On The Imperative Neccessity of Background Contextual Information Relative to the Investigation of Any Alleged Criminal Case, Domestic or Otherwise

It is imperative that all of the background, contextual information that is necessary to get the 'legal judgment in a court decision right' -- and this starts from the police officers investigating a potential crime scene, alleged domestic violence or otherwise -- be not overlooked or neglected or marginalized because of either of three factors or the combination of any two or all three: 1. the desire to 'close a case' in speedy fashion in order to get public pressure -- and in cases of 'alleged domestic violence', this includes 'feminist political pressure' -- off of 'the police force's and prosecution's back'; 2. 'special interests political and legal forces' that demand from the government a legal campaign, mission, and directive of 'zero tolerance' for a certain type of 'sub-culture crime' (this leads to 'racial, ethnic, and/or sexual profiling' which biases and prejudices any particular investigation towards a certain conclusion and outcome before the investigation even starts); and 3. any other form of police and/or prosection and/or political 'narcissistic benefit' that is derived from 'profiling' a particular individual and/or group of people and creating 'narcissistic bias and prejudice' before the facts of the case have been fully and objectively arrived at with all different 'possible relevant contexts' of the case being fully detailed and made legally and publicly transparent from the beginning of the arrival of police at the doorstep of the alleged crime to the bail judge -- who is in no position whatsoever to make any legal judgments before receiving 'the fully police investigated, non-biased, and contextually rich, relevant facts of a case', even if these are thrown together very quickly and are subject to change if the case moves forward beyond the bail hearing -- to the prosecution itself in collusion with the police or not, which have already started to develop a 'mindset of guilty' the minute the police throw handcuffs on a person, lay charges, and start the 'bias and prejudice of the collection of relevant information in such a way as to maximize the probability of a conviction'...This makes 'special interest political and legal groups' (read 'overzealous, hardline feminist groups') very happy but it does nothing to advance the cause of 'equal rights' and 'justice' in this country. Indeed, it takes it a gigantic step backward towards 'reverse discrimination' and 'preferential justice' in the name of protecting 'all women from the possibility of all men becoming that one 'very bad egg of a man' -- or heading in that direction -- who actually is or becomes a very violent and nasty man towards his wife or girlfriend...

But the laws didn't change and radically overcompensate when Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband's penis with a kitchen knife in 1993. The potential for the abuse of physical power, manipulation, intimidation, provocation, real, fake, and/or imagined threats, and the use of the police in a 'manipulative manner' and for 'manipulative reasons' -- is a 'two-sex problem'; not a 'one-sex problem' -- male or female.

-- dgb, June 21st, 2008.