Law Reform



The concept of the inherently inferior male must be eliminated, in law as well as in society.  To change things, we must first understand them.  Simplistic suggestions for reform usually advocate changing “the law,” but most law is fair on its face.  What needs changing is biased application of the law.  Although the proposed Equal Rights Amendment theoretically guarantees equal rights to men, the interpretations of it have been so utterly unacceptable that it probably shouldn’t be adopted without amendments permitting the acknowledgment of reasonable distinction between the sexes. 

The enormous reservoir of anti-male sentiment makes judicial and social reform incredibly difficult.  Basic philosophy needs re-examination.  “Legal” and “illegal” must be made to more closely conform to right and wrong, not just in domestic relations but across the board.  Confused, contradictory law must be examined in light of the underlying moral issue.

Reason demands consistency of law application.  A crime is a crime.  One set of litigants must not receive different treatment than another.  All laws, including prohibitions against adultery and alienation of affection, ought to be strictly enforced.  If the laws are obsolete, change them.  Ulysses S. Grant said, “I know of no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.”

In crime deterrence, the eye-for-an-eye principle may never be surpassed; but retribution must be sex-blind.  Actual sex offenders ought to be isolated and harshly treated; seven states and counting allow castration.  I have no objection if the subjects are actually guilty.  I’d like to see “BTK” killer Dennis Rader subjected to the same tortures he inflicted on his female victims.  The rub is that many so-called guilty men are actually innocent, or at least not proven guilty.

Even outside of domestic relations the adversary system can be a disservice.  Accused law violators can be mad-dog killers, innocent victims of circumstance, or something in-between.  Whichever they are, there is a lawyer trying his damndest to make them out to be the opposite, and he will prevail far too often.  As prosecutors say, ‘You can indict a ham sandwich.’  This system is claimed by those making a livelihood from it to be the lesser of two evils.  Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t.

On the bright side, DNA testing has been a boon to men.  With its advent many prisoners are being freed after wrongful convictions.  The pace of exonerations has jumped sharply, from about 12 a year through the early 1990s to an average of 43 a year since 2000 according to a study by the University of Michigan.  There have been at least 328 exonerations since 1989 and about half of those since 1999 were based on DNA evidence.  Innocence Projects – there are at least 41 – are constantly uncovering instances of wrongly imprisoned men, many having been incarcerated over 20 years.  The Cardozo School of Law’s Innocence Project, among other efforts, used DNA evidence to exonerate 163 innocent people (read men).  Newspapers and the internet abound with such stories.  As he left office in January 2003 Illinois Republican Governor, George Ryan, imposed a moratorium on executions in Illinois after DNA testing found that 13 prisoners on death row there were innocent.  Unfortunately, a move is afoot by ambitious prosecutors to greatly restrict the accuseds’ access to DNA testing.

Methods, such as public referendums, to bypass legislative self-interest groups might be advisable.  Veterans losing families in the service of their country ought to be compensated, just as if they had lost an eye or a limb (Full disclosure: I would personally benefit from such a measure.  I would rather have lost an arm or leg in the Korean War than my kids).  This also applies to bluenose DUI laws – aimed primarily at men.  The allowable blood-alcohol content of these laws is set so low it could almost obtain by walking past a saloon (To counter the Mothers Against Drunk Driving organization – MADD, I have considered founding DDAM – Drunk Drivers Against Mothers).

Shakespeare’s character, Dick the Butcher, said, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”  While that may be a little drastic, some form of control must be instituted.  If we can’t throw these moneychangers out of the temple, we must at least reform them.  Their license to steal must be revoked, even if some have to go back to peddling encyclopedias.  Lawyers must be servants, not masters, of justice.  The notion that the courts exist primarily for the benefit of lawyers must go, and ethics which really reject cheating must be implemented.  The Jail for Judges organization is hotly pursuing judicial corruption.  Their “Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.),” recently rejected by So. Dakota voters due to wording manipulation by state government officials, would have created a special grand jury for the purpose of determining whether judges civilly sued as a result of blatant judicial offences should be stripped of immunity and whether they should be indicted for criminal violations.

There is legitimate concern over the troubling conflict between parental rights and governmental authority, however it is important that the rights of citizens be respected.  William Pitt the Elder quotes Thomas Jefferson thusly: “The poorest man in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown.  It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter.  All of his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined cottage.”

Send mail to Webmaster  with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2017 Men's Defense Association
Last modified: March 30, 2017