Rape Denial In Action: Bullying Jody Raphael for Telling the Truth
A couple of weeks ago I endorsed an important and well-written, well researched book on sexual violence by law professor Jody Raphael, a nationally prominent researcher, anti-violence advocate, lecturer and attorney. The very point of Raphael's book, Rape Is Rape: How Denial, Distortion, and Victim Blaming Are Fueling a Hidden Acquaintance Rape Crisis, is how powerful interest groups nationwide are making a large problem worse by intimidating victims and challenging their credibility, downplaying rates of sexual assault, and protecting their own institutional environments. The book has been met with well-deserved praise by those of us in the anti-sexual violence movement who know how meticulously well researched and accurate it is.Raphael has been challenged, though, not through honest discourse or documented findings, but through rank intimidation and an organized smear campaign. She discusses, among many other topics, the tragic inaction (and worse) of officials involved in the Sandusky/Penn State crisis. This caught the attention of a group of Paterno supporters in the Penn State community who decided they didn't like Raphael's illumination of the subject to the extent it threatened their hero-worship. What followed was a organized campaign to rate her book negatively on the Amazon book selling site in an attempt to make it less visible to to potential book buyers. On a message board (no longer visible) on the site "BlueWhiteIllustrated," a poster wrote: "I and others have been posting negative comments on the Amazon site where the book is being sold. As a result, the rating for the book has dropped from 5 stars to 2. Please go to the site and add your comments. Let's drop the rating to 1 star. BTW, Ms. Raphael is a law professor - hard to believe."As a result, and since that campaign began, there are 41 negative reviews of her book, just about everyone of them related to the Penn State issue. As friend and colleague Katie Feifer of Counterquo put it so eloquently, "Seldom do real life events so quickly prove the key point that an author makes in her book."Raphael has experienced other forms of harassment and intimidation in the wake of her book's release as well; thankfully she has the strength, dedication and courage to face them all down. But what she's experienced in an effort to expose the truth about a preventable national shame and tragedy should sound a louder alarm. The problem is, in fact, even worse than we thought.
The Real Horror of Kermit Gosnell: Evil Finds A Way
Kermit Gosnell, if the charges against him are true, is the ultimate child abuser.I cannot run from this.It's not an easy task to write about his case from the standpoint of an advocate for children who is also legally pro-choice. But to be in my position and not write about this case is, to me, an act of cowardice. I’m a former child abuse prosecutor and an advocate for the most defenseless among us. Abortion opponents would- and have- challenged me on how I cannot see a child in the womb as the most defenseless human being imaginable. My response, at least for now, is that I draw the line at the generally accepted notion of “viability” and accept it as sound public policy. Personally, I view every abortion as a tragedy. But I would never support (absent what I consider reasonable restrictions) a legal ban on the practice; among other things I lack the moral authority to block a woman from making basic reproductive decisions I’ll never have to face.But if Gosnell delivered live human beings and then murdered them with scissors, all of this in a fetid, filthy and sometimes lethal atmosphere, he is evil incarnate. Of course, most on both sides of the abortion debate would readily agree with that statement. But they also see very different implications for what it means.To many abortion opponents, Gosnell’s hellish work is simply the inevitable consequence of an abhorrent practice that devalues life and richly rewards the dealing out of death. To supporters of legal abortion, Gosnell was allowed to flourish exactly because of the increasingly truculent and organized attack on reproductive rights. Women have found ways to end pregnancy for millennia; legal restrictions against that effort only push it into the shadows where compassion and basic competence give way to recklessness, greed, and torture.I can’t embrace fully the more extreme pro-choice view that the best way to avoid evil within the practice of abortion is to simply allow it to occur with few if any restrictions well into a second trimester. The combination of desperation and the shadows of illegality attracts horrors, yes. But as well, there's the stubborn fact that, the later an abortion is contemplated, the more morality gets muddled as much as legality. There may be decent medical providers willing to perform such tasks for what they at least sincerely believe are the right reasons. But there will be others drawn to the practice for far worse ones.Still, what I know of criminality and the nature of predatory people is what ultimately leads me to side, generally, with pro-choice elements on what allowed Gosnell to operate. The primarily religious based anti-abortion movement believes that the practice itself is inherently evil and that therefore associated horrors are inevitable. I do not; right or wrong, I part ways with the religious to the extent that they believe the basic practice of abortion, no matter how well-intentioned, well-orchestrated, or reasonably regulated, eventually produces the kind of callousness within many of its practitioners that leads to the charges Gosnell now faces.What I believe is that the desperation of women denied other options is what attracts- not produces- men like Gosnell. This is how predators work. Despite the insistence that abortion invites the perversion of the soul, that's not what I believe happens. Rather, in most cases and far more terrifyingly, I believe evil souls are usually perverted from the beginning, and then search for opportunities.Gosnell is on trial for being, among other things, a perversion of a doctor who mislead, mistreated, maimed and killed mostly young women and babies. If the charges are true, he is probably every bit the monster he is feared to be. Not a reluctant practitioner of a dark art for the sake of women who had no where else to go, but simply a deeply evil creature who feasted on misery and murder, collecting its products in jars because it amused him.If so, in my mind, he was not coarsened and “made” evil by what he practiced. He is more likely an opportunist with original intentions. He simply found the perfect environment in which to indulge them.
