Society/Culture Domestic Violence

[Snake_Baker]

Here is one way: as soon as police arrive at a call out for domestic violence, arrest the male.

This has been shown to save lives in jurisdictions where it is in place. And that’s the important thing isn’t it?

What if there are no visible traits and the woman could be lying (which does happen)?

What about deadbeat mothers who facilitate violence against children (which does happen)?

What about women that harm children (females are strongly represented in infanticide)?

Protecting a kid is more important than protecting an adult.

 

[the_interloper]

Here is one way: as soon as police arrive at a call out for domestic violence, arrest the male.

This has been shown to save lives in jurisdictions where it is in place. And that’s the important thing isn’t it?

Shouldn’t they judge the situation on its merits?

 

[its free real estate]

Someone doesn't understand the difference between domestic violence and general violence..

Technically half the murders of women that happened in the past week weren’t “domestic” violence.

 

[Chief]

Shouldn’t they judge the situation on its merits?

No: the best way to save lives is to arrest the male.

And it’s not even just female lives. I believe the number of males that die - as abusers or victims - drops dramatically.

 

[Chief]

What if there are no visible traits and the woman could be lying (which does happen)?

What about deadbeat mothers who facilitate violence against children (which does happen)?

What about women that harm children (females are strongly represented in infanticide)?

Protecting a kid is more important than protecting an adult.

Yep I believe that children are also considered and protected.

But you get the most lives saved if you arrest the male if they are accused in a call out to a DV situation. Just take the male out of the situation.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Yep I believe that children are also considered and protected.

But you get the most lives saved if you arrest the male if they are accused in a call out to a DV situation. Just take the male out of the situation.

It must rest on the facts, and the hurdle must not be set too low.

I know of a few stories were straight up vindictive bitches have attempted to stitch up men through outright lies.

Would you challenge the view and claim that this doesn't happen?

 

[the_interloper]

No: the best way to save lives is to arrest the male.

And it’s not even just female lives. I believe the number of males that die - as abusers or victims - drops dramatically.

You said before that it has been shown that it saves lives where it is in place, where is it in place and what have those studies shown?

 

[domus]

Here is one way: as soon as police arrive at a call out for domestic violence, arrest the male.

This has been shown to save lives in jurisdictions where it is in place. And that’s the important thing isn’t it?

Sounds fair-if you have a penis you will be arrested if involved in a conflict with a human with a vagina. I have an acquaintance whose wife buried a knife in his back after they argued. You would have the police arrest him as he lay there bleeding on the floor while the woman sat there crying crocodile tears. This is already happening and it is evil. What a cop should do is separate the two people and do their best to ascertain who initiated the fight and who has sustained injuries requiring medical attention and have them attended to.

 

[cartwright]

slow week

Slow week for what?

For women killed?
Bound on the streets?
What exactly?

 

[Chief]

You said before that it has been shown that it saves lives where it is in place, where is it in place and what have those studies shown?

Bit of a Google around, not really organised in this post:


Mandatory arrest in different jurisdictions takes different forms. The aim is to break the cyclical nature of abuse: victim reports, charges laid, victim drops charges and returns to the partner, abuse starts again.


I first heard about it I think in this podcast episode:
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/save-me-from-myself-rebroadcast/

(reviewing it now for a timestamp but the whole thing is interesting anyway, particularly the advice to lose weight by hanging a small jar of vomit around your neck to sniff when you're hungry)

Timestamp at about 20 mins.

National US figures show a significant decline in intimate partner homicide, with the male as the murder victim. Mandatory arrest/prosecution takes away the alternative to reporting abuse as a way to stop it. Get him arrested, or kill him.

Breaking the cycle with the former seems a lot more humane and effective than breaking the cycle with the latter.


California law review article calling for MA:
https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1621&context=californialawreview

"Law enforcement officials often fail to arrest and prosecute batterers in domestic violence situations Inadequate police response can be attributed, at least in part, to insufficient state laws governing arrest in domestic violence incidents. Many state legislatures have attempted to respond to this problem with statutory changes, including allowing warrantless arrest for misdemeanor offenses not directly observed by a police officer' and providing for mandatory arrest of the primary physical aggressor in a domestic assault.'

