Is “Culture” Ever a Reasonable Excuse?

[nonamerasian]

When a parent is brought before a judge in regard to alleged child abuse, should the culture of the parent be considered by the judge?

For example, more than once there have been children who were burnt by their parents (usually from the southern hemisphere) as a punishment for petty theft. In one case in California, such a parent received a $100 fine instead of the possible six years in jail for burning his five-year-old’s hand over a stove after the child stole a piece of gum.

The judge claimed to take the culture of the parent into consideration when he posed the fine rather than jail time.

I once read an article where someone said that when examining whether an act by a parent is acceptable corporal punishment or unacceptable child abuse, social workers ought to take the culture of the parent into account.

Do you think culture should be accepted as a reasonable excuse by the U.S.’s legal system, by social workers, or by society in general?

Do you think the judge above was reasonable? Do you think the lady from the article had a valid point?

Is “culture” ever a reasonable excuse?

[kitty]

I think it has to be taken into consideration. Basically it's a question of cultural imperialism -- do we as Americans have the right to say that what cultures do in South Africa is wrong when it comes to child-rearing or other sorts of cultural practices? For me, the answer is no, we don't hold some sort of moral high ground where we can uniquely discern "right" from "wrong"...

[coagulated fat]

Tough question.

Though I think culture should be taken into account, it definitely has its limits. American culture rules over America, and American values and morals as a whole are reflected in our laws.

I think it has to be taken into consideration. Basically it's a question of cultural imperialism -- do we as Americans have the right to say that what cultures do in South Africa is wrong when it comes to child-rearing or other sorts of cultural practices? For me, the answer is no, we don't hold some sort of moral high ground where we can uniquely discern "right" from "wrong"...
I disagree with this. Genital mutilation is a cultural practice, but I have no problem taking the moral high ground and saying that it is wrong and shouldn't happen. We maybe can't change much of what goes on in other countries, but in America we can. I'm not into imposing my morals on others either, but we can at least try and make the world a tolerable place to live by setting up laws that make it illegal to do things that most of us agree are barbaric and unjust.

[kitty]

But they are OUR values... are you saying that we should stop genital mutilation in our country or in others? If we have a problem with it, we should stop circumsion as a common practice at home before we go parading around in other countries. Clitorectomies may be have religious or cultural significance to other cultures, and while it may be barbaric, we have no right to stick our noses into someone else's culture and forcibly make them stop. We can try to provide alternatives for the women who don't want it done but we can't just arrest everyone who does it because WE think it's wrong.

[coagulated fat]

But they are OUR values... are you saying that we should stop genital mutilation in our country or in others? If we have a problem with it, we should stop circumsion as a common practice at home before we go parading around in other countries. Clitorectomies may be have religious or cultural significance to other cultures, and while it may be barbaric, we have no right to stick our noses into someone else's culture and forcibly make them stop. We can try to provide alternatives for the women who don't want it done but we can't just arrest everyone who does it because WE think it's wrong.
Yes but I thought the topic in question was whether or not these things should be brushed off as a cultural practice in America.

[coagulated fat]

Yeah, I know, but I couldn't think of a better word. You know what I mean.

[coagulated fat]

american people, i.e. white people (this is sadly true in percieved minds) are just as 'barbaric' as any sort. the american culture has lead people to do terrible things, and i think that fact should be held accountable.
Don't get all Berkeley on us now.

[kitty]

i agree with you here...but that word 'barbaric' - doesn't that just hold its own connotations of american morals of so-called right and wrong? isn't that word fundamentally faulty in itself, it sadly being reminscent of imperialism?

american people, i.e. white people (this is sadly true in percieved minds) are just as 'barbaric' as any sort. the american culture has lead people to do terrible things, and i think that fact should be held accountable.

love,
prof. frink

i agree. poor choice of words on my part. my apologies, I didn't mean to imply anything with the word 'barbaric', rather that it is my personal opinion that it isn't a great thing to do, but that I don't support imposing my own values on other people.

