Friday, January 15, 2010

According to the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Senate candidate Martha Coakley wielded a well-honed scalpel of misandry against Gerald Amirault

She is the darling of the Democratic party. The anointed heir to the so-called "Kennedy Seat" for Massachusetts in the United States Senate.  But according to Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal, she has manifested what can only be described as unspeakable misandry against a man named Gerald Amirault.  Mr. Amirault, his sister and their mother were charged with preposterous, outlandish, and completely untrue sexual crimes supposedly perpetrated against children at the daycare school they ran in the 1980s. 

All three went to prison, but the women were released. Gerald was singled out for special treatment.  The Wall Street Journal notes that the horrific abuse charges against all of the Amiraults -- Mr. Amirault and two female family members -- were "identical in nature."  So why was Mr. Amirault singled out as the depraved ringleader of the trio? 

Why do you think?

". . .  from the beginning, prosecutors cast Gerald as chief predator—his gender qualifying him, in their view, as the best choice for the role. It was that role, the man in the family, that would determine his sentence, his treatment, and, to the end, his prosecution-inspired image as a pervert too dangerous to go free."

Read that again: ". . .  his gender qualifying him . . .as the best choice" for the role of "chief predator." 

Why let the facts get in the way of a good gender stereotype, so long as the person being negatively stereotyped is male?

Martha Coakley took over as the new Middlesex County district attorney in 1999.  Not only would she not entertain the possibility that Mr. Amirault was mistreated, Martha Coakley bought into the anti-male gender stereotype that justified treating Gerald different from the women, lock, stock and barrel.  According to the Wall Street Journal:

"When women were involved in such cases, the district attorney explained, it was usually because of the presence of 'a primary male offender.' According to Ms. Coakley's scenario, it was Gerald who had dragged his mother and sister along. Every statement she made now about Gerald reflected the same view, and the determination that he never go free. No one better exemplified the mindset and will of the prosecutors who originally had brought this case.

"Before agreeing to revise [Gerald's sister] Cheryl's sentence to time served, Ms. Coakley asked the Amiraults' attorney, James Sultan, to pledge—in exchange—that he would stop representing Gerald and undertake no further legal action on his behalf. She had evidently concluded that with Sultan gone—Sultan, whose mastery of the case was complete—any further effort by Gerald to win freedom would be doomed. Mr. Sultan, of course, refused.

"In 2000, the Massachusetts Governor's Board of Pardons and Paroles met to consider a commutation of Gerald's sentence. After nine months of investigation, the board, reputed to be the toughest in the country, voted 5-0, with one abstention, to commute his sentence.

"Editorials in every major and minor paper in the state applauded the Board's findings. District Attorney Coakley was not idle either, and quickly set about organizing the parents and children in the case, bringing them to meetings with Acting Gov. Jane Swift, to persuade her to reject the board's ruling. Ms. Coakley also worked the press, setting up a special interview so that the now adult accusers could tell reporters, once more, of the tortures they had suffered at the hands of the Amiraults, and of their panic at the prospect of Gerald going free.

"On Feb. 20, 2002, six months after the Board of Pardons issued its findings, the governor denied Gerald's commutation.

"Gerald Amirault spent nearly two years more in prison before being granted parole in 2004. He would be released, with conditions not quite approximating that of a free man. He was declared a level three sex offender—among the consequences of his refusal, like that of his mother and sister, to "take responsibility" by confessing his crimes. He is required to wear, at all times, an electronic tracking device; to report, in a notebook, each time he leaves the house and returns; to obey a curfew confining him to his home between 11:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. He may not travel at all through certain areas (presumably those where his alleged victims live). He can, under these circumstances, find no regular employment."

Martha Coakley's treatment of Mr. Amirault, her willingness to negatively stereotype him because of his gender, and her efforts to keep him imprisoned on preposterous, inane, fabricated charges solely because he had the "privilege" of being born male, causes Lady Justice to weep.  And Martha Coakley's candidacy for the United States Senate should cause every person of good will to weep as well.

Read the entire piece here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003341640657862.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular