The "No True Scotsman" fallacy goes something to
the effect that one Alistair MacTavish reads a story in the Edinburgh Evening News
about a violent crime wave in London, which the Metropolitan Police Service
detectives believe has been perpetuated by a single individual. "No true Scotsman would ever do
that," thinks MacTavish to himself.
The next evening, the finding of the mutilated body of another victim is
reported in the Evening News, and a horrified MacTavish again insists that the
perpetuator cannot possibly be a Scotsman.
After another two weeks, with another victim almost daily, the suspect
is apprehended by the Mets. The suspect
is identified as one Duncan Forbes MacPherson, a native of Glasgow. "He is not really a true Scotsman," declares MacTavish.
Amongst the insular Jewish religious community, there were
similar sentiments expressed about two years ago during the
Leiby
Kletzky affair.
Leiby Kletzky, you
will recall, was an autistic boy who, having become disoriented, was abducted,
murdered and mutilated.
The murderer was
a member of the same community, but a local shopkeeper named Eva Rosenbluh told
a
New
York Daily News reporter that "To me, he is not an Orthodox [Jew]
because an Orthodox Jew wouldn't do that."
Well,
Eva
Rosenbluh is in the New York Daily News again.
Eva is now arguably a victim of violence,
having
had her wrists slapped by U.S.
District Judge Allyne Ross.
Seems that
in 1994, Eva's father died, but Eva continued to collect the old man's Social
Security payments for 18 years.
So, Eva, pray tell just where do we draw the line between
what an Orthodox Jew would and would not do?
But my scrutiny and interest are directed not only at Eva,
but at the Social Security Administration and at Judge Ross. Shouldn't the SSA know when someone
dies? Especially if the person dies in a
nursing home in New York City, where the death is sure to be reported?
Note that Eva got 3
years probation, no fine, and no jail time, but had to repay within 90 days the
$218,194.52 she collected in her father's name after the old man died. And the prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Eric Paulsen, observed that this constituted "essentially a 20-year,
tax-free loan from the government."
And Judge Ross, you said, "I believe the punishment
effected by the loss of her home, the restitution and personal pain is
sufficient." And you say that Eva is unlikely to reoffend, and that jail time would serve no purpose.
Yes, Your Honor, I can sort of see some justice in the conditions you
placed upon Eva's probation, including the repayment (without interest) of the $218,194.52 within 90 days, which supposedly will necessitate the sale of Eva's
home and her eviction therefrom. And I can even see sparing the taxpayers the cost of incarcerating Eva if indeed she is unlikely to commit any more crimes. I suppose that what really galls me here is that Your Honor seems to have fallen for defense
counsel Jacob Laufer's line that Eva is a "profoundly decent person"
whose charitable deeds included helping out poor brides with their weddings. A noble cause indeed, but how noble can it really
be if done with stolen money?
Another religious Jewish woman behaving poorly. Or not.
After all, aren't we supposed to buy into the notion that no true
Orthodox Jew would ever do something like that?
Labels: crime, hypocrisy, Jewish values, Lenient Judges