A Candidate for Father of the Year
September 4th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesMany of my readers are fathers who've been locked out of their children's lives after a divorce or separation. That's why we fatherhood/shared parenting advocates are always thrilled when some SOB who does enjoy joint custody mistreats his children.
Today's case in point, Lucien Hoffman, who (allegedly) left his two year-old daughter in a hot car for two hours while he was.....in a whorehouse. Nice job, pal.
Apparently Hoffman never learned what most dads who have daughters understood the moment our daughters were born--dads are their little girls' protectors.
I'm not sure what Hoffman's punishment will be (I might suggest a rope and a tree). Fortunately the girl is OK, and is now with child protective services. Let's hope she's reunited with her mother, ASAP. The article is below, a video of the news report can be found here.
Two Year Old Left In Car While Dad Is In Brothel
September 3, 2007
A two year old is in protective custody Monday after being left in a burning hot car while authorities say her father was in a brothel.
The Storey County sheriff's department said, Lucien Hoffman, was inside the "Mustang Ranch" when deputies arrived Sunday evening.
Security guards were the first to find his daughter, paramedics who then arrived treated her for dehydration.
Authorities say she'd been left, unattended, for about two hours in 95-degree heat.
Hoffman was arrested for child neglect.
He is being held at the Storey County detention facility on 40-thousand dollars bail.
The sheriff's department says Hoffman who's from Bend, Oregon has joint custody of the girl.
"));
19 queries. 0.371 seconds.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:09 am
Hanging is too good for him...
September 4th, 2007 at 2:38 am
This is the difference between Glenn and most feminists (and many MRAs to be fair). He's quite prepared forstly to acknowledge that these men exist and to unequivocally condemn them.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:10 am
Well, the whorehouse thing will be used to make sure his daughter will never see him again for the rest of her childhood, but thank God she survived the ordeal.
I did come across an interesting article though, that indicates this is one crime (the only one?) where women generally receive tougher sentences than men:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291412,00.html - Wide Disparity in Treatment of Adults Who Leave Kids to Die in Hot Cars
In the article, an expert gives a plausible reason for this:
"I think we generally hold mothers to a higher standard in the
criminal justice context than in just family life generally," says
Jennifer M. Collins, a professor at the Wake Forest University School
of Law who has studied negligence involving parents and such
hyperthermia cases. A large segment of society, she says, thinks
"fathers are baby-sitting, and mothers are doing God's work."
Not that it's needed, but this may be another reason why women's groups should support shared
parenting, and acceptance of stay-at-home dads (as a few
enlightened feminists actually do).
September 4th, 2007 at 6:04 am
It is important that men be the ones leading the charge to criminally prosecute any and all fathers who tarnish the word "father" by such horrible conduct.
Criminal court.
Jury trial.
Jail time.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:53 am
I'm sorry did you say the mom maltreated the child? Of course not, it was the mainstream, feminist freindly media telling yet another anecdotal story out of statistical context. As for 'mothers being held to a higher standard', she must be referring to the fact that they collectively kill more children, as well as exploit and maltreat children to bring about the death of children's biological fathers.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:22 am
It always amuses me how the website FARK is labeled as misogynist. In fact, apart from some crude humor, the members of FARK are usually quite with it.
Here is their take: http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3044240
September 4th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Well done Glenn, not making excuses for a crap dad. We see this all too often with women's advocates.
On an unrelated note. Went to the doctors today. Lots of domestic violence leaflets. I got some interesting stares when I started reading one, being a 16 year old male. Lots about women's help, womensaid, women's rights.
Wanna guess who was ignored by the DV help community?
I wasn't surprised, I knew this was how it works. Just a little peeved.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
I'm going to take a somewhat contrarian position here.
