This was a difficult post to write. You see, there are two things in this world that are absolutely guaranteed to set my deeply repressed reptilian brain into instant violent response mode. One is child abuse. The other is wife abuse ("Wife" is colloquial and includes significant other/girlfriend/fiancee/fuck-buddy/whatever). I don't speak well on either subject because I find it very difficult to get past my emotional response to them. That general response to abusers could most concisely be represented as "Fuck the guy up".
Cathy has a problem with the response scheme in place for wife beaters. You see, there are many jurisdictions that will prosecute a wife beater even when the abused party doesn't want to.
1
I sent you an e-mail. But thanks. Thanks a lot.
Posted by: ilyka at May 07, 2004 03:44 PM (aAsCW)
2
Ook, broken linkee.
Posted by: ilyka at May 07, 2004 03:44 PM (aAsCW)
3
You're welcome, and link fixed.
Posted by: Jim at May 07, 2004 03:52 PM (IOwam)
4
I can't say I agree with you. It's not an issue I've thought much about my my visceral reaction is: guys who beat their wives/girlfriends/significant others are pathetic. Women who refuse to get out of abusive relationships are equally pathetic. If they choose to seek help, I'm glad there is help available. But I don't it's the state's role to intervene on their behalf.
Posted by: Tim at May 08, 2004 01:12 AM (xzzf0)
5
Lessee...law enforcement responds to a call for help. They find a woman with a black eye, abrasions, whatever, and a (more often than not) drunk husband/boyfriend/significant other. She says he beat her. He gives lame excuses, but essentially admits he's the one that inflicted the injuries. "I didn't hit her that hard, honest!"
And you don't think that the police should file assault charges because she decides she doesn't want him to go to jail?
Wow.
Posted by: Boyd at May 08, 2004 01:24 AM (IgLgi)
6
Women who refuse to get out of abusive relationships are equally pathetic.
Eeee-qually?
I'll dispense with the moral equivalence issue, except to note: I assume you think the Palestinian "freedom fighters" are EQUALLY as oppressed as the blown-to-bits-for-riding-a-bus Israeli children?
I mean, all else being EQUAL.
What I'd prefer to focus on is "refuse." Refuse? Do you really think that's the term?
I know we all have free will. But I didn't expect Iraqis under Saddam Hussein to exercise theirs--and I don't think that means they "refused" to. I didn't expect blacks in the segrated U.S. south to exercise theirs--but again, not because they "refused" to. I still don't expect many Iranians to exercise theirs--and not because they "refuse" to. And I don't notice many opposition papers operating in Cuba or China, either. They telegraph "refusal" by getting on boats you wouldn't set foot in if a gun were at your head.
There's having free will, and then there's being able to use it. It was one thing for an armed revolutionary during the U.S. war for independence to stand against a musket-bearing redcoat. It's a whole 'nother thing to know that just expressing the desire to be free could get you killed.
And you simply can't tell me it's better for a woman to risk having her ass beat to exercise her free will, than to have some equal protection under the law in the first goddamn place.
I'll tell you what's "pathetic." Moral equivalence is pathetic.
Posted by: ilyka at May 08, 2004 03:45 AM (SLNz3)
7
Don't forget that the police are also responsible to prevent crime as they are able. Domestic abuse situations are pretty much guaranteed to generate additional crimes unless the abuser is removed. Even if you blame the victim for the situation you have to at least be able to see that it is in the best interest of the law to arrest a wife beater.
Posted by: Jim at May 08, 2004 08:23 AM (saeHM)
8
There is an enormous difference between failing to prosecute a child abuser and failing to prosecute a spouse abuser: the child is helpless and the spouse rarely is.
What you are doing here in general, Jim, is infantilizing women. So are you for that matter, Ilyka.
By the way, don't either of you even dare to imply that I don't know anything about these things first hand. Because I do.
The fact of the matter is that women are as likely to be absuers as men. Furthermore, more and more research all the time is showing that very few women in abusive relationships are truly "trapped," and the old pattern of "get them out, get them divorced, get him in jail" method does absolutely nothing--
absolutely nothing--to cut down on abuse, and often winds up putting the wrong person in jail.
Your'e both basically being sexists: infantilizing and turning into helpless victims the women, and stereotyping the men as brutes. You're refusing to hold the women accountable for their actions and you're playing into the stereotype of putting the man in control of everything.
You might want to spend some time at Trudy Schuett's
Desert Light Journal as she's got lots and lots of experience both dealing with female abusers (who are usually apologized for if not outright dismissed by misandrist feminists and right-wing conservatives). You might also want to read
this, and note just how often people with attitudes like yours have wound up with batterers and abusers of the female variety being treated as saints and innocent men being thrown in jail.
You might also want to try reading
When She Was Bad: Violent Women & the Myth of Innocence by Patricia Pearson,
Abused Men by Philip Cooke (who documents, among other things, how the female abuser is so often treated as the victim while her innocent man gets put in jail), and
Insult to Injury: Rethinking Our Response to Intimate Abuse by Linda Mills, who has one hell of a lot of experience in this area.
You guys are both sexists. You let women off the hook, and stereotype both genders in the process. And unfortunately, you're setting forth attitudes about a very serious problem that do nothing to correct the problem. As emotionally satisfying as your anger may be do you, your attitudes don't actually help the problem.
I note, once again, that if you think I don't know anything about this from a firsthand, up-close-and-personal perspective, you are sorely mistaken.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at May 08, 2004 09:03 AM (LOj+R)
9
By the way:
It's because wife beating isn't just about physical punishment. It is dominance, violence, emotional abuse and the systematic destruction of the will of the victim.
True enough, although it's also sexist twaddle to assume that women aren't equally capable of doing this to men. It is also a good way to infantalize women in these circumstances because it takes away from them the responsibility to walk away, which the overwhelming majority of them are completely capable of.
But it's a good infantalization of women all the way around to just constantly portray this in the "women as victim men as abusers" method you're doing anyway.
Quite often in an abusive relationship the victim will not be in a rational state of mind where they could determine the correct path to take.
...which is why we need to get our heads out of our asses and stop acting like this is an "innocent woman and brutal domineering man" world.
hey KNOW that if they fight back in any way that they will be hurt even worse. They KNOW that there is no way they can escape.
There's that whole infantilization of women again.
It is almost never the case--yes, I said almost never--that there is no way they can escape.
By making such a statement, you've already let them off the hook for their own behavior, and are helping set themselves up for another abusive relationship.
They KNOW that the cops will be leaving them alone with him again.
This is factually incorrect in the vast majority of jurisdictions in the United States and has been for a very long time.
They KNOW that there is no possible way that the authorities who are trying to help them understand what he is capable of.
Maybe in Bizarro World this is true. In the real world we actually live in, the reverse is true. The authorities are not only fully aware of what "he" is capable of, but they tend to completeloy ignore what "she" is capable of even though she is quite possibly the abuser and not him, and even though much of the time they're both abusers locked in a horribly co-destructive relationship.
See, there's that whole infantilization and marginalization of women I'm talking about again.
