Jihad, Rape, And Profiling

All men are pigs. That's stereotyping – a characterization which has, for a variety of reasons, become embedded in the minds of many women. Usually they're referring to the sexual appetites of males, and to their propensity for aggressive and bestial behavior. Sadly, there is much to support that concern. Women and children have something to fear and it is reasonable to be wary. The establishment of registries of sex-offenders is society's way of identifying possible threats. Would you buy a home for your family next door to that of a “rehabilitated” rapist?

That's an easy question, so let me pose another. How do you feel about “stop and frisk” laws? That, too, is an easy question. The idea that people might be considered a threat prior to there being a crime, and lacking evidence that they have criminal intentions, is abhorrent to our principles. It's unconstitutional, isn't it? Profiling – an activity that causes us to suspect a particular individual of being more likely than others to pose a threat – robs that individual of the presumption of innocence. Indeed, to a degree, his mere existence incriminates him.

Perhaps, however, the question is not as straightforward as it seems. We all profile all the time. It may be termed prejudice or justified caution, but it's the same thing. Is there a group of “Hell's Angels” ahead, and a way to reach your destination without walking the gauntlet? You'll probably take it. Has there been a home invasion in your neighborhood? And is there a “suspicious” person on your street looking at the houses? “If you see something, say something.” No one would accuse you of profiling if you notified your Neighborhood Watch, but that's what it is.ⁱ Perhaps it would be profiling if we just dragged in “the usual suspects.”

The act takes on another dimension, however, when it's done by a governmental agency. After all, though societies were formed to protect the individual from harm and our all-knowing government has instituted the Patriot Act,ⁱⁱ that Act, and society's obligations notwithstanding, our officials are the ones bound by the Constitution – even if we're not. So if a man whom no one knows is seen giving out candy bars to small children leaving a kindergarten, there is no justification for police questioning him.ⁱⁱⁱ Authorities would not question a soldier giving out chocolate to children in a town his division had just liberated, so the act itself cannot justify any official suspicion of the man in front of the school. Even if there has been a rash of kidnapings from the school. Absent a specific indication that he is linked to those crimes, questioning his motives isn't justified. Pull out your camera (or camera-phone) and document police oppression, like this profiling, if^iv it occurs.

Yet profiling by all of us is common.^v It always has been. We think of it now in terms of race^vi and religion,^vii but there's always been a reason. Throughout history, including our own,^viii specific groups have been chosen as suspect or to be rejected. But we consider that kind of bias “normal,” and when we focus on private prejudices like this, we avoid the basic question: Is there ever any justification for profiling; for using statistics to govern our own actions? If we act only on the basis of those prejudices, what we do isn't justified, but the decision about the rational use of the information available – even is some see bias in it – cannot be dismissed out of hand. We may not think about it that way, but it's the cause for most of what we do. The things we know, and the things we have learned from others, control what we do. Experience, education, and intuition are our guides to action. Yet we would deny them to those who represent us. We reject the idea that they should have preconcieved notions.

When there is a short circuit or other electrical problem we call in an electrician who, knowing the most common sources of such failings, will look at these first. They may or may not be responsible for our problems, but it is rational to evaluate them before other possibilities are explored. The same is true of plumbing problems. We leave to the expert, the one with experience, the determination of the cause of the problem in our case. Perhaps it will take several different approaches before the answer is found, but we don't forbid the expert from any particular one because there isn't a demonstrable cause. And we don't second-guess. For we know that dispensing with education, expertise, and experience – the sources of preconceived notions – is dispensing with common sense.

Years ago, before some of the currently available medical tools had been perfected, it was a common practice to perform “exploratory” surgery when a specific diagnosis couldn't be made otherwise. The surgeon might have suspected one disease or another, but lacked certainty. In some cases a particular problem – often incurable – was located. In some, a process, sometimes unsuspected, was discovered in an early enough stage that treatment and cure were possible, while in others it was determined that there wasn't anything serious going on; the patient wasn't suffering from some horrible disease, and could be treated conservatively.^ix It was a case of medical profiling. The person with undiagnosed abdominal symptoms was subjected to surgery whose results couldn't be foretold. Perhaps the risks were high, but the payoff would be higher.