Needed Wisdom on Rape from a Former Judge
"We were insulted by the word "date" rape. "Date" rape does not exist. It's a misnomer; It's like saying "car-jack." Car-jack is robbery. Rape is rape. That's it."-former judge Robert Holdman on his time as Chief Trial Counsel, Child Abuse and Sex Unit, Bronx District Attorneys Office, Bronx, New YorkA colleague and mentor, former New York State Supreme Court Justice Robert Holdman, was invited to participate in a Huffpost Live broadcast on the Steubenville rape case as the trial was being heard. He was joined by Alexander Abad Santos of the Atlantic Wire, and also Zerlina Maxwell and Jaclyn Friedman. Friedman and Maxwell in particular are well-known warriors in the fight against rape culture, and I've had the honor of working with and learning from Jaclyn personally. The broadcast is an excellent discussion of the Steubenville dynamics and the larger problem beyond it. It's still well worth watching even as the case fades slowly away from the news cycle.What made Holdman's comments so important is that they came from the perspective of a former trial judge. While most U.S. judges are honorable professionals worthy of the power of the robe, the judiciary is still a place where we don't see enough understanding of the dynamics and reality of sexual violence. This is particularly true with non-stranger sexual violence, the kind women and men experience far more than any other.Every criminal defendant deserves a full and robust defense, and also a judge who is sensitive to the circumstances of an individual facing the power of the government, regardless of the charges. Holdman would surely agree, and his comments rightfully included the responsibility of judges to be neutral and fair to defendants facing criminal prosecution. Being a good trial judge doesn't mean- from my perspective or any other- assuming guilt in any criminal case or anything close to it. But an ignorance of the reality of sexual violence, particularly between individuals who know each other, and an over-reliance on the myth and innuendo so pervasive in our culture regarding rape and sexual assault, lead far too many judges to render irrational and unjust decisions in these types of cases.Important professional opportunities have taken Holdman- for now- from his duties as a trial judge. Still, I hope the messages he has conveyed reach the men and women who make the crucial decisions that shape sexual violence cases nationwide and beyond. I also hope he finds his way back to the bench as his career progresses; his kind of clarity on this subject needs to be as common on the judicial bench as it needs to be everywhere else.
U.S. Senators, Don't Blink: Own the Reality of Newtown if Not Your Own Cowardice
TRIGGER WARNING: GRAPHICI was troubled by one understandable and typically American response to the Newtown massacre, namely the mostly Christian-themed memorial depictions that flew around social media. Some showed 20 children running cheerfully into a brilliantly lit classroom that was really heaven, or suddenly and happily finding themselves with wings on fluffy clouds.Doubtlessly, the images and cartoons were well-intended. But ultimately they also served to sanitize the event, and almost to perversely undermine, however unintentionally, the gravity of it. The children are fine, the images suggested. We can move on.But we can't. Because when we do, however innocently, it makes it even easier for a sufficient number of feckless cowards who call themselves United States Senators to deny their responsibilities to any entity other than the corporate gun lobby or a fading and paranoid subculture of conspiracy blinded crackpots.So please, invite your senator, if he or she voted against the series of reasonable amendments that died today amid an atmosphere shame and idiocy, to imagine the reality of Sandy Hook from the scope of a military grade assault weapon wielded by the miserable insect behind it. Demand that they picture what Lanza saw. Because it wasn’t 20 children and 6 women softly fading into the light of eternity, however warm that light might have felt once they got there.They were ripped apart by a round of ammunition weighing about a third of an ounce with a muzzle energy (basically impact potential) of around 2400 foot pounds. That much metal at 2200 feet per second tearing into a child with an average weight of 48 pounds doesn’t cause him or her to fade with a sleepy smile into bliss. I thankfully have not seen the Newtown crime scene photos, but I am no stranger to images of children killed by gunfire.So I know that the little angels of Newtown more than likely lost limbs and entire sections of their bodies in smoky red glazes. I know their faces probably exploded, their skulls bursting like pomegranates thrown from high windows. And, as Lanza squeezed again and again- as he would have had to do- an untold number saw their classmates eviscerated in unblinking terror and disbelief before his one open eye found their tiny, frail body and tore it open like fallen fruit under a truck tire.Please, don’t blink. And don’t let your senator blink either. Because that is the reality of the long moments of hell experienced by the supposedly now winged seraphim who were once Connecticut school children. The reality is smoking fragments of a Batman sweatshirt soaked in blood. The reality is a Disney princess headband spattered with brain matter on a tiny, shattered classroom chair.But it’s not the only reality. The other is that Adam Lanza was a miserable creature limited utterly by his options. Thanks to the senseless expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons ban in 2004 (around the time Lanza turned 12), his mother was allowed to purchase a military style weapon, kept in her comfortable, remarkably low-crime Connecticut home within reach of the thing that was her child. The idea that this pathetic creature could have committed 26 brutal murders with a knife or a baseball bat is the height of sophomoric stupidity; right up there with the idea that a black president is going to disarm the populace and impose socialism on a dwindling white majority.And yet that suspicion, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the droner making the argument, is what appears to hold sway still in the upper legislative house of the most powerful nation on earth. That and the threat of gun lobby money ending precious political careers. But balanced against two score little angels now nestled in Jesus’ bosom, is that so intolerable?A shooting survivor shouted “shame on you” from the gallery today as Vice President Biden announced the final tally on a background check compromise. I took gallery shouters to task for their “Second Amendment” outbursts in Hartford, and I should be consistent and criticize her.But in Hartford the object of the shouts was a grieving father. In Washington, D.C. today, it was among the most powerful and privileged group of 100 in the world.Let freedom ring.
A Terrible Crime Averted. A Terrible Discovery That Cannot Be
Two boys, aged 10 and 11, will stand trial for conspiracy to commit rape and murder in Washington State. Although state law apparently presumes a lack of criminal responsibility (even juvenile responsibility) for children 8 to 12, the presumption can be overcome with evidence. Such evidence was introduced in a competency hearing, including evidence that the boys knew the nature and character of what they wanted to do.What they wanted to do, complete with a stolen knife and handgun in their possession along with a written plan, was to rape and then stab a fellow female student. One apparently even understood that rape was not a sexual act, but more a display of power and control. One of the boys was asked if he understood that murder was wrong. His response was "yes, I wanted her dead." At this point, like anyone decent, I am thankful the plan was foiled. As for what lies ahead, or how these two arrived in a courthouse on trial for their youth, I have no answers.