All these attitudes you're espousing only add to and compound a serious social problem. And they're misogynistic to boot.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at May 08, 2004 09:09 AM (LOj+R)
10
Boyd writes: "Lessee...law enforcement responds to a call for help. They find a woman with a black eye, abrasions, whatever, and a (more often than not) drunk husband/boyfriend/significant other. She says he beat her. He gives lame excuses, but essentially admits he's the one that inflicted the injuries. 'I didn't hit her that hard, honest!'
And you don't think that the police should file assault charges because she decides she doesn't want him to go to jail?
Wow."
Answer: No, that's not what I think at all. What I do think is that not every incident is as you describe. And so each case should be approached as if it were unique. I think additional options for addressing the problem of domestic abuse should be considered seriously. I think I can conceive of cases wherein prosecution would prove counterproductive.
Posted by: Jeff G at May 08, 2004 10:25 AM (jgKS7)
11
So are you for that matter, Ilyka.
No, Dean, I am not. I am backing up this statement of Jim's:
These jurisdictions carry the case despite the wishes of the victim because in a large number of cases the victim is not in sound mind or body.
"Not in sound mind or body" is applicable to victims of domestic abuse
whether male or female. It is not infantilizing, nor is it misogynistic, to state as much. Living with an abuser fucks a person's head up, and I'm sure I don't need to point you to all the documentation that's been done about that one. It is not infantilizing to acknowledge a genuine, temporary, treatable condition such as this.
Don't turn this into a platform for the ol' "feminism = misogyny" argument. No one's talking feminism (as a main point) and no one's talking misogyny.
Posted by: ilyka at May 08, 2004 11:33 AM (gVDJ9)
12
Jim, I agree with you to a point. Of course anyone who is "beats the shit out of" their partner should be put in jail, and I don't think that Jeff or Dean would disagree.
However, you're completely ignoring all other situations. As Jeff says, you're "begging the question". Not everyone who is arrested is a wife-beater, and therein lies the problem.
You say:
It is against the law to beat the shit out of somebody.
But is it also against the law to have an argument with your wife, to get angry with her? To punch a wall? Because under some of these "zero-tolerance" policies, that's what some men are being arrested for. Look at Patrick Roy's case. He ripped a door off its hinges, he didn't touch his wife but he was still arrested.
Tell me, Jim, if my husband punches a wall while we're arguing, should he be treated the same as a man who continually "beats the shit" out of his wife?
Posted by: Helen at May 08, 2004 11:34 AM (jgKS7)
13
The reasons for the problem as far as the community at large is concerned are these:
The domestic violence industry (yes it is now an industry worth 1-3 Billion dollars a year in the US) is the only one of the social services of *any* kind that functions by blaming an entire sector of society for the problems of some. some agencies make this clearer than others. The AZ Coalition for Domestic Violence has an entire section devoted to male bashing, here: > > http://www.azcadv.org/PDFs/FS-Gender%20of%20DV%202003.pdf
Domestic violence is not a gender issue, and any attempt to identify it as such is ingenuous at best, and damaging, not only to the community, but to those whom they serve as well. Their insistence on turning domestic violence into a gender issue has, unfortunately, limited their capability of helping anyone to about 25% of
what it could be if they'd face reality. They recognize and promote help for only female victims in single instances of DV. Heterosexual male victims, and women addicted to violence are ignored, as are female abusers, who are regarded as anomalies and actually treated as victims. (I have been approached for help by women forced into victim's programs against their will.)
There has been little or no serious, unbiased research into the issue. Such research as has been done has been either advocacy research for purposes of proving a pre-conceived notion, or has been buried and/or vilified by those who stand to benefit from the status quo.
The DV industry has done nothing to change or review its policies and procedures in three decades. This alone should be a red flag to suggest that perhaps those running these programs cannot or will not accept progress. If you look at any other service for the disadvantaged, say, food banks, services for the handicapped, or any others, you find that their services have changed dramatically in the last 30 years, and there is plenty of active research into their issues going on.
The DV industry is still managed and administered by the same activists who established initial programs. This results in direct client services being provided by people with a political axe to grind. This would be considered unacceptable in other programs, who have a clear division in their personnel between those managing services and those lobbying legislatures. Yet DV services have branched out into all kinds of unrelated legislative issues from divorce to child services to affirmative action. (One could logically wonder if their claimed "epidemic" of DV exists, then why do they have so much time for these other things?)
Most programs/services prefer that their staff dealing in direct client services have as much training and education in their field as possible. Yet the National Coaliton Against Domestic Violence discourages shelter programs from employing trained, educated personnel. Quoted from their website:
"Some programs require advocates to have educational degrees as a basis for
employment. It has not been shown, however, that a degree enhances the
effectiveness of those who work with battered women and their children. The
experience of some battered women indicates that some professional training
actually places barriers to effective advocacy for battered women and their
children. Record keeping and accountability skills can be utilized and
developed by program staff who do not otherwise have "professional"
training." http://www.ncadv.org/community/shelter.htm
As an individual with nearly 20 years' experience in human services programs, I recognize there is often an "us vs them" mentality pervading orgs who provide services. Their clients are percieved to be somehow lesser beings, and the treatment clients receive reflects this attitude. This is the only time I've seen this attitude promoted, or encouraged. Again, other services do their best to avoid this kind of mentality. It is often recognized at the professional level as a symptom of burnout. In some agencies it would be grounds for dismissal.
Any female now requesting treatment at any ER in AZ is asked "The Question," -- "Do you feel comfortable in your home?" They are actively attempting to identify
female victims of DV, which on the surface is admirable. If a woman doesn't understand the question, or refuses to answer, however, this sets machinery in action to put her husband or significant other under suspicion, and open to possible arrest. It is not well-known that this suspicion never goes away, even if it is disproved. Military men cannot re-enlist after such a charge, and licensed professionals such as doctors or teachers may be unable to practice their professions.
Shelters and services often claim their programs have services for male victims in their ads and other public material. Some go so far as to refer inquiries to programs that do not exist. The AZCADF has done this to me twice in the past few years. (I try to keep informed and phone around once in awhile looking for new services) If I was a male victim, I'd be dead or in jail by now, if I'd approached them for help.
The questions everyone should be asking are, "Why is there only one alternative?" Currently, DVshelters only offer divorce and relocation as their single solution. And, "Why do they need to lie?" Because they do, frequently and with much malice.
Posted by: Trudy W. Schuett at May 08, 2004 01:46 PM (XJx0S)
14
It doesn't matter if the woman isn't in "sound mind or body." That's HER problem to resolve, not society's.
Now, I grant you, that a lot of the legislation that required that men be arrested and charged, even if the woman didn't want to press charges, was adopted in a affirmative action-like response to past wrongs. It used to be that the police were sympathetic to the guy and didn't consider wife beating something that should result in him being arrested. Even if a woman wanted to have the guy arrested, they'd try to talk her out of it. The laws were changed to MAKE the cops arrest the guy, whether they wanted to or not. It made the cop vulnerable (and culpable) if he didn't do anything about it. The problem, is that the pendulum has swung too far in the other extreme.
