Is it fair to the victim? To the defendant? Since it's a criminal case, the offense is against the people, not just the particular victim, so of course the state has a right to go ahead with the prosecution, and maybe a responsibility to do so. By doing so, though, are we victimizing the woman a second time, or protecting her from herself? What do you think?

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2000

Answers

Prosecute regardless.

This from an adult who witnessed many many violent acts against her mother as a young child.

Prosecute no matter what the victim comes up with to refute a previous statement.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2000

As someone who was abused in an earlier marriage, I wish that someone WOULD have procecuted him. Of course, I could have made it easier by not lying about where all the bruises came from. I have to agree with the idea of the offense being against more than just the particular abusee. Too often there is more involved than just a little (or lot, as the case may be) spousal abuse. To prosecute might take even one person out of harm's way, and in doing so would be the right thing to do. My only concern I suppose would be retaliation on the abused spouse for somehow not stopping the procedure.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2000

My inclination would be to prosecute them anyway...

but out of curiousity, in your professional opinion, how many of the accusers actually ARE making it all up. Any at all? We hear a lot about O.J.-esque murders where numerous prior allegations of domestic violence were ignored, but are there other cases where people have been jailed because of accusations that were later proven false?

Like I said, the risks are probably great enough that the courts should decide whether or not someone has committed domestic violence, rather than the alleged victim. But I'd be curious to hear your thoughts, and those of others on the forum who have experience working with such cases.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2000

I don't know how many women make things up. I do know that in some cases (certainly not all, but a lot of them), you don't have the classic predator vs. victim scenario. I've had plenty of cases where the women was the aggressor, and I've had plenty of cases where the man was convicted of spousal abuse and stalking even though she was calling him as often as he was calling her.

There's a lot more mutual combat out there than you might realize, and of course women generally get the worst of it by far. But I'm not just talking about fighting back; I'm talking about bashing a guy over the head with the telephone or a frying pan because he cheated on you. A guy who defends himself against an attack like that is going to get prosecuted, and I'm not saying he shouldn't be if he responds with more force than she used. But it's not the scenario we usually hear about in the media.

Booze and/or crank is involved in almost all of those cases.

And for what it's worth, I've represented two women in domestic violence cases. One was a stabbing prosecuted as spousal abuse that I firmly believe would have been prosecuted as attempted murder had she been a man, and the other was a woman who shot her husband in an argument about him not picking up after himself.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2000

By the way, I'm not talking about situations like this one, where the woman later "realizes" she goaded him into hitting her. Eesh.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2000

Well, that brings another question to mind:

Say that you have a case where the police are called to stop a domestic dispute, with the result being that the victim, a woman, initially requests that charges be filed and then changes her mind. Say, also, that it's not serious enough that the male batterer would be thrown in jail, or at least not for any length of time. And finally, say that the woman expresses no desire for a restraining order or subsequent protection from the accused. (I'm guessing this is a fairly common scenario?)

What exactly could the courts do? They can't really order a divorce, or anything like that. It would be tough to enforce a restraining order if neither party was interested in abiding by it. Again, this isn't anywhere near my area of expertise, but what could you see the courts doing should mandatory prosecutions for domestic violence accusations become a reality?

BTW, I just saw "Chicago" a few weeks ago, and one of your posts made me think of the "Cell Block Tango" number where the women locked up for murder say why their husbands/lovers deserved to die.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2000

If the victim's repudiation leaves the prosecutor without a star witness, maybe you should drop the case -- depending on whether a high conviction rate is an effective deterrent to potential domestic abusers. Otherwise, I don't see any reason to treat domestic abuse differently from rape and assault. If the DA has other witnesses, then prosecute.

As for male victims of domestic abuse who fight back, that's a really tough issue. I am surprised at the strength of my reaction. All my early training says, if they can't take care of themselves then f*** 'em, and if they can't take care of themselves without beating the initial abuser beyond the bounds of the law, then f*** 'em twice. But that's probably one of those Neanderthal responses that I will grow to become ashamed of as I grow older. I'm open to the idea that these men are getting a bum rap for fighting back. But until I see some hard proof that they aren't the real criminal, an abused man wouldn't want me on the jury whether he is victim or accused.

I don't want anyone to think I'm proud of the reaction, but that's my first thought on the subject. Hmm.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2000

To answer your question, Mike (at least, I think this was your question), courts can and do order parties to stay the hell away from each other, although there would have to be some reason for the court to have jurisdiction over them -- some pending case. I've seen a judge order a witness/victim to stay away from the defendant at the same time he was ordering the defendant to stay away from her. I don't know if that was an enforceable order or not. Realistically, restraining orders don't get enforced unless someone calls the police, so if you and your dysfunctional spouse mutually decide to patch things up, no one is going to do anything about that.

Well, I mean, until someone gets pissed and calls the police. That's how these things go.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2000