Graeme Davidson is speaking of Religion and Ethics in today's DomPost. He offers a convoluted essay musing on the way society treats pedophiles. He makes his points jumping from stone to stone across the murky river of wrongdoing. Each stone offers him temporary safety, and yet he twists them, and treats them as belonging to the river. And once on the safety of the other side, we wonder if we want to be there at all:
When Graeme asks earlier "And what about dads who back over their kids in the driveway..."? He agrees that it is clearly an accident, so why does he conclude that "Yet it raises the question of how we draw the line to avoid a double standard over those who harm kids."
This is the mantra of personal responsibility, but where it is warped so that we supposedly have to face a moral dilemma in working out what punishment to mete out to people where the sole criteria appears to be how much harm the kid suffers. What? No difference between accident and intent? Thinks Graeme: Running a kid over is worse than a quick fondle, so why are we so tough on pedophiles? Consider what Graeme says here:
But he does. Another mistake:
Firstly, making a token payment shows no sign of remorse or understanding on the damage done. It's a weak attempt at solving a problem. He wants closure and a few dollars should do the trick. That is an insult to the parents. To forgive, they were entitled to hear genuine repentance and contrition. A few bucks didn't convince them, and Graeme decides that makes them hypocrites? Sorry Graeme - you are a fool. You paint the pedophiles as victims, fallible humans needing understanding, and then expect the victims to be perfect - to grant forgiveness while the wounds are still fresh and the abuser of their child offers a few bucks.
He then goes on the attack - parents like this who wanted castration not community service are ethically inconsistent he argues. What if its not ethics? What if its a sure fire way of reducing repeat offending? How ethically consistent is it to equate a pedophile who deliberately sexually abuses children with a father who, in a momentary lapse of concentration, runs their child over in the driveway?
Graeme's conclusion is that we treat pedophiles worse because we have our own dark secrets is that type of liberal thinking that is deciding no crime is bad providing people take 'personal responsibility' for their actions. Problem is, this concept of personal responsibility is in name only. Thus, pedophiles can abuse kids if they are prepared to spend half their fortune. Or pay a few bucks. And who are we to argue against that?
I'm left wondering that this river of wrongdoing is keeping us from the banks of moral relativism. It's a huge mistake to even cross it, it only leads us to the bad places.
Perhaps part of our outrage at pedophiles is because we project on to them what lurks in the dark corners of our own family livesNo. No. No. What a travesty of supposed ethical and religious thought.
When Graeme asks earlier "And what about dads who back over their kids in the driveway..."? He agrees that it is clearly an accident, so why does he conclude that "Yet it raises the question of how we draw the line to avoid a double standard over those who harm kids."
This is the mantra of personal responsibility, but where it is warped so that we supposedly have to face a moral dilemma in working out what punishment to mete out to people where the sole criteria appears to be how much harm the kid suffers. What? No difference between accident and intent? Thinks Graeme: Running a kid over is worse than a quick fondle, so why are we so tough on pedophiles? Consider what Graeme says here:
When I worked as a prison psychologist a number of years ago, I interviewed nearly all convicted child sex offenders in New Zealand.Graeme has been sucked in with the classic 'perpetrator feels to be the real victim' mentality. I suggest the pedophile didn't take the court case not out of consideration for the victim, but because the lawyer used it as a bargaining chip on a guilty plea. But, oh how nice these people are! And only fondled the kids, with very few rapes! Well, that changes everything I suppose? I doubt it. All it changed was that they were caught early, and are sitting there looking for sympathy. The prison sentence was too harsh - does that sound like they accept the gravity of their crime? Graeme adds that many were 'upset and suicidal'. The reasons for that are only assumed. Maybe they were suicidal because their lives were ruined and their families torn apart after the crime they committed was discovered. It's always about them. Don't assume remorse.
Because they didn't want their victims to face a court ordeal, most pleaded guilty to the charges against them. But several months into their sentence, many felt the charges were an exaggeration based more on the anger of the parents ... than what actually happened. Most had fondled and molested; very few had raped.
But he does. Another mistake:
One who offered half his fortune as a token of his remorse for his victim had his gift spurned by her parents who wanted him castrated. Ironically, they were church leaders who preached forgiveness.I think I found this comment the most offensive in the whole article.
Firstly, making a token payment shows no sign of remorse or understanding on the damage done. It's a weak attempt at solving a problem. He wants closure and a few dollars should do the trick. That is an insult to the parents. To forgive, they were entitled to hear genuine repentance and contrition. A few bucks didn't convince them, and Graeme decides that makes them hypocrites? Sorry Graeme - you are a fool. You paint the pedophiles as victims, fallible humans needing understanding, and then expect the victims to be perfect - to grant forgiveness while the wounds are still fresh and the abuser of their child offers a few bucks.
He then goes on the attack - parents like this who wanted castration not community service are ethically inconsistent he argues. What if its not ethics? What if its a sure fire way of reducing repeat offending? How ethically consistent is it to equate a pedophile who deliberately sexually abuses children with a father who, in a momentary lapse of concentration, runs their child over in the driveway?
Graeme's conclusion is that we treat pedophiles worse because we have our own dark secrets is that type of liberal thinking that is deciding no crime is bad providing people take 'personal responsibility' for their actions. Problem is, this concept of personal responsibility is in name only. Thus, pedophiles can abuse kids if they are prepared to spend half their fortune. Or pay a few bucks. And who are we to argue against that?
I'm left wondering that this river of wrongdoing is keeping us from the banks of moral relativism. It's a huge mistake to even cross it, it only leads us to the bad places.
Sigh. This post is too short. I've left out heaps of other points Graeme made that are worthy of comment. But time is not my friend today. Maybe they'll come out in the comments?
ReplyDeletePerhaps part of our outrage at pedophiles is because we project on to them what lurks in the dark corners of our own family lives
ReplyDeleteThe man's a psychologist?
He has obviously heard of "projection" since he uses it to project on you and me
what perhaps what lurks in the dark corners of his own mind.
I was intruiged by his claim that Shakespeare (amoung others) had sex with underage children. He married Ann Hathaway when he was eighteen and she was in her late twenties and we have no other reliable information about any of his other sex partners: the Dark Lady in the Sonnets was married, the fair youth of the sonnets is not addressed sexually and is certainly older than a child.
ReplyDeleteI was also interested by his admission that when he walks past schools he takes care not to look at any of the children lest he be thought a pervert. I walk past a primary school on my way to and from work every day and can honestly say this thought has never occurred to me. It seems like an odd thing to think. I always look at the children because they are vicious little creatures and you never know when they're going to throw something at you.
Looks like a classic case of a psychologist being "captured" by his clients.
ReplyDeleteAnd people such as Davidson are among those society relies on to assess offenders for parole.....
God help us.
Danyl,
ReplyDelete"I always look at the children because they are vicious little creatures and you never know when they're going to throw something at you."
Care to repeat that again?
I saw this column in a cafe's copy on Saturday and stopped when his 'walking past schools guilt' was presented as profound self-awareness.
ReplyDeleteHelps explain why Sunday paper circulations are in a tailspin. The quality of NZ columnists led by Kere Woodham, Chris Trootter, and Wendyl Nissen is low. These ensconced NZ celebrities are meant to provide intellectual heft to papers that are stuffed with property Realtor puff, Sporting platitudes, and scandal du jour headlines such as "Millie in Rehab".