French Law on Spousal Violence
February 26, 2010 - 12:58pm
The French government has passed a bill that gives judges the power to evict violent spouses from the home and fit them with electronic security bracelets.
The bill, passed unanimously Thursday night in France's National Assembly, is part of the country's stepped-up effort to tackle domestic violence.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/26/domestic-violence-france.html#ixzz0gf6VcgCM
That's fantastic! I hope they see good result from this.
Interesting, but I guess I would have thought that judges had always had the power to evict a violent spouse from the home (to jail!) and to monitor them (in jail!).
Yeah but redundant laws are so much easier to pass than actually trying to make the system work. It allows the illusion that politicians care, without them actually doing anything or having any effect.
The CBC story is very sketchy. In fact, a huge discussion has been under way in France, and the legislation being adopted reaches much farther than GPS bracelets on men under court order to stay away from their spouses. It includes, for example, a ban on "psychological violence" in conjugal situations, with criminal penalties. As for eviction of the spouse, that's not post-conviction, as Snert mockingly assumes, but rather when an incident has been reported and the woman is deciding whether to file a formal complaint - the court can take protective measures under certain circumstances. There's lots of controversy about all this, including women's organizations saying the measures don't go far enough - but many of these measures appear to go much farther than Canadian law currently goes. I can't find anything in English that's very detailed, but there's lots of coverage in (for example) Le Monde.
2 men dissing an action that has brought misogyny to further light....how refreshing.
What about me and Caissa, remind? No honourable mention? I'm quite thrilled at an apparent left-right alliance to take action on violence against women, especially when you look into some of the details. I see nothing on the legislative agenda in Canada resembling these kinds of measures.
I guess I did assume that. But you're saying no charges, trial or conviction necessary? And that's a good thing now?
I guess I did assume that. But you're saying no charges, trial or conviction necessary? And that's a good thing now?
Damn right, Snert. Women are in danger before the two-year long trial is over - sometimes before they have even overcome the fear or love or whatever else is holding them back from laying a formal complaint - while the neighbours have called 911 in a panic more than once. It's a balance, Snert - between the right of the Man to inhabit his castle, and the right of the woman to stay alive for a short time while a matter is under consideration.
By the way, we do the same thing in our workplaces. When there's (for example) a complaint of sexual harassment or other types of interpersonal abuse - or even before a complainant comes forward, but there is reasonable ground to believe there's a danger - we will separate parties, place people in different shops, sometimes send someone home on leave with or without pay (depending on the circumstances) - long before there's any definitive finding of wrongdoing. Justice is really important, but so is human life, health, and safety.
Okay remind, I'll admit it. I never read the story. I saw Snert's comment and decided to add to it. I stand by my initial assertion. If France is anything like Canada there are already plenty of laws that could be applied in the situation of spousal abuse. Unionist points out some interesting features of the law that could make a material difference. However, it's still my opinion as ignorant as it may be that social outcomes seem to be more dependent on how laws are enforced than laws themselves.
Usually the idea of people being detained, controlled or punished in the absence of a formal charge or conviction doesn't seem to sit well with the left, and arguments for the need for expediency or efficiency, or that lament the inconveniences and delays of due process fall on deaf ears. But as long as you're actually OK with it.
psto and snert are all for women dying before their attackers and stalkers get to court....no big deal.....
remind wrote:
psto and snert are all for women dying before their attackers and stalkers get to court....no big deal.....
Remind they absoluely are not, so don't say things like that. That's completely over the top.
My opinion is quite simply that just like restraining orders this law will likely be enforced poorly enough that it won't have the impact that legislators claim it will. I hope I'm wrong but my gut reaction is to see this more as political posturing than anything else.
Ya, women dying! That's a big goal of mine!
That or I just find the idea of these kinds of actions, without a charge or trial, to be a bit ominous. In any other context (eg: detaining "terrorists" without trial) I would be surprised if you didn't agree. And I doubt your agreement would be swayed by disingenuous accusations that you'r "all for people dying from terrorism". Since when is it the view of the left that rights don't matter anymore when there's an important job to be done?