[kitty]

Yes but I thought the topic in question was whether or not these things should be brushed off as a cultural practice in America.

whether in america or not doesn't really matter, culture should always be taken into consideration.

[nonamerasian]

I’m very iffy on this topic.

I do think culture should be held in consideration sometimes, but in the same way intent is. In some cases, it is a reasonable excuse, but in others. . .

As for the father and son above, I think he should have received some time. I too have family in countries where it is not unheard of for a child to be burnt for theft, actually, some from the same country as the father, however, the pure cultural excuse doesn’t fly with me.

In those same countries, there are people who find it barbaric. It isn’t as cultural, as let’s say, turkey at Thanksgiving.

It is a thing that happens, but it isn’t completely accepted.

It was also said during the time of the case that the father told his son not to tell anyone what happened to his hand.

To me that says that the father not only knew it wasn’t appropriate in this country, but decided to do so anyhow.

He deserved time.

I don’t completely agree with the social worker thing, either.

If I burn my hypothetical kid and end up in jail, the same should go for a person like the guy above. It shouldn’t matter that I’m American and he/she isn’t.

We are in the U.S., under U.S. law.

If a kid is seriously hurt, I don’t really care about the culture of the parent. The situation should be looked at in accordance to the law.

However, there are some situations where I think I may feel slightly different.

[coagulated fat]

I agree with nonamerasian. People can have their cultural practices, but within the limits of US law. Culture is very important, but it's not important enough to warrant looking the other way when people get hurt. I do think culture should be taken into account for those who don't know that what they did was illegal because it was considered normal in whatever place they came from. The government usually just looks the other way when there's cultural tie-in, anyway (like with polygamy) -- unless its something Americans consider very serious and unquestionably wrong, like child abuse. Morals are subjective but we do need laws.

[Fireblade]

For those who don't know, some of this applies to the Anna Guo case. Her father hit her because she went out with some guys or what-not, and ultimately social workers saw him unfit to take care of his daughter and in turn, ended up as a tragedy, since Anna is now in juvenille jail as far as I know.

We should take into account how culture is. It's true that some practices are deemed "unreasonable" in our eyes, but we can't assume that all of them are wrong. I do believe there should be a sort of jail-time, but because there are differences in beliefs, they should be taken in account.

I don't want to defend a father who has abused his child, but it never should reach the point where they lose custody of a child. They should seek the information and understand the differences in culture when officers and social workers come into a home of an immigrant. There should be a sort of education for all recipients of social programs, to better inform individuals of what is right and wrong.

[coagulated fat]

there's not much too go off on this - either be totally against using a 'culture card' or use it in moderation within each unique context. abuse is abuse, but hell, isn't that just anothe abstract ideal people put meaning to and behind?
NARF!

[YuheiCarreau]

I just think it's not something for the government to legislate - ie "White people can't spank their kids, but Blacks do that all the time so it's OK for them" or whatever. Same goes for "White people don't spank their kids, therefore no one is allowed to spank their kids".

[thaite]

I once used 'Culture' as an excuse to chuck water balloons at co-workers.

"It's Thai New Year!"

SPLAT!

[John0101]

I think it has to be taken into consideration. Basically it's a question of cultural imperialism -- do we as Americans have the right to say that what cultures do in South Africa is wrong when it comes to child-rearing or other sorts of cultural practices? For me, the answer is no, we don't hold some sort of moral high ground where we can uniquely discern "right" from "wrong"...

u a sociology major?

[kitty]

u a sociology major?

nope... biology (animal science) but i concentrated in asian american studies.

[John0101]

nope... biology (animal science) but i concentrated in asian american studies.

u sound like a sociology major or a sociology teacher

[kitty]

u sound like a sociology major or a sociology teacher

thanks...

okay, here's a question... takng this away from the abuse situation, would you consider a parent prosecutable for putting their child through alternative medicine? voodoo, prayer, or whatever instead of conventional medicine? now what if the child dies, but may (or may not) have had a better chance with western medicine? do you think the parent should be considered negligent?

another question, do you think social workers would have a better time with this scenario if the alternative treatment in question is acupuncture vs. voodoo? (This being the problem when social workers get to make the judgement of the importance of culture).

