NationStates Jolt Archive

Locally there has been a lot of talk about a new bill that makes domestic abuse a felony. All of the radio men are up in arms.....and all of the television reporters are ranting about it. I just don't quite understand what the problem is.

http://www.gov.ok.gov/display_article.php?article_id=327&article_type=1

It says right there "results in great bodily harm"....isn't that already a felony in my state? Yes, it is.

So, what's the deal?

I called local radio guy #7 and he said "what goes on in a house is between a woman and her mate" so he's obviously an idiot. I have to think that all of them can't be so stupid. There must be something logical I'm missing.

What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea?

You need to leave Oklahoma.

Yeah, I get that. More and more each day, I get that.

You need to leave Oklahoma.

She should probably set it on fire before she goes, just to be sure.

Locally there has been a lot of talk about a new bill that makes domestic abuse a felony. All of the radio men are up in arms.....and all of the television reporters are ranting about it. I just don't quite understand what the problem is.

http://www.gov.ok.gov/display_article.php?article_id=327&article_type=1

It says right there "results in great bodily harm"....isn't that already a felony in my state? Yes, it is.

So, what's the deal?

I called local radio guy #7 and he said "what goes on in a house is between a woman and her mate" so he's obviously an idiot. I have to think that all of them can't be so stupid. There must be something logical I'm missing.

What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea?

As you already mention there is laws that cover great bodily harm. I don't condone domestic violence. However people get thrown in jail all the time for being accused of it when it was just some crazed spouse/mate making up stories to get one in trouble. I think it should be against the law to make up new laws that are redundant.

Any act of violence currently considered a felony should BE a felony, regardless of whether that act of violence occurs between strangers, or couples.

I think it should be against the law to make up new laws that are redundant.

I don't know about you, but I've come to think that a lot of "extra" laws don't make any difference, other than to allow a politician to say, "boy, we really did great work on <fill in the blank>"

That, and the occasional end run around double jeopardy.

Any act of violence currently considered a felony should BE a felony, regardless of whether that act of violence occurs between strangers, or couples.

Yes, and she needs to leave Oklahoma.

they must think that it is now going to be illegal to call your wife a lazy bitch because she brought home pizza for dinner 3 nights in a row.

has it really not been against the law to beat up your spouse in OK before now?

Locally there has been a lot of talk about a new bill that makes domestic abuse a felony. All of the radio men are up in arms.....and all of the television reporters are ranting about it. I just don't quite understand what the problem is.

http://www.gov.ok.gov/display_article.php?article_id=327&article_type=1

It says right there "results in great bodily harm"....isn't that already a felony in my state? Yes, it is.

That's my only concern. What's the point in criminalizing something that's already ac rime? Abuse that results in great bodily harm? We tend to call that "battery" and it's already illegal.

they must think that it is now going to be illegal to call your wife a lazy bitch because she brought home pizza for dinner 3 nights in a row.

has it really not been against the law to beat up your spouse in OK before now?

In Virginia, until 1986 it was completely legal to physically beat your wife.

they must think that it is now going to be illegal to call your wife a lazy bitch because she brought home pizza for dinner 3 nights in a row.

Wow, that is a lazy bitch.


has it really not been against the law to beat up your spouse in OK before now?

Maybe they didn't have any laws covering assualt?

That's my only concern. What's the point in criminalizing something that's already ac rime? Abuse that results in great bodily harm? We tend to call that "battery" and it's already illegal.

The point is having some legislator say, "I did a great job this session, passing legislation to stop domestic abuse".

they must think that it is now going to be illegal to call your wife a lazy bitch because she brought home pizza for dinner 3 nights in a row.

has it really not been against the law to beat up your spouse in OK before now?

Well, it's illegal to assault anyone, but if you beat your wife then it wasn't punished as badly as if you beat up a random person on the street. Basically this makes it the same, like if you do great bodily harm to anyone it's a felony and also now you have to go to counseling if you beat up your wife, even if all you did was punch her in the face a few times but leave no lasting damage.

The point is having some legislator say, "I did a great job this session, passing legislation to stop domestic abuse".

sadly I'm inclined to agree.

In Virginia, until 1986 it was completely legal to physically beat your wife.
so there needed to be a law that made domestic abuse a crime..

maybe OK is just 23 years behind VA.

As you already mention there is laws that cover great bodily harm. I don't condone domestic violence. However people get thrown in jail all the time for being accused of it when it was just some crazed spouse/mate making up stories to get one in trouble. I think it should be against the law to make up new laws that are redundant.

While I agree, and also get annoyed at 'popular laws' which don't actually do anything new, they do sometimes serve a purpose in terms of deterrence value.

Making it a crime, for example to engage in 'street' racing, when there are already laws dealing with the issue under the Traffic Act, annoys the fuck out of me as a student of law. Nonetheless, hearing people go 'oh wow dude, street racing is a crime now...shit...' suggests that introducing a certain level of specificity as a means of signalling social and legal disapproval of certain acts can have a (limited) educational effect.

Well, it's illegal to assault anyone, but if you beat your wife then it wasn't punished as badly as if you beat up a random person on the street. Basically this makes it the same, like if you do great bodily harm to anyone it's a felony and also now you have to go to counseling if you beat up your wife, even if all you did was punch her in the face a few times but leave no lasting damage.
that shouldnt have made me laugh.

maybe the councillor will tell her that she had it comin'

so there needed to be a law that made domestic abuse a crime..

maybe OK is just 23 years behind VA.

We got a spouse rape law in the 90's, people were pissed about that too.

In Virginia, until 1986 it was completely legal to physically beat your wife.

Well Virginia probably has or had a large amount of archaic laws considering how old the State/former colony is. If laws were really looked at in every local there would probably me many contradictions and some rather stupid ones like riding your horse after midnight on Sunday.

Locally there has been a lot of talk about a new bill that makes domestic abuse a felony. All of the radio men are up in arms.....and all of the television reporters are ranting about it. I just don't quite understand what the problem is.

http://www.gov.ok.gov/display_article.php?article_id=327&article_type=1

It says right there "results in great bodily harm"....isn't that already a felony in my state? Yes, it is.