It seems to me, Snert, that you are using selective reading, exaggeration and just to find fault with this laudable move by the French government. Then again, that's kind of your modus operandi...
First of all, the men in question are not being "detained." They are being displaced from their home in an effort to protect endangered women. Rather than "punishment," it's more akin to a restraining order or even bail, both of which can be effected without a criminal conviction. Furthermore, they are certainly not punished "without trial," since the measure would be enacted by a judge. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's what judges do: they conduct trials. As for your third exaggeration/lie that anyone in support of this law thinks that "rights don't matter anymore," I wonder why you are concerned about the rights of the abuser (but only speciously, as shown above) rather than the rights of the abused?
Yep it was purposefully over the top.....mea culpa. And I will do it again if I read such blatent sexist BS.
As that is what they get, IMV, for actually disparaging actions that a government is trying to take to stop abusive fucks from killing and injuring women.
Actually, I am going to redact those first 2 sentences, after further thought, as I believe my words are accurate based upon their words, and given the fact, as I stated below, we as a society believe it is okay to take people's driver's licenses away, without people appearing in court first, in order to save lives, and this is no freakin different. You abuse a woman and endanger her life, your freedoms are immediately curtailed lest you keep right on doing it...and succeed the next time.
Perhaps they gave little thought to what their words meant, but that is no excuse, it is what their disagreeing with such an action means...hence an strong disapproval of their anti-feminist and sexist words was/is indicated.
As their disparaging of a law that could, and most likely will, save women's lives, is hardly pro-feminist talk, so perhaps I should have got all johnny on the spot and reported their sexist asses for not being pro-feminist in their commentary about this?
In fact, there was an instance here in BC just a couple of weeks back where a person was barred from going to the casino for 5 years, without even setting foot in the courtroom....snert and pto said not a word about civil liberty curtailment.
But all of a sudden when it comes to actions and laws that will save women's lives, it is all about human rights to be free to do whatever ya want, even though there is lengthy evidence that domestic abuse was/is occuring, until the courts make it a jail sentence on top, just like they do for drunk driving.
So heads up, the french law makers and courts are saying men do not have the right to abuse women, and if the police are called for domestic abuse this is what you get automatically, before you even enter a court room. This is an correct thing and it should happen in Canada ASAP.
And yes it in fact is like losing your driver's license for 24hrs, or more in some cases, for drinking while driving..without even going to court, eh...
...but no in their manly wisdom, they seem at first blush to believe women should be in danger, until a court case is heard, so in that vien I suppose they too believe people should be free to drink and drive and kill people, until a court case is heard too in the "free" for men to do whatever they want world?!
And old goat I respect you to the nth degree, but I cannot accept your response to this, their denial that women should be immediately protected, just as people are from drunk drivers, is condemning women to be killed, and they must believe it is okay, or they would not be in disagreement with it.
In France, 166 women died in 2007, and 157 in 2008, because of conjugal violence. That's a woman's life extinguished every other day. Let's hope the new provisions, supported across the political spectrum, are rigorously enforced.
Judges conduct trials, but they also do a lot of other things. In particular, they conduct hearings, e.g. bail hearings, injunction hearings, traffic court hearings. I believe that the standards of evidence at a hearing are much lower than at a trial, and there are way fewer opportunities to call witnesses, to cross-examine them, etc. I do not know French law, but my suspicion is that such measures would be enacted by a judge, as noted, but that no trial would be involved.
It strikes me that sometimes it's reasonable for the courts to engage in what might otherwise be punitive actions with people who have not been tried or convicted of any crime, and who might turn out to be innocent. Here are some examples:
(1) It is reasonable to hold a suspect of a crime for processing and perhaps until a bail hearing can be set. There is the bad consequence that innocent persons will sometimes spend undeserved time in jail.
(2) It is reasonable to issue various injunctions, forbidding someone from going to a certain place or being near a certain person, without a trial. There is the bad consequence that innocent people will sometimes be undeservedly restricted in their freedom of movement.
