Sunday, February 21, 2016

Guilt by association

BIG questions often in the news when married women are questioned about their husband's dirty dealings and at times also pronounced guilty if their husband's have done something unspeakably horrendous or even financially devastating for not intervening or stopping them; should they also be held or as in recent cases now one in particular going on, be disposed? (Absolutely, most times, even if they know nothing!)

Devil's advocate below and some possible thoughts on the other side:

Maybe I am one of those of the generation who believes that men with that much power hardly ever confide in their wives, so it might prove to be an exercise in futility to question those spouses, especially if doing something they would not want them to know about. I have known men to be much better at keeping secrets than most women.

I think only us regular Joes and Janes know where the money goes, since most of us either share or have a designated spouse taking care of the finances with input from each other in an open honest sharing situation. At least that's how we do it, and I do realize the young' ins think differently with separateness. Even many seniors second time around with prenups. To us though, Hubby and myself we believe that means they are preparing for divorce, the young ones, and that is just sad. My parents taught us everything is "ours", not yours or mine.
We also have a tendency to inform each other where we go and when, nothing to do with keeping tabs on one another; we feel that it's just being polite and respectful.

Getting back to what's in the news the innocent or out of the loop spouse is accused oh too often of being asked why didn't they know? And see, what I am saying here is many are so trusting of their loved one, like many of you are, so you can relate, and they believe everything they are told by them.
Just a theory, not an excuse, but I do think it might be a waste of time for any criminal investigation to deter punishing the proper person with information that most likely is not attainable, instead of going to a neutral source.
My other reasoning is if they recently found out they, the spouse, more than likely will clam up protecting the worthless SOB, just a thought; where do you stand?
With the advent of well renown sport's figures, comedian, coaches, financier etc. becoming monsters of embezzling, raping, abusing and molesting women and children we must all question whether or not the people being considered prime witnesses are not always unbiased or can become fearful of ramifications and are being threatened or blackmailed when they are interviewed, so never impartial.
Unless they are the victims themselves! (Also perspective can be compromised.)
Whole different story then in actuality and a necessary procedure.
Indirect/incidental victimization is also an issue in the other cases.
Most spouses involved with people who do these things are part of the horrific fallout, and although not guilty may very well feel that way, thus lie detectors might not work if used.
  
Oh yes I have been thinking and trying hard to figure out what good it does to question periphery case persons, mainly spouses in these cases that slows the actual process of prosecuting the alleged accused person.
I'm just saying... why put the victims through so many lengthy months and years of waiting to receive vindication? I know due to procedure and to prevent mistakes, but still why so long, really?

Just many thoughts... DISCUSS!

On that note of really wondering why, allow me to be the very first to wish all of you a very happy healthy safe good night and let me ask you to kindly count all your blessings and share all those overages with you know whom and we will too!

And next time please be here or be square, ya hear!



Post a Comment