This guy, if guilty, deserves the same punishment that a woman would receive, be it jail or whatever. However, his being in a brothel will certainly be used as an excuse to enhance his punishment, and THAT I disagree with. His punishment should be no higher than if he had gone to buy baseball tickets or if his wife had done this while having her nails done or shopping. His sex life, and that of him and his wife, is nobody's business but his and his wife's. It is not for the law, or any puratinist Dr. Phil type moralist self-righteous chivalrous anti-male snot-face to go around sticking their personal value judgments into the law in order to satisfy their obsessions with controlling other people's sex lives. We have no clue about the sex life he and his wife share or what his marriage is like, or what agreements or arrangments they have or have had, or what he has been though - nor is it anyone's business. Though it's hard for many to imagine in our sex-repressed country of moralist fanatics who want to control everyone else's sex, some married spouses are swingers or have agreements about alternative partners, which differ from the rest of us. Not only do we know nothing about this marriage, but it should be irrelevant and not the business of the courts or the law. His punishment should be exactly the same as a woman would receive and should have nothing to do with whether he was shopping for food, buying clothes, getting a massage, sleeping with a prostitute, or buying a lotto ticket. If we would hang him for this, or give him jail time, we should be willing to do the exact same to a woman who does the same thing while buying tampons.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
"Mothers are treated much more harshly than fathers. While mothers and fathers are charged and convicted at about the same rates, moms are 26 percent more likely to do time. And their median sentence is two years longer than the terms received by dads."
That's wrong.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
(I'm sure the guy is a jerk, no doubt.)
But, in keeping with the way feminists spin this same stuff, is there any way we can blame the mother here? Like, perhaps, she practically drove him to prostitution because she wouldn't put out during the marriage? And then, cast this in the light of abuse via sexual deprivation?
Worth a try anyway. See if the shoe fits on the other foot.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
NBC is reporting he says he went in to catch up on some sports scores on the Big Screen, not partake in the ladies.
If that proves true, that he went in to grab the scores and a cold Coke and was in there exactly 13 minutes, the story would seem a bit different than what the Main Stream Media (MSM) was licking their chops, eager to report.
DanH
September 5th, 2007 at 2:11 am
One thing that worries me about this..I don't believe a father should be held responsible, by nature, for being a female child's "protector" any more than the mother (I realize the mother was not present in this specific case, but that is not related to my point - I am making a general observation).
If we are going to hang these fathers, what about all the mothers who have done this?
September 5th, 2007 at 2:16 am
As Warren Farrell has pointed out, one of the biggest problems in the relations between the sexes, is the woman's expectation for the man to protect her. "Women's facade of weakness is their strength. Men's facade of strength is their weakness"
We need to do away with these protector/protected roles..they once served a purpose, but are no longer functional. And it is no doubt true, that these roles begin to be learned by a person during their childhood.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:51 am
First of all, I agree that the media (and others) will make an issue as to where this father was spending his time as his child baked in the car, and I agree that his location should be a non-issue. I agree that his sex life has nothing to do with this unfortunate incident so the comment that alledges the guy was "hard up" b/c wifey wasn't putting out contradicts that, and has nothing to do with his judgement. I would think some men would defend that point rather than incriminate themselves by suggesting lack of sex skews judgement when it comes to child safety issues and parental responsibility. To Matt, the mom's responsibility was choosing someone like this to have a child with. Let's see if she takes responsibility for that (yeah right).
Mike, I agree with your comment that more women abuse, neglect and kill their children when compared to men, but a statistic from a gentleman who goes by "themanonthestreet" I thought suggested it was closer to being equal. Just this morning on the news was another comment related to the Angelica Alvarez case out of Goshen Indiana - she killed all 4 of her children (ages 2yo to 8yo) after allegations she was abusing them, and to avoid having to share any custody with the ex-husband (father of the two oldest children). My biggest gripe - all these women who torture and kill boyfriends, husbands, and children and then cry that they are the victim and have a mental illness. Men rarely use mental illness, but do try and rely on the "I had a bad childhood boo hoo" defense. Everyone needs held accountable, but I think in our world, children's lack of value has a lot to do with that not happening.
Callum, I am so glad that you realize the BS coming out of the DV community, especially if you're 16yo. This is a big issue with me, and after much research, I have decided to battle this community in my area by becoming a "certified domestic counselor." The only way to make change is to confront the issue by getting in the middle of it and exposing it for what it is. The whole DV mindset is a very sick sysem that depends on keeping "victims" sick to further their agenda against men/fathers. While that likely isn't the sole motive, it is usually the end result and it does breed hate, for both men and women.
