Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Deluded Judge Suggests Domestic Violence Victim Wanted to Be Hit

Posted by Karen Houppert at 1:00 PM on October 25, 2007.


Karen Houppert: If a woman falls in a parking lot and no one is around to hear, does she make a sound?
Judge Suggests Domestic Violence Victim Wanted to Be Hit

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Karen Houppert, originally appeared on The Nation

Domestic violence cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute.

But every once in a while, prosecutors get handed the tools for a conviction on a silver platter: An impartial eyewitness who just happens to be a police officer.

Such was the case in a domestic violence trial that made the local papers here in Maryland last week. A cop pulling into an Exxon station saw a man hit his girlfriend in the face three times, called in back-up and had the man arrested.

But according to Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Paul Harris, who is "probably as against domestic violence as anybody, when the case is proven," one can't simply assume that a woman who is being hit didn't consent to the attack. "Sadomasochists sometimes like to get beat up," the judge reminded the courtroom--then acquitted the man.

The judge appeared to be in a snit because the girlfriend, the alleged victim in the attack, had disappeared, even though she had been ordered to testify. Ignoring decades of research proving that domestic violence victims are often too afraid and intimidated to testify against perpetrators, the judge discounted the female cop's eyewitness account.

The Baltimore Sun reported on the judge's comments: "The state is stepping into the shoes of the victim when she obviously doesn't care," Harris told the prosecutor, according to a recording of the October 3 hearing. "It's that big brother mentality of the state....But I have to decide the case based on what I have and I think a crucial element is missing." Judge Harris, defending his position, asserted that to prove this was truly a second-degree assault, it had to be clear that "the defendant's actions were not consented to by the victim." He wondered, "How do you determine that without the victim?"

Hmmm.

"What would we do in a murder case?" Byron L. Warnken, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, fretted to a Baltimore Sun reporter.

The Capital of Annapolis and Baltimore Sun reporters thoroughly chronicled this miscarriage of justice, but silence greeted this dangerous precedent from the rest of the nation.

If a woman falls in a parking lot and no one is around to hear, does she make a sound?

Digg!

Tagged as: sexism, domestic violence, judicial system

Karen Houppert, an Air Force brat and a New York journalist, is the author of The Curse: Confronting the Last Taboo, Menstruation (Farrar, Straus & Giroux) and, most recently, Home Fires Burning: Married to the Military--for Better or Worse (Ballantine Books), about military wives whose husbands have been deployed.


Oh No! The Dictionary Has a Liberal Bias!
Is nothing sacred?
Post by Roy Edroso. July 5, 2009.
Amid 2012 Hopefuls' Career Implosions, Future Looks Bleak for GOP
Where are they going from here?
Post by Booman. July 5, 2009.
Yes Men Say No to Jerusalem Film Festival
The famous political pranksters withdraw latest flick in support of divestment movement.
Post by Staff. July 4, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What an ass
Posted by: JSquercia on Oct 25, 2007 2:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am sure this MORON also believes that RAPE victims really WANT it . Is there a recall provision in Maryland . I certainly hope so

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What an ass Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: What an ass Posted by: blitzmesser
Un-F$%^ing-believeable!
Posted by: CanuckKid on Oct 25, 2007 4:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He honestly believes that the victim may have wanted to get beaten up!? And the eyewitness report of an officer of the law wasn't good enough for him!?

Just when you think you've heard it all...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tell it to the judge.
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 25, 2007 4:41 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the following is accurate:

'to prove this was truly a second-degree assault, it had to be clear that "the defendant's actions were not consented to by the victim." He wondered, "How do you determine that without the victim?"'

the preceding comments are merely personal projections of the writers.

Yes, judges can be unfair to women. Yes, some decisions are so glaring patriarchal they are sickening. It would seem that in the specific instance reported, the prosecution's helplessness is not the judge's fault. Unless you still believe in "Ladies first."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tell it to the judge. Posted by: Grandma Crabby
What would it take?
Posted by: notinKansas on Oct 25, 2007 7:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somebody should check his finances. How much would it take to buy a decision like that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How many murders has this clown ruled as suicide??
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Oct 25, 2007 11:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No witness? How does he know they didn't want to die? Sheesh! How in Hell do people like this get on the bench? And I bet the cops there fell wonderfully supported. If a cop sees a guy pound another guy - or sees a woman do it, for that matter - and the victim doesn't show, would he discount the cop's eyewitness testimony if the cop was another guy? Somehow I doubt it.

Come to think of it, though, he's perfect for the coming fascist takeover. They won't even have to buy this guy - just make sure the victim is too tied up to show.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

angry
Posted by: Ames on Oct 26, 2007 12:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this shit makes me so angry i just don't have the words. it happens ALL the time. stupid laws coupled with stupid judges equals no justice for women.

and what does this say about the judiciary's faith in the police?! isn't the witnessing officer's statement worth anything at all? why, when it comes to domestic violence, does there have to be testimony from the victim - it's usually one witness against another in sexual violence (ie, the abuser versus the victim) but in this case there is another witness - there should be no need (though it may indeed help) for the victim to testify. ridiculous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sounds like a plea to me
Posted by: pkricker on Oct 26, 2007 4:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like the "judge" is trying to send a message. Maybe some kind soul should kick him around a little.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Asking For It
Posted by: Urgelt on Oct 26, 2007 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've never hit a woman in my life, and never will. I deplore violence against women. But I have to say that the judge in this case might have a point. The operative word is "might."

I haven't studied the case. But I have talked to victims of abuse. One of them in particular told me something that shocked and scared me.

