Community | February 01, 2010 | 57 comments

In Maine, it doesn't pay to be a man

source: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/02/01/in-maine-it-doesnt-pay-to-be-a-man/

Image
MotherForTruth
February 1, 2010
By Carey Roberts

Practically everyone in town knows Amy Dugas is a serial batterer. But the Maine criminal justice system keeps finding ways to keep her from facing the music.

In 2004 Amy assaulted her husband Mark in their home in Waldoboro. When the police officer came to arrest her, she kicked him in the groin. The judge released her on bail, ordering her to refrain from using weapons. Four months later she stabbed Mark with a foot-long kitchen knife, fatally severing his pulmonary artery. At the trial, she got away with the trusty I-feared-for-my-life alibi.

Two years later Dugas spent 125 days in jail following an attack on a male friend. In 2007 she was arrested again, this time for assaulting Brian Pelletier, her new husband of three weeks.

Each time, Amy Dugas was let off the hook with a chivalrous slap on the wrist, even though many were demanding she do hard time at the state pen.

No doubt about it, Maine's domestic violence industry has friends in high places. One of them is Mary Kellett, Assistant District Attorney for the Bar Harbor area. Think of her as Michael Nifong on steroids.

Inspired by feminist Catherine Comins' sneer, "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience," Kellett has taken to prosecuting every allegation of sexual misconduct, often ignoring glaring inconsistencies in the woman's account or clear evidence of consensual activity: http://www.fillerfund.com/marykellett.htm

In one case, Kellett summed up the case to the jury with this comment, "there has been no evidence presented to you as the jury that would suggest that a sexual act hadn't occurred on those dates," revealing a sad ignorance of the legal principle that the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff.

In another trial, Kellett did not present a shred of physical evidence, prompting the defense attorney to comment, "We were just very surprised with the only evidence the state had, that they brought these charges at all."

Unfortunately for her prosecutorial victims, none of them play lacrosse at an exclusive university or have wealthy parents to hire high-powered attorneys. As a result, many have spent months in jail awaiting their trial.

It gets worse.

Maine now has a law enforcement policy that says in effect if a woman punches the living daylights out of her husband, somehow it must be the man's fault. "Identifying Predominant Aggressors in Domestic Violence Cases" is a training guide put together by the Maine Criminal Justice Academy: http://www.maine.gov/dps/mcja/docs/Mandatory-Law/Predominant%20Aggressor.doc

A little background: It is well known that many domestic violence incidents are mutual in nature — she slaps him, he shoves back. One study by Centers for Disease Control researcher Daniel Whitaker reported fully half of all incidents of partner aggression are mutual. More often than not, it's the woman who instigated the incident.

So when the police arrive on the scene, they need to decide who to stick in the Paddy Wagon. For years, police used the commonsense yardstick, Who started the fight? But feminists don't cotton to that approach because, truth be told, too many women were getting arrested.

So they reached into their bag of tricks and — abracadabra! "Predominant aggressor" magically appeared in the law enforcement lexicon. Any guesses who the predominant aggressor might be?

Before I give away the punch line, you may want to see for yourself the Ms.-Information that the Predominant Aggressor curriculum bandies around:

1. The idea that abuse can be mutual is a "misconception" (I say so, it must be true.)

2. "DV is the leading cause of injuries to women between the ages of 15-44 in the U.S." (It's also a proven fact that the moon is made of Swiss cheese and the 9/11 attacks were masterminded by the CIA.)

3. Even if the violence is mutual, it's bad to arrest both parties because the "batterer gains more power." (Don't ask to see the research. I'm the one with the mic and I'll give you the boot if you start to ask questions.)

Then the curriculum goes on to enumerate the types of violence that it whimsically classifies as defensive:

1. Face scratches
2. Eye gouges
3. Bites to arm

Go ahead, ladies, scratch his face and gouge his eyes out. You can always say it was in self-defense — and now they'll have to take you at your word.

Patrick Henry College professor Stephen Baskerville has recently issued a stunning indictment of our contemporary criminal justice system, lambasting it as a "Feminist Gulag." Now in Maine, a man can be killed in cold blood without consequence to the perpetrator, prosecuted for rape with the flimsiest of evidence, or framed in a partner dispute on account of his sex.

