There’s no shortage of folks on the internet, and certainly in the blawgosphere, screaming for change. While some are thoughtful and well reasoned, most are highly emotional, threatening everything from revolution to the apocalypse. There’s often some claim to Justice involved, or at least a plea for common sense.
Even though it’s absolutely clear and undeniable to you, do few seem to back you up or get your point? Well, now there’s a place to go, Change.org.
Change.org is the world’s fastest growing social action platform, empowering people to make a difference across a variety of important causes. Our team of writers and editors provides daily coverage of breaking social action campaigns, connecting people to opportunities to get involved. We also provide free tools that allow anyone to run their own campaigns. Our tools are used by thousands of grassroots activists and organizations around the globe. We count many of the world’s leading nonprofits as partners, including Amnesty International, Sierra Club, Human Rights Campaign, and the United Nations Foundation.
Sounds great, doesn’t it? And they even have a criminal justice section, which is where you’ll find this gem :
Rapists, take note: Want to beat the rap and inflict even more psychological damage on your victim while you’re at it? Be your own attorney!Outrageous! Imagine letting a rapist cross-examine his own victim! What? Oh. You mean that he’s allowed to be tried before he’s a “rapist”? You mean he gets to cross-examine witnesses against him because of the right to confrontation? You mean he gets to represent himself, especially in these times when people can’t afford to retain private counsel and indigent defense is horribly overwhelmed?While that might not sound like the best recommendation, what with representing one’s self in court typically associated with psychopaths whose defenses tend to go down in flames, it unfortunately seems to be sage advice for sexual assailants, as Alex Dibranco reports on the Women Rights blog.
Why? Consider a recent case out of Washington. As The Seattle Times reported last week, a man accused of child rape had charges against him thrown out after the alleged victim in the case, now 21, refused to let him cross-examine her on the stand; rather than testify, she spent three hours threatening to jump off the roof of the King County Courthouse. (The man still faces charges with respect to other alleged victims.)
Well, gee. Then this change may not be good change. But the people at Change.org think it is. And we want change. We demand Justice. We must use common sense. But, but, but …
But what kind of unfeeling animal doesn’t care about rape victims. How low can you be to subject a person to the trauma of having the person who raped her stand before her and demand that she respond to his inquiries, as if he had violated her in the worst possible way already?
While I’ve tried to make the point a dozen different ways, concrete examples tend to serve best for those who find it difficult to wrap their heads around it. Each of us sees Justice through our own eyes. Our sensibilities are formed from our own unique experiences and genetics, and what is obviously just to one is questionably just to another, and clearly unjust to a third, all because our vision is different.Of course, even those accused of horrible crimes are entitled to a defense. And just because someone is accused of being a rapist doesn’t make it so. But victims also have rights, and asking them to relive the trauma of a sexual assault via a cross-examination by the perpetrator sure seems to be a violation of them.
Thankfully, there have been efforts to address the situation. Last year, a bill was introduced that would appear to protect defendants’ and victims’ rights alike by allowing the former to question the latter via closed-circuit television or through a surrogate attorney. And while the bill stalled in the state legislature, a similar proposal is expected to be reintroduced in the next legislative session — and recent events ought to persuade previously skeptical politicians.
To the person whose concern focuses on the victim of rape, the idea that she would be forced to be subjected to interrogation by her violator is outrageous. To the person whose concern is false or mistaken allegation, no shortcut or half-baked compromise will suffice to replace the safeguard of confrontation.
It’s tough when there are directly conflicting interests at stake, both claiming to reflect Justice.
This is where the simpletons usually resort to common sense. There being no rational basis to distinguish a winner, one position holding the key to justice while the other representing banal or venal views, we resort to the assumption that others who agree with our outcome but similarly can’t offer a reasoned explanation will happily join our conclusion under the guise of common sense.
