Stricter penalties in the NFL for domestic violence

[Md3000]

You misunderstand equality in law I think. It means men and women have equal rights and esteem, and deserve equal treatment and respect. It has absolutely nothing to do with whoever is taller, or stronger. In domestic violence cases, women need to be protected MORE than men in order to protect equality. The same goes for children.

My apologies for the knee jerk reaction. Yes we agree on punishment where punishment is due. But even when you're explicit and comprehensive, something like "Little lady" definitely makes me itchy. Maybe you are from another generation where that was more normal, but if you have read a newspaper in the last 30-40 years you should also know that in this day and age its insensitive and patronizing.

[HenryA]

Originally Posted by 1centaur

I did not read the language of the new rule, but I hope the domestic violence label requires a legal conviction, not a mere charge or a league determination. There are many anecdotes of women using the domestic violence label to gain an upper hand in a dispute because of the presumption of guilt that can surround the charge, even if both parties were engaged in physical violence against each other.

I find it somewhat quaint in a society that stridently asserts gender equality in all things regardless of apparent exceptions that the implicit inequality behind the domestic violence presumption is embraced. Bigger, stronger applies to many man on man situations and not to all man on woman situations. Does society even propose an appropriate response in the moment of physical attack by a woman on a man? Cover up and take it (JayZ)? Grab her gently and restrain her (no thumb bruises please)? Run out the door today, tomorrow and forever while filing for divorce? Hide in the bathroom? None of these would society expect of a man being attacked by a man (if anything, the opposite). The sexism vs. reality behind the domestic violence presumption is a problem with the legal system that is amplified by an extra-legal system that can deny a player his career and millions under a permanent cloud of Google-found opprobrium.

I have no problem with banning some big guy smacking around some little lady because she is an easy victim and he has no impulse control. If this encourages football players to marry really calm and nice women all the better. But any system with an implicit inclination to guilt will have problems. The NFL should at least also equally punish players with assault and battery convictions and thereby dilute the gender component.

This is a good look at the situation as it develops these days.
It seems that government (or some groups) is/are attempting to shift off the responsibility to enforce criminal laws into the private sphere. Into the court of public opinion, but with a stinger added with pressure on organizations to make their constituents toe the line. The effect is to form kangaroo courts without accountability and the obliteration of due process and the rule of law.

See more of this in the so called "campus rape" problem. We have adequate laws to prosecute crimes that you may not even know are crimes. The big ones we often have covered more than one way. Hate crimes, hate speech laws that create special classes of victims and special classes of perpetrators. That on top of whatever has been the common law and the common law codified over the centuries.

Many seem to applaud this development as progress and justice. But I can promise you that if you were the one who was getting the bums rush version of "justice" when you were innocent you'd sing a different tune.

What this is turning into is a Star Chamber proceeding where you are guilty and have no right to a fair hearing or defense, only a sentence being imposed.

We have a judicial system based on law that is housed on our Constitution and has been tuned over hundreds of years. Much of that tuning has revolved around due process, fairness and justice - not a rush to a conviction. And certainly not just a rush to judgment by public opinion and a kangaroo court conviction.

[HenryA]

Originally Posted by Md3000

You misunderstand equality in law I think. It means men and women have equal rights and esteem, and deserve equal treatment and respect. It has absolutely nothing to do with whoever is taller, or stronger. In domestic violence cases, women need to be protected MORE than men in order to protect equality. The same goes for children.

My apologies for the knee jerk reaction. Yes we agree on punishment where punishment is due. But even when you're explicit and comprehensive, something like "Little lady" definitely makes me itchy. Maybe you are from another generation where that was more normal, but if you have read a newspaper in the last 30-40 years you should also know that in this day and age its insensitive and patronizing.

No.
Traditionally, protected classes are made that because they are weaker and less able to take care of themselves - like the very young and very old, mentally or physically incompetent. For some weaker members, society needs to give additional protection.

However we seem to have run that idea into the ground by diluting the qualification of weakness to be replaced with one of political classification or for "social justice". Both are very bad ways to make law.

This guy's wife simply needed to go make a complaint to the authorities. If the guy did something unlawful he will be charged and can have a trial. A real trial in a real court. A real conviction. Not what you think and not what I think and not what a sports writer thinks. What a jury finds. Or a plea deal if he knows he's gonna get hammered.