But it also strikes me that when we do either (1) or (2), we must be careful about two things: (a) there must be some evidence presented to a duly empowered authority, and (b) the injunction/detainment/whatever must be of reasonably short duration, e.g., until a charge can be laid and a trial can be held or until the evidence is scrutinized more fully.
.... you drink and drive your license is suspended immediately for 24 hrs even if you blow below .08 and if you blow over .08 and also have a history of drinking and driving the officers can suspend until you go to court.
There are significantly more women attacked who attend shelters for their safety than there are those who are killed by drunk drivers.
It is about damn time society started valuing the life of women and protecting them like they do for drunk drivers who may kill.
Except that in this case it results in being evicted from your home for an indeterminate amount of time, based solely on allegations. I of course did not mean that they were being detained -- I just noted three different ways that the state might curtail your liberties, and that ordinarily we would not support being applied to someone without a proper trial.
At least a couple of jurisdictions, including Toronto, have proposed policies of evicting families from subsidized housing if any member of the household participates in gang activities. Is eviction "no punishment" in that case, and a reasonable action, considering the criminal activity involved, and the risk to the health and well being of others?
That's practically a syllogism. Judges conduct trials. Judges do this. Therefore, this is a trial.
As noted above, judges do many things, but this isn't a trial because a judge is there.
This is essentially indistinguishable from "You care more about criminals than you do about victims!". Which is typically the right-wing response when someone points out that some measure that might promote public safety or security would also unduly step on the rights or liberties of someone who hasn't been convicted of anything yet.
Speculatively rounding up and searching anyone who looks or acts like a gang member, or who is identified through a "Crimestoppers" type service would certainly prevent some gang violence, at the relatively small cost of some inconvenience for a number of innocent citizens. Would it be reasonable to say that you care more about gang members than you do about the victims of gang violence if you have some doubts about such a strategy?
Ah. Being evicted from your home is like being unable to drive a car for 24 hours. I see. You do understand that there's a burden of objective proof for that, right? You get your licence suspended when you blow over a certain limit in your jurisdiction, not when someone thinks you might be drunk or someone alleges that you are. And that's to take away a privelege for one day.
Snert, I don't think you understand what violence against women is, as both a social reality that's fairly well-accepted in Canadian society, or as something that's personal, intimate and terrfiying.
First, when a woman is physically assaulted by her partner or former partner, if she calls the police, there is a record and history. If she doesn't call the police, which happens for many reasons including our really weak laws in Canada on this crime, neighboours, family members, co-workers, know about the abuse. It is not at all the same as me pointing at a random person and saying "they're drunk!"
While I "get" your argument and your debating points re civic rights, my second point is that violence against women almost always escalates if there is no intervention. Escalation includes anything from more severe violence, to violence against children, family pets, family/friends of the woman, to killing the woman. The "only" response that the law here seems to be able to imagine is removing the woman (and children) from the home and having them go to a shelter. Or the woman develops a safety plan in secret and chooses to leave. The government of France has understood this to be an appalling and ridiculous and traumatizing state of reality/status quo, and has taken actions in putting this new law forward.
This is a unique crime in that it is a very low-level priority crime in the eyes of the status quo. Unlike drunk driving.
Remind if you actually argue against what I'm saying I may learn something, I'm not sure what benefit comes from putting words in my mouth.
For lack of a better reference at the moment I'm taking this passage from Joel Bakan's Just Words to demonstrate my position
Using Canadian examples to argue French law is rather weak but unless some one points out to me the differences I'm assuming that their laws and law enforcement are sufficiently similar. The conclusion that I draw from Bakan is that there are many cases where a change is law is trivial because problems are much more a result of how the law is treated as opposed to the words of law themselves. Since I can't read French I'd like to ask the following questions and I may consider redacting my previous statements and apologising.
1) Isn't a restraining order sufficient to remove an abusive spouse from a home?
2) Is it not within the court's power to monitor an individual with a restraining order against them if they believe there is cause to?
3) How is this law different from a restraining order?
4) Unionist at post #4 seems to imply that the court can impose an eviction without consulting the victim. Is this true? Is this a desirable power for the court to have?
