|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Revenge, rehabilitation and secular society
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
A man has recently returned to live in my local community having been released from a fairly short sentence for sexual offences against children committed between 20 and 40 years ago.
A lot of people are understandably upset and a little fearful in a place where children generally roam freely. The reactions in some quarters have been visceral, bordering on disturbing. Calls to hound him (and his wife) out of their home, to run them out of the community etc.
It's all the fun of a witch hunt but with the added bonus of an actual "witch" at the end of it, and it makes me feel deeply uneasy.
Maybe it's a contrast between Christian thought and secular ideas, but my first thought in this sort of case is not "how do we make the perpetrator's life worse than the victim's" (which was the gist of one proposal) but "how do we stop this person offending again". And the answer to the second aim (from what I've read) appears to be by keeping a close eye on them but engaging them in society again, with ostracisation appearing to make reoffending more likely.
It also occurs to me that a community where every knows the name and face of the perpetrator and will be keeping an eye out for them being near children is a heck of a lot safer than the alternative - putting them in a hostel in the east end of Glasgow where they'd only have to go a short distance and be unrecognised. In the same vein this man's crimes were committed against family members, children he had close and regular one-to-one contact with. Now his family know his proclivities the risk of him being able to offend is much lower. Frankly it's far more likely that children in the wider community are being abused by their own family members already than that they would be abused by this man.
Why are reactions so visceral? Is it a learned response, a "2 minute hate" that is condoned by society as one of the last allowable outlets for undiluted rage? Or is it a natural parental response to feeling that your children might be under threat? Is it the reaction to this threat that is excessive, or the reaction to other threats (domestic violence; sexual assaults on adults) that is too weak?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
It sounds like all those things.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, all those things, but I suspect some fake outrage, and some projection by violent people, who like to justify their own violence, (e.g. 'he deserved it').
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
I have had some dealing with people who have been guilty of child abuse and child pornography offences. It seems to me that if one is looking to work with people on the margins of society, one cannot get any more marginal than this.
All perspective seems to evaporate. Someone who has downloaded pictures of teenagers, possibly inadvertently, is as bad as someone who has done unspeakable things with tiny tots. An elderly ex-priest who 30 years ago forgot himself and put his hand on a boy's thigh is damned for ever.
There is a natural (and laudable) desire to protect vulnerable children. It is a biological urge. they are the future of the species and all that. We are moved to the defence of the vulnerable. But people do change. One priest I know who committed offences decades ago, for which he was only tried and gaoled a few years ago (the delay was not his fault) spent the whole intervening period in remorse for what he had done, had all the therapy that was available, and frankly was no further danger to anyone.
Society, and the Church, has an obligation to these people, and you are quite right that reintegration into society (which is what organisations like Circles of Support try to do) is the best way to deal with them. But sadly people are too full of hate, bigotry and lack of forgiveness. Many end up on the streets. Many end up in further trouble with the law because they cannot keep the conditions imposed on them (a homeless person finds reporting on set days to a police station rather difficult, even more so providing an address!), and most homeless hostels will not accept sex offenders.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I'm steering clear of the word "forgiveness" in this context because I think that to advocate forgiveness can come across like telling the victims that they should be doing the forgiving, or that the crimes committed somehow don't matter. Victims may decide they want to forgive, but outside of that forgiveness probably needs to be between the perpetrator, their conscience, God and their confessor (if they have one). The history of churches telling victims of abuse they should forgive their abusers while doing nothing to prevent the abuse continuing is far too recent and extensive for anything more nuanced.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Fuck love and forgiveness. No, I'm serious, they should never be considerations in dealing with this. Not because they are worthless things, but because they blind.
But also fuck hate and revenge for the same reasons.
From a purely pragmatic POV, rehabilitation, integration and monitoring have shown to be more effective than marginalising and shunning.
i so understand the feelings of anger and revenge, but they do not best serve other potential victims.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Yes to almost all of the above [except what lilbuddha just cross-posted...]
In my anecdatal experience most sex offenders have abused members of their own family and are unlikely to target random kids. The rarer and more devious ones are likely to run rings round any effort to keep them away from trouble.
While this type of crime is inexcusable, the public attention focused on it is disproportionate and unproductive.
One avenue of restorative justice, "circles of accountability", seeks to care for offenders released from jail and prevent them reoffending; in some countries church structures form part of probation schemes.