So, what's the deal?

I called local radio guy #7 and he said "what goes on in a house is between a woman and her mate" so he's obviously an idiot. I have to think that all of them can't be so stupid. There must be something logical I'm missing.

What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea?

Some people seem to have the idea that marriage vows and parental rights make it okay to beat a person you couldn't normally. "Sure, I smacked her around, but it's okay, we love each other!"

We got a spouse rape law in the 90's, people were pissed about that too.
by "people" do you mean men?

because what woman would find it outrageous that they have some legal recourse to being raped?

by "people" do you mean men?

because what woman would find it outrageous that they have some legal recourse to being raped?

About 40% of the women around here believe what their man tells them to.

Well, it's illegal to assault anyone, but if you beat your wife then it wasn't punished as badly as if you beat up a random person on the street. Basically this makes it the same, like if you do great bodily harm to anyone it's a felony and also now you have to go to counseling if you beat up your wife, even if all you did was punch her in the face a few times but leave no lasting damage.

I'm not 100% how I feel about this....I mean I see its rationale, but it troubles me on some vague notiono f equal protection.

Not that i condone wife beating, but rather the converse. Why should I be punished LESS if I kick the crap out of you, versus if I did it to my wife? Are you not an equal person? Did I not harm you just as equally? Am I not deserving of equal punishment for it?

Some people seem to have the idea that marriage vows and parental rights make it okay to beat a person you couldn't normally. "Sure, I smacked her around, but it's okay, we love each other!"

welllllllll, for some people that's true :tongue:

About 40% of the women around here believe what their man tells them to.

Like this?

When you come back, there will be a woman with my name and my face, she'll cook and clean like crazy, but she won't take pictures and SHE WON'T BE ME!

I'm not 100% how I feel about this....I mean I see its rationale, but it troubles me on some vague notiono f equal protection.

Not that i condone wife beating, but rather the converse. Why should I be punished LESS if I kick the crap out of you, versus if I did it to my wife? Are you not an equal person? Did I not harm you just as equally? Am I not deserving of equal punishment for it?

Can you explain hate crime to me then?

While I agree, and also get annoyed at 'popular laws' which don't actually do anything new, they do sometimes serve a purpose in terms of deterrence value.

Making it a crime, for example to engage in 'street' racing, when there are already laws dealing with the issue under the Traffic Act, annoys the fuck out of me as a student of law. Nonetheless, hearing people go 'oh wow dude, street racing is a crime now...shit...' suggests that introducing a certain level of specificity as a means of signalling social and legal disapproval of certain acts can have a (limited) educational effect.

one would think that arresting, trying, convicting, and sentencing the people who do it would have a similar effect...

About 40% of the women around here believe what their man tells them to.
*shudder*

Can you explain hate crime to me then?

aggrevating and mitigating factors. Same as the difference between, say, manslaughter and murder. You are under the erronious impression that these two situations are simliar. This law, so it seems, would apply extra penalties for battery if the target of my battery just so happens to be my wife. Hate crime laws don't function in such a way that I receive extra penalties for battery if the target of my battery just so happens to be black.

We got a spouse rape law in the 90's, people were pissed about that too.

Until 1983 (http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/Readings/CanadaRapeLaw.pdf), you couldn't rape your wife in Canada. Rape not immediately reported went uninvestigated. A woman's prior sexual history was admitted...our rape shield laws are still very new. 'Mistaken consent' is only recently no longer a defence, and 'I was too drunk to know I was raping her' has also only recently been invalidated as a defence.

It's very disturbing to think that these changes have only occurred in my lifetime...and it's important to recognise that many of the social attitudes behind the 'old' laws remain very much entrenched even today.

I'm not 100% how I feel about this....I mean I see its rationale, but it troubles me on some vague notiono f equal protection.

Not that i condone wife beating, but rather the converse. Why should I be punished LESS if I kick the crap out of you, versus if I did it to my wife? Are you not an equal person? Did I not harm you just as equally? Am I not deserving of equal punishment for it?

Neo you could look across the spectrum of laws and find all sorts of inequalities.

one would think that arresting, trying, convicting, and sentencing the people who do it would have a similar effect...
no thats just cop abuse.

until it is made a specific crime those who already do it will think that it is legal.

there were howls of outrage when albuquerque started going after latenight weekend street racing. "where are we supposed to go to race?!"

idiots.

Neo you could look across the spectrum of laws and find all sorts of inequalities.

yes? so? And I could look to Zimbabwe and see people having sex with virgins believing it will cure them of their HIV. Doesn't change my general potential objection to it.

Not that i condone wife beating, but rather the converse. Why should I be punished LESS if I kick the crap out of you, versus if I did it to my wife? Are you not an equal person? Did I not harm you just as equally? Am I not deserving of equal punishment for it?
Before it was the other way around..kick the crap out of your neighbor and cause great bodily harm? felony. kick the crap out of your wife and cause great bodily harm? misdemeanor.

The counseling thing is new. I think everyone who kicks the crap out of someone probably needs counseling though.

The domestic abuse rates in my state are really high though, like 6/10 women.

one would think that arresting, trying, convicting, and sentencing the people who do it would have a similar effect...

If the signal being sent is more to law enforcement themselves...and to judges who have been using their discretionary powers to give lighter sentences to those engaged in domestic abuse, then I support it.

And sometimes, people are stupid, and need laws with specific names, even if they are replicating laws already on the books :p

However, if the law does indeed create harsher penalties for harming one adult person (spouse) as opposed to harming another (stranger), I can't really see how that's justified.

I'm not 100% how I feel about this....I mean I see its rationale, but it troubles me on some vague notiono f equal protection.

Not that i condone wife beating, but rather the converse. Why should I be punished LESS if I kick the crap out of you, versus if I did it to my wife? Are you not an equal person? Did I not harm you just as equally? Am I not deserving of equal punishment for it?
I don't see it that you'll be punished more for beating your wife than for beating up someone you're not married to. To me it seems that it is bringing wife-beating assaults up the same level as other grievous assault, not raising it higher.

