Do you feel there's a problem with justice, here?

[DoggerDan]

First case: No charges filed against judge who beat his daughter, who secretly videotaped the beatings. http://news.yahoo.com/police-judge-wont-charged-over-video-beating-044701682.html

Second case: Spouse who was victim of sexual assault, forced sodomy, and rape, ordered by judge to pay spousal support for her attacker. http://news.yahoo.com/victim-ordered-pay-attacker-spousal-support-201444230.html

 

[Office_Shredder]

For the first one, are you saying there shouldn't be a statute of limitations?

 

[Evo]

For the first one, are you saying there shouldn't be a statute of limitations?

There isn't one for murder, I don't think there should be one for child abuse and battery.

 

[Drakkith]

There isn't one for murder, I don't think there should be one for child abuse and battery.

I disagree.

Also I see the whole thing as a little too harsh, but not "child abuse". Also, considering that she's 23, given a mercedes from her dad who is also her primary source of income, I don't think her youth was too terrible. (But I have no way of verifying that of course)

Edit: Just saw the video on Facebook, and yes it is a little harsh, but I stand by my statement. Were there better ways of dealing with it? Yes, but no one is perfect.

 

[DoggerDan]

There isn't one for murder, I don't think there should be one for child abuse and battery.

"Child abuse" has nearly as many definitions as there are people to ponder it.

As for battery, it's fairly simple. My ex once threw a cast iron frying pan at my head. If I hadn't ducked, it would have connected.

Haul her to jail, though? Don't think so. She'd learned her responses from her family situation. As I later gathered, her dad had learned it from his father, so the cycle repeats. It's widely recognized, and very real, but there appear to be conflicting ways of handling it:

She pulled a lot of other stunts during our marriage, but throwing cast-iron skillets was no longer among them.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Statute of limitations exists for good reason. I see no problem there.

The husband receiving financial support is an issue of "no fault" divorce. It does not matter what he did or what she did during the marriage the court is not supposed to consider it as a factor in the divorce proceedings. At least so far as finances go. When it comes to child custody its a whole other ball park. Instituting "at fault" divorce as a conditional option might be an idea but that can open up a whole messy can of worms where husbands and wives start accusing each other of abuse and crimes just to screw each other in their divorce.

 

[Evo]

"Child abuse" has nearly as many definitions as there are people to ponder it.

As for battery, it's fairly simple. My ex once threw a cast iron frying pan at my head. If I hadn't ducked, it would have connected.

Haul her to jail, though? Don't think so. She'd learned her responses from her family situation. As I later gathered, her dad had learned it from his father, so the cycle repeats. It's widely recognized, and very real, but there appear to be conflicting ways of handling it:

She pulled a lot of other stunts during our marriage, but throwing cast-iron skillets was no longer among them.

So if she killed someone, it's ok because everyone in her family does it? You've got to be kidding.

 

[turbo]

What's most disturbing about the beating case IMO is that he is a family law judge and hears child-abuses cases for child protective services. How can an abused child hope to get an impartial hearing in his court?

 

[ArcanaNoir]

I don't think the first case is unjust, if the girl wanted to press charges she would have done so. That wasn't her purpose for releasing the video. The video was to screw her dad over, which it did. She's a little screwed up too anyway, bitching about her mercedes at 23.

In a general case, I don't know what the details are on the statute of limitations for child abuse, but I hope it includes a few years past the child turning 18. If a 7 year old got beaten and recorded evidence, I'd hope they wouldn't be penalized for waiting until they were out of the house to bring it to light.

As for the second case, I agree with the attempt to get "violent felony" added to the restriction on financial awards. I think the judge could have used better discretion in that case. That scum didn't deserve anything.

 

[BobG]

In general, I don't think the statute of limitations should start counting until she's an adult and able to leave the house. It isn't realistic to expect a minor to bring charges against their parents and to just believe this won't just bring further abuse because they still have to live there (which could happen if the only evidence is the child's testimony).

In this particular case, I think the situation might be a little problematic, but could be abuse. The family being wealthy doesn't mean they're immune to physical/mental abuse of their kids.

The second case was a poor choice by the judge? He already has the discretion to take physical abuse into consideration, as that's one of the exceptions to no-fault divorce. He did, and used that as justification for awarding a lower amount of spousal support than would normally be awarded. I think he should have gone further and eliminated it completely.

 

[Pythagorean]

Also, considering that she's 23, given a mercedes from her dad who is also her primary source of income, I don't think her youth was too terrible. (But I have no way of verifying that of course)

Being given a mercedes has absolutely nothing to do with how one's youth was. The most important aspects of childhood development are emotional support and active engagement. Material worth has no relation to these. I take part in education outreach in my community, so I see a lot of families engaging with their children and there's absolutely no correlation with the apparent net worth of the families.

 

[Drakkith]

Being given a mercedes has absolutely nothing to do with how one's youth was. The most important aspects of childhood development are emotional support and active engagement. Material worth has no relation to these. I take part in education outreach in my community, so I see a lot of families engaging with their children and there's absolutely no correlation with the apparent net worth of the families.

Nonsense, it absolutely has some bearing on how one's youth is. It is not the only aspect, nor do I believe it is the most important, but trying to say it has no bearing is ludicrous.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In general, I don't think the statute of limitations should start counting until she's an adult and able to leave the house. It isn't realistic to expect a minor to bring charges against their parents and to just believe this won't just bring further abuse because they still have to live there (which could happen if the only evidence is the child's testimony).

In this particular case, I think the situation might be a little problematic, but could be abuse. The family being wealthy doesn't mean they're immune to physical/mental abuse of their kids.

Part of the concern addressed by a statute of limitations is whether or not the prosecution can be considered capable of providing reliable evidence and whether or not the defendant can be expected to be capable of mounting an effective defense. After so many years the possibility of this decreases. And then we consider the point of the punishment in the first place; to hopefully rehabilitate or deter from future offense and to deter/prevent further offense during the period of probation/incarceration. If there are no fresher incidents to prosecute than one from seven years ago does the punishment any longer serve a purpose other than revenge?

The second case was a poor choice by the judge? He already has the discretion to take physical abuse into consideration, as that's one of the exceptions to no-fault divorce. He did, and used that as justification for awarding a lower amount of spousal support than would normally be awarded. I think he should have gone further and eliminated it completely.

I took a quick look and can not find anything saying that the judge may alter financial decisions based on domestic violence charges. The only exceptions in such cases to the usual that I can find are provisions for protecting the spouse and children which include prevention of going to or taking possession of certain properties and apparently decisions about the paying of bills.

I am not sure of the technicalities but I would imagine that she could sue civilly for damages and ask for erasure of the alimony requirements. The only block I can see is whether or not the decision of the family court can be amended by a civil court.