However, I have a lot of troube with this to the extent that offenders are treated as part of a programme rather than part of the community. The friendship extended appears token rather than genuine.
Media hypocrisy in this respect is blatant. The size of the headline relating to sex offenders is usually in direct proportion to the number of pictures of scantily-clad, sexed-up, under-age-looking girls in the same publication.
Sex offenders are like modern-day lepers.
[ 03. January 2016, 16:51: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fuck love and forgiveness. No, I'm serious, they should never be considerations in dealing with this. Not because they are worthless things, but because they blind.
Forgiveness is complicated and I think arethosemyfeet is onto a good thing leaving it to one side.
As to love, it depends in which capacity one is interacting with the offender. Certainly it shouldn't be part of the criminal justice approach. I'm not sure where it fits in the restorative justice approach, but I think it should definitely be part of the Christian-in-the-pew approach.
I have a convicted sex offender in my congregation and my attitude to them strives to be exactly the same as towards everyone else (not least because that person is not the one I worry about most in the congregation in that respect). Which does not exclude vigilance.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I embrace all inclusing lilBuddha. Bibaculus. The priest/s you mention. The first and theoretical, generic is damned forever in this life. And rightly so. And as for the other, if he isn't the same one, who's fault is it? He should have confessed. Publically. Turned himself in. Atoned. Asking no forgiveness, no understanding. They should have sacrificed their freedom, their privacy. Their churches should have compensated their victims including with fully financed therapy.
Revenge, punishment is meaningless.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
... a fairly short sentence ...
This is part of the problem. A sentence for sexual offences should be rather more lengthy than they typically are. In Canada a non-penetrative sexual offence is usually 'provincial time' of 'two years less a day' or considerably less in jail, with penetrative offences starting at about 4 years. While in jail, only a minority are offered actual treatment. In my view sentences should be very lengthy but served in the community with monitoring, starting with the electronic ankle bracelets, and the corrections system should allow probation workers and police the authority to return the offender to lock up if assessed risk is rising. Treatment and compliance with treatment should be mandatory and a condition of being in the community. It is far cheaper to monitor in the community than lock up people. I'm specifically referencing the economic argument with this.
The hounding of sex offenders, while it appeals to our instincts to treat others fairly and without discrimination, is directly caused by a system that does limited things to reduce risk and give the community confidence that the offender isn't a risk to further people.
I know people often say in cases like this that the offences are decades old, and such dated and old offences with no intervening report suggest risk is low. However, this is not known, and the offender may well be undertaking additional deviant sexual acts harmful to people, with improved covering over of what (s)he's doing.
quote:
Arethosemyfeet continued
It's all the fun of a witch hunt but with the added bonus of an actual "witch" at the end of it, and it makes me feel deeply uneasy.
While there may be a minority considering this sort of thing "fun", usually it is fear, and usually some of the fear is reasonable.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
In the same vein this man's crimes were committed against family members, children he had close and regular one-to-one contact with. Now his family know his proclivities the risk of him being able to offend is much lower. Frankly it's far more likely that children in the wider community are being abused by their own family members already than that they would be abused by this man.
This part of your OP underscores a very significant problem. If he was sexually assaulting family members, then the family members knew about their's and the other family members' abuse quite a long time before they reported them to the authorities given the decades since the offences. Which means that family members failed to provide any monitoring or control of his behaviour. What would make us think they would do it now? That the offences were decades old leads me to wonder if this crime fits the pattern of the offender either moving on to grandchildren or the parents of grandchildren feared for them and wanted to prevent this.
Would the community have confidence if the offender were advertised as having electronic monitoring and his/her whereabouts always known to the authorities? I would default to lifetime monitoring for sexual offenders were it possible. (An open and unanswerable question, as the monitors used usually just require the offender to remain in proximity to a base station in the home, and then travel to work and back, and do not do other than document the time of travel between.)
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Revenge, punishment is meaningless.
No, they are not. Punishment (aka consequence) is a part of the healthy development of humans. And it is a preventative in many (though not all) cases for adults.
Revenge can serve a psychological need for treats listing a feeling of control lost by being a victim. The idea that it eats everyone from within is not an objective one, but a subjective to the individual reality.
