Rule of law?
Laura Ingraham brought up the phrase, rule of law in connection with the Senate hearings for the nomination of John Roberts to Chief Justice. Mr. Roberts, it seems, is intent on the rule of law.
That's good. But we must ask, "Rule of what law?" As we have pointed out, before, the laws in the United States allowed hundreds of handicapped people to be abused by teachers, social workers and others through Facilitated Communications (or FC as it is called), when it was known that scientific evidence pointed out the falsehood of the claims the abusers were making. Instead of punishing the perpetrators of the abuse, the states punished those who were falsely accused, typically the father of the victim. Frequently, the punishment continued even after the courts admitted that there was no basis for the accusations, since judges in child deprivation cases are given an absolute right to punish the innocent and, in general, parents have no right to appeal even the most horrendous injustices.
Few Americans would believe such things are possible. But they are not only possible but common in the area of family and juvenile law. For state legislatures have given broad powers to judges and severely limited the avenues available to parents to seek a redress of even the most outrageous injustice.
We know of one case in Georgia in which the victim of FC started fighting with the teachers who had abused him. Yet the District Attorney did nothing to punish the abusers. Nor did the juvenile court judge in the case do anything to address the issues raised by the victim's action.
We know of no state laws protecting people from abuse via FC. Why not? The reasons are obvious. For the victims of FC are among the weakest members of society, while the abusers typically are legally-protected, state employees.
Back during World War II, the United States persecuted Japanese-Americans, depriving them of their liberty and property, due to simple prejudice. Eventually, people recognized the injustice of that persecution. We wonder how long it will take the American people to recognize the injustices done to the victims of Facilitated Communications and take action to redress the injustices which were done.
That's good. But we must ask, "Rule of what law?" As we have pointed out, before, the laws in the United States allowed hundreds of handicapped people to be abused by teachers, social workers and others through Facilitated Communications (or FC as it is called), when it was known that scientific evidence pointed out the falsehood of the claims the abusers were making. Instead of punishing the perpetrators of the abuse, the states punished those who were falsely accused, typically the father of the victim. Frequently, the punishment continued even after the courts admitted that there was no basis for the accusations, since judges in child deprivation cases are given an absolute right to punish the innocent and, in general, parents have no right to appeal even the most horrendous injustices.
Few Americans would believe such things are possible. But they are not only possible but common in the area of family and juvenile law. For state legislatures have given broad powers to judges and severely limited the avenues available to parents to seek a redress of even the most outrageous injustice.
We know of one case in Georgia in which the victim of FC started fighting with the teachers who had abused him. Yet the District Attorney did nothing to punish the abusers. Nor did the juvenile court judge in the case do anything to address the issues raised by the victim's action.
We know of no state laws protecting people from abuse via FC. Why not? The reasons are obvious. For the victims of FC are among the weakest members of society, while the abusers typically are legally-protected, state employees.
Back during World War II, the United States persecuted Japanese-Americans, depriving them of their liberty and property, due to simple prejudice. Eventually, people recognized the injustice of that persecution. We wonder how long it will take the American people to recognize the injustices done to the victims of Facilitated Communications and take action to redress the injustices which were done.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home