|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is with that link, is it MSIE only? Can't see anything, blank window in the center.
If their articles are as lame as their web design, I'm not missing much ;).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I tried the link in the orginal post and it didn't work either. You may need to try copying and pasting the link below:
http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IK OBJECTID=9ad974e2-0abe-421a-01ab-13c4c6647a94&TEMP LATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, for some reason that one doesn't work either. I don't know how to fix this, so I'll just post the article here:
Domestic Violence Arrests - Part 2
Marc Sternfield (producer)
Created: 12/3/2004 2:32 PM MST - Updated: 12/5/2004 10:03 AM MST
When there is alleged "intimate partner violence," someone is
usually arrested when a call is made to the police. What happens to
the person arrested once they confront the criminal justice system?
How do district attorneys and judges decide whether, and how, to
apply domestic violence laws to the person arrested? What if
the "wrong" person was arrested (i.e., what if the victim of
intimate partner violence is the one arrested)? How does the
criminal justice system treat those who have been incorrectly
arrested?
Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey, by the U.S.
Dept. of Justice, indicate that about 1 million violent crimes were
committed each year against persons by their current or former
spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends. Such crimes, termed intimate
partner violence, are committed primarily against women. About 85%
of victimizations by intimate partners were against women.
When such intimate partner violence is alleged, police, prosecutors,
and judges often have to sort out whether the correct person (1) was
arrested, and (2) should be prosecuted under the law.
Police, prosecutors, and judges in many states make that call in
light of a state's "primary aggressor" statutes. Colorado is one of
those states, which has a "predominate aggressor law."
This statute says that the person who should be arrested and
prosecuted is not necessarily the person who struck the first blow,
or who caused the most damage. The person who should be arrested and
prosecuted is the person who was the "primary aggressor." "Primary"
means "most significant." This definition requires officers on the
scene, and then prosecutors, to go down a long checklist of things
to look for, including a history of violent or coercive behavior.
Backers of these "primary aggressor" laws hoped they would reduce
domestic violence, and decrease the number of women arrested for
defending themselves. Women's groups campaigned heavily for primary-
aggressor laws, which were designed to prevent battered women from
also having to go through the trauma of being arrested for fighting
back. It was hoped that women where were the targets of domestic
violence should not be victimized again. The concern was the there
may be no other crime where the victim is arrested and prosecuted
when the police are called to intervene.
In some states, and in certain counties within Colorado and in
California, the percentage of women arrested actually rose after
these statutes were enacted. Social science departments, police
departments, and prosecutors are stumped - why would more women be
arrested and prosecuted after these laws were enacted?
There are some theories, but no hard evidence:
1. Women are being more aggressive
2. Women are beating other women
3. Male victims are increasingly likely to come forward and be
believed by officers and prosecutors
4. There are more female police officers
5. Men are calling the police first, and police (and prosecutors)
tend to believe the person who summons them initially
But, of course, no one knows for sure why women are finding
themselves facing the criminal justice system for allegedly
violating a primary aggressor statute.
What do these statutes actually say?
In Colorado, the statute states that "if a peace officer has
probable cause that a crime involving domestic violence has been
committed, the officer shall without undue delay arrest the person
suspected." The statute also says that "nothing" in the law requires
a peace officer to arrest either party involved in an alleged act of
domestic violence when a peace officer believes there is no probable
cause.
In other words, Colorado's law is NOT a so called mandatory arrest
law. The police still have discretion not to arrest anyone if the
police believe there is no probable cause that a crime or offense of
domestic violence has been committed.
If the police do arrest someone, based on the police considering
such factors are prior complaints, or the possibility of one person
acting in self-defense, then the matter is turned over to the
prosecutors. The prosecutors then have to make the call as to
whether it is appropriate to prosecute the person arrested.
How do prosecutors make that decision?
In Colorado, the prosecutor has to ask whether a judge or jury would
convict the person arrested of domestic violence. And that question
depends upon evidence. Prosecutors can only convict if there is
sufficient evidence that would likely cause a reasonable judge or
jury to convict.
Pertinent evidence consists of
1. Dispatch tapes
2. On scene video or audio tapes
3. Medical records of treatment of victim or defendant
4. Any other relevant physical evidence or witness statement
5. Testimony of the arresting officer
When the scene of the alleged domestic violence is confusing, and
when the "primary" aggressor is not easily identifiable, it is tough
for both the police, and then the prosecutor, to know who the real
victim is. If the wrong person is arrested (i.e., if the real victim
is arrested), that person will try to have the prosecutor drop or
reduce the charges. That exercise can be time consuming, maddening,
and discouraging.