Now granted, both your philosophy and mine contend that it is ultimately harmful to one, but that is not universal. Not even within those who ostensively share those.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think were he to have committed the crimes more recently the sentence would have been longer. Because of the historical nature of the offences they would have been prosecuted under older statutes and sentencing carried out under older guidelines. It's not an ideal situation but I can see why the law is arranged that way.
The community response I've seen is that they want him gone. It's not really about likelihood of reoffending, it's just about the visceral reaction to the offence itself, whatever the broader cause of that reaction may be.
[ 03. January 2016, 17:39: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We're both 1000% right lilBuddha. Vengeance is delicious and can involve closure in individual transactions. But it's meaningless on a social scale. Nobody learns. I don't regard any non-violent process that ends in the rehabilitation of offenders (where possible: with 'sociopaths' it isn't) and the reconciliation and compensation of victims as punishment.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think were he to have committed the crimes more recently the sentence would have been longer. Because of the historical nature of the offences they would have been prosecuted under older statutes and sentencing carried out under older guidelines. It's not an ideal situation but I can see why the law is arranged that way.
The community response I've seen is that they want him gone. It's not really about likelihood of reoffending, it's just about the visceral reaction to the offence itself, whatever the broader cause of that reaction may be.
Good clarification.
On the revenge aspect, as posted by lilBuddha etc, is it a desire to assert some sense of power over which someone previously felt powerless? But this hardly explains the community response.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I embrace all inclusing lilBuddha. Bibaculus. The priest/s you mention. The first and theoretical, generic is damned forever in this life. And rightly so. And as for the other, if he isn't the same one, who's fault is it? He should have confessed. Publically. Turned himself in. Atoned. Asking no forgiveness, no understanding. They should have sacrificed their freedom, their privacy. Their churches should have compensated their victims including with fully financed therapy.
Revenge, punishment is meaningless.
I think you forget the power structures in the Catholic Church. The priest I was thinking about belonged to a religious order. He did what his superior told him to do at the time. he was sent away from the school he had been working in (and which the order ran). That was how superiors dealt with things at the time. I think that when, as a result of police going through files, he was finally arrested, he was actually relieved (though frightened).
I have seen a few clergy abusers. In my experience the structures of the church have contributed to their abusing. I say this not to remove blame from the individual, but to say that there have been systemic failures by people in authority.
This is not restricted to the Catholic Church, or to churches, of course.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think it is probably unreasonable to expect successful resettlement in the same area really. It would have made sense to plan a new start in a new place, with appropriate monitoring.
For everybody's sake, including the perpetrator and his wife.
[ 03. January 2016, 19:03: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I knew that you were talking about the RCC Bibaculus. No other denomination was that bad. It was still his total personal responsibility.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I knew that you were talking about the RCC Bibaculus. No other denomination was that bad. It was still his total personal responsibility.
I'm not sure that is quite fair. It is larger than most churches (well, any other church) and so has more cases. But I do think the power structures in the catholic Church exacerbate things.
Of course we are all responsible for our own actions. But circumstances can have a big impact on us. These things do not happen in isolation, and the 'culture' in which we find ourselves, and structures which put people under pressures they cannot stand, can all contribute to offending behaviour.
Sadly the Catholic Church, because of all the adverse publicity it has received, now tends to cut these people off, which does not help rehabilitation at all (to return to the topic under discussion). I think the CofE does much the same. As the OP said, if offenders are integrated into a community, they can be more closely watched, and also made to feel they belong, and reoffending is less likely.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think there is some mileage in the idea that it cannot be the same community. There cannot be a sense of returning to a former life as if nothing has happened.
In the specific case I'm thinking of I don't believe the victims live locally and my understanding is that the offences took place elsewhere.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Fuck 'fair' Bibaculus. There is just no way anything said about corrupt Christians is 'unfair' compared with the suffering of their victims.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Fuck 'fair' Bibaculus. There is just no way anything said about corrupt Christians is 'unfair' compared with the suffering of their victims.
Well, we are all corrupt in one way or another.
I am not trying to downplay the sufferings of victims. I know someone who has attempted suicide because of sexual abuse by a priest. But it is not right to suggest, as you did, that the catholic church is somehow uniquely at fault here. I am not going to mention other prominent examples from other churches, because name calling serves no purpose, but we all know who they are.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Fuck 'fair' Bibaculus. There is just no way anything said about corrupt Christians is 'unfair' compared with the suffering of their victims.
