The Question of Validity, and Other Notes
Dywyddyr said:
But this thread gets my vote for "Dumbest thread of the year".
I think the question of validity hinges on the characterization from which the topic argument springs. In that case, I think it's too general.
If I'm not mistaken, this thread springs in some aspect from a discussion of
E. coli and personal hygeine. It seems a tremendous leap from washing your hands to diddling children. Of course, I might be mistaken.
British comedian, leftist, and historian Mark Steel reminds that we have suspected, or even known, since Freud that the law is not the absolute threshold of an individual's behavior:
In effect, the superego sorts out our morality. That's why concepts such as the law are not the most important things to shape our behavior. For example, if murder was suddenly made legal, we wouldn't all, when we we're sat on a train, start stabbing people around us and then go, "Eh, legal, so you might as well."
And when we think of that, it's true. Many people speed, and while they might lament a traffic ticket, it's not going to stop them from speeding again. To the other, compared to drug addiction, the mere fact of the law certainly isn't going to stop someone from stealing your television for drug money. The law itself is not sufficient to stop me from smoking pot in public; rather, the decision is based on several relevant factors. Yes, the law comes into it, but only insofar as I'm not going to hit up in front of a cop.
Unless I'm
really drunk. In New Orleans. Apparently. I don't know. I got away with that one, so call it a lucky night.
But the counterpoint of psychological dysfunction doesn't have an automatic threshold. It often seems to; it's hard to picture a child rapist who isn't sick in the head. But one can commit murder while legitimately believing they are defending themselves. That's why we have various heat of passion defenses that affect culpability, whether it's trying to strangle your brother after catching him banging your wife in the kitchen, or simply not stopping after putting down an assilant to the end that you've kicked his skull in.
I am, indeed, sympathetic toward a mental illness consideration of crime and punishment, but in the end not every petty vandal, two-bit identity thief, or date rapist is psychologically incompetent. Not every murderer is crazy. And, to be certain, I think there is an argument that some of the white collar crooks who just busted the worldwide economy might show, under scrutiny, sociopathic tendencies, but there is no incontrovertible proof that they are crazy. It just seems that way.
Let us, then, consider
a version of the nearly incendiary topic question:
What stops one from raping children?
Males in the United States face a curious conundrum. To the one, we recognize that sex and children simply don't mix. To the other, our culture inundates us with images and propositions sexualizing youth. There are days that the conversation goes:
"Well, how is that not hot?"
—Uh, you realize she's only twelve?
"Um ... er ... well, fuck!"
It happens. Even to my friends and I. There is a "nudge-nudge" custom among men; you no longer say, "Howzabout them gazongas!" Rather, you just nudge the guy beside you, tip your head slightly, and that's the only cue.
And yes, every once in a while, it's embarrassing. The tramp stamp turns out to be fake, and we're wondering who lets their fourteen year-old daughter go to the baseball game wearing low-cut jeans to show off her thong. And sometimes you just don't know until it's too late. Solution? Well, in the short term, hold off on the nudge-nudge until you've confirmed your target, so to speak.
(Some feminists might be shrugging at this point and saying, "Why not get over the idea that women are purely sexual objects?" And the answer is,
Well, yes, I hear you, but it's not presently a practical suggestion on so large a scale. It should be noted in this context that the nudge-nudge is not
purely about objectifying "hot" women. It can also mean, "Check out the tranny", or, "Did you see that Lambo cruising by?" It's a catch-all built from obscure components of tacit fraternal customs; the bottom line is you don't want to be caught gawking like a tourist.)
A friend of ours long had a thing for the "young girl" look. Slight frame, small breasts, tight ass, all that. He even had a long-standing lolita joke for an online handle. But he was never actually after genuinely young girls. In the end, he found a female contemporary who might be the greatest statistical anomaly I've ever known: A woman who fits his aesthetic preference, who
likes his sexual kinks, and would rather simply get high and play video games with him all day. (How would you
not marry that?) But in genuinely "young girls" he wasn't interested. Aesthetics only go so far and, frankly, he never expected to find the conversation and other such engagement he preferred in teenagers.
So while we all sort of chuckled nervously about the whole situation, it turns out he had a handle on it the whole time. It's a fairly healthy outlook.
But it's a far cry between that sort of outlook and the predator. One does not simply cross a line from healthy to unhealthy.
Perhaps it is controversial, but there is no bright line on this. Indeed, one might suggest the point of sexual conduct is an unquestionable indication of offense, but I would only suggest that circumstances become problematic at some point before one acts.
What is the difference between an adult's responsibly established and conducted aesthetics and the predator? There are at least several gradations; the difference is not a single behavior but, rather, a
complex. For some, sexual contact with children might be part of some desperate and dysfunctional attempt to repair a perceived wrong in one's own youth. For others, it is possible there is a raw and primal attraction. Perhaps the former can be reconciled; the latter probably cannot. In either case, though, the question should not be one of crime and punishment, but, rather, of
safety.
Compared to a farmhand failing to appropriately wash his hands, the question of child rape unquestionably enters an arena in which one must consider mental health. But not every such dysfunction can be reconciled. Indeed, in the case of predatory sexuality, reconciliation seems to be the exception.
This is the problem of leaping from farmhand hygeine to drugs and buggery to child rape:
"
The truth is that its peoples ETHICS which stop the world going to hell in a hand basket and we would have a better time if we abolished the criminal sysytem and moved to treat people and attempting to reingage people insted of punishing because punishing does NOTHING"
(#1)
Not everyone can be rehabilitated to the point of reengagement. Psychologically, it is unhealthy for a society to fixate on the criminal system as a vendetta against wrongdoers, but in the end some degree of quarantine is required, and even for those we
can rehabilitate.
One can easily argue for a reorientation of the priorities of a criminal justice system. But it is nearly impossible to abolish the concept of a criminal justice system, and it seems at least somewhat shortsighted to argue for such an outcome.
____________________
Notes:
Steel, Mark. "Sigmund Freud". The Mark Steel Lectures, #103. BBC 4, London. October 21, 2003. Television.
