Trump behavior and juvenile delinquency

While the increasing number of juvenile delinquency incidents in our country leads us to think deeply about the causes, we do not even find the opportunity to consider that we might be missing the main reason for these events. However, instead of thinking about the problem individually on the basis of each incident, if we spread it to the social sphere and think a little deeply, by considering the events together rather than each one separately, we might reach the main cause, even if we cannot prevent it, rather than just the severity of the problem. The issue is not just about children, nor is it just about Trump. The issue is that today, in the US—which is one of the two most advanced countries in science and technology, at least for now, even if it has rivals—Trump can be elected, and in Turkey, the crime rate among children can rise. Is there a relationship or similarity between these two categories of events? Let's take a look!

At first glance, we might think that there is almost no similarity between the two events, or the set of events. Because the issues show deep differences in terms of both their levels of formation and their legal consequences, they are treated as different events. While children's actions are treated as delinquency, events that occur politically are treated as politics, or at least, they are not seen as attacks on the country or human rights, are not devalued, and are even evaluated in our conscience, and are seen differently in terms of their legal consequences. One is considered an action in the political sphere, while the other is considered a crime in the individual sphere. Let's leave this here and look at the event from another perspective now.

Again in these columns, I came before you on January 7 with an article titled "Poor Trump." My use of the name Trump in that article and this one is not to present Trump to society as an example of a potential criminal. So, when we ask the question of why Trump was chosen as the name in both articles, let's go back to the old article and clearly state the reason. After entering the subject with the question of whether Trump is crazy, I provided this explanation: "...while having this discussion, I request that we do not get caught up in the rapidly spreading news and general judgments, and the general judgment that Trump kidnapped the leader of another country by raiding his bedroom... instead of treating the issue as Trump, by taking refuge in Rosa Luxemburg's famous expression 'Socialism or Barbarism'... while analyzing the subjective situation rising on an objective basis, I want to give priority to objective conditions," and then I continued the article with this expression: "So, why did Trump take on this role instead of any other head of state? ...this behavior is neither an example of sacrifice nor generosity. The clear picture of the event is this: Trump, as the leader of a state at the most advanced stage of capitalism, simply implemented the order of capitalism with his own style... in this event, Trump is not the primary perpetrator, he is just an apparatus." Perhaps, while the law-straining, and even extra-legal, behaviors of heads of state are observed in different dimensions in other countries of today, we need to look at the issue and analyze it not on the basis of individual events, but from a wider perspective, that is, in terms of the subjective situation rising on an objective basis.

Before the attempt at analysis, looking at the legal, political, or social consequences that different groups are exposed to in the face of similar actions gives us some clues. When the action comes from a head of state or any state official, the subject is handled in a political context and is subject to almost no punishment, and in some cases, may even be rewarded. On the other hand, when an event of a similar nature occurs in a gang of children, the subject is handled in the context of criminal law. So, why are the same or similar events handled in different categories even though the crime type is the same or similar? Because the statuses of those who perform the action are different. Even though the actions committed by different status holders are the same or closely similar in quality, why does the result change for individuals with different statuses? The whole issue hinges on these points.

If we look at the events more closely, if we look at the source as suppression by force; if we look at it as a valuation of the result, we encounter reward or immunity in one, and punishment in the other. It is precisely because the system treats the same or closely similar actions provoked by the system differently in terms of results that, as the average public, we see the events as different and subject to different treatment. While children commit crimes by using personal power and pursuing personal gain; the boss exploits labor and pursues personal gain by using social ideology; while politicians use power against their opponents with politicized tools they have brought under their command, they pursue partisan and even personal gain while activating the ideology of social benefit. It is seen that while urban poverty pushes children to crime, the drunkenness of political power can push politicians to crime of a similar nature. The cause and type of the crime are the same, that is, political or personal ambition or gain, but the results are different: reward in the field of politics, and conviction in the private sphere! Here, without the need for any deep sociological or criminological research, it is very clearly seen that even the social perception and reflection of the actions themselves can lead to different results in different power centers and different personalities. Even this small comparison gives us this result: The issue is the distribution of social power and the difference in authority! A powerful country can rain bombs on the heads of the people of another country on the grounds that it touches the interests of a great nation; a small child can see himself authorized to stab his friend because he "looked the wrong way," whatever that means. It can be said, what business does a knife, or even a rifle in later years, have in the pocket of a child of that age! But wait, how will the presence of the entire public authority at the command of the head of state be explained, in which article of which law is such an authority found? We remember, there was a punk group once, they would dye one side of their hair green and the other side red. Was this a fashion? No, it was a violent social reaction. Time has passed, today the reactions are for now turning into switchblades, and in the future into pump-action shotguns, perhaps even machine guns. Fashion starts from the head; the fish also rots from the head; the application of the law also starts from the head. If the political power sees itself as immune from audit and oversight, and sees and shows every kind of action as rightful and excusable for itself, and even uses public power under formal legitimacy against situations or individuals it does not like, but at the level of committing a crime, the urban poor youth, and even children, who follow the fashion may also see themselves as rightful, and perhaps even happy, in attempting to commit crimes. However, one is treated as powerful, and the other as a criminal. Because society is decaying, or is moving on a path from which it is very difficult to return in its decay.

I hope I have been able to shed some light on this socio-political issue, which I find very difficult.