[John0101]

thanks...

okay, here's a question... takng this away from the abuse situation, would you consider a parent prosecutable for putting their child through alternative medicine? voodoo, prayer, or whatever instead of conventional medicine? now what if the child dies, but may (or may not) have had a better chance with western medicine? do you think the parent should be considered negligent?

another question, do you think social workers would have a better time with this scenario if the alternative treatment in question is acupuncture vs. voodoo? (This being the problem when social workers get to make the judgement of the importance of culture).

1) Yes, there are laws here, period, any uncertified unsafe pratice should be illegal.

[angel nympho]

Not an excuse. If you're living in a different country with different guidelines for behavior, the least one could do is take into account the fact that we have laws here, too.

[kasia]

Is “culture” ever a reasonable excuse?

if the reason behind punishment is moral culpability, yes.

if it is deterrence, yes (b/c presumably, he had no knowledge of the law and thus it couldn't have deterred him.)

if it is pure rehabilitation or incapacitation, no.

[John0101]

There are laws here in the United States, even if your culture and religion says you can beat your children that still doesn't make it legal in the United States.

U.S. > Religion or culture. And....

I also think that child abuse or child beatings by parents often take place in the world where there wide-spread poverty and violence (I maybe totally wrong about this, so please don't bash me too much). Specifically in mainly rural areas or dictatorships. In those place children and females are used as commodiaties (sp?) to be traded and sold for goods and services. Children and females are viewed as less then an able body adult male. Why should we bring that in the United states? There is no external positive benefits to society and the child in abuse. The only person that has anything to gain from child abuse in the abuser.

[Bhodi_Li]

My 2 cents....

Culture should be considered, but does not necessarily mean an exit. However, there are several complications that occur when we open this door.

1) Where do you draw the line between what is culturally unique and what is socailly unacceptable? (i.e. an asian mom playing with her childs genitals to tickle them?)

2) At what generation does the culture argument end? (Are 2nd and 3rd generations expected to know more about American norms and values than their parents)?

It would appear, initally, that just having one standard would lead to the least confusion, but that would remove the human-socio aspect out of this argument completely.

[kasia]

i just don't know why we should punish an individual AT ALL if he had no idea what he did was wrong or against the law.

but here's another question. once we start considering culture as an excuse or a form of mitigation, what about subcultures? for example, gang or cult subcultures. wouldn't that argument be just as valid?

[nonamerasian]

It's a slippery slope.

[deez nuts]

sure why not....anything is fair game if you have a team of capable, competent and resourceful lawyers.

it's like if the gloves don't fit you must aquit idealogy.

[nonamerasian]

if the reason behind punishment is moral culpability, yes.

if it is deterrence, yes (b/c presumably, he had no knowledge of the law and thus it couldn't have deterred him.)

if it is pure rehabilitation or incapacitation, no.

Has our justice system had much success with rehabilitation?

[kasia]

Has our justice system had much success with rehabilitation?

no. people usually just age out of crime. in other words, they reach a certain age & either get too tired or just grow up. there are, of course, some that go on to commit more serious crimes. these are a small minority, however.

[nonamerasian]

Alternatively to the initial question, is it necessarily wrong for laws to be passed forbidding certain cultural practices, for example, female circumcision, animal sacrifice, or giving minors certain drugs?

Is “culture” a good excuse for why certain laws, with the intent of protecting, shouldn’t be passed because they can be construed as an attack on that particular culture?

[angel nympho]

Alternatively to the initial question, is it necessarily wrong for laws to be passed forbidding certain cultural practices, for example, female circumcision, animal sacrifice, or giving minors certain drugs?

Is “culture” a good excuse for why certain laws, with the intent of protecting, shouldn’t be passed because they can be construed as an attack on that particular culture?

