Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
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.

Imprisoning Victims Of Domestic Violence

Posted by Amanda Marcotte at 7:30 AM on April 15, 2008.


Can the police force a victim to testify against her will?
ipv

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

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

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Also in PEEK

Sarah Palin's Reckless Approach to Health Care
Julia Eisman Stand Up for Health Care

Election Observer Arrested in Arizona
Steven Rosenfeld AlterNet

Will Sarah Palin Have An Effect on the Women's Vote?
Heather Gehlert AlterNet

Hi, PEEKers! This is Amanda Marcotte, adding in one of my own posts from today and reminding you that I'll be your guest blogger for the next two weeks.

I've been thinking a lot about this case where the Toronto cops have detained a pregnant 19-year-old to force her to testify against the man who beats her, because she's doing what all too many victims do, and changing her mind about pressing charges and trying to return home so her abuser can beat her more. There's no telling, I guess, what causes women to do this. It varies from woman to woman, I suppose. Some probably think that he's going to stop the beating. Some probably know he's going to keep doing it, but have been convinced, possibly by the abuser and relatives, that they don't deserve any better and that if they lose this man, they'll never get another. Some might be foolishly holding it together for the children, having been convinced by social conservatives that fathers are absolutely critical, even fathers who beat their girlfriends. Some might fear the abuser's retribution.

But I'm going to go against my instincts here and try to be sympathetic to the position the police are in, while not excusing this final decision. Feminists have long, and for good reason, accused the cops of being sexist pigs who don't take domestic violence seriously. We have our list of reasons that they're in the wrong: They think it's a private matter. They agree with the abusers that some women need to be beaten down. They don't like taking a woman's side against a man. All these criticisms are true, but we'd be intellectually dishonest if we didn't admit that the fact that women will often file charges and then retract them pretty much immediately contributes to the situation. It's much, much easier to dismiss a victim as hysterical when she's behaving like this.

Let's say a police force decides that feminist criticisms of the way police handle DV should be taken seriously. No more dismissing cases, no more laughing it off, no more driving the abuser across town and letting him sleep it off. Let's start putting abusers behind bars. Let's try to prevent DV situations from escalating into murders. Let's show the feminist community that we do take their complaints seriously and wish to treat women as equally worthy of protection by law enforcement. In that case, what do you do when the victims themselves refuse to let you take DV seriously? It's not hyperbolic to say that refusing to prosecute cases where victims are still in the thrall of their abusers will lead to significantly lowered conviction rates, which feminist activists will then point to as evidence that the cops don't care. A real rock and a hard place.

In Canada, apparently the police have a right to hold witnesses to a crime that they have good reason to believe are reluctant to offer testimony or may flee from a subpoena. They do this for witnesses to street gang crime all the time, and if ever there was a reason to think that this is a right that should be extended, it's DV. While fully agreeing that it's distressing to see a victim locked up against her will, when the only realistic alternative is to release her to someone who will beat her, and probably immediately as punishment for dropping a dime on him, what do you do?

Family members and friends of DV victims, as well as shelter workers, have all encountered the problem of victims who start to regret their attempts to get out and start looking for ways to go back. And thus it's imperative on those trying to care for her to stall her until she starts to see reason and realize that her abuser isn't going to change and doesn't really love her. Now the cops are in the position to handle this problem, and they're going to use the one tool they have, which is force. This is alarming, but it doesn't automatically mean they are anything but well-intentioned. What if they think releasing this woman means she'll be murdered? What if they think her last chance for survival is putting him behind bars, and they need her testimony for that? What if this strategy works, and they manage to break the bonds between victim and abuser and set the woman free? What if they save her life by doing this?

I don't know. I can honestly say I don't know what the right thing to do is. It's easy to cast judgment, but seriously, there's no right answer very often in domestic violence cases.


Sarah Palin's Reckless Approach to Health Care
Just like John McCain, Palin is putting private market interests before consumers.
Post by Julia Eisman. September 7, 2008.
Election Observer Arrested in Arizona
Will cops crack down on election observers in November?
Post by Steven Rosenfeld. September 7, 2008.
Will Sarah Palin Have An Effect on the Women's Vote?
A recent survey shows mixed results.
Post by Heather Gehlert. September 7, 2008.

