#abuse of criminal law

[indizombie]

We've reached finally at the position of an unamended constitution which is actually amended in practise. Liberal democratic character of the Constitution has not been altered by amendments but, minorities are lynched, journalists are prosecuted or worse, killed. Lawyers are attacked for doing their professional duties, activists from civil society are thrown behind bars and the ED is unleashed against all. Then there is targeted prosecution for some and impunity for others. Abuse of criminal law has been raised to the level of a policy. You do not need a gun to be a terrorist. You can be thrown into jail for the thoughts in your mind. You, as a lawyer can argue a case in court and be thrown in jail...The legal profession is in danger. We all know what happened in the Delhi riots, Elgar Parishad and Bhima Koregaon cases; these cases represent the transformation of the victim into an accused in a Court of law by the use of UAPA.

Indira Jaising, senior advocate

[coochiequeens]

A TIM couldn't accept that his wife was not going to go along with his delusion and turned to the family annihilator route, a route associated with violent narcissistic men.

By Nuria Muíña García July 11, 2024

A man in Spain is alleged to have poisoned his wife and child in the midst of divorce proceedings following his declaration of a transgender identity. The court has now imposed a restraining order on the man, who has not been named, while the police investigation is ongoing.

According to Diario de Sevilla, the couple were engaged in divorce proceedings but were still sharing a home in Dos Hermanas when the suspected poisoning took place. While it has not been definitively confirmed, the motive for the divorce appears to have been the man’s decision to identify as a “woman.”

Shortly after choosing to split, the woman, whose identity has also been kept anonymous, began experiencing severe and sudden-onset stomach pain. She sought medical care and was told she was exhibiting symptoms of chemical consumption. Police quickly became involved, and an investigation was launched into what was then identified as a suspected poisoning.

Disturbingly, the couple’s 5-year-old son may have also been the victim of an attempted poisoning by his father. Medical tests are being conducted in order to verify whether he had been targeted as well.

Prosecutors speculated that the woman was poisoned by her husband using household pool care products that were mixed into her food. In response to the hypothesis, the court issued a warrant of entry to the couple’s home to gather evidence.

Yesterday, a Dos Hermanas court responsible for prosecuting violence against women heard statements from both the husband and wife, after which it decided to place a restraining order on the man. He is now required to stay 300 meters away from his wife, and has been denied contact to his son.

At the time of this writing, no arrests have been made, but police investigations are ongoing.

The case has sparked particular concern amongst Spanish women’s rights advocates, as they have noted that Spain’s exceptionally strict gender identity laws mean that, if prosecuted, the man will be treated as a “female” by the courts.

Further, crimes marked as “gender-based violence” in Spain result in female victims being provided with specific legal protections and resources to assist them in the aftermath of the crime. These resources may include assistance with divorce proceedings, child custody, and housing arrangements.

If the man’s legal gender marker change was completed before the poisoning took place, it would mean that the victim would have no access to these resources because her aggressor was a “woman.”

“Gender-based violence” is also considered an aggravating factor in violent crimes, and may result in a harsher sentencing.

The situation has lead some women’s rights advocates to speculate that the man had planned to murder his wife, but that he had changed his legal gender marker just before doing so to avoid “gender-based violence” being used as an aggravating factor in the event he was caught.

If the man is prosecuted, this would not be the first time in Spain that a male accused of domestic violence against his female partner was prosecuted as a “woman.”

As previously reported by Reduxx, a man in Catalonia who beat his female partner for opposing his transition avoided charges of gender-based violence by legally changing his identification to “female” and adopting a woman’s name just prior to being prosecuted.

The couple, who were in their 60s, had been together for 11 years, but after the man began expressing an interest in crossdressing, the woman asked to break off their intimate relationship. He became violent towards her, and began sexually and physically abusing her in retaliation for her refusal to participate in his fetish.

After seeking help with the police, the woman discovered he had already changed his legal sex marker, and thus she would not be provided any protections for female victims of male crime.

At the time, Reduxx spoke with Núria González López, the legal advisor for the victim, who explained that “the abuser’s change of his legal sex means that, in the eyes of the law, the female in the situation is not at risk. This means the victim has fewer rights.”

In February of 2023, the Spanish government enacted what is colloquially known as the “Trans Law,” which instituted a “no questions asked” policy for those who declared they were transgender. The law also made it significantly easier for individuals to change their name and legal sex, hastening the process for applicants and removing any medical requirements.

