T Nation

Domestic Violence


#1

I know everyone is probably familiar with the Ray Rice incident, since there is a similar thread in GAL. But I want to open a different discussion. This sort of ties into a similar thread we have going on (RE: police powers), but DV has so many tangents, I think it's own thread is worthy.

Should the police prosecute on behalf of a victim when the victim DOES NOT want to prosecute??


#2

If it happens publicly, maybe. If it happens privately, no.

CPS is already pretty intrusive and disruptive given that it investigates the most minor tangential possibility that something maybe happened. I hear some of these stories from the pediatric community, since they’re obligated to report to CPS when certain medical conditions present themselves. I’m not going to at all imply that all abuse is obvious, but they’ve extended their power a bit too much… e…g, a child has a blood condition that causes them to bruise easily, and the parents are treated as abusive parents until proven otherwise.

I really don’t want to see the same thing extended in the domestic violence space, even more so when things like verbal and emotional abuse are taken into account.

If we’re talking about it in the sense of disturbing the peace in a public space, ok, I can probably get behind that.


#3

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I know everyone is probably familiar with the Ray Rice incident, since there is a similar thread in GAL. But I want to open a different discussion. This sort of ties into a similar thread we have going on (RE: police powers), but DV has so many tangents, I think it’s own thread is worthy.

Should the police prosecute on behalf of a victim when the victim DOES NOT want to prosecute??[/quote]

I think if it’s a first time occurrence and it’s serious, lay the charge. If there is a history of family violence, lay the charge regardless of severity.

In my jurisdiction we lay a charge no matter what if we believe an assault has occurred. Overall, I think this policy is detrimental.


#4

[quote]LoRez wrote:
If we’re talking about it in the sense of disturbing the peace in a public space, ok, I can probably get behind that.[/quote]

Why not lay the charge for the offence of disturbing the peace without bringing domestic violence charges into it?


#5

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
If we’re talking about it in the sense of disturbing the peace in a public space, ok, I can probably get behind that.[/quote]

Why not lay the charge for the offence of disturbing the peace without bringing domestic violence charges into it?[/quote]

I suppose that’s sort of where I was going with that, or that a physical assault on one’s partner in a public space should be treated as any other assault.


#6

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I know everyone is probably familiar with the Ray Rice incident, since there is a similar thread in GAL. But I want to open a different discussion. This sort of ties into a similar thread we have going on (RE: police powers), but DV has so many tangents, I think it’s own thread is worthy.

Should the police prosecute on behalf of a victim when the victim DOES NOT want to prosecute??[/quote]

The prosecutor represents the people, not the victim, actually. So, while the victim’s wishes might be taken into account as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, a batterer doesn’t get a free pass just because his victim is afraid of him. I think this is especially important to keep in mind, because if the batterer keeps getting a free pass he (or she even) can simply move from victim to victim without consequence.


#7

The police should not be prosecuting on behalf of anyone for “crimes against persons”. I heard that in some cases, domestic assault can be defined as a boyfriend grabbing a girlfriend’s cell phone out of her hand. And if a 3rd party sees this and calls the police, the police responds, then what? The girl says, no big deal, I’m fine. They ask the guy what happens, he says he I grabbed her phone. BOOM. He’s arrested for domestic assault.

Fuck that.

That’s bullshit. If no one wants to prosecute, then should be no crime. And if she is too afraid… well, isn’t there like tons of services for battered women?

And to you cops, what clear defines domestic assault? How is it different from a regular assault??


#8

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Should the police prosecute on behalf of a victim when the victim DOES NOT want to prosecute??[/quote]

Absolutely not. Domestic violence should be treated like any other violence(I also oppose prosecuting the offender in shootings, stabbings, etc. with a victim that doesn’t want to do so). I imagine that mandatory arrest laws in domestic situations are near the top of the list of despised laws(for both citizens and police) everywhere.


#9

If domestics violence includes this offensive contact clause, wouldn’t Ray Rice’s wife had been guilty of domestic assault? Didn’t she get up in his face first? And if she merely bumped into Ray, that’s assault.


#10

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I know everyone is probably familiar with the Ray Rice incident, since there is a similar thread in GAL. But I want to open a different discussion. This sort of ties into a similar thread we have going on (RE: police powers), but DV has so many tangents, I think it’s own thread is worthy.