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:
The Existence of Gray
Posted by: Xynyx on Apr 15, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is exactly this sort of acknowledgment of the existence of gray areas in life that differentiates the thinking progressive from the authoritarian-loving conservative. The world is not all black and white. If there were simple solutions to problems such as these, we would have them already.

The specific circumstances of this case may well have dictated to the police that it made the most sense to detain the victim so she could be convinced to testify. Someone could find out, I suppose. I don't know about you, but I barely have time to comment here, much less follow up with any diligence on even the smallest fraction of DV cases. I'm not saying we shouldn't question such things... but we definitely need to be open-minded about solutions.

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

Deb
Posted by: debmcd on Apr 15, 2008 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd like to say this is absolutely the right thing to do, but since I'm not a party I can't say that. I can say that we need to start allowing women an alternative to living with an abuser. If women believed that not having a man, at any cost, is perfectly alright, then I think much of this behavior would stop. If women knew it was okay to raise a child alone, much of this would stop. It's the constant harping from those, usually men, who say there must be a father or a man in a child's life that make women believe this kind of behavior is fine and maybe even their fault. Fine, enroll your child in the Big Brothers or Big Sisters or a Mentoring program. No one can tell you that you must stay with an abuser because it's best for your kid. That is just wrong. How can seeing your mother smacked around be good for a kid? And to make young women believe that is just stupid. Women are strong. They would do a hell of a lot better running this country than men have done so far. Unfortunately, until we get everyone to ignore the misogynists that are running our country, this kind of behavior on both sides will continue.

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

Wrong way to deal with Battered Women Syndrome
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on Apr 15, 2008 11:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Locking up the victim is paternalistic.

Procedures of this kind give credence to the argument that women 'need protection' from themselves. This is the same rationale that Kennedy invoked to uphold the Federal antiabortion law last year i.e. women may regret getting abortion.

DV is a simple problem and its roots are in our misogynist culture. Society needs to raise boys to respect women and not see them as objects of pleasure. And girls need to be raised with better self-esteem.

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

Why not hold HIM until she can testify?!
Posted by: MamaPantz on Apr 15, 2008 11:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not arguing against your point, but I don't understand why they're not holding the alleged perpetrator, rather than the the victim. That makes more sense to me. If he's so dangerous, then why is he allowed to be free? Especially since she's pregnant, and while I'm sure they're treating her properly, a jail cell is hardly a healthy place for a mother-to-be. It's already stressful enough to be pregnant, and then she's already under additional stress from her situation.

I'm all for actually taking action against these cases, and ensuring that women are taken seriously. I know that it's a problem and the police are often complacent and ignorant about domestic violence.

So, if they want to do something about it, they should be holding the perp, not the victim. I can see if there's other circumstances, like additional family or friends that might retaliate on the perps behalf, and in that case, I can see holding a victim out of safety from anyone else. But if that's not the case, then they need to switch places.

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

A Complicated Situation
Posted by: oceansong on Apr 15, 2008 11:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a counselor who has worked with women in DV situations, and as someone who has attended many conferences on this subject -
I'm aware that women who voluntarily testify against their abuser often pay for it with increased violence. Aside from issues of denial, low self-esteem, desire to keep the family intact, etc, etc, - the fear of retribution is very real.

However, many police departments and prosecution lawyers have been trained to gather evidence that does not depend solely or heavily on the testimony of the victim. Often, a case that is dependent on the victim's courage and steadfastness has been a lazy way to prepare the case. Some jurisdictions train their police and lawyers to gather testimony from neighbors, hospital people, pictures of the abuse (bruises, wounds, etc.). Then the testimony from the victim is not central to the case. And the victim's testimony can be reluctant without endangering the case. A reluctant victim is often then safer.

