Ray Rice and Justice (Ray Rice Follow-Up)
Something was missing in my original musing about the Ray Rice Incident. How would justice really be served here? It is not that unlike recreational drug abuse. Do we criminalize and punish or identify and help, or some combination of the two?
With 1.3 million women being physically assaulted every year in the United States, the problem is not minor, nor do I think most people want all 1.3 million perpetrators jailed at a cost of $30,000/yr. or all 1.3 million perpetrators suspended from their profession indefinitely. Neither can we ignore the problem or begin to think we can eliminate it by making it illegal. Well, not really—we thought we could remove marijuana by making it illegal, just like we once thought we could make the use of alcohol disappear by making it illegal. In both cases we just took a problem and made it worse. Every case, in both recreational drug abuse, and physical assault of partner in a close relationship, is unique.
Ray Rice has no history of off the field issues. The goal, ethically and practically, considering the cost of jailing or removing the person from the work force, should be to intervene with those who have a tendency to resolve conflict by violence, and cure them of this emotional problem. In the case of Ray Rice there was no basis to intervene beforehand.
We have a choice to make in our society. We can have a mindset of helping those with problems or a mindset of punishing those with problems. Some problems are clear cut——you steal, or kill, or rape, and other such actions, and punishment is clearly earned. The very fabric of our society is at stake with these kind of crimes. We all have, to varying degrees, moments when we would like to steal something, or kill somebody, or have sex with some attractive person. We cannot afford, as a society, to put up any green light here. What we need to remember though, is that some problems do not lend themselves to a green or red light, but require a caution light followed up with professional help.
A person does not abuse a recreational drug because they are evil, but because they are trapped with an emotional state that can be relieved by this or that drug. That a drug can do this does not make taking the drug a good idea for the simple reason the mental state which spurs the use of the drug remains. Why do we treat people with emotional/mental problems as criminals? It solves nothing and costs a lot of money, not to mention the destruction of many family circumstances.
Let’s look at this from another prospective. Why would someone, Ray Rice’s age, who has no history of assaulting someone, suddenly do so, and especially to someone with whom he is in an intimate relationship? Football players with the talent of Ray Rice make a lot of money, probably too much money, but they also are trapped in a profession run by 32 millionaires whose primary purpose is to make money as best they can. And they have the where-with-all to do so. Kicking Ray Rice off the team was not as bold and principled as it might seem on the surface. His best years appear to be behind him, running backs are becoming more and more expendable and replaceable. Cutting Rice frees up a lot of money to strengthen the team in other areas. Philadelphia does it all the time, promise a long term contract with absurd salary increases, then dump the player when the time to pay up arrives. For players a contract is a contract, for millionaire owners, a contract is not binding to them, unless one takes the tact that a non binding contract is bound to being not binding. The point is, professional football players are under a lot of stress career wise every year. The idea that professional football teams are one big close knit family is pure fantasy. It is cut throat every day out there for them. No one is retained because they are such a wonderful locker room presence. They are retained because some computer printout indicates they are getting the job done in the games. Period.
So pressure is there for all the players. What varies is their personality, their family situation, their health issues, and their emotional issues. From this mix comes the moment when the player may lose it and punch someone intimate to them. What should come next? Is what was done to Ray Rice a solution to anything? It certainly validates that we as a society do not like that kind of behavior. What are we saying here? Is it that the first time any adult throws a punch at someone they should be suspended indefinitely from their profession? If that is what we are saying then why just punish Ray Rice? There are 1.3 million more males out there who did the same thing. This is not justice. Or at least selective justice.
One or both of this couple need help. And are we also saying it is ok for males to punch other males but not females? I am not huge in size or strength. I don’t really think it is ok for every male who is huge and stronger to punch me out every time I am an annoyance. And they don’t, because most everyone knows it is not right to use physical violence to solve annoyances. Saying one or both of them need help is not to say no punishment can be applied. That is what we have courts for, and professional judges, to decide the kind of punishment which is best for the particular situation. Why is the NFL even involved? Since when did the Commissioner of Football, a high paid lackey for the millionaire owners, become some sort of legal cop, prosecutor, and jury for off the field issues like physically assaulting someone? They are not there to provide justice but to protect the image of football. They ought to stick to football.
That does not mean the problem here should be ignored. This is a problem for society in general, not just football. We are the richest country in the world. Machines and computers are making full employment difficult. If we can afford weapons of mass destruction far past any need to protect ourselves, and spend decades in useless wars, then maybe we could provide good health care for all our citizens, and that includes drug and violence rehabilitation centers. Why are such facilities only available to the affluent?
It is not clear what we are ruling against in the Ray Rice case. Was it that a punch was thrown? Or was it that she was knocked out? What knocked her out—the punch or hitting her head in the fall? I assume the crime was punching his wife, not whether the punch knocked her out. Had she not been knocked out we would not likely have known there was an incident. Acting properly in a close relationship all the time is no easy task. If instead of punching his wife would it be ok to verbally abuse her often and long? Would it be ok for her to verbally or physically abuse him often and long? It just seems when incidents of any sort occur which are abusive and the abusiveness is reported by a spouse or anyone else observing the abusiveness then the law should require a visit by both to a rehabilitation center, or maybe a more nonthreatening name be used for such centers.
Whether someone wants to take someone to court over the incident or incidents is another matter. No one is suggesting there be no consequences, only that courts handle the consequences, not the Commissioner of Football. What is being said here is that help should always be required, and any punishment should be doled out by our court system. Does this mean an employer cannot fire, suspend, or penalize employees who commit a crime off the job? This is a tough question because employers can have a wide ranging diversity of attitudes about what constitutes an off the field action which requires action by the employer. There needs to be some sort of court established system where the employer submits his intentions to this system for QUICK action on whether the action can be taken by the employer. After all, there are potentials for abuse at every level here, from the principal players in the incident, to the courts, to an entire family, to the health of the principle players, to fellow workers, to the safety on the job of others, to the ability of the accused to function well on the job etc.
For all these ramifications we should not give any one individual carte blanch permission to deal with it as they feel like at the time. For any employer to fire someone for off the field behavior, that employer should list off the job actions that could result in disciplinary action, and any employee can challenge an action not deemed relevant to the job in question. When the NFL does routine drug testing for drugs which can enhance performance, they are establishing a common sense principle which clearly affects performance on the field. When they arbitrarily test for marijuana also, which is in no way a performance enhancing drug—unless a player claims smoking pot helps him reduce the stress involved in playing football. The courts would obviously, if they were to rule on this, remove pot from the routine testing. Now some would say, hold it, pot smoking makes their football performance worse. Fine, let’s accept this opinion, which is all it is, and when the player’s performance goes down, the player can be released just like they can whenever their performance goes down. Fair is fair. Players lose their jobs a lot for things they do off the field—like eat too much, not get enough sleep, binge drink too much and so on—because their performance level goes down.
Behavioral aberrations are not subject to easy resolution. But it just seems any solution has to involve intervention before hand where possible, medical help with the problem at centers specialized to deal with such problems, and a judicial process which includes analysis of each behavioral aberration as unique, and the punishment be such that deterrence will be an effective warning, and the future of all those involved in the consequences of the behavior be enhanced, not careers and families destroyed arbitrarily. Justice, after all, includes not just punishment but effectuating a clear road to recovery for all concerned.
