We need to pass a law to ban named laws (or "Curling Legislation")

Here's a pretty good rule of thumb: If you're naming a piece of crime legislation after a crime victim, it's probably a bad law. It means you're legislating out of anger, or in reaction to public anger over a specific incident. That's generally not how good policy is made. -- Radley Balko, Senior Editor, Reason Magazine

"Nannyslature...What do you do when a mother comes in and testifies that her son got sick because he drank water out of a creek? Do we have a new law saying you can't drink water out of a creek? That's why you can't drink water out of a creek! That's why we have water-treatment plants. Lewis and Clark got sick when they drank water out of a creek...We're taking care of you. You don't have any responsibility to have any common sense."-- Washington State Rep. Phil Fortunato

The Free Range Kids blog recently reported the latest knee-jerk law in response to a tragic case: Leiby's Law. If this law passes, homeowners and store owners can voluntarily  submit themselves to criminal background checks and, if cleared, get a large, bright green sticker symbolizing that location as a safe-haven for lost children. Really? A 2009 New York study noted that 95.9% of all arrests for any RSO, 95.9% of all arrests for rape, and 94.1% of all arrests for child molestation were of first-time sex offenders. In addition, only one in four Americans (around 65 million people) have any form of criminal records. In short, the law will honestly prevent nothing. 

Named laws have been in vogue for a while. There is the Adam Walsh Act, Megan's Law, Jessica's Law, Sarah's Law (in the UK), the Jacob Wetterling Act, all directed at sex offenders. Laws named after people tend to be more knee-jerk responses that plow through legislature rather than common sense solutions which came after lengthy debate and rational focus to create narrow definitions to address the actual problem. This phenomenon does not seem to be limited to sex offender law. Below are a few examples of named laws on various subjects:

1. Texas's "Ashley's Law": This law increased penalties and registry requirements for sex offenders was named after seven-year-old Ashley Estell ,who disappeared from a park in 1993 and was strangled to death. Her body was found the next day by a roadside. A sex offender named Michael Blair was arrested and convicted on circumstantial and faulty evidence. Michael Blair was exonerated in 2008 when a series of DNA tests proved his innocence.
2. South Carolina's Chandler's Law: This law mandates ever ATV user under 16 take a $55 training coursewhile riding.While some of the law is indeed common sense, the criticism of this law is based on human nature, as noted in the linked article. First, "people will always be idiots." Second, "accidents will always happen." "Common sense doesn't always happen, and shit happens." In other words, passing more regulations won't prevent accidents. People are still free to ignore the new law.
3. NJ's "The Tyler Clementi HigherEducation Anti-Harassment Act": This law looks to prevent college bullying by dramatically expanding the scope of existing anti-harassment regulations.The newer law replaces a narrow definition of bullying with a broad and vague definition that suppresses a great deal of free speech. 
4. Laci and Connor's Law: This law which makes it a federal offense to harm a fetus during an attack on a pregnant woman was named after Laci Peterson, who was 8 months pregnant when murdered, is heavily criticized as a backdoor attack on abortion rights.

 The current legal flavor of the week is Caylee's Law, inspired by the Casey Anthony Trial. The law was begun by those unhappy with the trial's outcome (she was found "Not Guilty" because of a ramshackle prosecution case who relied on emotion rather than facts to try his case). There was a law proposed by watchers on Nancy Grace and crime TV shows who lack understanding of the justice system. Five states, including Florida and Wyoming, are looking at drafting a "Caylee's Law."

So what is "Caylee's Law" and what will it do? Well, supposedly it will force parents to report their children missing within 24 hours or report a death within an hour. While it sounds like common sense, many articles are questioning the law and offering scenarios that may lead innocent people in jail. Is it truly "better safe than sorry" to panic and call the police every time a child cannot be immediately located? Consider THIS WYFF TV STORY as an example. The missing kid was hiding in his own room where he was "missing"-- K-9 units and Reverse 911 was utilized to find a child that never left his room. Many missing person's reports are resolved this way.

The real fuel for the Caylee's Law is partially our unsatisfied bloodlust for Casey Anthony's head on a silver platter. However, the other half is our faulty belief that mere laws made in haste will somehow prevent rare tragedies from occurring. The "curling parenting" generation is fueling many of these laws. Maybe we can refer to this trend as "Curling Legislation." Laws named after kids may have good intentions. After all, who wants to see a child seriously hurt or killed? However, at some point we must come to the realization we can only do so much in our society to prevent rare tragedies from happening.

Which is a better memorial? An ill-conceived law passed in anger and ignorance? Or an act that uses a rational approach to addressing the root causes of societal concerns? Honestly, we need to propose a bill that will ban the use of names in the bill. Please, just don't name it after anyone.