Mandatory Prosecution:

Now in California once a DV charge is laid, the victim cannot drop that charge. It's up to the prosecutors. They can go ahead against the wishes of the victim, and use the evidence they have even if the victim doesn't cooperate.


New York related issues:

We cannot go back to the time when police officers would arrive at a victim’s house and ask them if they wanted the batterer arrested. That only puts the burden back on the victim. While we know that victims are often reluctant to cooperate with prosecution in many instances because they are intimidated by their abuser, mandatory prosecution puts the burden on the state. Evidence-based prosecution has allowed prosecutors to move forward with cases by using 911 calls, hospitals records and other evidence to hold batterers accountable.

Victims are more likely to cooperate with prosecution when they feel supported. Assisting victims of domestic violence takes a concerted effort that goes beyond the criminal justice system. Over the last 12 years, the Bloomberg administration created a more comprehensive approach to assisting victims by placing professionals, including police officers, prosecutors and advocates under one roof at Family Justice Centers across the city. These efforts, in addition to thousands of follow-up home visits by the police, led to a 41 percent reduction in intimate partner homicides.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...secution-puts-the-burden-rightly-on-the-state


Possible issues with people speaking out in the first place knowing their partner will be arrested - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150326183622.htm


Though the stats as of 2013 were an increase in reporting under mandatory prosecution.

 

[owen87]

Mandatory arrest in different jurisdictions takes different forms.

I first heard about it I think in this podcast episode:
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/save-me-from-myself-rebroadcast/

(reviewing it now for a timestamp but the whole thing is interesting anyway, particularly the advice to lose weight by hanging a small jar of vomit around your neck to sniff when you're hungry)

California law review article calling for MA:
https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1621&context=californialawreview

"Law enforcement officials often fail to arrest and prosecute batterers in domestic violence situations Inadequate police response can be attributed, at least in part, to insufficient state laws governing arrest in domestic violence incidents. Many state legislatures have attempted to respond to this problem with statutory changes, including allowing warrantless arrest for misdemeanor offenses not directly observed by a police officer' and providing for mandatory arrest of the primary physical aggressor in a domestic assault.'

Now in California once a DV charge is laid, the victim cannot drop that charge. It's up to the prosecutors.

New York:

Assisting victims of domestic violence takes a concerted effort that goes beyond the criminal justice system. Over the last 12 years, the Bloomberg administration created a more comprehensive approach to assisting victims by placing professionals, including police officers, prosecutors and advocates under one roof at Family Justice Centers across the city. These efforts, in addition to thousands of follow-up home visits by the police, led to a 41 percent reduction in intimate partner homicides.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...secution-puts-the-burden-rightly-on-the-state


Possible issues with people speaking out in the first place knowing their partner will be arrested - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150326183622.htm

In a simple form; doesn't arresting either of the parties involved (where it's only two people) instantly resolve the violence by physically separating them for a period of time?

 

[Chief]

In a simple form; doesn't arresting either of the parties involved (where it's only two people) instantly resolve the violence by physically separating them for a period of time?

I've updated my post a bit as it isn't a small area of study. My post is a small dip into it.

Arresting the victim would, my guess is, immediately make them non-cooperative and make it harder to prosecute. What do you do with kids? Why should a victim have an arrest record?

The problem with the cycle is that the victim on the day of the arrest is essentially a different person later when the time comes to prosecute.

 

[owen87]

I've updated my post a bit as it isn't a small area of study. My post is a small dip into it.

Arresting the victim would, my guess is, immediately make them non-cooperative and make it harder to prosecute. What do you do with kids? Why should a victim have an arrest record?

The problem with the cycle is that the victim on the day of the arrest is essentially a different person later when the time comes to prosecute.

Sorry probably wasn't quite the correct post I replied to:

But you get the most lives saved if you arrest the male if they are accused in a call out to a DV situation. Just take the male out of the situation.