Should the police prosecute on behalf of a victim when the victim DOES NOT want to prosecute??[/quote]

The prosecutor represents the people, not the victim, actually. So, while the victim’s wishes might be taken into account as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, a batterer doesn’t get a free pass just because his victim is afraid of him. I think this is especially important to keep in mind, because if the batterer keeps getting a free pass he (or she even) can simply move from victim to victim without consequence.

[/quote]

This!


#11

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I know everyone is probably familiar with the Ray Rice incident, since there is a similar thread in GAL. But I want to open a different discussion. This sort of ties into a similar thread we have going on (RE: police powers), but DV has so many tangents, I think it’s own thread is worthy.

Should the police prosecute on behalf of a victim when the victim DOES NOT want to prosecute??[/quote]

The prosecutor represents the people, not the victim, actually. So, while the victim’s wishes might be taken into account as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, a batterer doesn’t get a free pass just because his victim is afraid of him. I think this is especially important to keep in mind, because if the batterer keeps getting a free pass he (or she even) can simply move from victim to victim without consequence.

[/quote]

Correct.


#12

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Should the police prosecute on behalf of a victim when the victim DOES NOT want to prosecute??[/quote]

Absolutely not. Domestic violence should be treated like any other violence(I also oppose prosecuting the offender in shootings, stabbings, etc. with a victim that doesn’t want to do so). [/quote]

Why? If the offence takes place in public then haven’t they also committed an offence against the public? You know, “affray”.


#13

[quote]NickViar wrote:
(I also oppose prosecuting the offender in shootings, stabbings, etc. with a victim that doesn’t want to do so). [/quote]

So I assume you are against murder prosecutions unless the victim presses charges.


#14

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
(I also oppose prosecuting the offender in shootings, stabbings, etc. with a victim that doesn’t want to do so). [/quote]

So I assume you are against murder prosecutions unless the victim presses charges.
[/quote]

Ha!


#15

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
(I also oppose prosecuting the offender in shootings, stabbings, etc. with a victim that doesn’t want to do so). [/quote]

So I assume you are against murder prosecutions unless the victim presses charges.
[/quote]
You never fail to make a solid point. You are a clever rhetorer and a smart man.


#16

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
(I also oppose prosecuting the offender in shootings, stabbings, etc. with a victim that doesn’t want to do so). [/quote]

So I assume you are against murder prosecutions unless the victim presses charges.
[/quote]

Clever reply, but incorrect(and, truthfully, not all that clever-a victim that DOES NOT WANT TO press charges is obviously different than a victim that CAN NOT press charges). If someone’s life is taken(or the extent of one’s injury is such that they are no longer able to make or communicate decisions), then I’m okay with assuming that the person would NOT have consented to such(if he wanted death, he would have killed himself). Of course, if a person was to consent to being killed, while alive and conscious of what he’s consenting to, then I am okay with allowing the person to be killed(I don’t believe Jack Kevorkian to be a criminal…and wouldn’t think of him as such even if he had shot the people that wanted to die in their heads instead of just assisting them with suicide).

What I was talking about was more of a fight that results in one party being cut a couple of times, that person going to the hospital, the hospital calling for police response, and the police having to work the case, despite the “victim” obviously not wanting to pursue the matter. I have a feeling that Brett can verify how common such situations are. I don’t think police need to be helping either people that don’t want to help themselves(many domestic violence “victims”), people that don’t want to cooperate because they are afraid of blowback, or people that would just rather deal with a couple of cuts than to have to go to court.


#17

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Should the police prosecute on behalf of a victim when the victim DOES NOT want to prosecute??[/quote]

Absolutely not. Domestic violence should be treated like any other violence(I also oppose prosecuting the offender in shootings, stabbings, etc. with a victim that doesn’t want to do so). [/quote]

Why? If the offence takes place in public then haven’t they also committed an offence against the public? You know, “affray”.[/quote]

Even if we agree that the “public” is a real entity, then what damage was done to it? We have a “victim” that does NOT want the “offender” prosecuted, so we are left with punishing the “offender” for the damage he did to the “public,” right?


