Colored in Shades of Gray
I was recently chided by a friend for failing to commit to an
absolute black vs white stand on many big issues. No, I am not referring to
race here, but the idea of unequivocal wrong vs right. Of
course I feel very strongly about many issues and may throw support one way or
another in various ways from letter writing to donations. But absolute?
No I cannot and do not go there. There really are a million shades of gray and
I do not speak of the novel and movie with that title. Perhaps my big stumbling
block lies in definitions.(i.e.) Mine vs the dictionary's vs the new
vernacular. It all depends on what "is" is...
I am not an attorney although did consider that career at one
point and my late youngest brother did go to law school, pass the bar, and
practice. We talked a lot about the lawyer mindset, the various levels of
'justice' and other related topics. There is a word in legalese that I find
very important in all such matters. Specificity. Websters
says, "The quality or state of being specific." In order to be
enforceable and interpretable in a legal context, a crime, an act or a wrong
must have specificity. Exactly what is it; what is included or
excluded, what exceptions. This precise definition is critical. Keep this
in mind as you read on.
On to the 100% black or white. Let's take a first one. Genocide.
Back to Webster's: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national,
racial, political or social group. Okay that is pretty dark, isn't it? Could
there possibly be a situation where it could be excused, allowed, even
condoned? Certainly in the national and racial context, no. An unequivocal
and absolute NO.
Although you will not find it in most of your searches, and the
actual G word may not have been used, there are calls for an application. It
has been said that the only real cure for racism is to do away with whiteness.
Think about that a minute. End whiteness, erase it, do away with it. That could
be considered genocide. Perhaps a less draconian means could be applied. Say
make it mandatory that any child born after a specific date must have at least
one genetically provable parent 'of color' or non-white. Work out the
enforcement of that as you will. It could be conceivable and not quite
genocide.
This is also complicated by the fact "white" is not
strictly a race since it encompasses a huge range of ethnic and national
identities. Take the Latino culture. Here in the American southwest and
basically in many other areas, most who so identify are a mixture of white
(Spanish) with various indigenous peoples. Some also include African heritage
in the mixture. Should they be part of "whiteness" or not? I
cannot say. Maybe a '23 and Me' genetic test where the exact mixture is
determined and over 50% puts the individual in one group or another. So am I
110% black when it comes to Genocide? Perhaps 99.9%, yet in a few odd
cases the jury may still be out.
Let's consider child molestation. That should be easy, 125% black,
right? Whoa. Just a second . Where is the specificity? EXACTLY what act,
failure to act or other behavior qualifies as this crime? Molestation is
fairly clear. Performing a sex act on a person under the age of consent as set
by the jurisdiction, touching such a child in an "inappropriate"
manner, forcing the child to perform, observe or participate in sexual or even
sexually suggestive situations... Got that. But what if a young man of
say 19 is dating a girl of 17 (he is legal and she is not in that area's
jurisdiction) and they engage in heavy petting or even go 'all the way.' Then
she breaks up with him or he finds a new love. In revenge she or her parents
can legally charge him with illegal sexual behavior for she is still a
"child" and he can carry the sex offender label for the rest of his life.
Maybe even if he is only 18, turned 18 the day before. Really black and
white or not? I won't even go into the precocious young ladies in mid to
late teens who get a kick out of catching an "older" man's attention.
He is spooky; she lies about her age and may even have an ID of some kind that
says she is older. She dresses, looks and acts the part of an adult. He
does it. Boom. Statutory and deep doo. So, again I have to leave a thin sliver
of not-black here as I point out that everyone who is charged may actually not
be guilty.
Child abuse. This one is even fuzzier. Exactly what is properly
labeled child abuse? In somewhat descending order: regular beating or
other physical assaults which would be considered an assault to another adult;
giving drugs; wanton endangerment; failure to provide basic essentials such as
shelter, food and clothing and also perhaps medical care, education and even an
appropriate allowance or spending money equal to the average among the child's
peers. Can you draw a positive line?
What if the parent is unable through no real fault of his or her
own to afford meeting those needs? Is forcing a child to work in the family
business or operation without pay other than maybe room and board? Is confining
a child to its home, commonly called "grounding," to punish bad
grades, disobedience, lying, or to curtail association with friends or
playmates deemed unsuitable or delinquent? Is taking away a cell phone or
tablet or other device for similar transgressions?
We do have the basic standard of what an average person, such as
on a jury, would consider to be abuse or not but the legal specificity is
rather thin. And again, a child who is upset with a parent for either sound or
questionable reasons, can go to various authorities and scream 'abuse' and
generally find itself believed so authorities are almost forced to at least
investigate. The reality is guilty until proven innocent in most such cases.
I could go on but I hope I have provided a basis for my shades of
gray philosophy. I also hope readers here will at least stop and think a few
minutes about these things. Like I say, there are some very dark
grays out there and some slightly dusty and dingy whites where the launderer
did not apply enough bleach. There are a million shades of gray but black
and white are a bit more difficult to nail down.
Murder is wrong--black; adultery is wrong--black; theft from armed
robbery to cat burglary is wrong--black. Does that mean there can never be
extenuating circumstances? Does that mean anyone so accused must be
automatically deemed guilty? Especially if they were perhaps captured on
today's ubiquitous video? A minor change in the angle of a view can make a huge
difference. We have all seen 'photoshopped' memes, jokes and revenge porn
shots. Were they "real"? You tell me. Yes, video like still photos
can be photshopped or shaded in any of a thousand ways, even staged or
Hollywood style disreality Shades of gray, a hundred thousand of them so I
cannot and will not even pretend to play God or sit at a judgment seat
and condemn anyone to jail, hell or wherever. If that is a character flaw, so
be it.
