This fine book is available now at our bookstore....

Terms of Enforcement: Making Men Pay for What They've Done

by Steven S. Richmond

220 pages; quality trade paperback (softcover); catalogue #01-0585; ISBN 1-55369-183-0; US$22.50, C$29.95, EUR19.50, £13.50

In Terms of Enforcement: Making Men Pay for What They've Done, the author, a psychotherapist and former senior level state social service administrator, tells to his therapist, Dr. Alicia Morgan, the story of his entanglement with the Massachusetts courts, prisons, and mental health system. He needs Dr. Morgan's help to understand how his wife of 30 years succeeded in obtaining a restraining order as leverage in their divorce settlement, and why the courts allowed his wife's petition. He had never harmed his wife.

Read more!

About the book      About the author      Sample excerpts       Catalogue info

About the Book Terms of Enforcement: Making Men Pay for What They've Done is the story of failed courts, mental health, and social service systems. Ordinarily such an observation is not remarkable and that in itself is unfortunate. But in the case of the author's story, these failures are deliberate. Worse, as widespread as this problem is, these failures are unreported in the press and the professional literature. How could this be? In an effort to protect women from domestic abuse, human service professionals and judges institute policies that make them appear to be the champions of abused women everywhere. Zero tolerance/ pro-arrest policies appear to be just what we need to combat the epidemic of domestic violence. We are convinced that a rigid policy is a force for good. It sends a message, we believe. It says to abused women that we care about them. But what happens when there is posturing behind this policy? What happens when an apparently noble policy is window dressing meant to give the illusion of caring about citizens? What happens when the appearance of caring extends to the point that courts and social service agencies become willing to sacrifice innocent men to satisfy a political agenda? What happens when judges and human service professionals lack the courage to institute standards for screening and substantiating reports of abuse? The courts become the repositories of a noble hypocrisy. One might expect judges to be troubled by this. But judges appear to be unperturbed. They feel confident their hypocrisy will be safeguarded. The tragedy isn't there. The consequences to falsely accused men are catastrophic. Their lives will be ruined. But maybe worse than that, the injustices done to them will be tolerated, even applauded. Since the O.J. Simpson trial in 1995, we have entered into a period of nationwide anxiety about men. As a result, men have become easy targets of false accusations of abuse. Once accused, they are afforded no legal remedies to challenge the allegations made against them. In fact, women are advised by their lawyers to allege abuse for the sake of winning legal tugs of war in matters of child custody and divorce. Why? Because lawyers now realize that judges will rubber-stamp their requests for protection without question. In many states the standard for evidence has descended to the level of take-my-word-for-it. This gives their clients an obvious and extraordinary advantage. The author is a human service professional with 30 years' experience. In the course of his divorce proceedings his wife obtains a restraining order after explaining to the judge that he might be a danger to her because he has carpentry tools in his car. Terms of Enforcement: Making Men Pay for What They've Done is the author's unescorted passage through Hell and a story for everyone to consider who cares about justice and the search for responsible ways to protect women who are at genuine risk of domestic violence.

About the Author Steven S. Richmond, MSW, MA is a psychotherapist, prize-winning author, and expert on social services delivery systems. His first book, Public Welfare: Notes from Underground, has been required reading for graduate students of social work for more than two decades. He has devoted the last thirty years to developing public and private programs to help families remain intact. He now travels and speaks before groups interested in improving services to vulnerable populations in their communities.

Sample Excerpts

Excerpt #1:

Judge Buckley: Good afternoon, Mrs. Richmond... Just give me a moment to read your application.... What is your relationship to Steven Richmond?

Lucinda Richmond: My estranged husband.

Judge: Are you still married?

Lucinda: We're in divorce proceedings.

Judge: There's been no physical abuse... has there?

Lucinda: Not-t-t... during this period of time... and not... but he... it's very hard to describe... he's very agitated... whatever he's going to express... he's very agitated... and... he has a very menacing presence... style.. I can't exactly describe it...

Judge: Do you know if he has any weapons?

Lucinda: Not-t-t ... to my knowledge... does he have a firearm... Uhm-m-m... let me qualify that... he does a lot of carpentry... and... as a result of that... he does have a lot of cutting-type things... but nothing that could be designated specifically as a weapon...

Excerpt #2:

I stood motionless, awaiting instructions in the changing area beside the bank of gray lockers. The C.O. appeared to bellow when at last he spoke directly to me.

"What are you in for, MIS-ter RICH-mond?" The C.O. stood behind his desk, to my left, about ten feet away. He was tall and crisply dressed, completely at ease in his uniform, straight but relaxed. He wore a shiny black garrison belt with a holster at his side, and his starched, dark blue shirt had vertical pleats that seemed to have been stitched in place.

Now, in my forty-nine years I'd developed a curious ability to 'numb-out' when I felt someone was about to launch an attack against my personhood. It was a curious if familiar feeling, going into shock like this.Ê Still it provided a psychic sanctuary. It leavened the experience of psychological overload.