That word 'corrupt' begs the question, doesn't it? There's a world of difference between someone like Bishop Peter Ball, who was it seems a serial abuser (although not of children) and used his position to enable him to do that, and someone who resists temptation except on one occasion, with dreadful results.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And is covered up by his corrupt superiors. And no, there is NO difference to EACH victim.
And I implied no such thing Bibaculus.
[ 03. January 2016, 22:04: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The only thing I can contribute here is that I think the victims ought not to be forced to live with the daily presence of their former abuser in their neighborhood. Relocation ought to be a part of any court settlement to avoid this problem. If victims move in the future, they can do their due diligence to avoid accidental encounters--but they should not be forced out of their family homes by his return to the scene of the crime.
We have a case in my city where a sex abuser has returned to the very home and street where he abused victims (non-family) living today still on the same street. The neighbors are up in arms, obviously, but nothing can be done. IMHO the victims' freedom of residency ought to take precedence over his/her own. The former abuser need not move that far away--just enough to be out of the daily supermarket/post office/bank runs.
[ 04. January 2016, 00:16: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
We have a case in my city where a sex abuser has returned to the very home and street where he abused victims (non-family) living today still on the same street. The neighbors are up in arms, obviously, but nothing can be done. IMHO the victims' freedom of residency ought to take precedence over his/her own. The former abuser need not move that far away--just enough to be out of the daily supermarket/post office/bank runs.
I'd certainly agree with that. It's about protecting the victim, not getting revenge on the abuser.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Fuck 'fair' Bibaculus. There is just no way anything said about corrupt Christians is 'unfair' compared with the suffering of their victims.
That word 'corrupt' begs the question, doesn't it? There's a world of difference between someone like Bishop Peter Ball, who was it seems a serial abuser (although not of children) and used his position to enable him to do that, and someone who resists temptation except on one occasion, with dreadful results.
Peter Ball seems a very good example of the abuser. Just what was going on?
There was (is) another side to him, that much is clear. In many ways he seemed a rather holy man, if rather eccentric. I certainly thought at the time that his indulging of unstable young men who thought they had vocations was worrying, but more because I assumed that he was too simple (or holy) to see through them. But I certainly never guessed that he was an abuser. He seemed, if anything, one of the more saintly bishops in the CofE.
Was all that just a front? Or is he, in fact, a rather complex person in which there is both great good and great evil?
And how does someone end up doing the sorts of things that Peter Ball (or Fr Kit Cunningham, or Archimandrite Panteleimon Metropoulos) did? What makes an abuser of someone who, presumably, has the best of intentions to serve God in the priesthood? I know personal sin and personal responsibility exist. But is that all?
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Let's keep the discussion away from speculation about specific, living persons, please.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
From the OP:
quote:
Why are reactions so visceral? Is it a learned response, a "2 minute hate" that is condoned by society as one of the last allowable outlets for undiluted rage? Or is it a natural parental response to feeling that your children might be under threat? Is it the reaction to this threat that is excessive, or the reaction to other threats (domestic violence; sexual assaults on adults) that is too weak?
What strikes me as odd is that there wasn't this reaction, say 40 or 50 years ago. My local community had a sad old man who used to "flash" schoolgirls, and the onus was on the schoolgirls not to look. The reaction would be totally different nowadays. At least part of the huge wave of prosecutions of historic sex offences is because at the time, people were willing to turn a blind eye, or minimise in some way, or disbelieve victims.
I would lean towards "learned response" partly because sexual offending is understood differently nowadays.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I was thinking along those same lines NE.Q
When, 40 or more yrs ago,I attended comprehensive school there were a couple of dodgy characters in the small town who everyone sort of knew about. School kids would warn each other, (just in a 'don't go in his house for a cup of tea' type way).
Adults never got involved, and to my knowledge no harm was ever done. Certainly nothing to justify the kind of paedomania that's running amok these days.
But then I suppose, given hindsight, this was the environment in which serial offenders could freely operate. When the bubble burst over savile it's as if all the hatred and demonisation has came in a tidal wave. And, it has to be said, with similar destructive power that hatred brings with it.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
But then I suppose, given hindsight, this was the environment in which serial offenders could freely operate. When the bubble burst over savile it's as if all the hatred and demonisation has came in a tidal wave. And, it has to be said, with similar destructive power that hatred brings with it.