Oh, and Smunkee needs to be out of Oklahoma. Sadly, I'm not entirely certain OK is all that much more backward and savage than other places in the US, but still, it's a pretty obnoxious place.

I don't see it that you'll be punished more for beating your wife than for beating up someone you're not married to. To me it seems that it is bringing wife-beating assaults up the same level as other grievous assault, not raising it higher.

Oh, and Smunkee needs to be out of Oklahoma. Sadly, I'm not entirely certain OK is all that much more backward and savage than other places in the US, but still, it's a pretty obnoxious place.
its the weather that puts it over the top.

its backwards, savage and has horrible weather. why does anyone live there?

I don't see it that you'll be punished more for beating your wife than for beating up someone you're not married to. To me it seems that it is bringing wife-beating assaults up the same level as other grievous assault, not raising it higher.

No, that's fine, I'm fine with that. But one would think the statute defining the crime of battery (and it's BATTERY god damn it!) would not so exclude spouses.

If it does, then amend the statute, don't throw in a whole new law. Fewer laws good. More laws bad. Last thing anyone wants to see is a damned rat race in a trial going on about "well, they were seperated and the first judgement was in but the divorce decree wasn't finalized, and what crime do we charge him with?"

Make hitting people (any people) a crime, and be done with it.

yes? so? And I could look to Zimbabwe and see people having sex with virgins believing it will cure them of their HIV. Doesn't change my general potential objection to it.

We are talking about the good old US of A here. Zimbabwe really has nothing to do with our law discussion pertaining to the States. What I am saying is that because of peoples emotional feelings about a particular subject people sometimes want more punishment. I am of the camp to streamline punishment in the US and make a standard by which if you murder someone you get x amount of years. If you assualt someone you get punishment x. I personally get tired of seeing people not get punished enough in some instances and really go overboard in others based on the "emotional climate" at the time from the public.

Also, when it comes to these topic-specific laws:

Yes, many times they are "fad laws", just political posturing on whatever the hot button issue of the day is.

But other times they do have good effects, and many of those times, the message being sent is not really to the people committing the crime but to the cops, prosecutors, courts and government.

Failure to punish domestic abuse comes from an attitude among people working in the legal system. Yes, assault has always been illegal, and I don't know of any assault laws that include an "except if it's your wife" clause. And yet, how many years have we lived through where a man would not be arrested for beating his wife into the hospital repeatedly, not prosecuted for it, or given a lighter punishment for it? This law is a clear message to the legal system to cut that shit out, in my opinion.

its the weather that puts it over the top.

its backwards, savage and has horrible weather. why does anyone live there?

Currently I live here because this is where my husband's company is willing to pay him the amount of money we need to do the things we want to do. Also because the homeschooling laws are lax and so I can do things the way I want to.

I'm very confused why anyone came back after the dustbowl though...seriously.

We are talking about the good old US of A here. Zimbabwe really has nothing to do with our law discussion pertaining to the States. What I am saying is that because of peoples emotional feelings about a particular subject people sometimes want more punishment. I am of the camp to streamline punishment in the US and make a standard by which if you murder someone you get x amount of years. If you assualt someone you get punishment x. I personally get tired of seeing people not get punished enough in some instances and really go overboard in others based on the "emotional climate" at the time from the public.

while I am in favor of general streamlining, I am not in favor of hard and fast absolutes. If I punch you in the face, and then savagely beat another person, i've committed battery against both of you, but harmed him FAR more.

Should I really be punished the same? And if not, do we need to come up with 8 bazillion laws each dealing with the slightest gradations of violence and harm, and give more fuel to trial lawyers to bicker about just exactly what "level" of battery occured?

Before it was the other way around..kick the crap out of your neighbor and cause great bodily harm? felony. kick the crap out of your wife and cause great bodily harm? misdemeanor.

The counseling thing is new. I think everyone who kicks the crap out of someone probably needs counseling though.

The domestic abuse rates in my state are really high though, like 6/10 women.

Ok, if they are standardizing the law so that it applies equally than I am fine with this. However in the state I live in 99% of the time the cops are forced to take "someone" to jail if they are called out for a domestic. That is standard in a lot of jurisdictions. So does this mean all of those men/women get felonies?

Ok, if they are standardizing the law so that it applies equally than I am fine with this. However in the state I live in 99% of the time the cops are forced to take "someone" to jail if they are called out for a domestic. That is standard in a lot of jurisdictions. So does this mean all of those men/women get felonies?

The key being "great bodily harm" and you still have to be convicted.....it's not like the cops choose your punishment.

while I am in favor of general streamlining, I am not in favor of hard and fast absolutes. If I punch you in the face, and then savagely beat another person, i've committed battery against both of you, but harmed him FAR more.

Should I really be punished the same? And if not, do we need to come up with 8 bazillion laws each dealing with the slightest gradations of violence and harm, and give more fuel to trial lawyers to bicker about just exactly what "level" of battery occured?

Well that is why there are currently different degrees of certain crimes. To cover exactly what you are talking about. Every degree would be streamlined the same if it were up to me. Not as the "same" punishment for every degree but the punishments for that "degree" would be streamlined.

I see no reason to confer on cases of domestic abuse any peculiar gravity above an equivalent case of assault.

Well that is why there are currently different degrees of certain crimes. To cover exactly what you are talking about. Every degree would be streamlined the same if it were up to me. Not as the "same" punishment for every degree but the punishments for that "degree" would be streamlined.

There are degress of certain crimes (or often different crimes like "rape" and "aggrevated rape", but I digress). The problem you're suggesting is, if we remove any accomodation for aggrevating and mitigating factors, we've have so many different crimes and levels that all it would do is feed trial lawyers arguments.

one would think that arresting, trying, convicting, and sentencing the people who do it would have a similar effect...
Maybe if we had a fully transparent legal system in which everyone under it took an active interest in the proceedings.

