Like most people who've studied philosophy, I went through a period of wrestling with the issue of cultural relativism: how can I say my cultural norms are good, and your cultural norms are repugnant?
A brief study of the issue of female genital mutilation resolved that problem for me - there are cultural practices that are simply indefensible and should be stamped out by all means possible, just like a species' general right to exist can be waived in a case such as smallpox.
And for all their faults - and Third World criticisms about their lack of attention to rights such as food and housing are legitimate - the United Nations human rights framework is a pretty good place to start in making value judgments.
But cultural relativism has taken hold in surprising quarters, including it would seem, the Northern Territory in Australia, where a 55-year-old tribal elder who anally raped and bashed a 14-year-old girl, who had been "promised" to him when she was just four years old, was given a jail term of one month. (Although the fact that the Territory's white culture is extremely masculo-centric might also, I can't but feel, have something to do with this.)
This was on the grounds that he apparently didn't know he was doing anything wrong under Australian law, and was merely following cultural norms.
Some of the background to this, as I understand it. A number of the tribal groups in the Territory have a tradition of very young girls being promised as wives to senior men in the tribe, and given to them at a very young age. I've seen explanations for this along the lines that this was a harsh, arid, unforgiving environment, and only experienced hunters were likely to be able to support a family. Maybe that was true, maybe it wasn't. It is not, of course, true now.
The only good news is that someone has stepped in as the poor girl's advocate and is trying to have the sentence increased, the Sydney Morning Herald reports.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Victor Lana
As the father of a daughter, I am always concerned by these stories. How can this little girl (yes, 14 is little in my book) ever have a normal life? Ever?
The answer is she cannot. But this monster gets off, even if they increase the sentence. He gets off and probably rapes again. And again.
I've always had a tough sentence for rapists in my mind:
- remove their genitals completely
- incarcerate for life in prison
2 - RedTard
Is it always wrong for a fourteen year old to have sex? I don't think so. Setting an arbitrary age, whatever that may be, is always inappropriate for some people. There are some individuals at fourteen who are more physically and psychologically mature than many eighteen year olds, and vice versa.
That being said, true rape (not the statutory kind) is an exceedingly vile offense which should be punished extremely harshly.
3 - RedTard
Is it always wrong for a fourteen year old to have sex? I don't think so. Setting an arbitrary age, whatever that may be, is always inappropriate for some people. There are some individuals at fourteen who are more physically and psychologically mature than many eighteen year olds, and vice versa.
That being said, true rape (not the statutory kind) is an exceedingly vile offense which should be punished extremely harshly.
4 - DJRadiohead
Toss out the numbers... man rapes girl. End of conversation. Lock his ass up.
5 - RedTard
Also, what in the world would cause you to link ancient aboriginal traditions to "white culture" of the province?
I'm guessing your a liberal since you took the blame whites first approach to the problem. At least you see your sides cultural relativism for the BS that it really is.
6 - steve
Fry that M.F.!!! DUBYAH style...texas sizzlin!!!
7 - Natalie Bennett
Well, for those advocating capital punishment, I consider that equally - or indeed more barbaric - as the international human rights community consensus now agrees.
As for the question of age, that simply exacerbates the offense and thus should increase the penalty.
8 - DJRadiohead
Is this the same human rights commission at the UN that was chaired by Libya or Cuba or some such nation known worldwide as a champion of human rights?
I am not advocating the death penalty, by the way. International consensus is worth something, I suppose. I am just not sure how much. You can find lots of people who agree on the wrong thing.
I am more interested in what is right rather than who agrees with me.
9 - Dave Nalle
The membership of the UN Human Rights commission has actually changed fromt he particularly horrible configuration it had a few years ago, but it still has a half-dozen nations which are famous for human rights abuses on it.
Dave
10 - The Searcher
Including the United States, as some assert.
11 - DJRadiohead
And a fair point. There are some countries who have disagreements with the United States as is their right.
All of which makes me wonder if there really is a consensus in the international community. Does it change the moral or factual correctness of a position if there is?
12 - Nancy
Cut off his balls & dick & make him eat them. Then blow his head off. There are far too many criminals that they should be allowed to continue to live at public expense.
13 - Natalie Bennett
Whatever the composition of the human rights commission at any point in time, the declarations of basic human rights are the products of broad international consensus. I'd agree that "general opinion" is not always "right", but you need some criteria for making judgements between different cultural and legal practices, and this seems to be the best we have.
14 - DJRadiohead
I would maintain basic human rights really have not changed that much over the years. Right is right and wrong is wrong whether or not the international community wants to define them as such.
Of course, to counter my own argument, just because the 'group' is not always right does not mean they are always wrong either. Maybe it is the best we have and if so we should at least give them a listen. But if this is the best we have we should also be prepared to tell them to 'get bent' every once in awhile, too.
