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

[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.