"Couch-Surfing" Teenager Sexually Victimized: Sadly, Not Surprising

I wish I could say I was surprised. In 2013 I wrote a piece on what I believe are the inherent dangers associated with the "couch surfing" phenomenon, and sadly why I do not believe that the organization (Couchsurfing is described as a Certified B Corporation) has sufficient procedures or even warnings in place to prevent the kind of abuse that can occur under its rubric.Next month, an Italian policeman, Dino Maglio, will go on trial for the rape of an Australian woman 16 years-old at the time of the crime when she was staying at his home on a visit to Italy. Her outcry and the resulting case has led other victims of the same man to come forward as well. It seems apparent that Maglio had an effective cover within the couch surfing world as a policeman, among other things.Unfortunately, he also had an effective platform in Couchsurfing itself, and in its (in my estimation) "kind of feel your way" approach to judging the safety of a situation from afar, and then in the moment.I'm still confident that couch surfing is a harmless and indeed quite positive experience for the great majority of those who utilize it. Regardless, one life-changing crime is too many, and it appears that Couchsurfing is still far too vulnerable to infiltration by offenders who probably find it remarkably convenient and victim-rich.In my view, Couchsurfing enthusiasts and the leaders of the organization need to take a hard look at how the safety of a particular situation can be and/or is evaluated by typical users, and how users can better ensure against inevitable abuse.I don't claim to have many answers, but I'll offer this hint: Communication, no matter how robust, with the host, and even face-to-face conversation before unrolling a sleeping bag, will not be enough. 

Far More than "He-said, She-said" in Latest NFL Rape Case

The rape charges filed earlier this month in Indianapolis against Colts special teams player Joshua McNary are, sadly, only the latest accusations of violence against women- sexual violence, in this case- against members of the National Football League.McNary appeared in court for an initial hearing last week and pleaded not guilty, his attorney emphatically denying the charges. This is, of course, appropriate and generally a good defense attorney's job when the case appears to be one that will likely 1) attract media and public speculation and 2) go to the mats in a jury trial.Like most, I know only what's been reported and would take no firm stance about McNary's guilt or how the case will likely play out. I do know, as I've stated repeatedly in this space and many others, that very few rape allegations are false at their core, and that rape is grossly underreported, not something tossed around for vengeance, vanity or money, despite the endless droning of the paranoid and/or finger-wagging set. Regardless, that's as far as I'd go with any factual speculation.At least one quoted expert though, former prosecutor and current defense attorney Jack Crawford, grossly oversimplified, by all accounts so far at least, what's likely to be seen in evidence.In short, he referred to it as a "he-said, she- said" case, a term I've come to despise at the same time I've simply gotten used to it. It implies, of course, that the criminal charges rest only on the word of the complainant, the word of whom will be challenged by the defendant, leaving the jury in a position of deciding which one to believe. Although a popular characterization of many sexual assault cases, "he-said, she-said" is literally never accurate. I was taught many things by my mentor and former boss Victor Vieth, and among the most important was that corroboration, in some form, is always possible to find and then translate into evidence if the investigators and prosecution team are diligent and creative enough.Rarely does corroborating evidence constitute a smoking gun, of course; far more often it's just a simple fact that can be independently proven, and then offered as evidence when it's shown to support the prosecution's theory of the case. In tandem with many others, though, it can help a justice-minded but aggressive prosecutor build and then prove a case that a lesser attorney would probably just avoid. Indeed, prosecutors in my experience are often more likely to falsely tag cases as "he-said, she-said" (and thus un-triable) than many on the defense side.What's particularly silly about Crawford's characterization, though, is how inapposite it appears to be in this particular case. The victim here reported within hours of being assaulted. This allowed physical evidence to be taken and an acute examination to be done, both of which will likely favor the prosecution. The quick report also allowed detectives to find McNary and preserve evidence from both the crime scene and his body before either could be disturbed; this evidence also looks promising for the prosecution. Interestingly, McNary appears to have preserved bedding himself for the responders, telling them when they arrived that he expected them. It's hard to say how that will be used by either side, but it arguably shows consciousness of guilt on McNary's part.Crawford certainly isn't all wrong. He's correct that the case will not be an easy one for the prosecution to prove. He's right that intoxication on the part of both parties will complicate matters and likely cut against the credibility of the complainant. He's probably also right that consent, ultimately, is what the jury will have to decide, since sexual intercourse between the two will be easily established if not outright admitted by the defense.But he's wrong to suggest that this case comes down to nothing but the testimony and credibility of the two people at the center of it. A creative, diligent prosecution team, backed with a good investigation, has a better shot at proving this case than Crawford suggests. I'm willing to bet that's the case, in Marion County, Indiana.       

Bob Jones University: Another Religious Institutional Failure Where Predators Are Concerned

In 1991, as a senior at UNC Charlotte, I held the position of governor of a statewide student legislature in North Carolina. At some point during my tenure, I had the opportunity to meet and briefly work with my counterpart who was the leader of a similar group in South Carolina. It was a relationship I should have been excited to forge. But I didn’t expect to like him, and for one foolish reason: He attended Bob Jones University.Bob Jones, in Greeneville, South Carolina, is among the most conservative Christian and strict, biblically-based institutions of higher learning in the country. I had no issue with its basic principles, but BJU had been known for going far beyond most other Bible-based schools. Among a few other things I found distasteful, it did not admit black students until 1971 and banned interracial dating until 2000. So I assumed my counterpart would be smug, judgmental, and perhaps even bigoted.I could not have been more wrong. He was, and remains, deeply religiously conservative. He is also among the warmest, most thoughtful, and most decent people I’ve ever met. He now lives in Maine with his wife and children, loves sailing, works as a medical professional, and continues to live a devout Christian life.My point is that Bob Jones is hardly a place that produces uniformly bad people. In fact it produces mostly decent and honorable people, regardless of whether I agree with their politics or religious thinking.But Bob Jones, like all formal institutions featuring strict religious dogma, an authoritarian structure and a generally insular environment, is especially vulnerable to exploitation by predatory people who infiltrate its community. This doesn’t mean BJU and places like it are more infested with predators than more liberal institutions. Predators are everywhere. But they tend to seek out and/or remain in favorable environments. As sad and unfair as it is, strict religious institutions are often excellent ones for predatory people, simply because predators can utilize aspects of them in mockery of what they’re designed for. Dogma, structure, and some distrust of outsiders are not in and of themselves bad things. Constricting things perhaps. The wrong choice for many, perhaps. But not destructive in essence.What is destructive, however, is when religious dogma is perverted to “blame and shame” victims. When an authoritarian structure allows those in power to abuse relatively helpless adherents. And when a mistrust of outsiders is used to discourage reporting to civil authorities or even seeking professional help. Every institution with these attributes runs the risk of both infiltration by predators and then the unwitting nurturing of them once they’re inside.It’s not what the institutions want; BJU’s leadership doubtlessly wanted its students harmed no more than the Vatican intended for there to be widespread abuse by a small but prolific percentage of its priests and nuns. Regardless, vulnerability remains because danger is always present, meaning that predatory people (who as far we know tend to appear for reasons we don’t in every imaginable situation) are always looking for places to hunt and hide. The one thing religious institutions can do to mitigate their inherent risks is to value the members of the institution more than the institution itself.This means being utterly transparent about policies to prevent abuse, and allowing an honest assessment of how much it’s happening. It means making it publicly known that it will cooperate with civil authorities and seek help from professionals outside of its sphere of influence, even if that means risking exposure to a less Godly and sometimes unfair world outside the gates.But like the Vatican (and many other religious institutions seeking to keep their reputations and authority intact), Bob Jones appears to have failed at this task, with a report released last week outlining widespread discouragement of reporting and in some cases startling victim-blaming by university officials. In many cases this treatment grossly exacerbated the harm done, and drove some victims not only away from BJU but from Christianity itself.Again, this is the last thing BJU has ever wanted. But it’s what the institution has reaped, at least in some measure, and at least in part because of its brand mattering more than its students.

