<div><div> Some reflections on the rule of law and violence: Part 2 But think of this historically.  Consider:  In 1736 a judge by the name of Matthew Hale stated a "husband cannot be guilty of rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife."  This is known as the marital immunity rule. This meant that forcible sex of a husband with his wife was not considered violence by definition.  Many of us would consider forcible sex no matter who/whom a form of violence by a common sense definition.  In England the marital immunity rule was judicially abolished in only in 1991.  Here in the U.S. the marital immunity rule is in transition but still in effect in many jurisdictions (this is as of 2001, the date of the law review article I read on this subject).  Thus in some U.S. jurisdictions, though physical abuse between husband and wife is possible, forcible sex between husband and wife is not considered a violent crime.  The immunity does not apply in all jurisdictions if the husband and wife are legally separated and practically in all jurisdictions if they are living apart at the time of the rape. Consider:  As far as I can tell all societies that are complicated enough to develop a form of a "rule of law," divide private life from public life. In "private life" actions and events that would be recognized by the law as violence if they occurred in public life are not recognized by the law as violence simply because they occur in private life. The most obvious of example of this is Roman Law. In Roman Law the pater familias had the power of life and death over children, wife and slaves.  This power was called patria potestas, a kind of sovereignty over private life of the eldest ranking male.  It was not a form of violence that could be recognized by law for a the pater familias to torture or kill in this area of private life.  It might have been considered bad form, or impolite to kill your child, and from the literary evidence most Romans recognized that this was violence against the child, but it was not violence by legal definition. All slave societies divide private life and public life in this way, so that in private life violence against a slave is defined differently than violence against a non-slave or violence against a citizen.  In our society the fact that business entities such as corporations are considered private has great effect on the law.  Sometimes we don't consider all of these effects.  If I endanger the people around me by building a basement that might fill with gas and blow up, and thus do harm to my neighbors I am a criminal and perhaps a "violent" criminal.  If I am a mine owner and do the same thing, especially in the earlier part of this century, I am not a criminal and there might not be anything you can do, but quit your job.  In all societies these ideas repeat over and over again.  Yes as Woj, says it is quite simple.  If you bow down to legal definitions and reify the rule of law as a definition of violence, then we would be still in a time when a master's violence against a servant, or white man's violence against a black, or the father's violence against a child, could simply be ignored.  There is no argument because people like Woj, simply want to ignore the larger moral, class, status, race and sexual issues.  In other words such people want to turn the simple moral argument that most people can recognize violence when they see it into a legal truism, and they want to to turn the hard problem of what to do about a rule of law that is structured as discriminatory into a simple matter of definition, and wants to turn the hypocrisy that allows for violence against one group but outlaws it against another group into an eternal idol that we must bow down to. </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">[WS:] I think this question is rather easy to answer - because the law defines it that way.  This is not an exception.  There are many things that seem perfectly acceptable to many people, yet they are illegal because the law says so.  Anyone who does not like these laws is perfectly free to organize like-minded people to petition lawmakers to change them, or else vote into office those willing to do so.  Or failing that, abstain from situations that may bring them in conflict with the law, or take the risk knowing the consequences (and do not cry foul when these consequences materialize.) I am reasonably certain that if it came to a vote, a great majority of people in this country would be in favor of strict anti-crime laws, including a rather broad definition of violence to obtain more severe penalties for those who break the law.  Whether it makes sense or not is totally irrelevant, because public support will make changing these laws unrealistic, to say the least. Wojtek ___________________________________ <a href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</a> </blockquote></div> -- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture <a href="http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/">http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/ </a> His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/">http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/</a> Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/">http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/</a>