Personally, I think the only societal response to these things, especially when a man beats his wife, is that society should beat the crap out of him--literally. Brothers, fathers, volunteers, should show up at the guy's house and beat him to a pulp--with the threat that it will happen every single time he does it, and eventually they'll beat him to death.
Now, that isn't going to happen. Society, as we know it, isn't going to deal with abusive husbands that way--because society prefers to deny that violence and the threat of it, is the appropriate response to this sort of thing. Fear is the only reliable motivator for behavior modification of these men. We can feel so much better about ourselves for attempting feel good interventions that do no good whatsoever. What does it matter if we get results if we can FEEL better about it?
If a woman will not leave an abusive relationship then she has CHOSEN to remain abused. It is not society's business to determine if she is in her right mind. Dean is absolutely dead on that attempting to decide for a woman how she should respond is simply the Yin of the Yang. Cops used to ignore abuse and do nothing--condoning abuse. Now they are mandated to intervene. Where is the woman's voice in any of this? NO WHERE. "Yes" means "yes" and "NO" means "no." If she stays, she is saying "yes" to all that the relationship includes--and that means "yes" to continued abuse. We may be offended by it, it may repulse us, but it is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. It is HER business.
Females who abuse their mates are a different matter. Men don't want to admit it for all sorts of reasons. Women are more likely to use weapons of some sort (stereotypical rolling pin comes to mind) to alter the size and strength dymanics. But the reaction of society should be the same. BUTT OUT unless the person chooses to press charges. If the guy stays in the relationship, doesn't press charges, then he has CHOSEN to remain abused. His choice.
Posted by: Mrs. du Toit at May 08, 2004 01:56 PM (9TBtf)
15
It doesn't matter if the woman isn't in "sound mind or body." That's HER problem to resolve, not society's.
I have to agree wtih the Mrs. We should save societys resources for more important ills, like husbands who feel their nads shrink in response to cereal commercials. that is a REAL problem...
Posted by: joann at May 08, 2004 02:56 PM (tXOU5)
16
Joann, I do not want to take up too much of Jim's bandwidth to respond to your obvious ad hominem attack against me and my husband. You are obviously attempting to discredit my remarks by intentionally misinterpreting the purpose of Kim's "Pussification of America" essay. If, however, you believe that the way that our culture has accepted the demeaning of men as an appropriate and acceptable message, perhaps you wouldn't mind a few dumb housewife and bimbo jokes about females coming back on the airwaves? I mean if we can successfully sell products by turning men into children and treating them like pets, why not return to the days when women were treated as stupid sluts or too stupid to balance their checkbooks, eh? If we can demean men without complaint, then we should be able to demean women. Unless you happen to have a double standard.
You could always e-mail your rebuttals to Kim's essay to him, rather than arguing behind his wife's skirts, if you wanted to discuss his essay, but I take it from your snarky comment here that you're not interested in discussing the writing--you seem interested only in character assasination.
Joann, your remark was shameful. It perpetuates the shrewlike nature of how ill mannered women behave and makes us all look foolish. Stop it.
Perhaps you'd prefer to respond to the comment I posted here, rather than attack me personally? I will assume that your use of the ad hominem was chosen because you have no serious rebuttal.
My apologies to Jim--I will stop commenting here to end this.
Posted by: Mrs. du Toit at May 08, 2004 03:22 PM (9TBtf)
17
"Living with an abuser fucks a person's head up, and I'm sure I don't need to point you to all the documentation that's been done about that one. It is not infantilizing to acknowledge a genuine, temporary, treatable condition such as this."
You know, Ilyka, that may be true, but "fucked up" is not a qualified medical category the way other mental pathologies are. I can't judge whether the people I grew up around were a representative sample of the population, but I can say this: my parents offered to take in a battered woman from our church congregation, and the waitresses where I worked in high school routinely told the most successful among them to leave the druggie she was living with ("Jesus, J----, come stay at our place and Bill will get out the shotgun if he comes after you," said the most senior of the crew) who regularly beat her up so badly she missed work. Neither of them lacked a support system, to use the contemporary pop-culture term. Neither of them was financially dependent. (The waitress at work was her waste-of-life boyfriend's only source of income.) And neither of them would budge in the
years that I was around, at least. How exactly do we determine whether such women are not in their right minds, on the one hand, or making an informed choice that those who care about them can't agree with, on the other, when there are no other established symptoms of psychological illness?
Also, something that doesn't seem to be mentioned much: women
do leave. We knew other women who were clocked once and said, "Just try that again, and see how fast I'm out of here." The guys did, and they left. There doubtless is an in-between set of circumstances, in which a woman believes that if she's just patient enough, he'll change eventually. But if she puts up with it too long, is she necessarily screwed up in the head, or just a wishful thinker? I'm not saying there's an easy answer, only that a significant aspect of personal liberty is the ability to make decisions about how to dispose of your own life that people around you don't understand. I would say the same thing, by the way, about a man whose male or female partner was what most of us would deem abusive.
Posted by: Sean Kinsell at May 08, 2004 04:46 PM (tCGW8)
18
There's a great deal of truth in Trudy's post on the "industry" that lives on state and federal grants to provide services to alleged victims of DV. If their policies were at all effective, there should have been a dramatic decline in DV in the past twenty years, but there clearly hasn't been, which leads us to the conclusion that our tax money isn't well-spent.
In politics we often find interest groups that are less interested in solutions than they are in "raising awareness" by keeping an issue alive and on the front burner. DV is such an issue, because as long as its in the public mind, feminist advocacy groups can write their own checks for funding and for anti-male policies in child custody, child abuse, child support, community property, alimony, immigration law, welfare, and a host of other areas where the specter of DV pushes policy in destructive directions.
Some studies of s0-called "battered women" have shown that they typically have 6 or 7 violent relationships before having a non-violent one, while the typical abusive male as a 50-50 chance of entering an abusive relationship after leaving one.
There is clearly a lot of complicity on both sides in violent relationships, and any policy that ignores that is doomed to be ineffective; but that may be the point, actually.
Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 08, 2004 04:48 PM (NzONN)
19
Dean's argument = the win
The innocent need to be protected, but we do free society a great disservice by putting dependancy up on a pedestal. It might not be misogeny, but it is damn close..
Anyone who thinks that there isn't a perverted glorification of "victims" in this country has never turned on daytime TV. Of course these laws lend legitimacy and credence to the victim pimps' arguments that people are to weak and stupid to protect themselves.
This reminds me of the "hate" crimes debate. The crime should be punished, not the motivation behind it. Climbing into the minds of such dysfunctional people is a futile waste of time.
Back to playing in the mud. /wave
Posted by: caveman at May 08, 2004 09:14 PM (vB3Mg)
20
forgot to mention---Child abuse is in a league of it's own... now there I think we can all agree you have a truly innocent and HELPLESS victim. Solution involves chemicals and/or a high voltage lounge chair.
didn't to take my shoes off, now there is mud all over the house.
Posted by: caveman at May 08, 2004 09:25 PM (vB3Mg)
21
I'm late for bed but let me see if I can address the points that are left over. Weekends are just about the worst time in the world for me to try to debate something. I'm just not able (or willing, to put it point blank) to subdue my glorious two days off to spend time on the old PC.
