I have never heard before of someone more deserving the full penalty of law… Rough music online

What is the difference between just punishment and vigilantism?  One way to distinguish the two is to look at the role the victim has in deciding both guilt and punishment.  Our legal system disempowers the victim and assigns their right to exact vengeance upon a third party (the State).

But what if the legal system systemically fails victims?  This is the question I’ve been asking myself in response to recent stories.  This week, a columnist responded to online threats and harassment by reporting the issue to the aggressor’s employer.  This resulted in the aggressor being sacked.  The ABC covered a story this week about sexual assault in childcare facilities involving Indigenous children.  The assaults occurred back in the 1970s, and the Director of Public Prosecutions dropped the case.  So the ABC reported the case, named the perpetrator, and tried to film a confrontation with him.  Today, Twitter is naming and shaming men who have written vile things about women on social media.

All these actions make me uncomfortable, but this privileged feeling of discomfort is clearly because I place inadequate intuitive weight upon the fact that the legal system is clearly failing people here.  This is fundamentally a conservative problem: the ideal of the civilised, dignified, traditional God, King, and Country is always going to be in tension with the reality of lived power relationships in society.  I’m anxious about the ideal legal process because the toxic legal outcomes aren’t experienced in the same way by me.

At the same time, can it really be a justification to abandon the system altogether?  The examples provided earlier — media versions of ‘rough music‘ — are a rejection of the formal methods for seeking justice.  The sorts of threats that women experience online are actually a crime in Australia, and we don’t do enough to police it.  And the DPP’s failure to prosecute a person who sexually abused Indigenous children in his care is an astounding failure, and yet the story glossed over it in order to engage in public shaming.

Note that it’s different to another form of public shaming: boycotting and protest when corporations undertake commercial decisions which offend community standards.  Petitions to have Mark Latham, Kyle Sandilands, and Mike Carlton make sense because it’s not a legal punishment that we’re seeking, but a social one.

Going after somebody’s job and going after somebody’s reputation when they’re private individuals feels like a different category of issue.  Especially when you’re in the comparatively more powerful position of having an audience or a media outlet from which to attack the individual.  It feels like punching down.

So I’m conflicted.  I want to live in a society where people are only punished after they are subject to a third party process, where victims do not adopt the role of jury and executioner, and where the legal processes that are supposed to protect people actually work.

My conservatism is about duties.  We have a moral obligation to the State and, in turn, the State has a moral obligation to us.  Indeed, this was the dominant form of conservatism (especially in Europe) until we let ‘freedom’ rhetoric run amok.  These situations suggest that there is a systemic breach of the State’s obligations to us in not protecting women from abusers, and in not punishing people who abuse children.  But I can’t work out when the breach of the second obligation sanctions the breach of the first.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “I have never heard before of someone more deserving the full penalty of law… Rough music online

  1. This is a three-pipe problem.
    In a well-ordered society, one would hope and expect the state not to let the individual down in these circumstances. Of course, the state, like Homer, nods: and when it does, do we pick up the slack? What required certainty do we need before we act to redress these matters as individuals?
    Thorny doesn’t cover it. However, even if correct in assigning guilt in these matters, if we take the law into our own hands, we must be prepared to accept the consequences of that usurpation of the judicial process. If we kill the perp we must be prepared to swing for it, so to speak.

  2. It’s interesting and I have mixed feelings about it too – I mean when do we take vigilantism too far? What is an appropriate level of punishment for the “crime”? How do we know? A lot of vigilantes are actually idolised by people cos they do what “feels good” to us and what is otherwise not noticed or unpunished by the State (Anonymous are a good example of this)…but what if this trend went too far and the balance of power shifted from the State to the populous (who aren’t our types ‘fraid to say)? It could be quite scary.

    I like to see the occasional smackdown as much as the next person – I was glad that Clementine Ford got that sexist douchebag fired (and don’t actually feel that’s a breach of anything cos he wrote his thoughts on a public forum and should be accountable for them no matter how his employer found out about them). Men have a lot to answer for and their treatment of women has been excused and permitted for far too long – a little bit of shaming will teach them a lesson.

  3. Pingback: You were looking for someone to dry your tears; you found me… How to disagree with feminists (and live) | Only The Sangfroid

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s