Rolling Stone: From a Crucial and Embattled Movement, Behold Your Work

I have devoted a career to a growing and viscerally important, but eternally beset and threatened movement to end sexual violence. On college campuses, such violence has revealed itself to be among the worst and most widespread.I can say with head-shaking sadness and bitter disgust that I’ve never seen this movement- particularly where widespread and largely ignored (or concealed) college rape is concerned- damaged so profoundly and with such speed.This has happened because of breathtaking incompetence and blind greed, period.I don’t know exactly where the reporter, Sabrina Erdely, falls on this miserable continuum. Perhaps she was remarkably unprofessional but sincere, paving the road to hell with a genuine belief that she was doing right by a traumatized young woman she sought out for a hyper-sensationalized story. Or, perhaps she’s as guilty as Rolling Stone’s editorial staff seems to have been, green-lighting this substandard piece simply because it was obvious click-bait and a turbo-charged issue seller.What’s left for this particular story is hard to say. Clearly, there are both discrepancies in “Jackie’s” account and now additional emerging circumstances that must create doubt in any reasonable mind as to the full truth of what was apparently related to Erdely. But does that justify a leap to the assumption that Jackie just made it all up? Hardly.The idea that she completely fabricated a gang-rape, and then punctuated this vicious, elaborate hoax with a two-year long journey toward healing (including thoroughly corroborated Immense distress, withdrawal, depression, and then involvement in UVA’s anti-sexual assault movement) is frankly absurd absent some profoundly delusional condition. It’s even more absurd when one remembers that Jackie never attempted to “go public.” Instead, Erdely and her editors took her there after seeking out the most shocking example of campus sexual violence available.And now they’ve left her exposed and alone, regardless of their “apology” (revised after a backlash) that initially blamed her completely.What’s left for the movement against rape, though, is as clear as it is damning: Legions of so-called “men’s rights advocates” and others who enjoy perpetrating myths and misogyny, are declaring victory. Jackie, they’re insisting, is emblematic of women everywhere. To the paranoid male, she’s a shining example of how college hook-up culture combined with alcohol has elicited reckless false reports from foolish, immoral women who then become desperate to claw back their virtue by “crying rape," thus filling the prisons of the world with decent, if naturally red-blooded men.Countless finger-wagging moralists and scolds with ready-made prescriptions to end a plague they really know nothing about are joining them, insisting that, at very least, Jackie is another “mistaken” victim, not of rape, but of the same reckless culture combined with new, politically liberal incentives to mistakenly cry rape when the real issue is “crossed signals” with a truly non-offending male.For these two groups and so many more, Jackie is the rightfully exposed antagonist of their morality play, either because she’s a soulless liar or just another lost soul in need of everything from religion to hard-nosed advice on "how not to get raped.”This is the deplorable handiwork of a publication literally as old as I am, and one that's been culturally relevant and important far beyond its original focus on music (see Matt Taibbi, as an example), but that has miserably failed not just its readers but a theretofore unknown and healing, apparently contributing young woman as well.Make no mistake; this was done for money and nothing more. I recall my father, when I was a kid, scoffing at the idea of a “liberal media” or a conservative one, for that matter. “What the media cares about,” he would say in an expression that’s now quaint, “is selling papers.”Indeed. The almighty dollar is what matters. It’s what mattered to Rolling Stone when it came to pushing prematurely a damaged and traumatized young woman into the meat grinder of the 24 hour news-cycle and the twitterverse.  Journalistic ethics didn’t matter much. A still struggling movement they’ve set back a good 10 years didn’t matter much.Jackie certainly didn’t matter much. 

