There are a couple of interesting editorial pieces in today's Inquirer.
Reacting to recent medical pronouncements about road rage, Claude Lewis weighs in against medicalization of bad behavior:
There was a day when drug addiction, alcoholism and other pathologies were seen for what they were: human failures by individuals who had lost control of their lives. Today, however, is the day of Too Much Medicine.
Today, all sorts of bad behavior is being reclassified - as one disease or another. The latest is something doctors are referring to as "intermittent explosive disorder" (IED). They're tying it to road rage, which erupts when one driver cuts off another and the battle begins.
A new study by researchers from Harvard and the University of Chicago informs us that as many as 16 million people - mostly men - suffer from IED.
Road rage is famously common. Sometimes the result is tragic; sometimes the rager dies, the rage-ee, or both. And innocent bystanders and passersby have been hurt or killed. Some ragers carry guns in the car and threaten drivers for only minor infractions.
No doubt, this stuff is destructive and dangerous. And perhaps this new classification is true to the medical and scientific facts. But it shouldn't change this fact: If you give in to anger and hurt someone, you should be liable to punishment. Yes, even if you're a little less able to "help it" than someone else is. We should not let this study, and others like it, lend legitimacy to behavior that is more legitimately considered as... well, bad. And we should resist the trend toward "medicalizing" every human condition and behavior.
Unless the person is so insane as to be incapable of understanding the difference between right and wrong, the extent to which he's unable to "help it" should not be a defense to to a criminal charge, although I think it's fair for judges to take these things into account at sentencing. Lewis is right that the labeling of bad behavior as "illness" creates confusion that leads inexorably towards allowing people to escape criminal liability. There's a growing chorus of "experts" who can be counted on to maintain that not only crime but virtually any bad behavior is caused by one "disease" or another. Children are medicated for not paying attention in class. Even bigotry has been proposed as a category of mental illness. (Does this mean that the psychiatricprofession before 1973 suffered from mental illness?)
Which leads to the other editorial by guest columnist Rae Theodore. Her car sports a Rainbow flag, which she displays as a symbol of gay pride. While the car was parked, someone came along and used a key to vandalize her flag -- an act she believes was a hate crime:
The use of the rainbow flag as a symbol of gay pride started in 1978, when it first appeared in the San Francisco Gay and Lesbian Freedom Day Parade. Almost 30 years later, the flag still flies around the world as a symbol of gay pride and diversity. You'll see many of them in town this week as Philadelphia hosts its own gay pride parade and festival.
Although this symbol might seem innocuous, I am currently experiencing a personal rainbow dilemma. You see, as a lesbian, I am a fan of the rainbow. I wear a rainbow silicone bracelet with imprints of the word PROUD and the Human Rights Commission's equality logo. When it comes to spending my money, I look for rainbow peace signs on the doors of business establishments. I smile when I see a rainbow bear sticker on a car parked next to mine at the local movie theater or a rainbow sticker on the back of a car caught in Shore traffic on the Atlantic City Expressway.
I drive a car that has a skinny 14-inch-long rainbow bumper sticker on the back, right above my license plate. In the past, I've noticed scratches on my 10-year-old vehicle in the vicinity of the sticker. Being a positive thinker, I have refused to give in to the notion that anyone has ever keyed my car because it sports a symbol of gay pride. I've attributed the various scratches and blemishes around the sticker area to normal wear and tear, as well as the carelessness of my young son.
However, a few days ago, my car was intentionally damaged for the sole reason, I believe, that it has a gay-pride symbol. The vandalism occurred when I was shopping with my son in the suburbs. When we returned to the car after shopping, I noticed that someone had taken an object, most likely a key, and gouged into the paint and metal of the automobile in several places right above my rainbow sticker. In addition, two slashes had been made through the indigo and violet sections of the sticker.
Initially, I was angry and wanted to speak to a store manager and insist that security tapes of the parking lot be reviewed. I thought about calling the police and sparking a thorough hate-crimes investigation. Ultimately, I decided against taking any action as I had my son with me and he had declared this day the best one of his young life. (He had just purchased a Nintendo GameBoy system and two Star Wars games with his birthday money.)
Soon after we returned home and I had put away our purchases, my anger faded to sadness. I was hurt that someone would damage my property simply because I am gay. I also experienced fear.
While I never especially liked the Rainbow Flag, vandalism is vandalism, and Ms. Theodore has my sympathies. There is no more right to deface someone's rainbow flag sticker than there would be a right to deface a black pride sticker or a Jesus sticker. If a Jesus sticker (say, a fish logo) is similarly defaced, would that mean that the vandal committed a hate crime motivated by religious intolerance? Suppose it was an atheist sticker?