She had been abused as a child. It was bad. I'm not going to tell you how bad, you don't need to hear it. But it was bad.

This seriously twisted her up inside, as you might imagine.

She's an adult now, married with children. She hates the residue of pain, humiliation and low self-esteem that lurks within her. She hates her lack of self-confidence, her dependency on her husband, her fear of the dark, her insomnia, reflux, eating disorder, social phobia, nightmares, angry outbursts. She's hurting.

All of that is easy for feminists to accept. What I'm about to tell you isn't.

She asked her husband to choke and shake her.

He did it, too. Once. Then he broke down and cried and told her never to ask that of him again.

Most of the time, she doesn't want to be treated that way, but sometimes, she confided in me, she wishes she could be. Not often, but sometimes. I asked her why, not understanding. She told me it "feels normal."

*takes a deep breath*

She's a victim. And if someone takes her up on her desire to be choked and shaken, that someone is morally guilty of victimizing her. But the law has trouble with these disctinctions. She's an adult.

And at least once in her adult life, she really did "ask for it."

Please understand, I'm *not* attempting to generalize. I'm not saying the law should give a free pass to violent offenders because their victims might be "asking for it."

But the reverse generalization is also suspect. Adults *can* consent to strange things, things that would be morally repugnant to most of us. Their reasons for consenting might be twisted as hell. But consent is possible. That's something feminists don't like to talk about.

And here we have a case where the victim doesn't show up, doesn't testify. The court has no information to parse the event.

Isn't it possible the judge made the right call?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Asking For It Posted by: NWCrow
» it's possible Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: Asking For It Posted by: maestra
pay attention
Posted by: yvonnecarroll on Oct 26, 2007 10:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pay attention to this creep...he knows so much about sadomasochism he must be one. That is why he let the criminal go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fear can make a person
Posted by: Misha2 on Oct 26, 2007 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
not show up in court. How do we know that she wasn't threatened or worse?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another qualified judge for the Supreme Court
Posted by: blitzmesser on Oct 26, 2007 12:40 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He will fit in with the rest of our administration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Judge doesn't know the law
Posted by: groyne on Oct 26, 2007 1:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After almost 20 years being associated with the national leather/BDSM communities, I can say with assurance that in most states, "consent is not a defense in cases of assault and battery." I know for a fact that cases claiming that the person consented to participate and get hit, spanked, flogged, strapped, paddled, bound, gagged or anything else you can think of, did not satisfy judges. They ruled that the charge stood, and the trial went forward. I also know of couples who did "scenes" in public to squick the muggles/mundies who have gotten into trouble with the law.

Besides, the presence or absence of the victim is not part of the case at all. (You don't need a statement from a murder victim in order to go forward with the arraignment or trial of the perpetrator.) The case is between the "people" of the state and the alleged criminal. It is the people who must be satisfied, not the victim. So, with the eye-witness testimony of a police officer, it's an open and shut case.

The ignorant bigoted judge should be disbarred.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is what we get
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 28, 2007 11:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When we only put former DA's up for criminal court judges. A sick perverse system will only give birth to more sick and twisted members.

It seems that the level of judicial ignorance and malfeasance among those on the bench has increased. I've heard more than one retiring judge bemoan the dysfunctional system and demise of their formerly "learned" profession as they retire. Ten years ago I thought it was just old-timer moaning or mistaken nostalgia. Reading court rulings and judicial opinions over the last decade, however, I'm inclined to agree that there is a serious problem with the legal knowledge of the current "crop" of judges on the bench, and in those who are being put up for appointments. When paralegals and law students know more than some of the appointees, when Judicial law clerks quit in droves or put in for transfers to other justices, that tells me something is gravely wrong. This sick-guy merely confirms my inclination and supports the oft-cited malaise in the profession by retiring judges who are still truly honorable professionals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You All Got It Wrong
Posted by: faultroy on Oct 28, 2007 5:00 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't believe some of the bigoted remarks posters left on this story. It just goes to show that there is a disconcerting Fascism on the part of so many fair weather liberals --most of them women that do not really understand matters of law. Domestic Violence is a felony. The fact that a police officer saw a women get slapped in the face three times means that there was cause for arrest, but that does not mean that is was sufficient cause for conviction. Admitantly the judge is an idiot, not for his ruling, but for his clumsy way of verbalizing matters of constitutional law--let me see if I can help.. under the laws of the Constitution of the United States, an accused has the right to query or cross examine the witnesses against him. In this case, the District Attorney had the option of issuing a supoena to the alleged victim to force her to testify. And furthermore, if she did not want to testify to treat her as a "hostile witness." A judge cannot by law arbitrarily rule someone as guilty without a person being at a trial where it is very clear a witness does not want to testify--the accused has a right to cross examine! And unlike the ridiculous hyperbole on the part of ignorant female posters above, it is obvious that this was "tiff" between two people that had a personal relationship. And no Virginia, we cannot use the analogy of not having a dead body being the same thing. The constitition is there to protect everyone in the process. Even with reference to known mobsters, a wife of a mobster is not required under law to testify any knowledge of criminal activity on the part of her husband because that is privileged information.
In this case it was fairly obvious to the judge based on the evidence--that conveniently was not presented as part of this biased story--that there were not only extenuating circumstances, but also that the witness did not want to testify for reasons we are unsure of-- and the reason we don't know is presumably because of the ineptness and bigotry of the writer. Had the writer done his or her job, we would have gotten the full story as opposed to the obviously biased and slanted piece that we are reading today. ...Another pathetic example of poor Journalism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Gotcha, Faultroy... Posted by: zipper696