Funeral Home Horror: Scott Hinkley

I feel for the family in New Mexico. No one wants to have a horrifying discovery like that, especially when they are trying to make peace with their loss. It will be up to the courts to decide if Johnny DeVargas had a legal responsibility to audit the contents of the personal belongings before he passed them on the the family. Obviously he says he doesn't, and the family wants someone to pay (literally) for the disrespect they experienced. As far as the family's right to sue, of course they can, this is America. The same way that Mr. DeVargas has the right to defend himself by pointing fingers elsewhere.

This story brings me back to a familiar point in my critique of what America considers social responsibility. Americans don't want apologies, and they don't want social condemnations, they want cold hard cash. It seems to be the only way people feel they have been "made whole" (to use some legal jargon). I can see how this system of seeking justice for acts that cannot be undone, but it seems the bigger problem is the acceptance that the legal measure of responsibility is the only one applicable. If Mr. DeVargas is vindicated in court, it will then be his prerogative to subsequently sue anyone who defames his character by their continuing to publicly hold him responsible. So if he beats the wrap, he's innocent. I wish the family in this case was suing DeVargas so that he would have to change his ways, but more likely, he will pay them off, keep doing business as usual, and hope this doesn't happen again. What is solved? Who is healed? Do we really want to stand by the monetary equivalent to a pound of flesh as a means of telling right from wrong? Should I be able to sue the guy in traffic who makes me late? Can he just turn around and sue the guy in front of him? If money is all we want anyway, what's so bad about a brain in a bag. It isn't like DeVargas stole anything. This stuff makes me sick.

Email Scott