Moral equivalence

[rowyn]

A few thoughts on things about "sexual abuse" reporting that bugs me.

To start with, the term "sexual abuse" has no meaning whatsoever for me anymore. I'll read news reports that call it "sexual abuse" when a 20 year-old man forces a toddler to perform oral sex. I've heard the same phrase "sexual abuse" used to describe far more innocuous acts. Teachers in kindergartens don't hug their pupils any more because if the toddler happens to complain, suddenly that hug was "sexual abuse".

Now, this may just be me, but not only do I distinguish a moral difference between these two acts, but I'll go so far as to say there's a difference between a man who rapes his twelve year-old niece and threatens to beat her to a pulp if she tells anyone, and a twelve year-old girl who thinks she's in love with her thirty-something neighbor and consents to have sex with him.

Neither of the above cases are "right" or "good" in my mind. But the former is considerably weightier as a crime. The girl clearly suffers at the point of the crime and will continue to suffer afterwards. In the latter case, the girl will, very likely, suffer at some future point: she will get older, she will regret her crush, she will resent the man who took advantage of her.

But, even though children cannot give "informed consent," I still think the distinction is meaningful. Both men in both cases have committed reprehensible acts, but while I have no sympathy whatsoever for the first, I have a little for the second.

The media doesn't distinguish. I read about this "rampant pedophilia" in the Catholic Church with "hundreds of reported cases" and "multi-million dollar civil suits" and I wonder: what did these priests actually do?

And if they are serial rapists, moved from parish to parish by bishops who were concealing the evidence of their actions, well, for goodness' sake, why aren't they facing criminal prosecution? Why am I reading about lawsuits against Catholic parishes (and, last I heard, it's not entire parishes that are being accused of mass orgies with children), and not about District Attorneys pressing charges specific individuals for criminal acts, and obstruction of justice? Last I heard, rape, sodomy, and sexual assault were all crimes.

Why don't we ever prosecute people any more? Why is it always organizations? The "Catholic Church" or "Arthur Andersen, LLC" are just words. Just names. Names don't commit crimes. People do. Why aren't we prosecuting them?

Comments

[gen.livejournal.com]

Auuugh! This sounds like my job!!!!

Working on a case right now which, on paper in the police report, sounds like a man rapind a 'child'. While the incident itself consists of a 17 year old girl sneaking off with her boyfriend (who is mear months her elder if that) to have oral sex in some secluded spot on several ocassions, her remaining friends with him after this, and then the instant he gets another girlfriend she screams sexual abuse -- while still remaining friends with this man.

I just did a file today where a woman is claiming her 16 year old daughter (severely retarded, 19 IQ, and also nearly blind) was sexually abused by the man that changes her diaper at school. The alleged abuse? Changing her diaper. Mom felt it was innapropriate for a man to do it despite the fact that his main reason for doing so was because none of his assistants wanted to. She also apparently didn't have a problem with this until she wished to transfer her daughter to another school with a 'better' program, despite the fact that her daughter was not physically capable of attending the classes. (the classes were for teaching disabled kids how to read and teaching them skills for potential future employment. It's highly unlikely that a person with an IQ of 19 could ever learn to read) Also, just for the recond, when the mother said it made her feel uncomfortable to have a man change her daughter's diapers he assigned a female assistant to the job.

Bleh. Some abuses are far too overused.

[rowyn]

Oh, YUCK. You know, I didn't even want to emphasize issues like these, where the accusation is so clearly ridiculous (though I sure did touch on it with my "hugging kindergartners", admittedly.) Bleah. Your job gets issues dumped into it that aren't even of "questionable" behavior, much less criminal. :(

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

Your comments are quite sane, including the moral distinction between true pedophilia (toddlers, etc.) or rape, and acts of incontinence or bad judgment committed with more or less willing teenagers. But surely you can see that sanity has been one of the first casualties here...there's no place for logical thinking in this "crisis," let alone in the media coverage thereof.

Seriously, though, I think the reason the individual priests and bishops aren't often being prosecuted criminally (which I agree, ought to happen) is because of (a) statute of limitations; (b) the poor quality of the evidence not justifying the State expense of a trial. Civil trials, on the other hand, have much looser standards in both those areas.

This is where justice can so easily be perverted into mere vengeance and simple avarice. Never mind that, when you collect that multimillion-dollar settlement for being sexually used by a priest when you were a teenage altar boy 30 years ago, you are hurting everyone in the parish and/or diocese that the church helps today. Cash covereth a multitude of sins.

And this doesn't even begin to address those who would say or do anything to harm the RCC, for personal or ideological reasons. Multimillion-dollar settlements are a quick and easy way to serve that end, too.

[rowyn]

(a) statute of limitations; (b) the poor quality of the evidence not justifying the State expense of a trial. Civil trials, on the other hand, have much looser standards in both those areas.

This is the possibility that I hate most. Is there a good reason why it ought to be easier to extort ten million dollars out of an institution than convict one man of commiting a crime?

I agree that your scenario is the most likely, though in my heart of hearts I am hoping that criminal charges will be/have been filed, and are just not getting the attention that the phrase "multi-million dollar lawsuit" attracts.

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

Is there a good reason why it ought to be easier to extort ten million dollars out of an institution than convict one man of commiting a crime?

Theoretically? Yes: life and liberty are more valuable than property; therefore it should be harder to take life or liberty from someone than property.

Practically, of course, your point is well taken.

*clapclapclapclap*

[mach.livejournal.com]

Very nice very nice indeed!

I've LONG had a problem with how things have been lumped under the words, sexual abuse.

A Psychologist's Perspective

[awolf.livejournal.com]

(Preface: I'm in a PhD Child Clinical Psychology program.)

What you mention is a huge problem in the social sciences, especially in research. I remember a case conference recently where a woman described a study she was about to do, funded by the government for big $$$. She was going to divide people into two groups, one of these groups a "sexual trauma" group, the other a "non-trauma" group. And then look to see which group has more trauma.

Gee, I wonder if the trauma group will have more trauma? Especially if the criteria to divide the two groups a priori is related to the criteria for outcome measures?

Why does this happen? It's because on taboo issues, people do not want science. They want absolute morality, which isn't provided by science. Science is based on data, which is subject to change when you look at another population. Even if you study every human on earth, the brackets of genetics and environment in which we live will change and drift with each new generation. Even between generations. So the associations we hold dear (like sex --> trauma) will change subtly from day to day. Some are more stable than others, but there are always exceptions. Exceptions aren't good for absolute morality, either.

A year or two ago, someone did a study demonstrating that child sexual experience studies actually underestemated trauma, because they were defining "sexual experience" so broadly that it included most people, thus diluting the strength of the association they sought to find. This study recommended that people use narrower definitions. "Dr." Laura said this made it harder to prosecute pedophiles, and as a result, Congress made a rare duck--a unanimous vote. To decry the study. Whatever the hell that means. I guess politicians are experts in every field.

Truth be told, arguments like "consent" are essentialistic and bad policy to base judgment on. Data-based logic exists to outlaw practices which endanger children, yet still "consent" definitions are the legal foundation in America and most other countries... Mainly because these laws cannot change, since the definitions themselves are arbitrary. I could go on about this and explain in detail, but I'm about to run out of LJ space in which to do so... Just for one comment, "consent" has been used to justify civil rights abuses in the past, like in the 1860's when it first appeared in American law. It was impossible for a white woman to "consent" to a black man, by definition; therefore, miscegenation with a black man was always considered "rape".

Trickster