France

[garyrulez]

In France, "psychological abuse" is now a crime.

Here's what that means: if you yell at your spouse, you can go to jail. This includes "repeated rude remarks about a partner's appearance". JAIL.

France, man...France.

[Liam]

Those crazy French.

[Philip]

In France, "psychological abuse" is now a crime.

Here's what that means: if you yell at your spouse, you can go to jail. This includes "repeated rude remarks about a partner's appearance". JAIL.

France, man...France.

C'est le ton qui fait la chanson.

[garyrulez]

Fair enough Philip, but how do you legislate the way something is said? Does a cop or a judge get to arrest/imprison you because of your tone?

[Philip]

Fair enough Philip, but how do you legislate the way something is said? Does a cop or a judge get to arrest/imprison you because of your tone?

Not so much tone as intention. And, yes, people do and should get arrested for not only what they say but the way they said it and so what they meant by it. This, of course, can lead to interesting/tiresome discussions in a courtroom.

[Lacey]

Reminds me of hate crime laws here. He killed someone? OK. Did he whisper a slur? HATE CRIME!!!

I'd assume this isn't going to be used when cops hear some domestic dispute between a couple or something, but more for incidents of torture, kidnapping, etc, where another crime is committed.

[garyrulez]

Lacey, I like your thought process on this, but in terms of your interpretation on the way they'd use the law...in the article I read it specifically said "repeated rude remarks about your partner's appearance". That's pretty crazy.

[Lacey]

Well that's weird. I assume then that it'll be more of a "do you choose to press charges?" option than a case of "cops heard you tell your wife you look fat in that dress"

but yeah, weird. I'm sure it'll be used more in false imprisonment and kidnapping and whatnot in the end, though.

[PolyesterAngel]

C'est le ton qui fait la chanson.


Well said, Philip!

[sarah11918]

I'm bothered by the phrase "hate crime" on principle because I don't think too many crimes are committed out of love.

I'm afraid that "hate crime" is starting to or has already degenerated to the farce that is "zero tolerance." We don't need to label something a "hate crime" - we need to be able to assess how likely a crime is to be repeated and therefore the danger to society in any and all criminal cases.

So, sure, if a crime is racially-motivated (a more apt description for a racial hate crime) then the chances of that criminal committing another similar crime is high; apparently, it only takes someone of that race to set him off. But, any other repeat offender who similarly is a threat to repeat his actions is equally, no more or less, a threat to society and all other things being equal, in my mind is equally in need of incarceration.

As to the French thing, I'm in agreement on principle that we need to recognize a wide range of abusive behaviour as serious, but disagree with the way it's likely to be implemented. In Ontario, there was (still is?) a mandate that in any domestic disturbance call, the man had to be taken into custody. Of course, this came from the well-intentioned observation that a lot of abused women were hesitant to tell the cops to take him away (since he'd often soon be back in the house and could punish her for it). Solution - always take the man away, no matter what. Even if the woman was the aggressor. That's pretty dumb, and in fact I dated a guy who had been to jail under this law in his early 20s because his sister had instigated a violent altercation in their parents' house. That's "domestic" after all.

My general feeling on imprisonment is a bit unconventional: it should be used to protect society and not punish wrong doers. So, to me, imprisonment is for people who *still* pose a threat to society. One could argue that if you've killed once (say, your business partner) than you're likely to kill again out of greed or when you feel you've been screwed over. If that is determined, then yes, go straight to jail and don't pass go. If you kill a serial killer who raped and murdered your child, to what extent do you post a threat to society at large? Certainly some, as you've demonstrated you'll take the law into your own hands. But, it could also be pretty easy to determine that you don't pose a threat to the average person. I would want to change the system from simply innocent/guilty to dangerous/not dangerous to society.

Every time more behaviour is deemed criminal, there's simply a greater chance of people being jailed who aren't really a threat to society at large. It would be one thing if there were more options after conviction. So for example, I wouldn't have put Madoff in jail if there were other methods available to protect society from him. I don't think having him in jail makes anyone any safer. If it's that people feel better because he can't engage in financial activities because he's in jail, then there are likely other ways to bar him from financial activity. In fact, simply placing him in jail is probably less effective at keeping him out of the money game because he probably is still in contact with people who could be conducting arms-length transactions for him. If you could more effectively restrict his financial activities, then there's no reason to put him in jail other than to punish him, which I don't believe in. Take away ill-gotten gains, make him work for a living and bar him from owning bank accounts - that's in fact probably a greater punishment, for those who want to think of it that way.

