I was scrolling through the news today and came across a headline reading, "Rick Santorum: Rape victims 'should make the best of a bad situation' if they get pregnant and give birth to the 'gift from god'". I specifically looked for other articles about Santorum's stance and found article titles such as, "Rick Santorum: 'Make the best' of rape by rejecting abortion" and "Santorum to Rape Victims: 'Make the best Out of a Bad Situation". Appalling. I couldn't believe what I was reading. Talk about retraumatizing. Not only is he telling victims how they should feel, but what they should do, also. I wanted to verify what was said, so found the following video.
Indeed, Rick Santorum states, "I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created--in the sense of rape--but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given you." It seems Santorum has created a bit of a paradox. While he ends by identifying the product of a woman's rape as a "gift", he begins by calling it something "horribly created".
I am not debating the issue of abortion in this post. I've done that before and with politics on the board right now, I am sure you have been hearing many different perspectives. Instead, reading these articles about Santorum made me think about the lecture I just gave to my Criminology class. As an opener to the class, we talk about the definition of crime. I ask them what television shows they watch that tells them something, true or untrue, about crime. Law & Order, CSI, Bones, The Sopranos, Criminal Minds...the list goes on and on. Literally, I think the entire 75 minutes could have been filled simply listing various types of entertainment that sends messages about crime. As we talk about these shows, I ask them what message is sent. What do we learn about victims from these shows? Who are they? What do they look like? What about offenders? What do we learn about various types of crime? How is crime constructed in our society? How do we come to understand a behavior as criminal or not?
In preparation for the this lecture on defining crime, they read an article discussing public morality and criminal law. There are essentially two sides to the debate. The first argues that public morality should not control criminal law, but that criminal law should be created in correspondence with what causes direct harm to others. The law is viewed as an improper instrument for regulating one's private moral conduct. In contrast, the other side of this argument is that criminal law serves an important function in the facilitation of personal responsibility. Thus, criminal law serves as a fundamental means by which individuals learn personal responsibility.
I ask my students to consider two main questions.
1) Should the law control public morality?
2) Can the law control public morality?
Admittedly, I am quite frustrated by not only Santorum's position, but also his choice of words. As I listened to him and his desire to make abortion illegal, I reran my lecture and the thoughtful, intelligent things my students had to say on the matter through my mind. Santorum, in my opinion, is suggesting he will aim to control my private morality through use of public criminal law. Am I okay with this? Is this what happens everyday, regardless of who the President is? Sadly, I'd say it likely is. And I tell my students that, too. So, we then transition to "Can the law control public morality?"
I've created two polls below to get your thoughts on these questions. Think about whatever issued you'd like. And, in addition to participation in the poll, comments are welcome and hoped for. My students and I engaged in a fantastic dialogue about issues of abortion, same-sex marriage, drug use, prostitution, etc. and the role private morality and public law play. I hope we can do the same here.
For full articles on Rick Santorum's position toward women who are victims of rape, you can click HERE, HERE, and HERE.
Indeed, Rick Santorum states, "I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created--in the sense of rape--but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given you." It seems Santorum has created a bit of a paradox. While he ends by identifying the product of a woman's rape as a "gift", he begins by calling it something "horribly created".
I am not debating the issue of abortion in this post. I've done that before and with politics on the board right now, I am sure you have been hearing many different perspectives. Instead, reading these articles about Santorum made me think about the lecture I just gave to my Criminology class. As an opener to the class, we talk about the definition of crime. I ask them what television shows they watch that tells them something, true or untrue, about crime. Law & Order, CSI, Bones, The Sopranos, Criminal Minds...the list goes on and on. Literally, I think the entire 75 minutes could have been filled simply listing various types of entertainment that sends messages about crime. As we talk about these shows, I ask them what message is sent. What do we learn about victims from these shows? Who are they? What do they look like? What about offenders? What do we learn about various types of crime? How is crime constructed in our society? How do we come to understand a behavior as criminal or not?
In preparation for the this lecture on defining crime, they read an article discussing public morality and criminal law. There are essentially two sides to the debate. The first argues that public morality should not control criminal law, but that criminal law should be created in correspondence with what causes direct harm to others. The law is viewed as an improper instrument for regulating one's private moral conduct. In contrast, the other side of this argument is that criminal law serves an important function in the facilitation of personal responsibility. Thus, criminal law serves as a fundamental means by which individuals learn personal responsibility.
I ask my students to consider two main questions.
1) Should the law control public morality?
2) Can the law control public morality?
Admittedly, I am quite frustrated by not only Santorum's position, but also his choice of words. As I listened to him and his desire to make abortion illegal, I reran my lecture and the thoughtful, intelligent things my students had to say on the matter through my mind. Santorum, in my opinion, is suggesting he will aim to control my private morality through use of public criminal law. Am I okay with this? Is this what happens everyday, regardless of who the President is? Sadly, I'd say it likely is. And I tell my students that, too. So, we then transition to "Can the law control public morality?"
I've created two polls below to get your thoughts on these questions. Think about whatever issued you'd like. And, in addition to participation in the poll, comments are welcome and hoped for. My students and I engaged in a fantastic dialogue about issues of abortion, same-sex marriage, drug use, prostitution, etc. and the role private morality and public law play. I hope we can do the same here.
For full articles on Rick Santorum's position toward women who are victims of rape, you can click HERE, HERE, and HERE.