It goes back further than Savile. You can date it to the turn of the century, to the News of the World campaign publishing names and photos of abusers. I mean the media frenzy was satirised by Chris Morris in Brasseye back in 2001.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
From the OP:
quote:
Why are reactions so visceral? Is it a learned response, a "2 minute hate" that is condoned by society as one of the last allowable outlets for undiluted rage? Or is it a natural parental response to feeling that your children might be under threat? Is it the reaction to this threat that is excessive, or the reaction to other threats (domestic violence; sexual assaults on adults) that is too weak?
What strikes me as odd is that there wasn't this reaction, say 40 or 50 years ago. My local community had a sad old man who used to "flash" schoolgirls, and the onus was on the schoolgirls not to look. The reaction would be totally different nowadays. At least part of the huge wave of prosecutions of historic sex offences is because at the time, people were willing to turn a blind eye, or minimise in some way, or disbelieve victims.
I would lean towards "learned response" partly because sexual offending is understood differently nowadays.
But I wonder, too, whether the way in which sexual offending is portrayed affects the way in which people who experience it respond to it? I don't mean things like rape or physical assaults, which i can only imagine are always horrible to experience- more things like the flasher that you mention. If the general view is that it's just a bit of a sad thing to do and all you need to do is not look, does that mean that being flashed at is less distressing than it would be if you'd had it drummed into you that it was a terrible psychological violation? Never having been flashed at, I don't know.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
... to my knowledge no harm was ever done. Certainly nothing to justify the kind of paedomania that's running amok these days.
But then I suppose, given hindsight, this was the environment in which serial offenders could freely operate. When the bubble burst over savile it's as if all the hatred and demonisation has came in a tidal wave. And, it has to be said, with similar destructive power that hatred brings with it.
Saville, as I've been educated by the forums (the man has not stature whatsoever here) came many years after we learned of extensive sexual abuse in various contexts in Canada. I recall the initial sensitisation here came in the early 1980s, so 30+ year ago. At that time, virtually every behavioural issue and symptom could possibly have been an indicator, with subsequent refinements of understanding. But very clear understanding that all of it was harmful, and underlies a good proportion of prostitution, drugs and alcohol abuse, among many other evils. The Badgley Royal Commission (Canada, many links to the info on the 'net) from 1984 told us much, such as 1 in 3 or 4 girls and 1 in 5 or 6 boys had some exposure to sexual abuse before adulthood.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I don't think I know any women who weren't flashed at or worse as children. I used to walk home along a daytime-deserted road in suburban California (with no homes overlooking it, and a wall so you couldn't escape) and men would regularly drive up next to me and start masturbating in the car. One actually walked a mile alongside me and I spent the whole time frantically thinking of how I could get somewhere public enough to shed him. I thought he'd make it all the way to my home, but he didn't--thank God for a four mile walk.
I don't think I was sexually scarred by this shit, but I was sure as hell scared out of my mind that one of these men would grab me. I was fairly portable in those days, being only 14 or so.
My sister had similar experiences, but added to that being approached by a serial killer in a shopping mall (he was asking teenage girls to "model"). We found out later who he was.
In view of this kind of thing and how common it is for young girls, I really hesitate to treat flashers as harmless. Some of them are, I suppose. Some of them, brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I don't think flashers are harmless. But 40 years ago, say, being flashed was a bit like falling out of a tree and breaking your arm; it was one of those things that happened in childhood and was no reflection on your parents.
What has changed is parental reaction to this threat to their children.
At the same time parental reaction to other threats has reduced. The shotgun wedding where two teens were forced into marriage by their enraged parents because the girl was pregnant would be unimaginable today.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Flashers are not harmless. They only appear this way to men, for whom they are not a threat.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I don't think flashers are harmless. But 40 years ago, say, being flashed was a bit like falling out of a tree and breaking your arm; it was one of those things that happened in childhood and was no reflection on your parents.
...
Well, that's what I was wondering. When viewed like that, was being flashed at something that was unpleasant but which you expected to get over reasonably soon, just as you would get over breaking your arm? Or did it continue to cause distress for a longer period, just nobody spoke about it?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Feelings are feelings, and shouldn't be subject to judgement by others. They are also intensely personal as they result from a whole lifetime of circumstances which will be different for everybody. Of course, what somebody DOES with those feelings is judge-able, which is why we have laws.
