Decriminalizing Domestic Violence to save money.

[Monroe]

This is concerning. Shouldn't they decriminalize pot before they go decriminalizing domestic violence?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...riminalizing-domestic-violence-to-save-money/

The city could repeal an ordinance banning domestic violence because some say the cost of prosecuting those cases is just too high:

Last night, in between approving city expenditures and other routine agenda items, the Topeka, Kansas City Council debated one rather controversial one: decriminalizing domestic violence.
Here’s what happened: Last month, the Shawnee County District Attorney’s office, facing a 10% budget cut, announced that the county would no longer be prosecuting misdemeanors, including domestic violence cases, at the county level. Finding those cases suddenly dumped on the city and lacking resources of their own, the Topeka City Council is now considering repealing the part of the city code that bans domestic battery. [...]
Since the county stopped prosecuting the crimes on September 8th, it has turned back 30 domestic violence cases. Sixteen people have been arrested for misdemeanor domestic battery and then released from the county jail after charges weren’t filed. “Letting abusive partners out of jail with no consequences puts victims in incredibly dangerous positions,” said Becky Dickinson of the YWCA. “The abuser will often become more violent in an attempt to regain control.”




​

 

[Carol]

Thats...horrifying.

 

[Big Don]

I can't wait until they decriminalize assault with a deadly weapon... That will be great, for some of us

 

[billc]

Wait just a minute. They might be on to something. Instead of decriminalizing domestic violence...why not tax it? Imagine the money they could generate by giving tickets out instead of pursuing it in the courts. Better yet, sell a licensing fee for various crimes. Imagine the revenue that would generate. I think they really have something here. Imagine murder permits. It would be like deer season, you would have a limit, and you would have to have a license and pay various fees, but in the end it might actually help communities build new playgrounds and schools. A win-win all the way around, don't you think.

 

[MA-Caver]

Wait just a minute. They might be on to something. Instead of decriminalizing domestic violence...why not tax it? Imagine the money they could generate by giving tickets out instead of pursuing it in the courts. Better yet, sell a licensing fee for various crimes. Imagine the revenue that would generate. I think they really have something here. Imagine murder permits. It would be like deer season, you would have a limit, and you would have to have a license and pay various fees, but in the end it might actually help communities build new playgrounds and schools. A win-win all the way around, don't you think.

Tax murder? Some of those domestic violence incidents usually ends up with one or the other or both... dead. (yeah, I know you're being sarcastic billcihak).

It is horrifying and it seems that it was written by folks who apparently don't ever have to worry about it happening to them.

Morons.

 

[jks9199]

I don't have time right now to really look into this -- but what I see so far limits it to certain misdemeanor offenses of domestic assault. Reality: I'd call this a stand-off between the county and cities about who pays for a prosecution which often leads to probation and counseling programs more than convictions and fines.

 

[Mike Melillo]

At first nod, it's a terrifying scenario for the victims. Looking at this from outside the box, doesn't it always seem that hot-button, emotional issues get the cuts? they could easily solve this by decriminalizing other non-violent crimes, like they did up here with pot... Reduce the crime of possession to a fine, which removes the processing, arrest and holding procedures, and actually builds revenue to spend on more important things... Like, say, prosecuting more serious crimes, like domestic violence. This article and its mindset is an example of how to get the public outraged without providing a sound, simple solution. Both the media and the local government are to blame for this kind of blatant, diversionary nonsense, when the answers are so simple.

 

[MA-Caver]

At first nod, it's a terrifying scenario for the victims. Looking at this from outside the box, doesn't it always seem that hot-button, emotional issues get the cuts? they could easily solve this by decriminalizing other non-violent crimes, like they did up here with pot... Reduce the crime of possession to a fine, which removes the processing, arrest and holding procedures, and actually builds revenue to spend on more important things... Like, say, prosecuting more serious crimes, like domestic violence. This article and its mindset is an example of how to get the public outraged without providing a sound, simple solution. Both the media and the local government are to blame for this kind of blatant, diversionary nonsense, when the answers are so simple.

Well of course the answers are simple... when a man has been proven to be beating up on his wife/significant other... then a couple of (off season/retired) NFL linemen are called over to beat up on him. Basically to give him the idea of how it feels when someone bigger and stronger than you is beating on you.
If a woman is beating on a man then same thing... only roller derby girls.
Realistically the (traditional) vows of marriage does give the one the right to impose "disciplinary action" upon the other, i.e. denial of affection/sex/communication whatever. It doesn't in no shape or form grant rights to physically, emotionally, mentally abuse the spouse. Nor does it grant the ability to inflict such harm and call it "love".
Live in bf/gf... IMO is the same thing as being married... just not on the official or legal capacity... but the treatment of each other should be the same as if in a marriage.