Norman, I have to admit that I am guilty of expectations that my male partner defend and protect me. In fact, I feel very strongly about that. I don't put myself in situations to need defended by my husband, however, its more related to security (we are isolated in the country amongst wild things, big spiders, and the occasional "lost" person!). Two significant men in my life - my father and ex-husband - served as a protector and perpetrator, so I agree that this expecation is taught in childhood. But you're right, it only perpetuates the myth that women are weak, and unable to protect themselves, and therefore always the victim. It's then the man's fault because he was the sole perpetrator, because he's stronger, and he failed to fulfill his role as protector. In addition to that, an author named David Popenoe, who has done father research for many years, points out that children who have "absent" fathers are more likely to be perpetrated against, b/c visible fathers impact a predators decision to choose a child AND because w/o the father/boyfriend/husband/lover around, the mom will present a plethora of other men and introduce them into their children's life, increasing the possibility of an offense against the child (mom's play a huge role in this). We hear it in the news almost daily: "Mothers boyfriend puts baby in the clothes dryer...."
If you read all this, thanks for your attention.
September 5th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
I should probably clarify that by "protector", I mean someone who will protect emotionally, psychologically and financially, as well as physically. Of course in some physical situations, it makes sense for the man, who is stronger, to defend the woman.
September 5th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Norman, in re: to your last sentence - I find this is true when faced with an exceptionally large spider (although I have been able to muster up enough courage to kill one every now and then). I did understand what you meant, on a more serious note...some women depend soley on males for everything.
September 5th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Lucien is a friend of mine. And I know he is not the sharpest tool in the shed. However, he does love his baby girl. Please read below for an insider's take:
1. THE CHILD NEVER WAS IN GOVERNMENTAL PROTECTIVE CUSTODY. I have no idea where the media got this idea from. The child's mother immediately gave permission for other Rugby players and friends of the child to take her home to Oregon.
2. BABIES DON'T BELONG AT RUGBY TOURNAMENT AFTER PARTIES. The mother refused to take her child while the father attended an out of town sporting event for a club that he has been an important part of for years. This is one instance of many when the mother refused to care for her own child when Mr. Hoffman has attending out of town Rugby engagements. Fathering is tough enough without a mother who is too busy partying to care for her child when the father is out of town for 4 days playing rugby for his teammates.
3. LEAVING A CHILD ALONE IN A CAR IS NEVER OK. The party was outside near the parking area and Mr. Hoffman was within feet of the car while his daughter took a much needed nap. He was checking on her freiquently. I
4. JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE AT A BROTHEL DOESN'T MEAN YOU ARE USING ALL THE "SERVICES." The Mustang Ranch was sponsoring the after party for the Rugby tournament. It could have been TJI Fridays or Chucky Cheese, for all that matters. Mr. Hoffman was there with his girlfriend and 15 fellow Rugby buddies having beers and eating hamburgers in celebration. He wasn't purchasing any "relations." HE WAS WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND.
September 5th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Lucien is a friend of mine. And I know he is not the sharpest tool in the shed. However, he does love his baby girl. Please read below for an insider's take:
1. THE CHILD NEVER WAS IN GOVERNMENTAL PROTECTIVE CUSTODY. I have no idea where the media got this idea from. The child's mother immediately gave permission for other Rugby players and friends of the child to take her home to Oregon.
2. BABIES DON'T BELONG AT RUGBY TOURNAMENT AFTER PARTIES. The mother refused to take her child while the father attended an out of town sporting event for a club that he has been an important part of for years. This is one instance of many when the mother refused to care for her own child when Mr. Hoffman has attending out of town Rugby engagements. Fathering is tough enough without a mother who is too busy partying to care for her child when the father is out of town for 4 days playing rugby for his teammates.
3. LEAVING A CHILD ALONE IN A CAR IS NEVER OK. The party was outside near the parking area and Mr. Hoffman was within feet of the car while his daughter took a much needed nap. He was checking on her frequently. I don't think that leaving a child in a car is acceptable, but the media make is sound like he was gone from the scene having sex with hookers. Come on. I know that Lucien Hoffman is not the only person who ever let their child sleep in the car while they hung out outside it. If he should be hung, a lot of other “good” parents should be tied up too.
4. JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE AT A BROTHEL DOESN'T MEAN YOU ARE USING ALL THE "SERVICES." The Mustang Ranch was sponsoring the after party for the Rugby tournament. It could have been TJI Fridays or Chucky Cheese, for all that matters. Mr. Hoffman was there with his girlfriend and 15 fellow Rugby buddies having beers and eating hamburgers in celebration. He wasn't purchasing any "relations." HE WAS WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND.
My heart aches for the child (who's name I am deliberately not mentioning) and the fact that she may no longer receive as much love and joy from her loving, but stupid, father. My heart goes out to Lucien, who needs his little girl - the best thing that has ever happened to him.
September 5th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
"....(Lucien), who needs his little girl - the best thing that has ever happened to him."
Hamburgers and beers?
Sure hope they were tasty and that he had no intentions of driving drunk afterwards.
Sarcasm aside, I don't agree with the $40,000 bond but someone substantiated that there was enough danger to justify that amount.
Recognizing poor judgement does not equate to supporting any loss of custody, here. While your defensiveness is justified to a degree. It typically indicates that someone is defending knowledge of a wrong committed, which you aptly identify within your post.
September 5th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
This is the kind of story we hear of adnausium....In family law courts by accomplice advocates like CPS & family court facilitators on the womens advocatcy side in our courtrooms. ( why they are allowed to sit there in a court room to threaten the judge in the proceedings and perform a legalized version of jury tampering under the guise of "witness"...is nothing less than astounding )
Guys like these provide the legal cover for the Andria Yates and Mary Winkler's who escape justice.
Guys like these give guys like me an undeserved black eye.
Thanks alot asshole !!
September 5th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
..."someone substantiated that there was enough danger to justify that amount."
Yes, they did. But not until after the party was over, and the father and other Ruggers were on the road home with Hoffman's Designated Driver girlfriend. Only then were they pulled over by the police, Hoffman was arrested and the rest of the group headed home with the child, with the mother's permission. No protective custody. Those security staffers that thought this event worthy of an arrest, took their sweet time to decide to call the police. To me, that shows some obvious doubt on the part of the security staff.
My take: A wrong was committed and the punishment will be too high.
Jeers to the media for once again misinterpreting facts and events.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
The Main Stream Media (MSM) seems to have packaged a real anti-father tale with little more than the location correct.
Want to bet the MSM-fabricated story has taken on a life of its own and we'll be hearing this false tale for years to come? Want to bet it re-surfaces in spades around father's day?
If someone knows how to force the original source to issue a correction, please do what you can to beat back this poor excuse of reporting. We do not need this unabashed attack on young fathers to go unchallenged.
DanH
September 5th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
...And a huge THANKS!!! to Amanda Beals for taking the time to respond to the press article and set the record straight. You're a breath of fresh air!
DanH
September 6th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Amanda, since you present yourself with having the "low down" on the whole incident, have you also contacted the source from which this media story originated? I know that's an obvious action you have likely taken, but I'm curious to know and if you did, did you get a response?
September 6th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I don't condone what this man did,
However why is it NEVER mentioned when the MOTHERS do the same to their children> They may not be in a brothel but they are in motels with a man or a woman.
Its a proven fact that most of the children killed in families are killed by their mothers. The System don't do enough to protect them from their own mothers. I have volunteered to help plenty of the kids that these mothers have totured. You would not beleive some of the stuff mothers have put their children through for there own advantage. To topp all that they get help doing it from the court and legal systems in this country and the mothers almost never get convicted of their crimes of what they did to their children.
More children need to be left in the custody of their fathers. They would be much happier, healthier and definitely SAFER.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Amanda failed to recognize that the term "PROTECTIVE CUSTODY" used in the news article must refer to the people who were given permission to take the little girl home. Any time a child is allowed to be left with any kind of 'caregiver' after being "taken" from a custodial parent/guardian, it can easily be considered as placing the child in "protective custody." This is lingo for child protection workers, be it cps, police, etc. who have to document an outcome reflecting resolution of the issue which threatened the childs safety, ie "protective custody." That could pertain to anyone deemed "safe."
September 6th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Amanda, were you there? You seem to have a lot of information about this incident which suggests that. If you weren't there, who is your source?