There is an enormous difference between failing to prosecute a child abuser and failing to prosecute a spouse abuser: the child is helpless and the spouse rarely is.
This statement does a fair job of summing up half of the anti-prosecution argument. It shows the continued failure to accept the state of mind of a habitually abused person. Are they actually without any source of support or assistance? Are abused spouses truly helpless like a small child? Generally not. However, they believe themselves to be helpless. They are
functionally helpless.
It also seems like the monster portion of the comments arrayed against me here are chiefly complaining that women beat men too. Reread my comments with "spouse" instead of wife. Are you still set against my point of view? I have no problem locking up women who crack heads my personal experience happens to be on the other side so I identify it in the term 'wife beating' instead of 'spouse beating'. Some day I might write up those experiences but it'll probably be on the far side of when I write about my older brother and that's not going to happen anytime soon so don't hold your breath.
There is also a very common mistake here where people seem to be confusing 'assault' with 'battery'. Assault is a threat of violence, battery is violent assault. No I do not support mandatory arrest for assault. Then again, neither does the law.
Back to the points...acknowledging that an abused person is not in a rational mental state is not sexist, misogynistic or infantalizing. My capitalized "KNOWs" were an attempt to express the perceived mental state of said irrational abuse victim.
Each case is approached on an individual basis in the courts. It is also quite possible to conceive of cases wherein prosecution of a murder, grand theft, robbery or any other particular crime would prove counterproductive. That does not mean that the laws should be changed to one of discretionary prosecution.
Of course anyone who is "beats the shit out of" their partner should be put in jail, and I don't think that Jeff or Dean would disagree.
That is precisely what they are arguing. They are making points that if the victim does not want to prosecute then there should be no prosecution.
Tell me, Jim, if my husband punches a wall while we're arguing, should he be treated the same as a man who continually "beats the shit" out of his wife?
Of course not. The one is destruction of property. The other is battery. Spouse beating is what I am talking about here, not arguing or yelling or putting a hole in the wall.
Trudy, that is a lot of great information and I appreciate it. Perhaps I'm up too far past my bedtime but I don't see any supporting arguments either way. The fact that there is an industry dealing in domestic violence isn't surprising or even relevant. We're in a capitalist society and there is an industry dealing in absolutely everything that costs money. In socialist societies it would be totally handled by the government. That's just the way it is.
It doesn't matter if the woman isn't in "sound mind or body." That's HER problem to resolve, not society's.
Really? Same thing with the mentally retarded I suppose? Disassociatives? How about bipolars, psychotics or the pathologically insane? Is that all just psychobabble nonsense to be ignored? Our law specifically casts merit on the state of sound mind and body and it does it specifically because it does matter.
You know, Ilyka, that may be true, but "fucked up" is not a qualified medical category the way other mental pathologies are.
As I'm sure you know but chose to ignore, Ilyka used "fucked up" as a colloquial expression for the applicable qualified dysfunctional mental states.
There's a great deal of truth in Trudy's post on the "industry" that lives on state and federal grants to provide services to alleged victims of DV. If their policies were at all effective, there should have been a dramatic decline in DV in the past twenty years, but there clearly hasn't been, which leads us to the conclusion that our tax money isn't well-spent.
Correlation does not equal causality. In any case this has already been explained by the increased percentage of abused spouses seeking help.
This reminds me of the "hate" crimes debate. The crime should be punished, not the motivation behind it. Climbing into the minds of such dysfunctional people is a futile waste of time.
This is an argument in favor of mandatory prosecution so why does Dean win?
Posted by: Jim at May 09, 2004 12:07 AM (saeHM)
22
what an interesting thread. and i don't understand it a bit. here are some simple principles that i do understand.
1. men should rarely physically attack women. why? because physical force should be reserved for self defense and most women are not a threat to most men. if she's got the kitchen knives or something, well then all bets are off.
2. women should rarely physically attack men. why? because when attacked most people fight back, and usually a woman will not win a fight with a man.
3. so this should be a rare problem. when it does arise, the police and court should get involved because something unusual is happening and people are getting hurt.
4. the police and court need to keep an open mind and listen however, because the person who is in the wrong will be hard to sort out.
finally, i contend though that no matter how well they try, mistakes in assigning blame will be fairly common. so maintaining an open mind is essential even when a subsequent case arises with substantially similar facts. further, and more controversially, the punishment should often be fairly lenient, not because the crime is not bad, but because of the uncertainty with which we can expect to be able assign the crime to one party over the other and we know that many innocent people are going to be judged guilty.
Posted by: rammer at May 09, 2004 12:24 AM (VSkqV)
23
Malarkey, Jim. Either you use "fucked up" colloquially, in which case it covers anything beyond garden-variety loopiness, or you use it as a set of mental states and behaviors that are well-defined enough to be "documented" (her word) in relation to behaviors that should be subject to mandated arrests. No fair vamping between both as is convenient to your point. In fact, I doubt Ilyka was doing so. She was probably just typing quickly. I still think her wording raised a necessary point: who gets to decide whether an adult's relationship is dysfunctional to an extent that requires legal intervention, as opposed to standing offers from the community to help if she decides to leave the jerk?
Posted by: Sean Kinsell at May 09, 2004 02:20 AM (nFlkd)
24
Jim argues the "learned helplessness" aspect of the "battered woman syndrome" that was used by abuse advocates back in the 80s to explain why saintly and innocent women didn't leave their abusive and evil partners. The industry has largely abandoned this theory for a couple of good reasons: first, it's contrary to the science of post-traumatic stress disorder to claim that one or two incidents of shoving or hitting can cause a permanent brain disorder; second, ascribing a brain disorder to battered woman undercuts their claims to child custody because we don't generally allow crazy people to raise children; and third, it had no utility for getting women off the hook after they doused their men with gasoline and set them on fire while they were sleeping.
The current theory on this, from the industry itself, is an expansion of self-defense to future events. In this model, the battered woman has a kind of super-awareness that she's going to be beaten at some future date because of her keen observation of the abuser's behavior. So she acts in self-defense to pre-empt the abuse by killing him first. It's really not at all unlike the Bush Administration's argument for pre-emptively invading Iraq on the theory that Saddam, our abuser, was going to lash out at us on some future date.
In the transition from the old Battered Woman Syndrome to the new Super Self-Defense theory, there was some lively discord between the abuse advocates themselves. One instance I saw personally was a debate over a bill relaxing the mandated reporter rule for emergency room doctors. The DV advocates were nervous that ER docs were not reporting in numbers that would back up their claims that half of all women's injuries in ER were DV-related; the stats are less than 1 percent, so they spun a theory that doctors weren't reporting because the victims didn't want them to do so, and that mandated reporting was preventing battered women from getting treatment. And yes, there is a contradiction there.
Yes, Jim, DV is a real and actual problem; however, it's an issue that's been distorted and blown all out of proportion because it's a useful issue to drive a host of causes that don't actually benefit battered women. The reality is that women in violent relationships are abused more severely by those who claim to help them than by their partners themselves.
