23 November 2011
Sentence First
Dealing with the change in manners.
By J R Thomas
“No, no” said the Queen “Sentence first – verdict afterwards.” “Stuff and nonsense!” said Alice loudly. “The idea of having the sentence first!”
Alice in Wonderland of course, as the ever growing Alice expands out of the jury box until the whole court resolves itself as a pack of cards and Alice awakes from her dream.
There is rather a temptation to go on and relate the whole trial, a satire as fresh today as when it was written, on the tendency of humankind to judge first on emotions and appearances, before bothering with the tedious job of going through the evidence. Lewis Carroll would no doubt reflect, if emerging from a rabbit hole into 2017, that nothing has changed – except that perhaps today the press is much less circumspect at how allegations, as opposed to verdicts, are reported.
The current furore as to (almost entirely) male bad behaviour is perhaps a natural development of our relatively rapid evolution into a society which has finally grasped that modern technologies and attitudes have created a world in which all can be achievers, all have an equal standing, and all have a right to respect. That has happened in a generation and a half; the seventies seem a very distant and different world; the work place of forty years ago seems closer in most ways to that of early Victorian times than it does to that of today. But human nature is slower to change; we are still moving from a world in which a female boss, a female Prime Minister, a black barrister, a disabled journalist, a homosexual teacher seemed astonishing, to one in which we will never be surprised by who we meet in the office, the school room, the lobby of the Commons. In the context of the long unfolding history of humanity it has taken no time at all; to rising generations who know what is now right, what they can contribute, and what they can expect, it seems an age. The millennials (horrible expression but useful shorthand) will soon age into being the matures, and their life at work, socially, and at home will indeed be very different to those of the now passing generation; their standards and expectations of others much different, much higher than those of their grandmothers or their fathers.
But for now we have the conflict of two sets of values that barely comprehend each other; one trapped by its history, the other appalled by the past easy acceptance of standards whose time has gone, but whose history intrudes into the present.
And therein lies the tragedy of the last few weeks. Rape is wrong, it seems almost pointless to say. It has always been wrong; it is an abhorrent behaviour which we rightly punish with proper severity. So is sexual assault; so is the seduction or forcing of young impressionable teenagers into acts that are illegal; so is the use of positions of high or unusual authority to obtain sexual favours. Oddly, it might seem to many of the rising generation, most of those whose reputations have been trashed in the last few weeks would wholeheartedly agree that such behaviour is always wrong and justifiably punishable at law. If Jimmy Savile had lived he would be in jail for what he did, as several other men of his generation are in jail for behaviour which has always been criminal in any civilised society.
The difficulty, the problem, and perhaps the tragedy, is that a number of men in positions of influence and power are now being lambasted for behaviour which now is properly frowned upon, but not so long ago wasn’t. No man in today’s world should allow his hand to traverse or rest upon any part of any woman’s body without her invitation and consent. What is now considered acceptable has changed very quickly. Sir Michael Fallon, by all accounts a rather courteous and well-mannered man, albeit of a different generation to those protesting about his and other’s actions, is hoist by the petards of the past, when a man might readily rest his hand upon a lady’s knee and perhaps add suggestive remarks. He might not expect any response to this, but as he might well have said, “You never know”.
Most men of that generation believed that the lady would not take this ill, indeed that she might be flattered to receive such attentions, even if she did not wish to take matters any further. But Sir Michael and his generation have alas not had training in appropriate modern approaches to interaction between the sexes. Indeed, none of us have. Some men have picked up the changes: others have not. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, of course, but this is no matter of law. It is a matter of rapidly changing manners. And context. George Clooney might have got a different reaction to Michael Fallon (but then George Clooney would have known better).
Which of course is another thing. Men are not the most sensitive of creatures, notoriously bad at reading signs and signals. Modern young men are still in many cases unpolished in their attentions, leaping without properly looking, even now. The difference is that the modern woman is much more confident and forthright and perhaps better at dealing with this stuff. We have to say “perhaps” because the Weinstein evidence is that on occasion perhaps they aren’t; a slap, a shout, a loudly deployed expletive should see off unwelcome attentions; but who is going to employ such techniques if they are hoping for work from the leering oaf? Leering oafs can be nasty to young men as well as young women, but the unpleasantness is the same; it is difficult to shout or slap if it may mean the end of a longed for career.
Here we come back to Alice’s jury box of lizards and squirrels and frogs. Some things are clearly, obviously illegal. Some things are gross and unpleasant and the perpetrator ought to be kicked where it hurts or have his techniques widely exposed. And some things are no longer acceptable, but are perhaps, and we say this with hesitation and diffidence, on reflection and preferably on receipt of a handsome apology, forgivable. Certainly, nobody ought to be sentenced before they have been tried. It is perhaps human nature to enjoy a witch hunt, but we don’t believe in witches anymore and we shouldn’t be hunting victims. If we do, we risk the tragic events that ended the life of Welsh Minister Carl Sergeant last week, fired from his job simply on allegations (the nature of which are still not known) or indeed that threatened to smash the reputation of a dead Prime Minister.
We have a strong legal system in this country and (generally) a sound body of law. One principle, the key principle, is that everybody is innocent until proven guilty. We must be very careful not to assume anybody accused – of anything – is guilty; and equally careful that we do not condemn people for actions that would have been acceptable in the past but are not so now. But just as importantly, men who claim to be gentlemen – and even if they don’t – should behave like gentlemen, abandon what they used to think might be fine, and very carefully consider their behaviour and their manners.
If you enjoyed this post please share it using the buttons above.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the ShawSheet