The main effect flashers/curb crawlers had on me was to create fear. Sustained, serious fear that was really quite justified, given my age and vulnerability on a deserted, unobserved street. Rape would have been easy under those circumstances, as I had no escape, and the flashing only forced me to realize that they could do any damn thing they liked with me, and I would have no defense or protection. And I was in that boat for a good four years because of the direction I had to walk to school.
Someone who flashes adults on a crowded metrolink car is a nuisance and deserves an umbrella to his ass; someone who flashes children in deserted areas does far more serious harm and deserves more severe punishment for it. And I think the fear effect would be the same regardless of the generation one grew up in, or prevailing social attitudes toward "getting over" things.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
The OP asked
quote:
is it a natural parental response to feeling that your children might be under threat?
or quote:
Is it a learned response,
It seems to me that it is natural for parents to respond to a threat to their children, but that it is in some ways a recently learned response, because previous generations didn't respond that way to that threat.
In answer to your question, Albertus, quote:
did it continue to cause distress for a longer period, just nobody spoke about it?
what I think it did was to cause children (mostly girls) to adjust their behaviour in the long term; to behave in a way that minimised the risk into adulthood and beyond.
I have seen adult women my own age live limited lives, because of this. I absolutely do not want my daughter to limit her life. If anyone had threatened my young son or daughter sexually, I would have reacted with white hot fury and utter outrage.
I think this is a generational difference; my parents' generation wouldn't have reacted that way. It's a learned response for me, because I can see the damage it does in a way that my parents' generation couldn't. I think the previous generation got it woefully wrong, and the witchhunt described by Arethosemyfeet is the backlash.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Limited lives--that's a really good point. Possibly the reason previous generations didn't make such a stink about it is because they took for granted that girls would be subject to limited lives anyway (whether they agreed with that or no) and didn't therefore feel the same sense of outrage?
In a parallel way, I've noticed that my husband and I rarely react to racist behavior with the moral outrage our (white) friends display. And it probably is because we're "used to it." Not that we agree with it at all. But it's hard to get all energetic and morally outraged when you know damn well that the same thing is going to happen to you a zillion more times in your life. And it seems better maybe to us to save one's energy to try to subvert and undermine the racism--the direct outrage rarely seems to work, and wears you out besides.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
Also I think that unspoken anger may have been far more common than we imagine in our more open demonstrative modern culture. There were things which were not talked about by past generations. Much more was Taboo and sleeping dogs were thought to be best left that way. Also there was a strong belief that stiff upper-lipped perseverance was the best way to meet the savage injustice of life.(Of which there was Much) I'm not saying it was right. I am just observing it was part a broader emotional and cultural landscape inherited from the world of those parents own childhoods. These are of course generalisations but it is possible that to some degree natural instincts were supressed by culture and circumstance. I think the picture is more nuanced than a simple dichotomy between learned response and natural tendency.
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Upthread, No Prophet said that in (his part of) Canada, the usual sentence was 2 years less a day. Very definitely, that is not the going rate here. This case, reported yesterday concerns particularly bad abuse, with one of the victims being but 2 years old. The aggregate sentence of 18 years covers all the offences, rather than being an accumulation of the various individual, is higher than the usual, but that reflects the higher than usual criminality involved. Indeed a few years ago an aboriginal man barely into his 20s had penile/vaginal sex with a 2 year old girl. Her injuries were extremely serious - she nearly bled to death, and while surgery was reasonably successful, the victim can never bear children. The offence with which he was charged carried a maximum sentence of 20 years; given his comparative youth, a plea of guilty, and his deprived upbringing, a majority in the Court of Criminal Appeal considered that a sentence of 14 years was not excessive. The dissentient judge said that it was lenient and that he would have given 18 years having allowed a utility discount of 2 years for a late plea of guilty.
If the abuse is limited to a single victim and a few occasions, the going rate in NSW would be around 2 years or less for a flasher, 7 to 10 years for more serious abuse, and 12 years plus for the most serious. If there are multiple victims, the sentence would be higher. These are broad terms of course ignoring the technical details of sentence structures.
The question of delay has been raised. A very good friend was repeatedly abused in his early teenage years by a highly respected family member. He felt unable to tell anyone, not even his wife, until after the death of the abuser. When younger, he thought that he would not be believed, and further that the allegations would tear the family apart. He also suffered from feelings of guilt by not disclosing the abuse as it may have allowed abuse of cousins and young neighbours to occur.
