The Cousins suspension - an exercise in misguided moralising

AFL footballers have no less right to drink to excess and over-react to relationship breakups than doctors, judges, plumbers and journalists, none of whom lose their livelihoods as a result of their excesses. And detecting the use of (non-performance enhancing) illegal drugs is a police matter, not the role of an overbearing employer. That’s why the Eagles suspsensionof star player Ben Cousins is misguided.

The Cousins’ suspension also highlights the dispiriting levels to which the community has plummeted in relation to preferring the fanatical pursuit of fictitious feel-good messages, such as sport and alcohol can’t mix, to honest and accurate portrayals of events.

But doesn’t the misbehaviour of Cousins send the wrong message to our kids? And what about sponsors, shouldn’t clubs ensure that their brand name is not tainted by wayward players?

While there is no doubt that Cousins is a role model for many children, he didn’t voluntarily assume this role and he shouldn’t be burdened with extra responsibility because parents and the community are incapable of properly directing young minds to where they should look for their moral and personal education.

Parents need to inform their children that they should look to the likes of Cousins for inspiration regarding what he does well. That starts and ends with kicking a footy around the park. Cousins shouldn’t have his interests set back because of parental dereliction.

Moreover, kids grow to be adults and it does them a great disservice to forge a community built on deceit. People are flawed. This even applies to beautiful people such as sport stars. Yet, it is possible to have a meaningful life even while dealing with difficult issues.

Of this, Ben Cousins is a stellar example. Despite reports of heavy drinking he is a Brownlow medalist, former club captain, premiership player, four-time club best-and-fairest, six-time All-Australian player and the hardest running midfielder in the AFL.

All this while reportedly afflicted by “substance abuse” problems. It shows the heights that a person can achieve despite being afflicted with considerable personal challenges. This is the message that we should be sending our children. It might even be a source of inspiration for our children when they develop adult problems of the type Cousins is now experiencing.

And as for sponsors, if they want to put their money behind moral, as opposed to popular, causes there are plenty of schools, hospitals and philosophy departments where their cash can be directed. Yet, somehow I don’t sense we’re about to be swamped with images of cashed-up philosophers - even in in tight shorts - anytime soon.

Concerns about the impact on team spirit of having a plonk on the park are misplaced. The Eagles are last year’s premiers and favourites for the 2007 flag. It seems that alcoholic ball-getters are far less problematic than squeaky clean passengers.

In the end, work (whether in the sporting arena or other domains) is about doing a defined task. So long as a person has the skills and acumen to complete the task there is generally no place in a fair-minded and rational society to deny them such an opportunity on account of their failure to pass a moral bookkeeping exercise or even a criminal record check.

Of course, Cousins’s exploits go beyond the occasional bender. He was found guilty of criminal misconduct after doing a runner from a booze bus. This, however, doesn’t strengthen the case for his sacking. In fact, it highlghts a wide-ranging problem in the community relating to employment discrimination against people with prior convictions.

Presently there are no effective laws protecting people who have transgressed the law from work deprivations in the form of being sacked from a job or being overlooked for a prospective job. Australians are often denied jobs or lose existing jobs as a result of minor transgressions which have no connection with the job in question. A 10-year-old shop-stealing offence can lead to a person being precluded from getting the most dreary of jobs.

Such discrimination is rife. Hundreds of thousands of police checks by employers are conducted each year in Australia. Workplace discrimination against people who have been convicted of criminal offences or who are suspected of engaging in such conduct is in most cases unfair.

As noted by Prime Minister John Howard following Pauline Hanson's (wrongful) conviction for electoral fraud: “As a matter of principle my view is that once a person has paid their debt to society, as the old expression goes, and done their time, then they should be able to live a normal life”.

Living a normal live includes being eligible to secure employment opportunities that are commensurate with one's skill and knowledge. There are several reasons why people who have “served their time” should not be subjected to incidental punishment in the form of employment deprivations.

First, people should not be punished twice for the one act. There is little doubt that being deprived of a job or having one’s employment opportunities reduced sets back one’s interests.

Second, the compound punishment of court sanctions and employment deprivations often violates the proportionality thesis, which prescribes that the harshness of the sanction should match the seriousness of the offence.

Thus, if rumours that Cousins is addicted to (non-performance enhancing) illegal drugs are true and this becomes a police matter, his punishment for this should start and end with the court imposed sanction. In the meantime, he needs support to assist him with whatever issues he is dealing with, rather than been publicly embarrased and shamed by being “outed” by his club.

Third, inflicting work deprivations for previous transgression is tantamount to punishing people for their character. This is a “no go” area. Character is a complex trait. It requires a wide-ranging balancing exercise to be undertaken.

One or two (even) criminal misdeeds do not wipe away all the good that a person may have achieved during their lives. Commendable acts such as donating to charity, saving stray animals, treating others with concern and respect, taking short showers, paying bills on time and allowing enough road space to enable drivers to merge are not reduced to zero by the occasional transgression. All of these considerations must be weighed into the mix when deciding whether a person has a character deficit or credit.

So how do we remedy the situation?

The basic principle that should be adopted is that once people have completed their sanction they should be eligible for all forms of employment, except if there is a direct demonstrable link between the offence and the proposed job or the employment setting that would provide the wrongdoer with an enhanced opportunity to re-offend.

Thus, recidivist thieves should be excluded from working in areas where they would deal with money and violent offenders should be precluded from working in pubs but there is no basis for disqualifying people with such prior convictions from working as nurses, journalists or in garden variety public service positions.

And as for footballers, they should be allowed to ply their skills so long as they are capable of being in the best 20 players on the park. The rest of us need to confine our worship of them to their exploits on the park.