A question about domestic violence and the law

[megs280]

In the recent Rihaana-Chris Brown incident, Rihanna has forgiven Chris Brown but the prosecution is considering whether to follow through with the charges.

According to California law, the prosecution may still press charges even if the couple reunites and the victim no longer cooperates.

Do you agree with the California law? What if the victim was abused very badly and had serious injuries or if it is a repeat offense? I would be interested to see how libertarians view this as well.

[Amallek]

It is the law everywhere. Crimes are against the people, not a victim. That is why the case is The People v. defendant. The prosecution can charge anyone with a crime whether the victim complains or not. They rarely do so, since without the victim complaining it is hard to get a conviction.

But if you shoot your mother in the leg in a public place, you are likely headed to jail even if mom forgives you.

[megs280]

It is the law everywhere. Crimes are against the people, not a victim. That is why the case is The People v. defendant. The prosecution can charge anyone with a crime whether the victim complains or not. They rarely do so, since without the victim complaining it is hard to get a conviction.

But if you shoot your mother in the leg in a public place, you are likely headed to jail even if mom forgives you.

The article I read just mentioned California law but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the law everywhere.

What if it occurs in a private place like a residence? The woman is driven to the hospital by another family member and tells the staff that her husband was responsible but she does not mind and says that she will not press charges.

My question was brought up because an argument I hear sometimes for drug legalization and even assisted suicide is that the government shouldn't be in the position to interfere in people's choices even if those choices cause them harm.

[BillBrown]

In the recent Rihaana-Chris Brown incident, Rihanna has forgiven Chris Brown but the prosecution is considering whether to follow through with the charges.

According to California law, the prosecution may still press charges even if the couple reunites and the victim no longer cooperates.

Do you agree with the California law? What if the victim was abused very badly and had serious injuries or if it is a repeat offense? I would be interested to see how libertarians view this as well.

It would be hard to get a conviction without the cooperation of the victim.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

The article I read just mentioned California law but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the law everywhere.

What if it occurs in a private place like a residence? The woman is driven to the hospital by another family member and tells the staff that her husband was responsible but she does not mind and says that she will not press charges.

My question was brought up because an argument I hear sometimes for drug legalization and even assisted suicide is that the government shouldn't be in the position to interfere in people's choices even if those choices cause them harm.

It more then difficult to lump drug legalization issues and assisted suicide/right to die issues and domestic violence issues. Each is a behemoth on it's own. No two can be compared; except within how the law treats each case vis a vie people verses defendant.

As far as the People vs. defendant. If there is enough evidence to prove a crime was perpetrated against another...with or without their testimony, charges can be brought..as it pertains to unlawful physical harm. In the Chris Brown case, the prosecutors may or may not have enough evidence to prove out their domestic violence case. Regardless, they can proceed forward with or without Rihanna's testimony. Prosecutors would of course be better off with the complainant testifying to the abuse..but they don't need it to issue their case.

In the case of domestic violence, an odd trend has emerged over the years. We know that many of these abused spouse/partners do forgive their abuser. In that forgiveness, they don't want to push for charges. That is until it happens again, and again and again. (Tina Turner could tell us all about this I'm sure.) Until one day the abuse becomes to much, and the abused becomes the perpetrator, vis a vie killing said long time abuser. To which they end up in front of the judge claiming they 'had' to do what they did in order to escape the abuse as part of the defense. It's a vicious cycle.

Brown is young...and I'm guessing some kind of pop star? (I'd never heard of him prior to this story breaking to tell ya the truth.) Given that information, he will receive at most home arrest or even more likely a suspended sentence and a slap on the wrist and wag of the judges finger never to do it again. :rolleyes:

Like I said, a vicious cycle. OJ anyone?

~Mysty

[Pudge]

Rihaana is a dimbulb and because she took him back, I have no sympathy for her anymore.

Stupid, stupid, stupid woman.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

Rihaana is a dimbulb and because she took him back, I have no sympathy for her anymore.

Stupid, stupid, stupid woman.

I will never understand these women who excuse and take back their abusers. :eek: I understand the science behind the actions..but it makes them no less perverse. Low self esteem, feeling trapped...etc etc etc. When it comes to a young up and coming pop star...I just don't get it...this isn't Ike and Tina..and we are far from the mind set of the 60's. Heck, these two aren't even married! Why she stays is beyond me.

Perhaps it is more a publicity ploy? I mean, maybe they are not back together, but for the purpose of saving his career she was talked into giving the appearance of going back with him? Who knows..I wouldn't put it past publicists to do what they could to save their meal ticket. That P Diddy..or whatever he is called now..had more to do with this then we know?

~Mysty

[megs280]

It more then difficult to lump drug legalization issues and assisted suicide/right to die issues and domestic violence issues. Each is a behemoth on it's own. No two can be compared; except within how the law treats each case vis a vie people verses defendant.

