Just drop your pants and start defecating all over the place.
My old roommate passed along that kernel of wisdom to me a few years back.
We were talking about how to deal with hoodlums in the New Orleans French Quarter, who try to mug you or take advantage of you.
Sharing advice from his relative, he said the best way to shoo away a would-be criminal is to act pure loony and scare the thug more than the thug scares you.
If a guy demands your wallet, he suggested that relieving yourself and screaming wildly would persuade the crook to find another victim.
I laughed at the time, and, admittedly, it is a wee bit wacky.
Unfortunately, the same mentality and tactics works for criminals as well. More and more crooks, thieves and even murderers mock the justice system and skate the law by essentially dropping their pants and defecating in the courtrooms of America.
Case in point, Deanna Laney.
The Texas mother beat her three sons with stones, killing two and permanently injuring the third.
She didn't deny it. She didn't even claim self-defense, that her life was endangered by the 1, 6 and 8-year-olds.
Still, she was let go. She admitted viciously killing her own kids, savagely beating children who probably weren't old enough to tie their own shoes.
Still, the jury said she was not guilty. Why? Because she dropped her pants, defecated on the legal system and acted crazy.
God ordered her to do it, she said. A television commentator likened that defense to any religious extremist, including al-Quaida. Surely people willing to blow themselves up, killing as many people as possible, are nuts. Should the judicial system find them not guilty as well?
Whether sane or insane, Laney's kids are still dead.
I question the mental state of the judicial system that cares more about the killer than the killed.
The idea is that those lacking the mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong shouldn't be held to the same standards of those who can.
With the pure hatred and blind fury to brutally and viciously murder a fellow human being, much less your own children, name one murderer who isn't insane at least temporarily insane.
We should just let everyone who flies off the hook and lets their temper flare go free.
Rather than a mandatory life sentence, Laney will be sent to a mental hospital where she will receive "treatment" and potentially be free to snap again.
Were her children ever given such a second chance?
Prison is about punishment of the criminal, but more importantly it's about protecting the general public.
I could care less about what a shrink says about someone's mental state. I want a killer locked up. Punishing someone incapable of being responsible for their actions is debatable at best, but trumping that must be public safety. It isn't up for debate whether she killed in the past.
Demented, psychotic, deranged. Whatever you want to call her, she is a self-confessed killer.
That in and of itself is reason to lock her up, not necessarily for her rehabilitation, but for the public's safety.
The philosophy of utilitarianism teaches that we should consider the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Not guilty by reason of insanity is good for only one person, while harming the society as a whole.
Greg Gelpi covers education for the News Daily. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org or (770) 478-5753 Ext. 247.