The Moral Insanity Lurking Under the Sean Combs Trial

This morning while listening to the news, I came across a piece specifically covering the upcoming trial of Sean Combs. Now, concerning what Sean Combs is accused of is not what I was particularly shocked at this morning. Yes, I am shocked and ghasted at such allegations - but set those aside and there is something else sinister lurking around this case. 

Reporting on the case, a National Public Radio (NPR) correspondent noted that “the thing that does complicate this (the case) a little bit is that the indictment says some of his employees were victims of his threats and violence themselves.” Do you see the moral insanity contained within such a short sentence? Here we have an entire sex trafficking empire being acknowledged, whose leader is Sean Combs himself. And under Sean Combs there are clearly others who participated in the orchestration of all the evil that was committed. However, are these other participants of the Sean Combs empire considered perpetrators themselves? The answer, according to this news piece, is, ultimately, no. 

These fellow participants of the Sean Combs empire are spared the title of perpetrator, even though they themselves played direct roles in what was committed. The reason why they are spared such a damning title, as the NPR correspondent states, is because they “were victims of his threats and violence themselves.” So, apparently, this status of victim drastically overshadows the status of perpetrator. Is there any fairness or justice in this at all? 

The answer, if we are honest with ourselves, is a resounding no. Just because someone is a victim themselves does not mean that they are automatically excused from being perpetrators of evil themselves. Being a victim of evil does not excuse evilness. Just consider, for example, The Nuremberg Trials. In the midst of these trials there was a plea to the court labeled as the “following orders” defense. In essence, those perpetrators of the Holocaust, standing before the court, pleaded for their innocence on the basis that they were just simply following orders in order to preserve their lives.

Well, history tells us that such a defense plea was considered an absolute failure. It was considered an absolute failure because it was morally recognized, back then, that each man is held accountable for his actions, regardless of what someone may compulse them to do. Despite what terror Adolf Hitler swayed over these men, it was nevertheless understood that, had they wanted to, they could have refused to obey his evil decrees even though such a refusal to obey could have had death befall both them and their families. Nevertheless, being a victim of evil gives no one the right to be the doer of evil. This was recognized at Nuremberg. 

Going back to the Sean Combs case, we may ask what does this mean? What does it mean that perpetrators of evil may get off the hook simply because they are recognized as being victims of evil? I think what this means, for culture, is that we are in a confused state and have lost our grounding in anything objectively good or wrong. Sean Combs is being prosecuted simply because that is what the mob wants, rather than being prosecuted because of the call for justice. His other employers are escaping judgement because the mob has determined them innocent, despite what their actions may show. 

In a culture with an ever-expansive search for permitting evil, let this be a clear case study. This is a case study that demonstrates our willingness to search for any reason to excuse a person of their evilness. Surely, had this ideology been applied during Nuremberg, then no one would have been prosecuted. As outlandish as that may seem, that is exactly where we are finding our legal footing at now.