Enduring, For Nothing, Sandusky's Latest Public Words
Jerry Sandusky has again been given a forum in which to claim he is innocent of the charges he was convicted of 9 months ago, this time through a NBC "Today" show interview with filmmaker John Ziegler, whose apparent ambition is to clear Joe Paterno of any responsibility for inaction or worse during the terrible years Sandusky hunted children within the Penn State community.Several groups, most prominently the dynamic support group Male Survivor, have rightfully called out NBC and Today for airing the interview in what looks like an effort to boost ratings with a draw backward to a sensational case rather than any real effort to shed further light on the story.The fact is, Sandusky's reign of terror, heartbreak and destruction is widely documented, legally and factually established, and thankfully over. What matters now is not this miserable predator and whatever delusions he wishes to entertain in the twilight of his life. What matters is only the well-being of the men and boys who survived what Sandusky subjected them to, and what lessons can be learned in order to make such horrors less and less common.The only positive thing, perhaps, that emerged from Today's bad choice and Ziegler's tone deaf crusade is the Paterno family's distancing themselves from the effort. As Wick Sollers, a family attorney said, Sandusky's comments were “transparently self-serving and yet another insult to the victims.”Amen.So now, please, give this criminal no further exposure.
10 Years in Iraq: The Fragrance of Flowers. The Horror of War. The Burden of Doing Justice in its Wake
Note to readers: The post below was one I wrote not in anticipation of the 10th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, but an anniversary of the atrocities at Al-Mahmudiyah. I've since realized the post is more appropriate for publication at a significant anniversary of the invasion. The reason is simple: The atrocities at Mahmudiyah are as intrinsic and foreseeable an aspect of war as any that can be imagined. The designers of the war must never be allowed to escape that.“Abeer” translates in Arabic to “the fragrance of flowers” and was the name given to the 14 year-old girl ruthlessly raped and murdered, along with her parents and six year-old sister, on March 12, 2006, near the town of Al-Mahmudiyah, Iraq. The murderers were a group of American soldiers, stationed at a nearby checkpoint in an especially brutal time after the American invasion three years previous.Of the many honorable men and women I met serving as a civilian in the Army JAG Corps, the one I came to know the best was among the first and most involved prosecutors in the Al-Mahmudiyah massacre. It wasn’t enough that he endured a difficult and dangerous deployment as part of the 101st Airborne Division. He was also saddled with bringing, of all things, the weight of that crime home with him as he handled the case near Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He did this while readjusting to stateside and family life as a husband and father. He’ll acknowledge that burden if it’s pointed out. But he will never, ever complain about it. First, because by God’s grace, his own family is intact and healthy, and he was able to hold them when he returned. Second, because seeking justice for Abeer and her family was an honor he accepted with humility and a deep sense of duty that I found typical in the Army JAG Corps. He sought justice for his Army and his country. But I suspect most of all he sought justice for for Abeer, and the details he came to know of her life and the unspeakable circumstances of her death.The details are public, if you want them. I can tell you that nightmares are all you’re likely to get for mining them, and I say this as a trained absorber of such things.The Army JAG Corps ignored several things I encouraged them to address while I served as a consultant. In a time where soldier suicides are spiking in particular, perhaps the most puzzling to me was refusing (to my knowledge and based on their responses to me at the time) to even look into proactive assistance for JAG prosecutors and defenders who must absorb, if not horrors like Mahmudiyah on a daily basis, then things like increasingly detailed and technologically advanced videos of children used in pornography or worse.And then there is war, the ones we’ve been waging now on the backs of a volunteer military and its valiant but exhausted support bulwark for nearly 12 years. Among myriad other things, war requires the prosecution and defense of combatants accused of atrocities and horrors more regularly than many grasp.I blame Mahmudiyah solely on the men who conceived and carried it out. They represent nothing but themselves; not the US Army, not the stress of combat (which the vast majority of soldiers endure without resorting to murder and rape) and not even the war itself. Regardless, the men and women who must address legally what military conflict inevitably produces must be cared for during that process. Of its many poisons, war vomits things like Mahmudiyah regularly. It did so at Fort Pillow, Tennessee, at My Lai,Quan Ngai, in Kandahar, Afghanistan. It has done so in every war and under every flag unfurled since the beginning of combat.The architects of the 2003 Iraq War, just as the drum-beaters for Vietnam, may argue with scholarly confidence that they were right, or with grave regret that they were wrong. But none may claim a lack of foreseeability for one single thing that occurred or will occur as a result of their decisions. No act, no matter how shocking, how damning, how soul-crushing and freakishly inhuman, is unforeseeable the moment war is engaged.Similarly, the stress of sorting out, in courts of military justice, the details of anything war yields is also foreseeable and addressable. It’s not enough to own, no matter how deeply, what war really is. We must also support appropriately those who must seek justice in its wake.
Homeschooling At Its Worst: A Child Starvation Case in Oklahoma
Among the worst cases I've ever consulted on, this one involved a 10 year-old boy tortured through "discipline," isolated from the community and ultimately starved to death by both his mother and her paramour. The paramour was an enlisted soldier at Fort Sill, Oklahoma; the case came under my purview because I was an Army civilian consultant at time the case was investigated. The children, including the dead young boy, were "home-schooled," which for the murdering parents was simply a convenient way to isolate him from an otherwise decent and caring military community around them.I've written on the dangers of home-schooling in this space before. I am not anti-home schooling, and in fact have great respect for people who do it right (a few are old friends). Further, I recognize how children can be and certainly are harmed in traditional schooling environments. But the isolation, secrecy and helplessness of the victim are never more accentuated or unanswerable than in a torturous, unregulated and out of control homeschool environment. Allowing for further deregulation of home education in the name of "freedom" will lead to more children stripped of not only freedom but also safety, health, and their very lives.