Is it specifically removing the male that has benefits, or is it as simple as removing either of the parties from a heated situation for a period of time reduces the amount of deaths?

I'd have thought that many intimate partner related incidents of violence or death occur during (what i'll call) windows of heightened emotion; so it's a progression of an argument or tensions over a period of time, often exacerbated by external factors such as drugs or alcohol. So removing one of the parties, and therefore forcing them both to have some time-out, might be sufficient to break that escalation.

 

[Chief]

Sorry probably wasn't quite the correct post I replied to:



Is it specifically removing the male that has benefits, or is it as simple as removing either of the parties from a heated situation for a period of time reduces the amount of deaths?

I'd have thought that many intimate partner related incidents of violence or death occur during (what i'll call) windows of heightened emotion; so it's a progression of an argument or tensions over a period of time, often exacerbated by external factors such as drugs or alcohol. So removing one of the parties, and therefore forcing them both to have some time-out, might be sufficient to break that escalation.

I clarified in a follow up post:

But you get the most lives saved if you arrest the male if they are accused in a call out to a DV situation.

 

[ShanDog]

I clarified in a follow up post:

But you get the most lives saved if you arrest the male if they are accused in a call out to a DV situation.

Does it need to be an arrest? Surely there's a better way.

 

[its free real estate]

Woke profiling.

 

[the_interloper]

Bit of a Google around, not really organised in this post:


Mandatory arrest in different jurisdictions takes different forms. The aim is to break the cyclical nature of abuse: victim reports, charges laid, victim drops charges and returns to the partner, abuse starts again.


I first heard about it I think in this podcast episode:
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/save-me-from-myself-rebroadcast/

(reviewing it now for a timestamp but the whole thing is interesting anyway, particularly the advice to lose weight by hanging a small jar of vomit around your neck to sniff when you're hungry)

Timestamp at about 20 mins.

National US figures show a significant decline in intimate partner homicide, with the male as the murder victim. Mandatory arrest/prosecution takes away the alternative to reporting abuse as a way to stop it. Get him arrested, or kill him.

Breaking the cycle with the former seems a lot more humane and effective than breaking the cycle with the latter.


California law review article calling for MA:
https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1621&context=californialawreview

"Law enforcement officials often fail to arrest and prosecute batterers in domestic violence situations Inadequate police response can be attributed, at least in part, to insufficient state laws governing arrest in domestic violence incidents. Many state legislatures have attempted to respond to this problem with statutory changes, including allowing warrantless arrest for misdemeanor offenses not directly observed by a police officer' and providing for mandatory arrest of the primary physical aggressor in a domestic assault.'

Mandatory Prosecution:

Now in California once a DV charge is laid, the victim cannot drop that charge. It's up to the prosecutors. They can go ahead against the wishes of the victim, and use the evidence they have even if the victim doesn't cooperate.


New York related issues:

We cannot go back to the time when police officers would arrive at a victim’s house and ask them if they wanted the batterer arrested. That only puts the burden back on the victim. While we know that victims are often reluctant to cooperate with prosecution in many instances because they are intimidated by their abuser, mandatory prosecution puts the burden on the state. Evidence-based prosecution has allowed prosecutors to move forward with cases by using 911 calls, hospitals records and other evidence to hold batterers accountable.

Victims are more likely to cooperate with prosecution when they feel supported. Assisting victims of domestic violence takes a concerted effort that goes beyond the criminal justice system. Over the last 12 years, the Bloomberg administration created a more comprehensive approach to assisting victims by placing professionals, including police officers, prosecutors and advocates under one roof at Family Justice Centers across the city. These efforts, in addition to thousands of follow-up home visits by the police, led to a 41 percent reduction in intimate partner homicides.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...secution-puts-the-burden-rightly-on-the-state


Possible issues with people speaking out in the first place knowing their partner will be arrested - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150326183622.htm


Though the stats as of 2013 were an increase in reporting under mandatory prosecution.

I just listened to the podcast from 20 mins for a bit. It doesn't state that the policy was centred around arresting the man, just the accused, though they do go on to refer to the victim as "her" so maybe it's implied.

