The social health of a nation is reflected in part by the extent of its criminal behavior. If one were to judge the United States on this single item, the prognosis would be bleak indeed.
In 1970 the FBI reported that during the sixties serious crime increased by 148 per cent. Current statistics make it seem likely that the increase for the seventies will be more than 100 per cent. (To be sure, part of this reflects improved reporting procedures and the willingness of a larger percentage of victims to complain rather than suffer in silence.)
In cities large and small, citizens are afraid to be on the streets at night. However much we disapprove of handguns, it is easy to understand why certain indignant people want guns to protect themselves. And it is not difficult to suppose, deplorable as the prospect is, that if conditions continue to worsen people will be tempted to take the law into their own hands and execute summary justice by shooting on sight criminals or those thought to be criminals.
We wish to comment here on two aspects of the crime situation. The first is the long prevailing notion that crime springs from poor living conditions—from such states as poverty, unemployment, and racial discrimination. The United States and other Western countries have increasingly moved toward welfare statism. No one at all familiar with U. S. history can deny that during the past hundred years social evils have been attacked vigorously. Thousands of laws have been enacted to restrain injustice. Any comparison of the state of affairs in the United States in 1875 and 1975 would show that considerable progress has been made with regard to social, political, and economic rights. Compared to a hundred years ago, more people have an adequate standard of living. Fewer have to fear a destitute old age.
But despite the improvement of conditions, the crime rate is growing alarmingly. The FBI statistics indicate that the crime rate is rising, not simply in low-income urban areas but in suburban towns with small populations and where the per-capita income is above average. The sharp increase of crime among the children of affluent suburbanites is evidence that material deprivation is not a sufficient explanation for hostile behavior. It might almost be said that the more the material state of the American people is improved, the worse crime gets. The same thing is true in Sweden, which is considered a model of the welfare state. Sweden provides for its citizens from the womb to the tomb, but its crime rate is skyrocketing.
A second point on which we would like to comment is the crime of rape in relation to pornography. In Sweden, Denmark, Britain, and the United States, the idea has been widely circulated that when hard-core pornography is made readily available it will tend to reduce sex crimes by providing a harmless outlet for men with sexual tensions. But it does not seem to work this way. The most recent FBI statistics show that of all serious crimes, none has increased more in the last six years than rape. But pornographic materials have been readily available for the past twenty years, first in print, more recently on film.
The rape statistics tell their own grim story. (They must be viewed relatively, not absolutely, since police authorities believe that from one-half to two-thirds of the rapes that occur are not reported because women fear the ordeal they may be subjected to at the police station and later in courts as defense attorneys attempt to convince the jury that the woman acquiesced voluntarily.) In 1954, 9,054 rapes were reported. Ten years later, in 1964, there were 20,551. In 1972 there were 46,461; in 1973, 51,002; in 1974, 56,000 (estimated). Close to seven times as many women and girls reported forcible rapes to police last year as did twenty years ago, and nearly three times as many as ten years ago. Stated in terms of the “crime index,” which takes into account the population increase, last year’s rate was 27 rapes per 100,000 population. The rate ten years ago was 10.7, and in what now looks like peaceful 1954, before terror stalked our streets, the rate was only 5.7.
It seems evident that making pornography available does not cause a decrease in rape: there is reason to think, rather, that it contributes to an increase. If TV has proved anything, it is the fact that people can be conditioned to buy deodorants or what have you by the strength of suggestion. And pornographic materials are among the most suggestive there are.
How bad the situation is in the Western world can be seen from a current development in Britain. Their equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a man cannot be convicted of rape “if he believed that the woman was consenting.” Labor party deputy Jack Ashley said, “Every vicious sexual attack can now be excused on the grounds that aggressor claims to believe his victim’s pleas were not sincere” (quoted in the Washington Post, May 2, 1975).
Rape can never be eliminated entirely from this sinful world. But there is good reason to believe that the frequency can be reduced considerably. One way is to stop the flood of pornography. This may mean amending the Constitution if the Supreme Court refuses to return to what was the accepted norm for more than a century and a half.
Another major way is to treat rape victims far more compassionately, altering what is often an insensitively masculine attitude among police, physicians, attorneys, courts, and juries. A greater conviction rate, with corresponding penalties, would also serve to increase the risk for the potential rapist. We recognize that rape is a complex crime. With our high level of prostitution and promiscuity, no man has to commit rape just to have sexual relations. Rapists are not to be confused with promiscuous men whose desires are met by consenting women. Both practices are sin, but for the sake of rape victims, whatever society can do to make this crime less likely to occur and more likely to be severely punished should be done.
