A woman denounces her ex-husband accusing him, among other excesses, of having tried to run her over with the car. He has already denounced it other times, always without getting the acts that he imputed to him be demonstrated. The filed claims are not, however, an obstacle for the man to be arrested, and once his person has been secured, and in the same way that of the complainant, proceed to bring him before the judicial authority that once again finds no reason to decree his deprivation of freedom.
There are those who believe that this is an aberrant operation of the rule of law, but it does not necessarily have to be : if at the end of the procedure it is proven that it is a false accusation, it will depend on whether the aggrieved party is compensated for that in which such a case would be an unfair deprivation of a fundamental right by having the person who provokes it respond for it. And in the meantime, the risk, unfortunately too frequent in our society, of a woman losing her life or seeing her integrity at the hands of her ex-partner has been conjured.
A man repeatedly denounces that his son, under the custody and custody of his ex-wife, is in grave danger, because of the aggressive and upset nature of the woman, who does not take care of him as it is his duty to do so and has even threatened to harm him. Nobody takes their complaints into consideration, for the purpose of adopting an urgent assurance measure; All he achieves is that after a stubborn civil process, and after a successful demonstration of the abuse his son suffers, custody of his former spouse is withdrawn. In any case, no assurance measures are still taken with respect to this, which allows him to fulfill his threat and, using his superior physical strength against a seven-year-old child, take his life.
It can be argued that the risk perception, for the above statistical reasons, was higher in the first case. Coniugicide happens more often than filicide ; but the latter does not have zero frequency, and the probability, as the chronicle of events of recent years accredits us, is greatly increased when a young child is in charge of a woman of problematic psychology, who is here disputed what creates its preferential and almost property right over the creature. In any case, the results are incontrovertible and very cumbersome: the woman protected with all of the law in the first case remains whole and saves after all her complaints, and even after the man indicated by her has left free, while the helpless child of the second rests in the cemetery.
Some believe that the best way to dress one saint is to undress another ; It applies to those who believe that women should be protected before the child or the child before the woman. There is, however, the possibility of not leaving anyone naked, and of giving everyone the same presumption of innocence compatible with preventive measures that allow anticipating damages that are sadly recurring.
When the law proves effective only with some, it opens a grim step to the perception of injustice, which in turn invites to spread it further, by way of discussing rights recognized in gross compensation. It does not contribute to the protection of the thousands of women in danger because of the blindness and violence of so many men who can claim that in favor of them there are defenseless children.
In any case, these are nothing but abstractions of politicians and legislators, in which we accompany them who have the time and leisure necessary to comment on them. The transcendent and concrete thing is that the society in which we live has failed a child - and also his father, and the rest of his family. And that is a luxury that a rule of law cannot afford. A scandalous mistake that should show some shame.
According to the criteria of The Trust Project
Know more- Childhood
Opinion Jaime Peñafiel's week: Don Juan Carlos has never been a stalker
ZoomFerocious Wolf
OPINION Not for women, blacks and immigrants: for murderers