The Inevitable Doubting of "Jackie" and Rolling Stone's Sabrina Erdely

Our capacity for doubt when it comes to the accounts of victims of sexual violence- and apparently that of the world of journalism- never ceases to amaze me. Two weeks ago, a heartbreaking and deeply disturbing story emerged in Rolling Stone by reporter Sabrina Erdely. It was electrifying and remarkably popular. As of now, both the victim’s account and Erdely’s journalistic practice and ethics are being questioned.I suppose I should not be surprised.The primary objections to Erdely's journalistic integrity rest on three primary foundations: 1) It’s only based on “the word of the alleged victim.” 2) Erdely made no attempt to contact the alleged perpetrators. 3) It’s just too horrible to be true.First, as for Erdely basing her story solely on the apparently compelling, consistent and credible account of the victim, I’d remind the objectors of a legal maxim, often translated into a jury instruction in criminal cases and applicable in every U.S. jurisdiction I’m aware of: Testimony is evidence in a court of law, and if it is sufficiently compelling to the finders of fact (the jurors), then it may stand alone as the basis for a conviction. So jurors across the United States can base convictions beyond a reasonable doubt on the testimony of a single witness, but a reporter is reckless for accepting the account as the basis of a story?Second, in terms of Erdely making no attempt to contact perpetrators, this is justified because they were not named. A fraternity was identified, but no individual perpetrators. According to Erdely, she contacted the fraternity and didn’t get very far, but what was she to do anyway? Erdely tells us that the victim, Jackie, for reasons explained, didn't want the perpetrators she knew of to be confronted. She wanted to tell her story, not generate a mob. This is hardly indefensible; most victims of sexual violence do not report or tell anyone, let alone seek to create a public confrontation. Phi Kappa Psi is suffering scrutiny for sure. But not a single man is, whether affiliated or not. Thus, charges of “you didn’t get the other side of the story” make no sense, unless one or a group of men from the organization was willing to come forth and somehow prove a negative by either 1) accounting for the whereabouts of every member of the fraternity in the fall of 2012 or 2) describing the same encounter as consensual.Third, in terms of the story being too ghastly, shocking, or indicative of coordinated evil on an otherwise august and civil campus to be true? I can only hope the doubters have never experienced something similar, within or without an environment like Rugby Road. An elucidating piece by Liz Seccuro, herself gang-raped at the same fraternity house 30 years ago, might allow some ugly but necessary light to penetrate the dark ignorance of some suspicious objectors. The LA Times’ Jonah Goldberg, for instance, can’t imagine how a bruised and bloodied woman could leave a darkened, loud college party without being noticed. I’d suggest he has either a limited imagination or limited experience with college parties. Politico’s Rich Lowry speculates that “the shock of [the story] led many people to recoil in horror upon the article’s release and ask, “How could this have happened at such a respectable school?” Actually, Mr. Lowry, there are legions of women (and some men) who know exactly how it could happen.Both wonder how Jackie’s friends could have been so equivocal about reporting, and how the university could be so tepid about taking the matter to the police. Again, I can only say they have severely limited experience with the reality of sexual violence as it usually plays out in college life, and even less insight into how such violence is normally responded to. A fair debate continues about the role colleges should play in adjudicating sexual assault. But what must be understood is that the desires of victims, particularly given the gross limitations of the criminal justice system, drive the seemingly laissez-faire reactions of college administrators when rape comes to their attention. The idea is to empower, not dictate.Doubting Jackie's account is anyone's prerogative. Doubts about Erdley's reporting of it should stand on firmer ground.   

Yes, Bill Cosby is Probably Guilty, and No, There Are No Heroes

I don’t like it either.There’s nothing to like. There was nothing to like in realizing that Woody Allen, a filmmaker I credit for much of my worldview let alone my sense of humor, is guilty- in my opinion- of molesting his daughter. There was nothing to like in realizing that Michael Jackson, who even as a rock-n-roll obsessed teenager I believed was pure magic to watch, was guilty- in my opinion- of molesting children at his ranch near Santa Barbara.Perhaps Bill Cosby is the most unpleasant realization yet. Cosby, after all, is more than a brilliant entertainer. He has been a symbol of hope and progress for a generation and some of its most marginalized and disenfranchised members. I was never a devotee of the Cosby Show, but I enjoyed what I saw, and even as a kid I loved the fact that star and cast developed a lasting and convincing image of a loving, educated and successful American black family.Later, as a paternal figure and blunt critic of what he considered were negative aspects of black culture, Cosby was still heavily admired. Why? Because at bottom, he was looking out for black boys and young men, wanting what was best for them as an increasingly endangered species in a cultural and socioeconomic meat grinder.But Cosby is almost certainly guilty of a pattern of sexual violence involving the use of his influence, his victims’ relative powerlessness and lack of life experience, the brutal competitiveness of his industry, and drugs and alcohol. By my count now, no less than 15 women have accused Cosby of similar acts under similar circumstances. There is consistency. There is a pattern. Few if any of the women who have come forward- particularly recently- stand to gain anything from their allegations. They are taking on no less than an American icon; a man of grace, class, considerable power and influence. He’s a national treasure; they know well they are contributing to a national heartbreak. They know they’ll be viciously targeted in terms of their motives, their credibility, and indeed their very sanity.There’s a very, very large chunk of an already sad and disillusioned country that doesn’t want to believe Cosby is guilty of anything. Like many people who consider sexual violence in the very system that’s supposed to address it- the one I’ve spent a career in- they’ll find a reason to believe it’s just all a big lie. That Cosby never, over three decades against more than two dozen different, unrelated women in several states, committed any crimes.Maybe it was a misunderstanding that just happened over and over again, altering lives along the way. Maybe it’s true that women are just really vicious as a gender and don’t have a problem falsely accusing men of among the most heinous crimes imaginable. Maybe it’s really satisfying, fun and quickly profitable to turn yourself into an instant media curiosity as a victim accusing a beloved figure of rape.Yes, and maybe the tooth fairy will leave my IRS bill under my pillow if my latest root canal fails and I need an implant.In fact, gravity brings rain to the ground and water is wet. In fact, if the man at the center of these allegations was an ordinary plumber, or systems analyst, or cab driver or cardiologist, the belief in his guilt would be widespread and probably correct. Legally, Cosby has been convicted of nothing and found civilly liable for nothing, and it’s correct that he remain legally unburdened. But Cosby has cultivated an image both as a public figure and at times a moral scold. He’s earned this scrutiny if nothing else. It's awful. But so is the truth, much of the time.The reality of heroic acts is the saving grace of our existence; well-lived lives often contain blessed aspects of it. There was, as just one example, great worth to the Cosby Show far beyond the laughs and the tender moments, and it should live on regardless of Cosby’s reputation.But heroism itself is dangerous and inconsistent with the human condition. We're too complex for halos; they're best left to the saints. And the songs. And the myths.

American Horror Story: Though the Heavens May Fall, Let Justice Be Done

Tom Hogan is the District Attorney of Chester County, Pennsylvania. He is seeking the death penalty under Pennsylvania law for the murder of three year-old Scott McMillan, who appears to have succumbed to multiple, repeated, and ultimately murderous acts of physical abuse from the defendants in the case, Jillian Tait, the child's mother, and Gary Fellenbaum, her boyfriend.These acts included beating the toddler with a homemade whip, smashing his head through a wall, and hanging him by his feet while beating him."Though the heavens may fall, justice will be done to these defendants" was Hogan's final statement at press conference yesterday.Capital punishment will likely end in this country as society continues to evolve, as the unalterable risks the death penalty imposes are further exposed, and as notions of 'good' and 'evil' continue to be shot through with the complex realities of mental illness and extenuating circumstances. That isn't necessarily a terrible prospect.Regardless, while a penalty of death is still an option, and assuming that Tait and Fellenbaum are 1) factually guilty of the pre-mediated, torturous murder of this child and 2) legally sane, I wish my brother prosecutor Tom Hogan one thing as this miserable case plays out in a court of law:Success, all the way to the needle.   