Ok, if they are standardizing the law so that it applies equally than I am fine with this. However in the state I live in 99% of the time the cops are forced to take "someone" to jail if they are called out for a domestic. That is standard in a lot of jurisdictions. So does this mean all of those men/women get felonies?

cops are not "forced" to take "someone" to jail as a result of a phone call reporting a crime. That's unconstitutional and illegal as fuck. Cops ARE supposed to, and REQUIRED to, do their duty, and arrest anyone they have probable cause to believe has committed an arrestable offense.

And that's for ANY arrestable offense.

Well, it's illegal to assault anyone, but if you beat your wife then it wasn't punished as badly as if you beat up a random person on the street.

I'm not sure thats a good thing I mean if your going around stomping complete strangers surely that adds something further than me teaching the Mrs some respect >.>

for example if I start chocking another woman surely its like more aggressive or something like that

I'm not sure thats a good thing I mean if your going around stomping complete strangers surely that adds something further than me teaching the Mrs some respect >.>

for example if I start chocking another woman surely its like more aggressive or something like that

You're either fairly stoned or drunk, I suspect?

aggrevating and mitigating factors. Same as the difference between, say, manslaughter and murder. You are under the erronious impression that these two situations are simliar. This law, so it seems, would apply extra penalties for battery if the target of my battery just so happens to be my wife. Hate crime laws don't function in such a way that I receive extra penalties for battery if the target of my battery just so happens to be black.
Somehow, I doubt most cases of domestic violence involve someone who "just so happens to be my wife." That implies that the abuser thinks to himself, "I'm going to hit the next person that comes through that door. Whether it is the mailman or my wife."

You're either fairly stoned or drunk, I suspect?

got drunk off my tits at a leaving party

cops are not "forced" to take "someone" to jail as a result of a phone call reporting a crime. That's unconstitutional and illegal as fuck. Cops ARE supposed to, and REQUIRED to, do their duty, and arrest anyone they have probable cause to believe has committed an arrestable offense.

And that's for ANY arrestable offense.

Hmmm...it's the same here actually. On a domestic abuse call, police are required to make an arrest. Even if, after the fact, they find they arrested the wrong person, or discover there was no real reason to make an arrest (false report) etc.

got drunk off my tits at a leaving party

Can't blame you for that; I ambled absent mindedly into the realms of tipsy myself last night.

Can't blame you for that; I ambled absent mindedly into the realms of tipsy myself last night.

but its the weekend now and your making it sound like you stopped :tongue:

Hmmm...it's the same here actually. On a domestic abuse call, police are required to make an arrest. Even if, after the fact, they find they arrested the wrong person, or discover there was no real reason to make an arrest (false report) etc.

an arrest, any arrest, without probable cause is a violation of ones 4th amendment rights against unreasonable seizure.

an arrest, any arrest, without probable cause is a violation of ones 4th amendment rights against unreasonable seizure.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, if the police are summoned to a domestic abuse complaint made by a woman, they are required to arrest the man, even if there is zero sign of any violence - it's all on the statement of the woman, who requires no other witnesses. I suppose that her statement is sufficient "probable cause".

Montgomery County does this in order to remove the "judgment call" from the police, and put it in the hands of a judge.

It's become a popular divorce tactic here, because all the woman has to do to get her husband thrown in jail is call the police. He doesn't even have to be present - to him, it can be a complete surprise as they arrest him at work, while she calls from home. Some divorce lawyers advise women to do this if the husband has filed for divorce and has not actually ever been violent, as it makes him look bad in court.

I'm sure the intent was good, but the actual outcome is pretty ugly.

Smunkee, you REALLY need to get out of Oklahoma. Then the Smunklings and I can work out a way to destroy the state.

Locally there has been a lot of talk about a new bill that makes domestic abuse a felony. All of the radio men are up in arms.....and all of the television reporters are ranting about it. I just don't quite understand what the problem is.

http://www.gov.ok.gov/display_article.php?article_id=327&article_type=1

It says right there "results in great bodily harm"....isn't that already a felony in my state? Yes, it is.

So, what's the deal?

I called local radio guy #7 and he said "what goes on in a house is between a woman and her mate" so he's obviously an idiot. I have to think that all of them can't be so stupid. There must be something logical I'm missing.

What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea?

In many states, it IS a felony to beat your spouse and kids.

...but what if they didn't get you your beer expediently enough?!!!

I see no reason to confer on cases of domestic abuse any peculiar gravity above an equivalent case of assault.

Actually, I can think of a couple of reasons why it should be held to a 'higher standard', especially in Bible Belt America.

Money, church, family... there are a lot of pressures that can end up putting a victim of domestic abuse back in the same situations - while no one expects random abuse victims to be compelled/coerced back into the risk area.

If it is less of a crime now to abuse your wife than it is to abuse anyone else, then this law would serve the purpose of levelling things out and getting the message out to the public that domestic abuse is serious business.

She should probably set it on fire before she goes, just to be sure.
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
The point is having some legislator say, "I did a great job this session, passing legislation to stop domestic abuse".
And telling people he's hard on crime.
We got a spouse rape law in the 90's, people were pissed about that too.

See above re: nuking it from orbit.

The problem is they don't want to be three-striked for their weekly Monday beat-a-wife meeting

We got a spouse rape law in the 90's, people were pissed about that too.

Can you link me to some news on that so I can feel disgusted and relish that I'm never, ever, ever in my entire life setting a cell of my body in that dystopia of a state?

Sorry, Smunk, but... For it to even be AN ISSUE...

You people are looking at this from the wrong angle. God says it is perfectly ok and in fact obligatory to beat your wife so that she knows that you are man and from God and she is a woman and therefore your inferior. Its in the Bible (Corinthians 4:12), and Harvard even backs me up!

It says right there "results in great bodily harm"....isn't that already a felony in my state? Yes, it is.


Well, I wouldnt have a problem with it if it actually resulted in Great Bodily Harm...


However if it was just somebody pissed at their spouse...


Then It really wouldnt be fair...That being said though, they should be able to prove their innocence in a court of law...although there is usually a heavy bias against males in these kinds of cases...

