France - Criminalizes Nagging?

[Malthus]

Sounds like great news - for lawyers. Really, how can this go wrong? 


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6942834/Nagging-your-husband-is-not-a-crime.html

In the great emotional pressure cooker that is spending the festive season en famille, did you find yourself snapping at your spouse? Did it all get too much the fifth time he forgot to empty the dishwasher, or the first time she abandoned you to explain the plot of a Vicar of Dibley repeat to her hard-of-hearing mother? It would take a soul of rare equanimity to say no. And yet in France, before the year is over, lashing out at your partner could become a criminal offence.

A bill being put forward by Nicolas Sarkozy's government would make "psychological violence" between married or cohabiting couples a matter for state intervention. It's a puzzling and problematic idea, for all manner of reasons.

For starters, there's the question of defining an act of psychological violence: as it stands, the legislation would appear to cover everything from nagging, to false accusations of infidelity, to sustained campaigns of verbal abuse, to a failure to supply the correct answer to the question: "Does my bum look big in this?"

Most people have horror stories about relationships past and present. But it would be incredibly hard to draw a line between the normal friction thrown up by two human beings going through life's frustrations together, and the actions of the criminally cruel. Even the most flippant jokes can inadvertently create lasting insecurities – one friend of mine has become paranoid about the size of her hands after years of enduring her boyfriend's affectionate nickname of "Sausage Fingers". And who's to say this law won't be misused for seemingly trivial cases? I'd certainly be prepared to argue that my fiancé's threat to wear an all-white, gangster-style suit on our wedding day would cause me psychological damage.

All this is not to belittle the serious purpose of the proposed legislation. It follows a video campaign, backed by the French government, which showed a woman being pursued by the bullying voice of her husband, which mocks her as fat, useless and worse as she goes about her daily tasks. The message is that psychological violence is as unacceptable as physical violence.

It's hard to argue with that: abusive relationships of any kind ruin lives, and a straightforward campaign to stigmatise this sort of behaviour and encourage its victims to seek help is eminently sensible. But by taking that further step of criminalising harsh words, the French government risks turning law enforcement into the policing of morality.

Yes, it is a terrible thing for men to bully and belittle their wives – and vice versa. Terrible things happen in life, and not all of them are illegal, because the state cannot and should not attempt to dictate all the terms of human decency. As the French writer Natacha Polony puts it – on the website of the conservative newspaper Le Figaro – the bill reflects a school of thought which is "parfaitement infantilisante de l'humain". And it also fails to reflect the mystery that is other people's marriages. How many couples do you know who constantly seem to niggle at another in public, but who share some private bond which has kept them together for 30 years or more? The television series Gavin & Stacey lampoons this brilliantly in the shape of a fortysomething couple called Dawn and Pete, who lurch from blazing rows to a gushingly sentimental renewal of their wedding vows.

In real life, psychological abuse is a sad and sticky area which deserves to be taken seriously. But let's hope British legislators have the sense to avoid any similar legislation. However noble the purpose, giving every squabbling couple the chance to air their dirty laundry in court will do little for those who truly need help.

[Martinus]

We have had laws like this on the books for many years now and nothing the sort described in this article comes out of it.

"Psychological violence" is not the same as nagging. It's meant to catch cases of really extreme abuse, however ones that do not necessarily involve physical violence and is going to be very rarely used since proving that kind of thing is a real bitch. As the article states itself - this is going to serve as a way to stigmatize the behaviour rather than putting couples in prisons - just as criminalizing "spanking" of children did not result in thousands of parents being put in prison, but rather to make people think twice before using physical violence against kids.

It is a typical telegraph's "those stupid French" article. 

[Martinus]

However noble the purpose, giving every squabbling couple the chance to air their dirty laundry in court will do little for those who truly need help.

I take it Britain does not have divorce trials?

What a retarded article. Seriously.

[sbr]

However noble the purpose, giving every squabbling couple the chance to air their dirty laundry in court will do little for those who truly need help.

I take it Britain does not have divorce trials?

What a retarded article. Seriously.

Does "every squabbling couple" go to divorce court?

[Martinus]

I'm willing to bet that more squabbling couples go to the divorce court than will bring "psychological violence" charges against each other because of this new law.

[derspiess]

just as criminalizing "spanking" of children did not result in thousands of parents being put in prison, but rather to make people think twice before using physical violence against kids.