A while back I posted a short video of an experiment... where a guy played a tape/mp3 of a guy practicing on his drums (loudly)... neighbors banged on his door to knock it off and bla bla bla. Then he played the next night the sounds of a guy yelling and screaming at a woman (wife) and her screaming in pain and fear and sounds of things crashing and other violence. Not one neighbor did a damned thing.

It's why it's gotten so expensive for the state/cities/counties to resolve the matters that could be taken care of by neighbors. *eyes wide* Ohhh none of our business? *blink-blink* If that were true... why did we (or our parents or their parents or however old the law(s) are) write the laws against domestic violence in the first place? But since it is the law should we leave it up to the law enforcers to deal with it? Then if that's the case, we shouldn't ***** and moan about our tax dollars being spent on this particular area.

 

[Monroe]

I don't have time right now to really look into this -- but what I see so far limits it to certain misdemeanor offenses of domestic assault. Reality: I'd call this a stand-off between the county and cities about who pays for a prosecution which often leads to probation and counseling programs more than convictions and fines.

They specifically mentioned battery in the article.

 

[Monroe]

@MA-Caver - I had a neighbour who usually lived alone in her apartment, but sometimes the boyfriend stayed over. About once a week or every two weeks we'd hear her screaming, stuff smashing and him yelling. Sounded like he was beating the crap out of her. I called the police every time. I didn't ever confront the guy because he was scary looking. We only heard him speak Russian or grunt, looked like he lifted weights and had tattoo's everywhere. I wouldn't have knocked on his door if he had been playing loud music.

It wasn't that I thought "it's not any of my business." I took the safest option. I'd bet the police were a little scared of him too.

 

[jks9199]

At first nod, it's a terrifying scenario for the victims. Looking at this from outside the box, doesn't it always seem that hot-button, emotional issues get the cuts? they could easily solve this by decriminalizing other non-violent crimes, like they did up here with pot... Reduce the crime of possession to a fine, which removes the processing, arrest and holding procedures, and actually builds revenue to spend on more important things... Like, say, prosecuting more serious crimes, like domestic violence. This article and its mindset is an example of how to get the public outraged without providing a sound, simple solution. Both the media and the local government are to blame for this kind of blatant, diversionary nonsense, when the answers are so simple.

I've read more of the articles and links. Once you get past the hyperbole on the activist sites, it's a stunt. It's a tactic aimed at generating press and uproar and pushing the county to take on the cases.

The county announced that it will no longer prosecute ANY misdemeanor cases AT THE COUNTY LEVEL. Pushing misdemeanor prosecution to the city/town level. (I don't know enough about how they're organized there; I wonder about unincorporated areas that don't have their own courts and only have county courts.) The city suddenly receives an influx of misdemeanor cases to prosecute. So... some smart politician decides to call attention to it. Dope cases, simple assault (by the way, even if you decriminalize the domestic issue -- the offenses remain assaults, though you might eliminate some borderline arrests and be more limited in how to handle mental/emotional abuse cases, which are hard to prove and arrest anyway), petit larceny? You'll get a little response, but not a lot. DUI? Betcha that's the next one they talk about decriminalizing. Domestic abuse? Yep, lots of outcry. And the county and city end up playing chicken.

 

[jks9199]

It's why it's gotten so expensive for the state/cities/counties to resolve the matters that could be taken care of by neighbors. *eyes wide* Ohhh none of our business? *blink-blink* If that were true... why did we (or our parents or their parents or however old the law(s) are) write the laws against domestic violence in the first place? But since it is the law should we leave it up to the law enforcers to deal with it? Then if that's the case, we shouldn't ***** and moan about our tax dollars being spent on this particular area.

In the past -- the neighbors didn't generally take care of the problem, until things reached really bad levels. And often not even then. The domestic abuse laws are a reaction to the history of community and police failing to take sufficient action until much too late. Your own statement that marriage vows permit "disciplinary action" including what amounts to emotional or psychological abuse shows how deeply the mindset that what goes on in the household is private runs. The old common law rule that a man could beat his wife with a stick no larger than his thumb is gone (at least in the US). But a lot of time, cops do chafe under the "must arrest" statutes, because we find ourselves arresting people in stupid situations. I had to work HARD to figure out how not to arrest a woman one night; the family had just moved (as in that day), kids were in an uproar, and the couple was arguing. I forget exactly why -- but she threw a plastic tub of strawberries, and hit him in the chest with them and leaving a mark. Strictly speaking -- I had a domestic assault. But an arrest wouldn't have solved anything and would have made a bigger problem. So my report was something on the order of 3 pages long, justifying NOT arresting her. To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been another assault at that house, and it's been years.