5) Is there reason to believe that courts will enforce this law effectively enough for it to have any impact?
It seems to me to be much easier and less effective for legislation to be passed than for any effort to be made to improve the courts. I could be wrong but what I know from law the reason that courts don't effectively protect women is not because they don't have enough power to do so but because they chose to employ their power in a ineffective manner. Then again this could all be moot because the French legal system may simply be superior to ours. But as of yet no one has attempted to address any of these points.
No. This is only the Canadian context that I know.
Many women have been killed with their newly filed restraining orders in their purses. Most ROs are useless wrt actually protecting women.
I'm aware that restraining orders are insufficient. I'm now trying to grasp why. A court order to stay away from someone seems pretty straight forward in my mind, but I could be missing important details with respect to it. Are restraining orders too difficult to access? Are the provisions they set out inadequate or are they poorly enforced? Will passing a stricter law that is enforced just as badly improve anything?
get this you 2 men......a spousal abuser wearing an ankle braclet, that leaves the area which it is programed for, releases a alarm system...even if the cops cannot get there or find him, though hopefully the GPS would be giving them the read out, it gives the woman a chance to know her attacker is on thr loose, and thereby gives her a fighting chance to protect herself and her children.
Why in the hell should the wife and children have to be the ones that flee the home and go to a shelter? A man's home is NOT his fucking castle that is sanctity absolute whereby he can commit whatever crimes he likes within it.
If you think women would take their children to a shelter and up root them for no reason, then you are more sexist than anyone can help you with.
Moreover, giving the signal to abusive fuck men that society will no longer tolerate their crimes and is doing something may cause more than a few to stop their over developed sense of privilege from being acted upon.
And yes snert, it is like drunk driving license suspensions, a person may need to go to work the next morning and could lose their job because they do not have a vehicle or a license to drive, but yet they still lose their privilege, for the sake of a safe society.
That this society that could be in danger from drunk drivers, includes men apparently means quite a bit too, if you 2 are any indication of what some other men feel, as apparently a women's rights to safety are considered less than that of the man's perceived right to stay in a house, while his wife and children have to leave for their own safety.
Give your heads a fuckin shake eh!
And again just where is the pro-feminist analysis heh?
remind, dial it down. My sense is that p-sto is really trying to understand the issues. No Snert doesn't get it, but people can't be banned or suspended for not getting it, or for stumbling around in their not-getting-itness.
I'm aware that restraining orders are insufficient. I'm now trying to grasp why. A court order to stay away from someone seems pretty straight forward in my mind, but I could be missing important details with respect to it. Are restraining orders too difficult to access? Are the provisions they set out inadequate or are they poorly enforced? Will passing a stricter law that is enforced just as badly improve anything?
P-sto the reasons that restraining orders overwhelmingly don't work in cases of violence against women, is that the outside world and laws matters less to abusers than their perceived entitlement to control and ownership of their wives/ex-wives/girlfriends/ex-girlfriends. When that control is perceived as slipping (her leaving, filing charges, filing divorce papers, getting a restraining order) the violence usually escalates.
Restraining orders, like filing police reports, are more about having a legal and visible trail of the history of abuse, than actually doing anything to protect women. This is the sad truth. To understand this point is to understand the basis of why violence against women is so engrained into our society, and seen as unavoidable in so many hearts and minds of both women and men.
Until it's unlearned.
I see this measure the same way I'd see a bail hearing. Anyone who is arrested for a crime goes to a bail hearing and the judge decides whether to release them on bail, or to keep them in custody, based on the severity of the crime they're accused of committing.
In this case, a guy who is accused of beating his wife will, instead of getting a restraining order, get a restraining order and an anklet that ensures that he respects the restraining order. The reason for this is because the vast numbers of restraining orders that are violated and women hurt or killed by men who ignore restraining orders.
I don't see this type of measure as any different than an accused person being held on bail. Clifford Olson probably didn't get bail during his trial, and he wasn't convicted yet. Did you have a problem with that?
