Domestic violence is a very hot political topic, at least in the USA. As one example, in the place where I live, there is a court dedicated specifically to domestic violence cases (and protective orders).

There is an organized political movement dedicated to (from their perspective) eliminating family violence and protecting victims. Their method is to make punishment for offenders ever more punitive, and to make convicting alleged perpetrators as easy as possible. They have a paradigm that explains domestic abuse and a very specific view of what it is, and how it happens. Basically – and I’m not going to get too much into this – their view is that domestic violence is when a controlling, manipulative man beats his wife or girlfriend, and then convinces her it’s her fault. Speaking as someone who is on the front lines – I’m a criminal defense attorney – their paradigm is wrong, and their view of what it is and how it happens is also wrong.

I can’t say, of course, that there is no man who’s ever done this. But it is not the usual scenario. In fact, in all the years I’ve done this (criminal defense) I’ve never seen it. As far as I know, it’s a unicorn.

There is some good news. It used to be the case that if the police were called, it was automatically the man who went to jail. Over the course of the past five or so years, I’ve seen my family violence caseload go from approximately 0% women to approximately 1/3. The good news for them (the women, I mean) is that their cases (cases where the defendant is a woman) are far easier to get dismissed.

Anyway, I’m going to make a few general comments. If there’s interest, I’ll make more.

• Never, ever, hit a woman. Don’t grab her, push her, or do anything in anger that might cause physical pain. (Where I live, “family violence” includes anything that causes physical pain.
• Be aware that, that if the police are called (someone calls 911), they will almost always make an arrest. The question is not so much whether there will be an arrest, but who will be arrested.
• No “evidence” is needed for the police to make an arrest. I put quotes around the word “evidence” on purpose. Some people think that marks, bruises, scratches or some other kind of physical evidence is needed. It’s not. If a woman says she was assaulted, (and the police believe her) they will take you to jail.
• Never plead to assault – family violence, or domestic violence or whatever it is called in your jurisdiction. Even if the plea bargain sounds good, you need to be aware that a conviction for family violence will follow you forever. It will have collateral consequences: meaning, among other things, you will be barred from having certain jobs, it will make it harder for you to get any job, and – if you get divorced, or there’s a custody dispute – you will get absolutely screwed.
• If someone gets you arrested, that should be the end of that relationship. This is something I tell every client, but they often don’t listen. If you get arrested again, you will be more than twice as screwed as before. As one example, a second arrest for family violence (within 12 months) is a felony (in the state where I live).
• Do not stay with someone who threatens to get you arrested because she’s mad at you. Leave immediately.
• The alleged victim cannot “get the charges dropped.” It is the state, not the victim, who is prosecuting the defendant. (That’s why the charge is “The State of _____ vs. (defendant). The general policy, where I live, is that the prosecutors will not dismiss a case, just because the victim changes her mind.

I’m happy to write more, if people are interested or have questions.

I must reiterate: laws vary from place to place. If you’ve been arrested, get a lawyer in the place where you live.

DON’T GO NEAR THEM AT WORK OR TALK WITH THEM …. ONLY BUSINESS

IF YOU WANT A WOMAN ….. PAY FOR HER BY THE HOUR.

IT’S JUST NOT WORTH IT ANYMORE.

DON’T LIVE OR MOVE IN WITH A WOMAN.

DON’T GO NEAR THEM AT WORK OR TALK WITH THEM …. ONLY BUSINESS

IF YOU WANT A WOMAN ….. PAY FOR HER BY THE HOUR.

IT’S JUST NOT WORTH IT ANYMORE.

Yep, says it for me.

DON’T LIVE OR MOVE IN WITH A WOMAN. DON’T GO NEAR THEM AT WORK OR TALK WITH THEM …. ONLY BUSINESS

Agreed. If you have to go near them, try to make sure you are in public and on CCTV and stood in front of where the cameras are pointing. Always carry a digital voice recorder and record any conversations and back it up to safe storage.

The response, however, is strange. For example:

Increasing arrests of women for domestic violence (DV) in the wake of mandatory arrest laws have generated significant concern among victim advocates, researchers, and practitioners. It is commonly believed that many, if not most, of the women arrested are victims who were acting in self-defense. Understanding how these cases are handled by prosecutors and judges is important if we wish to minimize the negative consequences of these errant arrests. The present study examines factors prosecutors in a large southern city considered when accepting or rejecting DV cases involving female defendants. The results indicate that almost one half (47%) of the cases involving women arrested for DV against a heterosexual intimate partner were rejected by prosecutors; another 16% were dismissed by a judge. Legal factors like a defendant’s prior criminal arrests, use of a weapon, victim injury, and, most important, the type of arrest (i.e., dual vs. single arrest) all affected prosecutors’ decisions to take these cases. Female defendants arrested for offending against a male intimate partner were treated more leniently than male defendants and women arrested for domestic offenses involving other types of relationships (i.e., familial, homosexual). The results highlight the need for a further study of officers’ arrest decisions in cases involving heterosexual intimate partners.