[Admiral Ackbar]

domestic abuse is deplorable, and i totally believe high profile athletes and sports celebrities should be held accountable for their actions on a higher level than your average joe. i would never, nor would i ever want want my kids watching a sport with admitted rapists, wife beaters, habitual drunk drivers, and generally violent individuals on the field, they do not deserve that privilege. and i have no problem with the idea of them receiving suspension and bans. in fact I'm not sure how you could feel otherwise.

and henry, your comment on "the so called 'campus rape' problem" is ridiculous. that is a huge, huge, problem across the US. something like 30% of female college students admit to being sexually assaulted during their time at school. and if the victim does come forward the blame is often placed to the "you shouldn't have put yourself in that situation" "you shouldn't have dress provocatively" its not their fault. sure you may view the laws in place to prosecute these offenses to be suitable, and they may be in practice but the justice system is often extremely unfair to those who are the victims of domestic abuse and most especially sexual assault. "social justice" exists because "real" justice does not do the job suitably. just look at the number of cases with colleges and universities attempting to cover up, or distort the truth of there being rather widespread instances of sexual assault and rape on campus.

md3000 hit the nail on the head

[93legendti]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

6 game suspension for 1st offense, lifetime ban for 2nd offense.

Not sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, the NFL has to protect the brand, and the cynical side of me says that these new penalties are just cowing to public pressure and trying to win back female fans (a fast growing part of the fan base). On the other hand, Yeah, it is obviously something we don't want players to be doing, and this makes sense to punish bad behavior.

But isn't that what the court system is for? and why carve out a special exception for domestic violence? Why not expand the criteria for any crime/action that besmirches the reputation of the league, team or player. Whether it is domestic violence, performance enhancing drugs, drug/gun charges, DUI, public fighting or intoxication, etc.

Agreed.

If the player is convicted in a court of law, does he get out for practices and games? If not, why the need for a suspension/ban?

If the player is acquitted, is the NFL claiming it is better equipped to judge guilt and innocence than the legal system?

[sjbraun]

The NFL has the right to do whatever it wishes with its serfs, err employees.
They can set standards of conduct and consequences for when those standards are violated. Many companies have similar requirements. Why is this a big deal?

[ptourkin]

Originally Posted by HenryA

This is a good look at the situation as it develops these days.
It seems that government (or some groups) is/are attempting to shift off the responsibility to enforce criminal laws into the private sphere. Into the court of public opinion, but with a stinger added with pressure on organizations to make their constituents toe the line. The effect is to form kangaroo courts without accountability and the obliteration of due process and the rule of law.

See more of this in the so called "campus rape" problem. We have adequate laws to prosecute crimes that you may not even know are crimes. The big ones we often have covered more than one way. Hate crimes, hate speech laws that create special classes of victims and special classes of perpetrators. That on top of whatever has been the common law and the common law codified over the centuries.

Many seem to applaud this development as progress and justice. But I can promise you that if you were the one who was getting the bums rush version of "justice" when you were innocent you'd sing a different tune.

What this is turning into is a Star Chamber proceeding where you are guilty and have no right to a fair hearing or defense, only a sentence being imposed.

We have a judicial system based on law that is housed on our Constitution and has been tuned over hundreds of years. Much of that tuning has revolved around due process, fairness and justice - not a rush to a conviction. And certainly not just a rush to judgment by public opinion and a kangaroo court conviction.

This is offensive but it's probably due to the cable news channel you watch or the talk radio you listen to and the websites you consume. One in five college women reported being sexually assaulted in a 2007 survey commissioned by the DOJ (not Eric Holder-- the Bush era DOJ, so don't start.)

Due process applies to a judicial system. Nothing in the NFL policy or the college policies denies anyone due process in a court of law. There are no "star chambers" except maybe in the minds of some who are clinging to the past.

[soulspinner]

An illuminating thread that exposes interesting views.

[rugbysecondrow]

Professionally, a DUI a criminal conviction can derail many careers, so too should it in the NFL. The NFL sells not the game but the NFL brand. Period. The players are a cog in that brand so long as they are all pulling in the direction of the brand. If not, you gone.

Regarding the campus rape, many colleges are using student tribunals to determine guilt and punishment (suspension, expulsion from university) without actual due process. I take rape very seriously, we all should, but it is because of this that the process and the punishment needs to be just as serious. The new California law being proposed regarding rape/sex and consent is a scary notion to me. The fact that universities will be the deciding, based on a non-criminal definition, whether somebody has or has not been raped is huge.

http://www.mercurynews.com/education...es-bill-clears http://time.com/3222176/campus-rape-...yes-means-yes/

I do think that if you assault a woman or assault a man, the punishment should be the same. Physically harming somebody is just as bad regardless of the gender of the victim. I think Rice should have been punished more. Also, I am no expert, but it seems that in many domestic violence cases, they are rarely cut and dry, and often involve actions by both parties and drugs/alcohol, which really makes a mess of a situation.

