Biden, Wife-Beating and "Rule of Thumb"

[Andy_L]

The Code of Hammurabi The Avalon Project : Code of Hammurabi

Here are the sections referring to people dying (unless I’ve missed some)
153. If the wife of one man on account of another man has their mates (her husband and the other man’s wife) murdered, both of them shall be impaled.

206. If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, “I did not injure him wittingly,” and pay the physicians.

207. If the man die of his wound, he shall swear similarly, and if he (the deceased) was a free-born man, he shall pay half a mina in money.

208. If he was a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a mina.

** 209. If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.

210. If the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death.

211. If a woman of the free class lose her child by a blow, he shall pay five shekels in money.

212. If this woman die, he shall pay half a mina.

213. If he strike the maid-servant of a man, and she lose her child, he shall pay two shekels in money.

214. If this maid-servant die, he shall pay one-third of a mina. **

215. If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off.

216. If a physician make a large incision in the slave of a freed man, and kill him, he shall replace the slave with another slave.

229 If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.

230. If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.

231. If it kill a slave of the owner, then he shall pay slave for slave to the owner of the house.

232. If he kill a man’s slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina.

The bolded lines deal with violence towards women - and the punishment even if the woman dies from being struck is a fine or the execution of someone other than the man who committed the violence. On the other hand, the sentence for robbery is death.

[DrDeth]

@RTFirefly

Wait, what’s the complaint here? That Biden repeated a myth as fact that, for most of his life, had been widely accepted as fact? That he wasn’t up to date on the debunking of that myth?

Or that it would somehow make a difference in how a Biden Presidency handled issues relating to violence against and abuse of women?

If the former - well, I’m not exactly one of Biden’s biggest defenders on this board (quite the opposite!), but oh dearle me. :fans self, clutches pearls: Can we criticize Biden over something that actually matters? Plenty of that to go around.

If the latter, then maybe you’re on better ground, but you gotta make the connection for me. I’m not seeing it…

Yeah, this is petty crap. This is the kind of thing that the Kremlin likes to spread on social media. It’s true, but it’s blown 10000 times out of proportion. It’s a common myth widely believed. No, not here, a skeptics paradise, but out in the real world, where most people have never even heard of Snopes.

[DrDeth]

@margin

…
A battered woman in this country has an almost 50/50 chance of summoning another abuser to her door if she calls the police for help. The police skew very heavily to white, male, conservative.

Wife beating and rape have a lot of similarities and rape is often part of domestic violence.

See, you took a number way out of context: *""Two studies have found that at least 40 percent of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10 percent of families in the general population. " * So, 40% is not 50% and “police officer families experience domestic violence” does not mean the police officer is doing the violence. The spouse could be or Uncle Joe or anyone in the family.
Read on to "

*A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24 percent, indicating that domestic violence is two to four times more common among police families than American families in general."
*

So, that’s a more solid study, but still all it says is that "domestic violence is two to four times more common among police families " Not that police officers hit their wives 24% more than other occupations.

and those numbers are based upon scant evidence: “Research is so scant and inadequate that a precise accounting of the problem’s scope is impossible, as The New York Times concluded in a 2013 investigation…”.

and "One such study, published in 2000, said one in 10 officers at seven police agencies admitted that they had “slapped, punched or otherwise injured” a spouse or domestic partner." oddly 10% is the national average amoung all occupations.

Mind you, being a cop is a stressful job, so I dont doubt the rate is somewhat higher than being a accountant. But the numbers in your cite are 10%, 24% and 40%- (and the last tow in the family in general) and then you jumped to 50%.

One issue is that a newish federal law means that a cop convicted of even misdemeanor domestic abuse loses his job.

But your little line there also seems to imply that a abuser is going to let other abusers off easy. No evidence for that. Domestic abuse calls are hated by cops, and the abused spouse often wont provide testimony and will too often attack the cop. My buddy , who was went to a abuse call, saw the woman there, bleeding with a tooth knocked out and everything- a ambulance had to be called. While he was putting the cufsf on the guy, the woman attacked him with a steak knife, jumping on the cops back, stabbing him repeatedly screaming “let him alone!”. (The knife didnt penetrate the vest and only caused a few stitches, fortunately. )Stories like that are common, which explain why cops are lolth to make arrests. Nothing to do with the point that cops are sometimes abusers themselves.

[puzzlegal]

@Jophiel

Without the full context of how he came to (mis)attribute the phrase “Rule of Thumb”, I have a hard time understanding why this is supposed to upset me beyond “Biden got a widely repeated factoid wrong”.

What exactly is anyone supposed to be defending?

I’m also struggling with why I should care that Biden said something mostly true but illustrated with a factoid that’s false. I think UltraVires is upset that Biden is suggesting that men are constantly struggling with the urge to beat their wives (although I don’t read Biden’s post that way at all) and with the idea that Biden suggests that there are problems with our cultural heritage, and that it’s divisive to do so

Bolding and red color mine:

@UltraVires

It is not simply the “Rule of Thumb” misquote. It is bad enough that he cannot check a claim that has been debunked for twenty-five years.

