SVU... sigh...
Oct. 2nd, 2008 01:06 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jmatonakI just saw this week's Special Victims Unit. I found it disturbing, but probably not for the reason I was supposed to. For one thing, it was the monthly "Stabler snaps" episode. But, more importantly...
The episode starts with a teenage boy coming in to the squadroom because he's afraid he might do something disgusting to his little stepbrother. That kid ends up dead, of course, but his attempt to get help before he commits any actual crime has a best-case scenario of three to fifteen years in federal prison. Another character who has fantasies but has never abused a child is portrayed as morally identical to a serial child rapist. And, ultimately, of course, the original kid seeking help snaps, rapes and dies. The detectives predict that this will happen specifically because they themselves are stressing the kid and he is being shunned by his family. Of course, everyone says he deserved it, and his own mother is glad he's dead.
I am disturbed by this. Child abuse is not acceptable; it doesn't constitute an "alternative lifestyle." Despite what some people claim, children cannot give meaningful consent. (Those are my opinions, of course. I imagine they are widely shared.)
I can't get past one thing, though. A person should be able to think what they want. The whole point of exercising self-control is that one never crosses the boundary between thought and action. I can't be arrested for merely wanting to rearrange my father's face, because the law recognizes this difference between thought and deed. This is because we all- or many of us- have violent fantasies from time to time. We recognize the impulse.
Because some impulses are (thankfully) alien to us, we do not understand them. That's no excuse to punish those who think differently, merely for thinking. The distinction between thought and action is important.
(As usual with SVU, everyone ignores an easy solution, in this case the option of voluntary commitment. Olivia suggests they get the kid help, because she's the only reason to watch the show, but everyone's hands are tied because, you know, why take the smart solution when you can escalate the situation and make sure people are murdered and violated?)
The episode starts with a teenage boy coming in to the squadroom because he's afraid he might do something disgusting to his little stepbrother. That kid ends up dead, of course, but his attempt to get help before he commits any actual crime has a best-case scenario of three to fifteen years in federal prison. Another character who has fantasies but has never abused a child is portrayed as morally identical to a serial child rapist. And, ultimately, of course, the original kid seeking help snaps, rapes and dies. The detectives predict that this will happen specifically because they themselves are stressing the kid and he is being shunned by his family. Of course, everyone says he deserved it, and his own mother is glad he's dead.
I am disturbed by this. Child abuse is not acceptable; it doesn't constitute an "alternative lifestyle." Despite what some people claim, children cannot give meaningful consent. (Those are my opinions, of course. I imagine they are widely shared.)
I can't get past one thing, though. A person should be able to think what they want. The whole point of exercising self-control is that one never crosses the boundary between thought and action. I can't be arrested for merely wanting to rearrange my father's face, because the law recognizes this difference between thought and deed. This is because we all- or many of us- have violent fantasies from time to time. We recognize the impulse.
Because some impulses are (thankfully) alien to us, we do not understand them. That's no excuse to punish those who think differently, merely for thinking. The distinction between thought and action is important.
(As usual with SVU, everyone ignores an easy solution, in this case the option of voluntary commitment. Olivia suggests they get the kid help, because she's the only reason to watch the show, but everyone's hands are tied because, you know, why take the smart solution when you can escalate the situation and make sure people are murdered and violated?)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-02 10:58 am (UTC)I haven't seen this episode, but, "Yes," to this statement, a million times. The ethical difference between thought and action is absolute. Where thoughts are strong and uncontrolled enough (and whatever else is required to turn them into action in a given individual) they *sometimes* lead to action, but, from the outside you don't, and can't, be sure what horrible thoughts will be transformed into actual crimes. Unless or until such a crime is committed, a person is *not* a criminal. And, if they're actively trying to get help because they fear the possibility of future actions, they should be *helped* not condemned. That is, if what we care about is preventing suffering, not feeling falsely morally superior.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-02 11:24 am (UTC)It's funny. People always try to personalize these things. "Sure, you say you're against torture, but what if it was your family who'd get bombed?"
There are just prices you pay for living in a free society, because we're Americans and not a bunch of craven cowards. Moral backbone doesn't count if you don't have it when you really need it. Integrity that disappears in a crisis doesn't count.
So, yeah, it would suck. I might kill someone who hurt my friends-who-are-children. I'd take notice of a creepy raincoater at the playground. But inside his own head, every man is king.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-02 11:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-02 05:02 pm (UTC)