What’S Fit To Print
Contrary to what some people think, the news media have had some standards. Virtually every journalism student is taught the so-called Canons of Journalism established back in 1923 by the American Society of Newspaper Editors. The problem is to enforce these canons without violating freedom of the press. Lacking an instrument to enforce what amounts to an ethical code, the media must live with some degree of irresponsibility in their midst.
A revised code is due to come before the ASNE board of directors this fall. Early reports suggest that it will allow more latitude than the present canons, which were drawn up in the heyday of yellow journalism. It is being referred to as a “Statement of Principles” rather than standards. The prevailing feeling among influential media people is that the world needs more candor, even at the risk of occasional error.
More people have learned, especially in recent years, not to expect government officials to be perfect in knowledge and faultless in behavior. Similarly, we hope the revision of the code will prod newsmen to try to educate the public not to expect quite so much from the media.
The press, where it is free, has succeeded so well in keeping people informed that it is subjected to impossible expectations of objectivity. Underlying freedom of the press, a freedom that is practiced in comparatively few countries, is the principle that no one source of information—no one spokesman or commentator or newspaper—can be relied upon exclusively. Only the Bible is fully authoritative, after all, and human nature and perceptions being what they are, the use of a variety of information sources is to be encouraged.
A Theology For Dad’S Day
Charlie Shedd quotes a famous psychiatrist as saying that “no little child will think more of God than he thinks of his father.” A youngster apparently cannot contrast. He can only compare. Shedd imagines his thinking, “God is like my father, I’m not so sure my father really cares much about me. He’s always playing golf, watching television, reading the newspaper. Besides he isn’t very nice to my mother. He’s not even fair. I don’t think I’d like God.”
Shedd, a Presbyterian clergyman noted for down-to-earth writings on family matters, cites the theory in his latest book, Smart Dads I Know (Sheed and Ward 1975). He thinks the psychiatrist is right. Many will disagree with good reason: the theory presumes that God has not placed within human beings a respect for himself. Nonetheless, the comparison has some value, and Shedd suggests a good little model speech for dad to give to the kids:
Listen to me troops. Where I’m the kind of father I should be, that’s what God is like! Where I am not so hot, I hope you’ll learn the all-important process of contrast. Wherever the Bible says that God is like a father, you can understand it means that God is like a perfect father. You know I’m not perfect. But I’m going to keep on trying. And I want you to know that I know I’ve got a long way to go.”
In Everything, Not Just Most Things
Recently (May 9 issue, page 27) we considered instances from the first half of Paul’s letter to the Colossians where God’s Word says “all” but we act as if it said “most.” Consider these further examples from the last half of the same letter.
Christians have in a very important sense died and been raised with Christ, and we are assured of one day being in glory with him (3:1, 3, 4). In the meantime we are to put into practice on earth that which is true of heaven (3:1, 2). To make room for divine virtues, we must “put to death” certain earthly vices (3:5). “Put them all away,” Paul tells us (3:8); but our tendency is to let some practices remain, at least in part. Paul names eleven vices that are to be totally displaced (vv. 5, 8, 9), including immorality, malice, and lying.
In view of the pervasive worldly practice of discrimination among persons on the basis of nationality, religious heritage, level of culture, and economic status, verse 11 is especially important. Paul insists that among those who recognize Christ as Lord such distinctions “cannot be” because “Christ is all, and in all.” Paul does not obliterate all distinctions among persons, however: children in relationship to parents and slaves in relationship to masters are to be obedient in all things (3:20, 22). (In those instances where a child or slave should not obey, such as an order to commit a vicious crime, the principle of obedience is sustained, since obedience to the higher laws is the basis for non-compliance with parent or master.)
Christians have a mutual responsibility to “teach and admonish one another in all wisdom” (3:16), not just in some wisdom, and certainly not in an unwise manner.
All things—not just most things—that Christians do, whether in word or deed, are to be done with the recognition that we are identified with the name of the Lord Jesus, and by our words and actions we honor or dishonor him (3:17). When we talk with others, we are to see that our speech is “always … gracious, seasoned with salt” (4:6).
Paul commends Epaphras for always remembering the Colossians in his prayers, and what he asked for them we must ask for ourselves with confidence that God wants to answer us. Namely, we are to ask that we “may stand mature and fully assured in all the will of God” (4:12). He who has called us to such high standards will enable us to do all that he has commanded.
