The Wondering Mind

They say you should never judge a book by its cover. Maybe the same thing applies to excerpts.

Reading these excerpts of a book on spouses and partners of paedophiles, I’m not entirely sure what the book is supposed to tell us. It’s entitled, “Understanding Child Abuse: The Partners of Child Sex Offenders Tell Their Stories”. The thing is, if the excerpts are anything to go by, there isn’t much to be understood.

Many of the women quoted are former victims of abuse themselves. And many also display clearly irrational judgement. Perhaps the best example of both is “Cheryl”, the last person quoted.

There was one social worker that tried giving me a lecture because I’d said I wanted to try and help him and she said, like, I shouldn’t stay with him just to help him. She felt because I had been in a violent relationship before, I had to be one of these people and I said, “No, I’m not like that, I just do want to help Graham – he’s worth helping.” He has his off moments but I don’t stay with him to stick two fingers up at everybody – I stay with him because I love him and I think he’s worth the effort.

“Graham”, incidentally, has been convicted of on multiple occasions, so has clearly demonstrated a tendency for recidivism. And there is nothing in any of Cheryl’s account which explains how Graham might be “worth the effort”.

Judging by these examples, it’s hard not the reach the conclusion that most of these women find themselves in their predicament at least in some part due to their own circumstances and failings. Which is not to say that all women whose partners turn out to be paedophiles are that way. “Rachel” perhaps best exemplifies a woman who is as close to someone who is not herself  already “damaged” or displaying poor judgement.

Even in her case, however, there is nothing in her story which lends us any greater understanding of child abuse, the abusers, or their partners and family.

Unless the excerpts are missing something, I’m not sure what the book achieves, except satisfying morbid curiosities.

I seem to be on a role lately with the “What price…?” questions. Well this time, it’s about Guantanamo.

The “enemy combatants” being held there by the Bush White House have been a source of controversy (and many would say a source of shame) for the U.S. since the facility opened for detention of the enemy combatants. And in this latest report by the BBC, there is nothing particularly new being said by anyone. However, concentrating as it does on the issues of the legal process of trying to prosecute the inmates, it took me back to some of the mechanisms the British tried while dealing with “the Troubles” in Northern Ireland, especially back in the 1980’s and early 1990’s.

The British probably tried just about every known method of dealing with terrorism during the whole period of the Troubles, both legal and illegal. And although they never treated their terrorism problem as anything other than a criminal problem, unlike the American approach to Al Queada and other current terrorist groups, they also often faced problems when trying to prosecute the perpetrators of the terrorist acts.

In particular, the British government over the years tried to introduce a raft of different legislation to legalise new courts, procedures, and other methods of judicial process for prosecuting the terrorists. This was often born out a perceived need for added security, similar to concerns the Americans have about the prisoners in Guantanamo.

There were concerns about keeping secret the identity of personnel and methods of investigation. This was due to genuine concerns about protecting informants, as well as protecting security service agents and policemen, who were under real threat of assassination. It was also due to genuine concern about keeping secret methods which had proved effective against the terrorists and might be used again in the future.

But it was also due to unjustifiable reasons, such as a penchant for an unnecessary degree of secrecy among the security agencies and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the police force in Northern Ireland. It was also no doubt to protect themselves from embarrassment and criminal prosecution should information about their own dubious and illegal acts be revealed.

Even so, the British government kept the process within the criminal justice system. They just tried to change it to suit their perceived needs in prosecuting terrorists, and in the process pushed the boundaries of accepted law and legal tradition.

What should be instructive, and should have been warning to the Americans, is that even with these limited changes (at least compared to what the Americans are trying to do with the “military tribunals”), there were huge problems. More than a few prosecutions failed or were overturned on appeal because the methods used by the police and security agents, or the new laws under which the terrorists were prosecuted were deemed illegal.

There are many in Britain who believe that such tactics were unnecessary and were ultimately counterproductive in that they brought the whole British legal system of justice into disrepute. And this disrepute is nothing compared to the contempt many hold the “legal” proceedings the Bush administration is desperately trying to force in Guantanamo.

The approach the Bush administration is taking is lazy and that of cowards who are afraid of their own shadows. Fact is that many dangerous people can be prosecuted and incarcerated using normal methods of criminal justice. It may be harder and more time consuming, but it can be done. And it is true that the world would be a little more dangerous a place as a result of the few people who we cannot prosecute this way.

I would suggest, however, that the difference in the level of danger would be minuscule. Especially since the officials trying to keep us safe should then be motivated to redouble their efforts within the existing system, which may result in even more terrorists being captured.

More to the point, the world is not, and will never be, a “safe place”.  You could be killed going to work tomorrow morning, or going shopping for groceries. With or without terrorism, people cannot function without finding a way to manage these risks of living.

This is a lesson many Britons learned while the IRA were particularly active in their terrorist campaigns. It is a lesson many Americans have learned as well. Unfortunately, the Bush administration are not among that number. Let’s hope that Obama and his administration are more mature and thoughtful.

The great thing about the American sense of exception is that it give Americans a boundless sense of hope and optimism about their place in the world and the future.

The bad? You get hare-brained people like Palin giving it a really bad name.

The consequence? You’ll live in splendid isolation with others shunning you.