Since the institution of the law, Spain has seen concerns right about the rise in “trans fraud,” in which males change their legal sex marker simply to gain legal or professional benefits.

In Ceuta, an extremely small Spanish autonomous city located in the North African coast, 37 male civil servants are known to have changed their registered sex in order to obtain benefits assigned to women.

Most of the men are members of the Army, the National Police, the Civil Guard, or the Local Police of the city. The men all share a pattern in that they change their legal sex marker while keeping their “male” name.

What Motivates Family Annihilators?

Angry over the family breakup

A need for power

Suffering from a personality disorder

Unable to cope with personal failure

See whole article

[serialreblogger]

the thing about the joker

is that - well, even canonically, he’s not actually “insane.” in the most canonical version of his backstory (bc there are many conflicting incarnations, but this one is the touchstone for a lot of later canon), he was part of a street gang before falling into a vat of Nondescript Toxic Waste that damaged his melanin production and That’s It. he supposedly “lost his mind” after seeing his reflection, which is absurd on many levels. no. he’s not “insane.” what he is, is an angry white boy.

the thing about the joker is that he exults in his own uncontainability. He laughs, because all of gotham - all the world - is built to be his playground. the only lunatic thing about him is the lunacy of ~Society~, to borrow from the joker’s own playbook; the lunacy of the joker lies in the world that grants him power: in the inheritance of loss: in white privilege, and what it means for everyone else.

“to prove a point.” those were the joker’s exact words, when he shot and paralyzed Barbara Gordon. she asked why: he laughed. “to prove a point.”

because that’s all he ever does. he hurts people because he can. and because all the power in the world can’t save him from getting hurt - and isn’t that just peachy?

because the thing about the joker is that he can get hurt. he has been hurt. but he has so much more capacity to harm than to be harmed. he is immortal. he and he alone will never have to face the consequences of the hurt that he inflicts on other people.

so then: why not hurt them? misery loves company, after all.

the joker is the embodiment and end result of our own social system: the madness of the exception: the laughter of the white man: the imprecation to smile, as he kills you.

(no one ever says it, i find, but it’s still true: barbara deserves to kill him.)

and who, then, is the batman? if the joker is the yin to his yang? if they’re two sides of one irredeemable coin, if they represent the “balance” of an unjustifiable system - who is he if not another white man?

because he is. Bruce Wayne is a white boy born into unspeakable privilege and forced to endure suffering anyway; who copes with his suffering by taking it out on others; who copes with his suffering, not by taking advantage of the world as it is, but by attempting to reshape it. to make it in his own image - as if it isn’t already his, as if claiming it further will crush out the pain.

the batman is the benevolent oppressor to the joker’s malevolent one. he changes nothing, in the end. two privileged white boys with their own respective navel-gazing grudges - where, after all, lies the difference between benevolence and malevolence?

because they are not “chaos” and “order.” not really. They are laissez-faire laughter and law. Joker exults in the disease of the system, Batman seeks to treat its symptoms, but neither of them will ever change anything about the root cause. because they may have suffered the faults of this system, but they still benefit so much more from it as it exists. Uphold it or break it, neither of them wants to change the law.

but the law is only as good as the people it’s made to protect. and who does that law protect, really?

waylon jones is, in one issue, explicitly depicted as Black. between that and his skin disorder, there has never once been room for his character to be any more than a monster: king croc is, always, a character to be violated and brutalized, over and over and over and still - always - written as the villain. (he tried so hard to scrape out a place for himself, so many times, in so many incarnations, and each and every time he finds himself relegated once more to the sewers. he will never be anyone’s king. there is no place under the sun for people like him.)

victor fries only ever wanted to save his wife, and a capitalist mogul decided a few extra numbers on his eight-digit paycheck were more important than the people whose lives depended on that money. fries’ body was damaged to disability by that choice, left without the resources to find a cure for his wife, and he robbed banks because there was no other option available to him. we seem to have forgotten, or maybe never really understood, why that matters. why a desperate man trying to save his life and that of his loved ones under the crushing gears of capitalism is a villain, and the one who stops him is our hero. why, under the law batman upholds, a bank vault and a CEO’s hoard is worth more than a life.

poison ivy just wants to live, too. wants a life not defined by the devastation of her body, of the beings that exist as extensions of her, a life where green and growing things are not commodities to be plowed up and poisoned and destroyed for the sake of another man’s profit. these are villains; they are written as such. these are their motives.

who does batman fight for, really? who is our hero, this emblem of our law?

is he our hero? ours, the broken and bleeding members of the world he claims to protect?

who does the law protect, except him - him, and the joker?

