 |
| Steve Karro Police Mugshot |
Steve Karro: One accusation, one arrest, two perspectives
Earlier this month, an eleven year old girl reported to the Miami Beach Police Department that Rabbi Steve Karro touched her inappropriately, sat her on his lap and kissed her on the neck. Within a short time, to the surprise of many who knew him, Karro was arrested and charged with lewd and lascivious molestation of a child. As with almost all cases involving child sexual abuse, controversy has erupted and emotions are running wild. Despite the charges, many continue to support Karro insisting that we must withhold judgment while others steadfastly disagree.
By
and large, the opinions of individuals on both sides of the issue are
held by sensible, intelligent and caring people who want to do the right
thing.
How is it that two groups of reasonable people
can come to such different conclusions? What is the real source of the
disagreement? Even more so, how is it that the vast majority of those
expressing their opinions have difficulty relating to or understanding
the position of the other?
We have on the one side the supporters of
Steve Karro. They insist that it is impossible to know with one hundred
precent certainty what he did and (assuming it makes any difference)
what his real intentions were. Although statistically very few children
who claim abuse have been found to be lying, there is always the small
possibility that she is, Karro’s supporters reason. While the Police
Department assign trained professionals to determine which party is
being truthful, they are human and most definitely fallible. Despite the
fact that there is a rigorous system of checks and balances within our
judicial system, innocent people have been arrested before.
The supporters of Steve Karro will continue to
insist that we must withhold judgement as ‘innocent until proven
guilty’ is a bedrock of morality. What if we are wrong and Karro is
innocent, they say. What about the possibility that an innocent person
is being accused and his reputation destroyed indefinitely, they remind
us. As a result, they stand in the corner of Karro and nothing short of
absolute proof will suffice to change their opinion.
These concerns are tremendously important and
the very real probability, as small as it may be, that they are valid
should preoccupy each one of us. Imagine we find out someone we accused
of wrongdoing is innocent — it would surely devastate us forever.
On the other side stand the supporters of the
eleven year old girl. They insist that we must support her without
question, despite the fact that we were not witness to it, as the risks
of re-traumatization are formidable and lifelong. They remind us of the
scores of victims of sexual abuse who were not believed when they came
forward and the lifelong suffering they endured as a result. If this
really happened to her and we demonstrate any doubt whatsoever as to the
veracity of her claims, it may damage her even worse than the abuse
itself. (Here are some worthwhile tips on how to talk to a victim of sexual abuse.)
Additionally, if Steve Karro indeed abused the
young girl, we must warn the rest of the community, they
insist. Imagine we hear that he abused someone else after one girl
accused him and because we were not one hundred percent sure, as is
almost always the case, and were so concerned about the possibility of
hurting his reputation, we put other children in harms way. Surely, this
too would devastate us forever. As a result, they stand in the corner
of the alleged victim and nothing short of absolute proof that she is
lying will sway them.
Explained in this way, it is easy to see how
intelligent and caring people end up viewing the same situation so
differently. They both clearly see the reality that there are no
witnesses and we don’t have absolute, incontrovertible proof. Yet, they
approach the story from very different angles with each one fully
cognizant of one or the other devastating possibilities of being wrong.
One group, when learning of the story, hears
only of a Rabbi who was accused of molesting a child.
Consumed by the
possibility that he may be innocent, they rush to his defense. The other
group when learning of the same story, hear only of a young girl who
was molested by an adult. Consumed by the possibility that she may be
further damaged or there may be other victims, past and potential, they
rush to her defense.
How can we reconcile these positions? Is there
an opportunity for both sides to understand each other yet come to a
similar conclusion?
Perhaps if we take a step back and avoid
looking at these issues as black or white, we may be able to bridge some
of the gap between the two sides. Some who defend Karro insist that he
is an angel or they know him well and these actions are not consistent
with who they know him to be. Essentially, their position is that he
can’t be an angel to some and the devil to others. This position however
is inconsistent with what we know about human nature. Decent people can
do horrible things. If we can shake the belief that anyone who abuses a
child is an absolute monster, we can also persuade those who know him not to be an absolute monster that the accusations are at the very least possible.
In other words, while well intended, advocates
who paint all abusers with the same broad brush of “evil unrepentant
irredeemable sociopath with zero good qualities” are very possibly doing
a disservice to those they purport to defend. Not all abusers fit
neatly into this bucket and some will rush to support an abuser simply
because they don’t quite fit.
The truth though is that child sexual abuse is
a lot more common than we’d like to admit. If everyone who ever abused a
child was known to the public, we would not be able to maintain that
every abuser fits the aforementioned sociopathic and irredeemable
definition. We’d have to place way too many people we know, like and
respect into this category. When we talk about the accusations
destroying someone’s reputation indefinitely, we are saying that all
abusers deserve to be branded a pariah. If we can lift some of the shame
and replace it with clear accountability, we may find a middle ground
more agreeable to both factions.
I realize that many in the advocacy community
may disagree with not heaping unending shame and disgust on anyone who
has harmed a child and many who instinctively rush to support abusers
may cringe at holding someone accountable without incontrovertible
proof. Perhaps though, the compromise on each side is one each can live
with because it will achieve the end goal of making the world safer for
children – something we can all agree on.
Reaching this level of accord between two
groups very far apart is most likely not realistic in the short term. It
will almost certainly not be accomplished before the verdict is in on
Karro.
Until then, a side must be picked. Given the
two choices, I would rather side with the little girl recognizing the
chance, however remote, that I may be wrong. She knows exactly what
happened. If she somehow fabricated the story and fooled the many
trained professionals she interacted with along the difficult process
leading up to his arrest, it is she (and the trained professionals) who
bear the burden of an innocent person’s reputation being irreparably
damaged.If, however, he is guilty and we have chosen to side with him,
it is we who bear the burden of ignoring the cries of an eleven year old
innocent girl and the trained professionals who all told you she is
saying the truth.
Knowing what I do about the horrific ordeals
victims of sexual abuse who are not believed and not supported go
through, I cannot bear that burden.
Knowing what I do about how difficult it is
for a child who is abused to speak up and how rarely they lie about it, I
can not bear that burden.
Knowing what I do about the obscenely high
recidivism rate of offenders and their uncanny ability to avoid
detection and minimize responsibility, I can not bear that burden.
Can you?
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/steve-karro-one-accusation-one-arrest-two-perspectives/