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

Great Article Amanda.
Posted by: chuckjs on Apr 15, 2008 1:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That was a really nice duscussion on the subject. I seem to be having the same problem as you. I am a Canadian and this story has bothered me from the beginning. I cannot decide which side is right in this issue. While it does seem pretty ridiculous, on it's face, to lock up the victim, sometimes people need interventions in their lives in order to save them. I wonder who would take responsibility if she was released from custody and something bad did happen to her? But then again there has to be something better than a jail cell to protect this woman.

This is one of those real grey areas of life. And you have made a few points I hadn't thought of. Thanks for putting forth both sides of the issue in the same story.

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

Battered Wife Syndrome
Posted by: Cathyc on Apr 15, 2008 3:04 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason women fall in love and stay with violent and abusive men is because they were conditioned as children to passivley tolerate abuse and violence. It is only when they finally realize that such treatment is not normal, that they will either fight back or leave these Master -v- Slave relationships.

The intervention of the state does nothing to bring the victims (both male and female, though its usually women)of domestic violence to their senses. Its up to the individual in such situations to learn from their own experience, i.e., to discover WHY they are became so intimately involved with violent people in the first place. Some do. Some don't. But its not up to others outside of their Folie-a-Deux to sort them out.

ERIN PIZZEY was once a famous campaigner of so-called 'Battered Wives' in the UK and she wrote a seminal book called "Scream Quietly or the Neighbours will Hear" - which threw some light on this complex subject. Here's a taste of what she is about (I don't know how to put links on this site):-

Prone to Violence
by
Erin Pizzey
Erin Pizzey founded the first refuge for battered wives in 1971. As a result of that work there is now refuge all over the world. She is also a writer and a journalist. She has two children and two grandchildren from her first marriage. She has written: Scream Quietly or the Neighbors Will Hear, Infernal Child and The Slut's Cookbook.
The events and incidents referred to in this book are based on the authors' personal experience and information given to them. The names of the persons referred to in the text work have been altered and all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that they are not identifiable.


Just Google ERIN PIZZEY and you'll find plenty of info about her.

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

» RE: Battered Wife Syndrome Posted by: chuckjs
» A different analogy Posted by: chuckjs
Another Way
Posted by: Falloleen on Apr 16, 2008 3:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Portugal, domestic violence has recently been classified as a "public crime". This means that it can be reported by anyone who knows about it (not necessarily the victim) and the charges cannot be dropped.

If this works, you don't have to arrest anyone, while still making sure that people get help.

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

SOMETHING GOT TO GIVE FOR WASTING TIME PAYERS MONEY
Posted by: maddydigrazia on Apr 16, 2008 6:18 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If police are called for a domestic dispute the victim should not be able to drop the charges until a judge reviews the case and has the victim state on record why did they called the police, why does he/she want to drop the charges now after they has wasted tax payers time and money and due to the inconvienance the victim put the city thru should pay a court fee.

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

Cops and Prosecutor Colluding with Batterer
Posted by: Survivor77 on Apr 16, 2008 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sympathy for the cops is somewhat misplaced. The offender violated the laws of the state, not the women's personal laws. It is not her responsibility to "press charges" anymore than it is a building's responsibility to "press charges" against a vandal. I am not belittling women by using this analogy but I did choose it purposefully, to illustrate the responsibility of law enforcement to enforce the law - as opposed to making it the responsibility of the people and property violated by law-breakers. Until communities start embracing "victimless prosecution" - where safe - women will continue to be punished by the system for being battered. So, officers and prosecutors, how about? Feel like enforcing the law or colluding with the batterer?

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

» Right on Survivor! Posted by: foreverhope
Intriguing conundrum, once the conceits are set-aside
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 16, 2008 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two problems in the otherwise intriguing OP:

1. The sickening and misandrous assumption that fathers are not critical and that one must be a social conservative to think fathers are important. That's not feminism, that's misandry. This kind of vitriolic b.s. meme needs to stop being repeated by feminists; if we don't, we're diluting our voice and pouring gasoline on the fire we've been trying to put out. Abusive male behavior (WAG beaters, whatever) is not synonymous with fathering and fathers--that there is a connection made between these two things is the intentionally illiterate view of social conservatives so it ought not to be a accepted meme in feminism or progressives, FFS.

