You're comparing the magnitude of success for amber alerts - a solution to a problem, to the magnitude of problems themselves. It's not mere callousness, it's poor analysis.
Whether you want to think about it or not, child sexual abuse is no dead crime. It's alarmingly common. It effects at least 20% of those closest to me - and this only for cases that I know of. From national surveys of adults, (www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf) it's estimated that 9-32% of women and 5-10% of men were subject to sexual abuse during their childhoods (though statistics for criminal reported cases are much lower -- about 1.2
per 1,000 children).
Who is to say that were the law enforcement less vigilant, such abuse wouldn't escalate. In many countries, it does. Particularly in South-East Asia and Eastern Europe, the sex trade is rampant -- Unicef estimates put it at 1 million young sold into the trade per year (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1707763.stm). The amber alert is but one deterrent; the combined effect is likely quite effective.
Who among those arguing for AMBER alerts are campaigning against charity programs to Africa? What instead we have are law enforcement agencies partnering up to work against child abductions and sexual abuse effectively.
Effectively? It is even, by many standards, economical. The economic loss of 27 children would almost certainly exceed the $30 million in funds nationally allocated to it. The biggest tax you pay is in attention, and even there you've already given to it in reaction more attention than it demands. Is there a school program, obesity program, or swimming pool program that would do the same?
There may be more immediately successful uses for said attention and funding abroad. But do those fighting child abductions and absurd donate less money and time to charitable concerns abroad. It is only my impression, but in my corner of the world apparently not. Those concerned with and directly involved in advancing social good are rarely concerned with just one part of it.
Do not, then, begrudge people of the interest in the safety of their children and community, of their charitable work, and of their fears. To do so is not only to deny to human nature some of the most powerful forces for good, but to deny the self-interest that drives our society, without which we would wither.
You're confusing "sexual abuse" with abduction. While there is overlap, we're talking about two different crimes.
No one is claiming that no one should worry about abductions. But investing significant resources here CAUSES problems because of the opportunity cost -- greater amounts of good could be done by directing the resources to addressing greater risks.
That's the big problem with the "if it saves just one child" thing. There's a finite amount of resources available, so we must prioritize and spend it on the places that will do the most good. Child abductions and Amber Alerts make good news copy, but addressing the more mundane dangers will give a better bang-for-the-buck, and save more people.
I'm not confusing the two. Part of my point was sexual abuse can escalate into more serous abductions. By acting as a deterrent, it may have an effect far greater than the 27 children saved would imply. As evidence in countries without such strict systems, abduction, or at least sex slavery, can run rampant.
My argument, more generally, is that the amber may be a good bang for the buck. I am not against triage. But the very issue being critized, the media attention and cognitive stickiness of child abduction stories, are valuable in that they deter offenses, and that they raise awareness.
You may not be "confusing" the two - because you're doing it consciously - but you're conflating them. From what I know, most sexual abuse is committed by friends and family, not strangers. The AMBER alerts seemed to be targeted at abductions by strangers. Put another way, AMBER alerts are targeted at the minority of sexual abuses, not the majority.
You're missing an important piece of the puzzle. A significant amount of the child sexual abuse in the US is perpetrated by families and close family friends. That's totally different from abductions and the sex trade, which you bring up in different countries. Certainly stopping those is a priority, but stronger law enforcement will not solve the whole problem.
> Those concerned with and directly involved in advancing social good are rarely concerned with just one part of it.
Now that you've confirmed that you're being deliberately patronizing and holier than thou, it's fair to point out that folks who are "concerned with and directly involved in social good" have a tendency to be wrong and mindbogglingly destructive.
And no, "they meant well" isn't an excuse. It's actually an insult.
DaniFong, I could write a book in response to your comment, but let me single out three parts for refutation:
"Those concerned with and directly involved in advancing social good are rarely concerned with just one part of it."
Whatever gives you the impression I am not concerned with "advancing social good"? I am fucking obsessed with that cause, there is nothing more important in this world. The question is how you go about it - by rational measurement, analysis, and action for the greatest good for the greatest number, or by cheap fearmongering, scarecrow-raising, and appeals to nebulous sentimentality and doubtful external enemies?
"it's estimated that 9-32% of women and 5-10% of men were subject to sexual abuse during their childhoods"
If these statistics are accurate, then either we as a society are absolutely fucked, or the negative effects of child sexual abuse are grossly overstated. One in three women? Really?
