Something that was left out in Kyle Cupp’s recent post on a proposal to limit abortion funding to certain instances of rape was the relative novelty of having medical professionals act in a law enforcement capacity. I’m feeling a little lazy at the moment, but I seem to recall mandatory reporter laws going into effect only within the last couple decades. Mandatory reporter laws compel some professionals to report crimes to the police. Nurses, doctors, and teachers are often the professionals cited, and crimes are typically domestic violence or crimes against children. Some folks like Lila Rose have exploited these laws to entrap abortion counselors.** I’m not sure if the evidence shows that these measures have protected children or domestic violence victims, but they made us feel better and added to the liability insurance premiums of professionals, and that is what is important.
Particularly in relation to the priestly abuse scandals, much mention has been made of how we in the first world have faith in law enforcement and the court system to do the right thing. Worries over judges and police perpetuating injustices are basically reserved for hyperbolic expression or at least the worries are of a more temporal nature where we expect resolution of any injustice within a finite period. The idea that bishops should be eager to turn investigations of abuse over to police can only be understood in such a context, and the idea that the professional should be compelled by law to act as an extension of law enforcement can only be contemplated by such a context. Likewise the idea that any employer, which likely is inclusive of everyone in the nation at some point, has as a first obligation to aid in the enforcement of immigration laws comes from an idea of the role of government that would be foreign to our ancestors.
In fairness to the law’s proponents, the status of being a rape victim in order to receive funding was an issue before they came along. Once the decision has been made to provide services based on status, other parties are necessarily implicated in the policy choice or at least have the potential to be implicated. And there certainly is nothing unreasonable about seeking to effectively enforce policy prerogatives chosen. If we were discussing a preamble like “So as to ensure that rape victims have adequate access to help, we authorize…”, there would be no need to have the discussion, because everyone’s understanding would be that we weren’t seeking to discriminate; rather we would just be excuse making. That happens all the time in law making, but we aren’t trying to do so here.
Finally, the idea that society has an obligation to attempt to make victims whole is hooey, to get technical. If Bill steals $200 from Bob, the State isn’t obligated to give Bob $200. About the only thing worse than being victimized itself is the realization that no matter what your next step is, you lose. If you report the crime and cooperate with police, you lose your time, have your integrity questioned, and are not even guaranteed a guilty verdict. If you don’t report, you face the guilt that someone later is likely to be victimized, and you don’t have the ability to at least make the perpetrator suffer. Yes, you could sue the perpetrator for damages, but that more often than not is an attempt to bleed a turnip, and even then you are likely going to have to pay an attorney up front except for the most highly probabilistic and recoverable judgments. None of that is fun, but that doesn’t mean the State owes you. And yes this effectively means that victims share in the responsibility for their victimization, something for which crime victims come to realize. If a guy is beaten in the street, he is billed for the ambulance and billed for medical treatment.* That is reality. Rape victims aren’t any different, and there really isn’t a good reason why they should be treated differently.
* Yes, there are some expenses born by prosecutor’s offices and investigative agencies, but this is typically under the guise of evidence collection. Some places have charitable trusts to aid victims, but they are charitable in nature and not an attempt to reconcile an injustice.
** Minor update: Lila Rose is in the news again. I composed this before becoming aware of this latest sting, so obviously my commentary isn’t consciously reflecting those events. Like most people that have an expansive view of entrapment, I don’t support efforts to treat these situations criminally.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In