Deterrence in Action
Last night Gary Sheffield was about to clock a Red Sox fan (or, to put it in the vernacular, clawk a sawx fa-an) when he pulled back and decided to jaw at him instead. What held him back? A sense that doing so would be wrong? That he felt taking care of this situation was a job for Fenway security, not him? No - he remembered what happened to Artest and the bunch. He was deterred by the "consequences," as he put it. So here's another very simple rule of thumb we can apply to real-life. Any questions now whether sociological forces or more aggressive punishment is behind the drop in crime over the last 10 years?
posted by ziel | 4/15/2005 08:18:00 AM
5 Comments:
Had Shef clocked the overzealous fan he would have ended player interference for the rest of the season in Boston. Crude but effective he would have been.
Jimmy lll
Not necessarily - the league and perhaps even the law would have come down hard on him. This could well have had the opposite effect - emboldening the more unruly fans who would assume no player would dare retaliate again (phew - it's tough writing in the future perfect tense).
As a singer performing in pubs and bars to drunk assholes, I can relate. Because a lack of proper security as in these sporting events, I have had to resort to violence at times, because sometimes people all but ask for it.
Usually it happens because somebody feels they have the right to share my performance by mounting the stage and helping themselves to the microphone.
My rebuke is in stages, depending on the persistence of the perpetrator.
1. They get a gentle verbal warning.
2. They get a harsh verbal warning.
3. They get shoved.
4. They get kicked.
5. They get clocked upside the head with the head of my electric bass, similar to a baseball bat, except it includes the big metallic machine heads.
It has reached #5 maybe twice and never beyond. So far, the police have not been involved.
Wasn't Sheffield really just trying to avoid a "'roid rage" accusation? Either that or George S.was yelling in Gary's well hidden wireless earpiece (all the Yanks have them, you know) saying "Gary! No! No!, Good boy!" In either case, or if it was, in fact, sound judgment on Sheffield's part, he did the right thing. I agree that the end result of a physical confrontation would have been one newly wealthy, slightly crippled Sox fan and a baseball player with a bunch less money and another stike against him.
Harlem - "he did the right thing"
But my point is that, through his own admission, he didn't do the right thing because of any sense of "doing the right thing", but because he was conscious of and feared the "consequences" of not doing the right thing. Just shows the importance and benefit of leagues meting out tough justice.
It's important also that the league chose not to suspend Sheffield for what little action he did take - that would have sent a confusing "damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't" message.
Post a Comment
<< Home