The wisdom of jailing parents of truants notwithstanding (i.e. go to jail for the bad behavior of another person), it is not particularly interesting to me that "Mrs. P." got off on appeal, rather that she was found guilty in the first place because she hadn't done everything she could by failing to enlist the help of the boy's father. What a novelty, eh? A court considering the need for a father's input.
Then she was cleared on appeal with the judge effectively stating that the first court had required her to prove her own innocence rather than starting with that presumption. If that is indeed the case, then I'm all for the decision - with the reservation that she should have called on the father - and for the extension of such clear thinking into accusations of domestic violence; but I won't hold my breath.
But then, we hear "Mr Justice Collins said there was no evidence that the father was 'someone who would have been of any assistance in that regard'." and now I am forced to follow the logic through and play spot the double standard. The point of the presumption of innocence is that someone is a presumed to be a normal, upstanding citizen until proven otherwise. It is appropriate to ask if there is evidence to the effect that he would not have been of assistance. It is not appropriate to dismiss the father on the basis that no-one's shown he's any use.
In the Guardian, we hear:
"This mother told the court she was at the end of her tether"
Oh, well that's alright then. The good old "end of tether" defense. (Only women need apply.)
"She had tried every which way to get her son back to school, including going to the social services and an outreach project, and didn't have a clue what to do next. "
Did anyone in social services or outreach (whatever the hell that means) tell her to CALL THE BOY'S FATHER!?
"The local authority decided to prosecute but took no steps to assist her whatsoever, even though it has far more services than a parent available to it."
Hmm, now where've I heard that before? A system which could help, but would rather make things worse. Hmmmm....
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(155)
-
▼
March
(33)
- Belgium leads the world.
- Court action as domestic abuse?
- Protein Wisdom & Say Anything
- The Man On The Street
- NOW and joint custody in NY
- That's a confession.
- Who's your Daddy?
- Don't ask, don't tell?
- Einstein's Wife, parental alienator
- News at 11: Woman Defends Man
- Time off to have kids
- He wouldn't call her "Daddy".
- An archetype of bullying
- Positive discrimination can work both ways
- Dickless
- Now this really is tragic
- "Tragic"? That's not the word I'd use.
- "We don't get the kids, we get stuck with the kids"
- Is fatherhood a right-wing concept?
- Patriarchy as survival trait
- Men = Slackers
- Bush = Man = Bad
- Sires, dams and the pop culture of insemination
- Yesterday
- R.I.P Fatherhood
- You don't envy my penis and I won't envy your part...
- "At the end of her tether"
- Lock 'em up, it's the only way to be sure.
- Be a man?
- Stupidity is a choice, not a duty.
- Military Intelligence
- International Women's Day
- "Gender gap"? Which gender gap?
-
▼
March
(33)
No comments:
Post a Comment