It’s a beautiful argument, since those who agree have it, and those who don’t, don’t. Without saying a word, we impugn our adversaries and relieve our supporters of any responsibility for justifying our position. Why, it’s just common sense.
So where do we find this thing called “common sense?” Is there a book, a list maybe, where all the people are surveyed and someone writes down the things we agree upon? Of course, “common sense” is that game we all play with ourselves, justifying why things we believe in are right when others, who act, behave, believe differently are wrong, and we can’t explain why.
Many folks here, from criminal defense lawyers to those who have suffered at the hands of the criminal justice system, have some very clear, very strong, views that change is needed. They are incredibly good, as am I, at tearing down the things we feel are wrong.
The problem, however, is what we build to replace it, and that’s a problem not easily solved. Stop screaming for Justice, or arguing that it’s just common sense. There’s a possibility you may get what you ask for, and you’re not going to like it.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Damn you! I was just putting the finishing touches on my post. Bah. Grumble grumble.
Anyway, this post at Change strikes me as really odd. They’re in my feed reader and I’ve been reading their posts for a while. Almost all have been on the money – advocating for real change, sensible change, the kind that we advocate for. This seems to be an aberration.
Hah! You skunked me the other day, and now I got you back. I’ve got no issue, per se, with Change.org, but this is a great opportunity to put some flesh on the bones of my point. Even hanging around with a like-minded crowd, there are whose idea of justice is different, even anethma, to yours.
We CDLs quibble amongst ourselves over what we consider significant details, and which others think as being so nuanced as hardly worth the effort. Some love individual jury selection while one despises it. Some decry the loss of the Great Writ while one advocates for it. You get the idea.
I had a comment yesterday from a clearly angst-ridden woman, hating CDLs for not doing enough to protect her (someone she loves?) from the evil government. We, in her opinion, were as hypocritical and evil as the enemy. We’re in an age where everyone has a voice, no matter how far their reach or strong their grasp, and they aren’t afraid to use it. Somehow, they seem to find like-minded people wherever they are, and they invariably wonder why everyone else doesn’t get it.
Scares the crap out of me, thinking about what the next round of “answers” will bring.
“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”
Albert Einstein
Excellent! I’ve never heard that before. Thanks.
You’re right – we often lose sight of the big picture, the perspective that we don’t have. That most people don’t care about our quibbles and issues. For most people, it’s black and white: a criminal shouldn’t be allowed to challenge the allegations. The rest is just technical lawyer talk.
“Why is it that people who don’t agree with me can’t think for themselves.”
-Every College Kid
Everybody but me, including Alberet Einstein, is wrong about common sense. Common sense exists.
First off, common doesn’t mean being inclusive of every human being, just most. Second, common sense is learned and developed and is an ongoing process.
That all being said:
It is common sense that fire is hot.
It is common sense that ice is cold.
And that is the list. lol
[The list could likely be longer, it’s just my sense of humor.]
@Gideon, thanks for sticking up for change.org here — I’m a frequent blogger on the change.org criminal justice blog and Scott seems to paint the site in such broad strokes from one post. You might not agree with every one of our posts, but one post probably isn’t sufficient to impugn an entire publication.
I agree with both of you that the proposed law in Washington State is troubling and not particularly wise, and that this post didn’t give equal time to the right to confrontation. We hope that our posts drive people to action and start conversations — it seems this issue did that, even the action is one you (and I) disagree with. It got y’all talking and it got a strong reaction in our women’s rights community [Edit/ Note: Link deleted as against rules.] — I’d love to see you share your thoughts over at change.org.
Matt, that was a hell of an obnoxious post, and if that’s what makes the “lead story,” don’t blame me for pointing it out. It didn’t start “conversation,” but ridicule, as that was all it deserved. If your idea is to drive people to actions that violate the Constitution, then your ideas aren’t welcome here.
As for your gratuitous link to your own site and your invitation to try to suck readers from here to your site, try content that isn’t offensive and perhaps people would be more interested. But don’t come here to solicit for readers.
