How to deal with offenders?

Pianist Shoko Kuroe responds to an article in BackstageClassical and a podcast, asking six questions on the topic of how to protect victims of abuse in music.

In the new podcast episode no. 95 of Alles Klar, Klassik? (from 24 May 2024), Axel Brüggemann and Dorothea Gregor discuss the problem of how one can and should actually deal with perpetrators of violence and abusers of power in culture and especially in classical music.

Some important points are addressed in the podcast, above all the dilemma of harmonising artistic freedom and moral values, especially when the perpetrator is supposed to exercise a leadership function.

However, Shoko Kuroe feels that the perspective of those affected and those who could potentially be affected in the future is neglected here. This is primarily about cases that have been reported in the press as suspected offences and as such are known to the public.

Question 1:

Why has the management done nothing up to this point? Is this to become a new standard procedure in cases of sexual boundary violations, that the media should investigate and write 'filler' reports (which they can only do for certain people and only in the context of suspicion reporting, because of the personal rights of the perpetrator - i.e. before or during ongoing proceedings)?

Question 2:

One would then argue that the offender has already been punished and shamed because of the publicity, and that the public could decide for themselves whether to buy tickets to the concert, that students or parents of students could decide for themselves whether to have lessons with the teacher/professor, that employees could decide for themselves whether to work under the offender.

Question 3:

It is assumed that after the public reports and the subsequent investigations and possible warnings, the perpetrator will no longer behave in an abusive manner. Why are people so sure?

Sexual offenders usually don't just commit offences once, but more often. (This is another reason why suspicion reports work when a journalist brings together several cases and several victims. These are often cases where many people knew about it internally but looked the other way. The perpetrators did not leave it at the first victim).

Question 4:

So where is the protection for victims and potential victims. A traumatised victim can find it difficult to work under their own perpetrator. Does the victim have to leave, and who helps them to find a new job or a new livelihood? Who will pay for the victim's damages? Currently, traumatised victims usually have to pay for the damage alone - loss of earnings, therapy costs, legal fees, etc.

Of course, only the perpetrator is responsible for their actions. But the management also has a responsibility to ensure that no one is harmed at their institution.

If the institution had to pay compensation to the victims, it would be much more cautious about rehiring or hiring offenders. Because then every case becomes a cost factor for the institution as well.

Question 5:

Many offenders state during criminal proceedings or even during internal investigations that they meant well, that they did not recognise the victim's boundaries and that they assumed that the victims thought it was okay too. This is usually an excuse because rape or harassment in the criminal sense requires malicious intent. It is therefore blamed on misunderstanding, wantonness or an inability to recognise boundaries. But if the perpetrator is unable to recognise the boundary, how can further acts and damage be prevented?

Only therapy and risk assessment can help, such as those offered by the Counselling Centre for Sexual Boundary Violations in Professional Relationships in Basel.

Question 6:

If the perpetrator makes a 'new start' at another institution, how do you intend to inform the staff, students or pupils there, or the public? Especially if the media have not reported, or only locally, or only anonymised (because of the perpetrator's personal rights), the victims can often only warn their fellow human beings behind closed doors.

If the perpetrator has not been convicted of a criminal offence, the new employer will not see the misconduct on the criminal record. To what extent does the old employer have to inform the new employer and possibly report 'deals' (e.g. to get rid of the offender quickly and without labour law proceedings, in exchange for silence and a good reference)?

It is very difficult for victims to see how their own perpetrator is allowed to make a 'new start' and then be celebrated and promoted not only by his friends but also by ignorant people (sometimes even unsuspecting feminists who praise such perpetrators in public), and you as a victim have to keep quiet about it. Stories are rewritten in favour of the perpetrator, especially if there was no prior exposure in the press, but even then.

She concludes: Making music is a human right (which is why there are also opportunities to make music in prison), and this cannot be denied to offenders. And the principle of artistic freedom and re-socialisation applies.

However, Shoko Kuroe thinks it is important to ensure that the offender cannot commit any further offences and that the offender has fully acknowledged his actions, reflected on them and repented. It is also important that the perpetrator or the institution has made amends to the victims.

So far, the victims have borne the damage alone (with the exception of treatment paid for by health insurance, in which case the costs are borne by the general public). A victim who leaves the scene is not mourned. That's why the institution doesn't feel responsible.

Shoko Kuroe stresses: “We need to talk about this”.