Mark Fuller, Domestic Violence, and Privacy

In most of its details, the domestic-violence case of Mark Fuller was not all that unusual. One night in August, a woman called 911 from a hotel room in Atlanta, pleading for help, because a man was beating her. When the police arrived, Fuller’s wife, Kelli, opened the door. She had “visible lacerations to her mouth and forehead,” the police report said. During an argument in which she had accused her husband of infidelity, the report continued, she said that he “threw her to the ground and kicked her. Mrs. Fuller also stated she was dragged around the room and Mr. Fuller hit her in the mouth several times with his hands.” Fuller said that he had been defending himself from his wife after she threw a glass at him while he was watching TV.

 

 

Curated from www.newyorker.com

Add your annotation

Une réflexion sur « Mark Fuller, Domestic Violence, and Privacy »

  1. There is more to the audacity of a plea for privacy than the fact that doctrine of chastisement is no longer applicable and the fact that violence, even when perpetrated in private, is against public order and thus open to public scrutiny… I actually think that even under such very judicious logic, there is room for sympathy for those who make mistakes, break laws, and then suffer the punishment of public scrutiny, ridicule and judgment. I do not want to go too far with this sympathy, but the public can be very unforgiving and the court of public opinion can be a rigid and unkind place even for those who may very well deserve discipline via peer-control.

    However, what is grazed by the article, but not strongly applied, is the fact that Mr. Fuller is a judge… a position which in many jurisdictions call for a title « Honorable » or « Justice » preceding the very name of the holder of such a post. This is very much a public post, not in terms that his actions and performance are open to continuous public scrutiny (like those of performers or politicians – otherwise known as public figures) but in terms of the fact that his actions have a very public impact, especially in a jurisdiction where judge made law reigns supreme. Indeed, as the article points out – how could someone in a position of a judge, be prone to such bad judgment?

    The fact that domestic violence is a crime is only one part of the story – the fact that Mr. Fuller, has a responsibility to his law society, his bench, and most importantly to the public at large, to be worthy of the title Honorable or Justice, is the stronger argument here.

Répondre à ipitpol Annuler la réponse.