Wow – I’m trying to say I agree with you and disagree with my fellow change.org blogger and I get yelled down. I’m not blaming you for calling out a story (especially since I agree it was wrong). I’m challenging the way you wrote off our site on the basis of one post you disagree with. Simple Justice is a single blogger site, but change.org isn’t. If you’re going to attack our entire site, please read some other posts first.
I tried linking to the women’s rights post at change.org not to get traffic, but because there are several commenters who supported the idea. I’m curious about whether these two opinions – constitutional rights vs. perceived victims rights – can ever find common ground on an issue like this. I disagree often with the victims rights camp, and run into angry commenters often when I write about shrinking sex offender registries, alternatives to incarceration, etc. But we need to have a dialogue if we’re going to make any progress convincing folks of the importance of constitutional rights for defendants (and victims) even in ugly cases. Ridicule just divides folks further.
I did write off you whole site; I wrote off its concept. The internal inconsistency, that you should have a place that purports to promote change which can simultaneously promote ideas that support adherence to constitutional prinicples and ideas that are an affront to the Constition, is the problem. And the point of my post.
I don’t attack you, either personally or by inference, for your involvement with Change.org (though I do for breaking my rules about links and soliciting readers to your site), but until Change.org decides to pick a direction rather than pander to inflammatory ignorance by opening its soapbox up to anyone, then what would we talk about? The merit of ignoring the Constitution when there’s someone we like better (rape victims) or someone we hate worse (rapists)? That’s not a worthy discussion.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Sorry if you’re a stronger link, but the chain still don’t hold.
Your desire for change.org to “pick a direction” suggests you don’t understand the concept you’re writing off.
The site is a platform for many voices, including editors, bloggers, reporters, organizations and individuals. We don’t have a controlling ideology. Our goal is to provide the tools for people to work together to make change on social issues. Sometimes the suggested changes won’t be wise, but the community will bear that out. We will remove a post that is untruthful or offensive but not necessarily one that challenges something in the U.S. Constitution.
Do you write off any publication with multiple voices and opinions unless it has a controlling editorial ideology?
Should newspapers make sure their columnists aren’t challenging the constitution in any way before they run an opinion piece?
I don’t “desire” change.org to do anything. I’m writing you off for your failure to do so. That’s my reaction to what I consider your failed concept. Your attempt to compare yourself to a newspaper points out the fallacy of your concept. Newspapers will print op-eds from different perspectives, but they will not print anything anyone writes. They will decide what to print based on the credibility and bona fides of the writer, and the value of the opinion.
You don’t do that, yet want to take refuge in claiming to provide differing points of view. You can’t have it both ways. Either control content by limiting it to the credible, or be incredible.
As for “providing tools for people to work together,” that’s how one sets out to invent a horse and ends up with a camel. Consensus is highly overrated.
We could go around in circles on this, it’s clear we have different views of the role and potential of online media.
You continue to write off change.org without understanding the site. While anyone can start an action, we only run blog posts from qualified bloggers. The author of the post you’re responding to is an experienced reporter and a full-time editor on the site. You disagree with one opinion he expressed, you decided ridicule was the best way to respond and you decided to impugn the entire site based on one post.
Our focus isn’t necessarily consensus, it’s collaboration, social action, community building and the exchange of ideas. If you disagree with a post or an argument, I suggest pointing your response at that post and not attacking an entire site. If you want to argue that an online news and action model is “a failed concept,” please familiarize yourself with the site first.
No, Matt, we are not going around in circles. You keep posting comments on my blawg in an attempt to beg another chance for your ill-conceived wanker website. While I’ve given you the courtesy of letting your comments appear, and responding to them, that doesn’t mean we’re going around in circles. My end was over after I published this post. Instead of banging your head against the wall, maybe you ought to give some hard thought as to why your concept has failed rather than make excuses for it or beg for another chance.