The Onion & Quvenzhané Wallis: Perspective from Scott Mendelson
I've been a fan of the Onion since I knew it existed. I follow the magazine on Twitter, but missed the now notorious tweet that referred to a 9 year-old child as a "cunt." When I became aware of it, I wanted to write about it with indignation and righteous anger. The Onion has apologized and promised to tighten restrictions on who can send tweets under its avatar. Regardless, I was infuriated and hoped everyone else was.And then I read Mendelson's take on the controversy in the Huffington Post. He makes provocative points, among them the one that frankly shut me up:"What exactly is the right age to be called a cunt in public, be it overtly or through insinuation? What exactly is the right age to start being judged on their attractiveness or fashion choices?"Like many people, I've been ready to condemn the Onion for releasing a vicious tweet about a child. But like almost as many, I've failed to see how drawing a distinction in terms of the age of the target, while understandable on its face, really doesn't make that much of a difference.It was wrong. Utterly. But so is the society we've set up, in terms of what it would likely tolerate- and will tolerate- to be stated about the young, lovely and talented Ms. Wallis when she is old enough to objectify mercilessly without shocking the conscience.
"Uncle Fans" And The Shaming of Fetishized Female Asian Pop Stars. Why Is This Tolerated?
Jezebel featured a disturbing story about a 20 year-old Japanese pop star, one of dozens of young women in a "girl group" called AKB48. The woman, Minami Minegishi, violated the no-dating rule the band has in place for its performers and was caught by a photographer leaving the home of her boyfriend on a recent morning. For this transgression, she shaved her head, made a tearful apology video for her fans, and was demoted from some higher status she had within the group to that of a "research student."CBS News reports "AKB48 says it forbids its members from dating to project a clean image and signal their devotion to the group and their mostly male fans."A clean image? Really? You can see a five minute AKB48 music video at the Jezebel piece. The opening seconds are of an young looking girl in lingerie being caught disrobing (the camera is looking through a keyhole). She appears later wearing fishnet stockings and with her 89 co-stars sharing bathtubs, kissing one another and passing cookies mouth-to-mouth, all while writhing around in a little-girl bedroom environment with stuffed animals and pink flower petals.It's a fetishized, highly disturbing sexualization of childhood with a backdrop of music supposedly aimed at younger girls between maybe 10 and 13. If that market- "tween" pubescent girls- were the ones buying the lion's share of this music, it would be unfortunate enough. US pop stars have for years been pushed to sexualize pubescence or worse (see Britney Spears, circa 1996). But for many groups like AKB48 and similar "J-Pop" and "K-Pop" acts from South Korea and Japan, the fan base is mostly male and much older.So the concern is hardly a "clean image." It's far more not alienating their older male fans who not only buy up their CDs, but also covet tickets to so-called "handshake events" where they seek as much one-on-one time with their favorite girls as producers or whomever will allow. CD's often come with coupons that can be redeemed toward tickets to handshake events, so supposedly American or Asian men with the requisite funds can by hundreds of CD's at a time in order to procure a ticket, fly to Japan and get face time with the child idol of their choice.Anyone who isn't alarmed by this as a gold-plated opportunity for child sexual exploitation is remarkably naive. How much money would it take for an "uncle fan" (the misleading term given to older men who follow little girl groups) to get, say, just 30 minutes alone with a young female performer, away from the prying eyes of the public? How about a private dinner at a discrete and exclusive club or hotel? And would she have to be 18, if he was really just being an "uncle" anyway? What's the harm with a gentle uncle spending some alone time with his "niece?"Is there anyone who honestly believes the right amount of money and discretion couldn't buy direct access to these children and young women for God knows what?Come back to the reason behind Minegishi's humiliating apology video. She violated a rule put in place so that the group's older male fans won't be offended by their affections being aimed elsewhere. The idea is that these men feel a bond with their girl idols; the idols sing to them, are loyal to them. Belong to them.Because she violated the terms of her fantasy, "owner-slave girl" relationship with some untold number of men nearly twice her age, she was punished, including a grotesque head shaving (evoking self-mutilation) and apology to those men. Those are the rules for pop stardom in Japan. Alienate men and suffer the consequences.People usually envision children abused in the production of pornography, and they are. But sexual abuse and exploitation of children occurs in the mainstream entertainment world as much as in any other institution. Just as in institutions built around high level athletics, kids in high-level entertainment are separated from their families and handled like commodities by media coaches, choreographers, producers and so on. Access to them becomes easier for predators through many vectors.What's happened Minegishi is already despicable. What we don't know about scares me more.
Want to Appear A Responsible Gun Owner? Don't Interrupt Testimony in A Legislative Hearing
The ones who shouted at him are the ones who demand we honor their rights as "responsible gun owners" to nearly unregulated ownership, sale, transport and use of semi-automatic weapons. Be very afraid.On December 14, 2012, Neil Heslin's life, as he knew it before that date, ended forever when his only son was murdered along with 19 other six and seven year-old children. In an effort to perhaps prevent another parent from bearing the scarcely imaginable burden he carries, Mr. Heslin appeared at a public hearing at the Connecticut General Assembly to ask that body to ban the the kind of weapons that blew apart his child with simple, finger-squeezing efficiency at the hands of a willing murderer. While not every grieving Newtown parent feels as he does, he is certainly not alone in seeking to control access to certain firearms as part of a much larger response to the abomination that was Sandy Hook and every other nonsensical mass-killing that has bloodied the US in recent years. As a part of his testimony, Heslin displayed a photograph of him and his now dead child, and made an emotional but dignified speech to a legislative committee. Apparently after expressing his opinion that "no one" (figuratively) could answer the question of why a person would need a military style weapon to defend his home or person, he was shouted at by observers in the gallery who "answered" his question with loud calls of "Second Amendment!" and "shall not be infringed!"But don't call it heckling."Heckling" it's been said today (by a contributor to the reliably liberal Daily Kos), was an unfair characterization of what gun rights advocates did to this appropriately recognized, testifying individual before a legislative committee. Rather, as at least Kos commenter Sarge from Seattle believes, the audience members were "goaded" into answering the supposedly non-rhetorical question that Heslin, "put" to the audience. The audience had a right to answer Heslin's question, goes his argument. Heslin "pushed things too far" by asking the question and then suggesting that he had received no viable answer.Garbage.The shouters were in the hearing room gallery. The Connecticut General Assembly publishes a guide to speaking at public hearings before legislators. No guidance is offered to testifying individuals about their duty to either not provoke or otherwise be ready to answer the shouts of observing gallery members. That's because observing gallery members aren't supposed to speak, ever, unless asked to do so, which I'm guessing would be unusual. For most of us, that's as obvious as breathing. One doesn't shout out one's opinions at a public hearing where one hasn't been recognized to speak. Unless, I suppose, one is a "2nd Amendment Enthusiast" who believes that his highly arguable interpretation of Constitutional law and apparent passion on the subject nevertheless trumps his (or her) basic duty as a citizen to observe decorum- let alone simple courtesy- during a public hearing before a centuries old state legislature with clearly established guidelines for citizen conduct.I suppose as well, that, given the willingness of these "defenders of the Constitution" to mock the very process that the Federal and Connecticut Constitutions mandate for civilized debate and policy formation, it's futile to point out how despicable it is to shout grossly over-simplified absolutes regarding guns at a grieving father who lost his only son to gunfire. Again, this goes without saying for most of us. But not for the proud purveyors of blindingly efficient tools of death and destruction.Yet these are the people who urge us to allow them to carry, wherever and whenever, the firearm of their choosing with minimal oversight.Were I still an ADA, I would rest my case.
LA Archbishop Shown to be Complicit in Abuse Cover-Ups.
Released files from a lawsuit against the archdiocese of Los Angeles show that then Cardinal Roger Mahony was complicit in preventing the defrocking and criminal investigation/prosecution of abusive priests. Mahony's apology now may be sincere, but his efforts at shielding monstrously abusive priests over the decades most surely led to the suffering of countless more victims.
Sovereign Grace Ministries: Lawsuit Alleges Yet Another Institutional, Child Abuse Cover-Up
Sovereign Grace Ministries, known by some as SGM, is a family of churches, now based in Kentucky, adhering to extremely strict Biblical interpretations. Among them (according to critics who are themselves strict Christians but critical of the group) are both the authority of pastors and the primacy of men as leaders in religious and home life. They are being sued by several plaintiffs not far from where I grew up; the allegations are that former church leaders committed hands-on sexual and physical abuse, and also that they failed to respond to allegations appropriately, encouraged victims to forgive and submit to abusers, and engaged in a cover-up of various forms of abuse for decades.If the allegations are true, they should come as no surprise. Religious institutions of every stripe, particularly insular and ultra-strict ones, are far too often havens for predators. It's not that strict doctrine creates predators or "warps" otherwise decent people. Instead, the unbending control over adherents, distrust of civil authority and concern for the reputation of the institution allow for abusers who appear within the group (as they do within every group) to flourish. More disturbing still, these practices attract other abusers, drawn as most are to friendly environments.If critics are fair in their take on what went wrong at SGM for so long, then the leadership needs desperately to examine not only its common sense policies for protecting its children, but its far deeper spiritual underpinnings and doctrine. One of the plaintiffs alleges she was being physically and sexually abused by her father. When she alerted church leaders to her father's behavior, their response was, according to the suit, to tell her father of her allegations rather than a child protection agency. This apparently led to even more profound abuse. A reasonable conclusion for such a response is that the men she sought help from viewed her either as rebellious and lying, or truthful but bound to obey her father regardless. Perhaps they thought bringing her complaints to his attention would spur a "reconciliation" in the place they viewed most proper, meaning the father's home, where his word was family law and his authority could not be questioned- certainly not by a female child.I am not an apologist for strict Biblical interpretation, and certainly won't seek to explain the extreme lengths to which SGM seems to take it. I disagree with their belief that only men can lead spiritually or that wives are most godly when submitting to the will of their husbands, however benevolent. Regardless, it isn't their beliefs that are at issue; it's what those beliefs and practices may have unwittingly but effectively created within their midst. If the current leaders of SGM are to be believed, they find child abuse as abhorrent as anyone, and I have no reason to doubt them. Perhaps, (assuming they believe even some of the allegations) they are horrified to learn that child abuse could not only occur but grow cancer-like within an organization as faith-based and earnest for God's will as theirs. Or perhaps they knew more than they'll ever admit, but allowed their belief in their mission and the importance of their own "brand" to justify cover-up and continued victimization. But even if the most generous interpretation of what SGM's leadership believes now is true (that they abhor child abuse and are willing to work with civil authority to prevent and respond to it) they still have deep soul-searching to do that can and should shake some of their most core apparent beliefs. It is arguable, I suppose, as to whether a strict, doctrinal religious system involving male dominance and imposing pastoral authority can nevertheless effectively confront and deal with the inexorable fact of child abuse occurring from time to time within its midst. What is less arguable is that notions of male dominance, submission to authority and guarded insularity are insidious and time-honored siren songs to predators. These are the thorny questions SGM will have to answer as it moves forward. It will not be the first or last religious institution to do so.
Steubenville: A Modest Proposal. Or A Moral Requiem
Every town, indeed every settlement, hosts its demons. Towns generally spring up where wealth can be created. Some of that wealth is inevitably dispersed from fools and victims to the hands of those more clever and ruthless. The rituals of corruption between gathered humans are themselves as human as laughter and tears. There are no exceptions.But if accounts can be trusted, it seems that Steubenville, Ohio, blessed with extractable fossil fuel and its position on the railroad between Pittsburgh and Chicago in the American industrial ascent, hosted more than its share of demons in the 20th century. It was dubbed “Sin City” at one point as mafia elements thrived with prostitution and gambling, abetted by local industry and town leadership.Now the 20th century is history and Steubenville is struggling against decay and decline. So why pick on it? Because it’s clear that a natural desire to remain relevant, and elements of the corruption that once defined Steubenville have now morphed into a cocktail of denial and tolerance for sexual assault by its last vestige of greatness: Big Red Football.The events of August 11th and 12th, 2012, namely the abduction, gang-rape and desecration of an unconscious teenager at a series of parties attended by members of the Steubenville High School football team, are now national news. They might have been anyway as (thankfully) awareness of the occurrence of sexual violence within the protection of institutions is increasing.But for Big Red Football, the attention has been focused more readily because of the reluctance of witnesses to come forward and the disturbing abrogation of responsibility from the team’s coaching staff. The police chief has publicly stated his frustration at the lack of cooperation from potential witnesses, party-goers who might have important information or digital evidence. Other townsfolk have spoken to national media only anonymously for fear of retribution for standing up to the institution that is the SHS football program.As for the coaching staff, the reaction of the head coach, Reno Saccoccia, is perhaps the most telling in terms of its harkening to Steubenville’s mob-run past. According to the New York Times, Saccoccia was asked why he didn’t bench or otherwise discipline several players (other than the two charged) who were then known to have posted frightening comments and photos about the crime on social media sites, some as it was happening. Saccoccia’s response? “You made me mad now. You’re gonna get yours. And if you don’t get yours, someone close to you will.” Beautifully put, Coach. Indeed, a low level button-man in a movie couldn’t have put it better.An assistant coach, Nate Hubbard, provided the time-honored if baseless assertion that the victim must have made up the rape allegation because she had “come home” drunk (she was actually dumped there) and “had to make up something.” Actually, the victim at first didn't know what had happened to her. She was clued in by social media postings that added a further level of trauma to her and her family.In any event, there is no natural instinct to fabricate rape, let alone against a leviathan like Big Red. Legions of young women (and I’d wager a surprising number of young men) are used sexually by sports heroes in every locale and on every level in our society. The vast majority do not report these interactions as crimes when they clearly are. What the victimized do instead is blame themselves. The victim at the center of this case had the wherewithal to come forward, and does so at her peril. Steubenville may not seem like much, but its most venerable institution remains supreme in the eyes of many who share her environment.If Coach Saccoccia and everyone in power had a grounded sense of right and wrong and a vision for a better future, they would impose on themselves a NCAA style “death penalty.” They would take the 2013 season off to re-commit themselves to healthy athletics rather than the continued parade of entitled violence and privilege done within their midst.It would be a grand gesture toward a better and more secure future for Steubenville, its athletes, and its young- even unborn- potential victims. And it will never happen.
10 Year-Old Girl: Critical Condition After "Celebratory" Bullet New Year's Day
At the A.I. Dupont Hospital for Children in Wilmington (I conducted legal training for nurses there on the day of the Sandy Hook shooting), a young girl is fighting for her life after an apparently "celebratory" bullet struck her while she was watching fireworks with her family shortly after midnight. Thankfully she's getting top notch care at A.I. Dupont. Sickeningly, she's there in the first place because of yet another misuse of a firearm- perhaps the first in 2013 against a child. With 364 days left to go, I shudder to imagine the rest of the year.
On Faith, Risk, and "Couch Surfing"
Joseph and Mary: The original "couchsurfers."That's neither a joke nor necessarily Biblically incorrect. Joseph desperately needed shelter when he and his intensely pregnant wife arrived in a chilly and overcrowded desert town for a Roman census call. An inn-keeper had an idea.As a rabbi, Jesus became a couchsurfer as well, treading through ancient Palestine with his crew, finding comfort, wine, and conversation, bearing witness to sinners and holy people alike. So given the blessings of adequate space, how could a modern Christian's home be anything other than a glowing respite for weary fellow travelers?Enter Couchsurfing.org, (CS) active in 97,000 cities worldwide. Members create a detailed profile with photos describing themselves and their living space, then offer hospitality to other members passing through. It's at heart a wonderful idea; one that a cynical and aging former prosecutor shouldn't douse with cold water. But after a patient review of their safety tips and policies, I didn't come away with confidence in CS's ability to reasonably predict a safe outcome in any offline meeting.CS does prominently address safety, and importantly emphasizes risk-minimization and informed choices rather than meaningless and impossible "assurances." Life is risk and there are no guarantees. I'm sure the vast majority of CS made connections are positive. But they simultaneously claim a "close-knit" community where "vouching" helps allay concerns, and roughly 5 million members.Their safety video focuses on the joyful leap of discovery and innate good in people rather than the serious and still highly fallible business of self-protection when agreeing to lose consciousness in a stranger's home a half a world away. Instead, members discuss how they can communicate with their presumed hosts both online and in person before finally committing to unrolling a sleeping bag. It's stressed that personal interaction can often lead to the comforting conclusion that the host is "nice." You talk to them, and you can tell.Except you can't. I imagine CS boasts a very short list of reported crimes- either to them or to authorities in whatever part of the globe- against hosts or travelers as evidence of a sound safety record. But a lack of reporting, even to them, hardly means a lack of occurrences, some frightening or worse.Now enter faith because of how I became familiar with CS. A dear friend is a PhD and Christian missionary. He shared an article by a woman whose family opens their home to couchsurfers and others as "reverse missionaries." They provide warm hospitality and, to willing ears, Jesus' message. Again, it's a wonderful idea.But I am frightened for her family, sadly, by statements like this: "It really is God who is our booking agent. We know He is guiding the right people to us." This is all she offers for how she measures risk and makes decisions. She relates that early in their experience as hosts, a young Slovenian couple arrived with their toddler and it was then they "knew they had nothing to fear." Much is made of the participation their young children have in the interaction with guests as well. I assume these children appear in her CS profile, probably also in photographs.I'd love dearly to believe that God is actively protecting them on this gracious adventure. Perhaps He is, or perhaps they are content with His stewardship come what may. But I have seen, tragically, how people of faith and Christians in particular are targeted by predators who are remarkably adept at appearing to be of a similar mind. A belief in providence and forgiveness are great gifts. They are also beacons of opportunity for human things empty of anything but blunt and vicious self-satisfaction.It's been said that religion provides the right to martyr oneself, but not one's children. I mean no disrespect to this apparently loving and decent couple, and admittedly the article was not intended as a practical "how to" for anyone. But it is solely the choices she and her husband make that seal the fates of their children, one of whom is eight.That fact haunts me. That, and the dark reality I can't shake of whom the dead-eyed often hunt: Those whose eyes sparkle with faith, hope, and trust.