"Pet Vet" Barbie: Your Daughter is Better Than This

A few years ago I made a point to call out Mattel's Barbie "I Can Be" series (the Barbie doll series that supposedly encourages girls to envision what they can accomplish professionally) for this depiction of a veterinarian:Almost four years later it really hasn't gotten much better. Then very recently I discovered through friends a reality show called The Incredible Dr. Pol which airs on the Nat Geo channel. Pol and his colleagues, one of whom is a young female veterinarian, are featured treating domestic and farm animals in Central Michigan.Not being a veterinarian or anyone with experience in animal husbandry or farming, I can't comment on the genuineness of what's portrayed or how truly "incredible" Dr. Pol or his staff are. But I can say that the depiction of the women on Pol's show, one a staff vet who is depicted training other young women who appear to be veterinary students or interns, is far more realistic and less offensive than anything Barbie suggests about how a veterinarian will dress and what her work environment will be like. The female vet on Dr. Pol's show was identified as "Dr. Brenda." Like most veterinarians, she appears to eschew four-inch heels and a dangerously high hemline. Instead she is seen literally wrestling distressed farm animals and stitching up injured ones in often sweat-soaked medical scrubs.If you have a daughter who might be drawn to veterinary medicine, I'd ask you to consider introducing her to these kinds of depictions of the life of a highly educated, skilled, compassionate and tough woman who is also a doctor of veterinary medicine.I'm not a parent myself, but this seems to me to be a better idea than encouraging your girl child to strive to be someone's fetishized and insultingly sexist depiction of a professional. She's better than that. Period.

An Inconvenient Truth About Pedophilia: It's a Curse, Not a Choice

A friend sent me this link to a New York Times op-ed on pedophilia, the technical term for the DSM-V, paraphilic mental health diagnosis that describes a person (usually a male), sexually interested only in pre-pubescent children.Apparently, the DSM itself (the "bible" of mental health professionals) will not describe pedophilia as a sexual orientation, but rather a paraphilic disorder. This is basically a sexual predilection detrimental to the object of the interest, and which causes the sufferer significant distress or difficulty dealing with it. Since pedophiles are solely, sexually focused on prepubescent children, any manifestation of the disorder will be- in essence- harmful and unacceptable. Rightfully, we punish such manifestations, including consumption of child pornography as well as "hands-on" offending.Regardless, I know of no reputable mental health expert who would call pedophilia a "choice." When it comes to the persistent, chronic sexual attraction to prepubescent children, what we're dealing with is more of a burden.Or more bluntly, a curse.What's chosen is behavior.  Sexual behavior involving prepubescent children should remain 1) anathema to what is societally acceptable, and 2) severely punished. I've spent a career seeking to do these things.But the author of the op-ed makes valid points when she discusses the need to understand pedophilia instead of just aiming vitriol and anger toward those saddled with this miserable circumstance. There are, as she notes, people with pedophilia who do not act out in response to deep-seated urges. They understand the concrete wrongness of sexually acting out against children, so they painfully but dutifully deny themselves a sexual life.In my opinion, with a career of seeking to protect children from child molesters behind me, I believe these successfully restrained people should be commended for this, particularly when their concern is more for the children they might harm as it is for the legal or societal consequences they might face. Certainly, they should not be further marginalized, ostracized, or hated. But regardless of how balanced any appeal to common sense or baseline compassion might be, hatred and viciousness are usually what pedophiles encounter.And so they remain in the shadows, untreated and more deeply misunderstood.We still have almost no idea what causes pedophilia; correlations between childhood experiences (abusive or non-abusive) have been at best inconclusive. If it's genetic, we've yet to discover a traceable etiology. We know that the vast majority of victims of childhood sexual abuse do not turn around themselves and abuse later in life or "become" pedophiles. Rather, it seems more ingrained, but we don't know why or how.  We also know that, while most confirmed abusers will claim past sexual abuse, even the threat of a polygraph exam during treatment will bring those claims far down.So we're dealing with a very dangerous mystery. But largely as a society, we're interested in nothing but punishing pedophiles, regardless of their actual status as offenders. If they have this desire, too many of us seem to believe that they're worthy of the worst we can legally (or otherwise) dish out to them.The comments to Dr. Margo Kaplan's piece in the NYT are enlightening in this regard. While some applaud her for her courage in being a voice of reason, many more seem to fall into a couple of categories that, while understandable to some degree, are irrelevant. First, there are commenters who simply make legally and psychologically incorrect assertions, and lump pedophiles into the far larger subset of child molesters, most of whom are not pedophiles. Second, there are woefully unfocused comments that address the harm done to the victims of pedophiles (or people they assume are pedophiles) with no further thought.Focusing on victims and prevention of harm is more than understandable; it's completely appropriate and it needs to continue to be our highest priority. But we must also understand what drives offending- particularly when the drive is so despised that passion chokes that understanding.Again- most predatory, sexual offenders are not pedophiles. The word is grossly overused and misused. Regardless, there are harmful pedophiles in our midst. We need to stop them, but in order to do so, we need to understand them.Blind hatred won't help. Blind hatred never helps anything.   

Blackness and Corporal Punishment: Understandable Concerns Against Necessary Intervention

About a week ago I published a piece on what I believe is the essential wrongfulness of corporal punishment. Since then I've had several discussions with well-meaning and thoughtful people of color who to tend to agree with me in principle, but who also think I'm failing to appreciate some very important nuances involved. Bluntly, it's been about how we judge- and are judging particularly in the wake of the Adrian Peterson case- black folk for the kind of parenting that has been deemed sad but also necessary for generations.I've heard that I cannot possibly relate to the experience of a black person in this country, whether now or 300 years ago. This is true. I've heard that beating children was often done out of love and desperation until shockingly recently, because deeply loving parents of black boys in particular would rather instill fear in them than bury them, because that fear- of a white woman, a white sheriff, and a host of other things- was not present. I've heard that there is a still a basis for some of those fears even today. These things are also true.Underneath it all, I've perceived this tone from several people of color, assuming I can put it fairly into my own words: It should not be the added prerogative of a (still) white-controlled society and criminal justice system to decide that black folk are even more criminally liable than they were before, this time for parenting as they have seen necessary for generations- particularly when it was that oppressive white society that created the need for such discipline in the first place.In plain speech, how the hell is it just or correct that the centuries-old terrorism of white people over black people now gets to be used against them when they beat their children out of the love and fear that said terrorism created?I really can't argue with that. But I have to.First, although the criminal justice system I used to actively participate in was then and is still deeply flawed, it's the only one we have. Every decision maker in the system- cops, prosecutors, judges, probation officers, etc, need to be aware of the institutional racism and bias we can't even fully recognize in ourselves. Although this certainly doesn't apply to people of color in the system itself (black jurists and investigators, etc) as much as it does to people like me, it can apply to some extent. Bias is universal. We all need to be kept in check one way or another.I don't believe that all forms of corporal punishment should be outlawed in any event. I just think it's wrong and unnecessary in any form. But the laws in place in every state I know of (the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse has some excellent compilations of state statutes) are fairly reasonable where the line between discipline and abuse is concerned. When crossed, it should be addressed by the civil child protection system and the criminal law.Secondly, to confront child abuse is to understand that culture and tradition, however justified or necessary, can be used as a cruel cover. Simply put, there are people of every imaginable ethnic background who beat children not out of fear, but because they are lazy parents, or worse, because they are acting cruelly as a result of a variety of reasons, from misplaced rage to pure amusement, and using cultural support as a convenient excuse.To the extent that anyone is unfairly using the once necessary and unfortunate but largely love-based traditions of black families against them (legally or otherwise), I agree there is a problem. The devil is in the details, but those circumstances can and should be considered when we respond to what we call child abuse. We've found enough reasons to jail black men in particular. I can appreciate why it seems so deeply offensive for people who look like me to suggest yet another reason for doing so.But first and foremost, the infliction of physical pain on every child should be stopped and condemned if not made categorically illegal. History and truth matter. But children matter more.