Locally there has been a lot of talk about a new bill that makes domestic abuse a felony.

Luckily in Italy domestic abuse is a felony, and it is prosecuted ex-officio.

I called local radio guy #7 and he said "what goes on in a house is between a woman and her mate" so he's obviously an idiot. I have to think that all of them can't be so stupid. There must be something logical I'm missing.


I'd go to local radio man #7's station and make him feel like he was 6 inches tall if I knew who/where he was. So you can rest assured that not ALL radio men are morons; I can't say anything about Oklahoma though.

As to the law, like has been said: Some politician trying to look good.

Sorry, Smunk, but... For it to even be AN ISSUE...

It was an issue throughout the common law jurisdictions until fairly recently - I'd say ten-twenty years ago is when it started to change. Maybe a little earlier. Of course lots of other places still haven't criminalized it yet. Though they might have extended regular rape laws. There no global prohibition yet however.

That said, I'm pretty sure Brazil is one of the places that hasn't recognized it as a crime.

It was an issue throughout the common law jurisdictions until fairly recently - I'd say ten-twenty years ago is when it started to change. Maybe a little earlier. Of course lots of other places still haven't criminalized it yet. Though they might have extended regular rape laws. There no global prohibition yet however.

That said, I'm pretty sure Brazil is one of the places that hasn't recognized it as a crime.
People who don't understand why this is an issue are perhaps forgetting that there are MANY people in the world who still think a wife is property, that a man has the right to use his wife as he pleases, and that a woman, by marrying, loses her personal autonomy and must submit to any and all decisions and demands made by her husband, regardless of what they are. Everything from letting him control all the family finances, where and how they live, where she goes and who she talks to, etc, all the way up to using her for sex anytime he wants/anyway he wants, and to beating, mutilating, even (in some few people's minds) killing her.

It's hard for a lot of more enlightened people to understand how others can think this way, but they do. And that attitude is reflected in many places' laws. Even in places where it is not reflected in the law, we see it in places where the laws are not evenly applied in domestic abuse cases.

This is why I say that when separate laws for domestic abuse are made that are redundant with general laws about non-familial abuse/assault, the purpose is to send a message to both the public and the law enforcement system, that they must treat domestic abuse the same as non-familial abuse. I believe we generally see this in places where they have NOT been getting the same treatment in the legal system.

I'd go to local radio man #7's station and make him feel like he was 6 inches tall if I knew who/where he was. So you can rest assured that not ALL radio men are morons; I can't say anything about Oklahoma though.

As to the law, like has been said: Some politician trying to look good.

Nah, I know, I used to work in radio, at that particular station. The guy I worked with was awesome, but he's "not conservative enough" so they moved him to the late night slot that ends right before the morning people come in. Nobody can listen to his show now but truck drivers and the like. So now we have this idiot whose been fired from stations for making inflammatory statements, in fact he got hired from this station shortly before I began working there for saying something like "retarded kids should be shot" he's a real life troll, what bothers me is people call in and agree with him.

You people are looking at this from the wrong angle. God says it is perfectly ok and in fact obligatory to beat your wife so that she knows that you are man and from God and she is a woman and therefore your inferior. Its in the Bible (Corinthians 4:12), and Harvard even backs me up!

What???

King James Bible Corintians 4:12 : "And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:"

Hmm...

This thread is horribly gender inequal and a good exmaple of preeminent feminism in our society.


Is it really OK for wives to beat up and abuse their husbands? Don't men need laws protecting them as well?

I'm willing to bet women abusing men is something which is much more common than what most people think. Infact, a quickly googled - completely unverified by moi - source (http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm) claims that in 40% of cases men are the victim.

Why don't we just recognize that terrorizing and/or imprisoning and/or beating and/or verbally abusing someone is a crime whether or not they're related to you?

People who don't understand why this is an issue are perhaps forgetting that there are MANY people in the world who still think a wife is property, that a man has the right to use his wife as he pleases, and that a woman, by marrying, loses her personal autonomy and must submit to any and all decisions and demands made by her husband, regardless of what they are. Everything from letting him control all the family finances, where and how they live, where she goes and who she talks to, etc, all the way up to using her for sex anytime he wants/anyway he wants, and to beating, mutilating, even (in some few people's minds) killing her.

It's hard for a lot of more enlightened people to understand how others can think this way, but they do. And that attitude is reflected in many places' laws. Even in places where it is not reflected in the law, we see it in places where the laws are not evenly applied in domestic abuse cases.

This is why I say that when separate laws for domestic abuse are made that are redundant with general laws about non-familial abuse/assault, the purpose is to send a message to both the public and the law enforcement system, that they must treat domestic abuse the same as non-familial abuse. I believe we generally see this in places where they have NOT been getting the same treatment in the legal system.

I agree. I'm just surprised when people are unaware that it still isn't a crime in a large part of the world. And I'm also surprised that they don't realize how recently it became so anywhere or what a huge issue it was at the time even in some 'enlightened' countries. In fact, I think it wasn't until the early nineties that it was recognized in the UK, and I can certainly remember there being serious debate about whether or not it should be recognized during the 80s. Getting old I suppose.

I agree. I'm just surprised when people are unaware that it still isn't a crime in a large part of the world. And I'm also surprised that they don't realize how recently it became so anywhere or what a huge issue it was at the time even in some 'enlightened' countries. In fact, I think it wasn't until the early nineties that it was recognized in the UK, and I can certainly remember there being serious debate about whether or not it should be recognized during the 80s. Getting old I suppose.

What are these "80s" of which you speak?

What are these "80s" of which you speak?

You are really better off not knowing. It was a shameful time in general.

I'm not sure thats a good thing I mean if your going around stomping complete strangers surely that adds something further than me teaching the Mrs some respect >.>

for example if I start chocking another woman surely its like more aggressive or something like that

It's like cheating, really.

What???

King James Bible Corintians 4:12 : "And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:"

What are you, a Catholic?

What are you, a Catholic?

Are you? You have to choose first or second Corinthians, you can't just say "Corinthians" there's two letters to them. Also neither of them say what you say.