2. The sickening presumption that jailing abusive males, solves the problem. Putting someone behind bars, imprisonment, confinement, subjecting the abuser to abuse is revenge, it's "giving the bastard a taste of his own medicine," but it's NOT a solution.

Abusive males need to be separated from their victims in order to a) protect the victim from further abuse and disrupt the cycle of violence and b) to get the abuser "clear" so that treatment can be implemented... in the latter case, incarceration may sometimes be useful to "encourage" the abuser to recognize the problem (I haven't seen any studies that say this, it's a hope, a give-away to all you jail'em types).

Just sayin...

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

"dropping the charges"?! What happened to DA's?
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 16, 2008 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, the OP is talking Toronto (kiNAYduh) not the U.S. but I'm wondering about this idea of the victim having to be the one pressing the charges and thus being able to decide whether to press them or not. In the U.S. the paradigm is supposed to be there's an arrest made, there has to be an arraignment and if the DA presses the charges, (supposedly based on whether there's a case/winnable case) then it goes to trial or a plea bargain. The victim is merely a witness. So, what I'm reading in the article is that the cops in cuhNAYduh want the victim-witness to testify because the DA is prosecuting the case, and thus applying strong arm tactics, etc. etc.

Waaaayyyy back in the fifth grade we had a course called "civics" and we had it every year until 9th grade when Raygun took over and stopped that civics nonsense. We learned this kind of thing back then... so either I'm geting old or the law is different now or in Canada they just do things different... or sumpin.

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

DV is Alive and Thriving on America's Inept Legal System
Posted by: bettina9292 on Apr 16, 2008 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a victim of child abuse. I was also, as my sister was also a victim of domestic violence.
In an attempt to thwart violence against my children, I divorced (NO fault) I might ad.
This is my status on the issues. Divorce and custody matters are "civil suit matters" attended to in civil court-remember marriage is a contract, and so child custody matter are civil (contract agreements) also. After ten years, the abuse still continued through the legal system. My ex spouse had ten of thousands of dollars, over $100,000.00. He was very well established and well educated. I had photos, physiological evaluations and a determined spirit to limit his abuse towards myself and my children.
What happened unfortunately was this.
I was and continue to be battered by an inept legal system that rewards the person who has the greatest dollars to throw into the system. Having to litigate in two states, I had to spend well beyond my means and go bankrupt while doing so. In the end, I spent over 7 years acting pro se. In my residing state we continue with joint custody, although their primary residence is with me. Their visitations and schedule of summers with him continue. The battle was grueling and abusive itself. Photos, therapy sessions could not be used during proceedings because they were termed "biased".
I succeeded by obtaining a court order that stated that my ex"could not use corporal punishment or choke holds" against the children-but he got essentially the same custody that he had prior. My attorneys promised my supervised visits that never occurred. They took depositions that cost thousand that never resulted in anything. I one day only I spent over $15,000 for 5 minute hearing. One consulting attorney in Alaska said, that "I better get on a plane and kneel in front of a judge and beg for my children", because in Alaska taking away a father's right to visitation is a very big deal and the Judges here don't like that.In this state Oregon, everyone including convicted killers still have visitation rights.
Basically, I learned a great lesson. Unless a crime of domestic violence happens in front of courthouse steps with the police, certified counselors,the press filming it, and the injury results in death or dismemberment-no one cares.
It is our legal system and lack of social services that restrict us from properly dealing with this social problem.In Europe many countries the support system starts with a stipend and safe house that allow the victim to relocate economically and physically so that the emotional relocation and adjustment can begin to occur.
I was lucky that I am over 500 miles away from him now, and he only communicates by email. But , I still receive minimum child support-which he pays and has been adjusted downward through legal dueling that still leaves him with some control because it takes a great deal of money to raise children in America. For instance, he would not pay for my son's braces so he decided to litigate me to the State Supreme Court-until he was finally ordered to pay 3 years after.
Yet, I know that what I did was necessary it still wasn't enough. He still is verbally abusive to them but not so physical because he is afraid of his image being effected. The children now teenagers still visit with them because we cannot violate the court order.
In the end, I fear the inept American legal system becomes a tool for the abuser to continue his/her abuse if they have money and/or knowledge of the system and its inadequacies.
Whether it is battery or rape,and if your attacker is a your husband/wife you are bound to be more abused by the legal system that inadequately places the burden of poof (in a civil contractual dispute)on the person being abused who ultimately becomes the victim that no one wants to help. Amazing but true, we need contracts that specify that certain abuses are prohibited to get an advantage.

