This morning, after the umpteenth news story in three days about the pregnancy of Britney Spears' younger sister, I told my wife I was sick of hearing it and refused to discuss it. But this evening, I saw something that seemed so emblematic about this that I do just have to comment.
Of all the headlines I've read in this year of horrible news, it seems to me that none captures the spirit of the time more than MTV News' Pondering over the legality of a girl getting pregnant. In an article posted Here they ponder the question of the legal culpability the couple bear before the bar of the law.
We must, it seems, criminalize every misdeed, lest someone, somewhere get away with something not wholly acceptable to, well, everyone.
Please don't think that I actually endorse the idea of young ladies becoming pregnant when they are sixteen. It actually seems to be a very bad idea, especially in the case of Britney's younger sister, who stands to lose a lucrative contract as a star on a popular teen television show. I am sure there will come a time when she will rue her carelessness.
But I refuse to make a moral judgment of the girl or her beau. (Full disclosure: I am a life-long and fierce Christian). In my mind, people do what they do and it's my job to either help them or not hinder them unless and until they visit violence or harm upon others. Had I been asked by anyone whether this pregnancy might be a good idea, I would have said no. But that doesn't mean I get to decide for the couple what is right. It is every person's prerogative to choose their life choice, and it is my responsibility to either help them or leave them alone.
Of the litanies of bad consequences for teen mothers in our culture, some will not apply to Spears or her child. But many will. She'll be forced to grow up faster than most girls, she'll have difficulty nurturing the child from a stance of her own immaturity, and she'll find her choices severely constricted. On the other hand, the young man involved, whose age is pegged at 17, 18 or 19, depending on the account you hear or read, does plan to remain involved and assist Spears in raising the child. She does have some money and a career, which she might salvage, and her family appears to be supportive. And, in this Christmastide, I might point out that the baby Jesus' mother and father were of about the same age and engaged -- but not married -- when the Christ child made his appearance.
What strikes me with MTV's headline is the presumption that this has automatically become a criminal act. It seems as though our sense of morality in this society is so hollowed out by the belligerence of legalists of every stripe that we are only capable of viewing any event or action in the stark, black or white, hues of the law. There is nowhere any longer that is not both commoditized and legalized. Every act, no matter how personal, has become a probable violation of some statute that must be investigated.
I'm not sure what has caused this. Perhaps it has been the marketization of everything. When every facet of life becomes monetized and transactional, then there must be law to regulate everything lest someone (gasp!) lose money, or at least fail to make it. Maybe it is the drug war, which has so debased our legal system that it is helpless against the truly big crimes (treason by the Vice-President comes to mind) and so must content itself with creating crimes out of youthful indiscretions. And maybe it's the so-called Christian Right's implacable insistence on codifying all behavior so they can judge who is good and who is not.
What I do know is that nearly 1% of the population of the United States is in prison, the highest in the developed world. In some communities, doing time is almost a right of passage. And in even the most affluent suburbs people are jailed, tried and imprisoned for activity that, only a generation ago, were considered ill-advised bad judgment and all too personal for government intervention.
The presumption of the MTV story that the father of Spears' child might have committed statutory rape is probably correct. But my point is, at a time in the not-too-distant past, this wouldn't even have been mentioned in the news media until the girls' family decided to charge the young man. It was considered a decision of the girl, her parents and the young man and his family. Now, it is an angle open for reporting because, well, if something untoward happens, someone MUST go to jail.
This morning on the way to work, there was an announcement that the co-defendants of Genarlow Wilson (the teenager who was caught having sex with a younger classmate at a party, and awarded 20 years' hard time for his troubles) were granted parole from their 7 and 10 year sentences. The girl was willing, never said she was raped, and the girl's mother objected to the prosecution. But the lives of four young men were ruined because if something bad happens, someone must pay.
One of the issues in my own life is that my mother is aging. But our family is fortunate that my sister lives with her and is able, at least so far, to care for her. Yet, my sister has become increasingly afraid over the past few years that when my mother sees health care providers, one of them might file charges against my sister for abuse and that she will go to jail. My mother, you see, bruises easily, like all elderly folk. The house is clean, but unkempt because, well, working and caring for an elderly parent doesn't leave a lot of time for painting, replacing carpet, fitting new drapes, etc. But my sister also fears one of the therapists who come to see my mother will accuse her of abuse. My mother has a pension and owns her home. She has private insurance as well as Medicare. But when the social workers visit (I haven't figured out why they are there, actually), they go through the kitchen cupboards, the bathroom and my mothers clothes closets without asking permission.
One day, a therapist noted the living room was cluttered and mentioned her obligation to report any signs of abuse. Since I check up on my mother, and the neighbors do, and there has been no evidence of systematic abuse, the threat of prison for a cluttered living room seems gratuitous.
Just as we must protect young girls against the depredations of violent men, we must also protect our elderly from abuse at the hands of their care-givers. I know this. But when a loving and caring daughter is threatened with 10-20 years hard prison time if 80 year old mother falls, well, haven't we gone too far?
I think of the five year old charged with sexual harassment; the young men in Jena, Louisiana charged with attempted murder in a schoolyard brawl, the honors high school student jailed last week for giving her friend one of her pain pills to handle cramps. And I just want to scream 'ENOUGH!’ Jail is not the answer to all incidents of bad judgment by young people, carelessness by adults, or even most of the incidents of bad behavior.
It strikes me as telling that, from the perspective of a Christian, the mission of Jesus in the world was to liberate people from their entrapment in a religious tradition that had become wooden and unthinking in the application of law. In opposition to the legalistic exercise of ritual, Jesus announced "God loves you." The ultimate parent wasn't going to punish everybody who lifted a farthing, cheated their parents or got leprosy.
Maybe for the next ten days, we can declare a jubilee of liberation form the legalization of everything. Maybe, in this yuletide, we say, "Jamie's having a baby. Not a good idea, but I hope they do well," and then get on with solving some real problems in the world.
Then again, maybe not. I'm just a raging, libertine liberal who happens to believe punishment is not the answer to everything.
What do you think?