Domestic Violence, Sports, and Judgments

In recent weeks, the NFL has come under fire for its handling of a number of cases of abuse by its athletes on family members. This has resulted in suspensions and a lot of bad public relations. Currently, US Soccer is coming under fire for continuing to play Hope Solo in the aftermath of her domestic abuse arrest in June 2014. Amid the current furor, I wonder if anyone is going to get a fair hearing in the court of public opinion?

It’s interesting reading comments, especially regarding the spotlight now focusing on Solo and US Soccer. You’d assume there was never any middle ground. On one side, you have “innocent until proven guilty” and “what happens in private life shouldn’t affect work…unless convicted”. On the other you have “no level of violence is acceptable, it’s all the same”, “if they are accused, they should be banned until the verdict”, and so forth. There is an undercurrent that the NFL is being treated harshly and that Solo is getting preferential treatment.

I stand somewhat in the middle on this. There are definitely levels of degree of abuse as well as societal acceptance. There is also the problem of publicly released evidence. The Ray Rice case has video clearly showing him delivering a knockout punch. The Solo case is, to this point (as far as I know), still she-said/she-said. The Adrian Peterson case has evidence, but falls in the gray area that persists in America in regards to corporal punishment of children (spanking, switches, etc.), AKA “spare the rod, spoil the child” vs actual child abuse.

In the coming weeks, more and more similar cases are bound to be brought to light. The questions become: do we suspend on accusation alone, thus presuming guilt until proven innocent; do we wait until all the legal proceedings finish (possibly including appeals), a process that can easily take years and end up having suspensions become moot; is damning evidence, such as video, to be given substantial weight in making these decisions prior to conviction… and what if that evidence is ambiguous; does being charged with a misdemeanor vs a felony make a difference; if a suspension is put in place and the accused is found not-guilty for whatever reason, then how do you set reparations for what was withheld from the athlete and their potential future losses; and so forth?

None of the solutions are easy ones unless you are rigidly binary in your thinking.  There are almost always mitigating factors as well as potentially serious consequences on either side for erring. Does the fame/wealth of an athlete help or hurt them in comparison to the general public…or their peers in our plutocracy’s upper percentile? What about gender? Is it different when brothers (or male friends) have a dust-up than when it’s sisters (or female friends)?

I don’t have answers that will satisfy everyone. I don’t think its fair to be zero-tolerance about these things. It doesn’t work in schools and it certainly isn’t going to work here. Every case has to be judged by the courts, sports authorities, and the public based on the circumstances and personalities involved. Whenever violence is having to be dealt with by an institution (sports leagues, law enforcement, workplace, etc.) the key is transparency, with society getting to have its say as to what is acceptable.

And yes, I do think we should side on the “innocent until proven guilty” philosophy except when there is some high confidence that the accused is a clear and public danger; i.e. lives, either public or domestic, are potentially at risk because of abuse, instability, substance use, or whatever. Absent that, I prefer that leagues and the public watchfully wait for the accused to work through the system while still retaining their jobs. If you were accused of a crime, rightfully or not, I imagine you’d expect the same treatment.