Adrian Peterson, Culture, and Why Wrong is Still Wrong

Corporal punishment is wrong. Brutal corporal punishment of the kind Adrian Peterson is suspected of wielding against a 4 year-old child is both wrong and thankfully illegal.But what about cultural norms- like the one espoused by Charles Barkley recently- that claim acceptance for ‘whipping,’ and imply that an unfair standard could be wielded against a traditionally oppressed minority? The answer is that those concerns are understandable. But ultimately they are excuses. And cultural excuses do not legally or morally excuse child abuse.I was spanked (and occasionally, although rarely, worse). It was the wrong thing to do. I hold no resentment against my parents for it; they were doing the best they could with the resources and insight they had at the time. They have been honorable, loving and supportive otherwise, and gave us the tools we needed to navigate life in a largely healthy and successful manner. But the fact remains: Hitting us was unnecessary, and ultimately did more harm than good.I have friends who remain conflicted about the value of spanking (either in terms of how it influenced them or how it might be appropriate for their children). One concern I hear is that the choice to spank could lead them to be considered ‘criminals.’ Or, if they were spanked, that their parents- most of whom were loving and decent otherwise- could be considered ‘criminal’ in retrospect.But the issue is not a legal one when it comes to spanking within limits. This remains lawful in all states and will likely continue as such. The ‘limits’ are usually that visible marks may not be left. Generally, you can cause pain or discomfort with a hand or an object such as a paddle, but you cannot significantly bruise or scar your child.Many of us had parents who did bruise or scar us, though. Often, they were decent, loving parents in every other important respect. But if they exceeded the limits of what is criminal today, they were dreadfully wrong, period. Of course they’re not in danger of criminal liability in most cases, and in most cases they shouldn’t be. But we can still acknowledge their failings, albeit in the context of a very different life. For those of us who were spanked within legal limits, in a planned, non-angry context (the ‘gold standard’ for corporal punishment), we can be confident and thankful that we were, in all likelihood, not deeply or permanently harmed by the experience.Regardless, that experience is not necessary. And the risks outweigh the benefits.The bottom line seems to be that there is conflicting evidence on whether spanking is hurtful and leads to more aggression, anger, dysfunction, etc. But I know of no evidence suggesting that hitting children has measurably positive outcomes, particularly in light of the physical and psychological risks (my mentor Victor Vieth wrote a great law review article on the subject).What lingers in distinct cultural and groups and minorities, of course, is this uncomfortable notion: A form of discipline that many among them have practiced for ages will now be criminalized by the majority population. Particularly since that majority lacks a pattern of respect and fair-dealing with the minority, this is understandable. To some in minority communities (many of which are disadvantaged and disenfranchised), the threat of a powerful and moneyed majority seeking to criminalize them further for what’s always been done strikes them as unseemly, to say the least. There are also members of strict religious communities who cite scripture in support of hitting children. They, too, will understandably be concerned about a secular majority imposing its views on them despite what they believe is God-ordained.I don’t blame either group one bit.But still, hitting children is wrong. Objectively and essentially so. In extreme forms, like the one doled out to a toddler by Peterson, it’s rightfully condemned and legally prohibited. In mild forms, it will likely not be criminalized in the U.S. for a long time, if ever. But either way, it should be condemned and phased out permanently, regardless of cultural identity or religious imperative. The reason is simple: There is one thing which must trump cultural or religious sentiment- the welfare of individual children.  

The Rice Videotape: When An Unblinking Eye is Ugly But Necessary

Unmanned, stationary video is a cold observer. It will not blink in disbelief. It will not turn away in horror. It will not cloud over with tears of pure, human empathy. But sometimes it’s the only accurate source for the truth about what individuals are capable of. Not monsters. Not demons. Just people.In 2011, a Texas family court judge was forced to acknowledge the sadistic and brutal beating of his 16 year-old daughter who suffers from cerebral palsy because of a hidden webcam she set up in desperation. In 2013, a 14 year-old French girl compelled an admission of sexual abuse by her father through the same technology. These two children would likely never have been believed were it not for the passive, electronic observer that forced action, justice and- importantly- an acceptance of responsibility from the attackers.Enter Ray and Janay Rice.Ms. Rice considers her husband’s breathtakingly vicious attack of her, and then his dragging her body, skirt hiked up on a cold, hotel floor moments after, to be a part of their private lives. She seems yet to acknowledge a single act of wrongdoing on his part, instead characterizing what he did as “a moment in our lives.” She appears to be willing to support and stand by him regardless of what he did to her, what he might have done before, and what he might do again- even while she is pregnant with his child.What are the chances, then, that Janay would ever have been forthcoming about what was done to her in that now infamous elevator- assuming she could even remember it accurately? Forget about the courtroom. What about the kind of honest detail that might have led to forcing Ray Rice to take real responsibility for a possibly permanent brain injury? What about the kind of detail that might have compelled him to examine his character and his choices, especially now that he will be a father?Given her public statements, it is not likely that Janay would have spoken at all to anyone who might have made a difference, whether an NFL official, a judge, a counselor or anyone else. She’s in love. She’s made her choice.But where criminal acts are concerned, not all of the choices are hers to make. There are at least two entities that have an interest when a crime of violence occurs and criminal charges are brought: The victim herself (or himself) and the community as a whole. The community in this case- at least Atlantic County, New Jersey, the prosecutorial jurisdiction where this crime took place- has a right to the truth, as much as it can be ascertained, in order to decide what Ray Rice did to violate their laws and what he deserves because of it (no comment, for now, on how the case was legally resolved).Without the video, it is highly unlikely that Rice’s brutality would ever be fully known- both in terms of the lightning blow he was willing to unleash into a woman's face and the callous way in which he then dragged her around. Even assuming an out of character, mental snap due to rage, Rice could have knelt beside her and comforted her. He could have called for help and admitted a terrible, momentary wrong. Instead he dragged her like an inconvenient bag of garbage. We know that now, because we’ve seen it.What Janay Rice is 100% correct about is that the repeated, for-entertainment viewing of the video tape of her abuse is exploitive and abusive itself; her pain should not be minimized nor her feelings invalidated. She is unfortunate with regard to being married to a public figure and now being at the center of a tragically public case. But given her unwavering support of a man who attacked her, given the child who will soon become a part of their dynamic, and given a desperate need for society as a whole to wake up to the undiluted reality of intimate partner violence, there is value in the videotape’s existence if not gross proliferation.It's awful. But it's the truth. And the truth matters, even when love would conceal it.