As far as the People vs. defendant. If there is enough evidence to prove a crime was perpetrated against another...with or without their testimony, charges can be brought..as it pertains to unlawful physical harm. In the Chris Brown case, the prosecutors may or may not have enough evidence to prove out their domestic violence case. Regardless, they can proceed forward with or without Rihanna's testimony. Prosecutors would of course be better off with the complainant testifying to the abuse..but they don't need it to issue their case.

In the case of domestic violence, an odd trend has emerged over the years. We know that many of these abused spouse/partners do forgive their abuser. In that forgiveness, they don't want to push for charges. That is until it happens again, and again and again. (Tina Turner could tell us all about this I'm sure.) Until one day the abuse becomes to much, and the abused becomes the perpetrator, vis a vie killing said long time abuser. To which they end up in front of the judge claiming they 'had' to do what they did in order to escape the abuse as part of the defense. It's a vicious cycle.

Brown is young...and I'm guessing some kind of pop star? (I'd never heard of him prior to this story breaking to tell ya the truth.) Given that information, he will receive at most home arrest or even more likely a suspended sentence and a slap on the wrist and wag of the judges finger never to do it again. :rolleyes:

Like I said, a vicious cycle. OJ anyone?

~Mysty

It is a very disturbing trend that women forgive their abuser and the abuse continues. The state is then hindered when trying to enforce the law.


I think Brown is an R&B singer, I never heard of him either. You are probably correct ..he'll get a slap on the wrist. Rihanna won't testify and I read somewhere he has hired Mark Geragos to defend him. The prosecution might not even go forward with their charges. Possibly his music career and popularity will take a hit over the incident (I hope).

[AugustGem]

The reason that most states have this law is because too many times women would call the police just to "make it stop" but were too afraid to press charges. Two things would happen. Cops would have resources wasted by going to the same homes over and over to "referee" these domestics and/or the women wouldn't press charges then they would end up dead. Taking the decision out of womens hands is 'supposed" to take the "blame" off of them for safety reasons to prevent retribution from the abusers.
I'm OK with it.
The thought of a bank robbery, car accident, child abduction, break in, etc lacking police personel because they are at a persons house for the 5th time in a month aggravates me.

[Buffalo]

The reason that most states have this law is because too many times women would call the police just to "make it stop" but were too afraid to press charges. Two things would happen. Cops would have resources wasted by going to the same homes over and over to "referee" these domestics and/or the women wouldn't press charges then they would end up dead. Taking the decision out of womens hands is 'supposed" to take the "blame" off of them for safety reasons to prevent retribution from the abusers.
I'm OK with it.
The thought of a bank robbery, car accident, child abduction, break in, etc lacking police personel because they are at a persons house for the 5th time in a month aggravates me.
I agree. And I think it is good policy.

[Chuangtzu]

I agree. And I think it is good policy.

It also removes some intimidation from the equation. A woman intimidated into changing her testimony can still have the public officials pursue her interests.

[megs280]

The reason that most states have this law is because too many times women would call the police just to "make it stop" but were too afraid to press charges. Two things would happen. Cops would have resources wasted by going to the same homes over and over to "referee" these domestics and/or the women wouldn't press charges then they would end up dead. Taking the decision out of womens hands is 'supposed" to take the "blame" off of them for safety reasons to prevent retribution from the abusers.
I'm OK with it.
The thought of a bank robbery, car accident, child abduction, break in, etc lacking police personel because they are at a persons house for the 5th time in a month aggravates me.

I agree and am also glad the law is in place, even if the case is unsuccessful because the victim will not cooperate. In these cases, it is good that the choice isn't always up to the woman.

If the case against Brown is successful and Rihaana really does want to be reunited with him and have him not face any consequences (not because of fear of retribution) the law is also protecting Rihaana from her own bad decisions in a way.

[BillBrown]

It also removes some intimidation from the equation. A woman intimidated into changing her testimony can still have the public officials pursue her interests.

I don't see how anyone can be convicted if the victim refuses to testify or testifies on the defendant's behalf.

[Vaard]

forgiveness by the victim does not equate to not guilty in the eyes of the law......

this goes for all laws, not just domestic violence.......

[AugustGem]

I don't see how anyone can be convicted if the victim refuses to testify or testifies on the defendant's behalf.

In this case, there were witnesses who called the police as well as police pictures of her injuries.

[BillBrown]

forgiveness by the victim does not equate to not guilty in the eyes of the law......

this goes for all laws, not just domestic violence.......

No, but a jury's acquittal does translate into not guilty in the eyes of the law.

If I was on a jury and a victim refused to testify about what happened or testified in defense of the defendant, I would have a difficult time convicting. I think a lot of people would feel the same.

[Vaard]

No, but a jury's acquittal does translate into not guilty in the eyes of the law.

If I was on a jury and a victim refused to testify about what happened or testified in defense of the defendant, I would have a difficult time convicting. I think a lot of people would feel the same.

i didnt say it would make it easier to convict, just saying that it doesnt get the perp off the hook.......