And so previously in California you couldn't arrest someone suspected of domestic violence without a warrant, is that right? You wouldn't have needed a warrant for someone who got into a blue at a pub I'm guessing. As the paper says domestics used to be treated a lot differently back in the day it appears, the cops didn't want to get involved.

And I'm no legal expert but in Australia I don't believe we have the right to not "press charges" right? I suppose we can decline to give evidence which can affect a case but the fuzz can arrest and charge without the victims consent anyway right?

I didn't really see anything in what you posted about mandatory arrest of the man though, just the accused, did i miss it?

 

[Chief]

I just listened to the podcast from 20 mins for a bit. It doesn't state that the policy was centred around arresting the man, just the accused, though they do go on to refer to the victim as "her" so maybe it's implied.

And so previously in California you couldn't arrest someone suspected of domestic violence without a warrant, is that right? You wouldn't have needed a warrant for someone who got into a blue at a pub I'm guessing. As the paper says domestics used to be treated a lot differently back in the day it appears, the cops didn't want to get involved.

And I'm no legal expert but in Australia I don't believe we have the right to not "press charges" right? I suppose we can decline to give evidence which can affect a case but the fuzz can arrest and charge without the victims consent anyway right?

I didn't really see anything in what you posted about mandatory arrest of the man though, just the accused, did i miss it?

I clarified in a follow up post:

But you get the most lives saved if you arrest the male if they are accused in a call out to a DV situation.

The US stats show a significant drop in male abuser deaths.

Jurisdictions are different so the existing laws and processes vary. Murder is different - the state takes over and even the family have no say.

They seem to talk about the ability of police to make an arrest for certain types of crimes without directly witnessing it.

So I couldn’t go to the cops and say “that guy hit me” and expect the cops to arrest the other party.

Does it need to be an arrest? Surely there's a better way.

I don’t know what else would work. How else can you enforce it legally?

I’m no expert - the stats in the US show that it does the job to save lives. It breaks the cycle, from what I can see of the info on it.

Supporting the victims through the process also increases their cooperation.

We’re all unhappy about low conviction rates, abuse that goes unreported, deaths. This seems to be helping.

 

[ShanDog]

I don’t know what else would work. How else can you enforce it legally?

I’m no expert - the stats in the US show that it does the job to save lives. It breaks the cycle, from what I can see of the info on it.

Supporting the victims through the process also increases their cooperation.

We’re all unhappy about low conviction rates, abuse that goes unreported, deaths. This seems to be helping.

How can you legally arrest someone based on gender before investigation? I'm sure where there's a will, there's a way. It sounds like separation of the parties is what works, not an arrest. At the very least I hope it they are taking away the male in cuffs they aren't actually recording an arrest that would show up on a criminal history check before they ascertain whether arresting them was actually appropriate.

I understand how it makes sense but I'm very weary of the ramifications of unilateral law enforcement like that. It's not a good principle.

 

[Chief]

How can you legally arrest someone based on gender before investigation? I'm sure where there's a will, there's a way. It sounds like separation of the parties is what works, not an arrest. At the very least I hope it they are taking away the male in cuffs they aren't actually recording an arrest that would show up on a criminal history check before they ascertain whether arresting them was actually appropriate.

I understand how it makes sense but I'm very weary of the ramifications of unilateral law enforcement like that. It's not a good principle.

You read at least some of it so you should understand my clarification shouldn’t you?

I am sure in the few cases where the female is the abuser they can arrest her.

The stats show lives are saved under mandatory arrest and/or prosecution.

They still have to prove their case in a court.

And yes, with more arrests and prosecutions you are going to see more innocent people put through the wringer.

An acceptable outcome if there are fewer deaths.

Will there be a greater percentage of false accusations and prosecutions? That would be a bad thing requiring refinement of the system. I didn’t read anything about that happening but I haven’t read really deeply.

 

[ShanDog]

You read at least some of it so you should understand my clarification shouldn’t you?

I am sure in the few cases where the female is the abuser they can arrest her.

The stats show lives are saved under mandatory arrest and/or prosecution.

