I heard someone on the radio giving an elegant explanation of the difference between guilt & shame. This by way of explaining why the justice system is not there to deliver shame but to decide the narrower question of guilt according to defined criteria
This is a novel distinction to me, but how useful. It helps clarify so much that seems confused especially in current law’n’order debates & in consideration of the press & privacy
One area which raises food for thought is in the question of rape trials, & what sort of defence it might be permissible to mount. Rape is one of those crimes where the victim is too likely to feel defiled & therefore shamed in the eyes of the world. Too often, at least in the past, it has been acceptable for the defence to take advantage of that sense of shame to suggest that the victim somehow also shares the guilt for the events which transpired. For some reason, it has not been possible to bring up the accuseds previous record of guilt for similar crimes
Sex is a very potent area for shame. The problem with Max Mosley is that he appears to feel no shame
The press is very good at deciding who ought to feel ashamed of themselves, pointing the finger, jeering loudly
And that is how one type of school bully behaves – attacking self worth by making the victim feel ashamed of having to wear glasses, or being fat, or having red hair