 

[MA-Caver]

In the past -- the neighbors didn't generally take care of the problem, until things reached really bad levels. And often not even then. The domestic abuse laws are a reaction to the history of community and police failing to take sufficient action until much too late. Your own statement that marriage vows permit "disciplinary action" including what amounts to emotional or psychological abuse shows how deeply the mindset that what goes on in the household is private runs. The old common law rule that a man could beat his wife with a stick no larger than his thumb is gone (at least in the US). But a lot of time, cops do chafe under the "must arrest" statutes, because we find ourselves arresting people in stupid situations. I had to work HARD to figure out how not to arrest a woman one night; the family had just moved (as in that day), kids were in an uproar, and the couple was arguing. I forget exactly why -- but she threw a plastic tub of strawberries, and hit him in the chest with them and leaving a mark. Strictly speaking -- I had a domestic assault. But an arrest wouldn't have solved anything and would have made a bigger problem. So my report was something on the order of 3 pages long, justifying NOT arresting her. To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been another assault at that house, and it's been years.

I believe I've been misread... I did not condone any such abuse.

It doesn't in no shape or form grant rights to physically, emotionally, mentally abuse the spouse. Nor does it grant the ability to inflict such harm and call it "love".

But just what does it mean when the words "obey" (as in the "to love honor and obey..." line) mean. A spouse tells the other do not "whatever" and they go ahead and do it anyway, and there is no consequence to it? This is what I meant by disciplinary action, that something has to be done to keep peace in the marriage. Both learn from each other what the other one wants... or doesn't want. Whatever it is. Then honor and obey them.
Most domestic abuse is over petty stuff and a need to dominate and control their spouse/partner. Some have a whacked out idea of what domination and control means. Others just take it too damned far. Much of it is generational and is passed from parent to child, thinking it's how things are done. The cycle must be broken before domestic violence can be stopped, or at lest reduced.

 

[aedrasteia]

Caver

But just what does it mean when the words "obey" (as in the "to love honor and obey..." line) mean. A spouse tells the other do not "whatever" and they go ahead and do it anyway, and there is no consequence to it?

There were and are most definitely consequences.

And one party had supported authority over the other. Only one of the parties is required to vow to obey the other.
That required 'obedience' was not reciprocal. In some religious vows it still does not apply to both people. Only One person is
instructed to obey the other.
And what is still included in some religious vows was once fully enforceable under law. The process of changing the laws
that supported that enforcement of one party's requirements over the other has taken more than 100 years. And the marital rape
exclusion remained in force until our own lifetimes.

Different communities accepted differing levels of 'enforcement' but only one party had the legally (or socially) supported right
to do the 'enforcing'.

I believe you know which one. It is both sad and dangerous for us to forget that reality of history or to countenance
reality's disappearance from the conversation about violence in families and its consequences. The effects of that long
history remain today.

And there were most certainly consequences: for the 'disobedient'. There still are.

jks1999 is right: many people just didn't (and still don't) see a 'problem' that needs their action to stop it. It's now considered.the responsibility of a single spouse or child to escape. If they can. Some make it, many don't.

I'm sure you don't accept this violence. But remembering history counts.

 

[Tez3]

I'm a bit foggy here, 'domestic violence' is still assault (here it could also be GBH or ABH, even murder) still against the law regardless of what relationship anyone is to anyone. Domestic violence shouldn't be a separate criminal offence. What can be done is set up units to deal with it as police forces often do with gangs/drugs/fraud etc but beating someone up is still against the law, at least I hope it is there!

 

[aedrasteia]

I'm a bit foggy here, 'domestic violence' is still assault (here it could also be GBH or ABH, even murder) still against the law regardless of what relationship anyone is to anyone. Domestic violence shouldn't be a separate criminal offence. What can be done is set up units to deal with it as police forces often do with gangs/drugs/fraud etc but beating someone up is still against the law, at least I hope it is there!

Tez

Domestic violence once (up until the last 30 years) was not any kind of offense in some places, or 'correction of a wife' was specifically exempted or the law was so narrowly drawn as to be almost meaningless, or law on the books was seldom enforced or consequences for cruelty were so light. Much has changed by people who _made_ things change. Against stiff resistance every step of the way... until a shift in perception began to happen. Its still shifting but so much has changed.
You are correct. but for major difference.

under criminal law in many many US states (and other counties) parents/guardians of children were either 'socially' exempted from any prosecutions for violence - even horrific cruelty - against their children or other children in the family, or they were specifically and legally immune from charge or prosecution, yes, even to the point of death. Most often it was the father who was both legally and socially protected. This was specifically addressed in many laws concerning families. Legislatures and courts were reluctant in the extreme to 'interfere'. The effort to change this disturbing state of affairs took many many decades.

