In November, Proposition 313 passed in Arizona, meaning those convicted of child sex trafficking can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole or release. In my view, this is a moral failing on our part.
While this view may seem controversial, when we look at recent responses to the Lyle and Erik Menendez case, it becomes clear that what constitutes a victim has changed and what that means for Prop 313.
When the Menendez brothers alleged during their 1993 trial that they killed their parents in their Southern California home in 1989 because their father had molested and abused them, movements were inconsiderate to victims of sexual abuse.
Indeed, there was resistance in accepting the validity of their abuse. Just a year before the trial, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation was formed. Its purpose was mainly to assert the idea that survivors of sexual abuse cannot be trusted, as their memory can be faulty — taking advantage of the theory that when people suffer from trauma, they are likely to forget for the sake of their own well-being.
FMSF was quite active and changed the narrative in a dramatic way. In her book, “Confronting Child Sexual Abuse,” Anne M. Nurse wrote: “They engaged in public-information campaigns and paid for the legal defense of people accused of abuse through recovered memories” (31). To get an idea of what FMSF was about, we can look at their actions.
In “The Rise and Fall of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation,” authors Kate McMaugh, MHSc and Warwick Middleton, MD wrote: “The FMSF became famous for exhorting followers to sue therapists and it was positive towards those who picketed therapists’ offices.” Moreover, the foundation spread misinformation without anything to back their claims, according to the article: “The FMSF then began to attack professionals working with child abuse survivors. Therapists were accused, without evidence, of encouraging clients to make up memories of abuse. This story was swallowed whole by large sections of the profession and the general public.” Such assertions do not hold much sway today. Indeed, the idea that trauma can suppress memories is the more accepted theory.
Regardless, at the time, for victims of sexual abuse, Anne M. Nurse writes, “[FMSF] was a significant turn in the framing of the story, with the accused people being quoted far more often than the people making the claims of abuse. The media began to highlight the emotions of accused parents as a way to illustrate their innocence, while coverage portrayed some of the accusers as ‘hysterical’” (31).
This portrayal is exactly what “Saturday Night Live” tried to capture in its now-infamous skit on the trial. The butt of the joke was the Menendez brothers’ suffering, suggesting that what they felt was unreasonable.
While this may be hard to imagine now, SNL’s writers thought this was a good joke — or at least a functional one. After all, for any joke to work, it must have an agreeable premise. In her book, “The Comedy Bible,” Judy Carter wrote: “A comic wants the audience to relate to his premise, to feel, ‘Oh, yeah! I know what you are talking about!’” Likely, being in the know for the Menendez brothers’ joke meant that you understood that they were being so emotional that they were being ridiculous. The audience got it and laughed.
Back then, men weren’t allowed to be emotional. Seeing men's emotions was to see something false — a lie. From the skit’s audience, there is no clear signal of disagreement with this assumption — no booing is heard.
A recent audience, in contrast, picks up on SNL’s message and responds with anger. In the comment section of the SNL video, the top comments (gaining support via hundreds and even thousands of likes) are quite revealing.
Some viewers are disgusted. One comments: “[Y]eah no, this isn’t right. [T]hey were abused.” Another writes: “The brothers cried recalling being raped by their parents and that’s what they are mocking. Unbelievably awful.” Another says: “[T]his is so wrong, and disgusting, making fun of a sexually abused person.”
Other commenters demonstrate an ethical concern in their rage, acknowledging that such a skit makes it harder for people to get the justice they deserve. One says: “[T]his is why so many men don’t speak out about their sexual abuse.” Another says: “This is literally why children, boy or everyone that goes through such a trauma don’t open [up]. It’s a shame.” Another still: “This is why men are so scared to up about sexual abuse and their feelings in general.”
In short, while it remains a fact that the Menendez brothers are convicted murderers, this characteristic has little effect on whether they deserve compassion. Accepted as the victims more than anything else has garnered them forgiveness and a desire to end their suffering.
Such compassion took time to develop. Childhood sexual abuse was difficult to conceptualize, and harder to accept. In “Why the Menendez brothers’ allegations of sexual abuse are being taken seriously more than three decades after they killed their parents,” writer Cynthia McCormick Hibbert quotes Carlos Cuevas, professor of criminology and criminal justice: “The Catholic Church scandal probably brought [childhood sexual abuse] more to the forefront. But it’s really been sort of a gradual process,” beginning in the 1980s, of recognizing that childhood sexual abuse, including victimization of boys, is a real issue.
Similarly, in “The Menendez Brothers Murder Trial: Justice served or rigged?” by Marc Sternfeld and Mary Beth McDade, juror Hazel Thornton said many men didn’t believe boys could be molested by their fathers and accused the female jurors of being emotionally biased. “A lot of people at that time in the ’90s knew little about child abuse,” Thornton told KTLA in a recent interview, adding, “I believed their story that they had been abused and that they had killed out of fear and had not planned the killings.”
It should be no wonder as to why today, according to PEW Research Center, 60% of Americans say we do not value enough men’s openness about their emotions. It is understood just how much that openness means. Indeed, people are aware that if nothing is said of one’s emotions, nothing will be done to address the pain. People want to listen because they want to understand. And they want to understand because they want to help.
The important takeaway here is that those credited with the label of “victim” can evolve through openness to different understandings. I don’t mean to make the label itself sound as if it is a good thing. What I mean is that those who are given this label benefit insofar as they are more likely to be seen as deserving justice, and hence get that justice. The abused and abuser both deserve this label to some degree. After all, hurt people hurt people. In what ways they are hurt need far more consideration for the sake of greater justice.
Regarding male sexual abusers who are most likely to be targets of Prop 313 —the Independent Commissioner for Child Sexual Abuse Issues notes 75 to 90% of sexual abuse is committed by men or male adolescents — let us consider patriarchal thinking. This thinking has skewed what matters most for men, up to the point that being loving is not considered a priority.
As bell hooks notes in “Salvation” — “Feminist thinking is useful to Black males, and all males, who are grappling with the issue of self-love because it offers strategies that enable them to challenge and change patriarchal masculinity,” which involves “[being] defined by what they do with their penis, or by how brutal, mean, and dominating they can be toward someone else.”
In this context, it makes sense why some men would sexually abuse children or sex traffic them. Influenced by disastrous patriarchal thinking, they see the act as an opportunity to gain and fortify their status.
In response, we can see the evil in their actions and simply punish them; or — and I think this is the path forward — we can offer compassion through rehabilitation. By offering rehabilitation, we can counter patriarchal thinking and replace it with more fulfilling values of self-love and respect for others.
Like the Menendez brothers, sex traffickers have committed wrongs, but there is more to the story. Abusers are often victims, too, and do not always deserve what Prop 313 has condemned them to: suffering in prison for life.
Editor’s note: Arizona native Ruben Martinez Garcia holds a degree in English with a concentration in rhetoric from Arizona State University. He lives in Tolleson. Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.