EDIT: As an aside, I think the stats on sexual assault are often misstated. From the 2007 study, 1 in 5 have experienced and attempted or completed sexual assault. Sexual assault includes: both battery (unwanted touching achieved by physical force or incapacitation of the victim) and rape (vaginal, oral, anal, or object penetration achieved by physical force or incapacitation of the victim. Regarding perception: When asked if they considered the incident to be rape, a significantly higher percentage of physically forced victims (40%) answered affirmatively, compared to only 25% of the incapacitated assault victims

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf
I post this from the study because I (as the father of soon to be two daughters) find it is important to understand the problem you are attempting to solve.

Originally Posted by ptourkin

This is offensive but it's probably due to the cable news channel you watch or the talk radio you listen to and the websites you consume. One in five college women reported being sexually assaulted in a 2007 survey commissioned by the DOJ (not Eric Holder-- the Bush era DOJ, so don't start.)

Due process applies to a judicial system. Nothing in the NFL policy or the college policies denies anyone due process in a court of law. There are no "star chambers" except maybe in the minds of some who are clinging to the past.

[Climb01742]

Originally Posted by soulspinner

An illuminating thread that exposes interesting views.

Indeed, and why change is so hard.

[1centaur]

For those who might wonder if I am ancient, "little lady" was used not as a phrase I would utter sincerely (I actually pulled it from a John Wayne line I laughed at when I was a kid) but as an exemplar of the attitude that women are unequal. We are getting so PC that it apparently demands turgid writing styles to clarify that one is on the "right" side of every issue in every way and I hate that writing style, but for some who are unwilling to accept good will in others it is necessary.

I view domestic violence laws as trying to correct an historic injustice: that assault and battery as defined in the outside world is somehow let off in a marriage because these things happen and husbands get angry. They are about puncturing the relationship bubble. Good, and bad for society that they let this injustice exist in the first place. If the laws were about physical weakness there would be equivalent laws outside of marriage - women are just as relatively weak in such circumstances. But there seems to be no equivalent "can't hit a woman" law in society.

The fact that women actually have been charged under domestic violence laws is further proof of this. The law can be used to protect all people from A&B under the cover of marriage.

What is fascinating and depressing to me is that I effectively said, watch out for cases that lack real merit but get emotional momentum with those making a determination about somebody's livelihood. Everybody on here should fully agree with this, unless they think cases that lack merit do not exist.

I also said that domestic violence laws carry an unacknowledged patina of sexism because they are perceived as protecting the weak yet do not have equivalents among other members of society who are actually relatively weak but of the same gender. 280 pound guy beats up 150 pound guy; the difference vs. beating up a woman is what? Let's see a gender-free standard of what constitutes an unfair fight, rather than say a gender makes you weak (or strong). Frankly from my point of view I'd rather see greater penalties for ALL physical altercations that are not self defense.

As for revealing attitudes, I agree but in a different way.

[Climb01742]

1centaur,

I 'know' you, as it were, so my comment wasn't directed toward you.

But while I tend to agree with your points, I can't fully buy in because violence toward women is too complex of a mix of power, male self image, and history. Other forms of A&B don't, in most cases, carry as many complicating motives and emotions.

The video of Ray Rice dragging his unconscious partner out of the elevator, to my eye at least, denotes many troubling power relationships. On just one point: would you ever move someone you loved, who was incapacitated, the way he did? I grant you I'm playing psychiatrist without a license, but he looks like he's moving an object, not a human being. Which to me, speaks volumes. I can be off base here, obviously, but this case is emblematic of why this form of violence is unique, troubling, and makes some men uncomfortable because it is not just about violence but the place of men in society.

[Md3000]

Originally Posted by HenryA

This is a good look at the situation as it develops these days.
It seems that government (or some groups) is/are attempting to shift off the responsibility to enforce criminal laws into the private sphere. Into the court of public opinion, but with a stinger added with pressure on organizations to make their constituents toe the line. The effect is to form kangaroo courts without accountability and the obliteration of due process and the rule of law.

................

We have a judicial system based on law that is housed on our Constitution and has been tuned over hundreds of years. Much of that tuning has revolved around due process, fairness and justice - not a rush to a conviction. And certainly not just a rush to judgment by public opinion and a kangaroo court conviction.