And the same is true of other of society's problems. If Jihad is feared, action to prevent it is warranted, even if those being investigated are later found to have no ties to terrorist organizations, and their caution is viewed as intrusive and unwarranted.^x If rape is a possibility, waiting for it to occur before taking necessary steps to prevent it may be ideologically pure, but it is foolish. And waiting for a theft or a murder to take place because, notwithstanding the knowledge and intuition of a police officer, it cannot be proved in advance, is nothing less than malfeasance, cowardice, misconduct, or whatever other description you prefer. A signed threat should not be required before action is taken. The officer may be wrong, but inaction is often worse than a mistake. Proof is one end of a spectrum and infinitesimal possibility is the other. In between are many gradations, and somewhere we have to draw the line. We have to follow up on valid suspicions even if they don't pay off.

We're all gamblers. We play the odds. “Slick” Willie Sutton is credited with robbing banks because “that's where the money is.”^xi Our practices, of course, are more mundane: We look for books in the library and meat at the butcher rather than go to the automobile dealership for both. There's an excellent chance of success, though no guarantee that we'll find the book we're after nor the cut of meat needed for the recipe we've chosen, at the “right” distributors, and the odds that are certainly better than they would be at a car salesroom. A suspicious individual is more likely to be a bomber in Kabul than Keokuk. And if the line in front of the movie theater is long, we'll probably avoid it, rather than stand on it only to find out that we're still waiting when the film we want to see has started. Our prior experience and our intuition are likely to pay off.

So when it comes to profiling, the keys to success with the least disruption of public order and personal rights, are the goodwill and credibility of the investigator and the minimization of any prejudices. If the authority that invests him with a badge or other similar credential, determines, after extensive testing and psychological probing (and that authority is pledged to investigate when any suspicion of overreaching arises) that he is worthy of trust, then we should be cautious about second guessing.^xii Thresholds of suspicion will certainly vary from one individual to another, but a society that would remain free will have to tolerate them. The system won't be perfect, but we're not perfect. We're inclined to tell the police to stop profiling and do “police work.” But we never define that work, and we never acknowledge that it includes experience and intuition in assessing threats. And profiling is part of that.^xiii

It's not an easy question.

Next episode: “Forget It” – As if you remembered in the first place.

i        Just as it would be profiling if you became suspicious if you reported a known jewel thief looking furtive in front of Harry Winston, or an apparent Middle-Easterner wearing a bulky coat on a hot summer day and walking toward a crowd. As a matter of fact, it's not unreasonable to view the refusal to buy a house next door to a rehabilitated rapist as profiling. You're doing so if he's served his term, isn't suspected of anything, and hasn't broken any laws since release.

ii       And the Alien and Sedition Acts in the past, as well as Supreme Court decisions restricting Freedom of Speech.

iii      Although we might attack him.

iv      Actually, when it occurs. The police are known to trample on the rights of individuals who are not violating any laws, so you know it's going to happen.

v       Perhaps the “rapist” who might be next door really is rehabilitated and wants to forget the past and move on. Perhaps he just wants to be left alone and actually represents no risk. Perhaps he was wrongly convicted and doesn't belong in the registry. Is it worth the risk?

vi      We always think first of blacks when a crime has been committed and when we want to prevent crime. There may be no specific reason to suspect someone apart from his race, but that statistic is sometimes used for selective stopping and questioning when a crime is being investigated and when authorities seek to keep the streets safe.

vii     Muslims, and those that police and the public believe to be Muslims, are often the targets when people are getting nervous about the possibility of terrorism. It's based on the reality that most of terrorist attacks around the globe, whether or not associated with a known terrorist group, are perpetrated by Muslims. Even if the vast majority of Muslims oppose violence (at least in this country), the stain of Jihad has covered everyone, and the determination not to risk a future disaster colors the thinking of those who protect us.

viii    Blacks, Catholics, Irish, Jews, and Italians are among many groups that have, in the past, been singled out for special exclusion and condemnation.

ix      It was interesting to see how often patients, no longer suspected of a fatal disease like cancer, weren't relieved, but (after signing a consent which acknowledged this as a possibility – a possibility for which they probably prayed) questioned why they had had surgery if there was nothing wrong. There was no recognition that such a procedure, however painful, could also be beneficial and could provide useful information or guidance for further therapy. But once bitten, twice shy. The surgeon might then choose to do nothing for future patients until signs of a specific disease were obvious. But by that time it might be too late. Avoiding “red flags,” and waiting for proof might make the search academic, but the patient couldn't accuse him of action with insufficient evidence. A balance between intuition and provable fact has to be accepted.

x       The increased number of attacks by individuals not associated with known organizations makes proof of institutional membership a questionable criterion for consideration of a suspect.

xi      In his biography he denied ever having said it. “Quote Investigator” suggests its origin is an Alfred Tennyson poem “The Northern Farmer, New Style” published by 1870, which includes the following: Doänt thou marry for munny, but goä wheer munny is! (See http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/02/10/where-money-is/)

xii     If, in one or more particular cases, a properly designed tool is abused, more attention should be paid to training people in the correct way to use it rather than tossing it out. In this instance the tool is profiling, which is used to great advantage in many other countries.

xiii    The tools are likely to be better in the future but we can only work with what we have. And if someone who would abuse a current tool slips through the system, and we take away what we're now using, he'll find some other outlet for his bias. It's the screening and training of those we entrust with our safety that deserve a greater part of our attention than efforts to limit their authority and their tools.