Savannah Dietrich: "I was in so much pain, death seemed like a friendly thought to me."
Savannah Dietrich may not fancy herself a poet. And yet the sentiment she uttered in a Kentucky juvenile courtroom, in a victim impact statement about how sexual violence threatened her life, is darkly, beautifully, and naturally poetic. "Death seemed like a friendly thought."Savannah is 17, and her name would not be published in this space if she and her family did not want the facts of her case to be made public. She is, as it happens, a remarkably courageous young woman who was sexually assaulted at age 16 by two male friends, both of whom pled guilty and received extremely light sentences for what they admittedly did to her. Initially threatened with contempt of court after tweeting the names of her attackers despite a juvenile court order (in reaction to the lenient dispositions they received), she has since testified in a sentencing hearing as to the effect this assault (and then publication by the attackers of semi-nude photos) had on her.If you've ever been in a place, either in adolescence or long afterward, where death- the simple, final escape from mental anguish- has seemed like a kindness, then you understand the place Savannah found herself in after being violated and then exposed through social media. You understand how the path of your life can narrow insidiously into a blind and numb corridor that seems to lead to only one exit. You can appreciate the exhaustion that results from the ceaseless, gnawing sense of hopelessness and despair. You can see how it's less Shakespearean bravado or vainglory that prompts the final process of suicide, and more just the feeling that you just can't take another step. And it's because you know now too well how each step just leads in the same, meaningless direction. It's a journey you can't walk anymore. And so just maybe, you decide not to go any further.It's true that a lack of perspective, naturally a part of adolescence, makes these dark temptations even worse; this is exactly why teenagers with suicidal ideation need steady attention, care and support.Regardless, pain is pain, and Savannah found herself drowning in it because of the actions of two boys who found it acceptable to violate her sexually, memorialize it with photographs, and then distribute those photographs to others. They both admitted their guilt, and now bemoan their "bad judgment." I have no desire to demonize these two boys or suggest that they are lost and unreclaimable as decent adults and non-violent men. But I will insist that the actions they took against Savannah in August of 2011 went far beyond "bad judgment" and fully through to sexual violence and evil. They stuck their fingers in her vagina while she lay unconscious. They photographed her and then distributed the photos to friends. This goes far beyond "bad judgment." It raises serious questions about psychological makeup and self-control.For these offenses, they will endure community service and sex offender treatment, with a chance to expunge the findings at age 21. Hopefully, this relatively early detection of the two of them as offenders (and thanks only to the wherewithal and courage of Savannah Dietrich) will result in actual soul-searching and reform as adulthood races toward them.In the meantime, Savannah continues to suffer, although hopefully less acutely as time and the blessed reclaiming of her power and dignity sinks in. I am deeply thankful that she didn't answer the "friendly" voice that may have whispered, or shouted, or just plainly, demonically, spoken to her in her darkest moments. It's a voice that speaks in every language, confidently, expertly, and with greased rationality, to its latest hearer.Savannah was able to silence it. God bless and keep her.
