No, au contraire. The following policy _will_ guarantee that users will act like adult human beings:

mount -o noexec

use one of these when nobody else is watching. Problem solved.

In the old days, when we liked to have an onion in our belts, because it was fashionable than, the Z-80 processor that drove our computer was the same that drove the video, i.e., took the bytes from the video memory and generated the corresponding image in the CRT. So, if you crashed the processor very badly, and it stopped responding to video interrupts, then your image generator could go "out". If it was connected to an RF generator (which was also fashionable at the day), it could turn that off also, and then, sshskhskhkshshskhsk no RF on channel 3/4, snow snow snow noise noise noise.

Where I live there are no software patents.
Sane, isn't it? ;-)

I don't know why you answered the way you did, just for flamebait, or you are really that thick? The GPP said that her friend was sent by her abusive husband to the hospital and that charges were pressed. _That_ is motive enough for what our judicial system calls "preventive prision". And the (allegedly) perp should be thrown in jail for the woman/kids protection, that's it. If he is innocent, he will be let out eventually.

Now, if your wife does bang her own head in the door till she gets a black eye and she shows up in a shelter, I'm sorry, but: (1) you should have married better and (2) you should be ordered away from her (and your kids) (and maybe go to jail) until things are cleared up because the statistics are against you. It's preferable to lock up one guy (Joe) for two nights than to let another (Bob) out that beats the wife to a lifeless pulp. It's hard to think that way when you think you can be Joe, but it gets easier if you think of Bob's kids.

Yes one has the right to "confront one's acusser"... IN COURT, thru the judicial system, not in person or by phone.

Search for "ubuntu intrepid" in TPB :-)

the "especially when there is a vigilant DA around" part was meant to convey exactly that: depending on where you live, you can be less sure of it working right, but the rules are there -- where you have good people in charge, things do work.

I got kind of worried reading this phrase, because it indicates that she didn't press charges against him for the battery (otherwise he would sleep in prision while she was at the hospital, and the DA should have pursued relief for her at his bail audience, no?) and _that_ is a big "no, no"...

answer at #26903847...

answer at #26903847...

answer at #26903847...

answer at #26903847...

Man, I will answer here, but my answer goes to everyone that criticized my post (that had a hint of flamebait to it, really).

I know what I am talking about, I worked for a couple of years in a small town's DA office as an assistant/paralegal and I dealt with battered wives, social workers, the police, the whole she-bang. All there is to it is horrible, I can guarantee you. My wife (as a DA in another town) dealt with it for most of her (15 years long by now) career, and still have to deal with some of it.

Battered wives _must_ be isolated from their abusers quickly, swiftly and irrevocably. If the system does not do that, they go back to him, many times because they think that they don't have marketable skills / enough money to raise the kids or to live, sometimes because religion tells them that they must cope with that, sometimes even because they were conditioned by the abuser to think they deserve to be beaten.

If she made it to the shelter, she calls 911 (999/190), the police gets her kids wherever they are, and they go thru the system. For the night, they don't stay with the abuser. She does not call him. Her lawyer/public defendant/the DA gets the abuser arrested, and the judge will see if it is enough a court order for him to be out of the house.

IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES should abuser and abused exchange words directly. If visitation is granted to him (normally after some time), the victim should arrange for other person (relative, neighbour) to deal with the exchanges of the kids, and should call 911 (etc) at once if the abuser disobeys any terms of custody and/or visitations, because he does not want to go to jail in contempt.

This is women's rights protection 101, and even Brasilian police takes this in a very serious way (especially where there is a vigilant DA), so I have no reason to believe it's not so in other, supposedly more developed countries.

I said it and I will say it again: if the other person is abusive, you should not be communicating with them via telephone, only via lawyers and police officers.

If a battered wife wants to talk directly to her abusive husband, then she is absolutely stupid. Sorry. Battered wives should talk to abusive husband thru lawyers and police officers only.