Contempt of Cop, And That Might Be It

I've worked closely with police officers my entire professional life, and I find most to be decent, honorable men and women who do a difficult job with a surprising amount of professionalism. I'm far from anti-cop. But sometimes it appears obvious that breaking the law isn't what will get you arrested. Simply disobeying a police officer, even with the right to do so, might do it.That's anathema to the rule of law.A disturbing video posted by the African-American political and cultural opinion magazine "The Root" shows a black man arguing with police officers, one male and one female and both white, in St. Paul, Minnesota in January and eventually being tasered and then arrested. It's news again in light of recent events, and race is an assumed factor. At one point in his filming of the incident, the man interrupts the female officer and says "the problem is I'm black." The two are then joined by a male officer who immediately demands that he put his hands behind his back. A struggle ensues, he's tasered and then arrested.I honestly don't know if race was a factor for the officers involved. I'd like to think it wasn't, but I completely understand those who most certainly do. Regardless, what bothered me most about the exchange I saw was simply the illegality of what seems to be happening. Apparently charges against the man for trespass, disorderly conduct and disrupting the legal process were dropped.Understanding that cell phone video is hardly an infallible source of context in a tense situation, watching this one will not yield a single explanation by the officers as to why the man is being arrested that cites Minnesota law or local ordinance. I watched it repeatedly; I don't hear it. Reports suggest a store clerk called with some concern about his presence as a possible loiterer although he was in a public place. The responding officer demands he identify himself. He refuses, as is apparently his right under Minnesota law. She appears to follow him as he walks away, at one point explaining her demand saying "this is what police officers do when they're called."That may be, but that doesn't make the demand legal. And if it's not legal, and no other crime is occurring, she needs to shrug and walk away. Period. But police officers increasingly seem not to want to do that.In February, a California Highway Patrolman arrested a firefighter who refused to move a fire truck at the patrolman's insistence while working a car wreck. The firefighter was ordered released and later filed a complaint. Details are in dispute, but it seems as if he was handcuffed and placed in a cruiser simply because he disobeyed the command of the CHP, regardless of the letter of the law.Like any institution that provides for trappings of authority, deadly weapons and combat training, police agencies sometimes attract bullies and others with big egos and little patience. I believe this is not the norm in American policing but generally an exception. I've not only worked closely with cops all of my life, I've befriended many. I've heard countless head-shaking stories (that never reach the media) of cops who have not used deadly force despite the actions of belligerent and aggressive people who threaten their lives and refuse to obey reasonable commands.Still, there is justifiable criticism being leveled against the militarization of American police forces and the rise of the "warrior cop." Engaging the community from behind barricades with automatic weapons is largely counterproductive and stupid. But what's worse is ignoring the law and putting people in chains and cages- regardless for how long or to what eventual end- simply because they've made a cop angry. It doesn't work that way. It can't work that way.As a young prosecutor I practiced before an old and quirky but wonderful judge named Dan O'Flaherty. He showed me once how he kept a copy of Virginia's contempt of court statute (the one that allows judges to jail people on the spot for in-court behavior) actually taped to the bench where he sat. His reason? When he was insulted or otherwise disrespected by someone before him, he took time to read the statute and think very carefully before even threatening the person with contempt. Because sometimes what they were doing was infuriating, but not illegal.Anyone with the honor of wielding a badge and a gun needs to understand that as well.

Chris Anderson of MaleSurvivor: The Invisible Public Health Crisis

A public health crisis so pervasive it's demoralizing to even consider. But that's why it's more important than ever to understand how important it is to know and own that all of us- every one of us- is a potential responder to child sexual abuse. No matter our age, no matter our profession, and no matter what company we keep or who we love.http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/public-health-issue-usa-affects-130000000-people-hesaid/comment-page-1/#comment-1667080 

If You'll Turn A Child Back Into the Night, You Can't Call Yourself A Christian

The photograph below, with credit to the Dallas Morning News in an opinion piece, depicts an 8 year-old child looking with some combination of angst and wonder at a United States Border patrolman as he is processed near McAllen, Texas. I lack a ready solution to what is a legitimate growing concern regarding the appropriate legal status of (and thus the fate of) undocumented children who enter the United States unaccompanied and often at the behest of parents and other family members who have already made the journey to the United States, either legally or illegally.I also lack, increasingly, a sincere religious identity other than Deism, although I still cling to Catholicism in some element of practice. But if agreements can be reached on basic definitions, I'll offer this quick and blunt syllogism:1. "Christians" are not just followers but indeed worshippers of the figure generally accepted to have been the itinerant rabbi Jesus, originally from the Roman province of Judea.2. "Worship" can be commonly understood to mean to aspire to be like, to imitate and struggle to emulate; at bottom to do what the worshipped object would do as much as humanly possible.3. Thousands of children every year are attempting the remarkably cruel, emotionally crippling and physically dangerous journey into the United States from Mexico and points south. They suffer all manner of thirst, hunger, exhaustion, fear, darkness, uncertainty, and still untold amounts of sexual exploitation and abuse. In most cases they have family already in the U.S. who have arranged for their transport in order for reunification. In some cases the border crossing is only one point on a trail of misery and hardship. Many children must travel thousands of miles beyond the border to rejoin loved ones, and that journey within the U.S. can be no less vicious and exploitive.4. Christianity within differing sects is by far the most popular American religion, with millions claiming America to be a "Christian nation."5. Many Americans, in some cases regardless of political affiliation and with some legitimate practical concerns, would see these children turned away from sanctuary in the world's richest nation. While perhaps not personally lacking compassion, some would nevertheless deny these children even processing in temporary detention centers.6. These people cannot call themselves Christians with any shred of sincerity or intellectual honesty.And what gives me the right to make this claim? Nothing, really. But I've yet to see a single interpretation with an iota of coherency that would allow the plain teachings of Jesus- as we know them in modern translations from the Gospels- to allow for the shunning of these children in need (or those accompanying them, for that matter, but especially them).I'm aware that tragic interpretations of Christianity have for centuries encouraged and embraced horrors from slavery to genocide. But I've never seen anything Jesus himself purportedly uttered that could ever be used to justify anything but welcoming these children -pawns in a miserable game of limited and lopsidedly distributed resources- with open arms. No matter if it's inconvenient, impractical, unwise, unfair even, or anything else.It's often irritating, and indeed sometimes far worse that that. Like millions before me, I've struggled with the clear demands of this same revolutionary, inscrutable, polarizing figure my entire sentient life. Although not Jesus himself, a Biblical author named James is credited with writing that religion undefiled before God is this: To attend to widows and orphans in their distress, and to remain unstained from the world.I've failed miserably at the second part of this command. My only hope, for whatever shadow of a Christian I may still be or eventually die as, is not to fail at the first.Regardless of the practical considerations.Regardless of the geopolitical implications.Regardless of the foolishness, recklessness, or even downright deception of any adult involved.If you will turn a child back into the night, you cannot call yourself a Christian.  