And whatever happened to the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution?

© Carey Roberts

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/a/accused.asp
  1. groups:
    Community,   Current Cultural Issues,   Law and Justice,   Exposing the Wrongs,   2 more
  2. tags:
    Maine,  Mary Kellett,  bar harbor,  Michael Nifong
  3.     
    |

57 comments // In Maine, it doesn't pay to be a man

  • MotherForTruth
  • MotherForTruth
    • +2
      MotherForTruth  

    • I went back to the article and found several comments that touched my heart. I would like to share with you the 3 I found heart breaking. As a woman I find it painful that in the fight for equal rights my fellow females gave birth to misandry.

      #1

      2010-02-01 at 2:58 pm
      Great article.
      Maine is the most matriarchic state in the nation, and the Bar Harbor region is ground zero for radical feminism. Whether a female premeditates and murders her husband, stabs her boyfriend with a knife in a jealous rage, or drives drunk and kills a man, there is the highest likelihood that she will never really be prosecuted or get prison time in Maine.
      If you are a man and a woman accuses you of anything, and I mean anything, you will be arrested, tried, and convicted. You will probably lose everything in the process…your home, your reputation, your mind, and maybe even your life.
      Recently, a man was charged with a protection order violation for leaving a cell phone message for his estranged wife. There was no indication that he was violent or dangerous. He was suffered from depression (a big no no for men to have feelings of pain), and jail was the state’s treatment. At his arraignment he ran out of the courthouse. He tried to take someone’s car but a 19 year old woman beat him up and he ran away (some tough dangerous criminal he is). He was caught and Mary Kellett’s office immediately threw the book at him with the charges of escape, kidnapping, terrorizing, robbery and theft. He was lucky not to be charged with gross sexaul assualt for being beat up by the woman.
      No one in that DA’s office cared that he was just a very scared man in a lot of pain who needed his medication and wasn’t trying to hurt anyone. He was just a man who dared leave a message on his wife’s phone, and now he was facing charges fit for an Al-Qaeda operative. He committed suicide that night in his jail cell just a few hundred feet from Mary Kellett’s office. The 19 year old woman who beat him up was hailed by local press as a hero for her girl power.
      Men’s lives, rights, dignity and feelings have all become irrelevant and disposable, and in few places that message is made louder and clearer than in the Maine’s Bar Harbor region.

    • 2 years ago
  • MotherForTruth
    • +1
      MotherForTruth  
    • MotherForTruth:

      #2

      2010-02-01 at 1:55 pm
      A Colorado case set a troubling precedent. The DA dismissed murder charges against Ann Tatum because of the victim’s “past and present violence.” The present violence apparently occurred on the night of the murder. Ann had gone to confront her husband Jim about his alleged affair with another woman–and she went carrying a loaded pistol in her purse, a pistol she eventually emptied into her husband. Allegedly, he became violent at some point, which the DA contended was another example of Jim’s violence, even though Jim had never been convicted of DV in the past nor had Ann (or any other woman) filed any charges against him. The evidence of his past violence consisted of Ann’s statements and some rumors, rumors that suggested both Jim and Ann could be violent to each other.
      It’s possible, I suppose, Jim simply became violent in the course of the couple’s argument about the affair. It’s also possible that Ann pulled the gun from her purse and threatened to kill Jim, at which point he became violent as a form of self-defense. The only witness to what happened was Ann. Another witness claims he was knocked unconscious when the murder happened–and he was the husband of the woman with whom Jim was having the affair.
      The troubling legal conclusion is this: if a woman pulls a gun on a man and threatens to shoot him and he fights back, even in self-defense, he is guilty of domestic violence. And because he’s guilty of DV, she’s within her rights to kill him. And, of course, if he doesn’t fight back, she’ll kill him anyway and claim he did fight back. Either way, he’s dead and she gets off scot-free.

