EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Article from the Tico Times about the CR Supreme Court overruling certain parts of the new domestic violence law. Paragraph on why there is a genuine need for SOME SORT of law in that area. Paragraph on why at least one of these parts really was so problematic. Paragraph on how raging feminism in CR is swinging the country too far in the other direction. Final section is on what we can do to prevent such things from happening to us: 1) "never buy when you can rent", 2) consult with a lawyer if you do to protect yourself legally ahead of time, 3) don't live with her for very long and still take legal precautions and 4) don't rely solely on the law to protect you and make friends with authorities ahead of time so it never gets to court.
========
I'm not sure if this has been posted about before but I came across this interesting article in the Tico Times from last October showing that there is SOME hope:
Tico Times wrote:
The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala IV) late last week rescinded two articles of Costa Rica's Law to Penalize Violence Against Women, ruling them unconstitutional, citing vagueness in the wording of both.
More than 100 men were released from prison late Thursday following the court's decision.
The much-contested articles 22 and 25 address criminalization of “maltreatment†and “emotional violence.â€
Article 22 punishes perpetrators of physical violence against a woman by anyone “with whom she maintains a marital relationship, whether a declared union or not,†a crime punishable by six to 24 months in prison.
Article 25 criminalizes “anyone who repeatedly, publicly or privately, insults, devalues, ridicules, shames or terrorizes a woman with whom she maintains a marital relationship, whether a declared union or not,†and is also punishable by six to 24 months.
The law has been criticized for punishing male abusers differently from female ones, and conversely for protecting female victims differently than male ones.
The case was filed by public defender Marco Feoli Villalobos.
Just over 70 percent of men imprisoned under the law since it was passed in May 2007 have been convicted for crimes specified in those two articles, according to the National Institute for Women ( INAMU).
After eight years in the legislative process, the law passed, with 45 of the assembly's 46 members voting in favor. Several male lawmakers, however, stated after the vote that, despite perceived problems of unconstitutionality, they were afraid to vote against the bill for fear of being labeled machista, or male chauvinist.
INAMU called the court's ruling a “serious step backward,†and its president, Jeanette Carrillo, called on various government agencies “to fulfill their promise to safeguard the physical integrity of women in situations where there is a threat of violence from their partners.â€
Many lawmakers, including former Vice President Laura Chinchilla, who lobbied for the law while a legislator, were mum on the court's ruling.
In 2004, a series of events highlighted the lack of adequate domestic violence prosecution laws, including one case in which a Costa Rican woman was granted asylum in the United States after demonstrating that she was unable to be sufficiently protected here against her partner, who allegedly violated a restraining order on him over a dozen times.
source:
http://www.ticotimes.net/dailyarchive/2008_10/1020082.htm
Incidentally, that was followed up by this related article:
Marchers seek to revive women's law ruled unconstitutional. Maybe someone else can provide info on more recent developments regarding this law.
Why there is a genuine need for SOME SORT of law in that area: Now, don't get me wrong I'm sure that there is a serious problem of GENUINE domestic violence against women in CR and SOMETHING definitely needed to be done about it. HOWEVER, lets get real, the problem is almost entirely from abusive, machismo ticos (who often drink to drown their economic struggles), rather than from elderly gringos, who have been whipped down by years of US-style feminism, and who "mistreat" their tica partners with material goods and a lifestyle that they would never have been able to enjoy with a tico. Every time a tica ABUSES the new domestic violence law with these ludicrous made up charges they do a disservice not only to their gringo victims but to all their tica sisters who really ARE abused because they make a mockery of something that was well-intentioned.