The primary aggressor statute in Colorado, and elsewhere, does not
help prosecutors to sort out who the real victim was. Just as the
police can be befuddled when called to a domestic violence scene, so
can prosecutors be thwarted by insufficient, or ambiguous, evidence
(which is all the prosecutors have available to them in court).
Perhaps Colorado, and other states, should rethink the usefulness of
the primary aggressor statute. These laws have not necessarily
worked the way they were intended to work, in large part because it
is so difficult for police, or prosecutors, to know exactly WHO that
primary aggressor is. An alternative model for domestic violence
calls might be considered, where there is no need to make hard
judgment calls about who is the "primary" aggressor is in a
complicated and stressful fact situation.
REFERENCES
CRS 18-6-803.6
James O. Clifford, Domestic Laws Nab Women: Primary Aggressor
Results Surprising, The Denver Post (Nov. 25, 1999)
US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner
Violence (May 2000)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:20 PM December 15th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:47 AM December 12th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
“Women's groups campaigned heavily for primary-aggressor laws...”
Facts not politics should be determining the path of domestic violence law, especially when everyone knows that the radical/gender feminists in the domestic violence movement (the ones most embracing the current domestic violence laws) also embrace gender Nazism as their politics. Members of those women’s groups, who lied and got VAWA passed, should have all been prosecuted for defrauding America. If America were a nation of just laws they would all now be serving hard jail time. Batterers populate America's domestic violence movement, while innocent male victims of their evil hate rot in jail.
Victims Are Cheated When Violent Females Are Excused"
If You Shelter A Battering Female - You’re A Batterer
“Backers of these "primary aggressor" laws hoped they would reduce
domestic violence, and decrease the number of women arrested for
defending themselves.”
We understand how the hateful bigots in the domestic violence movement wanted the biggest scam in America to work, Working the Domestic Violence Scam
“Social science departments, police
departments, and prosecutors are stumped - why would more women be
arrested and prosecuted after these laws were enacted?”
Why? ...because profiling all men as batterers is the “biggest lie” of the evil gender Nazis running the domestic violence industry. The primary reason they’re all stumped is because they are all ignorant, hate hearted misandrists. Overwhelming evidence has clearly established the violent behavior of females in the home in a meta study of all studies on domestic violence, and in this Study, but true to the classic definition of what a bigot is, those in the domestic violence industry are not only intolerant of other’s beliefs, they are wholly intolerant of the truth about domestic violence. Therefore, these pig-headed ignoramuses are not only ignorant, they are grossly stupid. Not only are they grossly stupid, they are evil, because they refuse to listen and change when they are presented with the overwhelming truth over and over again. They are not only evil, they are gender Nazis, because they so hatefully persecute a group of people (men) based solely on their sex. The domestic violence movement (primarily and aggressively) targets men for their hate crimes based primarily on their evil ideology.
Gender Profiling of All Men as Batterers is Hate Crime
“Perhaps Colorado, and other states, should rethink the usefulness of
the primary aggressor statute. These laws have not necessarily
worked the way they were intended to work...”
Why, so the hateful bigots affiliated with the domestic violence laws can wrongfully arrest more innocent men, then get more money to arrest more innocent men?
Men Have Always Wondered Why Domestic Violence Laws Don’t Work
Sincerely, Ray
...and it all begins in man-hating, taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs on college campuses.
Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the info I’m trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"These laws have not necessarily
worked the way they were intended to work...”
This sentence says it all -- the real goal is to keep women from being arrested, whether they're the violent party or not.
Does the English language have a word for "things we say to avoid offending others and hide the unpleasant truth"? I think this applies to the opening paragraphs where the author pretends that what they really want is to see justice done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does the English language have a word for "things we say to avoid offending others and hide the unpleasant truth"?
Euphemism?
"When slaves gave up their seats for whites, we called it subservience; when men give up their seats for women, we call
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There are some theories, but no hard evidence:
1. Women are being more aggressive"
Of course there's no hard evidence of women being more aggressive. They're just getting arrested more for the same behaviour they used to get away with. It's as if rolling pins and cast-iron skillets weren't traditional weapons, or a thrown piece of china weren't part of our cultural heritage too. Those images have been denied for a generation, now reality is breaking through again.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