      #3

      2010-02-02 at 7:20 am
      No men are being put down with less regard than to violent animals. When a violent animal attacks the SPCA wants to know if you, the owner, was abusing the animal.
      In our country men can be put down with no proof.
      This is really happening. Any woman, any time, can just kill you and, even if you have witnesses, she will suffer not a day in jail and be lauded as a hero in the local paper.
      Women don’t want us stinky men using the same facilitie as women. It’s that back of the bus, train whatever for us.
      Or incarcerated for being of no further use to their overlords. How is this different than how blacks were treated during slavery? Can’t till the fields, what use are you, to the shed, locked up and, now that your a felon, lost your right to vote as well.
      How long till we need an underground railroad to help men escape their enslavement in this country?
      I think things have gone farther than we think, they have been 20 years ahead of us in law and culture for the last 80 years.
      I won’t commit suicide either, put me down for a fight.

    • 2 years ago
  • common_sense_please
    • +1
      common_sense_please  

    • Is this happening in USA? The accused must prove his innocence on unknown date of alleged crime which prosecutor herself picked out of thin air? …and no budget for the evidence of crime. Are you telling me that it is ok to send a person to prison based on these and supported only by statement of accuser who is an angry wife with a history of abusing others?

      No - the point is that the justice system as well as society is not as black and white and absolute as you would like it to be. There is just a certain percentage of people in the world who will always always always find a way to be evil and hateful towards each other and then try to use the law to excuse their personal responsibility.

      And honestly as long as the language being used in the original posts and/or in responses focuses on the petty attacks of who is more morally right--it becomes a pissing match that misses the overall point that domestic violence is evil and it hurts everybody involved and no one deserves to circumvent justice just because they can.

      A perfect example of this is Scott Roeder--he committed murder--point blank walked up to a man while he was in church and shot him execution style. His defense said he was somehow justified because he believed he was protecting the unborn.

      So everybody on both sides got all up in arms and started fighting the tired-worn out debate over who is more "correct"--pro-life or pro-choice activists and completely missed the point this man was evil and committed murder and then simply latched onto the first plausible defense he could find in the hope of somehow getting a lighter sentence or at least opening the door for other murderers to circumvent personal responsibility for their actions by using some type of stereotypical argument that insights passions rather than rational thought.

      Another example is how is it that the US military is over in Afghanistan and Iraq to essentially tell radical Muslim people their religion became a bit to radical and their belief system was a bit too extreme--while they shoot at them with guns inscribed with Christian bible verse references?

      So again I say--I like your idea that we should all be discussing gender inequality in sentencing for domestic violence issues and I agree without someone rabble rousing around this issue the justice system would still be upholding the Jim Crow laws--but we need to be very careful in not letting any forward motion that might come from debating and discussing these ideas get bogged down in the whole tired argument of feminism versus men being treated unfairly--because again--NO ONE deserves to escape justice or be given "pass" on receiving justice based solely on their gender.

    • 2 years ago
  • Incredulous
    • +3
      Incredulous  

    • This could get better, this could get worse, but items like the mentioned "Identifying Predominant Aggressors in Domestic Violence Cases" have their basis in psychological profiling mechanisms that are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the long arm of the government intervening in things like domestic abuse cases. I am reminded of a statement ex-president Gerald Ford once made, "a government big enough to give you everything you want, is also big enough to take it all away"

      Point is, if we are going to ask the government to resolve these cases, then we better be prepared for them to bring their ever-growing arsenal of profiling machinery to the table. Is said mechanism infallible? Depends on who you talk to, but as we know all too well, if there is a profit to be made from anything, then we are going to have someone, somewhere, selling it as the next best thing since sliced white bread.

      Parents, teach your children well, and don't let them go out there and mate with whatever fool gives them a second look, because if their conflicts end up in the court system, you have probably lost the opportunity to intervene in their lives. At the end of the day, domestic abuse always hurts more than just the one who gets carted off to jail. The kids are victims too, and more often than not, the abuser, male or female, was also a victim before he/she became an abuser.

    • 2 years ago
  • MotherForTruth
  • regjoeschmo
    • +1
      regjoeschmo  
    • Incredulous:

      what is even more troubling is the aspect of how current legislation in the majority of states force an arrest to be made of the "person capable of doing more damage", others even mandate that income also be a factor... Why is this?? It is a well known and often stated belief that men are moe capable of doing more damage, and make more money, often times these laws are used to put the abused in jail.....