Ironic how many people glorifying the Constitution's history admire the fact that it's been tuned to represent the times we lived in... but only up to around 1970! These "defenders" of the Constitution don't want to see it being adjusted at all to the changing demographics, cultural patterns, health issues, and other aspects of modernity.

I don't understand where this narrative about "star chambers" and "kangaroo courts" comes from? Maybe I watch the wrong TV channel, but the NFL as a body can punish whoever is affiliated with them for whatever they think is wrong, it has nothing to do with due process. If you don't agree with that or if you think that's unfair, then don't play in the NFL. In fact, the term "kangaroo court" doesn't always have a negative connotation. If I remember correctly it comes from baseball and describes the informal self regulatory mechanism of the league.

One more thought ; to say "well if the woman in question doesn't go to the police, then nothing is wrong" is a bit too easy. Just like in the campus rape cases, domestic violence is so hard to fight because it is so hard to pinpoint. Many women are afraid to speak out about it, or know the police won't take it serious. Just like in some of the posts above, even when men are completely uninformed about the case in question, the woman already has the stacks against her. (1. "many women use domestic violence charge for their own benefit" 2. "its only cos they're shorter and weaker than the man' 3. "she married him, so its her own fault/responsibility" 4. "if she doesnt go to police, theres nothing we have to do") Even women themselves make these excuses by the way.

In related news, Senator Gillibrand is releasing a book soon about her work as one of the congresswomen on Capitol Hill and described (verbal) sexual harassment by fellow colleagues. Although she was clearly hurt by some of the comments, it was indicative of the embarassment women have on the subject that she felt she needed to mention the culprits AGE. As if the fact that you're in your 80s makes it OK to be like that cos you "don't know any better".

[Md3000]

Your posts are becoming more comprehensive! (to me)

Originally Posted by 1centaur

What is fascinating and depressing to me is that I effectively said, watch out for cases that lack real merit but get emotional momentum with those making a determination about somebody's livelihood. Everybody on here should fully agree with this, unless they think cases that lack merit do not exist.

I think cases that lack merit DO exist, but I think they are certainly not in the majority. Also, the fact that a case has been judged of lacking merit does not necessarily make it so, given the difficult field we're operating in. Marriage has many hidden power structures. It's difficult to unearth the true meaning behind the cases.

Originally Posted by 1centaur

I also said that domestic violence laws carry an unacknowledged patina of sexism because they are perceived as protecting the weak yet do not have equivalents among other members of society who are actually relatively weak but of the same gender. 280 pound guy beats up 150 pound guy; the difference vs. beating up a woman is what? Let's see a gender-free standard of what constitutes an unfair fight, rather than say a gender makes you weak (or strong). Frankly from my point of view I'd rather see greater penalties for ALL physical altercations that are not self defense.

The difference between "280lbs guy vs 150lbs guy" and "280lbs guy vs 150 woman" is that over hundreds of years, in the courts a case like that would always be ruled in the man's favor. Which is exactly why this needs special attention.

[Len J]

What seems to be (mostly) missed in this conversation is that the NFL is in the business of entertainment, and can set whatever rules and punishments and adjudication methods it can negotiate with it's workforce.

I have a friend who just became an NFL umpire after several years officiating in college....he had an interesting observation,..... Unlike college, everyone in the NFL works for the same organization, and all benefit if the organization succeeds, and it shows in the way they interact. They have a product, and they all want it protected.

Is the underlying measurement level that resulted in Gordon's 1 year ban absurd, sure. Is the use of the B sample solely for validation of use (as opposed to validation of levels) absurd, sure..... But both were mutually agreed to in the last collective bargaining agreement. The other point is that Gordon is a multiple repeat offender.... And a 3rd time loser on drug testing, the penalty for which is specified in the CBA, again, mutually agreed to. He has a problem and I hope he gets help.

Re Rice, what really happened in that elevator? Presumably, there is a tape and again presumably, the NFL saw that. Presumably, Rice & his wife explained that to the NFL. Was I abhorred when I saw the tape of him dragging her out of the elevator?... Yes, I was. Can I envision a series of events in the elevator that are more understandable than the general presumption that he knocked her out?...., as someone that watched my parents physically abuse each other for too many years, yes I can. Does that excuse Rice?.... Of course not, but it might explain the 2 games as opposed to what I'd expect.

The NFL had no published penalties for anything like this.... Sure they should have, but I'm glad they took the time to develop some as a result of this.

In the end, they did what they did partially because it's the right thing to do and partly because not doing it was bad for the product. IME, most things have multiple drivers v

Len