All that is understandable, an you can easily imaging similar thoughts in other instances. What I find hard to understand are the late disclosures of abuse by teachers or even strangers. So far, no-one seems to have come up with a suitable explanation for that.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Upthread, No Prophet said that in (his part of) Canada, the usual sentence was 2 years less a day. Very definitely, that is not the going rate here. ...
All that is understandable, an you can easily imaging similar thoughts in other instances. What I find hard to understand are the late disclosures of abuse by teachers or even strangers. So far, no-one seems to have come up with a suitable explanation for that.
You have to look historically at this - when I was growing up in the 1960's/70's, it was common knowledge that Cyril Smith, a local MP, "liked young boys", but nothing was raised by ANYONE in any formal way until he died. Well - actually that's not true - I understand a social care team presented evidence to the police and it was suppressed. So there was institutional suppression, condonance, and one suspects, participation by people too big to be prosecuted. Smaller fish were in the same culture - I think a lot of people were walking round with guilty feelings. I'd also say that there was also a culture in some police forces and other official circles of suspecting, persecuting and prosecuting (not just for child abuse) anyone who brought complaints. There was a cultural denial that anyone could sexually abuse babies and small children, and after "a certain age" which was undefined, it seems that teenagers were fair game to a small number of people and "everyone" knew that one too, and it was "how the world is". Bear in mind e.g. that in some parts of the world and historically throughout the world, marriage and consumation could take place after menstruation. And there's finally the factor that when someone has sat on it for long enough, they can go two ways - one is, yes, to say "it needs to come out" and the other is guilt for not having said anything sooner which then prevents them from saying anything.
I find it remarkable and reassuring that all this has shifted in a very short space of time. At the moment child protection measures are a tad over the top (in that everyone is a suspect - NOT a good attitude) and creating imbalances, but that will also settle down. There are still groups like the False Memory SIG who insist that any and all cases of more serious nature are made up - but again, they will gradually die a death under the accumulation of evidence.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
As a boy some rather unpleasant things happened to me, and I've found this thread interesting.
quote:
Or did it continue to cause distress for a longer period, just nobody spoke about it?
For a long time I didn't think what happened to me had much of an effect on me - but actually I think the taboos my parents felt they were under (which, if one were charitable, might go a fair way towards explaining their failure to protect me) perhaps had the strongest effect, since this left me to sort the problem (as much as a 7 or 8 year-old can) alone.
I absorbed the idea that whatever shit happened, I had to sort it out myself. Far from turning me into Marlboro Man, for a long time I was anxious and depressed - eventually emerging with a 'fuck that, I'll pass' attitude about pretty much anything I felt I might not be able to handle. This seems to be a category which has grown, rather than shrunk, as I have got older.
And on a later point in this thread - for me, I didn't 'tell' because as a small child I was not believed, and later, once I realised what had taken place, I told myself I did not want to destroy the man's wife (a relative). After she died, and he was no longer a threat, I found myself in the odd situation of visiting him in hospital / care home when no-one else was left to do so. Funny how things go.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What a blessing.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Go on then Martin - why a blessing? I'm not getting at you; but not one of reconciliation, since by that time he didn't know who he was, let alone me. Not much magnanimity, since a closer relative was dying when she asked me to keep an eye on him, rather putting my reservations into perspective. Not forgiveness, since for some odd reason I've never been angry at the man. Well, maybe that's a blessing; or evidence of a need for therapy.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Even more so. I'm sorry mate, it's got to be said. I was thinking of this BEFORE I read your response, it leapt up during.
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
If you haven't ever watched it, you should.
Because like your account, it makes no claims, it yearns with minimal words. It feels its way forwards in incredibly constrained circumstances.
There has to be ... an Invisible Sun.
[ 13. January 2016, 21:03: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Well, I sat up until 2am and watched it. I liked it - I like to think it's good to make a virtue of necessity - thanks. I don't have so much to complain about.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Go on then Martin - why a blessing? I'm not getting at you; but not one of reconciliation, since by that time he didn't know who he was, let alone me. Not much magnanimity, since a closer relative was dying when she asked me to keep an eye on him, rather putting my reservations into perspective. Not forgiveness, since for some odd reason I've never been angry at the man. Well, maybe that's a blessing; or evidence of a need for therapy.
