From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: The thread about female circum cicumcision
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 23:20:26 EST

In article <1993Jan23.150220.72137@adrenaline.uucp> hyerstay@adrenaline.uucp (Jason Hyerstay) writes:
>
>Personally, I would argue for children to be granted (officially) all of the
>rights that adults now enjoy (except for very unusual cases) so that the child
>could not have his body physically violated by anyone without his permission.
>You seem to say that the government must not interfere beccause the parents
>know best; I say each person knows best what to do for him or herself and has
>the right to be wrong. To say that we would be violating parents soveriegnty
>by stopping them from injuring their children is much worse than letting the
>child decide. I would not outlaw female circumcision, but our court system
>should allow those injured people to sue their parents if they so desire.

If one believes that female circumcision (or any act, for that matter)
constitutes "abuse," then this is wholly inadequate.  The right to sue after
the fact is no solution.

Consider Justice White's dissent in Ingraham v. Wright (1977, a case involving
due process prior to corporal punishment of students):

   "The infliction of physical pain is final and irreparable; it cannot be
    undone in a subsequent proceeding."

and Justice Steven's dissent:

   "The constitutional prohibition of state deprivations of life, liberty,
    or property without due process of law does not, by its express language,
    require that a hearing be provided *before* any deprivation may occur.
    To be sure, the timing of the process may be a critical element in
    determining its adequacy--that is, in deciding what process is due in a
    particular context.  Generally, adequate notice and a fair opportunity
    to be heard in advance of any deprivation of a constitutionally protected
    interest are essential.  The Court has recognized, however, that the
    wording of the command that there shall be no deprivation "without" due
    process of law is consistent with the conclusion that a postdeprivation
    remedy is sometimes constitutionally sufficient.

   "When only an invasion of a property interest is involved, there is a
    greater likelihood that a damages award will make a person completely whole
    than when an invasion of the individual's interest in freedom from bodily
    restraint and punishment has occurred."


In other words, not everything can be adequately remedied by a civil suit
after the fact.

I'd suggest that, in general, no willful act of physical harm (and if you
believe that a suit is justified in response to the act, then certainly it
must be an act of "harm") is adequately addressed by a civil "remedy" after
the fact.

You might as well be suggesting that we abandon criminal prohibitions against
murder for a civil remedy, in which the murder victim may file suit against
the murderer, after the fact...


Of course, you are free to argue that female circumcision (or any other act)
does not constitute "abuse" or "harm."  But if that's the case, then no
"remedy" is necessary at all, civil or otherwise.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures