This past month, I was talking to a group of seniors in
Yankton about a recent series of party arrests. One of them
bragged that a teacher had told them that their class had the
worst reputation for "partying" in the past twenty years.

I told them not to think it so funny, that at the current rate
somebody was going to get killed.

One of the kids reminded me that this had already happened
this summer as the result of a two-vehicle wreck (the details of
which are rather sketchy at this time.)

At that point, they wanted to argue with me about the risks
associated with underage drinking -- "just because the kids in
those cars were drinking, people are making such a big deal
about what happened" -- went their logic...

"Your classmate is dead," I reminded them. "That is a big deal."

...which brings me to this week's point:


NOTHING HAS CHANGED


Tammy’s dead too—everybody who argues as much is right—
Tammy is dead and that can’t be changed, but the atmosphere in
this community that precipitated Tammy’s death and that
resulted in this ongoing nearly two-decade long cover-up has
not changed.

This is why I'm still typing away...trying to make myself heard,
throwing myself up against a sea of apathy and indifference.

The prevailing wisdom blows in the direction that Tammy's
death is ancient history, that nothing should be done, can be
done, what's the point of doing anything about it now?   

One might ask why so many people in a Bible-belt community
like Yankton would want this case to go away.  

Applying the Socratic method of inquiry might be effective
here:

What would have happened if a civil suit would have been
brought against the Stephenson family for allowing illegal
activities to occur on their farm—the underage drinking, the
illegal drug use?

Was it a “big acid party” as some informants claimed? (It’s hard
for parents to plead total ignorance of the goings on at their
farm when they are out cleaning up the evidence of the
homecoming party only days after Tammy went missing.)

Maybe this is a better question: would the Stephenson family
have continued to allow those high school parties to happen
(even years later) had they been sued for wrongful death?
Might a message have been sent to other parents who allowed
their property to be used for illegal activities?

Would the keg parties have continued at the Sedlacek farm?

Would the drug parties have continued at the Adamson house?

What would have happened if all these parents had been held
accountable for allowing their property to be used for these
illegal activities?

Had something been done sooner—had the reckless
permissiveness and parental neglect ended—might Tammy still
be alive?

What would have happened if a civil case would have been
brought against the liquor stores and gas stations selling booze
to Eric Stukel and Tammy Haas and the other kids at the
Stephenson farm on the night Tammy was murdered?

Would these business operations have been more vigilant about
illegal sales?

Or is this just wishful thinking?

In May of 1998, efforts were made to curb illegal sales of
alcohol to underage buyers in Yankton. A city-wide sting
operation was conducted by law enforcement, in which 70% of
businesses in Yankton were caught selling booze illegally.  
Many of these businesses campaigned hard to remove the
members of the state’s prosecution team in the next election. *

Why?

Many of the business people pleaded that this sting operation
amounted to nothing more than a witch hunt (really? A witch
hunt, no less?) and that they shouldn’t be held financially
responsible for the actions of their employees, that there were
conflicts of interests, and that minors usually got their booze
from older siblings and friends anyway.

While some businesses admitted that they were wrong, paid the
$500 fine, and promised to be more vigilant in selling alcohol,
others battled tooth and nail to keep their cases out of the
courtroom until the election, pleading that they were the real
victims of this witch hunt—that they had been framed.
What was the end result of those sting operations and the
subsequent election?    

A new state’s attorney was elected, and under his new
authority, many of these businesses were not held accountable
for their actions. Charges were ultimately reduced or dropped
“to keep the court dockets open and unburden the taxpayers of
the costs of prosecution” *

Why do I bring up this seemingly unrelated event?

There is a pattern of behavior and attitude in this community.
Underage drinking and illegal drug use gets “frowned upon,”
but rarely are there any real efforts to curb the problem.

(And saying the problem is just as bad or worse elsewhere
merely serves as a petty cop-out for those who don’t really care
to see the problem solved.)

Methods don’t need to be draconian. In fact, draconian methods
of law enforcement rarely create anything but rebellion.
Diversionary programs are one way to curb the problem.

According to most recent studies though, closer parental
supervision and support seems to be the best method to keep
youth off alcohol and other drugs. In other words, it starts at
home—parents need to be parents, not be PR reps for their kids,
not be the ones providing the booze, providing the party
locations.   

Good parenting—what a thought!

As long as alcohol is available for adult consumption, it would
be Pollyanna to think that young people would never get their
hands on booze; however, illegal drugs are another matter
entirely.

What would happen if there was any real interest in ridding
Yankton of its drug problem? What if the protectionism ended?
What if businesses that laundered drug money in this
community were held accountable for their actions and shut
down?

Al Capone went down on tax evasion charges. He was brought
down by an accountant. What would happen if an independent
investigator came into this town and tracked the drug money
that flowed through this community?

Or do we believe the prevailing party line: the drugs flow in;
the money flows out.

We know drugs are in the school, a couple kids just were
arrested and suspended for trafficing.

Where are these kids getting the drugs? I'm pretty sure they're
not growing their pot at home.

I'm sure somebody is supplying them...but who?

This is a big question for a little town, one I have been warned
about asking.

Of course, if the drug problem is mythical or overblown, if the
drugs do flow in and the money does flow out, I shouldn’t
really have any worries about my safety.


m.c. merrill


* “Cheers? Yankton's Beer Sting Ultimately Comes Up
Flat.” Yankton Press and Dakotan, Dec. 29, 1998.