I seriously doubt those who beat the shit out of their kids are going to think twice about doing so because of the law.  The people who likely think twice because of the law are parents who would more responsibly administer measured corporal punishment on their kids as a means of discipline. 

As a result, I think the laws do little if nothing to protect kids who are in real danger.  The other kids end up less disciplined, as their parents are terrified to spank them (which is sometimes the only way to get through to a child & make him behave).

Anyway, as much as I like the idea of nagging being made illegal, to think a law like this is going to have any impact other than to somewhat increase litigation (hoorah for trial lawyers!) is naive.

[Martinus]

If France is anything like Poland (quite likely since our penal law and criminal court system is based on the French model), there isn't any buck to be made in petty criminal offenses like this for trial lawyers - most of the defense is provided by "law clinic" type of arrangements or lawyers assigned by the court who work pro bono or for small government fees.

[Martinus]

In any case, you have to remember that people in continental Europe come from cultures that are immensely less litigious than that of common law systems.

Furthermore, compared to the US system, the guilt in criminal cases is decided by professional judges rather than juries (which makes "emotional" convictions less likely and limits the impact of a lawyer's rhetorics), a possibility of a "private prosecution" is severely limited, and since prosecutors are appointed rather than elected, and are subject to peer review based on their efficiency and utilization of resources, they are less likely to prosecute cases that are minor, but media-grabbing.

[Malthus]

We have had laws like this on the books for many years now and nothing the sort described in this article comes out of it.

"Psychological violence" is not the same as nagging. It's meant to catch cases of really extreme abuse, however ones that do not necessarily involve physical violence and is going to be very rarely used since proving that kind of thing is a real bitch. As the article states itself - this is going to serve as a way to stigmatize the behaviour rather than putting couples in prisons - just as criminalizing "spanking" of children did not result in thousands of parents being put in prison, but rather to make people think twice before using physical violence against kids.

It is a typical telegraph's "those stupid French" article. 

Usually, pointing out that a law is probably impossible to enforce is a criticism of the law, not an argument in favour of it. 

Making psychological abuse illegal will, I predict, have exactly zero effect on people's behaviour. It's like making "being an asshole" illegal. People who are bullies (or assholes) generally don't really think they are - everything in their mind really is the other person's fault.

So, what we have here is a law impossible to enforce that will have no effect. What's not to like?

[Sheilbh]

What a retarded article. Seriously.

It is the Telegraph talking about....ABROAD

[The Brain]

The message is that psychological violence is as unacceptable as physical violence.

It's hard to argue with that

No it's not. Jesus.

[Martinus]

We have had laws like this on the books for many years now and nothing the sort described in this article comes out of it.

"Psychological violence" is not the same as nagging. It's meant to catch cases of really extreme abuse, however ones that do not necessarily involve physical violence and is going to be very rarely used since proving that kind of thing is a real bitch. As the article states itself - this is going to serve as a way to stigmatize the behaviour rather than putting couples in prisons - just as criminalizing "spanking" of children did not result in thousands of parents being put in prison, but rather to make people think twice before using physical violence against kids.

It is a typical telegraph's "those stupid French" article. 

Usually, pointing out that a law is probably impossible to enforce is a criticism of the law, not an argument in favour of it. 

Making psychological abuse illegal will, I predict, have exactly zero effect on people's behaviour. It's like making "being an asshole" illegal. People who are bullies (or assholes) generally don't really think they are - everything in their mind really is the other person's fault.

So, what we have here is a law impossible to enforce that will have no effect. What's not to like?

I wasn't really defending the new law, I was just responding to the article's allegation of OMG THIS IS GOING TO CAUSE PEOPLE TO SUE!111

[Malthus]

I wasn't really defending the new law, I was just responding to the article's allegation of OMG THIS IS GOING TO CAUSE PEOPLE TO SUE!111

Oddly, I didn't find the article (though in a UK rag) all that hyperbolic.

[KRonn]

Another law on behavior..... nag, nag, nag.   

[The Minsky Moment]

Furthermore, compared to the US system, the guilt in criminal cases is decided by professional judges rather than juries (which makes "emotional" convictions less likely and limits the impact of a lawyer's rhetorics) . . .

Your faith in the supreme rationality and fair-mindedness of state judicial functionaries would be touching if I had a more authoritarian streak of mind.  Alas, I am more inclined to think of the Star Chamber as a cheesy 80s films rather than a historical ideal to be pursued.