A Scotsman Crosses Ethnic and Gender Lines

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?