    • 2 years ago
  • Mariased
    • 0
      Mariased  

    • Not all bad judicial decisions regarding women have to be automatically equated with feminism. There are a lot of feminists that are for complete gender equality, equal punishments, and equal opportunity. The women in this article and the decisions made by these judges do not accurately represent all feminists.

      In the Men's News Daily's "principles and goals" section it highlights an agenda of abolishing "the cultural ideals of a Feminist Society and its basic values." Every other article on the site is a bitter critique on feminism, dismissing them as mere "man-haters". They do have some valid grievances with the Feminist movement, some of which I agree with, but this poorly written article and the site it came from are clearly biased.

      I believe in gender equality whole heartedly. However, these kinds of unjust decisions and the anti-feminist backlash that follows are getting both (feminism and the Men's movement promoted on the site) movements nowhere. Men's rights and women's rights don't have to be separate.

    • 2 years ago
  • regjoeschmo
    • +1
      regjoeschmo  
    • Mariased:

      When groups like NOW and other such mainstream "feminist" organizations denounce the major personalities that have made specifically sexist and "man-hating" comments, then maybe the true feminists will obtain their equality status. Unfortunately the major groups show their intentions in their lobbyism efforts. To expose this aspect of feminism is not making a blanket statement on te movement in whole, but more exposing those who pervert the true intentions of the original movement for their own personal wants and agendas....

    • 2 years ago
  • MotherForTruth
  • Urgutterflower
    • -1
      Urgutterflower  

    • It took me a few seconds of digestion before I could find the words to express my "comment". Necessary evil? We must have radicals to show is the way to the middle road which in my mind is where we can find equality. This is a sad case (or I guess it would be cases), and we have heard cases from the other side as well, although usually not written in the same article. That being said while these cases are morally wrong, the other side has similar, so take these like the bumpers at a bowling ally, let them guide you to the pins and avoid the gutter.

    • 2 years ago
  • regjoeschmo
  • regjoeschmo
    • 0
      regjoeschmo  

    • When sexist ideology trumps even the basic rights to due process and the right to be treated equal under the color of law, there is a huge problem. This is just the tip of the iceberg....

    • 2 years ago
  • MotherForTruth
  • artemis6
    • 0
      artemis6  

    • This is not but one side of the story ! Cannot come to a reasonable conclusion . Another attempt at pity for the man . Unless you post both sides , I will never fall for it .

    • 2 years ago
  • MotherForTruth
  • artemis6
    • 0
      artemis6  
    • MotherForTruth:

      They wouldn't be if your posts were more researched . In journalism class , it is a basic requirement to get 3 corroborating , separate , sources (to be sure something is true), or at least two opposing ones . There may be injustices done , it is just hard to tell , when there is so biased , limited information . Violence is wrong against anyone . Man , woman or child . So is lying by omission . Using terms like " feminatzi " does not encourage justice for all . It encourages bias . THAT , from any direction , is wrong .

    • 2 years ago
  • regjoeschmo
  • MotherForTruth
  • common_sense_please
    • +1
      common_sense_please  

    • Okay we get your point. Sometimes justice is not blind and it fails by not protecting male victims of violence--but enough already with the rhetoric and the constant postings on the topic.

      Seriously--if you plan on earning or have a degree in social justice or social work and want to put in the time and hours to work for justice FOR ALL victims of an unjust court system and domestic violence--please post that instead of this divisive drivel for a change.

    • 2 years ago
  • MotherForTruth
  • common_sense_please
    • -1
      common_sense_please  
    • MotherForTruth:

      Because I actually do have an interest in the subject--I am just tired of you posting articles that seem to serve only one purpose IMHO which is to bait feminists and argue that men are treated unfairly by the justice system--because newsflash--the justice system treats everybody unfairly and also a shocker--people regardless of gender-- game the justice system and claim that of course they didn't do whatever crime they are charged with out of a desire to be evil--there is always some biological excuse or faulty belief system or they were the victim of sexism or racism or some other "ism" or they just plain point their finger at society as a whole for being to blame for their acts.