Can you link me to some news on that so I can feel disgusted and relish that I'm never, ever, ever in my entire life setting a cell of my body in that dystopia of a state?

Sorry, Smunk, but... For it to even be AN ISSUE...

Are you sure? You'd be surprised by some of the upper-air currents.

I agree. I'm just surprised when people are unaware that it still isn't a crime in a large part of the world. And I'm also surprised that they don't realize how recently it became so anywhere or what a huge issue it was at the time even in some 'enlightened' countries. In fact, I think it wasn't until the early nineties that it was recognized in the UK, and I can certainly remember there being serious debate about whether or not it should be recognized during the 80s. Getting old I suppose.
Hey, I was there, too (NSG Old Folks Home ;)). It's really kind of depressing to have lived through the opening up of the whole issue, and to have gone through all those debates, and to realize that, not only are there still places in the US that are clinging to the old, oppressive ways, but that there are young people who come onto the scene brand new and not getting it.

Are you? You have to choose first or second Corinthians, you can't just say "Corinthians" there's two letters to them. Also neither of them say what you say.

Maybe you should pick up a real Bible. Not the pink one with a rainbow going across it.

What are you, a Catholic?

Yep. Don't blame me, I was born that way.

You say that the bible says that women are property and are supposed to accept physical abuse. You then said that Corinthians (I) 4:12 supported your position but a quick check shows that you don't know what the hell your talking about. You've had plenty of time - if you are not *wrong* why have you not put me in my place by quoting the correct passage?

I don't disagree that women we're treated as second class citizens during biblical times but It's important to distinguish between the old testament and the new testament here. I am unaware of anything in either Corinthians I or II which addresses this issue.

Locally there has been a lot of talk about a new bill that makes domestic abuse a felony. All of the radio men are up in arms.....and all of the television reporters are ranting about it. I just don't quite understand what the problem is.

http://www.gov.ok.gov/display_article.php?article_id=327&article_type=1

It says right there "results in great bodily harm"....isn't that already a felony in my state? Yes, it is.

So, what's the deal?

I called local radio guy #7 and he said "what goes on in a house is between a woman and her mate" so he's obviously an idiot. I have to think that all of them can't be so stupid. There must be something logical I'm missing.

What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea?


normally the issue has been (about 15 years back in Texas) was they forced police to investigate even f the woman didn't want to press charges.

Domestic abuse has too many different meanings. They need an other law to make a felony.

Also, when it comes to these topic-specific laws:

Yes, many times they are "fad laws", just political posturing on whatever the hot button issue of the day is.

But other times they do have good effects, and many of those times, the message being sent is not really to the people committing the crime but to the cops, prosecutors, courts and government.

Failure to punish domestic abuse comes from an attitude among people working in the legal system. Yes, assault has always been illegal, and I don't know of any assault laws that include an "except if it's your wife" clause. And yet, how many years have we lived through where a man would not be arrested for beating his wife into the hospital repeatedly, not prosecuted for it, or given a lighter punishment for it? This law is a clear message to the legal system to cut that shit out, in my opinion.

^ This.

I'm with the lawyers that making up new, redundant laws when the old ones ought to do the job is stupid, but the simple fact is, sometimes the old laws just don't get enforced the way they should be. If adding a new law gets the message out to law enforcement that they WILL take this seriously, then I figure it's worth some messy lawbooks.

I'm with the lawyers that making up new, redundant laws when the old ones ought to do the job is stupid, but the simple fact is, sometimes the old laws just don't get enforced the way they should be. If adding a new law gets the message out to law enforcement that they WILL take this seriously, then I figure it's worth some messy lawbooks.

I suppose. It's just an aesthetic principle for me, and a practical one. The more laws there are that criminalize almost the same thing, the more fodder it gives for prosecutors and defense attorneys to argue about exactly which statute gets to apply, each side of course trying to shift it into the more/less punishing one.

But again, that's just an aesthetic desire to keep my kitchen clean, such as it is.

^ This.

Upwards arrows violate first principles. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of eminent Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

I suppose. It's just an aesthetic principle for me, and a practical one. The more laws there are that criminalize almost the same thing, the more fodder it gives for prosecutors and defense attorneys to argue about exactly which statute gets to apply, each side of course trying to shift it into the more/less punishing one.

But again, that's just an aesthetic desire to keep my kitchen clean, such as it is.

Makes sense. I think this is just one of those situations where you have the ideal world, where clear, concise laws are fairly and equally enforced, and then you have the real world where sometimes a squirrel gets in your kitchen whether you like it or not, and you just have to make laws to cope with that. Or something. (Weirdest metaphor ever? I think so!)

Besides, having messy, convoluted laws is what keeps you in business, no? ;)


Upwards arrows violate first principles. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of eminent Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

A very valid point. :p

This just in to the desk:

Governor Brad Henry of Oklahoma has signed into law HB 666 which causes all illegal things to now be illegal.

In a concurrent and totally related move the Governor also signed into effect HR 6969 which allows people that have sex with each other to make babies.

We'll bring you more on this story as it develops.

Makes sense. I think this is just one of those situations where you have the ideal world, where clear, concise laws are fairly and equally enforced, and then you have the real world where sometimes a squirrel gets in your kitchen whether you like it or not, and you just have to make laws to cope with that. Or something. (Weirdest metaphor ever? I think so!)
It's not a squirrel. It's the ghost of Ayn Rand. She's unhappy with him.


A fact we're just going to have to accept is that we live in commonlaw jurisdictions that seem to be allergic to 'clear, concise laws'. Were we to create a system of 'clear, concise laws', then people might confuse us with the French, and NOTHING is worth that.

Nothing.

It's not a squirrel. It's the ghost of Ayn Rand. She's unhappy with him.

Quick, NA! Be nice to poor and disadvantaged people until she goes crazy (well, crazier) and leaves!


A fact we're just going to have to accept is that we live in commonlaw jurisdictions that seem to be allergic to 'clear, concise laws'. Were we to create a system of 'clear, concise laws', then people might confuse us with the French, and NOTHING is worth that.