And that's why naive and gullible people like you piss me off.
Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 09, 2004 06:49 AM (NzONN)
25
Someday, I'm going to see a debate on this topic without seeing those who disagree with us calling us names.
But not today, obviously.
Posted by: Sexist, misogynist misandrist at May 09, 2004 07:35 AM (yhgMq)
26
who gets to decide whether an adult's relationship is dysfunctional to an extent that requires legal intervention, as opposed to standing offers from the community to help if she decides to leave the jerk?
The law. That is the entire debate here. Some jurisdictions have put policies in place to pursue charges of battery on batterers regardless of the victim's wishes.
Richard, so sorry to piss you off. Being so naive and gullible I tend to do that a lot. Perhaps my greatest personal failing.
Then again you seem to be seeing some sort of massive conspiracy by "the industry" to foment an evil plan promoting the welfare of battered women at all costs. You use obviously false "facts" to support the nonsense. Tell me now...if your argument that ER departments aren't reporting DV is true then how are you so sure that DV is involved in 1% of ER cases? It's also interesting that you've likened DV to the war in Iraq. In the debate here and a recent one on my zero tolerance site I've seen that done by three people, all of whom evidenced a great dissatisfaction with said war and some tendencies those of us in a centrist state of mind would term "moon batty". Very interesting indeed.
Posted by: Jim at May 09, 2004 08:46 AM (saeHM)
27
My new theory after reading this discussion and one at Michele's on an unrelated topic, is that the degree of emotional investment in a topic is easily measured by how fast the thread goes off the rails and into side issues that are at best only indirectly relevant to the topic.
Sean? I was only typing quickly. But sure, seize on the semantics if you prefer. It's clearly very important to remind people that "my head is all fucked up" is not, in fact, a valid medical condition.
Richard? This is not the first time I've seen you try to forge an argument from statistics, the source of which, funnily enough, you never reveal. As Meryl said to you: Cite it.
To anyone arguing that women beat up on men too, so therefore anything women's advocates have to say about domestic violence is irrelevant: That thing you've gone off on is called a
tangent. No one's denying the rights of male victims of abuse to equal protection under the law--or rather, neither Jim nor I are (Jim's already explained his use of the term "wife-beater," so please let's not have any more about that one). Nor was the sex of the abuser really the point of Young's article.
Posted by: ilyka at May 09, 2004 01:43 PM (ZLU46)
28
There are some serious associative stretches that you are assuming, Richard. What in the world would your mysterious interest group have to do with the argument here that it is good and proper to arrest and charge criminals for the act of battery? What is this interest group called? How does one join? Do they have corporate offices? Who is a member?
Nobody has proposed any point that men are evil and women are good. Nobody has proposed any point that women do not abuse men. Neither of those have anything to do with the argument at hand. Similarly, nobody has proposed any point that a woman who is smacked once will instantly contract a permanent sociopathic disorder. Your attempt to define abusive conditioning with a simple battery is disingenious.
I read quite well, Richard. Apparently better than you write. Look here - I can liken the actions of my dog to those of a human. That does not make actions that my dog takes any sort of argument for what a human should do and vice versa. The same thing applies when discussing the similarities between countries and humans. In this particular comparison you are trying to say that advancing the interests of American security with preemptive activity is equivalent to arresting and prosecuting a criminal for the act of battery. That's bunk.
DOES ANYBODY have a non-emotional response with any sort of correlative data that can show that jurisdictions that do not prosecute batterers have correspondingly fewer instances of abuse? Anyone? Bueller?
Posted by: Jim at May 09, 2004 03:38 PM (IOwam)
29
Perhaps, Jim, you can help us to understand what you meant by: "They KNOW that if they fight back in any way that they will be hurt even worse. They KNOW that there is no way they can escape. They KNOW that the cops will be leaving them alone with him again. They KNOW that there is no possible way that the authorities who are trying to help them understand what he is capable of. They also know that he loves them and that they love him..."
It seems that you're using KNOW in an ironic sense, and that you really believe that "battered women" know nothing. If this is your argument, how do you justify battered women killing their abusers? Because that's the issue I referred to in my last post, not mandatory prosecution.
Are you such a patriarch that you would deny women the exercise of all forms of choice?
Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 09, 2004 03:47 PM (NzONN)
30
And another thing: you say "nobody has proposed any point that a woman who is smacked once will instantly contract a permanent sociopathic disorder" yet this is exactly what the policy you advocate assumes, because it treats every women who's been in one fight with her boyfriend as if she has a life-long history of abuse, having been so severely damaged that she can't exercise meaningful choice. That's the significance of the phrase "one size fits all".
The reality of this crime, like all other crimes, is that some cases are more severe than others, and each needs to be treated appropriately.
We don't sentence jaywalkers to death by lethal injection, do we?
Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 09, 2004 04:38 PM (NzONN)
31
I've already explained exactly what that meant, Richard.
Where in the world does this crap about justifying battered women killing their abusers come in? We are debating the merits of charging criminals with battery under particular circumstances. Nobody except you has advanced anything having to do with justifying murder by anybody against anybody.
it treats every women who's been in one fight with her boyfriend as if she has a life-long history of abuse, having been so severely damaged that she can't exercise meaningful choice.
I'll call bullshit on this one right off the bat. First, you again ignore the effects of conditioned abuse. The physical aspect of it is way at the end after the victim has been properly conditioned. But you don't believe that conditioned abuse exists so we'll look at it the way you must. A woman who is of sound mind and body gets beaten for the first time and calls the cops. Just what percentage of women in this demographic would you expect to have a problem with charging the guy with battery?
We don't sentence jaywalkers to death by lethal injection, do we?
No. We give them a ticket. That is the universal "one size fits all" solution that works the best. Just like charging a criminal with battery when they commit battery is the best defacto policy for that particular crime.
So far I've been called a misogynist, a feminist, a patriarch, an infantilizer of women, sexist, disconnected, clueless, naive, gullible and a functional illiterate. Quite frankly I'm through with it. The next personal attack on me gets the comment deleted and the commenter tossed. Be civil or get the fuck out of my house.
Posted by: Jim at May 09, 2004 05:14 PM (saeHM)
32
"DOES ANYBODY have a non-emotional response with any sort of correlative data that can show that jurisdictions that do not prosecute batterers have correspondingly fewer instances of abuse? Anyone? Bueller?"
I'm not sure anyone was trying to make that case, but rather the case that if the 'abused' don't desire to get out of the relationship, then the state has no place intervening.
It seems mostly overlooked that in a lot of these cases it is a two way abusive street, with women abusing emotionally (because women are more emotional creatures) and men abusing physically (men are more physical creatures). The two sides play off of each other, fuel each other, and seem to oddly gain something from living in that state. This learned helplessness and its resulting humiliation seem to be one of the only ways these couples can generate some type of physical intimacy. IÂ’ve often wondered if we arenÂ’t looking at some distorted attempt to satisfy basic emotional needs.
