This is a really slow response to a post I saw a while ago (apologies for the delay - things are hectic at the moment!).
Someone posted about an incident they had witnessed where I was woman was clearly being assaulted by her partner, but the police refused to follow it up because the woman was too afraid to cooperate. I'm sure others have followed up on that but I just wanted to ask whether in the US you have the same law we do here in the UK; essentially that the police are able to prosecute incidents of domestic violence even if the woman is too afraid to give evidence. It's not always an ideal solution - the woman often feels even more disempowered because the choice wasn't hers, but it does mean that some men who thought they could carry on getting away with this behaviour indefinitely have been arrested, prosecuted and jailed. If the same law doesn't exist in the US, perhaps time to lobby for it?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Domestic violence.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14596
As far as I know here in the United States each state sets their own laws. Then the reality is they are enforced to different degrees in each city. Many places they have a law in place where if there is a domestic violence call somebody has to got to jail. They will take the woman away if she won't make an accusation even if she was not the one who made the call for help.
Right now in my area there has been a huge jump in domestic violence incidents. They say it's related to the economy. Men are stressed so they start beating the heck out of women and children.
Our state's solution? well right now they are thinking about closing a good number of domestic violence shelters and limiting beds in others. It seems there is no money to keep them open.
I would be worried that this would make the victim even more reluctant to seek police help. Thoughts?
I agree. Unless women have a real and permanent way to get away from their abusers often it is in their mind safer to stay silent.
In many states the prosecutor can press charges even if the victim will not. However, if there is little physical evidence and the victim is not willing to testify (or worse, willing to testify that she was not abused), there is little incentive to pursue a case that will inevitably be tossed or lost.
In Delaware, statements made by a victim of domestic violence when an incident is reported to police can be admitted as substantive evidence even if the victim later can't0or won't0testify, which would normally be a big ol' hearsay problem. The rule was developed specifically for domestic violence, because of victims recanting their statements and withdrawing charges.
That being said, in my experience, it's not a great idea to have these charges brought if the victim doesn't feel comfortable because often the abuser won't go to jail, or if s/he does, it's not for very long at all. And when they get out, or when the dust is settled, the consequences can be severe. So it can be a disempowerment problem, but also a huge safety issue.
It's a tough, tough problem, with no good solution.
Does that law only apply when the woman is abused by the man? Because while that seems to be the majority of DV cases, women can be abusive too, as can partners in non-het relationships. Just saying.
As Mother of jackels said earlier. The ECONOMY STRICKEN men returns to their homes and begin to abuse or kick their wives and kids. There are many working women, who does the same, if their husbands are unemployed and all the financial burden are on them. I my self herd such abuses voices in my neighborhood in late night, as I was preparing for my cisco certification. But yet the children and husband are tolerant towards her attitude.
On an almost completely unrelated note, here's a pretty cool anti-dv billboard I just saw http://gizmodo.com/5302856/anti+abuse-bus-stop-ad-only-batters-women-when-nobodys-looking
I feel compelled to respond to this.
Legislation? I’d settle for a book report:
"Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry, Controlling, and Abusive Men" by Lundy Bancroft. The book is only nominally targeted toward battered women; Bancroft is a giant of psychology specializing in abuser treatment.
"Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life" by Evan Stark. Evan Stark's textbook is a pioneer work that examines domestic abuse through the lens of a hostile confinement (kidnapping / hostage / POW).
“Stop Hurting the Woman You Love: Breaking the Cycle of Abusive Behavior” by Charlie Donaldson. Donaldson addresses the audience of abusers , including those who batter and those who do not.
It is incorrect to scapegoat the economy. A 50% increase in households reporting abuse means all the old households, and an increase plus half again.
Stress is a bald-faced lie. Almost no domestic violence situations actually involve anger on the part of the aggressor; anger is displayed because it effectively frightens victims and keeps them off balance, unable to think clearly through fear.
These readily accepted falsehoods disgust me. Males are already prepared to contrive excuses to the point of exhaustion that all amount to why it's okay to beat someone. Anyone and everyone who agrees with the excuses only succeeds in demonstrating that they too think that there are times when it's just less wrong to hit certain people.
Congratulations. You’re doing a bang-up job, helping these domestic terrorists get away with it. Make sure you toss out a few more mitigating factors, make sure everybody’s clear that it's not AS WRONG to hit a woman as it would be to hit, oh, anybody else. Insist on sympathizing with the poor, stricken Menz and remain willfully oblivious to the fact that these women face exactly the same circumstances as the men – exactly the same financial anxieties and stress. And these men don’t also have to deal with being used as human punching bag so some shaved ape can blow off steam and feel powerful and in control of SOMETHING.
Since apparently it's unreasonable to have a feminist discussion that focuses on women, fine.
Let's focus on The Menz.
Yes, of course, female abuse of males does happen. First and foremost, I find in this situations and so many others an accusation poorly masked as an assertion and leveled as if it makes what males do to females less wrong. Abuse is abuse. It doesn't matter who the victim is. No human being deserves to live in fear, shame, or pain.
it's an offense against the right of a human being to live free from pain, shame, and fear. It's easy to say 'they should get therapy.' Take one look at the reactions of this discussion: the dismissive and mitigating reactions to these women as abuse victims - how are they supposed to react appropriately to their experiences when obviously, even "sympathetic" society flatly refuses to take their experiences or situations seriously? Look at how many people express unfamiliarity with the victim's position and do not accurately identify with them. Look at the alacrity and the propensity to retaliate with counter-accusations of female transgressions, to condemn female abusers, and to deny male abusers bear full responsibility.
That's a laundry list of TEXTBOOK abuser tactics, people. EXACT SAME: same arguments, same logic, same attitudes, even the reflexive reactions are the same. And it’s coming from half a dozen random assorted individuals, probably all of whom earnestly think they're sympathetic to the concept of feminism.
I'm left questioning who's side we're on.