For example, the issue that started this discussion... the international community can agree or disagree all they want. Rape is wrong regardless of the victim's age or gender.
15 - Nancy
Those that commit crimes of violence have forfeited their human rights, along with their humanity. They have NO "human rights". Period.
16 - DJRadiohead
Even if I accepted the premise that violent criminals have forfeited their human rights (and I do not) there is still the matter of who will carry out the inhumane punishment.
It is not just a matter of what the guilty deserves. I can understand the desire for vengeance on a raw, emotional level. Does anything good come from vengeance? Is it good public policy?
17 - Nancy
If she's up to it, the victim. As a woman, I can't imagine anything more satisfying than being allowed to carve up the guy who raped me and make him swallow his weapons. If she's not, then her family or friends. "Inhumane"? Since when do violent criminals deserve or have a right to "humane" anything? They don't. There is nothing wrong with vengence, despite christian bs to the contrary. It can salve a lot of pain, and it's fitting. Let the punishment fit the crime, or 'you use it, you lose it'. Ha.
18 - DJRadiohead
I am not a woman and I have never been raped so I will not embarrass myself by trying to pretend otherwise.
Having said that... exacting a cruel revenge does not 'unrape' a woman. Would there be salve to the pain? I question it. As I said above, I don't know for a fact. I guess (emphasize 'guess') because we are all individuals there would be different reactions. I will assume you know yourself well enough (and obviously better than I know you) to know how you would react (although I pray you never have need to find out first hand).
A person who commits a vile and violent act is still a person. They absolutely deserve punishment and society absolutely deserves protection. But a person does not cease to be a person until they die. Do all people deserve humane treatment? I think they do. Even the vile and evil.
No amount of cruely or violence will ever be able to visit upon the criminal what his or her actions have visited upon the victim. A serial rapist or murderer- someone with many victims - can only be torturned or killed once. The criminal can never answer for all the lives he has wrecked and dreams he has destroyed. In my opinion (and it is afterall only that, my opinion) the torturing and killing of a violent criminal has more corrosive effect than healing.
19 - Natalie Bennett
I agree DJRadiohead. The state doing something vile to the criminal, or licencing even the victim to do something vile to the criminal, reduces it to the same level, and sends the message that violence solves problems.
20 - Purple Tigress
I agree there should be a tougher penalty for the crime.
I wouldn't toss out the numbers. Rape of a minor is different than rape of an adult. A minor has no economic means of support since the legal age to work also means the minor is by definition dependent upon some adult.
Ignorance of the law is never a good defense.
21 - Nancy
Violence does indeed solve problems. Guys are notoriously protective of their peckers. More so, even than their lives. And besides, if a criminal can only die once, well, what the hell, at least letting his victims or their families vent their spleens is better than letting him spend the rest of his life in jail at taxpayer expense, getting his medical problems attended to, being able to take classes, work out, read, et al.
And no: you do NOT retain your "person" status. Nor should you.
22 - Victor Lana
I agree with half of what Nancy has said. It seems most fitting that the rape victim should get to do the honors (sanctioned by the state) and castrate the rapist. If there is more than one victim, they all get a little piece of the action.
I don't think killing is an answer, but the rapist should have no chance for parole and VERY uncomfortable circumstances.
23 - DJRadiohead
I understand the emotion behind the words of rage but I do not see where lopping of 'peckers' is a wise or suitable public policy response to rape.
Victims and families can vent their spleens without torturing or killing other people (some psychologists would suggest that is a healthier way to go about it). I think I could almost look past the inhumanity of it if I really thought allowing victims to torture their attackers would bring about healing. I can't quote thousands of pages of research but I feel confident in suggesting that an obsession with lashing out at the people who hurt someone is not a good path to long-term healing.
I don't want to coddle violent, evil people. I have no problem with handing down a life sentence to a sexual predator. I don't believe treatment works. They shouldn't be allowed back into society. Society has a right to protect itself. I believe there is a way to handle antisocial behavior without becoming antisocial. I don't believe fighting fire with fire is the only solution and I don't believe it is the best solution most of the time.
24 - Natalie Bennett
But what is that achieving for society. Revenge? Is that an honourable objective?
25 - Nancy
Take away his dick & balls, & you're guaranteed he damn well won't do it again. How typical of a man to be unable to think that permanent physical emasculation is a viable solution. Always defending the balls, eh? Even someone else's. Men are pathetic.
Yeah, Natalie: revenge is VERY honorable, especially for the victims & their families. God knows they don't get any satisfaction with the current, "no-fault" legal system that rewards violent criminals with, at most, a decade or so behind bars (with perks, as noted above) IF that, and then usually lets them out.