[the-lady-maddy]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Eye On Palestine (@eye.on.palestine)

[mariocki]

New Scotland Yard: The Come Back (1.2, LWT, 1972)

"This wasn't a sudden impulse. It was deliberate and calculated. He had to break in to get at the old man, and then - well, you saw what he did to him. I don't know if he's a psycho or not, but I do know he's a sadist and I know what treatment I'd hand out."

"Yeah, I can guess."

"It's the only way."

"You've a right to your opinion, just don't try and convert me."

"I wouldn't dream of it, I know what you think."

"I think it's just as well your job ends when we catch him."

[news4dzhozhar]

Leahy Law Fact Sheet - United States Department of State

Leahy Law Fact Sheet - United States Department of State

1. What is the Leahy law?

The term “Leahy law” refers to two statutory provisions prohibiting the U.S. Government from using funds for assistance to units of foreign security forces where there is credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights (GVHR). One statutory provision applies to the State Department and the other applies to the Department of Defense. The State Department Leahy law was made permanent under section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 22 U.S.C. 2378d. The U.S. government considers torture, extrajudicial killing, enforced disappearance, and rape under color of law as GVHRs when implementing the Leahy law. Incidents are examined on a fact-specific basis. The State Department Leahy law includes an exception permitting resumption of assistance to a unit if the Secretary of State determines and reports to Congress that the government of the country is taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice.

The DoD Leahy law is similar to the State Leahy law. Since 1999, Congress included the DoD Leahy law in its annual appropriations act. The DoD Leahy law is now permanent in Section 362 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. It requires that DoD-appropriated funds may not be used for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a foreign security force unit if the Secretary of Defense has credible information that such unit has committed a GVHR. The law allows for two exceptions to this restriction. The first in cases where the Secretary of Defense (after consultation with the Secretary of State) determines that the government of that country has taken all necessary corrective steps. This first exception is also known as “remediation.” A second exception exists if U.S. equipment or other assistance is necessary to assist in disaster relief operations or other humanitarian or national security emergencies.

2. How is the law implemented?

In cases where an entire unit is designated to receive assistance, the Department of State vets the unit and the unit’s commander. When an individual security force member is nominated for U.S. assistance, the Department vets that individual as well as his or her unit. Vetting begins in the unit’s home country, where the U.S. embassy conducts consular, political, and other security and human rights checks. Most often, an additional review is conducted by analysts at the Department of State in Washington, D.C. The State Department evaluates and assesses available information about the human rights records of the unit and the individual, reviewing a full spectrum of open source and classified records.

When assessing whether information is credible, the following factors should be considered weighing both the credibility of a source and the veracity of an allegation:

Past accuracy and reliability of the reporting source as well as original source, if known;

How the source obtained the information (e.g., personal knowledge obtained by a witness, witness interviews collected by a non-governmental organization (NGO), descriptions collected from government records, etc.);

Known political agenda of a source (both reporting source and/or original source, if known) which might lead to bias in reporting;

Corroborative information to confirm part or all of the allegation;

Information that contradicts part or all of the allegation;

History of unit and known patterns of abuse/professional behavior;

Level of detail of the GVHR allegation, including detail in identification of the GVHR, perpetrator (or link to an operational unit), and victim.

3. Can assistance be reinstated to units previously found ineligible for assistance?

Yes. Consistent with the exception under both Leahy laws, the Departments of State and Defense have adopted a joint policy on remediation that outlines a process for resuming DoD- and State-funded assistance to foreign security force units that are ineligible for assistance under the Leahy laws. This can occur when the Secretaries of Defense and State determine that the government of that country has taken, or is taking, effective measures to bring those responsible to justice. Such measures may include impartial and thorough investigations; credible judicial or administrative adjudications; and appropriate and proportional sentencing.

[gorepill]

"XD this victim of domestic violence isn't sympathetic cause they have mental illnesses and-" I hope you lose your job I hope you lose your house I hope your family cuts you out of their lives I hope if you have a spouse they leave you! I hate you!!! ^-^

[rubberduckyrye]

I'm looking something up and softly whispering, "Please understand, federal government individual watching my every move, I am trying to criminal psychology research"

[everysongineverykey]

being a sherlock holmes canon fan sucks. what the fuck is "i have never loved, watson, but if i did and if the woman i loved met such a fate, i might act even as [that story's murderer] had done" and "by the lord, it is as well for you. if you had killed watson, you would not have got out of this room alive."