In cases like the ones you said (female circumcision, etc), "culture" isn't necessarily the excuse. I can only assume that laws forbidding those kinds of things are rooted in a violation of the generally agreed upon set of guidelines about human rights. If I'm not mistaken, there was some sort of document regarding universal human rights that a great majority of the world's nations signed and agreed upon, making it reasonable for other countries to step in when something is going terribly wrong in another nation. In situations where people are dying, being abused, and greatly suffering, I don't think it's wrong to make judgements about what's going on... and I don't care if your "culture" tells you to eat babies, it's just wrong.

[Yeahman]

I think that you have an obligation to obey the law of the land however biased they may be towards a particular culture and they are necessarily biased because they have to protect the culture of the general population. For example, in some societies, touching other people's genitalia is no biggie. But we can't allow that in the US because we generally don't like our genitalia touched.

I think there are some universal norms though. You don't kill, rape, or inflict any permenant or life-threatening bodily damage.

But then again, male circumcision can be considered permenant bodily damage. It would be interesting to see that brought before a court.

[angel nympho]

I think that you have an obligation to obey the law of the land however biased they may be towards a particular culture and they are necessarily biased because they have to protect the culture of the general population. For example, in some societies, touching other people's genitalia is no biggie. But we can't allow that in the US because we generally don't like our genitalia touched.

I think there are some universal norms though. You don't kill, rape, or inflict any permenant or life-threatening bodily damage.

But then again, male circumcision can be considered permenant bodily damage. It would be interesting to see that brought before a court.

I disagree. For a long time in this country, it was illegal for black people to be treated like human beings. And if something is unjust, it's necessary for somebody to break those laws as a catalyst for social change. Culture shouldn't be absolute. It's okay for a culture's norms to change over time. In fact, it's ideal.

[nonamerasian]

There are talks about using the culture excuse for the continued rapes of Pitcairn women by the descendants of the island's colonists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3699814.stm

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw1096602661942B213

Sick. Sick. Sick.

[Mr.Lum]

I really don't get where they talk about the whole culture thing in regards to Pitcairn, I mean, it's not as if they were making the young girls have sex for the whole time they were there.

I think that you have an obligation to obey the law of the land however biased they may be towards a particular culture and they are necessarily biased because they have to protect the culture of the general population. For example, in some societies, touching other people's genitalia is no biggie. But we can't allow that in the US because we generally don't like our genitalia touched.




I like my balls being touched by females. If some nosey fucker wants to bring me or a female friend to court over it, they can touch my balls too. And then kiss my ass. It's not their business. Parents should be able to do something like that witht heir kids. It's not like they're molesting them. I mean, to a certain point. After they're babies is one different from when they're a little kid. It's not socially exceptable in some states to do it in the ass or have sex outside of the missionary position. That's not protecting anyone. That's just a bunch of tightwads trying to enforce their values on others. And it's wrong. Get out of my house ass wipe. Then you have people who use that same rehtoric to say that different races or gays shouldn't marry. Keep outta my church.

[nonamerasian]

I really don't get where they talk about the whole culture thing in regards to Pitcairn, I mean, it's not as if they were making the young girls have sex for the whole time they were there.

One of the women was eleven when it happened. Other girls may have been younger.

Victims have said they felt forced with no one to run to.

Sounds like rape.

One guy says that it wasn't rape in regards to the 11-year-old. That it was consensual.

Families of the accused are saying that this underage sex is a part of the islands' customs and it's wrong for the Brits to come and punish the men for it.

[Mr.Lum]

One of the women was eleven when it happened. Other girls may have been younger.

Victims have said they felt forced with no one to run to.

Sounds like rape.

One guy says that it wasn't rape in regards to the 11-year-old. That it was consensual.

Families of the accused are saying that this underage sex is a part of the islands' customs and it's wrong for the Brits to come and punish the men for it.

I do not recall hearing about anybody on Pitcrain doing it with little kids at any point in reading/learing about that island. If the girl is saying she felt raped, then there is no excuse. Even if it is "cultural". It's not cultural to rape children. Sounds to me like the men just want to get away with molesting the little girls. I wouldn't be suprised if they made that part of the "culture" up for this occasion.

