Letters to the Editor
-
In a secret hearing, I was accused of abuse and abandonment, and had my kids taken away. The charges were dropped. The kids never returned.
I used to have 50/50 joint physical and legal custody of my kids.
In a secret hearing "emergency hearing" a judge heard from my ex-wife's lawyer, but not from my ex-wife, that I was abusing the kids and had abandoned them.
The emergency order took my kids away and set a trial date three months later.
No evidence was presented. No testimony. Nothing for neighbors, teachers, police, or hospitals. All based on an affidavit from my ex-wife.
Before the hearing, all the accusations were dropped. I hadn't seen the kids except for a few court ordered supervised occasions in three months, and the judge did not give me back the complete visitation I had had before.
My ex was never brought up in court to be asked to defend her charges or asked why she made these false charges.
Apparently, your maryland lawmaker is a defense attorney, and he believes, "Asked about the comments yesterday, Vallario said: "It was a way to bring the committee into the history of that [instruction to juries] to members who had not been familiar with it," he said. "The Lord Hale law is no longer the law in the state. That's why I voted to repeal it." Vallario said yesterday that he would support the paternity bill if it is amended to give fathers adequate notice of a hearing in which their paternal rights could be taken away."
-
Living in the past
This is par for the course in Maryland. I understand that trial by combat remains technically legal there, because the state adopted English Common Law as of 1776. I've also heard (but cannot verify) that Baltimore English is a linguistic relic of one 17th century English accent.
Maybe someone should send the judge a calendar.
-
When I did see the kids again for overnight visits they of course wanted to know
Why I hadn't seen them for three months.
And of course, I was forbidden by the courts to make any reference to mom, lawyers, courts, judges, or anything.
I basically had to apologize to them and pretend that it had been my decision.
-
Why doesn't Salon do an investigative reporting article on false accusations?
Feminists say it's a myth, it occurs less than 2% of the time.
Fathers' Rights Activists say it is significant and point to studies indicating it occurs 25-40-50% of the time.
http://www.glennsacks.com/research_shows_false.htm
Linda Fairstein, former head of the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, says, "there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen."
Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for his zealous prosecution of rapists during his 16-year career, says that false rape accusations occur with "scary frequency." As a regular commentator on the Bryant trial for Denver's ABC affiliate, Silverman noted that "any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes." According to Silverman, a Denver sex-assault unit commander estimates that nearly half of all reported rape claims are false.
There are of course hundreds of stories of false accusations. There is the Innocence Project that helps people get off of death row.
The New York Times, based on a single source printed a story last week containing a completely bogus accusation. A lesbian recently admitted to claiming a disabled man had raped her. A wife, cheating on her husband, was just sent to jail when she claimed her lover had raped her causing her husband to kill him.
I know it's easier to bloviate, but just why doesn't Salon get off its ass and look into this? Perhaps Matthew Hale and the Maryland legislator were right. It would be a pity to have to acknowledge that.
I know it's easier to bloviate, but just why doesn't Salon get off its ass and look into this? Is it better for women and progressive liberals to cede men to the angry right? Is systematic false imprisonment and court discrimination not a civil rights violation? Is encouraging false allegations and false imprisonment really a cause us liberals don't want to tackle?
-
Comment about rape
The comment seems incredibly accurate to me. The point about sexual relations between adults is that there is almost always a difference of opinion about exactly what is going on. In most cases, it isn't important. But if the woman believes that she is being coerced, while the man believes that he is just being a little pushy in an otherwise totally permissive situation, you have the situation described in the quote. And this happens ALL the time, IMHO, when the two involved are not well-acquainted.
-
innocent until proven guilty is the most important value to uphold here
whoa, whoa, whoa.
First of all, the quote acknowledges that rape is very difficult to prove, which reads to me like sympathy for the woman's situation--she has only her word.
But second of all, just because the old guy also had some sympathy for the situation of the accused, how does that make him misogynistic?
Answer: it doesn't. It makes him an upholder of the most important civil rights issue of Western civilization: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
-
Check your facts
According to FBI statistics from 2003, only 5.5% of sexual assaults were determined to be unfounded. "Unfounded" is defined as cases when the victim recants, repeatedly changes the account of the rape, decides not to follow through with prosecution, or when there is insufficient evidence, or the police are unable to locate the victim, as well as when the allegation is found to be false.
According to the 2005 National Crime Victimization Survey (U.S. Department of Justice; Office of Justice Programs; Bureau of Justice Statistics), only 38% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials — in other words only about one in every three.
It makes for a much stronger argument if one provides accurate information and facts from credible sources. While I am sad for the 5.5% effected by false accusations, I am much more empathetic with the hundreds of thousands of women, men and children who suffer sexual assault each year.
-
Differing Perspectives
Men and women view the crime of rape quite differently, and this was as true in the 17th Century as it is today. In nearly every famous rape case, before a trial has even begun, sides are taken based almost solely on gender.
Both sides apparently take a self-oriented, worst case scenario view of the situation. For a woman, this scenario is to have been raped and then not believed. For a man it is to have been falsely accused of rape. Unfortunately, both sides have historical merit. That is why the facts of each case need to be carefully examined before a decision is reached. This is something generally reached through criminal due process. Not in this bill however.
The implication in Ms. Clark-Flory's final paragraph that only those men who are convicted in a criminal court, with a presumption of innocence and (presumably) proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is simply not accurate as the Washington Post article made clear:
After the bill's sponsor in the Senate, Sen. Jamin B. Raskin (D-Montgomery), testified Tuesday, Vallario expressed concern that a man could lose his rights as a father in a family court even if he was not convicted of rape in a criminal court, lawmakers and advocates in attendance said. He also suggested that women could abuse the law by saying they were raped to punish a man from whom they were estranged. (emphasis added).
While Hale's notion that it is "easy" for a woman to criminally accuse a man of rape has thankfully gone pretty much the way of the dinosaur, are we ready say that litigants in a divorce case seldom make false accusations? Even with clear financial and custodial incentives at stake?