George F. Will: Championing Male Paranoia, Ignorance, and the Status Quo

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”Attributed to the anthropologist Margaret Mead, this sentiment is both insightful and beautiful, but deceivingly tragic as well. If, after all, Mead was right that only small, committed groups of people have really changed the world, then it’s exactly because human beings as they’ve assembled in larger groups never would or could.It's sad but true. Tribes, nation-states, empires and entire civilizations have made, by and large, miserable decisions over the millennia in just about every area of human interaction. In our largest collections, we've consistently chosen slavery, patriarchy, militarism, vengeance, racial and sectarian violence, bigotry and greed.Regardless, hope and progress persist and have moved the world forward; I believe Mead is right that this progress in humanity has been driven in large part not by the masses but by the outliers, the suffering, the unusually reflective, empathic and brave.When it comes to the shameful and shame-based, age-old shroud of silence that has been draped over survivors of sexual violence, nothing is different. Progress is being made, much of it born of the efforts of women (and some men) who refused at last to suffer silently and who finally punched through to the social consciousness with the feminist and victim’s movements of recent decades.And now a small but surprisingly growing number are coming forward to expose what’s always been true and almost never acknowledged: Colleges and universities, like most institutional environments, have been havens for sexually violent individuals for far too long, and for reasons that institutional leadership could address far better than it ever has.But for writers like George F. Will, this shedding of light and move toward accountability must be dismissed as hysteria and the establishment of yet another “victim class” with a hidden agenda. He’s armed with nothing more than one, remarkably atypical and grossly misleading anecdote of an apparently mischaracterized sexual assault. Yet he spends half of a column on its facts before dismissing pretty much all college-aged victims as confused and coddled miscreants, unable to characterize their own experiences due to “hook up culture,” or "hormones, alcohol, and faux sophistication.”As Will himself would write in judgment of such a moronic conclusion:Well.Like so many before him, Will combines ignorance and useless moralizing; unlearned in sexual violence dynamics, he fails to grasp that most clear cases of victimization- let alone awkward or even borderline violent sexual events- almost never lead to complaints of victimization to anyone. Of course, awkward and negative sexual hook-ups happen. Of course regret sometimes sinks in. Of course women (and some men) feel cheated, used and angry after sexual encounters in many circumstances and because of many factors. The idea that they'll now "cry rape" because of a handful of Department of Education initiatives, thus filling the country's prisons with innocent men, is paranoid nonsense.Regardless, as with so many men of his generation and inclination, Will's real concern is with the fate of the hapless, charming lothario who he is certain has no ill intent but now faces the wrath of the badly behaved, deviously empowered woman with an axe to grind and a sympathetic, left-leaning government to help her grind it.It’s garbage. But it’s not surprising. Will’s hysteria is a common and oft-repeated pattern of those who would preserve the status quo and the appearance of white, male dominated normalcy at any cost; just as women who demanded equal rights were once marginalized and dismissed as a small, vocal group of disgruntled malcontents; just as those who fought for an end to racial segregation were once branded as the minority in an otherwise content sub-culture of second class citizens. It's that ever-present, all too common drone that has damned the world to so much misery and injustice for so long without change. On this issue, Will champions it shamefully.My hope is that efforts like Will’s- ones which regrettably resemble the sad echo of mass group-think through the ages- will continue to falter, however improbably, because of a small group of thoughtful individuals who have simply had enough. 

For the Love of God: "The Home" In Western Ireland

I am a Catholic. I have close Catholic friends who very much believe that abortion is "the ultimate child abuse." If that's to be accepted, then those same adherents must acknowledge that the cultural ostracizing of unwed mothers in heavily Catholic countries has, over time, led to similarly abusive consequences.Regardless of how pregnancies occurred, whether through (what is called) sin, rape, or something else, the fact was (and still is in some) heavily Catholic environments that pregnancy out of wedlock was a cultural crime met with very little mercy. The result was women forced to leave their families, their support structures, and sometimes their children. A second parting, then, was often caused by death, either of the mothers or the children. This was due in large part to sub-standard care brought on by everything from a simple lack of resources to a general and punitive sense that everyone in the situation was getting what they deserved.The discovery of the bodies of 800 children near a former home for unwed mothers in western Ireland is a reminder of what can happen when allegedly Christian religious dogma trumps the spirit behind it.Catholicism and Christianity in general are hardly the only organized religions that have taken such an unforgiving stand to the inevitability of pregnancies out of wedlock. But a religion so uncompromising in its criticism of ending unborn life must also confront its historical unwillingness to tolerate situations where life has arisen in unsanctioned settings.The victims of this, ultimately and inevitably, are the youngest and weakest. This is a mockery of everything Christ stood for. It has to be, or He stood for nothing.And I don't believe that. 

To A.J. Delgado: You Might Be Dumb Like a Fox. Or Just Dumb. But Wow, Are You Wrong.