Again this is a generalization. Sometimes the roles are reversed, and sometimes you just have a gal or guy who likes to beat people up. Most of the time it is a two-way, abusive-dependant relationship though. It takes two to tango, and it takes two (or more) to maintain an abusive relationship. Many tend to suggest that the abused in these relationships simply cannot leave. I tend to think they simply don't WANT to leave.
Children in such a familial situation: remove the kids. I feel about this situation about like I feel about the ‘drug war.’ Let ‘em go at it, but if they are gonna do it, they lose all parental rights.
Posted by: bellis at May 09, 2004 05:53 PM (Qig9a)
33
As a male who has been the victim of abuse, and yet never been violent, I have an emotional reaction to this conversation. I will also note that my wife blamed me for making her so mad she had to hit me.
If the police had come, I have no doubt she would have made sure I'd been arrested...and regretted it later.
But from what I see here, Jim and Ilyaka don't understand what, exactly, the other side is saying.
This is revealed by Jim, at least, when he says,
"
Of course anyone who is "beats the shit out of" their partner should be put in jail, and I don't think that Jeff or Dean would disagree.
That is precisely what they are arguing. They are making points that if the victim does not want to prosecute then there should be no prosecution."
Actually, it's clear to me you are wrong in what they are arguing. It is clear that Jeff and Dean are
not trying to prevent arrest, prosecution, and conviction of men who beat women. They are just pointing that under the current situation, if
any violence occurs, current policy in most of the United States is to assume that the man is the sole perpetrator, and that any mitigating circumstances are ignored in favor of putting the man in jail as often as possible. This, Cathy Young argued, is actually counterproductive if your aim is to help women. Some people then argue that this makes it clear that "helping women" isn't really the point at all; the point, rather, is to hurt men or make money.
If the scenario is a woman conditioned to violence or beaten horribly and threatened into silence with promises of more beatings, then I think (based on my reading comprehension) no one participating in this discussion would try to say that prosecution, conviction, and jail time would be inappropriate. However, the arguement being advanced by Dean E., Jeff G. Richard B., et al, is that the scenario described happens extremely rarely, but feminist groups try to get people to believe that's the norm. It seems to have worked.
Anyway, that's my $.02 worth.
Posted by: Nathan at May 09, 2004 07:52 PM (97fww)
34
I can see both sides of the debate here: on one hand the state has a duty to those who cannot (or will not) defend themselves. On the other, the state should not interfere in one-on-one issues. They are conflicting arguments and views depend greatly on an entire set of personal and moral judgements to which there is no right or wrong answer. After everyone gets past the universal "wife bashing is bad" the means to achieve redress differ.
However isn't this a case of the forest obscuring the trees? Each individual case and circumstance is different. That's what Nathan is driving at too - in certain cases one or other side is right. These are difficult and emotional issues to which over-arching principles do not work.
Posted by: Simon at May 10, 2004 02:10 AM (GWTmv)
35
DOES ANYBODY have a non-emotional response with any sort of correlative data that can show that jurisdictions that do not prosecute batterers have correspondingly fewer instances of abuse? Anyone? Bueller?
Yo!
The Effects of Arrest on Intimate Partner Violence: New Evidence From the Spouse Assault
Replication Program
Short version? The jury is still out. The results of a preliminary study:
In the first of the six studies, the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment (MDVE), Sherman and Berk found that arresting batterers reduced by half the rate of subsequent offenses against the same victim within a 6-month followup
period.They have had difficulty replicating the results of the initial study due to inconsistent methodologies used in gathering and reporting data (the sidebar of the document will highlight these results for you). However, ultimately:
Our multisite pooled analysis of the five replication experiments found
good evidence of a consistent and direct, though modest, deterrent effect of arrest on aggression by males against their female intimate partners. The victim interviews
indicate that the arrest of the suspect and any subsequent confinement, when compared with the alternative interventions collectively (see “About the Sample”), significantly reduced the expected frequency of subsequent aggression by 30 percent. Similarly, arrest may have reduced by a smaller amount the number of times the police responded to subsequent domestic violence incidents involving the same victim and suspect and may have extended the time between the initial incident and the first subsequent incident.Amazing what you can turn up when you take time off from name-calling to do a little research, huh?
Posted by: ilyka at May 10, 2004 06:23 AM (BAG/w)
36
Richard, I was not ignoring anything. I was reiterating
your scenario to show how it fails the common sense test. You gave the scenario in your May 9 04:38 PM post. You seem to agree that it does indeed fail the common sense test.
Nathan, unfortunately they really are arguing that point. Look back through the comments and you will see constant references to exactly that point, all couched as either the victims right to choose or society's lack of a right to choose.
Posted by: Jim at May 10, 2004 06:24 AM (saeHM)
37
What'd I do to hose the link to that piece?
It's here.
Posted by: ilyka at May 10, 2004 06:25 AM (BAG/w)
Posted by: Jim at May 10, 2004 06:43 AM (saeHM)
39
May I bring my stick and smack some equine about as well?
"Women who refuse to get out of abusive relationships are equally pathetic"-this is Tim's little bit of supportive sympathy.
Right, Tim. At least we are "equal" then to the men that feel the need to use fists. I guess we are "equal" in the analogy that women "drive the men to it", as we are obviously thus equal in instigating the argument, right?
This discussion has NOTHING to do with equality. It has to do with understanding a problem and addressing it. Suddenty this comment section got blitzed with how female abusers are a whole different case, etc. All that was being addressed here is what to do about a problem. Should we talk feminism? count me in, and I'd like my back covered by my good friend Ilyka, thanks. But that's not the point of Jim's post, although sadly that's become the point of the comments.
And Dean? Yeah, I don't read you, and I really don't feel the need to, either. You've been there on the man's side? Well, I've been there on the woman's side. And you and Mrs. Du Toit (again, let me state thus: I find it revolting to be referred to by my spouse's name. I have my own name, thank you) should understand this: if you haven't walked the woman's side, then you just don't understand.
Preach all you want. Bang the "victimization of woman" flag and wave that "women CHOOSE to be abused" nonsense if it helps you sleep at night.
A woman who is abused is almost never just hit. It's systematic. It starts with the friends and family, how you don't need them, how they hate you, how fat you are, how no one will love you. You think that's namby-pamby? It goes on. When the anger comes, then the tide of love comes. That's how it happens. And women who are abused aren't generally the strong, confident secure women that the commenters here seem to think that they are. IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU.
It's true that women have limits. I was hit twice and got out of it. But I am a highly educated, rather intelligent woman with a strong edge of feminist. And it happened to me.
Dean-you were wrong about one thing, too-women do live in fear of being home when "their man" gets released. Because the men do. The police are powerless and bogged down in "bigger crimes". Not even restraining orders work.
Trust me. I had one.
*Dropping the stick and turning her back in complete and utter disgust*
Posted by: The Real Helen at May 10, 2004 08:41 AM (TmM0X)
40
And oh....my...God.
I just read this comment on Dean's site (I decided that before I thought maybe Dean's site wasn't for me, perhaps I should check it out):
"My momma used to tell me that "it takes two to fight", and this is certainly true in the context of DV. If there were any truth to the claim that DV is all about men beating up on helpless and innocent women, it could all be ended by the women simply leaving after the first blow. The fact that they don't should tell us something about enmeshment, provocation, and foreplay, the three principal elements of the DV drama."