I am less familiar with law and change in GB but here it was an astonishingly slow and painful slog to get change.
As for law on violence against wives... worse. Even more and more stubborn resistance. and uglier opposition.

As a result, it was necessary to _add_ criminal statutes specifically including these relationships which had once been specifically exempted, rather that void all existing law on this and start over from scratch.

And it is extremely important to know that the (state) laws of the last 30 years remove all language about the gender of the perpetrators due to the insistence of the activists working for change.

Now, thanks to the activists (A takes small bow) both men and women can be charged and prosecuted. Prior, 'rape' statutes were known as 'carnal knowledge' statutes. Only carnal knowledge by a man, committed against a woman or girl (not his wife) was a chargeable offense of rape. Men could not possibly be victims of this crime and only vaginal violation was a crime of rape (differences among states).

I'll add the legal references when I can dig them out - History of family law and violence in America is well researched and part of law school, US history/sociology etc. Much of it is disturbing and painful but worth understanding.

thanks for caring about this.

 

[jks9199]

I believe I've been misread... I did not condone any such abuse.


But just what does it mean when the words "obey" (as in the "to love honor and obey..." line) mean. A spouse tells the other do not "whatever" and they go ahead and do it anyway, and there is no consequence to it? This is what I meant by disciplinary action, that something has to be done to keep peace in the marriage. Both learn from each other what the other one wants... or doesn't want. Whatever it is. Then honor and obey them.
Most domestic abuse is over petty stuff and a need to dominate and control their spouse/partner. Some have a whacked out idea of what domination and control means. Others just take it too damned far. Much of it is generational and is passed from parent to child, thinking it's how things are done. The cycle must be broken before domestic violence can be stopped, or at lest reduced.

It's not so much that you condone it as that it's something that is so deeply entrenched through socialization and acculturation that the "acceptable" level is invisible. Let's look at the idea of withholding affection. If you saw a group of kids who actively shunned one member for a disagreement -- you'd probably consider it at least borderline bullying behavior, no? But if it's between a husband and wife -- it's just "he's in the doghouse" or "she's giving him the silent treatment."

Domestic abuse is a very complicated pattern of behaviors, often deeply ingrained into both partners. In fact, abusive acts can even be perceived by the parties as "proof" or reinforcement of their love.

 

[jks9199]

I'm a bit foggy here, 'domestic violence' is still assault (here it could also be GBH or ABH, even murder) still against the law regardless of what relationship anyone is to anyone. Domestic violence shouldn't be a separate criminal offence. What can be done is set up units to deal with it as police forces often do with gangs/drugs/fraud etc but beating someone up is still against the law, at least I hope it is there!

Tez,
In most states within the US, domestic violence has been codified as a specific offense within the spectrum of assaults. The distinguishing elements are the relationship of the parties involved. For example, in Virginia, a covered relationship is one between spouses and ex-spouses, siblings & step-siblings, parent/child (indcluding steps), grandparent/grandchild, in-laws living in the same household, anyone with a child in common, and people who have cohabitated in the last year (not simply roommates). When we have credible complaint or evidence leading to probable cause, we are generally required to make an arrest of the primary aggressor (or explain why no arrest was made) and at least request an emergency protective order (the magistrate may or may not grant it; there's actually a credible argument that bond conditions of no contact are more effective because they don't expire in 48 hours or so). The case is heard in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, and there are numerous extra services and protections that are triggered and come into play. Many agencies have dedicated squads to conduct follow up on domestic cases, and victim's services units that guide the victim to resources and accompany and support the victim during the prosecution. Federal law prohibits firearms possession by anyone convicted of domestic violence, and state law prohibits a person named in a protective order from possessing firearms. There are also alternative dispositions available to the court, like mandated anger management education/therapy, and probation leading to dismissal. Police, teachers, doctors, and some others are mandatory reporters, as well, meaning that I cannot ignore evidence of domestic and child abuse that I encounter professionally. They must report and/or investigate (cops are in the weird category of "reporter" meaning investigator, generally) the offense, and document that.

Again -- these laws were a reaction to the simple fact that, for too long, and in too many cases, cops would go to the same houses all the time, and little was done until someone died or was seriously injured. They also reflect the complexity of the domestic violence cycle.

Oh -- by the way -- domestic violence laws do NOT prevent reasonable and non-injurious physical or emotional discipline of a child. I say this because just about every cop in the US has responded to more than a few cases where a kid decided to threaten to report his parent for daring to send them to bed without supper or swat their behind.