One In Five

Wringing his hands,ⁱ yesterday the President declared that twelve percent of college women had been assaulted during their academic years. Since many such incidents go unreported the likelihood was that the percentage was higher, and he said that one in five had been assaulted. A few weeks earlier, with negative publicity mounting due to reports of sexual abuse in the service academies, he announced an initiative to deal with the high rate of rape in the entire military.ⁱⁱ For cynics it might appear that he was attempting to distract the electorate from considering other issues – ones in which they may have found him to be either on the wrong side, or on the right side but failing.ⁱⁱⁱ The number of assaults, however, is very troubling^iv and cannot be sloughed off. Some remedy must be found.

But before rushing ahead headlong with solutions, it would be prudent to get more information. For example, is the newly announced problem limited to schools? Is it in fact a recent situation? What are the numbers and how have they changed over the years? Are some schools – or types of schools – more likely to have a problem than others? Is the problem more generalized?^v

None of the answers to these questions can possibly lessen the enormity of the problem or mitigate against decisive action,^vi but delineation of the causes is the first step in designing a meaningful response. I choose to believe that the President raised the issue now because it is getting worse, and he mentioned the colleges because that is where it is most severe. I choose to believe it because it seems to me to have been inevitable.

Inevitable? That's a strong word, but a country like ours that has undergone a sexual revolution in the last half-century, (whose culture^vii illustrates – no, it celebrates – the joy of sex for everyone, mixed sex dormatories – first limiting the sexes by floor, then by room, and now opening all rooms to all takers, easy availability of pregnancy prevention methods – including abortion if all else fails, pornography, and the like) is conveying the message that we encourage sexual activity among the unmarried – not just tolerate it. Our “sexual mores” seem to boil down to “more sex.” We proclaim loudly that sex is great^viii and (almost) everyone wants it, so how can we turn around and just say “no.” Indeed, there are many who believe that when a woman says no she is just being coy. And even if she means it, she may not report a rape, and the desire of the moment overpowers any concern for the future, or for the woman. And we also glorify and legalize getting high on marijuana and alcohol, with more likely to come.

It would be nice to believe that we can educate society. Perhaps that should be the first step. Not to tell people that they won't enjoy sex – they'll laugh at whoever tries such an approach. But they may be more responsive to delineations of the physical and psychological results of unprotected sex. We're doing that now, however, and not accomplishing very much. And we tried prohibition of alcohol once – a glaring failure.

Another way to educate people is through a change in emphasis in the media and in entertainment. But many will view it as an intrusion on the First Amendment if we ask TV and film producers, and the other media as well, to remove, or at least deemphasize sex in what they feed our citizens. In addition to the legal questions related to such a move, however, it would be foolhardy to ignore the economic implications. Sex makes money. If antisocial behavior results from what they peddle, so be it. It's the economy, stupid.^ix

No. Those measures won't be effective. More Draconian penalties, though, might do the trick.^x Suppose rapists were sentenced to (for example) twenty years and those convicted of lesser offences to ten years.^xi No plea bargaining and no judicial discretion. These are not victimless crimes. Long sentences would also be useful since “[a]ssailants were often serial offenders … nearly two-thirds of them said they had done so [attempted or committed rape] multiple times – six on average.”^xii Prison is a good way to keep them off the streets. Advertising of these sentences may cut down on the offenses even more than the imposition of the penalties.

Of course convictions may be hard to come by for a variety of reasons. Among them is the possibility that the accused is innocent. Women, moreover, may be reluctant to press charges out of fear or a misguided concern for the perpetrator.^xiii Should she do so, however, even with a public that is conditioned to believe the accuser, the imposition of long sentences may not sit well with juries – especially men – and they'll look for ways to find the defendant not guilty.

And guilt is difficult to prove in a situation where there are no witnesses. There is often a question of whether the sexual activity is consensual, and the argument over that point is the dispute the jury faces. But that is no different from the existing dilemma, so the best we can hope to do is improve the odds. Multiple lie detector tests of both parties may help in the determination. It is clear that the tests are not perfect, but if done repeatedly^xiv and involving both the accuser and the accused, they may be helpful to the jury, especially if one of the parties always appears to be telling the truth and the other always appears to be lying. And it certainly adds to the “he said, she said” testimony that may be all the jury has.