This from a Richard Bennett.
Richard, boy do I have a lot of things to say to you. But you know what? You're not going to listen anyway. Yup, that's right. With statements like that? I can tell I would absolutely be wasting valuable time I could be using sweeping the kitchen barefoot or attempting to make more babies. You know-since women who get hit obviously ask for it, since it takes two to fight.
I am out of this comment section now. Sorry, Jim.
Posted by: The Real Helen at May 10, 2004 08:54 AM (TmM0X)
41
Jim says: "You gave the scenario in your May 9 04:38 PM post. You seem to agree that it does indeed fail the common sense test."
The post in question says we don't give the death penalty to jaywalkers, and I stand behind that sentiment.
Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 10, 2004 01:15 PM (5rl74)
42
Ilyka, I have no doubt that we could reduce the arrest rate for DV through a public education campaign that explains what happens after a woman makes the call. I don't believe most people who report it realize how severe the consequences are, and if they did they'd be deterred from reporting most of the minor incidents.
If all you care about is arrest rates, this campaign should serve your interests.
Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 10, 2004 01:18 PM (5rl74)
43
According to Richard, "I don't believe most people who report it realize how severe the consequences are, and if they did they'd be deterred from reporting most of the minor incidents."
A couple of years ago, I interned with Dallas D.A., and spent some time with in the domestic violence unit. Unless the violence was serious or the batterer used a weapon, the most we could charge was a misdemeanor. For a first time accused, he or she could plead down to a Class C misdemeanor (which is basically a little worse than a traffic ticket), agree to go to anger management, and generally get it off his or her record. Even if the accused fought it and lost, it was extremely rare he or she would get more than a suspended sentence.
I'm not saying it was the most effective system in the world, but it is disingenuous to say that a victim should think twice before reporting abuse because of the "severe consequences." For the one time fight that got out of hand, the punishment is hardly so severe that a victim should keep his or her mouth shut.
Posted by: mark at May 10, 2004 01:47 PM (ZlAaN)
44
California's first-time response is very different from the scenario you outline, mark, and I suspect Texas' is too.
First-time offenders are generally sentenced to time served (they're always in jail at least 48 hrs before being charged), and probation for a year contingent on completing the batterer's re-education program, which lasts 52 weeks. There is no diversion of sentence, so they all get a conviction on their permanent record which can't be expunged unless they can find a sympathetic judge somewhere in the future.
Nobody gets suspended sentences and clean records any more.
Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 10, 2004 02:32 PM (5rl74)
45
No Richard. I quite obviously meant this portion of your post:
And another thing: you say "nobody has proposed any point that a woman who is smacked once will instantly contract a permanent sociopathic disorder" yet this is exactly what the policy you advocate assumes, because it treats every women who's been in one fight with her boyfriend as if she has a life-long history of abuse, having been so severely damaged that she can't exercise meaningful choice. That's the significance of the phrase "one size fits all".
I reiterated that sentiment and you commented on the reiteration saying that it is complete bunk. You fisked yourself.
Posted by: Jim at May 10, 2004 02:35 PM (IOwam)
46
Richard, I do not doubt what you say about California law is correct; actually, it's true in Texas as well: Assault in a domestic setting is a Class A misdemeanor (which can carry jail time) in Texas, as opposed to the Class C variety (i.e. punching some stranger in a bar), which carries no jail time. However, given the sheer volume of the cases, D.A.'s sometimes offer a defendant a chance to plead to a lesser included offense. So what I said was technically incorrect, I was talking about what the practical effect was, at least in the jurisdiction I worked in.
Posted by: mark at May 10, 2004 03:20 PM (ZlAaN)
47
Mark, the practice in California is to over-charge the offense as a felony, and then allow the defendant to plea down to the misdemeanor, which carries the year's probation and the subsidy to the re-education establishment. The DV industry is a powerful lobby, and no DA wants to run for re-election without their support. I suspect Texas is very different, outside Austin at least.
Jim, I don't see where I "fisked" myself, so perhaps you could point it out. I notice in your update you advocate treating DV just like child abuse, which is interesting in a couple of respects: first, it literally treats women as children, and second, most of the men charged with DV would prefer child abuse treatment to what they get now.
Child abusers are given a re-unification plan that allows them to get their kids back if they follow the rules, and DV defendants have no such luck. The law considers them a priori unfit to have or share custody, which is much more severe punishment than the women who abuse children face. Perhaps you'd like to re-cast your argument a bit.
But just to be clear: are you or are you not saying that mild cases of DV should be treated by the law in essentially the same way that severe cases are? The inability of the law to deal with the gray areas seems to be the main issue here, no matter how much cloud it with emotion.
Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 10, 2004 04:23 PM (5rl74)
48
Boy this is just too much to read an absorb.
But in short...and I KNOW I will get in trouble for this one (probably with Dean Esmay to just name one....)....here is goes:
SOME women I look at and I see a person that lacked one thing in her life:a good old fashion kick in the ass.I AM a VERY traditional woman,I can kook,clean,raise kids and I KNOW how to make a family and keep it happy.To those ladies who hang in the shopping malls and beauty parlors and then dare to crack open a pack of Kraft,and DARE to call that dinner....I am talking about YOU.Your man works all day so get your ass home and get the household going!
Or else....after a while...unfortunatly ladies (and I AM A WOMAN TOO) you deserve a KICK IN THE ASS.So don't give me that abuse SHIT.
To turn pages arround...NO woman nower days has to take abuse anymore.Get out,get a bat and KICK HIS ASS.It don't matter if you get a hit back,you hit,it counts.GURANTEED to make him/her think twice next time.Because the general abuser beats up on his/her victim because he/shes so naive to think he won't do it ever again AND because YOU NEVER GOT BACK AT THAT ASSHOLE!
Research shows,not only my own research,that MOST women and men who go to the cops and report abuse actually triggert it.Oh yeah...now give me the shits like "noone deserves to be hit"..well does the OTHER person desearve to be hit???So,let me get that straight...YOU MAY start a fight but if you get hit you go bitch at the cops,right??
So to get this even straighter...the one who delt the first shot is always the innocent party,right?
Boy do I HATE feminists!!I know there are people abused,man as well as women,I know noone deserves to be treated like crap or beaten upon,BUT look twice before you go out and whine,pick a site and feel sorry.
May the circle be (un)broken.
Amen
Posted by: LW at May 10, 2004 04:44 PM (saeHM)
49
Scream at me once . . . shame on you.
Scream at me twice . . . shame on me.
Posted by: ilyka at May 10, 2004 04:48 PM (xKW1M)
50
Do people scream at you a lot, Ilyka?
Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 10, 2004 06:25 PM (5rl74)
51
Family matters, Richard.
I'll answer your points later.
Posted by: Jim at May 10, 2004 07:32 PM (saeHM)
52
ilyka,I should add:
I HATE the bad,idiotic,no-sense making,ignorant,stupid type of feminists.As in Kathy Young,just to name one here.
I hate the ones who RUINED it all for the GOOD ones.
