Point by point: "He later found, mixed in among them, seven shotgun shells, and he put them aside so that his children wouldn’t find them. " Ok so why did he

Point by point: "He later found, mixed in among them, seven shotgun shells, and he put them aside so that his children wouldn’t find them. " Ok so why did he "put them aside". Why is this taken as a fact anyway? "“He was trying to help me out,” Mumpower told me. “My husband was a pack rat, and I was trying to clear things out.” " Why does this matter at all? The fact that he was helping her and the fact that he held on to the shells has nothing to do with anything. "Then Young became a suspect in burglaries at storage facilities and vehicles in the area, and the police searched his home and found the forgotten shotgun shells as well as some stolen goods. " but then: "It didn’t matter that the local authorities eventually dismissed the burglary charges. " So we find out that he was enough of a suspect to be charged with burglary. (Not a big deal but not the same as "walking through his house they saw shells" or anything like that. Apparently even though he had committed no crimes since 1996 there were circumstances that made him a suspect in a burglary. "So the federal government, at a time when it is cutting education spending, is preparing to spend $415,000 over the next 15 years to imprison a man for innocently possessing seven shotgun shells while trying to help a widow in the neighborhood. " What does education spending being cut have to do with anything? What does the amount they are going to spend have to do with anything? What does the fact that he was "innocently possessing" have to do with anything? I didn't know that that mattered and of course where is the proof that he was "innocently possessing" or is that just a conclusion that Kristof came to? " With less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States has almost one-quarter of the world’s prisoners. " Why does this matter at all? So other countries don't lock up as many people. Who cares about a comparison like this other than to try to get people all emotional about this case (clearly the point quite obviously "ah the injustice of it all"). "Almost everyone seems to acknowledge that locking up vast numbers of nonviolent offenders is a waste of money. California devotes $179,400 to keep a juvenile in detention for a year, and spends less than $10,000 per student in its schools. " Who are the "everyone" and why does it matter comparing prison spending to education? They are two different things. People get locked up in prison when they break laws. Stick to the argument of the law part don't say "we could feed 10000 hungry children if we didn't lock this guy up". "Granted, mass incarceration may have been one factor in reduced crime in the last couple of decades; there’s mixed evidence." The NYT "to be sure" phrase. I'm surprised there is only one of these in the opinion. " One careful study of 35,000 young offenders by Anna Aizer and Joseph J. Doyle Jr. reached the startling conclusion that jailing juveniles leads them to be more likely to commit crimes as adults. " "One study" - speaks for itself. So what. One study. Etc. Etc. Sure it's an opinion piece. I know. Just pull at the heart strings with a compelling story and we will all fall for it.