he was in fifth grade. Lawrence County District Attorney, John Bongivengo, believes the murder was premeditated, so he has chosen to charge Jordan as an adult. In Pennsylvania, a juvenile cannot be charged with criminal homicide; only adults can. Consequently, Pennsylvania leads the United States in juveniles serving life sentences, with 444. Pennsylvania “lifers,” who committed their crimes as juveniles and are now serving life sentences, account for 20% of all such inmates in the country. Jordan may well be number 445. And that is wrong. Bongivengo rightly wants to bring justice in this case. It is, after all, a heinous crime. What Bongivengo lacks is prudence. Aquinas wrote that prudence is “love choosing wisely between what is helpful and what is harmful.” Charging an 11-year old boy as an adult can hardly be classified as helpful. Did Jordan behave like an adult in murdering Kenzie Marie Houk? Probably so. Is any 11-year old boy capable of thinking, reasoning, or making decisions like an adult? Absolutely not. In this tragedy, Bongivengo and the state of Pennsylvania somehow need to find a way to balance justice and punishment, with mercy and compassion. Evidently, the state of Pennsylvania needs to find a way to accomplish that in a number of cases. Housing 20% of America's juveniles who are serving life sentences would indicate to most reasonable people that perhaps there is a problem in Pennsylvania. One lesson is clear: if you commit a crime as a juvenile, it is best not to do so in Pennsylvania. Jordan Brown has an 11-year old brain. He stands developed and reasoning like an 11-year old. He is a fifth grader. By definition, every 11-year old boy faces fears. That comes with the territory. Healthy 11-year olds will be trusting, autonomous, and full of initiative, according to Erikson's stages of development. The unhealthy will doubt the future and perhaps even experience defeat and inferiority. That is what 11-year olds do: sort through the issues of becoming adolescents. Jordan clearly doubted the future. Jordan plainly is unhealthy. Healthy 11-year olds do not murder. Does Jordan's unhealthy development excuse murder? Of course not. Does it help explain why the murder happened? Absolutely. It simply reminds us that he is an 11-year old boy, not an adult. An 11-year old boy still does not even have the capacity to create hypothetical situations and judge their outcomes. A male brain does not reach full development until well past the age of 21. Jordan is not a “little adult;” he is a developing young man. He needs help, not a lifetime of incarceration with no chance to recover from this catastrophic decision. Bongivengo wants Jordan to have no chance at freedom ever again. The juvenile system requires release by the age of 21, and Bongivengo does not want to take the chance that Jordan might be released and murder again. So he is treating Jordan like an adult. Prudence reminds us that ten full years lie between Jordan and the age of 21. Ten years of development and growth. Ten years of processing the horror his decisions have created for himself, his family, and the surviving daughters of Kenzie Marie Houk. Ten years of coming to terms with the outcome of one catastrophic act. Ten years to receive psychological, psychiatric, and rehabilitative treatment. Ten years to experience faith and its implications for life change. Ten years to move through the normal stages of development Jordan still has yet to reach, like being able to answer the question, “Who am I?” Ten years until the age of 21. Bongivengo wants those ten years to be spent as the first installment on a life in prison. Prudence would suggest that those ten years might be better used offering hope, help, and healing to Jordan Brown, and those affected by his tragic choice. Human beings do have the capacity for change. For 11-year olds, change occurs every single day. Sadly, for whatever reason, Jordan Brown chose to play for keeps before he was mature enough to know what that meant. We do not know the reasons, and we may never know them in full. After all, he is 11-years old. Because of that, we should treat him as what he is, a boy. A boy with the brain, thought processes, emotions, judgment, and decision-making abilities of an 11-year old. How do you mix justice with mercy? That mixture is not an exact science, but prudence would teach that you certainly do not do that by treating an 11-year old like an adult.

Tremendous caller and emailer response to the discussion last night of the execution of Ric-Ric Henyard in Florida last week. Most of you do not agree with me that life belongs to God. Life is not ours to make nor is it ours to take. Ric-Ric, in spite of his despicable behavior, deserved to live - in prison, with no chance of parole. He was created in the image of God every bit as much as you and I. But,enough of me - out of the dozens of emails, here is one of my favorites - from "David" May have to share more later because there is a "rich" variety of thought and logic in the responses. First I will say kudos to for repeating that it was only your opinion that abortion/capital punishment are wrong. As for you question why, did you ride the short bus to theology school? Did you skip the whole day when 'freewill' was discussed? Plain and simple man has the freewill to choose whether to kill or be killed. Man can choose not to turn the other cheek and lay some smackdown on your butt. Know that in this country every citizen has the right to their opinion. Some are synergistic while others a antagonistic.

Christoper Scott Emmett is scheduled to die tonight. Jack Alderman is scheduled to die on Friday. Emmett in Virginia, and Alderman in Georgia. Both by lethal injection. Alderman has requested his final meal include fried chicken, 12 fried shrimp, fries, tossed salad with Russian or French dressing, a pint of cherry or strawberry ice cream, and iced tea. Not sure why he did not ask for Fincher's BBQ which is not all that far from the Georgia death row. But that is his own business. He is a human being. Georgia's Supreme Court refused to postpone Alderman's execution until the US Supreme Court rules whether death by lethal injection constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment." The High Court recently agreed to hear a case from Kentucky from two inmates claiming that the three-drug cocktail used to kill inmates is excruciatingly painful and therefore unconstitutional. I cannot believe that we are debating this. Now we are trying to find a "humane" way to execute criminals? QUESTION: What is a humane way to kill someone? ANSWER: There is no such thing. The death penalty is wrong for so many reasons not the least of which is that life is not ours to make and not ours to take. The death penalty costs more to implement than does life imprisonment (Witness the present case of Brian Nichols), the death penalty is usually applied to the poorest criminals who cannot afford good counsel, and the death penalty does not accomplish vengeance or satisfaction (it merely creates one more horrific death to add to the pile). Please do not tell me that you can see Jesus walking up to the chair and pulling the switch - on in this case, up to the gurney and slipping in the needle. Alderman and Emmett have been convicted of heinous crimes. They no longer pose a risk to society. Leave them in prison to reflect on their guilt. Leave them there until they die of natural causes. THAT is justice.

There are times when I am embarrassed to be a Georgian and this is one of them. Our Attorney General, Thurbert Baker, should act today to free Genarlow Wilson. This travesty has gone on long enough. A 10 year sentence for a 17 year old having consensual oral sex with a 15 year old is cruel and unusual. I did a show on this subject months ago. Finally, the wheels of justice have begun to turn. But the pace is glacial. And that is unacceptable. This young man's life is ticking away; so too his hope and his future. The longer he spends in prison, the worse off we all are. We are extinguishing any chance he has of a decent life and future. The legislature and the Attorney General have failed. Governor Sonny Perdue should simply step in with a pardon at this point. It is the right thing to do.