After Newtown: Why I Won't Join a Prayer Chain
I have one nephew, a four year-old boy who is the most precious thing in my life. He is my baby sister's child, and my parents' only grandchild. He is the hope of my family going forward.Two days before the evil unleashed on Newtown, I attended a Christmas pageant at his Catholic elementary school. It was an adorable rendition of gospel readings by older children and songs from the younger ones. There was a stage in a large, airy gymnasium where the children held hands and sang. They were led to the stage by their teachers, in unsteady columns, through the rows of chairs packed with beaming parents holding cell phones and cameras.As I usually am at events like that, I was uneasy, and I hated it. Whether it's a generally over-active imagination or a career in the business I chose, all I could think of, from the moment I filed in and found my parents and sister, through the introduction of the children and the singing was "Dear God, this place is defenseless. What if some disgruntled spouse comes in here and..."But I banished those thoughts as well as I could, because while their subject reality was technically possible, it seemed silly and paranoid to dwell on it. And really, I eventually reasoned, how likely is it that I'll actually hear shots ring out? That I'll see wide-eyed little children being blown apart, shot through tiny chests, faces and flailing arms and legs? Screaming in terror and agony even while falling short of contemplating what's happening to them?Scary, I reasoned. And technically possible. But not at all likely. So I watched, and enjoyed, and it didn't happen. It usually doesn't, after all. Until it does. And literally 48 hours later, it did.The impact of the events of December 14, 2012 will be a long time fully manifesting. For the parents of the dead, the numbing horror-walk of the grief process is darkly blossoming among the unavoidable sounds and sights of the holiday season in a garish red and green ritual of torture. Newtown is most likely permanently wounded, its simple New England name forever lashed to terror and sorrow. One of its four elementary schools was transformed into a hideous necropolis. And now a long winter will set in, claiming more victims in divorce, suicide, breakdowns and despair.Indeed, the miserable creature who was Adam Lanza left this life by his own hand a monster, transformed from the status of a pathetic, feckless adolescent. His reasons, if they exist, may or may not emerge.But what is crystal clear is what made his transformation possible.Lanza's mother, a suburban woman in a deeply low-crime, secure and well protected area, was nevertheless a collector "for protection" of military grade firearms capable of dealing death on a massive and efficient scale. Those weapons found their way into the hands of her murderous offspring and the rest now haunts this holiday season for everyone within and far beyond Newtown.Cries for better attention to mental illness are appropriate and sorely needed. But so is the access that would-be monsters have to the tools of bone shattering, flesh wasting, machine-like human elimination. I have lost my patience for the pubescent logic of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and the redneck paranoia of "we must guard against government tyranny." I will no longer tolerate these arguments as anything other than the foolish and dangerous nonsense they are.Neither will I join prayer-chains on social media sites, or share elaborate graphics of 26 tea lights in the shape of a heart, or images of the young, smiling dead in the bosom of Jesus. It's not that I think these things are necessarily bad. It's that I am wary of their presumed ability to make any of this less sickening and intolerable. It's that I'm suspicious of these gestures placating the creators and disseminators into a self-satisfied, faith-fuled sense that "all was done that could be done."It's because, after a year stained red by monsters abetted by an industry and political machine that snuffs out common sense as blithely as life, I am simply tired of seeing them.
Closed "Reform School" in Florida Looks To Have Been A Gateway To Nightmares
For many reasons, it should come as no surprise. The Dozier School for Boys, opened in 1900, closed just last year and appears to house the primitively marked or unmarked graves of 50 or more boys. They were apparently interred there over the decades after dying at the school, many of them likely from neglect, maltreatment, or far worse. This story should be followed, and the government of Florida should be held to answer- in every possible way- for the abuses that occurred at this institution.The abuse of anyone in government custody is intolerable. The abuse of children in government custody is abhorrent. Its existence mocks civilization itself.
From MaleSurivor.Org: Ugly Stereotypes Regarding Men, Their Past, And Violence
Friend and colleague Chris Anderson, executive director of MaleSurvivor, wrote an important piece at the Good Men Project about stereotypes and male violence. Chris, as usual, was brave and candid regarding his own experiences and background.Many people mistakenly believe that men who have been sexually abused are more likely grow up sexually abusing others. This is an inaccurate and damaging myth that seems valid simply because the great majority (as Anna Salter discusses brilliantly) of convicted sex offenders claim childhood abuse when they are before a judge, a probation officer, or a corrections specialist evaluating them for a program. Research on the subject puts the percentages much lower, around 30%. The difference between what is claimed and then later revealed to be false (often using just the threat of a polygraph in a treatment program) is simple to explain: Offenders often fabricate abuse histories because doing so makes them seem less culpable. Claiming to have been victimized gets them easier sentences and more sympathy from decision makers in the system.In general, the idea that the sexual abuse of a child somehow serves to "turn" that child into a future abuser is baseless. What is true is that many victims who are not responded to or treated appropriately do abuse people- themselves. They self-medicate with alcohol and other intoxicants. They avoid their more deeply painful and psychological issues by turning to pathological pursuits like workaholism, high-risk lifestyles and reckless behaviors. Tragically, childhood or adolescent victims without proper intervention are at greater risk to be re-victimized later in life. But they are no more likely to abuse children than anyone else, and in fact usually grow up to be more aware and more protective of children in their care because of their experiences.What is truly frightening, as Salter and other top experts will admit, is that we really don't yet know where the urge to harm a child sexually comes from. All we really know at this time is that it usually emerges somewhere in adolescence, and seems to last (for most offenders) through the several decades of adulthood.This is not a comforting reality. Many well-intentioned people, wanting to believe in a "just" or at least ordered universe and loving God, cling to the idea that the seemingly inhuman among us are just tragically, unrecognizably wounded because their own experiences. The problem with this general hypothesis, though, (aside from its simple inaccuracy, at least where sexual abuse is concerned) is that it feeds a more pernicious myth; namely that those victimized are forever "tainted" and more likely to abuse others. Even where non-sexual abuse is concerned, it's horribly wrong to assume that a child victim of or witness to physical or domestic violence is less capable of refraining from violence because of their childhood experiences.The article that Chris Anderson comments on (from Erika Christakis in Time Magazine) argues reasonably that men are the perpetrators of the great majority of violent, homicidal acts confronted in society. One of her suggestions is to treat violence as a public health issue, so that child victims of violence can be treated, and their situations intervened upon with greater effectiveness in terms of their own future wellbeing. This is something neither myself nor Chris Anderson would disagree with.My only hesitance with what she puts forth is the possible and unfair implication that violence, and particularly sexual violence, is something unerringly attributable to past victimization and maleness. Where physical, domestic violence is concerned, it's true that a correlation between childhood victimization for boys and later perpetration has been established. But even an established correlation does not suggest that male victims of childhood violence are destined somehow to beat their partners and children in adulthood. And where sexual violence is concerned, the connection simply doesn't appear to exist.The lesson? While we work toward eliminating sexual and family violence, we cannot unfairly assume the victims we encounter are destined by their victimization to repeat it.