Society has no problem with taking licenses away from drunk drivers before their hearings if they're caught driving drunk, refusing bail to people accused of serious crimes before conviction, etc. Society weighs the curtailing of liberty with the safety of others.
Sorry maysie, but I have no patience for snert's feminist baiting and it being allowed, as he is not stumbling around in his not knowingness, he is in fact asserting what he believes to be his every right as man to encourage society to not takes crimes against women leading to their deaths, as being as important as men's right to be the king in their castle.....
If psto cannot discuss this beyond feminism 101, he should not be yapping, he should be listening, as part of the rabble rules are not going back to feminism 101 discussions....
Yes, I admit this is a trigger for me, as there is nothing like watching a women get shot by her misogynist husband who is not obeying his restraining order. And had he been on the ankle braclet at the time, she perhaps would not be dead and her 5 children without any parents.
men who trivialize this are a problem.
I never said that immediate protection shouldn't be accessible. What I did say was that I don't believe that this law will necessarily provide it or even improve it once the courts are done with it.
Maysie that you for elaborating on restraining orders, an interesting overview of them.
An interesting topic. Perhaps this could be moved to the feminism forum.
I'm happy to discuss it here for the time being though.
Snert talks about "the left". Man, I hate this left/right nonsense. As if there are only two ways of looking at every issue and because you look at something as left in one instance you are stuck with that POV in all instances. If anything, this is part of the longstanding conflict between rights of complainants vs. rights of accused (in the context of spousal violence this is, of course, the rights of men vs. rights of women). This is a feminist issue - not a left/right issue. There is a long history/debate over this in the sexual assault context.
P-Sto raises an example of this conflict re: Seaboyer. Note that the rape-shield law was reworded after Seaboyer and that legislation (s.276 for those who are interested) was upheld as constitutional in Darrach in 2000. To my knowledge, it's still on the books.
Is there an issue about the presumption of innocence? Perhaps. I don't know how the law is worded, but like others have speculated, I'm pretty sure there would be a preliminary hearing or something where the Crown would have to show why this is warranted. At some point, a court will develop a 3 part test (courts and lawyers love 3 part tests!)
It will be something like, is the judge satisfied that: 1) there is evidence to support the underlying assault charge 2) there is reasonable chance that a restraining order will not be respected; and 3) the accused poses a danger to the complainant or others?
Some posters ask aren't restraining laws enough. I'd answer sure, if there was 24 hour surveillance. Laws that aren't enforced aren't much good. Abusive spouses are not necessarily going to be thinking about the restraining order. (I mean, I'm pretty sure they know it's against the law to beat up their wives, but that doesn't seem to stop them)
Issues that involve balancing rights are always complicated and there are valid points on both sides. Some people that ultimately will be found not guilty will end up wearing a bracelet in the meantime. There will be stigma and inconvenience as a result of the bracelet. On the other hand, a lot of women (and children) will be safer. We had an old thread started by Martin I think about the stats that showed that more often than not where women are killed as a result of spousal it is when they are trying to leave the abusive situation. If those stats are correct than I would argue that a woman who reports the assault to the police is in more danger after she reports it than before. I say that her right to safety and security must trump that of the accused.
I recognize that the rights of the accused are also important and that there are divergent views on this point. Topics on Babble are supposed to be from a feminist point of view, but in this instance, I personally would be open to hearing the other points of view so long as we can dialogue in a respectful way.
Topics on Babble are supposed to be from a feminist point of view, but in this instance, I personally would be open to hearing the other points of view so long as we can dialogue in a respectful way.
Right. Should have put respectful of a feminist POV. I think that a man can be a feminist and they can certainly analyze issues from the feminist POV. I did not intend to try to shut men out of the conversation.
Oh I didnt think you were, sorry if I came across that way. And I do believe men can be feminist, but it has been debated here without a conclusive answer was my point
Most countries do, to my knowledge, allow the authorities to curtail a person's civil liberties for a specified amount of time. In most countries, the authorities can hold an accused person for a certain duration, while the person is being questioned or held for processing or held pending bail. The authorities may, depending on the case, deny bail and hold an accused person until a trial. Accused persons who are released pending trial often have their civil liberties curtailed: they sometimes have to turn their passports in, or stay away from certain places, or meet other similar conditions.