You get the picture.
Posted by: LW at May 10, 2004 07:41 PM (saeHM)
53
This is an argument in favor of mandatory prosecution so why does Dean win?
Jim, you are assuming the DV laws are valid, while I was comparing them to hate crimes laws(implying that they are not). My reference to the "crime" was a crime already on the books like battery or many other felonies one commits while engaging in DV.
Also I noticed that my comment on the "glorification of victims" went relatively untouched. Maybe I am too* primative to understand the bottom line. I am going to watch Oprah and see if she can teach me anything.
*always have trouble typing out that extra o. Lack of opposable thumbs and an underdeveloped frontal lobe.
Posted by: caveman at May 11, 2004 02:10 AM (vB3Mg)
54
Caveman - There's no assumption about it. See the statistics that Ilyka cited. We're specifically talking about the crime of battery in the context of domestic violence, not the slew of associated criminal actions (and non-criminal actions) that can also be a part of domestic violence.
Richard - You attempted to define my position by equivocating it with "one hit equals mental damage". I reiterated that scenario to show how ridiculous the supposition was. You went farther than I did to show how ridiculous the supposition was. Basically, you seemed to miss the fact that I was reiterating your scenario and attacked it as if it was my own.
I should not have made a direct comparison between child abuse and spousal abuse. They are related but not the same. As I mentioned (warned?) these are two hot collar issues for me and I was particularly incensed when I noted that.
I am not saying anything about mild cases of DV. I am saying that somebody who commits battery should be arrested and tried for battery. In the context of domestic violence I fully support prosecution regardless of the intent of the victim. To be fully forthcoming I support prosecution of crime whenever a crime has been committed, I just have an added emotional aspect when abuse is involved in the equation.
Dean - Are you still hanging around or did you just drop a bomb on us and vacate?
Posted by: Jim at May 11, 2004 05:53 AM (saeHM)
55
I am saying that somebody who commits battery should be arrested and tried for battery.
Domestic Violence isn't prosecuted as battery, it's prosecuted as "spousal abuse"; it carries a whole different set of penalties.
Interestingly, you advocate a radical change from current practice on several levels. Do you know what they are?
Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 11, 2004 01:34 PM (5rl74)
56
I've never heard of "spousal abuse" as a codified crime. It certainly doesn't exist in the Georgia Code. Neither does "spouse abuse" or even "domestic abuse", except that the latter is mentioned as a consideration for setting bail amounts. Even then it isn't there as the phrase "domestic abuse" it's just that the two words both appear in the same section.
Where is there a codified law called "spouse abuse"?
Posted by: Jim at May 11, 2004 02:03 PM (IOwam)
57
See section 273.5 of the California Penal Code:
273.5. (a) Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of his or her child, corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Click here and scroll
Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 11, 2004 02:39 PM (5rl74)
58
That's definitely overlegislation but it's still battery:
corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition. I don't approve of relegislating existing crimes the way theyve done in California but I still support the pursuit of charges against batterers.
How do these penalties compare with felony battery in California?
Posted by: Jim at May 11, 2004 03:00 PM (IOwam)
Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 11, 2004 07:55 PM (5rl74)
60
There seems to be a problem with the California Code as detailed on that site. Domestic battery is detailed under felony battery as well as under it's own special section. Generally speaking when a law is annotated it will include a statement such that it repeals previous contradictory or duplicate effect laws. I can't imagine this standard step not having been taken in this case. More than likely, whichever of these changes came last is the valid one and the other is no longer in effect.
In any case the penalties are generally consistent with non-domestic battery. As I said before I don't support this overlegislative approach at all but I do support prosecution of the criminal.
Posted by: Jim at May 12, 2004 07:50 AM (saeHM)
61
Actually, Jim, there are many, many laws that overlap each other with respect to definitions of crime, and there is no requirement that each code section reference or obsolete every other code section where there might be an overlap. But you raise an interesting point.
Our justice system relies not only on the statutes and precedents, but on discretion on the part of every actor in the system: the police decide if an arrest needs to be made, the DA decides whether to prosecute, and for what, the judge makes all kinds of decisions about evidence and questioning, and the jury, if there is one, can choose to simply disregard the whole beef.
Discretion is that part of the system that bridges the gap between the stone cold language of the statutes and real life; it's the reason you don't get ticketed for driving one mile over on a clear day, why you don't get busted for paying a kid to mow your lawn, and why the system works as well as it does.
Mandatory arrest and mandatory prosecution undermine discretion, and as such they're un-American and un-democratic.
And that's very bad.
Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 12, 2004 07:37 PM (5rl74)
62
Driving a mile over the speed limit and hiring the neighbor kid to cut your lawn are both very different from felony battery. I don't mind if the cops turn a blind eye to non-victim misdemeanors. There is also nothing at all un-American or un-democratic with trying people for their felony crimes. Period.
Posted by: Jim at May 13, 2004 05:49 AM (saeHM)
63
Jim -
That's an interesting adjustment of your position. If we're talking only about serious felonies, and not over-charged misdemeanors, I suspect there wouldn't be much opposition from the rest of us.
The DA's are always complaining that they can't prosectute the really, really serious cases -- broken bones and all that -- because the victims won't even say word one; so they go after the mutual shoving cases because they're easy to win.
Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 13, 2004 02:58 PM (5rl74)
64
I'm not a statistician or a social scientist, I'm a retired patrol cop. The best day of my career was when they changed the statutes to require an arrest in all cases of domestic violence when there was physical evidence of such. Why?
Before that day someone had to make a complaint. Too often, for reasons I do not feel competant to address, no one would make such a complaint and before that became the policy we'd come back to the same house, often that same night, to investigate a murder.
Y'all go ahead and try being the smartest one in the room. All I know is that, once we started carrying the abuser off to our palatial accomadations in the county seat, the one being abused was safe for at least right then. Often we managed to get the abused spouse completely out of the relationship, sometimes we couldn't.
Yes, men get battered, too. Yes, sometimes the battery is mutual. Hell, some of the worst examples of domestic violence were among gay and lesbian couples. I don't care. What I do care about is that every time I took somebody to jail for domestic violence I knew I wouldn't have to go back to that house, that night, and see another dead body.
I'm not smart enough to know the root causes of domestic violence. I'm not smart enough to know why the wife that was beat half to shit shot me in the back while I was putting the cuffs on her loving hubby (thank God for Kevlar). I am smart enough to know that the less often I had to find a four year old hiding in a closet and carry her past her Momma's body, the better I like it.
Argue philosophy about the place law enforcement has in the home. While you're at it go look at somebody who's been beaten to death. See the blood spattered on the ceiling and pooled on the floor. Smell it. See the thousand flies feasting. Carry the children out of that house and then try, after the shift, to sleep.
These are real human beings. They aren't statistcs. They aren't philosophy. Tonight, right now, there's somebody getting beat up. With just a little luck a neighbor or passerby will hear it and dial 911. Without that luck we'll hear about it when someone reports a bad smell.THAT'S what this conversation is about.
Posted by: Peter at May 22, 2004 01:53 AM (0GNJF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