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

What Would the Right Case Be
Posted by: hysperia on Apr 16, 2008 9:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the things I learned as a "second wave" feminist is that it's crucial to be specific when trying to extract theory or policy implications from individual cases. The devil is often in the details. I suppose that it's possible to imagine some hypothetical case in which it makes sense to imprison a woman who refuses to testify against a man whom she has accused of abuse. But this isn't that case. And until there is a case in which such imprisonment truly does make sense, I suggest that it's dangerous to give any kind of dispensation to police and judges to put women in jail, including this hypothetical dispensation we seem to be talking about here.

Noelle Mowatt is a woman in the last WEEK of her pregnancy. She has been in Canada for two years and before living in Toronto, she lived in Jamaica. She has no relatives in Canada. In December, 2007, Ms Mowatt called police to report that her boyfriend, the father of her child, was assaulting her. The police attended, arrested her boyfriend and documented Ms Mowatt's injuries by taking a statement and photographs. Her boyfriend was held in jail without bail, pending trial.

With that trial coming up, police had difficulty tracking Ms Mowatt down to serve her with a subpoena to attend the trial. Apparently, they left messages for her somewhere, or with someone, asking her to pick up her subpoena at a police station. She never did so. A judge issued a bench warrant for her arrest as a material witness. The police managed to find her at that point and, with the approval of a Justice of the Peace, they imprisoned her, without charge, for one week, until she could be heard in Court.

This is both a ridiculous and counterproductive result. On the ridiculous side, hard to understand how the police could find Ms Mowatt to arrest her but not to serve the subpoena. Interesting that they should decide that she wasn't going to testify BEFORE she failed to show up in court. It's been quite a while since I've seen a bench warrant enforced with such alacrity. They sure do a better job of putting women in jail than they do of protecting them from harm!

On the counterproductive side, after spending her time in jail, some of it in segregation, the 19-year old, heavily pregnant woman was brought to court in a police wagon and forced onto the stand, where she denied that her boyfriend had ever assaulted her. What the Crown (prosecution) has now is her original statement and the photographs and the evidence of cops and doctors. They had all that to begin with. They have accomplished absolutely nothing, but at great cost to Ms Mowatt, who has stated that she will never be able to trust the police again.

I don't think it's difficult to imagine what motivated Ms Mowatt to withdraw her testimony against her boyfriend. Frankly, I'm getting tired of the notion that women behave this way basically because they're delusional about the cost versus the benefit of staying with violent men. Often, as here, the choices are objectively difficult. Poverty, the vulnerability of immigrant status, lack of family or community support, shrinking social services - all these things and more influence women's ability to make healthy choices for themselves and their children. Our justice system needs to take the complexity of these cases into account. We can't expect that will ever happen if we forget that complexity ourselves.

Noelle Mowatt is a racialized woman with no job and no community ties. It is no coincidence that perhaps the first woman to be jailed in Canada in these circumstances was not a rich or middle-class white woman. Can you imagine the uproar?

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

» RE: What Would the Right Case Be Posted by: bettina9292
So why is this only a female issue !
Posted by: Andrew_S on Apr 16, 2008 10:23 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I still don't get it, while raw state, federal, and DOJ stats prove otherwise. Why is it still only a female issue. I understand the fiscal economics of so many female only based groups padding the figures to bring an extremely unsavory subject to the attention of federal finance committees for taxpayer fundeded employment. I can understand a lot of self serving politically articulate individuals, enjoying the public manipulation of emotions, and quoting Erin Pizzy http://www.geocities.com/cry4children/VAWA.html
"I said twenty-five years ago and I still say: Of the first 100 women coming into the first battered women's refuge in the world in Chiswick, London 62 were as violent as the partner they left. I expect, once true figures can be correlated to find that figure reproduced as a true and accurate figure...