#18

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Should the police prosecute on behalf of a victim when the victim DOES NOT want to prosecute??[/quote]

Absolutely not. Domestic violence should be treated like any other violence(I also oppose prosecuting the offender in shootings, stabbings, etc. with a victim that doesn’t want to do so). [/quote]

Why? If the offence takes place in public then haven’t they also committed an offence against the public? You know, “affray”.[/quote]

Even if we agree that the “public” is a real entity, then what damage was done to it? We have a “victim” that does NOT want the “offender” prosecuted, so we are left with punishing the “offender” for the damage he did to the “public,” right? [/quote]

Who says there needs to be a quantifiable damage done? Just because Murray Rothbard said so doesn’t make it so. Rothbard also said parents have a right to let their children starve to death because forcing the parent to feed them would violate the parents’ rights. It is in everyone’s interest to curtail reckless behaviour that endangers others even when no actual harm occurs.


#19

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
(I also oppose prosecuting the offender in shootings, stabbings, etc. with a victim that doesn’t want to do so). [/quote]

So I assume you are against murder prosecutions unless the victim presses charges.
[/quote]

Clever reply, but incorrect(and, truthfully, not all that clever-a victim that DOES NOT WANT TO press charges is obviously different than a victim that CAN NOT press charges). If someone’s life is taken(or the extent of one’s injury is such that they are no longer able to make or communicate decisions), then I’m okay with assuming that the person would NOT have consented to such(if he wanted death, he would have killed himself). Of course, if a person was to consent to being killed, while alive and conscious of what he’s consenting to, then I am okay with allowing the person to be killed(I don’t believe Jack Kevorkian to be a criminal…and wouldn’t think of him as such even if he had shot the people that wanted to die in their heads instead of just assisting them with suicide).

What I was talking about was more of a fight that results in one party being cut a couple of times, that person going to the hospital, the hospital calling for police response, and the police having to work the case, despite the “victim” obviously not wanting to pursue the matter. I have a feeling that Brett can verify how common such situations are. I don’t think police need to be helping either people that don’t want to help themselves(many domestic violence “victims”), people that don’t want to cooperate because they are afraid of blowback, or people that would just rather deal with a couple of cuts than to have to go to court.[/quote]

It happens all the time. Mostly with the complainants being neighbors and roommates.

And not only is there the law when dealing with domestics, but you also have departmental policy. Our General Orders actually stipulate that that with domestics, “The preferred response is arrest.” And often in practice, probable cause is not even the standard. It’s reasonable suspicion. If police DO NOT make a arrest (and with a DV misdemeanor, the suspect has to be physically be taken into custody, not issued a citation due to the “likeliness of the offense to continue”), and there is a incident an hour later and the victim ends up in the hospital, that officer is going to be severely disciplined. ** Even when there appears no PC on the prior event!

So officers in fear of making a wrong decision, often err on the side of arrest. An arrest effectively separates the two parties so there will be no further threats or violence. This is almost 100% true is you have a “victim” who wants to prosecute, and there is questionable evidence. I’m telling you, you wouldn’t believe some to the complexities with domestic violence.

What do you think the burden of proof is to obtain an Order of Protection??


#20

[quote]LoRez wrote:
If it happens publicly, maybe. If it happens privately, no.

CPS is already pretty intrusive and disruptive given that it investigates the most minor tangential possibility that something maybe happened. I hear some of these stories from the pediatric community, since they’re obligated to report to CPS when certain medical conditions present themselves. I’m not going to at all imply that all abuse is obvious, but they’ve extended their power a bit too much… e…g, a child has a blood condition that causes them to bruise easily, and the parents are treated as abusive parents until proven otherwise.

I really don’t want to see the same thing extended in the domestic violence space, even more so when things like verbal and emotional abuse are taken into account.

If we’re talking about it in the sense of disturbing the peace in a public space, ok, I can probably get behind that.[/quote]

Of course govenment agenciy intervention is FAR LESS prefrable over friends and family taking the responsibility to defend, protect and council the victims.
However, lets not get the rediculous idea that most parents aren['t abusive to their children.
80%+ of mothers spank their children before the age of 1 and it just escalates from there.

Unless you know for a fact the position of the parent is to NEVER under any circumstances use force with their children, they are likely abusing them in some way.

In terms of domestic violence between adults, men and women are pretty much equally aggressors only there is far less awareness about men being abused and even less about children.