Thanks to a tip from the other summer student, I got permission to go to court to watch part of a trial. This one made the papers, and likely the evening news in the area, for sheer stupidity on the part of the accused. I figure you've been deprived of interesting stories lately on my end, so here goes:
A man marries a young mother and they have a child, and a rather tumultuous relationship. He doesn't touch his stepkid, but takes to beating his wife periodically, as well as his biological kid, for "disciplinary reasons." The offences needing discipline were supposedly disrespectful behaviour (calling him by a name other than a vanity term he preferred) and disobedience. He had had previous run-ins with the law, but eventually the wife had enough and kicked him out (she being the wage-earner, rent-payer, and cook, while he laid about most of the time). So far, just a garden-variety loser sadly all too common, although the wife moving on is a welcome change. So what makes this special? A few things come to mind.
First, he didn't just hit the wife, he uttered death threats from time to time, claiming his right of dominion as husband and taking it to an extreme. Second, he only hit her in the face. Repeatedly. Third, he hit his kid with a plastic handle on the thigh enough to raise welts. Fourth, he also hit his kid (but only his kid - not any of the kids he coached at an elementary school or his stepkid) in the face and about the head hard enough to leave bruises that stayed up to two weeks. Fifth (and here's the somewhat stomach-turning kicker), his kid was between 2 and 3 years old at the times of the abuses. And he has the nerve to be surprised to get arrested after the wife takes the kid to the hospital and the cops get called!
[For you parents out there, in Canada section 43 of the Criminal Code allows corporal punishment in limited circumstances, and was upheld in a Supreme Court of Canada decision. Schoolteachers, parents, or guardians can use reasonable force for correcting behaviour, which does not include "corporal punishment of children under two or teenagers", or "degrading, inhuman or harmful conduct" such as "discipline by the use of objects", "blows or slaps to the head" or acts of anger.]
So he's facing ten counts of assault and threat related charges, and decides to represent himself. In police interviews he claimed to be Jesus Christ (sparking no shortage of behind-closed-doors merriment and mockery), but he didn't bring out this claim in court until his closing arguments. He got cross-examined very aggressively by the Crown - the lawyer almost had too much fun, poking holes in his assertions and defences and showing him to be a self-aggrandising control freak with a short fuse. His wife and young kid took the stand to testify (the kid being terrified enough to need a screen to keep him out of her sight), and the judge called a lawyer in to handle cross-examination, to keep him from exerting improper influence or control or emotional abuse of the witnesses. The Crown was very thorough in establishing each element of each offence, and he was facing a deep hole to get out of. So of course, he takes the stand to tell his story, brings a shovel, and starts digging energetically.
He quotes Scripture after Scripture (very selectively of course) from the usual passages, requiring wifely submission (leaving out the part of husbandly sacrifice), requiring use of a rod to save a child's soul and to prevent parental shame, and the like. He takes those passages literally enough that he only hits his own kid, and no others, because he's not their real father. While he's busy with his religious defence (claiming the Bible not only allows but requires such assaults by godly husbands and fathers) he's also going out of his way to agree with what the Crown's saying he did and why he did it. He's very controlled, very lucid, and very coherent on the stand. The judge is bending over backwards, repeating his testimony back to him to confirm what he said and what he meant, and while growing ever more incredulous the judge is basically begging him to get a lawyer's help. He repeatedly refuses, and later baldly states that women exist to serve and obey men, and that men have a right to forcefully keep women in their place. This earns a smirk from the two female investigating cops, a satisfied nod from the female Crown, and a slightly stunned look on the very prim and proper, impassively British female judge. The judge reminds him that he's under not only God's law but also the laws of Canada which prohibit child abuse and spousal assault - instead of trying to dig his way out of his pit, he instead works on edging details, making it look properly grave-like. He insists he's the victim here, just trying to be a God-fearing husband and father on trial for doing what the Bible says he must. The Crown then points out the pictures of a battered and bruised two-year-old's face, asking if this is what God requires. It finally sinks in that he's gone about his defence all wrong, and the vehicle he hears approaching his hole is actually a fully loaded dump truck ready to fill it in. He sputters a bit when the Crown points out certain other Scriptures and reasserts his right to physically exercise his dominion.
Well, just before the verdict his brother tells the judge that the family's concerned for his mental health, pointing out his delusional belief which he confirms almost as an afterthought. The judge, showing great restraint, points out the husband's many admissions on the stand and finds him guilty. Sentencing has been put off until September for the husband to get legal input, since the Crown will be seeking 3-5 years jail.
What I've told you is a pretty accurate reconstruction of what I saw and what I was told about the parts I missed. It's hard to convey his level of viciousness and pettiness, self-righteousness, and total sanity. It's also hard to describe the interactions back at the Crown office during breaks - most of the people involved in the case are Christians of some sort (rather resentful of the mud he was dragging them through by association), and the questions they wanted to ask were not only sacrilegious but also would have been devastating to his case. His Scriptural justifications were a transparent defence of convenience, and his claim to be Christ was a lucid attempt to cover his actions with righteous entitlement despite knowing it to be false, and everyone knew it. He was wilfully stupid as well as violent, and got buried for it.
The media managed to use this case to explain the spanking law and to speak against domestic violence and family abuse while showing the almost surreal sense of entitlement the man had. The Crown, despite many opportunities to turn the trial into a circus, showed remarkable restraint and settled for giving him a shovel and seeing what he'd manage to do. Bizarrely enough, of this Crown lawyer's coming cases, this was one of the more normal of the lot. I saw good examples of courtroom technique and ways of being diplomatically forceful despite great temptation to do otherwise, and got a story to share that I can barely do justice to.
That's all for now, I guess. My summer's winding down, and it looks like we're actually finally starting to get summer weather.
Cheers,
A.