A..J.,  I get it.You're attractive by Western standards (white, thin, pleasing bone structure, etc). You speak well on camera. But of course, so do plenty of us.So maybe you've been clever enough to realize that your best bet as an aspiring media star is as an iconoclast. That's great- we need them. The problem, though- assuming you see it as one- is that iconoclasts aren't always the voices of reason, or the till-now ignored prophets from the wilderness, screaming the truth in hopes of overcoming a cacophony of nonsense.Sometimes, with their slick, favorable, TV features, they're just cynical charlatans. Or perhaps worse, they're sincere but mis-informed, useful idiots.You're one or the other, AJ; either deeply cynical or grossly, happily misinformed. It really is that simple. I read your National Review piece on what you seem to believe is an imaginary "rape epidemic" on American college campuses. Typically, and within 60 words of your opening, you echo this oft-quoted and infantile meme: "...the term “rape” or “sexual assault” is thrown around almost effortlessly, accusations easily made [emphasis added] and lives easily ruined."Utter. Nonsense.Your characterization of the terms "effortlessly" and "easily," as applied to the disclosure of sexual violence, might be sardonically funny were it not so dangerously stupid. I'm a former prosecutor who spent a career working with the rare woman (or man) who took the almost unimaginable step of actually reporting a sexual assault or a pattern of abuse.  I'd be happy to give you a long, sad list- with their permission- of the tiny minority of people who did report to some authority that they were sexually violated, and who were ripped apart like meat left for wolves as a result. Nevertheless, people like you are always ready to claim- on baseless grounds- that women will regularly "cry rape" to avoid whatever consequences sexual congress might bring.  Since you're admittedly "not a scientist," I can point you to the research of some actual scientists who can demonstrate with a strong foundation that very few complaints of sexual violence are false, and that the usual person the victim of sexual violence points the finger at is herself or himself.Still, to flesh out this silly piece, you spewed examples that should shame you as a lawyer with any training in logical argumentation. The example you give of a defendant who was mis-identified in a rape case (i.e., a rape did happen- the wrong guy just got convicted)? That's a tragedy of course, but what does it have to do with your completely unrelated claim that the straw-man "Left" is creating a rape myth?Oh yeah. Nothing.And then there's your attempt to draw some connection between the decline of traditionally defined violent crime in the U.S. over the last 20 years and the (finally) growing intolerance of rape on college campuses. This isn't even clever. It merely exposes remarkable ignorance with regard to the reality of sexual violence as it usually plays out, both on and off college campuses.  Sexual violence has always been a sickeningly, ever-present aspect of college life- and indeed life everywhere. Yes, we're more aware of it now, and some of us are fighting back. But why should you? Armed with your one dubious anecdote and your ambition, why look behind the curtain at all?Instead, A.J., continue your rise to stardom within the morally scolding circles promoted by the National Review that will, among other things, insist that rape in the college environment is the inevitable result of promiscuity and intoxicants.Goodness me, if only women would behave.Never mind those who are raped after a study group meeting in the light of day, or by a church-going friend on a religious retreat.And certainly, A.J., never mind the effect of the insidious and arbitrary rules you're imposing on the young women and men who will be victimized with even more impunity because of your finger-wagging nonsense. I'm talking about the ones who may or may not break your rules, but who will be damned to either silence or shame because of ignorant hawkers like you who give them 1) unfair standards to uphold, and 2) false senses of security to boot.We're lawyers, A.J. We never had to professionally take the "first, do no harm" oath that physicians do. But seriously? You should consider it.         

Iowa, and 47

The Cedar River at sunset, Waterloo, Iowa, after a child abuse prosecution training last week.The one (and perhaps only) important thing I didn't have to learn the hard way is this:  Never fail to appreciate small moments and simple beauty.A railroad crossing, a grain elevator, a farm stand, an AME Baptist Church.At 47, ain't that America?If you're listening, Lord, forgive me my petty complaints. It's all a blessing.  

Honored Beyond Words: Being a Part of "Lived Through This"

It has to have been 8 years or more since I first heard of the Voices and Faces Project, although it seems like much longer. Its mission is so beautifully simple that it tends to transcend its also beautifully simple name: Voices and Faces.But that’s the point.The best prosecutors, investigators and advocates I ever worked with in this business knew that the word “case,” and the dozens of other words we use to categorize, triage, sanitize and process human misery as a result of crime, was a reprehensible substitute for the person we came to know at the center of it.Yes, it was a case, and it had to be dealt with as such. But the thing that haunted us wasn’t the case. It was the she or he, the unique, mysterious, and sometimes broken, sometimes remarkably unbowed, person before us. To the extent we were responsible to her or him- at least for what we could control in the almost comically blunt and fractured, imperfect system we worked in- we struggled to keep that person’s face foremost in our minds. We struggled to hear her or his voice as we strategized, made decisions, and dealt out “justice” as we’d been conditioned to accept and define it.But even that voice- the one we heard- was truncated. I was good at what I did, and I listened well. But what I needed to hear professionally, and what I could spare the time and emotional energy for, was always far less than what could have been fully related to me. When I parted ways with a survivor, whether she was 5 or 75, I often wondered what I’d missed, and was missing then and forever. But it wasn't something I could dwell on. There were more "cases" coming in. Pretty much every day.The pinnacle of what I did wasn’t winning those cases (and yes, I accept how self-serving that sounds, having lost my share). Regardless, the pinnacle was responding to the voices and acknowledging the faces in a way that gave them- and not us- the measure of dignity and recognition they deserved.That is the day to day challenge that simply must be met in the Anglo-American criminal justice response to sexual violence, or all else is lost, and our critics are right to say we serve no one but ourselves.But even at our best, we could only see so much, and absorb so much. There was- and always will be- an ocean of human experience going woefully unnoticed by those of us tasked with responding professionally to the harm done. We’re simply not equipped to know it all, whether because it’s not legally relevant, not immediately discernible, or not emotionally digestible given the spectrum we work on.And the saddest fact, of course, is that the incalculable amount of suffering, resilience, inspiration and courage that results from sexual violence in our world could be at any time multiplied exponentially from what I missed, and that all of us in the entire system miss. This is because we only see what enters the system we created in the first place. The vast, vast majority of sexual violence that occurs the world over, day in and day out, is never revealed to any sort of system of authority or adjudication. It simply goes unmet, unaided, unanswered. Unheard.Voices and Faces changes that, and with no more than the courage of the survivors and the ability to memorialize their accounts. Of course, the project stands apart from the criminal justice response and well it should. I simply came across it as a practitioner with no other perspective.Except for one. I am a victim, myself of child sexual abuse, a fact known now to most who know me in any capacity, but unknown to most during my tenure as a special victims prosecutor. A few years ago, the author of “Lived Through This,” herself a survivor of a brutal home invasion rape and a dear friend, approached me about being a part of the compilation she envisioned. She knew my story. She wanted to tell it for me. The proudest thing I’ve ever done is to allow her to do so.Thank you, Anne, for doing it so very beautifully.