[angelicmadrigal]

You know my opinion on it is the ONLY reason they should still prosecute him is because the police had to come out there. He wasted valuable time, resources, etc...of the police department because he was an ass. In my opinion there shoulc be some punishment for that, regardless of the fact his gf is uncooperative.

[ThrowCop]

It also removes some intimidation from the equation. A woman intimidated into changing her testimony can still have the public officials pursue her interests.yep...

Battery is a crime against society as well as against the victim.

Charges should be filed if the evidence points to possible guilt no matter the desires of the victim.

[Remus Lupin]

i agree. And i think it is good policy.

+2

[Pudge]

Personally, I think domestic abusers should be forced to wear a shirt that proclaims their deeds, and bring back stocks while we're at it. Put them in the town square in stocks and have buckets of rotten tomatoes for people to hurl at the abusers.

[BillBrown]

Well thats an easy one. If you live in a "Commonwealth state" and i think there are three of them which is Kentucky,Virginia,Massachusetes. If you live in these states and commit a crime and the victim drops the charges then the state will most likely pick up the tab and charge you regardless. And if its Domestic violence you can bet your a** the sate and any other state in the U.S. is gonna nail ya to the wall even if the victim begs to drop all charges. p.s. Domestic violence convictions are real bad . there just like a felony but you can still vote.

I think you're a little confused- more than a little.
A charge and a conviction are not the same thing.
It doesn't matter what state you live in.

The state doesn't "nail you to a wall", a jury does.

This had more or less been answered before.
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=50333261&postcount=16

[traditional_woman]

This may be off topic, but not really. It could also go to the extreme. I've heard of stories where ppl's husbands took their wife into the ER for injuries, and the docs immediately supsected spousal abuse. I remember one guy telling me they took him aside and started asking him all these questions before it dawned on him that they thought he broke his wifes ankle,lol!

[Pudge]

This may be off topic, but not really. It could also go to the extreme. I've heard of stories where ppl's husbands took their wife into the ER for injuries, and the docs immediately supsected spousal abuse. I remember one guy telling me they took him aside and started asking him all these questions before it dawned on him that they thought he broke his wifes ankle,lol!

That happens when parents bring in kids who genuinely take a bad spill, and the hospital staff assumes abuse. In some cases parents have lost their kids and had to fight tooth and nail to get them back while some social worker implants false allegations in the child's head.

But still, in cases where there's no guilt- stocks and tomatoes.

[gdoane]

That happens when parents bring in kids who genuinely take a bad spill, and the hospital staff assumes abuse. In some cases parents have lost their kids and had to fight tooth and nail to get them back while some social worker implants false allegations in the child's head.

But still, in cases where there's no guilt- stocks and tomatoes.

I live in Arizona. We'll use cactus instead of tomatoes.

[Pudge]

I live in Arizona. We'll use cactus instead of tomatoes.

I like it. Great idea!

[Dreamy]

I think you're a little confused- more than a little.
A charge and a conviction are not the same thing.
It doesn't matter what state you live in.

The state doesn't "nail you to a wall", a jury does.

This had more or less been answered before.
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=50333261&postcount=16

Not all cases come before a jury. A judge only may be presiding as the lone juror.

[BillBrown]

Not all cases come before a jury. A judge only may be presiding as the lone juror.

That depends on the state. Where I am, you can have a jury for a traffic ticket.
I can't imagine a domestic abuse case, worth trying, that would not be a felony.
I don't believe there is any place in this country that a person cannot demand a jury trial for a felony.

[barik]

According to California law, the prosecution may still press charges even if the couple reunites and the victim no longer cooperates.


This is the law in most states, as far as I recall. I know for sure it's the case in Virginia. The prosecutor is the one charging the defendant, not the victim, and the victim's wishes are irrelevant in the matter.

[FidelisAdMortem]

B/c if we dont do anything and the woman dies the stupid public blames us for not doing something, they dont blame the victim for going back, or the perp who did, they blame us. Idiots.

[Lady Liberty]

Yes, I agree with the law. As a society we need to clearly reject domestic violence by insuring there are consequences to one's violence, whether or not the victim is willing to stand up for themselves and declare their lives are a 'no abuse zone' .

It is valuable to remember that domestic violence is a process of escalating violence. When we read stories, like one locally where a guy busts in to an old girlfriend's home and terrorizes the family with a baseball bat and is held at bay by the grandfather's .22 rifle until the police arrived, it is worthwhile to remember that acts of violence like this are usually a culmination of escalating violence. Intervening to break abuse cycles is worthwhile.

There is a fantastic book available titled 'The Gift of Fear', by Gavin De Becker that brilliantly outlines how our instincts can keep us safe if we choose to look clearly at our environments and relationships. If any of you know someone who could benefit by being empowered through recognizing how to stay safe, this book would be a great gift. I've given it to many women friends just to open the conversation about how to insure our safety through awareness.
The Gift of Fear - Gavin De Becker. (https://www.gavindebecker.com/books-gof.cfm)

~