Nothing.

Also a very valid point! :D

You say that the bible says that women are property and are supposed to accept physical abuse. You then said that Corinthians (I) 4:12 supported your position but a quick check shows that you don't know what the hell your talking about.

Its in John's Gospel as well. "And ye, Jesus spoke to the crowd which had gathered, saying, 'Husbands, it is of God that we speak here today, and for God.' The crowd looked for guidance upon their marriage, and Jesus gave them the following parable: There was a man whose wife had been disobedient and had not cooked him a meal for him upon his return to the household. He beat her in order to instruct her in the proper role of her in being his wife. She went to the local Pharisee and asked that she be avenged for this beating but the Pharisee spake to her, saying, 'It is good that he does this, so that you might learn your place in this world.' Then Jesus blessed all the men and told them, 'Go out and be plentiful, but ensure that your wife remains in her proper status.'" -John 3:16

A fact we're just going to have to accept is that we live in commonlaw jurisdictions that seem to be allergic to 'clear, concise laws'. Were we to create a system of 'clear, concise laws', then people might confuse us with the French, and NOTHING is worth that.

Nothing.

It worked better before lexis and law schools I am sure.

That said, I'm pretty sure Brazil is one of the places that hasn't recognized it as a crime.

Maybe so, I'm not a lawyer. However, I'm also pretty sure Brazil didn't take upon itself to be the leader of the free world.

Hmm...

This thread is horribly gender inequal and a good exmaple of preeminent feminism in our society.


Is it really OK for wives to beat up and abuse their husbands? Don't men need laws protecting them as well?

I'm willing to bet women abusing men is something which is much more common than what most people think. Infact, a quickly googled - completely unverified by moi - source (http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm) claims that in 40% of cases men are the victim.

Is anyone here speaking against women getting the same penalties should they ever hurt their husband, or, say, stick a 20 oz. bottle in their hineys? No? Then speak softly.

People who don't understand why this is an issue are perhaps forgetting that there are MANY people in the world who still think a wife is property, that a man has the right to use his wife as he pleases, and that a woman, by marrying, loses her personal autonomy and must submit to any and all decisions and demands made by her husband, regardless of what they are. Everything from letting him control all the family finances, where and how they live, where she goes and who she talks to, etc, all the way up to using her for sex anytime he wants/anyway he wants, and to beating, mutilating, even (in some few people's minds) killing her.

It's hard for a lot of more enlightened people to understand how others can think this way, but they do. And that attitude is reflected in many places' laws. Even in places where it is not reflected in the law, we see it in places where the laws are not evenly applied in domestic abuse cases.

*Sigh*

I hate it that you have this point, but you do.

Hmm...

This thread is horribly gender inequal and a good exmaple of preeminent feminism in our society.


Is it really OK for wives to beat up and abuse their husbands? Don't men need laws protecting them as well?

I'm willing to bet women abusing men is something which is much more common than what most people think. Infact, a quickly googled - completely unverified by moi - source (http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm) claims that in 40% of cases men are the victim.

Um. I don't believe that statistic but it doesn't matter: the law in question is gender neutral. It applies to abuse of any spouse by any other spouse.

Now, people tend to think of domestic violence as a crime against women and children -- but that is supported statistically as they are overwhelmingly the victims of such crime. See statistics listed here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9149105&postcount=103).

I suppose. It's just an aesthetic principle for me, and a practical one. The more laws there are that criminalize almost the same thing, the more fodder it gives for prosecutors and defense attorneys to argue about exactly which statute gets to apply, each side of course trying to shift it into the more/less punishing one.

But again, that's just an aesthetic desire to keep my kitchen clean, such as it is.

Personally, I can think of perfectly good reasons why one may wish to treat domestic violence more seriously than general battery. Thus, the alleged "overlap" of laws here bothers me not one bit.

normally the issue has been (about 15 years back in Texas) was they forced police to investigate even f the woman didn't want to press charges.

And this is bad because .....??

Ok, if they are standardizing the law so that it applies equally than I am fine with this. However in the state I live in 99% of the time the cops are forced to take "someone" to jail if they are called out for a domestic. That is standard in a lot of jurisdictions. So does this mean all of those men/women get felonies?

Um. There is a difference between being arrested for something and being charged, tried, convicted, and punished.

No, that's fine, I'm fine with that. But one would think the statute defining the crime of battery (and it's BATTERY god damn it!) would not so exclude spouses.


From what I understand, my state doesn't have a battery law, and it's covered under our state's assault law.

Its in John's Gospel as well. "And ye, Jesus spoke to the crowd which had gathered, saying, 'Husbands, it is of God that we speak here today, and for God.' The crowd looked for guidance upon their marriage, and Jesus gave them the following parable: There was a man whose wife had been disobedient and had not cooked him a meal for him upon his return to the household. He beat her in order to instruct her in the proper role of her in being his wife. She went to the local Pharisee and asked that she be avenged for this beating but the Pharisee spake to her, saying, 'It is good that he does this, so that you might learn your place in this world.' Then Jesus blessed all the men and told them, 'Go out and be plentiful, but ensure that your wife remains in her proper status.'" -John 3:16

i c wut u did thar

If the signal being sent is more to law enforcement themselves...and to judges who have been using their discretionary powers to give lighter sentences to those engaged in domestic abuse, then I support it.

And sometimes, people are stupid, and need laws with specific names, even if they are replicating laws already on the books :p

However, if the law does indeed create harsher penalties for harming one adult person (spouse) as opposed to harming another (stranger), I can't really see how that's justified.

Well, you could argue that the spouse issue is mitigating. It could be argued, rather effectively I'd say, that you are almost certainly engaging in a pattern of abuse with your wife if the law caught you. How likely is it that I beat up my neighbor every time I have a bad day at work?

Addressing NA's argument, domestic abuse isn't against someone that happens to be the person's spouse. Like a hate crime, the victim was selected because of their special status. They aren't selected because they were especially deserving. They weren't selected because they'd specially wronged the attacker. They were chosen because their status as spouse makes them incredibly accessible and increases the chance the attacker would get away with it.

