Home | About | Donate

Supreme Court Protects Abusers, Fails Victims - Again


#1

Supreme Court Protects Abusers, Fails Victims - Again

Laura Finley

The Supreme Court has a very mixed track record when it comes to protecting women. As a domestic violence advocate, Criminologist, and activist for a decade, I am deeply concerned that the U.S still fails to prioritize women’s safety. Given that globally more women ages 15-45 die from men’s violence than of cancer, malaria, war and traffic accidents combined, far more needs to be done to protect women and girls. The courts can and should play a far bigger role in doing so.


#2

More proof of what misogyny looks like within the Mars-ruled, make war state.

I think it's time for judges and court justices to carry a legal form of "malpractice insurance." In pursuing research on common astrological components in the charts of serial killers, I've noticed that often these criminals are let out of jail for initial crimes that on paper--incarcerate them for 3-5 years (for things like rape and stalking) when in some instances, these moral misfits get out in about 2 years or so.

When I watch Crime stories that show this type of criminal history and the lax manner by which courts (and judges) treat budding sex offenders, stalkers, and evolving serial killers, it makes one realize the DANGERS of judges who lack foresight. I'd like to see THEM held as co-conspirators to crimes committed by individuals let out with virtual taps on the wrist for actions that warranted FAR longer prison sentences.

If serving 2 years for multiple rapes is supposed to be a deterrent; that's a bad joke. People are currently serving far longer terms for pot possession and things like perjury. Which of these is the victimless crime?


#3

Don't you wish we could apply the "reasonable person" standard to Supreme Court appointments?


#4

Perhaps it is time to abandon the illusion that the US Courts have any commitment whatsoever to anything remotely akin to justice, human rights, decency, law, sanity, reason, or even basic self interest. The US Supreme Court "justices" cannot even imagine their rulings being applied to their own children and grand children. That is a measure of their radical repugnance to civil society.


#6

Seen through the lens of a femi-nazi (or one who simply dislikes men in general), it might appear the courts fail to protect women. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who works in the legal system knows the anti-harassment (as well as the domestic violence) statutes (especially in Washington State) are the cesspool of our states' jurisprudence. Lying drama queens/kings abound and seek relief from normal irritations/annoyances associated with the human condition in a highly socialized overpopulated society. Unscrupulous domestic/divorce lawyers urge women to wax hyperbolic and claim unsubstantiated domestic violence where a custody dispute looms. It's has become so typical, the bar has a term/phrase for it--"Going Nuclear"--because whoever strikes first gets a tremendous boost in their legal strategy to manipulate the court.

If you have any doubts about how cynical citizens have become over the mechanism to deprive each other of fundamental liberties based on unsubstantiated claims where the target isn't even permitted or required to attend the initial hearing, go and visit your local court on the day they normally schedule this type of litigation. It will be standing room only...often, spectators aren't even allowed entry because there's not room enough for them.
amicuscuria.com/wordpress/?p=4426


#7

Clearly the U.S. Supreme Court is far from perfect. But it would be a mistake to emasculate it. It struck down the flag burning law criminalizing that act of expression/outrage by finding it violated Constitutional guarantees embodied in the 1st Amendment when Americans (over 90%) favored the law and only 3 U.S. Congressmen (U.S. Representative Lowry--later Governor Lowry of Washington State was one) openly opposed and voted against it. It also was the source of 'Gideon's Trumpet', State v. Miranda, Brown vs. Board of Education, and continues to prohibit double jeopardy...unlike, e.g. Canada.

A bunch of grapes may have some wizened ones, but you needn't discard the whole cluster.
amicuscuria.com/wordpress


#8

Anyone who endorses laws that mention gender as opposed to citizen or such is sexist. No law should provide more or less protection based upon gender. No one has the right to violate civil rights of anyone based upon gender for any reason. Women who commit acts of violence against men do not have the same measure to go through to protect men and men who are falsely accused have little to no recourse. This is a fascist law meant to take freedoms and sexually discriminate.


#9

You do know your statistic has no factual backup and is a made up number from a New Yorker opinion peace, don't you?