My problem is his whole spiel. That our culture allowed untold amounts of spousal murder and the response of judges was to introduce a rule that you could only beat your wife a little but not a lot with the implication that this heritage has stayed with us today and why fighting domestic abuse is so hard.

That’s simply an absolute lie. It has not been acceptable in our society for at least 300 years even to lay a hand on your wife. No decent person beats their wife.

The problem is that for too many years people did not understand the dynamic of abuse and underestimated the ability of an abused woman to leave a relationship. Let’s fix the problem starting with that understanding, not with the idea that men have to mentally fight every day to keep from murdering women.

I don’t agree with the talking point that Dems hate America, but this is fodder. It is a mainstream presidential candidate simply lying in an attempt to show how utterly evil our culture is.

It is not about being stupid or idiotic. It is actively misleading and dangerous.

I agree that the “learn to code” was insulting, but at least it wasn’t prefaced with a wholly false narrative. When/if Trump says something similar, I’ll post in that thread.

[RitterSport]

@Velocity

I don’t think the actual gripe here is whether domestic violence is OK or not (it’s not okay,) but rather that Biden is promoting a clearly debunked falsehood. And Snopes also went easy on him.
It’s akin to someone telling an audience that the human brain is an amazing organ (it is indeed,) but then citing the false “we only use 10% of our brains” myth in his speech. Just tell the truth and truth alone.

This can’t be true, because otherwise I’m sure the OP would have started new threads for each of Trump’s 13,000+ falsehoods and errors. That is, if it were only about making a speaking mistake. Why, I don’t even see his thread on Pence’s claim that there were 12 hijackers on September 11. So, I suspect there may be something else to his complaint – maybe read his own actual words in this very thread?

[DrDeth]

@UltraVires

…

I agree that the “learn to code” was insulting, but at least it wasn’t prefaced with a wholly false narrative. When/if Trump says something similar, I’ll post in that thread.

This kind of thing is very typical of Kremlin spread anti- Biden propaganda.

Actually, taken in context it wasnt insulting at all.

Yeah, I checked your posting history, I dont see the dozen or so posts per day there that last statement would require. And by a dozen, I am being very conservative.

Lets us just start with ONE fucking speech: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/19/politics/donald-trump-michigan-rally-impeachment/index.html

Sixty five outrageous lines of which at least half are more outrageous than Biden little comment.

Where are your 30 posts on that speech? Cite? :dubious:

But wait, let’s go back a little to some six months ago:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/18/politics/donald-trump-north-carolina-speech/index.html

I didnt see a couple dozen posts back in July, either, hmmm.:dubious:

There’s more:

50 Moments That Define the Trump Presidency

and this

Future generations will look back on Trump’s latest wind turbines rant in awe...

and these racist comments:

An Oral History of Trump’s Bigotry

wait, there’s more!

The 7 Most Unhinged Things Trump Said on Wednesday

"Thank you to Wayne Allyn Root for the very nice words. “President Trump is the greatest President for Jews and for Israel in the history of the world, not just America, he is the best President for Israel in the history of the world…and the Jewish people in Israel love him.…" Biden, in his long history of lovable gaffes has never come close to that one.

Like he’s the King of Israel. They love him like he is the second coming of God…But American Jews don’t know him or like him. They don’t even know what they’re doing or saying anymore. It makes no sense! But that’s OK, if he keeps doing what he’s doing, he’s good for…all Jews, Blacks, Gays, everyone. And importantly, he’s good for everyone in America who wants a job.” Wow! *
Can you top this with ANY Biden gaffe?
In that same press scrum on the White House lawn, Trump said he is looking “very seriously” into an executive order to end birthright citizenship, which was established by the 14th Amendment and passed in 1868 in order to secure citizenship for former slaves…President Trump: “We are looking at birthright citizenship very seriously. … It’s frankly ridiculous”*

Basically, your claim:*“When/if Trump says something similar, I’ll post in that thread.” *:dubious: will need a lot of work, like a full time job.

[raventhief]

@UltraVires

You mean got away with as in the crime was not found out? I agree with that. But if you mean got away with in the sense that if it was discovered and reported that a judge might say, “Well, that was his wife so he is privileged to kill her”? If the latter, then I very much disagree.

Even at the time of Blackstone, he stated that there was an “ancient law” that permitted a man to discipline his wife much like he could (and still today can) discipline a child, but Blackstone noted that today (in his time) such a privilege was no longer applicable.

I would be interested in seeing just a single case where a man was acquitted or not prosecuted because of some privilege to beat his wife so severely even if it caused her death. I have no reason to think that he wouldn’t be prosecuted with murder.

And that puts aside Biden’s assertion that is was so very common that judges had to get together and invent a rule of only modest beatings to prevent “so many wives … being beaten to death by their husbands.”