Actually, maybe that doesn't make it more like hate crimes. I would say it would make it more like the difference between committing a rape with no special circumstances versus raping someone who is mentally challenged.

EDIT: If I'm being repetitive, sorry. I only read the first three pages so far.

Well, you could argue that the spouse issue is mitigating. It could be argued, rather effectively I'd say, that you are almost certainly engaging in a pattern of abuse with your wife if the law caught you.

Shit, I hope that argument doesn't work in court. It sounds like "mud sticks" to me.

EDIT: I mean: suppose the battered partner does what they should do, and reports the crime the very first time it happens. Should the prosecutor be able to argue that the violent partner "almost certainly" engaged in a pattern of abuse? There's a presumption there, that a battered partner would NOT report the first instance of abuse ... and that's a very bad assumption.

the only way i dont like it is when they start double charging for one offense until the penalty amounts to life in prison when it should be 10 years.

"ok, thats domestic abuse, assault, battery, false imprisonment, terrorism, child abuse, and animal cruelty"

the only way i dont like it is when they start double charging for one offense until the penalty amounts to life in prison when it should be 10 years.

That shouldn't be possible. Merger doctrine.

That several charges might be laid for the same crime is fine though -- if the more serious charge is not upheld, a lesser charge which is proven can still be punished.

Whether the sentences for actual multiple crimes are served concurrently or consecutively is a sentencing matter, not a problem with overlapping laws for the same crime.


"ok, thats domestic abuse, assault, battery, false imprisonment, terrorism, child abuse, and animal cruelty"

If the accused did kick the dog after beating his wife, I'm OK with two charges.

That shouldn't be possible. Merger doctrine.

That several charges might be laid for the same crime is fine though -- if the more serious charge is not upheld, a lesser charge which is proven can still be punished.

Whether the sentences for actual multiple crimes are served concurrently or consecutively is a sentencing matter, not a problem with overlapping laws for the same crime.



If the accused did kick the dog after beating his wife, I'm OK with two charges.
seems to me that it happens all the time. wasnt OJ convicted of kidnapping (or false imprisonment) for his little attempted memorabilia heist?

seems to me that it happens all the time. wasnt OJ convicted of kidnapping (or false imprisonment) for his little attempted memorabilia heist?

"Criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, assault, robbery, and using a deadly weapon" it says in WikiP.

Each of those is a felony crime, and none of them implies the other. Battery implies assault -- assault is the "lesser included offence" and while a defendant could be charged with both, they certainly shouldn't be sentenced for the lesser included offence if found guilty of the crime into which it is "merged."

The OJ verdict is a lot safer than many convictions though. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen to others less fortunate.

"Criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, assault, robbery, and using a deadly weapon" it says in WikiP.

Each of those is a felony crime, and none of them implies the other. Battery implies assault -- assault is the "lesser included offence" and while a defendant could be charged with both, they certainly shouldn't be sentenced for the lesser included offence if found guilty of the crime into which it is "merged."

The OJ verdict is a lot safer than many convictions though. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen to others less fortunate.
oh the verdict was correct, i just dont like one crime being over charged. its a serious offense but the kidnapping thing is bullshit. as is criminal conspiracy.

in the same way if you punch your wife in the nose, there is one offense and adding up other charges pisses me off.

Its in John's Gospel as well. "And ye, Jesus spoke to the crowd which had gathered, saying, 'Husbands, it is of God that we speak here today, and for God.' The crowd looked for guidance upon their marriage, and Jesus gave them the following parable: There was a man whose wife had been disobedient and had not cooked him a meal for him upon his return to the household. He beat her in order to instruct her in the proper role of her in being his wife. She went to the local Pharisee and asked that she be avenged for this beating but the Pharisee spake to her, saying, 'It is good that he does this, so that you might learn your place in this world.' Then Jesus blessed all the men and told them, 'Go out and be plentiful, but ensure that your wife remains in her proper status.'" -John 3:16

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

all I can say is WTF...

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

all I can say is WTF...
maybe "she" is just goofing on us?

There is a lot of wierd shit in the bible... and a lot of wierd people misrepresenting it. I have no idea what he/she's motives are but whoever they are their talking bullshit.

I could beleive he/she *wanted* to get caught though ... John 3:16 is one of the most well known verses in the bible.

There is a lot of wierd shit in the bible... and a lot of wierd people misrepresenting it. I have no idea what he/she's motives are but whoever they are their talking bullshit.

I could beleive he/she *wanted* to get caught though ... John 3:16 is one of the most well known verses in the bible.
thats what i was thinking.

plus it wasnt very johnish.

Upwards arrows violate first principles. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of eminent Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.
What about leftwards arrows? <<

I'm a guy, since there seems to be some uncertainty.

Shit, I hope that argument doesn't work in court. It sounds like "mud sticks" to me.

EDIT: I mean: suppose the battered partner does what they should do, and reports the crime the very first time it happens. Should the prosecutor be able to argue that the violent partner "almost certainly" engaged in a pattern of abuse? There's a presumption there, that a battered partner would NOT report the first instance of abuse ... and that's a very bad assumption.

You can't make that argument in court. That's why the law being more harsh has to deal with what we actually know to be the case.

More importantly, you could also argue successfully that a person who lives with their abuser is experiencing something totally different than someone who does not. Which also addresses NA's argument.

Nah, I know, I used to work in radio, at that particular station. The guy I worked with was awesome, but he's "not conservative enough" so they moved him to the late night slot that ends right before the morning people come in. Nobody can listen to his show now but truck drivers and the like. So now we have this idiot whose been fired from stations for making inflammatory statements, in fact he got hired from this station shortly before I began working there for saying something like "retarded kids should be shot" he's a real life troll, what bothers me is people call in and agree with him.

I work for a country station and we are not allowed to give our political opinions while on the air, its actually written on our contracts and in the employee handbook. I think more radio stations should institute something like that.

Nah, I know, I used to work in radio, at that particular station.

Poor Smunk. :(