Legal misandry: The true silent epidemic

Domestic violence laws are controversial in many ways, primarily because of the low standards required and the gender discrimination against men. Men are already seen as potential predators by many victim's groups. It is socially acceptable to cast men as potential predators. Child victim advocate John Walsh even advocates not hiring male babysitters because men are all potential pedophiles in his eyes. Maybe he just feels that way because he has battled sexual addiction over the years. No one questions that belief, and as a result, men must face uphill battles in defending outlandish accusations of abuse of any kind in court, be it sexual abuse of a child or against a protection order against a woman.

Our society has been inundated with Radical Feminist propaganda for many years. Popular culture has romanticized the concept of vigilantism against "abusive men" in movies like the Feminist film Thelma and Louise and Sleeping with the Enemy, and in songs like Janie's Got a Gun by Aerosmyth. Lorena Bobbitt was exalted by Feminist groups and other extremist "domestic violence advocates." Just type in the word "battered" in Google and the first results to come back include "battered woman's syndrome," "battered wife's syndrome," and "battered woman." There is a "battered men/ husband's syndrome," but to be honest, even I am surprised anyone has ever coined the term, and I doubt this has ever been used as a defense in court (the technical term is "Battered Person's Syndrome," but again, the term is generally applied to women). Do not not forget the discrepancy in sentencing for men and women are significantly different as well, with women getting shorter sentences for similar crimes as men.

There is probably no greater discrepancy in the gender gap in the area of domestic relations. Allow me to introduce a perfect illustration. Lets say you've been in a relationship for so many years to a woman who has a clinical diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder, Major Depression, has paranoia, and a family history of schizophrenia. She believes all men are indeed brutish, violent, and prone to cheat. As the man in this relationship you are subject to interrogations, invasive searches, and constant surveillance without ever giving the woman a reason to believe you are a womanizer or abuser. You are "walking on eggshells" as your every action becomes suspect. If a woman that isn't wrapped up like a Muslim wife in public, she would go on tirades about the perceived trashiness of the woman and accusations of lust for the woman of loose morals are directed at you. You reach a point in your relationship where you want out because you are tired of feeling like you are the subject of an FBI investigation rather than a loving hubby/ boyfriend/ fiancee.

When you two break up, she calls the police on you and makes a wild accusation. The police hassle you but they don't arrest you because you did nothing wrong (but as they see it, they "haven't caught you"). You pack up her things and leave them at her place in neat little boxes. A few days later you get a knock at the door; it is a sheriff's deputy handing you a restraining order. You feel a sinking feeling in your chest as you are treated like you just murdered someone. In 2 weeks you go before a judge and plead your innocence. The "ex" paints a picture of you as some kind of "monster," and the female judge accepts her on her word only. The judge rules against you. You have no defense. You are a man, after all.

How many times has this scenario played out in court? There is no telling. Men are the "stronger" sex, after all. Men do not report domestic violence against them because of many reasons, including a fear of a 911 call turning against him, fear (mostly of being accused of being abusive himself), societal disbelief, and shame. You can even say it seems like a joke, the thought of a big, burly guy whipped by a 5'3 woman. The cultural belief favors the woman, and many women know it. As a result, arrests of female abusers are rare.

There is another element of abuse that is not considered, though is often used in defense of women abused by men. Women tend to be more emotionally and psychologically abusive (though some were physical). Some women abuse their men through the legal system that favors women in domestic laws as well. It is far too easy to traumatize a man through a false allegation in the domestic civil courts, where only a "preponderance of the evidence" (a low standard of proof suggesting the allegation is "more likely than not" something happened) is the standard by which you are labeled and condemned. It is hard to prove psychological abuse, and as a man it seems the standard is unconsciously raised to "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt."

I have experienced firsthand the impact of psychological and emotional abuse from a woman. It is essentially the same as "Asymmetrical Warfare." Asymmetric warfare, in a nutshell, is the use of tactics to compensate for being the weaker force in a war, like Guerrilla Warfare or terrorism. A series of small scale attacks compromise the will of a larger force. perhaps the term "war of the sexes" has merit. I have suffered the long term effects of abuse, but as a man, I really have nowhere to turn. There are no "battered men's shelters," no assistance programs for men displaced by leaving his abuser, or even a support network. Equality is a myth.

Radical Feminists have been called "Feminazis." In light of many things they have stated publicly, I can see why Radical Feminism is seen with such disdain, yet their views are accepted in culture and the courts. It is not about "equality" of the sexes, it is a matter of usurping power. Ironically, Radical Feminists become the very evil they are claiming to fight. The symbol of the justice system is a scale, not a pendulum. Equality is a balance, but the Radical Feminists Courts are a pendulum. It takes more men willing to speak out against their abusers. We must not continue to suffer in silence.