Ray Rice shouldn’t have done
it! Even I was taught that a gentleman
never hits a lady. To this day I
remember the thrashing I got from my father after I struck my sister in the
back with a roundhouse punch.
It did not matter to Dad
that she had provoked me by digging her nails into my arm so hard that she drew
blood. He hadn’t even asked if she had
done anything wrong. The rule against
hitting a girl was absolute.
This same sort of attitude arose
in the Rice affair. When pictures
emerged of him knocking out his then girlfriend, a hue and cry went up. He was a fiend who had to be punished.
That his girlfriend might
have goaded him by taking the first swing was scarcely mentioned. That the two could have been intoxicated at
the time drew no notice. These were not
considered mitigating circumstances.
What mattered was that a much stronger man had knocked a woman out.
This event, which
undoubtedly mirrors numerous others, was deemed national news because of who
was involved and because it had been captured on videotape. Both male and female commentators were
incensed that the perpetrator got of so lightly. A two game suspension, without jail time, was
obviously not enough.
The conventional wisdom
alleged that Rice received favorable treatment because he is a celebrity. Clearly the district attorney and the NFL
commissioner gave him a better deal than Joe Blow would have received.
But is this true? In fact, it is not! It does not even come close to the
truth. A non-celebrity, who did not have
a criminal record (as Rice did not), would have received a slap on the
wrist. Rice, in contrast, lost his job
and forfeited millions of dollars.
But even this was not
sufficient. The critics demanded that he
be banned for life and that the commissioner who let him off be fired. This was a sin of such a magnitude that only the
equivalent of a blood sacrifice would do.
Yet consider the
implications. Do we really want to
insist that everyone who commits any sort of crime must lose his job? In addition to jail time and/or a fine, are malefactors
routinely to be deprived of their livelihoods.
In an era, when we have been reducing the penalties for murder, this
seems excessive.
Plainly, when people are in
high dudgeon, morality becomes a lethal weapon.
What amount to lynch mobs engage in behavior that they might otherwise
consider immoral.
Examples of morality gone
haywire are legion. Lest we forget,
Adolf Hitler massacred millions in the name of morality. As he saw it, he was protecting the rights of
the German people from human vermin. The
Jews and Slavs deserved to die because they were taking bread out of the mouths
of the master race.
ISIS too perceives itself as
defending moral principles. The
organization has a right—if not a duty—to severe the heads of infidels. Only in this way can the end of times arrive
and the faithful receive their just rewards.
About forty years ago,
sociological research revealed that domestic violence was initiated about 50/50
by men and women. The men, however,
finished the job because they had greater upper body strength.
Then, because a crackdown on
intimate violence led to more men being arrested, the ratio changed. Now women were twice as likely to be the
initial aggressor. Regarded as helpless
innocents, they were given a free pass.
How does this help
strengthen marriages? If one side is
always right and the other wrong, how does a couple arrive at an amicable
settlement when they disagree. Yes, men
should not hit women, but neither should society deal with them as if they were
monsters.
We must be moral, but we
must also be wary of excessive moralism.
When it seeks vengeance rather than equity, it too can be a danger.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment