Posted on 07/21/2002 8:27:39 AM PDT by KatieLee
What We Must Do ... To Protect Our Children
A CALL TO ACTION BY ANDREW VACHSS
The Difference Between "Sick" and "Evil"
By Andrew Vachss
Originally published in Parade, July 14, 2002
Andrew Vachss, a PARADE Contributing Editor, is a lawyer whose only clients are children. For more than three decades, he has observed the devastating effects of child abuse firsthand. In light of recent headlines, we asked him to share his unique perspective on a subject of grave importance to us all.
The shock waves caused by the recent exposures of so-called "pedophile priests" have reverberated throughout America. But beneath our anger and revulsion, a fundamental question pulsates: Are those who abuse their positions of trust to prey upon children—a category certainly not limited to those in religious orders—sick ... or are they evil?
We need the answer to that fundamental question. Because, without the truth, we cannot act. And until we act, nothing will change.
My job is protecting children. It has taken me from big cities to rural outposts, from ghettos to penthouses, and from courtrooms to genocidal battlefields. But whatever the venue, the truth remains constant: Some humans intentionally hurt children. They commit unspeakable acts—for their pleasure, their profit, or both.
Many people who hear of my cases against humans who rape, torture, and package children for sale or rent immediately respond with, "That's sick!" Crimes against children seem so grotesquely abnormal that the most obvious explanation is that the perpetrator must be mentally ill—helpless in the grip of a force beyond his or her control.
But that very natural reaction has, inadvertently, created a special category of "blameless predator." That confusion of "sick" with "sickening" is the single greatest barrier to our primary biological and ethical mandate: the protection of our children.
The difference between sick and evil cannot be dismissed with facile eye-of-the-beholder rhetoric. There are specific criteria we can employ to give us the answers in every case, every time.
READ the complete article here: http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/parade_071402.html
Katie Lee
USA
Indeed, sick is misused again and again for evil. It's rather infuriating.
Most Freepers know this. How do we get the word out?
The crimes are so unspeakable, many believe that those who commit them must be mentally ill. But that very natural reaction is what prevents us from seeing the truth.
The labeling of these people as sick does in fact cause many to empathize with them, at a time when such feelings should go out to those who've been the victims of such abuse.
My wife has done good work for years with a non profit group that acts as court advocates for kids at risk and victims of abuse. There is nothing more sobering than seeing in person a child who has been victimized by such an evil act.
The things that are lost in such a child are the innoncence of childhood, the trusting relationships of adults, and hope. That, of course, is in addition to the trauma associated with the event.
Anything that takes these things away from a beautiful and innocent child can never be labeled as anything other than evil. Anyone who cares so little for those things represented by a child, does not care for our future, does not care for innocence, and reviles all things good.
Labeling them as sick is just feel good liberalism to cause the person to take no responsibility of the act.
Except that most Freepers don't know this. The pedophile says "My illness made me do it." The freeper says "The porn made him do it."
But ultimately, the practical effect is the same - both of those self-serving statements absolve the evil person of responsibility for their own actions. The pedophile absolves himself of any blame by telling us that the devil made him do it, and we're ready to rush in and agree that that, yes, the devil really did make him do it.
No more absolution, I say....
There is also a world of difference between receiving absolution and being absolved of punishment for these evils. They will pay.
Thanks for posting it!
And just as evil is always a choice, sickness is always the absence of choice. Sickness happens. Evil is inflicted.
In New Zealand the church announced a blanket release from the "gag order" included in all settlement agreements.
The American church should have done the same. On the other hand the victims who want publicity simply ought to break the gag rule. No one is going to take them to court or try to recover money.
I think many of the victims in the US have already done so and if I'm not mistaken, a few of the dioceses here have lifted the gag rule, but it is not a general rule.
If the church's policy is to hide felonies, then they need to be dismantled under RICOH statutes, because they are engaged in organized crime. To hell with church manadates, if their policy is to protect molesters and violate criminal statutes. Would civil claims be even remotely as large if they had zero tolerance?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.