Or, suppose it was a Bush sticker. Last year (after Dennis told me about it) I photographed a Bush sign which had been vandalized right on the wall of someone's home.
Whether these acts mean that the vandal hated gays, Christians, or Republicans (I suppose these three groups are not mutually exclusive), or whether he hated the message on the sticker is always tough to determine without getting inside the mind of the vandal. But if bigotry is a disease (which words like "homophobia" and "Christophobia" clearly imply), then is it really fair to penalize the mental illness as an additional crime beyond the act of vandalism? If, on the other hand, bigotry is not a disease but a thought process, then should it become a separate thought crime?
I don't think hatred is mental illness -- any more than "intermittent explosive disorder." If someone's hatred makes him so unable to control himself that he attacks someone or commits vandalism, he should not be allowed to escape punishment.
Whether some hatred is more permissible than others is a much more complicated question. Are road ragers less morally culpable than car keying bigots? What if someone displays road rage against the driver of a car with a bumpersticker that infuriates him and makes him lose control? Has a Kerry driver ever cut off a Bush driver or vice versa? Has an aggressively-jacked-up 4 wheeler pickup with an NRA sticker ever tailgated a gentle Subaru with a Rainbow Flag? (I'd be willing to bet these things have happened, but would that make them hate crimes?)
These things are traditionally left up to judges, not psychiatrists.
I certainly wouldn't leave any of this up to activists. They have a tendency to take sides, and judge people based on their political preferences.
What about my Confederate Rainbow Flag design? I meant it as satire, but if I printed one of these and put it on my car, might people take it the wrong way?
Yeah, they might. It might cause confusion -- especially if viewed by the inattentive, or the color blind. Or it might be construed as "hate speech" by angry gay activists, or angry Confederate activists. I guess there aren't too many angry gay Confederate activists. (But if there were, they'd have plenty to be angry about, wouldn't they?)
Sigh.
Can't we get along?
Perhaps I should add a slogan like "THIS IS SATIRE. PLEASE DON'T HURT ME!"
MORE: My thanks to Pajamas Media for linking this post!
UPDATE (06/09/06): My thanks to Van at Kesher Talk for linking this post and for the very kind words. Van also posed an interesting question:
What are the odds that Scheie and a hardy band of Dixie-whistling gay Confederate militants would be embraced and welcomed to the New York Gay Pride march on June 25, in the spirit of tolerance for diverse viewpoints?
The registration form is here. I'm tempted, even though the June 2 deadline has passed. As a descendant of a Union veteran, I especially like the diversity idea, and I think these T-shirts would complement the flag.
Appropriate accessorizing might present legal problems in New York City. . .
posted by Eric on 06.07.06 at 09:02 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3685
Comments
Satire, I am afraid, is dead.
So is the joy of participating in American political discussion.
It's been killed by folks on both the right and the left.
On one hand, you have right wing pundits (like Ann Coulter) who equate being liberal with Satanic devil worship. Try telling that to my Quaker friends who believe in God and work for social justice.
And folks on the left are just as bad, alleging that financial conservatives are KKK-members or Neo-Nazis in disguise. Try telling that to financiers building a cancer ward at a children’s hospital.
It does seem that folks are not just refusing to get along – but they refuse to accept that other people have different opinions (that could, potentially, be valid). They further believe that difference of opinion is a threat – and that it must be destroyed.
They refuse to consider the ramifications of incessant partisan bickering.
In their zeal to win, their zest for power, both sides have fragmented the collective discourse into such a nasty-assed game of continual one-upmanship.
Maybe this quest for power (and control) is a medical condition, too.
But how can you medicate ambition?
Or the desire to win?
Or the zest for power?
Or the desire to know that one is correct in all matter of issues?
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Satire, I am afraid, is dead.
So is the joy of participating in American political discussion.
It's been killed by folks on both the right and the left.
On one hand, you have right wing pundits (like Ann Coulter) who equate being liberal with Satanic devil worship. Try telling that to my Quaker friends who believe in God and work for social justice.
And folks on the left are just as bad, alleging that financial conservatives are KKK-members or Neo-Nazis in disguise. Try telling that to financiers building a cancer ward at a children’s hospital.
It does seem that folks are not just refusing to get along – but they refuse to accept that other people have different opinions (that could, potentially, be valid). They further believe that difference of opinion is a threat – and that it must be destroyed.
They refuse to consider the ramifications of incessant partisan bickering.
In their zeal to win, their zest for power, both sides have fragmented the collective discourse into such a nasty-assed game of continual one-upmanship.
Maybe this quest for power (and control) is a medical condition, too.
But how can you medicate ambition?
Or the desire to win?
Or the zest for power?
Or the desire to know that one is correct in all matter of issues?
Try medicating that…