What about jobs? The economy sucks, unemployment is high, and some jobs just really suck. Some employers really suck. Some people really don’t have any more choice in quitting their hateful job anymore than they feel they can quit their psychologically harmful spouse.
I really don’t know where to draw the line, but we can’t protect everyone from emotional stress and anxiety, even if it does have long-term detrimental consequences. Why do men generally die sooner than women? The long-term damage caused by stress, maybe?
“Psychological abuse” sounds like grounds for a divorce, not jail time. Can anybody tell me why this law is needed and what problems it is supposed to solve? Is leaving your abuser so difficult when there is no physical component to the abuse? Is it any easier to press charges instead?
Is this not an attempt to even things up between men and women? IIRC (my search-fu is lacking) abuse of women by men tends to be physical, but abuse of men by women tends to be psychological. And men are often heavily penalised in the divorce process.
I Don’t think this law was targeting “Domestic inconsiderate behavior”. How come you don’t post a little story where a individual is emotionally abusing and manipulating their spouse or partner?
As for your depressed couple scenario, gosh I just can’t think of a way to handle that highly specific scenario, but I am guessing it would be handled in much the same way that mutually violent partners are handled without the psychological abuse law.
I didn’t say that the consequences of emotional abuse could be measured so as to assign blame. I said they could be reliably and accurately measured. Assigning blame is up to investigative work although likely candidates would probably come up during interviews and treatment. So I agree with you that what your imagination told me I wrote is out of step with reality.
Observations from neuroscience and psychopharmacology would disagree with the lawyer’s statement, but obviously it would be difficult to identify these “scars” using noninvasive techniques.
I would guess that it would be best to investigate the claims.
Obviously, the person responsible for the “abuse”.
Look, someone presents themselves as depressed and lacking in self-esteem. There could be many reasons for this: maybe they are just a depressive person with low self-esteem; maybe it is situational and caused by “emotional abuse”; maybe something else is causitive (or some combination of things).
By stating up front that the observed state is a ‘consequence of emotional abuse’, you are assuming the very thing that is under investigation (and is notoriously difficult to investigate!) .
Sure, a healthcare professional can tell if someone is depressed and has low self-esteem. What they can’t do, or at least I’ve seen no evidence of it, is easily assign this to a definitive cause - like “emotional abuse”.
I don’t believe for a minute that there is any such evidence. Where is the evidence? What, specifically, are the physicals results of long-term psychological abuse? If Jack punches Jill, possible physical results are bruises, missing teeth, broken bones, etc… If Jack insults Jill, there are not physical results, even if he does it a hundred times. There is a possibility that Jill may decide to dwell on the insults until the results stress can hurt her physical health, but she can also choose not do to so. Better yet, she can tell Jack to take a hike.
Besides which, as I and levdrakon have already said, anything can lead to stress, anxiety, low self-esteem, and so forth. Trying to eliminate causes of such things is therefore hopeless.
Obviously this law is different from the laws currently on the books. If it wasn’t, there’d be no need for the new law.
Lastly consider this. If folks can get hauled into court merely on the grounds that their partner has low self esteem, wouldn’t that give people a reason to not date anyone who has low self esteem? And wouldn’t the law therefore hurt people with low self esteem? Just asking.
I think there is some confusion between our remarks. I am starting with the assumption of emotional abuse because that is the subject of the thread. My point-of-view is that this behavior and behavior like it should be against the law because of the obvious damage it does to a person over time. Individuals that are willing to abuse others in this fashion should be punished. I am also stating that this law does not address nor is intended to address the short-term squabbles and various sorts of bad feelings that occurs during any tolerably healthy relationship.
I do completely disagree with your notion that it is “notoriously difficult” to investigate. I doubt you could find evidence of that because this kind of abuse has never been against the law. I also doubt that law enforcement decisions over domestic conflicts are based entirely in one type of evidence.