If I felt we could trust legal systems to act responsibly, then I would have fewer issues with creating more and more laws. But I don't think simply criminalizing more and more behaviours, invariably leading to more and more unnecessary charges and imprisonments (in addition to the valid ones), makes for a better society.

But that's just my take.

[WeedMage]

I love getting your take :D You always express yourself so well.

[garyrulez]

If I felt we could trust legal systems to act responsibly, then I would have fewer issues with creating more and more laws. But I don't think simply criminalizing more and more behaviours, invariably leading to more and more unnecessary charges and imprisonments (in addition to the valid ones), makes for a better society.

Great stuff, the above is perfectly said.

[just blame craig]

Sarah, that's an interesting point of view. Not sure I agree with it though. I think the punishment is what keeps mostly honest people from the crime. Let's say a family is having a hard time finacially. They are hard working people that just had a run of bad luck or whatever. They get chance to steal a few things with low risk just to get them past the rough patch. It's the threat of jail time that would keep them from taking the items. I know that jail is not a deterent for some. But the threat is what keeps honest people honest in times of doubt.

[kinch]

I think it's important to note that France has a very different law system than Britain, Canada and the United States. Those three countries operate on a system of common law, decisions by judges can be made by precedent and do not require the law to be codified. While France works on a system called "Code Civil" or "Civil Law" which requires all laws to written down. So while it may seem like they are writing laws about everything, they do not have the luxury of using precedent.

I'm no law expert, so I may be a little bit off on this description, but I believe it is mostly accurate.

That being said, I have no opinion on this as I don't believe I have enough contextual information.

[kinch]

Thought I would post this: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1952552,00.html I think it gives better context to the proposed law than the original poster.

[sarah11918]

I think the punishment is what keeps mostly honest people from the crime.

I see what you're getting at with your example, but studies point to the contrary. (Mind you, they point to the contrary for serious crimes in the system we have now - for example, the death penalty is not a deterrent for murder, nor is minimum sentencing a deterrent against other crimes.)

And, in my fantasy system, nothing precludes one from judging that if a family resorted to crime in this one instance that they are likely to reoffend when the chips are down again. But at least focusing the debate on the risk the offender continues to propose allows us more flexibility in how we choose to deal with criminals and, I think, adds credibility to a system of law and order. It's a stated mission I can get behind.

I've said it before, but it takes an awful lot of optimism and faith in people to be an anarchist/libertarian. I believe that more people are kept honest simply because they know an action is wrong/illegal (and therefore has natural consequences when living in a society) than because of the severity of the threat attached to said action.

There are always inherent consequences to our actions, and sometimes I think those actions are sufficient without punishment from a legal system, or at the very least, there can be more appropriate restrictions of freedoms that don't require us to jail every criminal. If you are caught stealing, maybe no store in your entire city lets you shop there or you're shunned from the community groups you're involved with. No it's not jail, but neither are these things necessarily a trivial matter when trying to live a normal life. And, we don't have to remove people from society altogether, at taxpayers expense and sometimes at the expense of the criminal being able to ever function normally in society, when we have other ways of protecting society from the actions of one. Sewing a few scarlet letters may be an interesting alternative to stuffing prisons.

This is from the link kinch provided:

Some skeptics also say that securing court convictions for psychological violence in relationships would be impossible. But while Mellul admits it would indeed be difficult, she says it wouldn't be impossible, particularly if victims provide ample evidence of the psychological abuse. "If a law putting a name to and describing the crime can help victims realize they're being wronged and do something to stop it, that in itself will be a major step," Mellul says. "What child dare stepped up to denounce abuse before they were told they should? How many women never bothered to report rape until they knew police would take them seriously? Well, this effort seeks to give victims of psychological violence the same backing and legal framework that victims of physical domestic abuse are using to stop their torment."

I guess that's what I was trying to get at before, that I don't mind the behaviour being explicitly labeled undesirable by society and taken seriously. It gives the victim recourse to ask for help in having the behaviour stopped. It's how the US and Canada have tended to respond to additional laws that was more my objection. And, if France's legal system requires all their laws to be explicitly written out in order to give a victim any possible clout, then I suppose it makes sense to do so.