Unless DanH is being passively facitious, he seems to take what you've "explained" as the absolute truth and charged the media with a firm "guilty." I'm not saying that the media doesn't sensationalize and go on witch hunts. However, the point is that ANY source spouting off "facts" should not be judged in such black-and-white, all-or-nothing terms - the truth usually lies in the middle. Going from one extreme ("THE BASTARD'S GUILTY!") to the other ("DAMN THE MEDIA!") is unreliable as well, actually a hysterical response, and shouldn't be invested in either.
Amanda, if you were there, and you admit a wrong was committed, how are you (or anyone else who was there) less guilty?
If you weren't there, then again, who is your source and are they reliable?
If the media is unreliable, then what makes you a reliable source?
September 6th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Amanda--as I mentioned in my email to you yesterday, if you'd like, write me a 250 or 500 word letter "In Defense of Lucien Hoffman" and I'll make a separate blog post out of it so your views will be shared with my audience.--GS
September 6th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
I disagree with prosecuting people for this crime... that goes for this fellow, and a woman in another case (whose child died) on Glenn's blog as well. If these individuals do not learn from this event, prison will not help either. Neglect and abuse are different, crimes of inaction vs action. The two cases together make a good example of gender bias, though.
But I still advocate mercy in preference to double-edged justice.
September 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
CHILD NEGLECT is a category of child maltreatment related to child ABUSE, when the bio parent or legally responsible adult/caregiver fails to provide for the proper physical, emotional, educational, and medical care of a child.
It is 3 times more common than physical abuse.
It is 6 times more common than sexaul abuse.
CHILD ABUSE is physical, sexual, or emotional maltreatment OR NEGLECT of a child by parents, guardians, caregivers, etc.
Child neglect and abuse is found to be more common within single-parent households when compared to households where both parents are present. I refer back to the research by Popenoe.
The federal gov't extends a full definition of child abuse and neglect with each state having its own definition. This is part of the 2005 State Statute by Child Welfare Information Gateway.
Look it up (eye roll).
September 6th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
I have several first-hand experiences with the press that have led me to conclude they do not give a rip about accuracy. They have a story to get out, the facts be damned.
After the story first broke, NBC started backhandedly backtracking on some parts of it.
They are geared up to ride out major, fatal errors and nearly always do, but if it's so far wrong it's off the charts, you'll see a little "clarification" as the day wears on. Seeing that then seeing Amanda's post that the little girl was napping safely in the car and frequently being checked on by dad sealed it for me the article was either very sloppy or a cheap shot at male bashing.
DanH
September 6th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Delaney- you needn't roll your eyes. There is nothing wrong with having a moral position that differs from a federal (or state) statute.
I was making the point that committing a misdeed is worse than not committing a good one. I don't like crimes that punish people for what they didn't do. It is a philosophical point, and perspective will change depending on the event. In this act, the fellow did place the child in the car, and left the car. And he should accept responsibility for what happens as a result of his actions. However, he did not intentionally commit an evil deed, for example, hitting the child with a lead pipe, or throwing the child into boiling water. The difference of intent makes a big difference to me (and a big difference in many other aspects of law). Obviously I believe we prosecute too much, as a general rule.
Even people whose children die because of a parent's stupidity, inattention, or neglect, deserve sympathy more than prosecution, in my eyes. In any case, if the child died, I don't know how the law can punish the parent worse than they have already punished themselves.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
DanH, I'll wait and see whether Ms. Beals is able to provide some back up to her story. If you can't trust a news article because of a shoddy job, why trust Ms. Beals who has, as of yet, to provide anything to substantiate her knowledge of what she presents as the "facts." Until she takes ownership for what she's saying is the truth, her comments are no different to me than the way the media presented it. A reliable reporter reveals their sources to gain trust of readers. Isn't that the whole premise behind MSM distorting reality? Skewing the facts? Fabricating information? Refusing to reveal sources? Maybe Ms. Beals will respond to Glenn's invitation to write a letter in defense of Lucien given how strongly she feels that an injustice against him has occurred. I, like everyone else, am eagerly awaiting the truth.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Andy - What role do morals play in these situations of what you refer to as "inaction" or the abscense of an "intentional evil deed"?