[nonamerasian]

I do not recall hearing about anybody on Pitcrain doing it with little kids at any point in reading/learing about that island. If the girl is saying she felt raped, then there is no excuse. Even if it is "cultural". It's not cultural to rape children. Sounds to me like the men just want to get away with molesting the little girls. I wouldn't be suprised if they made that part of the "culture" up for this occasion.

The women raped when she was eleven is mentioned in one of those links.

I believe it's the second.

[Mr.Lum]

So his defense is that it's ok to have sex with an underage woman? I might buy that if she said the same thing. His ass needs punishment.

[nonamerasian]

Should the authorities impede on the metzizah bi peh?

This is not the first time babies have contracted a STD from mohels.

http://nydailynews.com/front/story/277069p-237314c.html

City health officials are investigating whether a baby boy died after contracting herpes from the rabbi who circumcised him, the Daily News has learned.
The probe was launched after city officials realized that three infants in the city who tested positive for herpes last year all were circumcised by Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer. The Rockland County-based Fischer is a prominent mohel - someone who performs religious circumcisions.

Under Jewish law, a mohel is supposed to draw blood from the circumcision wound to remove impurities. While many mohels do it by hand, Fischer uses a practice little known outside ultra-Orthodox communities called metzizah bi peh, in which the mohel uses his mouth.

On Oct. 16, 2004, Fischer performed a bris, or religious circumcision, on twins. Ten days later, one infant died of herpes, and the other tested positive for the virus, according to papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court by city lawyers.

A few weeks later, city Health Department officials found a third baby, on Staten Island, who also tested positive for herpes after being circumcised by Fischer in late 2003, the papers say.

Herpes is far more dangerous to infants than adults because of babies' fragile immune systems. The health status of the two surviving boys was not clear yesterday.

The city "is concerned that the possible transmission of herpes simplex virus type 1 in infants may be continuing as a result of defendant's practice of metzizah bi peh," city lawyers wrote in the complaint, dated Dec. 22. "Defendant's conduct to date constitutes a threat to the public health."

The custom of metzizah is thousands of years old. But experts said that these days, many mohels breathe in through a sterile tube to draw the blood instead of using their mouths directly on the wound, although in some ultra-Orthodox sects, the oral practice is mandatory.

The city asked Fischer to submit to a blood test in November, and ordered him to stop performing metzizah by mouth while waiting for the results, court papers show. Officials told him to use a sterile tube and gloves in the meantime.

But the Health Department got a report that Fischer wasn't following the order, so the city filed the legal complaint to compel him do so.

Fischer, 66, declined to comment yesterday.

His lawyer, Mark Kurzmann, wouldn't say whether Fischer has done the blood test, citing medical confidentiality. But he said Fischer is "cooperating with the city's investigation to resolve this matter."

"My client is known internationally as a caring, skilled and conscientious mohel," Kurzmann said.

He suggested the babies could have contracted herpes elsewhere. He also said there are concerns about the government regulating religious practices.

City lawyers declined to comment.

Health officials, aware of the sensitivity of the issue, have been talking extensively to community leaders.

"There's been a constructive dialogue between the community and the Department of Health, and we're working with [them] to ensure the safety of all our city's children," said Arie Lipnic, spokesman for City Councilman Simcha Felder (D-Brooklyn).

[kimpossible]

Under Jewish law, a mohel is supposed to draw blood from the circumcision wound to remove impurities. While many mohels do it by hand, Fischer uses a practice little known outside ultra-Orthodox communities called metzizah bi peh, in which the mohel uses his mouth.


Although to me the practice is too weird for me to ever be comfortable with it, I think the fault lies with the individual. Taking on the responsibility of infant health and religious matters - at the very least he should have been more aware of his ability to infect the infants if he's going to have his mouth on their freshly cut genitalia.

It won't affect anyone's freedom to practice religion by undergoing private med testing and avoiding contact if they pose a threat to infants.

