Tuesday, April 29th, 2008...2:37 pm
Ambiguity and Abuse
Tim Lee demands clarity!
There appears to be evidence of statutory rape. That’s a relatively easy-to-define and plainly problematic crime that the state can and should prosecute. If there’s evidence that some of the teenage or pre-teen girls have been raped, that would be reasonable grounds for holding all of the girls between the ages of about 10 and 18 for their own protection until the charges can be resolved. But that’s not necessarily sufficient grounds to hold 5-year-old girls, and it’s certainly not sufficient grounds to hold the boys.
If Will and Kerry think the state’s actions in this case are justified, I’d be curious to see them articulate the principle that would govern cases like this. Obviously, as private citizens, we can and should be concerned about tight-knit groups that limit the autonomy of their members. But the state should only act pursuant to objective and clearly articulated legal principles.
I think this is a bit misleading. Tim is comfortable with easily enforced bright lines, and statutory rape laws necessarily entail such lines. But consent laws are not a useful example here, because in the context of child abuse such satisfyingly clear cut moral judgments are the exception, not the rule. What’s the difference between discipline and physical abuse? Between laissez-faire parenting and neglect? Between not providing a child with an education and providing him or her with a rudimentary one? These are necessarily ambiguous, but we don’t throw our hands up and dismiss them just because the state might be overzealous in its interpretation. Children have the right to develop capacities for independent judgment. Determining whether that right has been violated also requires judgment. There’s no way around it.
4 Comments
April 29th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Hey Kerry,
Thanks for the link. I agree that telling the difference between, say, laissez-faire parenting and neglect can be difficult to determine in particular cases, but I don’t think it’s hard to articulate the principle involved. Roughly: that actions that endanger the child’s health or safety is neglect. Likewise, you can define the line between discipline and abuse based on the degree of physical damage inflicted. I think I read somewhere that the presence or absence of permanent marks is a common standard.
Even education, which I think is a harder case, can be dealt with through something like a standardized test–if the kid can’t read or do math at, say, 3 levels below his current grade level, then that seems like a pretty good test for whether the parent is failing to provide the kid with an education. (given how bad some public schools are, I think this level would have to be extremely low before the state could justify stepping in).
What I’m interested in, and what I have yet to see you or Will articulate, is what the corresponding principle would be for the state to intervene on behalf of the children in this community. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that the state was unable to find any evidence of statutory rape. What other factors ought a judge to consider when deciding whether to intervene on behalf of children in a situation like this. I realize that any such principle will inevitably have some ambiguity and require some judgment calls, but I haven’t seen a standard proposed that comes anywhere close to the level of clarity required to be consistent with the rule of law.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Ms. Howley: You know abuse and neglect when you see it, I guess. I don’t think that’s good enough.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Hi Tim,
I think any assessment of emotional and psychological abuse here would have to hinge on the possibility of exit. Adolescents who cannot even conceive of a life outside of the compound–because they are taught to fear it, because they have not acquired the skills necessary to interact with strangers, because they have not been educated or socialized–can’t meaningfully be said to consent to life within it. If a culture is systematically producing adolescents who can’t consent to stay, I think we have a justification for state action.
I realize that this sounds very vague. So too does “actions that engender a child’s health or safety are neglectful.” But it would be obtuse for me to say that we cannot remove a child whose parents are starving it simply because you and I have different conceptions of what is healthful.
Anyway, we can fight about it at lunch tomorrow!
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:00 am
[…] certain strains of cultural libertarianism. I don’t want to get too far into the weeds of the controversy, other than to point out that Will’s position is admirably liberated from the obsession with […]
Leave a Reply