I read two stories about corruption yesterday in the New York Times. They were related and one article linked from the other. Both involved abusive sheriffs but in two different towns. They allegedly raped and sexually abused prisoners in their care and sexually harassed staff. In one of the cases, the sheriff also ran the county’s jail, and allegedly allowed male prisoners who did some of the jail’s tasks to move freely within the jail. This resulted in women prisoners in their wing of the prison being raped by male prisoners, in addition to being raped by staff.
These cases shared an underlying problem: individuals with an incredible amount of power and control, yet little to no oversight. In the oft-quoted words of Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” These police were left to police themselves. The result was that women prisoners in their care allege that these sheriffs coerced them into sexual acts using; threats of force, threats of additional trumped-up charges to lengthen sentences, promises of visits to relatives, enticement with cell phone privileges or some combination of the above and other tactics.
I cannot speak of the laws in every state but in many, my own included, sexual relations between staff and prisoners are never considered consensual and are illegal. The innate power imbalance between a prisoner and law enforcement members, those with the power to control prisoner’s lives or punish them, makes it impossible to discern that a relationship is wanted and consented to. It stands to reason that probably all resulting liaisons are merely complied with out of fear, or possibly the prisoner’s hope to gain favor and creature comforts while serving out their sentence.
Both sheriffs have a litany of complaints and allegations. Neither sheriff has been reprimanded or tried for any of them. Both sheriffs continue to hold their positions, despite the numerous claims of blatant abuse of power and alleged sexual predation. Questions about why they still hold their jobs, or why they haven’t faced charges, return familiar answers. They’re great guys and would never do that. People who know and grew up with them know them well and saw no sign of such predilections. They and their families are good people. They’ve been cops for a long time.
The women making the complaints, prisoners and employees alike, are said to be either or all of the following: sluts, mentally unstable, looking for attention, wanted what they got but now remorseful, having vivid imaginations, drug addicts coming down from their hallucinations, without credible proof. Apparently, the women making these claims are all concocting uncannily similar accounts, while doing their best to besmirch the reputations of two upstanding officers, so nothing needs to be addressed. Those men apparently cannot lie, no investigation is needed and no changes are necessary.
Other complaints about law enforcement officers often get handled in the same way. Abuse of force, dirty policing, evidence planting, persistent unwarranted profiling and other offences are explained away with lots of the same explanations, or dismissed with claims of them “being a good cop.” Policing, however, is not alone in this regard. There are other instances of this same casual dismissal of corruption and abuse.
As I’ve mentioned in other screeds about SCOTUS and Justice Clarence Thomas (wow, look at me being self-referential!), our nation’s highest court has no effective oversight. Like the aforementioned sheriffs, they do what they like and no one seemingly can tell them anything different. If they take lavish trips or gifts funded by rich people, they don’t have to report it or recuse themselves from cases with conflicts later. Nope. They can just ease themselves into their plush justice chairs, hear oral arguments and ‘coincidentally’ decide firmly in favor of the interests of the people who sprang for their private yacht trips and island stays. Attempts by Congress to sus out the rationale behind the current court’s ethics and compliance in a hearing were rebuffed by its Chief. No legislation to require their oversight is on the horizon either. Hey, why should they comply with a silly, old Congressional hearing? Who says they need oversight, other than their own? They’re from good families. They went to good schools.
Corporate heads are lounging in another area of the same privileged spa. These supposed dynamic titans, deftly wielding their capitalist mastery, are lauded when their companies lunge from profitable quarter to profitable quarter. When the companies are found to sell products they know are faulty, either by conscious design, cheap parts, engaging in willful fraud or something else, there is no punishment. Oh, sure the companies are charged steep fines. Does anyone responsible go to jail? Name anyone you can think of who went to jail for any of those, or many other corporate crimes you can think of, outside of Bernie Madoff. Go on, I’ll wait. Never mind, I won’t. No one goes to jail. FBI, FTC, SEC, ABC, XYZ — no matter how many alphabet soup agencies we have to make sure people are held accountable, not a single soul gets the clink. The stockholders see a quarter of reduced returns, customers see more drastic price hikes than usual to absorb the cost of wrongdoing and everything continues on its merry way. Why should anything change? They all went to good schools. They’re active contributors to local causes and super friendly at all the fundraisers.
Houses of worship don’t escape the sunlight scorching through my magnifying glass either. Oh no, those high up in houses of the holy are often engaged in, or covering up for others, who are as the apostle Paul wrote, “…working that which is unseemly.” I’m not against people practicing faith traditions. I try and mostly fail to do the same myself. I am against organizations, and those at their pinnacles, looking down in pious judgement of others, while doing the same things they claim are wrong and must be disallowed.
Many religions are guilty of things that are not only against the doctrines they teach but against the laws of the countries they operate in. Trusted authority figures in what seems like all faiths; Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, maybe Hindus and Sikhs too, have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Sexual assault, child sexual abuse, embezzlement, hypocrisy and more are all happening. Some atop these organizations condemn illicit drug use and being LGBTQ, while clandestinely getting their own desires in those departments fulfilled. Others pontificate on the sanctity of life, the preciousness of children and preserving their innocence. Meanwhile, their ministers physically and sexually assault them. Then they shift these ravenous wolves around to other places, don’t notify their recipients and allow the cycle to begin anew, with a fresh corral of vulnerable lambs. Others lecture about being joyful givers to the Lord, while stuffing their pockets with people’s tithes, cavorting and gallivanting in lives of luxury on the hard-earned dollars of their hardscrabble, working-class congregation. Suggestions that these leaders not only have actual need of Jesus but an additional layer of human oversight are summarily dismissed. Why should they answer to you or anyone else? They went to good religious schools. Their loyal parishioners all say they’re so kind and nice. They answer to God, so who are you to question someone claiming to be one of his holy servants?
More examples exist but I won’t belabor the point. To quote Spiderman’s uncle, Ben Parker, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Human society seems to work better with some sort of order to keep things running smoothly. Laws, traditions, social norms and other practices provide fluidity in our interactions to let us follow our dreams, while ensuring we don’t prevent others the capability to realize theirs. Order seems to need something at the top, just like our body needs a head to direct the rest of the works this way or that. However, our head can’t recklessly tell our hands to grab the blade of a running saw. Doing so means those hands can’t wash it or feed it a sandwich later. Knowing that it needs the hands, as much as the hands need it to direct them, means it makes decisions, generally speaking, that keep those hands out of danger and capable to help the head out later.
We need courts; trustworthy and honest courts. We need police; trustworthy, honest police dedicated to protecting the public. We like having capable companies that provide the products and services we need that do so safely. Not all, but many of us, enjoy spiritual pursuit, whatever traditions we choose. Everyone in attendance at a worship service should be assured they are safe.
All types of organizations need trusted authorities at the top. We see more and more of them pushing us towards the blades of running saws, unconcerned with the effects of their decisions and unpunished when we’re hurt. They all need to understand that they need us, as much or more than we need them. They need oversight to make sure they are working in our best interests. If they refuse, we cannot be satisfied with their rejection. We must continue to persist and insist that they answer to someone. If not, their absolute power will absolutely corrupt everything we depend on to realize our dreams.
Well said. Two things:
1. I think Ben Parker was quoting Eleanor Roosevelt
2. I often wonder if the heads and high mucky-mucks of the companies that want to "cut costs" by putting out products or processes that endanger people or the environment would let their OWN kids and grandkids use the products or live downwind or downstream of the plants. If not, the corporate veil should be lifted right smartly and prosecutions of the said heads and mucky-mucks should ensue. In this case, "put your offspring where your mouth is" should have some power.