      So my point is please either step up and actually present a well rounded and thought out article on this subject that would engender true honest open debate--because I think we can all agree that domestic violence is wrong and sexism when it is aimed at men or women is wrong--and that being a victim of domestic violence sucks and nobody--regardless of gender -- should get by with injuring and killing another. -- or go away and take your need to passively aggressively attack feminists with you.

    • 2 years ago
  • regjoeschmo
    • +3
      regjoeschmo  
    • common_sense_please:

      Your comments in these threads would suggest otherwise.... This specific article is exposing eggregious sexist actions on part of a specific prosecutorial agenda. One that could be compared to such travesties as the salem witch trial and persecution of people because of their race.

    • 2 years ago
  • MotherForTruth
    • +1
      MotherForTruth  
    • common_sense_please:

      @common_sense_please,
      I am not here to entertain you, it you are bored please stop reading my posts. I am not only "interested" about injustice and corruption in our judicial system I am working hard on changing that. It comes as a great surprise to many that I am one of very few women absolutely disgusted with the anti-male media and anti-male laws. There is much work to be done to change that.

      What about you? What do you stand for? What are you doing to change the wrongs?

    • 2 years ago
  • MotherForTruth
  • common_sense_please
    • 0
      common_sense_please  
    • MotherForTruth:

      I have a masters degree in social work. I have spent over 15 years now working with victims of domestic violence. I spent over a year doing research by going to rallies and reading police reports and actually talking to people in domestic violence situations about discrimination within the justice system as it applies to how gay men are completely denied shelter or assistance and how lesbian women are not safe in shelters because their partners are women who can thus just walk right into the shelter and harass the woman trying to find safety.

      So I do understand the topic--and I do agree that a woman who is violent and abusive toward her spouse or partner should be held equally accountable under the law as a man. Again I strongly believe that no one should be allowed to beat or abuse or hurt another person and then claim some kind of privilege or silly stereotype suddenly excuses their behavior. And I understand it is frustrating that the justice system sometimes allows that to happen--just I also understand that sometimes judges and prosecutors and defense attorneys--and shocker--even defendants work to "game" the system and use the prejudices out there to allow them to continue to circumvent true justice.

      Also I never said I found you entertaining or expected you to entertain me.I simply asked since its obvious you want to debate this topic and that you feel passionate about it that you do some research on both sides of the issue and/or look at your own issues with feminism and "male hatred" and figure out why this is such personally big deal for you--and once you can quit with the projecting--come back and post something a little less biased.

    • 2 years ago
  • common_sense_please
    • 0
      common_sense_please  
    • regjoeschmo:

      Seriously do you understand logic? You start off by saying this is a specific case with specific ramifications--then in the next sentence you say that this case could be applied broadly or possibly indicates some type of wide conspiracy on the scale of the witch hunts. So which is it? A isolated incident or a major trend or just a comment on how maybe Stephen King should move from Maine because it "doesn't pay to be a man" there?

    • 2 years ago
  • MotherForTruth
    • +3
      MotherForTruth  
    • common_sense_please:

      There are plenty of anti-male sources of “research” and there is no need for more. It is not my goal to conduct the research but openly and genuinely debate societal issues.
      I can see your professional desire to point me to “look at your own issues” but this not a forum for psych evaluation. Your comment suggests that if someone is frustrated with prejudice, injustice or any other social issues they should seek psychotherapy. I strongly disagree.

      Once again, if you are knowledgeable and disagree with anti-male media and laws there are thousands who are not, and in fact choose to support it. My posts are to inform the majority who often are not aware of differences between “equity feminism” as the struggle for equal legal and civil rights and many of the original goals of the early feminists, and "gender feminism" as the action of accenting the differences of genders for the purposes of creating privilege for women in academia, government, industry, or advancing personal agendas.

    • 2 years ago
  • artemis6
  • regjoeschmo
    • +1
      regjoeschmo  
    • common_sense_please:

      its clear your perception is skewed, and you are taking my words as something they are not to fit your disdain for me.....