I did wonder when you first posted about it whether you'd been able to forgive your abuser. In some ways it's even more admirable that you are able to offer him care even without it.
I suppose the question that arises in my mind is that of whether and how we criminalise psychological harm. I think it's generally accepted that we criminalise child sexual abuse for the psychological harm it does. Does the fact that we can point to particular physical actions in such cases mean that we prosecute this particular form of harm and tend to disregard other forms of abuse. A good friend of mine was emotionally abused as a child by his father and recently had to give up work for fear that panic attacks related to the PTSD arising from the abuse would cause a danger to him or his clients. The harm is just as real and tangible as that of sexual abuse victims, but I doubt that, even were his dad convicted (which itself is unlikely) he would be treated as a pariah in the same way as a sexual abuser would.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
The problem with psychological abuse is that intention to harm has to be clear. My father was essentially loving and caring but a series of car accidents and head impacts left him emotionally abusive in a way that has had some knock-on effects. My mother also not intentionally abusive but in reality is "difficult" (to quote my friends who have met her). That is in reality not so uncommon, and as an adult I have responsibility for myself - my parents responsibilties in any matter ended when I left home. But it goes further - I know one family where the level of (unknowing, unintended) disorganisation of the parents has left the children both psychologically and physiologically scarred in really serious ways - the fact that one of them is now beginning to be functional is something of a miracle. Since this happens to some degree or other in about 50% of families, and in a more serious way in maybe 5% of families, a) how would you enforce proper emotional care through law? and b) if the majority is unintentional, it has to be quite extreme to be able to be recognised and interrupted through due process. Physical abuse, attack etc is far easier to identify and also prosecute simply because one expects even people who are not completely "with it" to have some sense of the limits of reasonable behaviour. I think if a careful analysis of paedophiles was made then the findings would be that a substantial number fall into the category of eitehr not really understanding the magnitude of what they are doing, or not even aware that it's particularly wrong at all, or carrying out things that they know are not right and to some extent don't even want to do but it's a compulsion they are unable to stop. All these people are in essence not very different from chocaholics or anorexics or workaholics - it's just that the damage they leave in their trail is usually somewhat greater. And we impose legal sanctions on the ACT, not the intent or mental-emotional capacity to control ones actions - with the hope that the punishment will act as deterrent for others. I guess it does to some extent. The small number of people who are wilfully malicious or who know what they are doing but just don't care are far more dangerous, and usually more slippery - the "Jimmy Savilles" of this world. Since the OP is about revenge and rehabilitation, I think it should be clear that most pasedophiles are rehabitable. My personal opinion is that they should be accepted back into society, with due care and suitable treatment. I guess that is not easy in practice to manage. I guess also there is an argument that if they are not re-accepted and treated permanently as pariahs that does eventually make a lasting impression and may ensure less people "accidentally" do this, but at the same time it makes it very very difficult for people to be helped and to turn themselves in for help. As has been said earlier, categorising everyone into the same box regardless of volitionary issues and circumstance is itself an act of violence and something of a lynch-mob mentality. Some 12 year olds are sexually and emotionally mature - and conversely some 20 year olds are not. Do you permanently mark a 17yo who has a relationship with a mature 14yo in the same way that you would brand a 40yo who tortures and penetrates toddlers? Or would you put in the same category someone who compulsively collects child porn videos and someone who makes them? The important subtleties that make rehabilitation possible are somewhat lost in a tabloid-driven culture, partly because the important issues are determined by states of mind and will/volition that are almost impossible to definitively assess. The state keeps something of a lid on this, but the instinct in society in general appears to be for revenge regardless of circumstance. The suspicion is that this degree of reactive violence reflects both the degree of abuse prevalent in society (and hence the number of people who have been affected by it and are deeply angry) and also the fact that many people unconsciously recognise their own capacity for abusive behaviour (and are angry because they are frightened of themselves).
I'd also add that the loss ands distortion of personal boundaries that results from physical and emotional abuse is also characteristic of the vast majority of people who carry it out. The way that the state is engaged in bullying and trashing vulnerable people at the moment is just another level of authority-figure abuse that adds fuel to the fire and sets a poor example. It is symptomatic of the whole problem, and personally, I'd rathe have mature, responsible and self-aware grown-ups in charge. It's an interesting question - if the way forwards is to rehabilitate and forgive abusers, how do we do that with our governers, leaders, politicians?
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
