The
world is filled with conflicts, contradictions, and dual ethics. Case in point: Major League Baseball handed down a 30-game
ban (about 18% of the season) to a relief pitcher on the Yankees, Aroldis
Chapman, for an incident that never led to criminal charges. Domestic violence proponents might say baseball didn’t go far enough, while others like me believe such a penalty should never
be implemented.
It’s
true that professional athletes have forever behaved poorly off the field,
getting into barroom fights, succumbing to addictions, driving while under the
influence, cheating on spouses, and committing abuse against women—and
sometimes children. I don’t excuse nor
condone such behavior but I don’t like the idea that a profession or employer
can step in as a substitute for the criminal justice system.
Can
you imagine if a publisher decides to yank a book off the store shelves for 30
days because he or she was involved in an altercation with a significant other?
The
justice system needs to be improved but I defer to it to determine punishment
for criminal offenses. If it locks
someone up, that’s the punishment.
Community service and a fine?
That’s the punishment. The NFL or a publisher should not thrust themselves into the debate as the morality
police.
The
media has that job. Let the media spew
about the alleged villains among us. Let
sports fans decide if they’ll root for someone and let readers decide if they
will buy a book written by someone not even charged with a crime.
The
pitcher will forfeit 1.856 million dollars.
To
me, the fact that a sports league independently investigated and concluded the
player did something wrong, means that the criminal system did something
wrong. If he did something, such as act
violently, why isn’t the court system charging him? The police didn’t even have enough evidence
to see if a jury could be convinced of wrong-doing.
If
you conclude that what he did wasn’t breaking the law, then what did he do that
was so bad? You can’t have it both ways
and say, “Well, though what he did was not technically a crime, he should be
punished for his actions.” Why? Where does it end when it comes to an
employer imposing its sense of morality?
I
would shutter if publishers begin to cancel publishing contracts or remove
books from stores simply because an allegation of bad behavior is made. If the
police investigate and don’t prosecute, or if they do and the defendant is
exonerated, should any further action be taken by the book world?
It’s
a murky system, to seek to impose a standard where none exists. Exactly which offenses must occur for a
league or employer to take action? What
should the penalty be for each offense?
Don’t
misunderstand me. I believe domestic
violence should be punished – by the law – not by private businesses. I especially feel that a league should not
act if the courts won’t. And if the
courts act, we don’t need to doubly penalize the athlete or writer by adding in
additional penalties.
The
only time a league or publisher should impose a penalty is when the offensive
action directly relates to the industry one is involved in. For instance, if a player takes a steroid, in
violation of league rules, punish him or her.
Additionally, if the steroid was taken illegally, toss his ass in jail
too!
If a
writer punches his editor in the face or is proven to have plagiarized his book
or shows up to a book signing intoxicated, take action. Otherwise, stay away!
2016 Book Marketing & Book Publicity Toolkit
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.