In the Mazan case, a trial of collective rape through chemical submission, the puzzles follow one another. How to explain that a man, a husband by day, becomes an enemy by night? How can all these men who appear alongside her be described by those around them as good spouses, good brothers and good family men?
The question of evil has always sought its answers. Socrates explained that whoever commits an injustice does not know where the good lies unless he confuses it with his own interest. Psychiatry and psychoanalysis have taken over to probe the human mind. They understand this through the prism of childhood history: how a child grew up is decisive for his development. The WHO estimates that “abused children, when they become adults, are more exposed to various behavioral, physical or psychological problems”. This crucial observation allows us to qualify naive voluntarism. However, nothing can affect the path of a being: its innate faculties, combined with other beneficial factors (the meeting of adults ready to help), can influence the evolution of each person. Free will is not abolished, in which case it would be impossible to maintain the judicial institution.
However, starting from the 19th century, the judge’s task became more complex: he had to judge a crime by evaluating the degree of responsibility of the accused. For this reason the judge turns to the doctor who will help him to establish the discernment and motivations of the accused, who will produce an account of his life at the bar of the court. The therapeutic benefit is evident. But does understanding a life allow us to better judge an act? For some the answer is positive, for others the doubt is admitted. Thus Michel Foucault defined the expertise as “grotesque”, believing that it distorted both justice and psychiatry: do we want to judge an act or normalize a behavior? The individualization of sentences has progressed and experts, called only to establish discernment, have become auxiliaries of the judge in establishing psychological and moral responsibility.
We always judge choices
The psychologization of the protagonists of a trial demonstrates that it is no longer just a question of judging a crime, but of identifying a personality, or even purging its errors. Humanist justice therefore oscillates between education and punishment, believing that one cannot sanction without understanding nor understand without punishing. For our progressive society, the challenge is to avoid two contrary excesses: neither giving in to the pure repression that prohibits the hope of reintegration, nor giving in to the absolute benevolence that obscures everyone’s responsibility.
By referring the individual too much to the psychosocial context in which he finds himself, we risk losing sight of his responsibility. This trend is at the heart of the Mazan trial. Some defendants therefore deny any intention of rape, sometimes claiming that they were manipulated by Mr. Pélicot, sometimes that they were victims of an unhappy and violent past. Without denying that phenomena of cultural influence, mental control or even blindness may intervene, it is surprising to note that the error does not give rise to a trigger of responsibility for the present.
“No determinism is absolutely binding.”
The search for the moral causes of an act is based on two assumptions. First, it would be the result of a personality. But it can also constitute one of the stones that allow its construction. Then it would be the result of a chain of causes and effects. However strong, the influences suffered are not strictly decisive. Ethical dilemmas are, in this regard, the most favorable moments to make someone perceive the different possibilities available to him. We may look for reasons for actions, but we always judge choices. As Gisèle Pélicot said to her ex-husband: “I have always tried to pull you upwards, towards the light. You have chosen the depths of the human soul. It is you who have chosen.”
No determinism is absolutely binding. Psychological expertise such as social contextualization is interesting, but incapable of explaining everything. Let us not hide the freedom that allows everyone, even the unfortunate, to reject cruelty. By wanting to understand everything we risk altering the mystery and grandeur of individual responsibility.
*Sophie Galabru is a philosopher and author of Make a family (Allary) e The face of our anger (Flammarion).
How does childhood trauma influence adult behavior in cases of crime and moral accountability?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Dr. Eliza Forster, Psychologist and Crime Analyst
Editor: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Forster. We’re here to discuss the complex psychological and moral dimensions raised by the recent Mazan case, a harrowing trial of collective rape. It brings to light many challenging questions about human behavior. How do you interpret the idea that a man can be a loving husband by day and become a perpetrator by night?
Dr. Forster: Thank you for having me. This dichotomy is indeed troubling and reflects a deeper complexity within human nature. Many factors—ranging from societal pressures to psychological conditioning—can contribute to such drastic behavior changes. The notion that individuals can compartmentalize their lives allows them to lead seemingly normal lives while hiding darker impulses.
Editor: The article mentions the perspective of Socrates, stating that an individual committing injustice may confuse it with their own interest. Do you think this holds true for the defendants in the Mazan case?
Dr. Forster: It’s a fascinating point. Socratic philosophy suggests that ignorance of the good leads to wrongdoing. In many cases, individuals may not fully grasp the moral implications of their actions, particularly if they have a distorted understanding ingrained from their upbringing or societal influences. However, this does not absolve them of responsibility. It merely complicates our understanding of culpability.
Editor: The article also points to the influence of childhood experiences, noting that individuals abused in their formative years may exhibit problematic behaviors as adults. To what extent does this align with your research?
Dr. Forster: There’s significant evidence supporting the idea that childhood trauma can lead to various behavioral issues later in life. The World Health Organization highlights that abused children are at a higher risk of developing physical, psychological, or behavioral problems. However, it is crucial to remember that while these factors can increase vulnerability, they do not dictate one’s actions. Free will plays an integral role. It’s about how one reconciles their past with their current choices.
Editor: Speaking of responsibility, the legal system seems to be grappling with how to assess a perpetrator’s moral and psychological accountability. In the context of the Mazan case, how can judges fairly estimate this balance between understanding an individual’s context and upholding justice?
Dr. Forster: This is one of the most challenging aspects of the modern judicial system. The trend toward individualization of sentences and the reliance on psychological evaluations means that judges must navigate a nuanced landscape. On one hand, understanding a defendant’s background can lead to more compassionate sentencing; on the other, it risks downplaying the seriousness of their actions. This is especially poignant in cases like Mazan where defendants claim manipulation or coercion. It raises questions about whether they are genuinely victims of their circumstances or are attempting to evade full accountability for their actions.
Editor: The concept of “humanist justice” aims to educate rather than purely punish. Do you believe this approach can effectively address the complexities presented in cases like the Mazan trial?
Dr. Forster: Humanist justice has merit in theory, promoting rehabilitation and understanding over mere punishment. Yet, it must be applied judiciously. We need to strike a balance between educating individuals about their actions and ensuring that victims are given justice. A pure focus on the perpetrator’s context could undermine the very foundation of accountability. Recognizing that “no determinism is absolutely binding” is essential—it means we all have the capacity to make moral choices, regardless of our backgrounds.
Editor: As we conclude, what do you think is the most critical takeaway from the Mazan case for our society?
Dr. Forster: The Mazan case underscores the need for us to think deeply about the nature of evil, accountability, and the complexities of human behavior. It challenges us to consider how societal and psychological factors intersect with individual choices. As a society, we must advocate for a justice system that is both understanding and firm, one that seeks to heal while also demanding accountability. Only then can we hope to prevent such tragedies in the future.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Forster, for your valuable insights. This conversation certainly delves into the intricate relationship between human psychology, morality, and justice, especially in light of such distressing cases.