Unfortunately, the “he said, she said” testimony could be a major stumbling block. Because juries are often biased towards the woman, sometimes accusations are made for spite, and may result in a man's unjustified conviction and long-term incarceration. One way to make a woman think twice about making false accusations “just to get even,” would be to automatically try the woman for making the accusation if the man is acquitted. Her conviction would not be automatic by any means, but if she is convicted her sentence should be what the man she accused would have received. This might minimize the problem.

And now to get back to the advertising. Ads emphasizing these penalties would make a rapist think twice about committing the act, and his victim about making a false accusation – especially if there were a few well publicized examples of both kinds of sentences being given. And if serial rapes can be avoided, others would benefit as well. Perhaps, following a few well publicized convictions, more women could even be convinced to come forward to stop the rapists and protect their sisters.

And finally, it would also help if mixed dormatories were phased out in favor of the single sex variety. After all, out of site, out of mind.

i       Figuratively.

ii      The President gave the military a year to demonstrate that it had cut down on the number or sexual assaults throughout its ranks. The Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Acadamies was issued in 2005 and the problem remains, so it is difficult to understand how significant progress throughout the military will come about in a year.

iii     The New York Times (Jackie Calmes, January 22, 2014) reports “Later, at a ceremony in the East Room, Mr. Obama signed a memorandum creating [a] task force … The issue is a priority of women's groups, which have been crucial to Mr. Obama's election victories.” A memorandum and a task force should do the trick nicely – especially when the President announces it to the press at a ceremony in the East Room.

iv      Any number is troubling. And Draconian measures are justified in eliminating all sexual assault from our society. Or at least limiting it, since there will always be disturbed individuals who can't (or won't) control themselves.

v       If so the problem may have different causes and may need to be addressed by other means.

vi      Even though governmental action may not solve the problem – especially if designed primarily for the positive press it may garner – it's worth trying. But bear in mind the following which appeared in the Times article cited above. “At [President Obama's] side was Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who 20 years ago won passage of the Violence Against Women Act ...” Twenty years ago and the problem hasn't been solved. Don't look for a quick fix unless your prepared to take strong steps and ignore the response they evoke.

vii     In books, magazines, movies, television, theater, and song. What have I left out?

viii    A point I don't dispute.

ix      In addition, though counterintuitive, the relationship between pornography and violence, and antisocial behavior is disputed. (Of course, even if proved it would be disputed, as would the remedies. Some view absolute freedom as trumping any other consideration. “Slippery slope” and all that sort of self-righteous drivel. It's more like reductio ad absurdum, and its proponents don't know how to draw lines.)

x        It is sometimes argued that with new laws and new penalties there is disproportionate penalizing of minorities. If the problem is primarily in colleges and, as many complain, minorities don't have the opportunity to attend college as often as others, it is those others who will be guilty and dispropotionately penalized.

xi      The numbers, of course, are just conversation starters and subject to change by our legislators. But a rapist convicted at the time the Violence Against Women Act was passed would just be getting out of prison now.

xii      New York Times, ibid.

xiii    Of course the opposite may happen – unfounded charges may be leveled as a form of revenge or for other reasons. But I'll deal with that shortly.

xiv     By different “experts” who have been certified by the state and work for it. If some of the tests are performed by someone later judged to be unreliable, there will be other testimony still existing. Similar multiple site DNA testing should take place when there is a denial of contact by the accused and another is blamed. The multiple site approach will improve accuracy and lessen the chances that a particular conviction is overturned because other test results in a specific site are questionable. The immediate costs may be greater, but the accuracy of the results and the conviction of a rapist before he has repeated himself will ultimately save the government money.

The Continuity Of Humanity

                                                                            

It is the “instinct” of living things to survive. The continuity of individual species is a primary part of the inborn “program” of all plants and animals. A species cannot evolve if it is extinct. We recognize this basic principal when we support efforts to label and preserve endangered species.ⁱ

For that continuity to take place – for the good of the species – it is important that reproduction take place. That reproduction should be in large numbers and with an emphasis on variation, since evolution, and the advancement both of individual species and life in general, depends on these fundamental building blocks. The greater the number of members of a species, the greater the possibility for superior examples to exist.ⁱⁱ The greater that number, moreover, the greater the possibility of new variations in the genetic pool which will allow advancement to take place.

