A week ago I posed a thought experiment to my readers, and several responded. I was looking in particular for one of Jonny Dallo’s friends to respond — they were, in the comments, excusing his actions as a “mistake” or an “accident”. Their emotion is evident — their friend is accused of an awful crime, killing a woman — and their defense of Jonny very passionate, if not particularly articulate. I wanted to see how those friends would respond to a scenario with the same basic elements, minus their friendship with the perpetrator.
BTW, if this is all new to you, search (at right) for “Jodi Burnett” and “Dallo” to get the posts and their comments for all the context…
While I had several interesting responses to my thought experiment, the responses didn’t come from one of Jonny’s friends. Until last night:
I am friends with Jonny and I guess you can call me an “apologists for Jonny Dallo.” For one thing when we say Jonny is a good kid we are not excusing him of what he did. Jonny should have consequences. That is what your friends are for I mean if I did something wrong I hope my family and friends stick it out with me. I think he should be punished but if you go in to “what if it was your mom or your friend” then are laws will never work. I mean every case is different, there are many people who do not believe in the death penalty but what is your family was the victim? I bet your view would change. I give my support to Jonny as a friend but yes what he did was wrong! If you break the law you should be punished no matter what. Joe should and so should Jonny!
"Joe” was the perpetrator in my thought experiment.
Whoever you are, my anonymous commenter, I commend you for thinking clearly about friendship and your friend’s responsibilities. And you are not a Jonny Dallo apologist. You’re articulating the exact opposite notion here…
As you read the comment above, the commenter’s internal conflict is evident: his (or her) friend did a bad thing, and the need for punishment is acknowledged — but Jonny is still his friend, and he’s going to “stick it out” with Jonny.
Imagine yourself in my commenter’s position: a friend or a loved one kills someone unintentionally, but as a result of choices and decisions they made. How do you respond to this? There are, I think, three basic possibilities:
1. You can allow your feelings for your friend or loved one romp freely over logic, and simply deny either the crime or the need for punishment. Many of Jonny’s friends — the ones I’m calling “Jonny apologists” — appear to have taken this route. This is a relatively easy course to take, it seems to me — there’s no pesky need to confront anyone, and it feels like loyalty.
2. You can say to yourself that you simply don’t want someone who does things like that to be my friend, and walk away. This is a more difficult course, cutting off emotional ties that may well be quite powerful — but its also a way to escape the discomfort of the situation. It’s harsh, but it’s easy to imagine someone feeling justified in taking the action.
3. You can do what my commenter has done: acknowledge your friend’s responsibility, acknowledge the need for punishment, and still maintain your friendship. This, I think, is the most difficult course of all — for it requires confronting your friend (and perhaps other mutual friends as well), if you’re going to be honest about your feelings and your position. A friend like this (and unlike the preceding two) could offer comfort and counsel to a perpetrator coming to terms with his choices and actions, their consequences, and his feelings about them.
Tough choices for Jonny’s friends. But Jonny’s got at least one friend taking that most difficult route…
