Sweet Baby J is currently in the process of fighting a nap in her crib, so my time is limited, but I've had a post brewing since yesterday and I need to put it out there, even if it is brief.
MSNBC reported yesterday that the Texas legal system gave reasoning for taking all 400+ children from their homes and families in the polygamist compound. The reasoning strikes me as troubling, despite my strong belief that the girls in the camp were, indeed, being sexually abused.
The children--even toddlers and young children who, of course, had not been abused in any way--were removed from their homes, according to the legal department, preemptively. (I'm not sure that word was used in the statement.) That is, the girls were removed because they eventually would have been victims of sexual abuse and the boys were removed because they eventually would have been "perpetrators" (that specific word was used in MSNBC's report, although possibly not in the statement) of sexual abuse. The argument about the girls doesn't seem a huge stretch, but the boys concern me. Currently, they are children and, as such, their agency is shaky, but wouldn't some of these boys (and girls), perhaps, grow into young adults who disagree with the lifestyles of their parents and leave the compound?
Couldn't we, by the same reasoning, argue that the children of poor single mothers in the projects could be removed by their state of residence because they are more likely to become thieves or drug dealers in order to survive and help feed their families? Do we no longer have to wait until a crime is committed in order to have a perpetrator of that crime?
I realize that I'm using a slippery slope argument, here, and that I'm coming dangerously close to a logical fallacy. But still, I find this case disconcerting.
4 comments:
Megs,
Isn't part of the difficulty of this case wrapping our heads around the question:
Is sexual abuse as the State defines it, Institutional in the community under investigation?
If we answer Yes to this question, then it seems to Harrogate that the "pre-emptive" approach suddenly obtains Venti-Sized Rhetorical and Legal merit.
Similarly, if we have grounds to suspect that the community Institutionalizes sexual abuse as the State defines it, then thy analogy with the single-mother urban domicile would seem to implode.
For, however powerful the cycles of crime and violence may be in that archetypal setting, it would be a stretch for even the most die-hard social determinist to suggest that these are lifestyles which the parents explicitly promote.
Indeed, if the State knew a household of any kind in which crime was actively being modeled as a lifestyle, children would be removed from that setting.
You know, Harrogate, you made a really good point about behavior modeling and what we would define as child abuse and/or endangering a child. (Although you don't exactly phrase it like that, I think that's where your argument is heading and it's a compelling case for me.) I have to think about this before I respond, but be assured that I AM thinking and I will respond.
Minority Report, anyone?
In addition to being in Harrogate's Top Twenty, Minority Report is an intriguing example indeed for shedding light on this discussion. Nice work as usual, oxymoron.
The example reminds us that yes, there is an ethical problem with the preemptive move. But again, the movie analogy doesn't hold up IF (and it's a big, big IF) the State can show that these children are being Institutionally conditioned to commit Acts that we, the State, designate child abuse, sexual assault, etc.
Harrogate is with the State on this because so far it seems likely that the Compound has said, these are our Values, Values synonymous with marrying these girls in their early teens and expelling boys when the hit puberty, so fuck you.
And since Harrogate aint no Libertarian, his response is No, Compound, Fuck You and your vacant-eyed pathetic-ass Mothers and your Stern Patriarchal Fathers who hide behind them, and oh yeah, the Golden Plates you Rode in On.
In the absence of knowing the evidence. A big disclaimer. Harrogate's premature take is, this is demonstrably abuse, the kids need outta there.
Post a Comment