[nonamerasian]

I know some say that their religion mandates that the practice has to be done this way, but I think it poses too much of a health risk for the authorities not to step in.

[Fireblade]

3 infants that contracted herpes is too much of a conicidence for the authorities to not be suspicious. The rabbi should take responsibility, and instead of placing blame elsewhere, just submit a blood test. That's all.

[YuheiCarreau]

Circumcision is pretty barbaric to begin with... This just seems like nitpicking to me.

[MovingForward]

whether in america or not doesn't really matter, culture should always be taken into consideration.

Kitty:

I'm sorry for the drone, but your initiative and energy here gave me some refreshing purpose in getting my brain humming about culture vs. nationalism - I thank you for that.

In taking stock of your initiative on this subject, I'm reminded of so many great debates regarding the value of the "Union" in developing and defining a United States. There existed in 1859 or so an unfortunately disparate portion of our population with the inclination towards slavery.

Off the cuff, let's say 5% of caucasions in 1859 understood on a gut level the inhumanity of slavery, could genuinely embrace the notion of one Maine army general that stated "we all have vlue". Then, perhaps 50-60% of caucasians expressed the obligatory outrage of ignorance and ambivalence and "sided" with the North in 1861 when it attached the cause to the Civil War. That leaves 40-45% of caucasian peoples embracing slavery as excusable culturally under the laws which hadn't yet been written about it, but merely debated with only one white guy actually self-destructing over his outrage - John Brown.

My 100+ year displacement and ignorance of the inhumanity of slavery is offset by education and illumination. I am sufficiently comfortable within the laws of the United States and without having to "step into" being a slave owner of 1959 to take that moral high ground and demand my country maintain that culture as inexcusable.

It's inhumanity threatens the union, one of which I am currently and voluntarily a citizen of (involuntarily perhaps until age 18, but voluntarily after). I am entitled to do more than complain about its existence - I'm entitled to demand law preventing it.

A threat to the Union is not the only motivator here to disallow cultural practices, but broadly it is a serious one to consider - we nearly busted apart in 1859, and there are other things which are pushing us close to busting apart in 2005. The ACLU debate in that other thread revealed that pedophilia, arguably a practice and indeed in some world regions a culture of a sort, is tearing our nation up emotionally and legally - there are consequences to be eyed about the future of the union owing to a sizeable portion of peoples demanding that pedophilia be excused via culture or otherwise.

Do I agree with you ultimately? I believe I do - I would love to extend my respect to culture in all proceedings - I find myself screaming in my head in support of my friends from mainland China who are aggravated beyond belief over laws about spanking - when I go to a supermarket or movie theater, I have a 2% chance of being aggravated in some fashion or being obstructed or interfered with by their offspring. I have a blissful 30% chance of not being culturally assaulted at all. I have a 68% chance of running into caucasian offspring whose parents cherish the laws of no -spanking - and my rights to live peacefully without interference from these offspring are dismissed without recourse. And so I find myself throwing law to the wind and begging for cultural excuse here - to hell with the federal government, give me peace and obstruction-free shopping for basic necessities of my life as a human being.

I can not, however, dismiss the value of the union, a union made of human beings possessed of pre-cultural wants and needs - yeah, Lincoln and other whites of my ancestry blathered on about more specific wants and needs that have everything to do with being white and nothing to do with being a human being, but stripping away color reveals that NONE of us can live with a culture which disrupts the unity of human beings - we're here in the U.S. with human needs, we need some laws to keep cultural influences from disrupting those needs.

In that instance, "America" or anywhere becomes somewhat more significant. If "America" is something that creates visions of "white", than lets forget the name and just say we humans need laws that can prevent cultural practices from dminishing our "value".

Thanks again Kitty.

[kuilong]

whether in america or not doesn't really matter, culture should always be taken into consideration.

Why, is it wrong not to? ;-)

[relus]

When you live under my house, you follow my rules>>you live in a country, you follow its laws, period. What use are laws when you get to pick and choose which ones will affect certain groups of people, stupid imo.