Today as a person with external genetalia, I cannot say that I am a true victim of DV, nor can I say I am meeted out daily by the same DV by another person with internal genetalia. Why would that be, apparently it is because of the selfish and short sighted views of the political and deviant narcissist. Worse and truly sad is that my children are taught the same thing, and guess what 'it wasn't taught or indoctrinated by a male.' So when my daughters are prone to commit violence, does that go under the carpet. Anyone watch Greta VanSustran, and her report on female on female violence. Nah, that was an abberation wasn't it. Oh, what a web we weave.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941

linked text= Medical study
and my favorite
Linked text= female Behaviour

As to the poster who stated that the legal system and its offshoots will also batter you could not be more correct. But isn't that what it was all about anyway making a living off of kids, women and federal tax dollars.

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

Um,
Posted by: cjennmom on Apr 16, 2008 4:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It makes sense to keep track of witnesses with necessary testimony, but I would be more impressed with voiding bail eligibility for those arrested for violent crimes. I would be doubly, if not triply impressed with making the courts overlap their duties so that the victims of those convicted are granted immediate divorces, lifelong restraining orders and incontestable sole custody of all minor children - without even having to ask for it. While we're at it, I would also make sure that the judges were bound to consider the non-physical abuses too instead of the current lackadaisical "may consider" attitude that permeates the law and judicial atmosphere today, and held accountable if they did not.

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

mick3
Posted by: mick3 on Apr 17, 2008 10:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prison is hardly the place for a victim of violence, but then, it's not as if she were male and well off. People who have been beaten down cannot make strong decisions, especially decisions that, with the pathetic state of protection offered by any government, will very probably result in their death. Such victims need counseling and protection, not further punishment. What a concept! Or, to reflect the attitude of those in power, what a waste of resources that could otherwise go toward, oh say, military adventures, the renaming of public places after men, and all the other "important" business of government.

The problem is basic: females are not male. Females do not have the same issues as males, whose main issues are those of ego, dominance, and winning at whatever. Females' lives are complicated and difficult in the best of circumstances, which difficulties they cover valiantly as they have always done, for the sake of their relationships, family, and community.

And also because the males in power don't take them seriously. Thus, women "pop" babies. I'd love to see what men would call birthing if they themselves experienced it in its endless ramifications. Child-bearing is the female version of going to war, but males put it right along the importance of sports, except not nearly as exciting or interesting.

It's jealousy--how dare those females have the ability to bring forth life, so god-like, after all?--crudely expressed through the world's current mythologies, i.e., religions. All of today's major religions are based on the crushing of female lives and the glorification of all things males.

Until females have control over their own bodies by law and by common human decency, and until society supports females at risk from chronically violent males, those males will use that vulnerability to dominate and abuse women and girls. All Christian leaders, since the beginning of that sect, have denigrated and abased females, and it still fouls the raddled minds of pastors, parsons, vicars, ministers, rabbis, priests, curates, popes, missionaries, whatever these pretend avatars call themselves. Onward Christian soldiers!

Disagree? Google: a woman's place in Christianity and see what comes up.

Meanwhile, the greatest public health issue on earth is delicately avoided by media, church, educators, and government alike: Male violence.

Imagine what a thriving, vibrant world we could have....without male violence!

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

Well Said.
Posted by: Urgelt on Apr 24, 2008 9:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very well said, Amanda.

I suppose the answer - as far as well-meaning police are concerned, and where laws permit it - is to hold the victim for a short while and get an abuse counselor in to explain the situation from society's viewpoint. Abusers repeat; she might have deluded herself into thinking otherwise, and so could benefit from objective explanations.

If her cooperation isn't secured within a few days, though, why keep her locked up any further? She is not just a witness, but the victim of the crime itself. She's due some consideration.

We'd rather she cooperate. But if we try to force the issue, and punish her if she refuses, society will sink to the same moral level as the abuser.

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