There are occasions when it is reasonable in an open, liberal society to enact laws governing social interaction, even if the majority of the community does not agree. These are when control over individuals’ own bodies or freedom of expression or private behaviour should trump bias or tradition or subjective moral philosophies masquerading as religion. Examples are legalizing sufficiently early abortion or private, homosexual acts between consenting adults.
There are other forms of social interaction where the role of government is to reflect the wishes of the majority of the community. In some cases, different communities can have different, local laws. In other cases, it is necessary for state, or even federal governments to make a single law, covering all citizens.
An example of the former is nude bathing. Some conservative communities may wish to ban it, while other, more open minded ones may choose to allow it. An example of the latter is whether or not crime victims should be able to publicly name their attackers after a conviction. Given the reach of modern media and the internet, countries need to have a single law. Indeed, it makes sense for countries with similar political systems to co-operate on such laws, particularly if they are neighbours.
If most people believe that given the consent of victims, accurate reporting of crimes and the names of their perpetrators is reasonable, even if they are under a certain age, then it is not for politicians or jurists to impose their personal political agenda under the guise of some bogus, “human rights” argument. As long as a conviction has been secured, it is most certainly not the role of politicians or jurists to prevent victims from publicly discussing the crime that was done to them and who did it, much less to threaten the victim with jail for doing so.
If politicians, judges, lawyers or police try to place the “rights” of the convicted ahead of the rights of the victims and this position is contrary to the views of the majority of citizens, they should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
In Australia, we experienced a liberal dose of this bullshit when four Pakistani perpetrators of a series of gang rapes, all brothers, could only be identified by their initials, even after they turned 18. To highlight the absurdity, their father was effectively named as Dr. Hasan Khan, a GP, who perjured himself in providing an alibi for them.
Good on Savanna Dietrich for standing up for herself and publicly complaining about whatever bullshit plea bargain was worked out without her consent. You can’t humiliate someone by taking their clothes off, sexually interfering with them and then publicising it on the internet and not expect to have your names made public in return, if that’s what your victim wants to do. It’s the truth, isn’t it? Why shouldn’t your victim have the right to tell it? Being 16 or 17 shouldn’t protect you.
Judges and District Attorneys are elected in the United States. The citizens of Louisville, Kentucky should write to the judge and DA in this case, making clear their views and the chances of the judge and DA retaining their positions if community opinion is ignored.
The quid pro quo for such freedom of speech in an open society is responsibility to the truth. If the acts were more of a drunken prank that having sexual molestation as their primary purpose, it is necessary to make this clear, or for the convicted to be able to have their explanations for their behaviour published. It is not fair for a victim to publish the names of those convicted of a crime against them, then misrepresent the nature and intent of the crime, as Savanna Dietrich appears to have done when she Tweeted: "Protect rapist is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville.". There does not appear to be any suggestion from the prosecution that Savanna Dietrich was raped.
If one person’s narrative is widely published, but the other’s is effectively suppressed by being ignored, that is not justice. Additionally, the acts done or their intent cannot be exaggerated or otherwise misrepresented. If such attempts at additional punishment by criminal defamation occur, that is when the law should step in, because the victim is no longer a victim and the convicted are no longer simply the perpetrators.
The attackers and victim involved in this case are all young; legally still children. That does not mean they do not have rights to freedom of expression. What they need are not illogical and draconian edicts, but guidance: the convicted on how to deal with the (brief) public vilification which will inevitably ensue before people seize on something else to be outraged about and Savanna Dietrich on her responsibilities to accurate description over opinion and the meaning and consequences of criminal defamation. Although they are teenagers and this case certainly involves a teenage act, it has had adult consequences, with which they now all have to deal.
No comments:
Post a Comment