Compliant Teenagers

There are times that parents of teenagers would love to have complete and total compliance from them. This is one of the periods of aging when children have a strong tendency to free themselves from the nest.

There are other periods when children pull away from their parents, but the teenage years are often the source of conflict because the teenager is gaining much needed experience for their upcoming adult life. Add the reality that learning often involves making mistakes and failures, and teenagers can be quite vulnerable, especially when overprotected.

The natural variety of the Universe shows here as well. Some members of an age cohort have better‑developed maturity and intellectual development than others. (In a given age cohort, girls, generally, will have a more advanced sense of maturity and intellectual development than boys; for example.) Some members of a cohort are more impulsive and prone to making errors in behavior.

Unfortunately, there are a few who are broken and will never make the transition to adulthood.

When we teach our teens to be always compliant and respectful to adults, we are doing a disservice to them and ourselves. We need to guide them to have a healthy skepticism.

The last victim of the Teales was a mature sixteen‑year‑old girl who would have been able to avoid being abducted in most situations. But, Karla Homolka Teale planned her abduction and Karla is a smart person.

Teale had her husband park their car about fifty feet off the roadway in a park. Karla, holding a map, asked the victim for directions. The victim complied, after all it was another female requiring assistance. Once there the victim arrived near the car, Paul Bernardo Teale came out of the car and forced the victim inside. Karla later murdered the girl.

I wonder if even an adult would have been compliant in this situation, although the vehicle was secluded. Unfortunately, the victim had learned the myth that females are not dangerous which increased her compliance.

I am studying the various confessions of Brendan Dassey. Dassey was convicted of the sexual assault and murder of Teresa Halbach strictly on the basis of part of one confession that was presented in court. His jury didn’t need no stinkin’ evidence.

One thing that impresses me is his effort to comply with his interrogators; Calumet County Investigator Mark Wiegert and Wisconsin Special Investigator Tom Fassbender. There are many instances where he has no idea what is wanted. He tries to guess. Or he simply repeats the request of the interrogator. In one of the most egregious instances when Tom Fassbender repeatedly feeds Dassey some important information. Dassey keeps guessing the wrong things but nothing about the hood. When Fassbender feeds him the phrase that Fassbender wants, Dassey finally repeats Fassbender’s words and the pressure is released:

Fassbender: What did he do under the hood …
Dassey: I don’t know what he did, but he went under.

In the final (of four) confession sessions, Dassey is struggling with trying to tell the investigators from his memory, but the two interrogators immediately challenge answers they do not want. When Dassey admits to lying about prior statements in prior confessions, the investigators become upset and coerce Dassey to the answers they want. Dassey eventually repeats what they tell him, but he reverts to what he remembers which is contrary to the wishes of the interrogators. But, he does make a good effort to comply with their wishes. (It appears that someone arranged for a tutoring session to assist with this confession process.)

Dassey was a special education student at Mishicot High School and on 27 February, 2006, his principal tossed him, with no protection or warning, into the vipers den with two high powered salesmen.

In the end, Dassey realized that if he didn’t do the crime, there is no point in trying to make these investigators happy. They were not high school teachers he was dealing with.

Finally, there is the case in McMinnville, Oregon. where the legal system attempted to destroy three adolescent boys. The boys trusted the police interviewer and their pal, the middle school vice‑principal. They complied with instructions and gave information the police officer interpreted the way he desired rather than what the meaning as understood by the youths.

At trial, juvenile female witnesses testified that they complied with the directions of the vice‑principal and officer Roache simply because they believed there was nothing else that either adult would accept. The two interrogators made that very clear. In pre‑trial interviews, deputy prosecutor Debra J. Markham reinforced that impression.

These girls were brave to give testimony that was contrary to what the authority people had directed. But, they could keep their personal integrity intact. As a plus, they were not coerced into being victims.

Most teens are relatively well behaved. They might have their moments, but the moments are passing. The dangers of teaching them to be compliant and respectful always can have some serious consequences.

It might be good for parents to appreciate the growing pains that many of us went through. But, it is necessary for parents to warn their teens of being too trustful of those we are supposed to trust.