Homeowners who walk

Is there any moral justification for "underwater" homeowners to walk away from their mortgage obligation? For months we have been hearing of large numbers of homeowners whose home prices have plummeted choosing to default on their loans.

A Washington Post article mentions Brent White of the University of Arizona, who supports this "strategic defaulting." He describes these homeowners as in an emotional tailspin whose pride of ownership has been replaced with anger toward lenders, and the government for defaulting them. Ethically speaking, can we say that both sides are guilty of stealing in violation of the eighth commandment? Obviously, the owners who walk are stealing from their lenders by refusing to repay the loan.

On the other hand, have not some greedy lenders been stealing from the owners by putting unqualified buyers in homes they could not afford? Then they saddle them with escalating adjustable mortgages, thereby reaping huge profits. Is this not stealing as well?

What then is the moral conclusion? Both are stealing but is one more justified than the other? Perhaps both have lost their sense of responsibility toward the other. Honesty is such a valued virtue in business without which we have the collapse of commerce.

What do you think? Let me know.

What do you do with a child who kills?

An increasing challenge to our courts and indeed our society is the appearance of children who murder other children.This issue was dramatically portrayed in a recent repeat episode of Law and Order. The riveting fictitious story revolved around the murdered body of a 10-year-old-boy. He was stuffed in a pipe having had his head bashed against a rock many times.

As the story unfolds, it focuses on a 10-year-old girl who was seen near the murdered child.  Interrogation reveals she hates boys. Further, she portrays no remorse when answering questions about the killing.  The relevant facts are these:  A murder has occurred and the killer is identified. Typically, a long prison or even an execution is appropriate, some would say. But what if the killer is 10? Should the punishment change?

The TV prosecutor demanded incarceration in a state institution, with therapy hopefully provided. The prosecution maintained that she would kill again and that society must be protected. The defense countered that we should never predict anyone's behaviour; this child could outgrow her dislike of boys. Besides, the defense attorney said, she needs help from family and therapists.  In the story, the judge releases the girl to her mother with instructions to check in with the court monthly. If you were the judge, how would you rule? Should this sociopath be put away, or should we risk therapy and support for behaviour change?