qxct said:
You hit the nail on the head; the law is "simple". The fact that officers have [now] little ability to exercise discretion and act more like robots with a basic and simple instruction set put's them on par with a "simple" computer.
Maybe so. But there are reasons for that.
The reality is that they don't operate in a vacuum. Was this authority to exercise discretion [by the police] taken from them because it was at the time believed that their ability to do so was ineffective or wrong for some reason?
It was largely because victims were too terrified or traumatized to press charges against their abusers, so the cycle continued. When an officer would respond, the victim would either clam up or deny the abuse - even with clear evidence to the contrary - and the situation would be left untouched ... and their children would then grow into the next generation of abusers and victims.
The simple answer is that the laws changed to encourage and/or mandate an arrest, a report to CPS, and a host of other actions to support the victim and the family in many cases because of the insidious nature of DV. If you feel you were caught in that broad net unfairly, there is not much I or anyone else here can do about that. However, you acknowledge that you remained in a relationship that was abusive (her alledgly victimizing you), so this was a predictable result - provided that accusation is true.
And that our judicial system now has a "better" grasp on the problem [sociological] because of these measures? I guess the crime data [et al.] now would support the effectiveness of these measures?
Actually, it does. Prior to about 1990 there was no good data on the problem because it was largely seen as a family problem ... going back to "the good ol' days" when wives were chattel. A victim would cower in the corner, say she fell and bumped her head, deny her husband beat her, and the cops would have no choice but to leave it be ... and to top it off there were no (or few) DV statutes on the books!
Yes, the current state of affairs IS an improvement. We just have to be mindful to keep the laws from getting TOO draconian. There was a measure proposed in CA several years back that would have permitted the hearsay evidence of the victim into trial (not just the preliminary hearing as is permitted in CA) so the suspect would not have an opportunity to cross examine the accuser. While I sympathize with the intent of the legislation, it would have been contrary to our system of justice and I - like most cops - rejected it. And so did the legislature.
Miraculously society is cured of one it's ugliest sicknesses all because those basic constitutional rights afforded to a person are better suspended.
Name one constitutional right that has been suspended.
Don't get me wrong; I do believe the law truly serves a just purpose. But that, it allows for abuse [injustice] in it's current iteration is wrong.
Then change it. However, I'm curious what part about it you would change. Would you make it so that no arrest could be made absent a videotape or the sworn statements of three witnesses? No arrest absent a warrant? What?
The burden of proof for an arrest has ALWAYS (even before DV laws and the Patriot Act) been much, much lower than that needed for trial. All that is needed for an arrest is "probable cause" to believe that a crime has been committed and that the suspect committed the crime. This is a relatively low burden to overcome. The DA will want proof beyond a "reasonable doubt" before moving forward. One can have sufficient probable cause without having evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This is one of the reasons why so few DV cases ever go to court. More than 75% of DV victims recant before court (often within 24 hours), and many of them are willing to perjure themselves to the court to save their abuser.
It is a sad state of affairs. And why any woman - or man - would stay in an abusive relationship is beyond me.
- Carl