      "again this comes from not researching the prosecutorial misconduct within the specific govt body in which this article is based upon....."

      "Your comments in these threads would suggest otherwise.... This specific article is exposing eggregious sexist actions on part of a specific prosecutorial agenda. One that could be compared to such travesties as the salem witch trial and persecution of people because of their race."

      the word specific was based on the govt entity, of course context would be clear here in common sense situations.... I then was more specific on my original statement as it seemed the first one was not understood..... unfortunately they both went misunderstood, but you can read the first sentence to understand why.....

      I find it hard to believe that someone can claim to agree in the idea of equality, but argue against it so wholeheartily.....

    • 2 years ago
  • unimatrix0
    • -6
      unimatrix0  

    • this is just poorly written propaganda from some one with an ax to grind - probably some guy who got busted for hitting his wife or girlfriend.

    • 2 years ago
  • vicgal
    • 0
      vicgal  

    • females know they have the upper hand when it comes to domestic disputes, so men if the one your living with puts your health or freedom in jeopardy it's best to re-establish a life elsewhere and believe me if you think money is a concern your wrong.

    • 2 years ago
  • kovadose
  • Saladin
    • +6
      Saladin  

    • The Feminist movement has shot itself in the foot with people like this.

      Too often modern Feminists are advocates for maintaining sexism that's beneficial to them and eliminating sexism that isn't.

      Aren't we all supposed to be equal? In the ideal society, men and women alike would be drafted, play sports, do the same jobs and both would be encouraged to be both aggressive and nurturing.

      That was the real Feminist dream, not this petty, collective revenge against men. They're invoking phantom male aggressors to justify what is really just the female version of what they're trying to prevent.

      I've actually met people like this at my school, they are criminally idiotic and as bigoted as the people they oppose.

    • 2 years ago
  • MotherForTruth
  • Kari_Heaberlin
  • MotherForTruth
  • Kari_Heaberlin
  • MotherForTruth
    • -1
      MotherForTruth  
    • Kari_Heaberlin:

      Following your logic that statements in quotations are taken from the court documents and maybe even trial transcripts, then I find the following very disturbing,

      - Child is quoted as stating "my mother would hit everyone in the house. She was a terror to everybody." It also appears that the wife has a history of abusing another man in her life http://www.fillerfund.com/criminalcharges.htm

      I find this very strange that prosecutor Mary Kellett would state that "My job as the prosecutor is, I put a date in. You know, December 15th [2005] is just a date I chose to be in December before the school vacation. It doesn't have, really, any significance except for to orient you about the time or place. It's not an element of the crime.", and this

      "there has been no evidence presented to you as the jury that would suggest that a sexual act hadn't occurred on those dates", and the "The State of Maine does not have an unending budget just to pursue things that are not relevant."

      "The Police officers testified that Ms. Filler refused to have a medical examination."

      Is this happening in USA? The accused must prove his innocence on unknown date of alleged crime which prosecutor herself picked out of thin air? …and no budget for the evidence of crime. Are you telling me that it is ok to send a person to prison based on these and supported only by statement of accuser who is an angry wife with a history of abusing others?

      And what about all these men ADA Mary Kellett prosecuting whose lives have been destroyed and http://www.fillerfund.com/marykellett.htm and no wonder she herself states "that it could be difficult to find jurors for sex cases because many people have been victims of sex offenses or have been accused of committing them." Bar Harbor Maine appears to be the Capital of Rape.

    • 2 years ago
  • regjoeschmo
  • venitreac
  • feefer2010
  • CalgarC
  • curtisreed
  • treewolf39
  • MotherForTruth
  • nursediesel
    • +1
      nursediesel  

    • It happens here in PA as well. A woman walked after killing her husband, claiming abuse. She, also, killed her second husband! (Abused woman marry abusers defense)
      She then started dating a distant relative....they beat each other up! She's been in and out of jail for many other reasons but for some reason she's very convincing with the abused woman plea???!

    • 2 years ago
  • remanns
  • 402Chicago
  • CalgarC
  • Progresshiv
  • Progresshiv
more from Community:
from the community

top videos