Domestic violence is a serious concern, but it is utterly irresponsible to suggest that it has been part of our culture for hundreds of years. The concern is not that polite society allowed it, indeed that was never the mark of a good or proper husband, but that society for years had a “well it can’t be that bad or else she would leave him” attitude that vastly oversimplified the problem and did not get to the root of the problem.

It is very dangerous, especially given that he should know better, as it militarizes groups against society on a falsehood.

Is this the full Blackstone quote?

The husband also (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehaviour, the law thought it reasonable to entrust him with the power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement… But, with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second, this power of correction began to be doubted: and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband; or, in return, a husband against his wife……Yet the lower rank of people, who were always fond of the old common law, still claim and exert their ancient privilege: and the courts of law will still permit a husband to restrain a wife of her liberty, in case of any gross misbehavior.

Bolding in both my own. If this were no longer applicable on the time of Blackstone, what were the “lower rank of people” exerting?

[RitterSport]

@raventhief

Is this the full Blackstone quote?

The husband also (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehaviour, the law thought it reasonable to entrust him with the power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement… But, with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second, this power of correction began to be doubted: and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband; or, in return, a husband against his wife……Yet the lower rank of people, who were always fond of the old common law, still claim and exert their ancient privilege: and the courts of law will still permit a husband to restrain a wife of her liberty, in case of any gross misbehavior.

Bolding in both my own. If this were no longer applicable on the time of Blackstone, what were the “lower rank of people” exerting?

And, the people of lower rank were, what, 50%-90% of the population? So, UV, is it your view that domestic violence is not an issue if only, say, [75%] of the population is still allowed to do it?

raventhief, thanks for finding the full quote! That was some out-of-context quoting by the OP.

[CairoCarol]

I think the OP has BDS (Biden Derangement Syndrome).

[Jonathan_Chance]

Let’s keep the personal cracks under control, please.

That goes for everyone.

[tomndebb]

In a warning in the Washington Post regarding the dirty tricks of the upcoming election, the abridged and doctored quote of Biden was addressed.

@Greg Sargent in the Washington Post

The video in question, which your humble blogger will not link to, shows only 19 seconds of a 13-minute monologue that Biden delivered in New Hampshire. Biden had been asked by an audience member to speak about his work and his agenda on sexual assault and domestic violence.

Biden opened by talking about how English common law in the 1300s allowed for husbands to beat their wives, and then said that we had inherited this “cultural problem.” Biden then talked at great length about his father’s teachings to him, his work in the Senate on domestic violence, and other related matters.

Toward the end, Biden circled back to English common law, and said this:

Folks, this is about changing the culture, our culture, our culture. It’s not imported from some African nation or some Asian nation. It’s our English jurisprudential culture, our European culture, that says it’s all right.
The edited video removes that first sentence and the very last clause, so all you hear is this:

Our culture, our culture. It’s not imported from some African nation or some Asian nation. It’s our English jurisprudential culture, our European culture.
As Daniel Dale pointed out, this is doubly dishonest: It removes both the larger and the immediate context.

It’s beyond the scope of this blog post to check Biden’s depiction of English common law in the Middle Ages. But what’s clear beyond any doubt from the full remarks is that in this particular reference to English or European culture, Biden — whether right or wrong — was talking primarily about our legal inheritance from English common law and its lingering impact on efforts to legally combat violence against women.

The broader references to culture more generally throughout are murky and a bit odd. But the overwhelming point he was making is that our legal inheritance and ingrained cultural habits are a big part of the problem.

One of the original purveyors of this disinformation (again, we won’t link) is still pretending this was an honest depiction, and is accusing those who supplied the corrective context of being the “real” purveyors of disinformation. Take this as a glimpse of what’s coming.

Unca Cece on "The Rule of Thumb."

So what we see, here, is one example of political chicanery trying to use a modified (and seriously truncated) film clip spread lies about Joe Biden. Ultra Vires is correct that there are no statutes in the last 300 years permitting wife abuse, although it is clear from the historical record that the powers of the courts and law enforcement were not employed very effectively to prevent that sort of abuse.

[DrDeth]

@tomndebb

In a warning in the Washington Post regarding the dirty tricks of the upcoming election, the abridged and doctored quote of Biden was addressed.

Unca Cece on "The Rule of Thumb."

So what we see, here, is one example of political chicanery trying to use a modified (and seriously truncated) film clip spread lies about Joe Biden. Ultra Vires is correct that there are no statutes in the last 300 years permitting wife abuse, although it is clear from the historical record that the powers of the courts and law enforcement were not employed very effectively to prevent that sort of abuse.

Great post, thanks!

[Kent_Clark]

Unca Cece also noted the no less an authority than the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights published a report titled Under the Rule of Thumb - Battered Women and the Administration of Justice.

Uncle Joe may have been wrong, but it’s not like he pulled the reference completely out of his butt. Unlike some of our current members of the Executive Branch.