A Spousal Tragedy

The recent commentary (“Judge Mirrors Spousal-Abuse Myths,” July 9) by Joyce Faidley unfairly criticizes Judge Bernard E. Revak for comments he made during the sentencing of Cmdr. Larry J. Evans for spousal rape. Faidley’s passion for the plight of battered women causes her to ignore facts that fully support the comments made by Revak.

An orchestrated effort was made by battered-women groups like Faidley’s to intimidate Revak to make an example of Evans. The public pressure began with television appearances by Mary Evans three days before Cmdr. Evans’ sentencing and was culminated by a courtroom filled with Mary Evans’ supporters and a petition signed by battered women (most of whom knew little about the details of Cmdr. Evans’ case) urging Revak to impose the maximum sentence.

Revak deserves credit for resisting this lynch-mob mentality and doing his job, which is to impose sentence based on individual merits. Revak properly considered that Larry Evans overcame poverty and segregated schools in the Deep South to earn a scholarship to Harvard Dental School, the privilege to practice dentistry and a distinguished 17-year military career.

Faidley fails to acknowledge that Mary Evans psychologically abused her husband by carrying on an open affair with another man during the marriage. The stress and anxiety resulting from Mary Evans’ infidelity caused Cmdr. Evans to be hospitalized with hypertension a few weeks before the sexual assault. Mary Evans exacerbated this volatile situation by inviting Cmdr. Evans back into the family residence, resuming a sexual relationship with him while continuing her affair.

While Cmdr. Evans’ violent reaction was deplorable, California directs Revak to consider these unusual circumstances. They also support his comments that Mary Evans bore some responsibility for the tragedy.

Faidley criticizes Revak for lamenting that state law required him to send a man of Cmdr. Evans’ caliber to state prison. Perhaps Revak understands that the state prison population is bursting at the seams (approximately 82,000 inmates in a system designed for 37,000). Incarcerating Cmdr. Evans will cost the taxpayers of the state $19,000 per year.

Revak commented that it would be far more appropriate to require Evans to use his skill as a dentist and perform community service for battered women or poor people, rather than languishing in prison. Interestingly enough, this alternative was proposed by a respected female forensic psychologist who frequently evaluates offenders for state judges.

Faidley’s commentary fails to mention that Revak protected Mary Evans during the trial. He limited the defense’s cross-examination of her, which sought to elicit details of her sexual relationship with her boyfriend.

Over defense objection, Revak permitted Mary Evans to testify about prior acts of spousal abuse committed by Cmdr. Evans, even though they were totally unsubstantiated. These rulings contributed to the conviction of Evans.

Faidley criticizes Revak for imposing only an 11-year term. The judge could have imposed as little as three years. Faidley cannot seriously argue that a potential spousal rapist would not be deterred by 11 years in prison.

It is ironic that Faidley attacks Revak for being insensitive to victims of domestic violence. As a prosecutor, Revak represented the interests of hundreds of victims of violent crimes. He knows the physical and emotional trauma suffered by them.

Finally, the motives of Faidley and the battered-women groups must be questioned. Three months before Cmdr. Evans’ trial, Mary Evans said she did not want to see her husband go to prison and lose his military and dental careers. Months later, Mary Evans was before the television cameras, with the battered-women groups urging her on, demanding that her husband be sentenced to prison.

But, once the camera lights dim, what about the future of Mary Evans and the Evans’ three children? Will Cmdr. Evansd’ serving 11 years in prison solve the complex problem of spousal rape? Are the three children better off with their father in prison and unable to support them? Faidley seems to think so. Perhaps Mary Evans will realize one day that Revak understands the tragedy of family violence far better than Faidley and her battered-women groups do.

CRAIG E. WEINERMAN

Attorney for Cmdr. Larry J. Evans