'Passing of domestic violence bills could set NH back 40 years'

Submitted by anthony on Sun, 2012-01-22 09:17

Article here. Excerpt:

'New Hampshire currently has the strongest set of domestic violence laws in the country; however, that could all change. Lawmakers held a hearing on Thursday which focused on two bills that would drastically scale back the domestic violence laws currently in place.

One of the bills being considered is House Bill 1581 which would prevent law enforcement from being able to immediately arrest an abuser who has assaulted his or her partner unless the officer has actually witnesses the crime take place. Under the current law, the police can arrest an abuser based on probable cause.
...
“It’s clear if a police officer sees somebody robbing a bank they ought to be able to arrest them,” says Representative Dan Itse, “Our Constitution is clear. You have to prove to an objective party, a judge, that there is reasonably cause that there is warrant for arrest.”'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

The article is written in such a way that it begs the question. It refers to someone (a potential arrestee) as 'an abuser' and says that the police should be able to arrest on probable cause grounds. Agreed, police should always have the discretion to arrest on probable cause provided the state they serve in has that as its standard. But why is it presumed (as the wording here does) that a suspect is in fact guilty? By using the word 'abuser', the suspect is already tried and found guilty without due process. That is how the author would have it, based on the way the article is written. A call to the police is made re a claimed DV incident and there is by this fact alone an abuser, and an abused, party. Someone needs to be arrested. That is how the article is written.

But there is another fact here: in fact, a lot of facts. One is that DV is defined and re-defined fairly regularly not only in various state laws but also by court findings. It's hard for police to keep up. But even acting in good faith, police can and do make mistakes. They are called in after the fact (assuming there is a fact at all). So now what-- arrest or not? States that have mandatory arrest laws see men (and rarely, women) put away in jail on a mere complaint. They must now do the near-impossible: disprove the charge against them. Is that consistent with the presumption of innocence we as Americans (or people in other countries who have this as a standard) are supposed to have? Not at all. But what if the complaint is valid. What if there is an argument that got out of hand and someone slapped, shoved, or kicked someone else? Or it just got too loud for one of the arguers to take, thereby meeting some states' standards for DV, and a call is made to the police? Now what-- the police show up and maybe there is no mark on the victim (or presumed victim) to speak of (e.g.: this was a shouting match that was too disquieting for someone: remember, men: your rights end where her feelings begin!). They decide not to make an arrest when in fact someone did something clearly violent (we'll leave out yelling too loud for someone else to deal with and include clearly violent acts here: kicking, punching, shoving, etc.) and by having the police over, the victim is now in greater danger than before. What if he or she now feels unsafe but also thinks they cannot get away because no one will believe them, they are afraid their so-called mate will come after them, they will not be believed (as with many male DV victims), etc.

Point is, there can be no perfect way to be sure justice is being served in these matters. As citizens we have to recognize some people will be violent toward their 'mates' and commit acts of DV. We have to rely on our law enforcers' discretion, imperfect as it is, in handling these matters regarding arrest or non-arrest because, well, they are doing the hard work of dealing with these situations. We're not. When legislatures get involved in passing mandatory arrest laws for nothing but accusations of some kind of misconduct, the presumption of innocence and officer discretion gets thrown out the window.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2012-01-22 23:59

I agree the article is written in a biased tone, furthermore, the video has the woman, in her last sentence, asserting "...if HE is to blame", clearly defining an abuser as male.

But I do find this a bad change to make. If a police officer arrives at a home and one of the partners has a large gash on their head and blood all down their face, they can't do anything. they didn't witness the altercation that caused that gash, so they would need to go back and get a warrant. while I do think what constitutes evidence for probable cause should be examined (IE, mere accusations should not be sufficient), I don't think this bill should be passed as is.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kratch on Mon, 2012-01-23 04:28

"According to the Huffington Post, state statistics show 38 percent of homicides in 2011 were domestic violence-related, and the vast majority of domestic violence cases were perpetrated by men again women."

LOL, yeah the feminist controlled Huffington Post, which has the nerve to joke about the worst case of domestic violence against males ever recorded. They're a great source to ask about DV, seeing that it's just a joke to them.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xtrnl on Mon, 2012-01-23 19:11