Why at least one of these parts really was so problematic: I've always had a problem with that Article 25 provision in particular. “Anyone who repeatedly, publicly or
privately,
insults,
devalues,
ridicules, shames or
terrorizes a woman with whom she maintains a marital relationship, whether a declared union or
not ...†If someone
REALLY is abusive of someone else
IN PUBLIC, there will usually be witness that can verify what happened, whether it is physically or just emotionally. If someone is seriously
PHYSICALLY abusive of someone else, whether it is in public or private, there will usually be some form of physical evidence like a bloody lip or a black eye. And even if a woman is seriously
EMOTIONALLY abused even in the privacy of her home, again there is usually some sort of evidence such as the shouted insults of the guy being heard by the neighbors. HOWEVER, I don't believe this law as written said anything about the necessity of corroborating evidence (evidently not if this guy wound up being evicted). AND that part of the law was so vague it went TOO FAR the other way leaving INNOCENT guys vulnerable to any bogus charge some crazy or vindictive or greedy tica might dream up about things he ALLEGEDLY SAID in the PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES. If the burden of proof is on the ACCUSED, how is one to defend themselves and prove a negative in such situations?
How raging feminism in CR is swinging the country too far in the other direction: I'm sure CR has needed improvements to the status of their women in lots of areas from employment laws to Ch*ld support to domestic abuse, but it now seems like the hens are ruling the chicken coop, with the likes of this former VP Laura Chinchilla, SJ Mayor Maureen Clarke and Jeanette Carrillo & Mayrene Sánchez (both of INAMU). If they weren't all such strident feminazis they'd be looking at how to improve the law by correcting its more questionable part while still preserving its power where it is genuinely needed, instead of organizing marches to scare male legislators into backing flawed legislation. Another area where this can be seen is in their petty harrassment of MP's and other adult business over bogus code violations instead of improving the economy, which is the REAL problem, and making it so that so many women wouldn't feel they have to work in such places.
What we can do to prevent such things from happening to us:
1) Obviously, never marry someone who is so much younger than you and from such a different background because, as much as you'd like to believe it is all about pure love, in reality it will always be in large part about what you can buy her (btw, this tica may have been old enough to have an adult daughter, but in CR that still means she could be half the age of this gringo). And, if she'll marry you for that, you have to ask yourself what else she might do. Never "buy" when you can "rent". Clearly, there are many so-called "M-Men" around here who take a somewhat different view, so I'll offer several alternative approaches.
2) Even if you THINK it is about pure love, try to set yourself up legally so that this, or something like it, can not happen so easily to you. In the US, we increasingly have prenuptial agreements. Nobody goes into a marriage expecting it to wind up in divorce, but from a practical standpoint we know that a large percentage of marriages do wind up in divorce so we prepare for it. And these are for marriages between generational and culturally compatible people. Why would you do anything less with a young chica, even one you love and think loves you?
3) The law applies to all types of "domestic partnerships" ("anyone with whom she maintains a marital relationship, whether a declared union or not,†That seems somewhat vague. Clearly if you're formally married it applies. It also seems to apply to "common law" marriages which are the result of living together for 3 years or more. It might help to limit your cohabitation to under whatever that limit is. Most gringo-tica relationships usually don't last much longer than that anyway, or at least not the "good" part of it, and by the time the deadline approaches it is probably a good idea to send her packing and start looking for her replacement any way. Unfortunately, as written the law MAY also apply to any "undeclared marital relationships" (whatever that is) regardless of duration. So it would still be wise to cover all your bases whenever you allow a young chica to move in and live with you in a "marital-style" way. BTW, the article at the top of this thread didn't mention how long the old gringo and his tica were together.
4) Any talk of legal remedies may be moot anyway. I don't think the law was really written with bilking gringos in mind as much as it was meant to target abusive tico esposos, but that is the way it is being used by some ticas and, at least in this case, effectively. In the tico view, we've got deep pockets compared to them and they're usually even less sympathetic towards an old fat gringo shacking up with a young tica. Why not give the poor tica the benefit of the doubt over the rich foreigner? So I think MrLV's advice about cultivating sympathetic friendships with the local law enforcement is a very good one and an investment that could pay off for you in a variety of situations.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Calendar
I'll try to keep it up.