In all of these cases, the accused person might, of course, turn out to be innocent. So these practices, sadly, sometimes end up severely curtailing the civil liberties of an innocent person.
This is why, I suggest, any such curtailment of a potentially innocent person's civil liberties should be of a reasonably short duration (however that's defined) and should certainly not be indefinite. Any indefinite or long-lasting (however that's defined) curtailing of a person's civil liberties should, I think, require that the person be charged with a crime and found guilty. I've been trying to find out, without success, for how long a person might be required to wear a bracelet and stay away from her/his home under this new French law.
Get over it.
Hmm I really think you should get over it RP, you sound a tad bitter or something
I see this measure the same way I'd see a bail hearing. Anyone who is arrested for a crime goes to a bail hearing and the judge decides whether to release them on bail, or to keep them in custody, based on the severity of the crime they're accused of committing.
Bail or remand are options for ensuring that an accused will remain in the jurisdiction between the time they're charged and the time of their trial, with remand used when releasing an accused would represent a risk to public safety or when the accused is a flight risk.
But you don't get bail conditions without being charged, and as I understand it, the French law does not require an accused to be charged with anything.
Not at all, if he'd been charged. And yes, definitely, if they didn't charge him. How can you say that someone's crime merits some relatively severe restrictions on their liberties but doesn't merit actually charging them??
who said anything about not charging them?
You just created a strawman to kick down......
It's my genuine understanding that charges aren't required for this. If I'm wrong about that then I'd agree that it's really not that different from remand.
if you read the article it said "judges would be", and even if they were not and it was also slated to the police force or justice of the peace actions, on a immediate basis, until it went before the judge, it would still be an acceptable curtailment of civil liberties.
I read that, but I guess I also read this:
So if Unionist is right, this law doesn't even require a complaint, nevermind a charge. I'm not sure what his source for this is, though it's entirely possible it's in French.
At any rate, I respectfully disagree that evicting someone from their home without charging them with a crime is an acceptable curtailment of liberties. I've found a number of sources that suggest that the eviction could be for as long as 4 months. That's a long time to be unable to return to your own home based on one person's say-so, or unbelievably, without even their say-so. Now in those cases where the spouse has genuinely been abusive, no problem. But when there's no burden of proof involved, and may not even be a complaint involved, I have to think it's going to end up making a lot of mistakes. While it's true that being the victim of a false positive isn't as bad as, say, being killed by your spouse, I don't think it's sufficient to say "oh well, that's the price we all pay" either. Unless we're willing to pay a lot of other prices too.
As I noted snert women do not uproot themselves and their children to go to a shelter without cause. They are just not up to the resort status they are billed as.
Also, here in Canada it is not up to the woman to lay charges, the abuser gets charged regardless of what the abused wants, as society is aware of the intiimidation factor and compensates for it. And it seems that France is moving into that same position with this law.
Again I go back to the removal of a drivers license, it is not just judges and the courts who take away drunk and bad drivers right to drive, motor vehicles also does it, for the safety of society.
The courts also take away peoples rights to live in their home, if for example there is a neighbours dispute, until the dispute is resolved.
P-Sto, look at it this way: A restraining order is after the fact and can be used to punish someone who has violated it. However, if the victim is beaten or dead while the order is in place and violated, then the restraining order means SFA. Sure you can punish the abuser later, but the victim is still dead\injured.
Snert, you and I are more often than not on the same page on a lot of issues, what with you being a centre-right libertarian minded kind of guy. I respectfully submit that you're missing the boat on this issue. This move to protect victims of DV is a great idea because it gives additional tools to the victims and LE, who often have their hands tied when it comes to this. As an example, how many times have we heard "We can't do anything until he violates the restraining order" used on TV or in literature. That isn't a fiction, that's reality.
I don't dispute that. But I'm also not aware that a woman needs to leave the home before this law can be applied.
IMHO, that's a good thing if they do.