[frankiebirds]

started binging criminal minds, i was gutted when elle left & now watching the next couple of s2 episodes i really felt her absence. especially in 'the last word' when a women has to pretend to be dead so they can catch one of the serial killers (they so needed to have a frank convo about making elle relieve her trauma + this couldve been a great intro to that). i read your post, i agree it did make sense why elle left considering her background as a sexual offence specialist & what she says to reid but i found the writing lacking. her exit felt rushed + not final bc she only really shared scenes with hotch. also she also seems the type to not wanna give up the bau bc that would mean the fisher king wins + is a determined person so it would've been better to see her slow realisation she cant do the job she desperately wanted in s1. also the fact her relationships with the rest of the team + their reactions weren't fully explored is annoying since she was quite friendly with everyone particularly close to morgan, reid even gideon. especially since gideon inadvertently caused her get shot as he didnt want to follow the rules then said elle would understand?? so a confrontation w gideon similar to the one w hotchner wouldve been nice. i miss morgan's fun bantery friendship with elle in the later eps when she wasn't there to partner up with him (idk they seemed to be a go to partnership to me) & the elle/morgan/reid trio is sorely missed. ive largely enjoyed everything so far (just finished 2x09) but i wish they'd more deeply explore the characters' history. like the inclusion of reids mom was interesting & really liked how garcia respected reids privacy to keep her illness a secret. it was a missed opportunity i felt not to see elle & morgan not bonding over losing their cop dads or hotch and gideon talking about fatherhood when hotch is missing out on his babys key milestones (ik there was that bit in s1 when hotch tells gideon to get in touch w his son but more of those moments wouldve been nice). whilst i feel the team all like each other and there's some interesting/fun friendships (reid&gideon , garcia&morgan etc) id be nice to have some downtime scenes showcasing them as a makeshift found family (sorry i love that trope & c'mon they spend more time with each other than with their acc families). anyway sorry for the long rant this show is eating at my brain lord my brain mass will be equivalent to a pea by the time i finish this show. <3

thats fair and i get what you mean! there are definitely moments when i felt elle's absence and there are definitely things about her leaving that i would change if i had the power—i absolutely agree that the reactions from the rest of the team to her leaving and the actions leading up to it were sorely lacking, and a slower realisation that she cant do the job anymore would have been very cool to see, although i think the latter was less due to writing problems and more to the fact that elle left the show because lola glaudini chose to leave (ie they couldn't write a fully fleshed out leaving arc for elle because it was driven by out-of-show events and therefore not planned/they had limited time to execute it). the lack of reaction from the team is a writing problem though, so again i very much agree with that!

i hope you enjoy the rest of the show and get some of your wishes, and if you dont, you can find some good fics to fulfill them <3

[yeonban]

It's lovely when I read a book and some random paragraph in it hits me in the face like a train at mach speed

[mikelogan]

My partner knows about that kind of anger.

[ahc-au]

The newspaper got Cody and his brother's images have revealed , wouldn't that be leaving them in a disadvantage since they are completely exposed to Dunn's "business partners"

Interesting thought! That drawing is mostly meant to show off all the characters involved, so take its canonicity with a grain of salt. But! The kids would have been put into the public eye no matter what. Their staying with Bishop was primarily to afford them his top-of-the-line security, specifically because their involvement being made public was an inevitability. So it's not necessarily that avoiding getting photographed puts their safety at risk any more than it already would be, more that it makes them uncomfortable. Hope that makes sense haha!

--Adelram

[eileennatural]

being a prison abolitionist will always get you patronized or condescended to even by people who are at least superficially also progressive or leftist. as if accepting state sanctioned human rights abuses is a sign of maturity. is it really naive or childish to believe that some day a better world might be possible, even if i don't see it in my lifetime ? because the alternative seems unbelievable bleak. hopeless. and i don't think that's better

[ofyorkshire]

nvm i am not normal again about the trilogy/quartet and i love what the director did for '83, thank you for giving us an actual happy ending, but jobson absolutely did not deserve that hero moment lol

he's not the devil incarnate like laws, but if bj is the symbol of invisible victims in an apathetic, greed-driven world, then jobson is the symbol of all that greed and apathy.

[dontstandmedown]

Just started watching hannibal and i dont see what this guy is doing wrong. as far as i can tell he's just a gay man who loves to cook fancy meals for his friends