If you could change ONE law overnight, which would it be?

Started by SIAM, Jan 04, 2009, 10:07 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

SIAM

Jan 04, 2009, 10:07 PM Last Edit: Jan 04, 2009, 10:11 PM by SIAM
If I could change one law, it would be to ensure enforced shared parenting in the event of separation (as  default). And I mean enforced. So both parents must work out the best way for them to get 50/50 access time. If they can't work it out, a 3rd party does (independent of parents). If either parent renegs on arrangements as much as three times, they get relegated to once a week visitation on a permanent basis. False accusations would result in loss of custody to the extent of just once every two weeks. Any denial of visitation is also penalised. All penalties enforced. It's a rough framework but it would mean both parents and children can maintain their relationships unless a parent renegs on the shared custody arrangements.

.

What you've done is replace one law with another, making a judge still the final authority.  Because as much as there can be enforcement of 50/50 shared parenting, the presumption of shared parenting does not apply when there are allegations of abuse.  Therefore, once shared parenting becomes the iron-clad law of the land, you can absolutely expect allegations of child abuse and molestation to skyrocket, and not only that, restraining orders (which bar contact with the children).  The system, adversarial in nature, would encourage the abuse of bogus allegations like these.

By putting your faith in a legal remedy you undermine the spirit of shared parenting.  It's better to push for a de-politicization of child custody, meaning that custody laws should be eliminated altogether.  In that case, when a true crime has been committed, a prosecutor (elected by the people) would have to put his office's credibility on the line, and the accused would receive all the rights that they are entitled to as criminal defendants.

The answer is to strike down the laws, not to alter them.

To answer the question of this thread, what I would push for is the elimination of restraining orders.  Those deprive people of their freedom (both parents and non-parents alike), and as a side effect, separate the accused from their homes and their kids.  Restraining orders break up families.  Worst of all, they require no proof.  Violation of a restraining order is punishable not by criminal statute, but rather by a judge's contempt of court citation.  And so whatever statute authorizes judges to issue restraining orders, if it were to be struck down, would restore the presumption of innocence before force could be applied.

As a close runner-up, I would eliminate warrentless arrest.

TheHappyMisogynist

Both interesting posts.  As an advocate for shared custody, I am inclined to agree with the OP.  The response, though,  was thought provoking and intriguing.  But there is one thing I don't understand about the concept.

Marriage is a legal contract.  How can that be dissolved without court decisions?

And BTW, my answer would be Lc4M. At least as long as abortion is legal.
It is better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self.  Cyril Connelly

http://www.thehappymisogynist.com

Men's Rights Activist

Quote
If you could change ONE law overnight, which would it be?


That's easy. revoke VAWA.
Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental rights for all (including males), & not contingent on gender feminist approval or denial. Consider my "Independence" from all tyrannical gender feminist ideology "Declared" - Here & Now!

.

If VAWA was overturned, the largest impact of that would be that the federal STOP grant money would stop flowing.  But that doesn't mean that any of the following laws at the state level would be undone: 
  • restraining orders,
  • primary aggressor laws,
  • mandatory arrest laws,
  • the "Best interests of the child" doctrine, or
  • any number of other state laws now on the books


Most of the laws that oppress men are at the state level.  VAWA just supplements the DV industry.  The cause of the problem is politicization, and the effect is state and federal laws.  Simply overturning VAWA would leave the existing infrastructure in place at the state level.  I sympathize with the goal of overturning VAWA, but it's no panacea.

SIAM

@johndias, thanks for your response. My wishful thinking takes into regard a common sense approach by law makers that rewards the practical and fair-minded folks while punishing the cynical and vindictive. The spirit of the law I desire seeks to keep parent/child relationships alive. I understand your answer because you are applying the cynical way laws get abused these days.To me it's clear we need a whole new approach to the whole philosophy of why laws are made. The original question is purely hypothetical remember :)

outdoors

 it would be-----that who-ever leaves the marriage would take their clothes and shoes and walk-the one who stays keeps the house,the savings and the children as to disrupt the children's lives as little as possible.
U would see the divorce rates plummet and the kids would have a lot less stress and worry.

Virtue

I wouldn't change a law I would either create a new law or totally re-write an old law to this effect.

1. All Law (criminal civil etc) must be written at the 10th grade reading level.....No exceptions

2. All Government Finances must be posted online showing where every penny is received (taxes etc) and where every penny is spent

The website must be updated daily and must be easily understandable so anyone with a 10th grade education can follow the money.

May hap I would change the alimony or child support laws to the above instead of creating a new law  :sunny:
Imagine waking up tomorrow to find
that unbelievably rape is now legal.

You would be freaking out, telling everyone you ran into this is crazy- something needs to be done... now!!! And then every man you told this to just very smugly and condescendingly says...

"Hey... not all men are 'like that.'"

Men's Rights Activist

#8
Jan 05, 2009, 02:56 PM Last Edit: Jan 05, 2009, 07:29 PM by Men's Rights Activist
Quote
Simply overturning VAWA would leave the existing infrastructure in place at the state level.  I sympathize with the goal of overturning VAWA, but it's no panacea.


Simply overturning VAWA would be an enormous benefit.  It would sure make things interesting to cut off all that federal funding - in light of the huge budget crisis CA is in.  Would this man-hating state go right down the tubes, clinging to its man-hating d.v. practices - til the last breath?
Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental rights for all (including males), & not contingent on gender feminist approval or denial. Consider my "Independence" from all tyrannical gender feminist ideology "Declared" - Here & Now!

CG9603

If I could overturn one law, it would be to enact the law which stipulates all false accusations will be punished as several as whatever was falsely alleged to have taken place.  Sort of the Old Testament punishment for false accusers, or those who lie by exaggeration or embellishment. 
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
-- General Dwight D.  Eisenhower. 

"Be bold and courageous.  When you look back on your life, you'll regret the things you didn't do more than the ones you did."
-- Unknown.

poiuyt

Quote
If you could change ONE law overnight, which would it be?


That without exception or exclusion, all laws, good, bad and mediocre will henceforth apply to all and sundry to include the State itself. This means irrespective of the individuals religion, class, race, sex, professional status or the malefeasor being an agent or institution of State, the rule of law prevails.

... come and see the speedy alacrity, with which existing parasites of injustice to others, and State privileged tyranny-mongers, will immediateley change their tune and behaviour. For the law will now apply to them too and they will also be subject to the injury of tyranny and legalised injustice if the law were not good law.
 

Go Up