On March 19, Anna Stubblefield pleaded guilty in a very high profile criminal case.
I don't know off hand whether I have written about it in this blog before.
[Later Insertion. I have not specifically mentioned Stubblefield here -- I have discussed an underlying controversy ....]
Stubblefield has pleaded guilty to aggravated criminal sexual contact with a man known to the public only as DJ, a man with severe cerebral palsy.
She has claimed that she has been communicating with DJ through "facilitated communication" (FC) and until agreeing to this guilty plea she had taken the view that they had a consensual romantic relationship, consent conveyed through the FC.
[Later insertion. The validity or otherwise of FC is the underlying controversy mentioned in the first use of brackets above. Nearly two years ago I posted here my review of the Donvan/Zucker book about autism. I briefly discussed FC in that context. Autism was not part of DJ's condition.]
Sentencing is scheduled for next month.
Although a few true believers in FC remain, it is for the most part now regarded as discredited. One take-away from this case is that pseudo-science movements do real harm. One can't simply take the non-cognitivist attitude that the illusion of communication makes family members feel better, etc. Promoting illusions calls up bad things, summoning events into the real world.
Stubblefield may have been entirely sincere in believing in her 'romance,' but she was in essence using DJ as a sex doll.
Christopher, what do you mean by "non-cognitivist" in this context? To cite calling up bad things is to use a utilitarian calculation, but so is citing making family members feel better. And isn't utilitarianism cognitive in that its calculations are based on knowledge of empirical facts?
ReplyDeleteOn another matter, I assume that she could have had the required mens rea even if she was entirely sincere. But her sincerity should significantly reduce her sentence, because, now that she knows that what she did was a crime, despite her sincerity, she presumably would not do it again (in the unlikely event that the opportunity to do so should arise).
Henry, I only meant that one might be tempted to be non-cognitivist about FC itself, refusing to answer the question, "is it actual communication?" that is, "is the output originating from DJ?" Or course the claim that the consequences (happy families) are good is itself a cognitive one. So call the above mentioned temptation a TARGETED non-cognitivism, if you like.
ReplyDeleteI agree about the sentence. She'll be a registered sex offender for life. That's a pretty severe penalty in itself. I think sentencing (scheduled for May 7) should probably be "time served." Surely there are better uses for available cell space.