"Do not, then, begrudge people of the interest in the safety of their children and community, of their charitable work, and of their fears."
Here you have inadvertently stumbled across the real thrust of the issue: "and of their fears". No, no, one thousand times NO! Their fears are irrelevant. What matters is facts, baby, numbers. Anything else and you are embarking on a superstition-fueled witch hunt.
You need to rethink your beliefs. Sorry to get personal, but I can sense that you care, and I want you to understand why I disagree. Let's look at these two statements of yours:
"Effectively? It is even, by many standards, economical. The economic loss of 27 children would almost certainly exceed the $30 million in funds nationally allocated to it."
and
"Particularly in South-East Asia and Eastern Europe, the sex trade is rampant -- Unicef estimates put it at 1 million young sold into the trade per year"
In one sentence you set the value of a child's life at $1m US dollars. Actually, the $30m is just the federal contribution, the states match it, so the value is actually higher - but for the sake of argument let's assume $1m.
How much are those children sold into slavery for? With the same amount, how many could you save? Off the top of my head I'd guess $1000 each for those kids. Research suggests less - much less - but let's assume $1k. So you can buy 30,000 lives for the cost of the amber alert program. That cool? One American kid roughly equates to 1,000 foreigners? Is that justice?
Yes, I'm oversimplifying here. It's not America's responsibility to take care of every basket case 3rd world country's unwanted young. But if we're going to get all moral and talk about saving lives, we have to admit that lives do have price tags on them. The amber alert price tag is way too high. The risk premise is irrational. It preys on nigh-unfounded populist fears. It encourages the wrong sort of thinking in the population. If you want to do good, there's lower hanging fruit everywhere. Hell, the fruit is lying right there on the ground! The price in some places isn't $1k, it's $100. I'd be buying them up myself if I could figure out what the hell to do with them. Oh for an "Illustrated Primer" and some ships. But the root cause is poverty .. like I said, this could turn into a book.
Your ghoulish calculus could take into account some of the other ways the country decides to spend its money. Saving 27 children seems like a better use of $30M compared to spending it on half of a failed banking executive's exit bonus.
Time for a more studied response eludes me. But I should first like to say a few things.
Firstly, though I am not an author of that statistical study, I have seen nothing to contradict those numbers. The proportion could be as high as one in three. It has effected my friends and family.
Secondly, I agree that fearmongering is a questionable tactic. However, as. Seterent for crimes, it can be effective.
Third, I am not Mod Flanders. I am a physicist. I rely on quantitative analysis and triage.
Finally, I did not stumble into anything. My words are deliberate. Fears are powerful, pervasive, human, and in this case, can be a force for good.
Whether you want to think about it or not, child sexual abuse is no dead crime. It's alarmingly common. It effects at least 20% of those closest to me - and this only for cases that I know of. From national surveys of adults, (www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf) it's estimated that 9-32% of women and 5-10% of men were subject to sexual abuse during their childhoods (though statistics for criminal reported cases are much lower -- about 1.2 per 1,000 children).
Who is to say that were the law enforcement less vigilant, such abuse wouldn't escalate. In many countries, it does. Particularly in South-East Asia and Eastern Europe, the sex trade is rampant -- Unicef estimates put it at 1 million young sold into the trade per year (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1707763.stm). The amber alert is but one deterrent; the combined effect is likely quite effective.
Who among those arguing for AMBER alerts are campaigning against charity programs to Africa? What instead we have are law enforcement agencies partnering up to work against child abductions and sexual abuse effectively.
Effectively? It is even, by many standards, economical. The economic loss of 27 children would almost certainly exceed the $30 million in funds nationally allocated to it. The biggest tax you pay is in attention, and even there you've already given to it in reaction more attention than it demands. Is there a school program, obesity program, or swimming pool program that would do the same?
There may be more immediately successful uses for said attention and funding abroad. But do those fighting child abductions and absurd donate less money and time to charitable concerns abroad. It is only my impression, but in my corner of the world apparently not. Those concerned with and directly involved in advancing social good are rarely concerned with just one part of it.
Do not, then, begrudge people of the interest in the safety of their children and community, of their charitable work, and of their fears. To do so is not only to deny to human nature some of the most powerful forces for good, but to deny the self-interest that drives our society, without which we would wither.