I restricted my breathing. I began formulating a brief mental list of objects around me: walls, windows, floor, and ceiling. Check. Those things are in place. I took in as little as possible, usually only the things I took a fancy to, or thought were essential landmarks for finding my way back to reality once the assault was ended. Objects in the room seemed like beacons bobbing in a hostile sea. They were moorings. They would help me later return to consciousness, to reclaim my footing on the surface of awareness. I faced what I imagine a deep-sea diver has to go through on his return to the surface. There's always the problem of the bends to worry about.

The C.O. continued. "No. Don't tell me. Let me guess. DOUGH-MESS-DICK. Right?"

He was, of course, right. I increased the pace of my mental note making.

Ê "That was hard. Don't say a word... let me tell you." The C.O. paused a moment. He appeared to be formulating a fresh attack upon me when, instead, he dropped his shoulders slightly and eased forward. "Come over here, Professor," he said as he wiggled his index finger, motioning me to approach him.

I abandoned my mental machinations and stepped forward.

"Yes, C.O.?"

"Don't know the drill, do you, Professor? Never been here before, have you?"

"No, C.O." I felt flushed. I wasn't sure what rabbit I was expected to pull out of my hat. I had just moments before disrobed, squatted, and spread the cheeks of my buttocks so that this C.O. could stare into my behind to be certain that Steven Scott Richmond, Inmate Number 243249 with no priors, awaiting District Court adjudication for alleged violation of Restraining Order Number 9812R0102 (reference here M.G.L. Chapter 209A, Section 7), was not concealing any contraband. No files. No drugs. Nothing.

I, too, had looked at the floor directly below my dilated buttocks to make sure nothing had fallen out. In the past two years I'd grown accustomed to having everything about myself called into question.

Excerpt # 3:

"Infrastructure," Dr. Morgan blurted out. "I won't once use that word."

"What are you doing?" I asked, startled at Dr. Morgan's interruption.

"I've been listening, and I just thought of this. I thought maybe we hadn't talked enough about this form of therapy. It's been bothering me. I thought maybe it had been bothering you, too."

"What are you saying?" I asked urgently. "What therapy?"

"This therapy," Dr Morgan explained. "I'm glad you finally asked."

"Paradoxical therapy? Is that what you're talking about?"

"Of course. You must have been wondering all this time what's so different about paradoxical therapy from other forms of therapy. I thought that if you ever asked I'd tell you that in paradoxical therapy we never once use the word, 'infrastructure.' Do you want to go on?"

"You're out of your mind, aren't you?"

"Only when it's healthy. You shouldn't always be in your right mind, you know. It's not healthy. Quite unhealthy, really."

"O.K., Dr. Morgan. What is paradoxical therapy?"

"It's like regular therapy, only more so."

Excerpt #4:

What isn't acknowledged is the way in which denial and rationalization operate in the court process.

Consider the structural dynamics. The court holds all the power in its dyad with the accused. Because of this, the court runs the risk of abusing its power in the relationship. What's more, the court's relationship with the accused mirrors precisely the imbalance of power we deplore in intimate partner violence. Yet, no one appears to be disturbed by this imbalance in the court. No one appears to understand that when the court abuses its power, the court, like the perpetrator, is prone to resort to the same primitive defenses of denial and rationalization. It is a common means of defending one's position in a dispute, especially if one side is taking a weak and untenable position, and especially so if the dispute occurs in a context as emotionally charged as domestic violence.

Whatever makes us think the courts are exempt from taking weak and untenable positions in a dispute? Think about it.

The court suspends all rules of evidence in making its decision to issue the restraining order. At the same time, there is no public will to uncover judicial abuse done to men accused of domestic violence. The court is free to rationalize its judicial mistreatment on the grounds that the court is looking out for the needs of abused women. And it will not matter if the accused has never abused his wife. Nor will the court's behavior be framed in anything but the desire to protect abused women, even though court personnel are well aware that some judges are acting to protect their futures on the bench and are willing to sacrifice falsely accused men to assure the judge's name doesn't appear on the cover of the morning news: "Judge Lets Abuser Go Free!"

Judges know they'll be excoriated in the press if any tragedy befalls a woman who has sought a restraining order without success. That judge will be tried and hanged in the press. It is so much easier to solve this problem, and to avoid this fate, by taking the zero-tolerance oath. It gives the impression that the judge cares deeply about the dangers faced by abused women, and it gives judges unrestricted license to abridge the due process rights of the accused. My God! Who could possibly object? Judges have the perfect rationalization for their abridgment of the rights of the accused, and the judge comes out smelling like a rose! Could there be a more perfect medium in which denial and rationalization could flourish?

Who will leap to his feet to object to the appearance of an altruistic act? No one. And, of course, it won't matter that the only people who object are the falsely accused, because they are not a political force. They have no credibility. They can be dismissed on the grounds that their objections are no more than pathetic attempts to succeed at denial and rationalization.

What a perfect circling of the wagons this is! And, what a neat example of circular argument. Circulus in probando! My conclusions about you are correct because my premises about you foretold me what I would discover about you. What protection it gives to both the accuser and the court! And, it appears to be both logical and virtuous!

Catalogue Information