They still have to prove their case in a court.

And yes, with more arrests and prosecutions you are going to see more innocent people put through the wringer.

An acceptable outcome if there are fewer deaths.

Will there be a greater percentage of false accusations and prosecutions? That would be a bad thing requiring refinement of the system. I didn’t read anything about that happening but I haven’t read really deeply.

Hang on are you talking about mandatory arrest or mandatory arrest of the male? Because the latter was what you said early on.

I take SIGNIFICANT issue with the bolded. You prosecute when there's cause, not because of a sense of collective justice. It's the antithesis of the judicial system to do so.

 

[Chief]

Hang on are you talking about mandatory arrest or mandatory arrest of the male? Because the latter was what you said early on.

There are about 3 posts above where I have clarified.

I take SIGNIFICANT issue with the bolded. You prosecute when there's cause, not because of a sense of collective justice. It's the antithesis of the judicial system to do so.

If you have mandatory arrest and take the prosecution decision out of the hands of the victim, you’ll get more prosecutions under way.

It is simple fact that if you prosecute more, you’ll get more innocent people caught up in it.

That’s just maths.

Like, how do you stop innocent people being put in prison for murder? Don’t prosecute anyone for murder.

So, bad arrests and bad verdicts are not a reason to stop going after criminals. They’re a reason to get better at gathering, evaluating, and presenting evidence.

I bet under the system mentioned in one of the articles (I’m on my phone so I’m not checking the jurisdiction) where, along with mandatory arrest, services were moved under one roof and accusers/victims had more support through the process, you’d get more professionals closely coordinated and closer to the accuser and be better able to spot a fake accusation.


Random anecdote:

A guy I know was in NY and accused of sexual assault along with his mates. The accusers were two girls they’d picked up, taken to their expensive hotel for drugs and sex. The girls were pissed off because in the morning the guys kicked the girls out.

The cops took them into custody for about half the day. They demanded to be charged or released. The cop told them that the LAST thing they wanted was for him to charge them so shut up and wait.

They were released after the cops talked to the two girls until they figured out it was rubbish. The lack of guns that the girls said were present was a bit of a tip-off from what I can gather.

The cops never bothered about the drugs all over the hotel room, and the hotel had their bags packed and sitting in the lobby when they got back from the police station.

“I can tell you the next night we were quiet as you can be, watched TV and went to bed early.”

And that’s the only time I have ever heard of someone I know being falsely accused of sexual assault. Yet I know six women who have been raped. Three who have been in physically and mentally abusive relationships. I probably know more women these things have happened to but they haven’t brought it up.

(I had to edit that “six” up from 4 and then 5 as I remembered more women I know who have been raped. I bet if given time I could remember more that I’ve forgotten about.)

And the stats back this up - false accusations are far, far rarer than actual sexual assaults. Or even successful rape prosecutions.

 

[the_interloper]

I clarified in a follow up post:

But you get the most lives saved if you arrest the male if they are accused in a call out to a DV situation.

That's probably the point you missed on earlier, possibly deliberately to stir up everyone which is all in good fun of course. This is different to having a blanket rule of "arrest the guy everytime" wouldn't you think?

 

[Chief]

That's probably the point you missed on earlier, possibly deliberately to stir up everyone which is all in good fun of course. This is different to having a blanket rule of "arrest the guy everytime" wouldn't you think?

That’s what the clarification was for, yeah? You know what a clarification is. You’re possibly relishing the “tut tut” moment as you teach someone how to English good.

 

[the_interloper]

That’s what the clarification was for, yeah? You know what a clarification is. You’re possibly relishing the “tut tut” moment as you teach someone how to English good.

Hey hey, down boy. I thought you had just added that bit in without acknowledging it specifically. I'm not hear to give you an English lesson.

I should say I reckon you could tweet Susie O'Brien and give her her next article idea to just arrest the man. That sort of argument is right in her wheelhouse, and if she read the material you posted she'd come to the conclusion she's right no doubt. Either that or she's actually a decent troll and seems to make some sort of living in the media from it (and here I am doing it for free).