And again I'll note that a roadside suspension requires some objective evidence of drunkenness (ideally, a breathalyzer test), and lasts for 24 hours. This new law seems (show me if I'm wrong) to have no requirement of evidence, and can be in effect 120 times longer. I'm really having trouble seeing how a demonstrated drunk driver losing their keys for a whole day is the same as someone being barred from their own home for four months with no evidence required, beyond a claim.
I've never heard of that. Are you claiming that (say) I could get a knock on the door and a peace officer could tell me I'm being evicted from my home, effective immediately, on the say-so of my neighbour?
No, I am stating a judge can do that at a preliminary hearing before a person ever goes to trial, in much the same way as the french laws proposed will have judges doing so.
A 24 hr roadiside suspension can lead to an immediate 4 month suspension by motor vehicles.
I think we're both a little off. As of May 2009, the "on the spot" suspension can be up to 72 hours, but again, this suspension requires proof of inebriation. No proof, no suspension. You lose your licence for having a measured blood alcohol level between .05 and .08.
And if you have your licence suspended a second time, it's for up to a week, and if you're a recidivist and you get to a third time, it's a month.
I guess the French can replace that with "we can't do anything until he violates the eviction order".
Unless you're referring to the monitoring anklet. I'd like to see that work, but in practice, I'm not sure it will.
Years ago I saw an interesting documentary on stalking, and it featured a program, in place in some US city, in which stalkers were fitted with a similar electronic "tag", to ensure that they stayed the proscribed distance from their victim. For starters, it too was an "after the fact" measure, such that police knew who had violated their restraining order. Police were not able to intercept a stalker, only to know that he'd violated his terms.
The sick part of this particular pilot project was that a number of stalkers would go out of their way to *just* intrude inside the perimeter of their boundary, setting off the alarm and terrifying the victim. Some did this over and over again. Now me, I thought that one "mistake" should be the limit, but for some reason, these idiots weren't thrown down a very dark hole like they should have been.
At any rate, I don't have any issue with the anklet being part of a restraining order, if it's merited. It's the idea of all of this requiring no specific concrete evidence and no charge (again, as I understand it) that I think is shortsighted and a little inappropriate.
And in other French news...
Napoleon-era sea walls blamed for French storm deaths
In a growing scandal, those left homeless by the disaster on the western coast said proper Atlantic defences could have saved everybody.
"The sea was being held back by puny walls which were hundreds of years old," said a Gilles Aucoin, who lives near the town of L'Aiguillon-sur-Mer.
"Massive waves were able to crash through our streets and drown people. This should have been predicted a long time ago and dealt with by proper town planning.
"A mobile home park was near one of the sea walls and that's where a lot of people drowned."
The city of La Rochelle and the coastal area to the north and south of it suffered the greatest damage and the most deaths.
Yikes! I've visited this area. Mme. Qa'bong was born about 30 miles straight east of L'Aiguillon-sur-Mer and lived in La Rochelle for a while. La Vendée has kind of a bleak coastline. There are marais salants (salt ponds) and air power turbines, but not much else to see here. Just to check, I googled "marais salants" to see if I could find a picture of what the coast looks like. The following image leapt off the screen as being typical of the area. I bet I drove past this spot. As you can see, there isn't much to stop three-metre waves.
Snert - humour me for a moment:
Assume that to get an order that a person be evicted from their home and fitted with a bracelet the following three points are necessary:
1) charges are required to be laid by the police; and
2) a judge must be satisfied that there is evidence of abuse; and
3) a judge must be satisfied that someone else in the household faces danger from the person being evicted
If those 3 assumptions were true- would you be opposed to this bill?
I would certainly support that. Without reserve and hoping that funding and training was enough to make sure all involved (Judges, police, lawyers) know how it works, why it works and make sure it gets used, a lot where needed
Not at all, though 3) isn't clear to me. Do you mean "someone else" besides the evictee's spouse? Like a child or roommate? Or the spouse herself?
sloppy drafting :p good thing I'm not writing the law!
I meant any person living in the house (be it the spouse or a child or anyone else that lives there).
Ah, I thought probably so, but wanted to clarify.