In Indiana, a mother of two named Lakeisha Hyde is in jail because of this "inaction." While she was out in the middle of the night to "pick up her boyfriend", her 9yo daughter decided to start a fire that severely injured both her and her 7yo brother. Your point would say that Lakiesha's "inaction" in the abscense of an "intentional evil deed" doesn't warrant jail time and loss of custody, because, after all, she didn't do anything to INTENTIONALLY cause harm to her own children, yet the injuries her children sustained was a direct result of her not being there (neglect).
To judge people by your own personal morals means to apply the same principle from which Lakiesha (and others) use to make decisions. Meaning, Lakiesha, and others like her, made a moral decision when they made the choice that led to the endangerment, injury, or death of a child. How does one make a decision like that that's morally grounded?
When someone causes a harm, regardless of the degree, and then says, "I didn't intend to hurt you," how is that validating to the person hurt? How is that taking responsibility? If they intended the offense, that would be malicious and therefore should have stringent consequences; otherwise it should go without saying. It distracts from the harm/offense committed and produces a guilt feeling in the hurt party who by then feels like they should have known better than to think that person intentionally hurt them....somehow the focus is on something insignificant and the harm is not acknowledged. Basically, it's a slap in the face, an insult, and a comment made by those who see no wrong in their actions/inaction. And it's usually spoken by people who hurt people.
I'm not without morals, but I see where my compassion for others does not spread as far as yours, Andy - I'm all about accountability and people being held responsible for their actions (a standard I hold myself to). If people are sorry for the things they did, they wouldn't have done them to begin with. Yes, I truly believe that. Being "sorry" does not evidence recognition or remorse. What I hear is, "It wasn't intentional," which, to repeat myself, is so not the point.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
It's not worth debating. Some people deserve mercy, some should be locked up to protect others. Judging people by your own morals is not wrong. After all, if you don't judge people by your own personal morals, how do you judge them? With someone else's.
I don't know the circumstances of Lakiesha's situation. Does jail help her? I don't know. Does it help anyone else? I don't know that, either. I leave my 9 year old alone every time he takes a shower. If he drowns, should I be arrested? My tears would teach me more than a concrete wall ever could. Juries, and even police, are better than bloggers at finding out when a person is a fool, and when they are a menace. If you don't think there's a difference between the two, the discussion is meaningless. This man may be a menace, but I don't think so. I think he's a fool. You can disagree. The truth is neither of us know for certain. The disagreement on the facts becomes a material disagreement.
If Amanda is right, he's a fool; if the news report is correct, he's a danger. Perhaps we can trust the jury on this one.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Bad article, and even if it were all true, I'm saddened to see the lynching mentality raise its ugly head - even Glenn's comments. If "hanging is too good for him", what kind of sadistic torture would you have left to dream up for a REAL menace, like a child abductor/rapist/murderer? (That's a rhetorical question, I don't want to know!).
Thanks for reminding me that I live in a violent country, and that to survive as a parent and a male, not only must I not _do_ anything bad, I must make sure that I cannot be _accused_ of doing anything bad.
September 7th, 2007 at 7:59 am
Andy, I guess I judge/assess people objectively, by the facts. But to a degree, yes, my morals filter that information. Afterall, nothing is without bias - we're human. I was coming from a point of view that, for example, just because I believe abortion is murder, doesn't make it so. I don't even believe in the death penalty. Giving people the benefit of a doubt is not always my strong suit, though. Particularly when the offense is against those who cannot defend themselves.
Does jail change people? As a skeptic, I say no, most of the time it does not. I believe that the "punishment" should fit the crime, and I don't mean "an eye for an eye" - two wrongs don't make a right. A simple example - if a child scribbles on the wall with crayons, the child should have to wash the crayon off. The consequence must be connected to the behavior before learning can occur. Few judges and way too few parents do this.
And point taken in re: to the example of your son.
You're right, there is a difference between a menace and what you refer to as a fool. Lucien, I agree, is not a menace. Aside from his poor judgement, he likely has some wonderful qualities as a human being.
It is sad how we all struggle to try and make sense of the world, but at least we are doing that. Tweesdad is right - a "lynching" mentality does nothing to help anyone understand what many of us find hard to comprehend. Unfortunately, that has become a big part of our world.