I've written a fair amount about how our legitimate concerns about domestic violence have morphed into state intrusion into our private lives that are, in my opinion, far from legitimate.  In the late 60s and early 70s, feminists rightly raised the issue of domestic violence, pointing out that assault and battery are crimes irrespective of whether the perpetrator and victim are married.  So police and prosecutors started treating violence between partners like the crime it is.  Fine so far.

But what began as a reasonable attempt to hold violent spouses accountable for their crimes has become an all-purpose excuse on the part of DV advocates, police and prosecutors to criminalize behavior that many believe the state has no legitimate interest in.  As a practical matter, the state's police power can now be used to micromanage the minutiae of everyday family life.

Even a cursory glance at the "definition" of domestic violence on the Office on Violence against Women (OVW) website makes clear that "domestic violence" need have nothing to do with violence.  The man who repeatedly harps on his wife's spending habits commits domestic violence according to the OVW definition.  In many states, for a man to be removed from his home and ordered to stay away from his children, all his wife has to do is tell a judge that she fears that he might be violent.  To say the least, DV advocates didn't tell us back in the 60s, that this was what they were talking about. 

The Founding Fathers of the United States understood the propensity of governments to arrogate power to themselves.  If Madison or Jefferson could return and spend a few days with us, in no time at all, they'd understand exactly what's going on - governments, with the avid encouragement of DV advocates, have vastly increased their power over our private lives, and all in the name of our safety.

Sadly, spouses commit acts of violence against each other that require the legitimate use of state police power to punish and, with any luck, prevent.  But much of what goes on now under the unrecognizable definition of "violence" has nothing to do with that.

And here's an example of precisely what I'm talking about (Dallas Morning News, 10/16.07).  It seems that Paul Alexis was at home with his two children, aged 20 months and four weeks, while his wife went to the store.  He was holding the baby when he walked into the bedroom, tripped over a sheet that was on the floor at the foot of the bed, and fell against a dresser.  He tried to make sure that it was his elbow, not the baby, that struck the dresser.  All was well, but when his wife returned, both noticed redness and swelling at the back of the baby's head.  So they took him to the doctor, who discovered that the boy's skull was fractured.

Soon enough, both children had been placed in CPS custody and Paul was ordered to stay away from them.  He hired an attorney, and, following an investigation, the family court ruled that Paul was no danger to the children and the family was reunited.  That ruling, was based on a preponderance of evidence, which means that the state had to produce 51% of the weight of evidence that Paul should be separated from his kids.  It failed and that was the end of that.

Except it wasn't the end of anything.  Someone in the District Attorney's Office decided that, even though the standard of proof in criminal cases is much higher than in civil cases (beyond a reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of the evidence), it might be possible to convict him of a crime and so he was indicted on two counts of injury to a child.  And if you think that's small potatoes, don't.  Life behind bars was the possible penalty if Alexis were convicted.

Certainly, serious injury done to a child by a parent would justify intervention by law enforcement.  But in Paul Alexis's case, there's next to no evidence of wrongdoing.  Apparently the best the DA could come up with was an expert who claims that the injury was "inconsistent with" an accident.  My attorney's BS Meter just went into the red.

No one claimed Alexis ever intentionally injured a child.  His wife, CPS and a psychologist who interviewed him are all on his side.  The article shows no criminal background or history of violence on his part. 

Now this article tells us that, after three years during which these felony charges were hanging over his head clouding everything he did, the case was tried to a judge in Collin County (Dallas Morning News, 11/20/09).  Unlike the DA, the judge was reasonable enough to acquit Alexis.  

That's a happy ending to a saga that should have ended when another judge decided that Alexis posed no danger to his children.  But even a win for the innocent teaches a lesson.  It teaches the uses to which state power can be put.  An assistant district attorney decided to take a shot at putting a decent, caring father in prison for life.  But of course, that's what prosecutors do.  It's why Madison and Jefferson and others were so wary of them.  It's why we should be too.

Thanks to Stephen for the heads-up.

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 22nd, 2009 at 1:33 pm and is filed under Fatherhood, Crime/Criminal Justice System/Police. You can trackback from your own site.