To summarize: More women are getting arrested, but their cases are far more likely to get dismissed. The discrepancy, therefore, means police are arresting women when they shouldn’t be.

Or this, from a women’s advocacy site:

One of the effects of stricter laws and policies directing police to treat domestic violence as serious violent crime has been skyrocketing arrest rates of women for domestic violence. In some police departments the percentage of domestic violence arrests of females has shot up to 30 to 40 percent of the arrests. What’s most revealing about this massive shift toward arresting more females is the fact that conviction rates for males vs. females remains basically unchanged. Between 90 and 95 percent of domestic violence convictions continue to be convictions of males

.

The author goes on to hypothesize that police hostility toward women, or men “purposely injuring themselves before police arrive” are possible reasons for the increased numbers of arrests. This, despite research from the CDC showing:

More men than women were victims of intimate partner physical violence within the past year, according to a national study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Justice. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (hereinafter NISVS) released in December, 2011, within the last 12 months an estimated 5,365,000 men and 4,741,000 women were victims of intimate partner physical violence.

In other words, if the CDC study is to be believed, police are still disproportionately arresting men.

And women who do get arrested get much more lenient treatment in the courts.

I mentioned upthread, that in the city where I work, there’s one court that handles family violence cases. Every prosecutor assigned to that court is currently a woman. It’s an open secret (except the “secret” part) among defense attorneys that women’s cases (cases where the defendant is a woman) are almost always dismissed. I have literally watched a prosecutor’s attitude and demeanor change, as soon as she realized the defendant was a woman. It goes from adversarial, to semi-conspiratorial: “Help me find a way – a justification – so that I can get this case dismissed.”

It’s just harder with kids. It’s hard to think your child is a danger to your freedom and cannot be trusted to stay in your home.

@ Dispo: What do you think?

• The alleged victim cannot “get the charges dropped.” It is the state, not the victim, who is prosecuting the defendant. (That’s why the charge is “The State of _____ vs. (defendant). The general policy, where I live, is that the prosecutors will not dismiss a case, just because the victim changes her mind.

This is how it is in NC. Once a bitch opens her mouth, it’s now the STATE VS. YOU…this is hard to believe for many people. It is the law, and it’s at any woman’s disposal. A giant gestapo waiting to take you in with zero repercussions for her. These oppressed women have their own security and prison industrial complex. If not for this type of law, I’d feel okay meeting and hanging with new people, but f~~~ that.

I have literally watched a prosecutor’s attitude and demeanor change, as soon as she realized the defendant was a woman. It goes from adversarial, to semi-conspiratorial: “Help me find a way – a justification – so that I can get this case dismissed.”

Prosecuting a woman is not good for his career path…

The thing is that the alleged victims generally do not cooperate with the prosecutors.

The victim’s support groups/feminists have their own theory about why this happens: that the victims suffer from some sort of abuse syndrome and/or they’re afraid to come to court/testify/talk to prosecutors because the defendant is threatening her.

It’s bulls~~~.

The truth is that (1.) punishing the man punishes the family. Every day he spends in jail, every dollar he pays in probation fees, or fines, or court costs, comes out of the family budget. When he’s in jail, he can’t be working (and if he’s there too long, he may lose his job). And he can only pay for probation out of money he makes – money that would otherwise go to the family. Furthermore a conviction for family violence may cost him his job, and will certainly reduce his earning potential in the future. Women quickly realize this, and when they do, they realize getting the case dismissed is in their interest, not just his. (2.) Coming to court, testifying, and being subject to cross-examination is inconvenient, at minimum; and possibly scary if what you told the police was a lie.

The US Constitution says that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront his accuser. Now victim’s rights groups have fought hard to keep that rule from applying to men in family violence cases, and they’ve had some successes. But as a general rule prosecutors still need the alleged victim in court and on the witness stand in order to convict a man without his consent. (In other words, to convict him after he turns down all plea bargains.)

Prosecutors know this. Defense attorneys know this. Once prosecutors are reasonably sure the alleged victim is not going to show up, the dynamic switches to the defendant’s favor. Prosecutors will drag their feet as long as they can in any case, but eventually they will either be forced to dismiss the case (for example: on the day of trial, when their witness isn’t there), or will offer a plea bargain that’s too good to pass up. (For example: a dismissal in exchange for taking a class and promising to stay out of trouble.)

***Note: I emphasized “general rule” above, because there are exceptions to this rule. If you’re accused of family violence, you need a lawyer in your jurisdiction, to advise you.