With that in mind, a lot can be said in favor of rape and incest. Both of these practices increase the likelihood of additional pregnancies and additional progeny. What could be better devised to provide for species continuity? Society may not be sanguine about these methods, but that is an emotional rather than a rational reaction. Whatever yields a greater number of species members is advantageous to the species.ⁱⁱⁱ

A ban on homosexuality and abortions, therefore, makes sense – not for any religious reasons but because actions that decrease the number of species members are counterproductive. Similarly, the death penalty should be outlawed and all prisons emptied so that there will be more individuals – humans in the case under discussion – available to reproduce. These steps may not seem to be rational, but, in fact, they are – at least in terms of evolution. Evolution is a product of time and numbers. We may not be able to affect the passage of time, but we can increase the numbers. Any action that limits population should be abjured since it limits evolution at the same time. If those actions are not examples of the Law of Unanticipated Results, they have the same effect. However virtuous the goal of limiting numbers in the hope of improving the condition of humanity, that action will inevitably hamper our evolution to a better and more productive humanity.

We can also improve the quality of the species by a restoration of a limited form of the practice of eugenics. We have no compunctions about using selective breeding techniques to get better looking flowers or cattle with more meat and less fat, and similar methods designed to produce more intelligent and healthier humans make sense as well. I do not propose that we leave deformed babies on the mountain sides, or that we withhold treatment from the sick (especially those capable of reproducing) in order to rid ourselves of imperfect examples of our kind, but with the limitation of resources that seems to be an unavoidable part of our civilization, it seems counterproductive to use funds for the salvage of the infirm who may pass their own infirmity on to future generations.^iv It would be better to use the limited funds for the discovery of those with superior DNA, and the matching of those individuals for reproduction – as well as genetic manipulation, and also the cloning of superior specimens.

The combination of rape, incest, ends to abortion, homosexuality, and the death penalty, the release of convicts, and the encouragement of cloning, multiple births and eugenics, then, should have beneficial effects on the evolution of humanity. That may seem counterintuitive, but the logic is unassailable. At least in terms of what we know about natural selection and evolution.

But for many, such steps don't make much sense. For them, evolution has more to do with ethics than with numbers and anatomy. However many members of humanity there are, we have a responsibility for them. The concepts of right and wrong take precedence over numbers, and the idea that the end – a larger population – justifies the means. The promotion of rape and incest, for example – makes a mockery of the whole idea of humanity. Perhaps many favor an end to the death penalty, but not the release of dangerous prisoners. And if they oppose eugenics and abortion, it is not in order to aid evolution. It is because they believe these practices to be wrong.

Interestingly, the ideas of right and wrong do not seem to be cultural, since they exist in almost all societies including isolated ones.^v They seem to be inborn. In a way, they are as much a part of human beings as arms and legs, a liver and a spleen. But the anatomical features may be found as well in what we view as lower forms. A hyena has legs; a rattlesnake has a liver. As humanity has evolved it has found ethical concepts as part of its makeup. From a violent past we have progressed to a present in which it is “human nature” to provide for the less fortunate; we all know without being taught that murder and theft are wrong. We seem to be evolving into a species that sees the Ten Commandments as natural and unassailable. As Voltaire put it in “The Three Impostors," "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." Voltaire used the subjunctive because he believed that God did exist. But that view is not universal. Even so, it seems that if we don't kill each other off first, evolution will one day bring us to the point that we all accept the idea that there are rules as real as our organs, and those rules cannot be questioned any more than our lungs can be questioned.

Or, if we accept religious doctrines as they now exist, it is obvious that the proposals to aid evolution may be rational, but they're foolish and immoral. We don't need evolution to teach us these rules, we have them already.

Next episode: “Time In” – There's a time for everything.

i      I don't mean to suggest that all the efforts to protect endangered species are rational, but the reasoning on which such efforts are based has some internal logic. Arguments can be made, however, that the cost of saving some species is too high to justify any conceivable benefits that evolution may confer on them.

ii     Inferior ones will also be produced, but that's a risk worth taking. And they are less likely to survive in the long run.

iii    IVF (in-vitro fertilization) is developing and being utilized at an increasing rate as time goes by. I would be advantageous to the effort to ensure multiple pregnancies as often as possible to increase the numbers. “Octomom,” and the doctor who performed the procedure that resulted in that result, are to be congratulated for their work to enlarge the genetic pool.

iv     There is nothing to be gained by helping the survival of evolution's failures.

v      The ideas may not be identical. There may be differences in the details of right and wrong, but there are some ideas that bridge all cultures. And the very idea that there are certain practices that are wrong is common to all groups.