Further, I doubt that a psychologist/psychiatrist just makes a diagnosis without any context whatsoever; the kind of context that would reveal long-term, systematic abuse. What is being discussed here is a pattern of abusive behavior by one on another in a relationship: a pattern of insults, seemingly random disapproval, behavioral control, threats, and isolation that occurs over months and years that scrapes away at the victim’s sense of self-worth and ability to make even the simplest decisions. Do you honestly believe such a heinous series of interactions within something as important as an intimate relationship will just go completely unnoticed during a clinical interview?
Since I can’t easily post articles from peer-reviewed journals and also because I don’t feel like wasting my free time by introducing somebody to the field of behavioral neuroscience, I suggest you start with that Wikipedia entry and then go do the research yourself. I recommend trying various neuroimaging techniques along with abuse in your search terms.
It’s also interesting that you bring up stress as an example. I am not an expert in that particular field but I would wager that it has the largest body of evidence supporting the presence of long-term neurobiological effects due to prolonged stress which, of course, is readily exhibited in patterns of behavior that are connected to the damaged structures in the brain and outside the central nervous system.
The fact you think victims can just “tell Jack to take a hike” shows that what you are discussing the intelligent response to a short-term conflict, which is not what the law is addressing; again, psychological/emotional abuse, not a spat in a healthy relationship.
Also, this thread should make it self-evident why there needs to be a law addressing psychological abuse specifically. People treat the “psychological” different from the “physical” but I think this extends from age old mind-body dualism perspective, and is an entrenched aspect of our culture.
As far as what levdrakon had to say, I am happy to link you to this NPR report on the subject. It mentions that France has already criminalized workplace harassment. What a government, seems to give a shit about the people.
I recommend that report for a clear-headed discussion of the law. My only criticism is that the law should not be expected to reduce this behavior, only punish it and that there is no discussion of the biological effects of long-term abuse.
Mswas, there is absolutely no relationship between this law and thoughtcrime. So I am thinking that the French will be safe.
Nobody, I think this post addresses what I mean by psychological damage leaving physical scars. They are there, they are present within the convolutions of the brain.
[OT]If it is a work zone with workers present, marked as such with warnings that fines may be doubled, then hell yeah I’m going to go the speed limit, or no more than 5 over. Usually on an interstate you’ll see a trooper sitting near said work site-not taking a chance in that situation.[/OT]
As lev pointed out, this is a very fuzzy law that everyone probably breaks at some point. This gives wide latitude to police officers in interpreting what’s a crime and what’s not. The fact is that people are *sympathetic *to women showing signs of vulnerability, while *despising *weak men as wimps who should man up. Just look at the wildly sexist enforcement of domestic violence - woman-on-man abuse is almost never taken seriously. Therefore, despite whatever the real incidence of “psychological abuse” is, I’d bet good money that men will suffer more under this law than women.
Well, your article makes it pretty clear the law is about protecting women from men, so I’ll assume that’s also the purpose of the workplace law. We already have harassment laws in the US. That does nothing for a depressed minimum wage slave working for a rotten boss who hates him/her and is just looking for an excuse to fire them, and constantly gives them the worst hours, or cuts their hours, and gives them all the shit work until finally you end up with an unemployed alcoholic suffering from PTSD.
You may have missed the infamous “recovered memory” scandal, which occurred the last time there was a major push to allow the “expert” psychologist/psychiatrists’ testimony based on their diagnosis alone to form the basis of criminal charges.
Suffice it to say that this did not provide a great basis for such confidence that a healthcare professional’s testimony as to the truthfulness of an alleged victim’s testimony forms a great basis for criminal procedures.
It would appear that there exists the potential for something of a feedback mechanism between such professionals and the “victim” - the professional, comming from the angle of wishing to uncover abuse, encourages the “victim” to mold the narrative of their memories into one of abuse, often unconciously. This leads to an excessive number of false positives.
What you are missing is that there is a great deal of difference between a “diagnosis” for purposes of therapy and “evidence” for the purposes of a criminal procedure. The standard for a criminal conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A healthcare professional’s assessment based on their review of a “victim” will rarely if ever meet that standard; and other forms of proof will be difficult to come by, and not be very persuasive.
