This guy was not a first time offender. In the state of Florida, a first time offender is ordered into state regulated counseling. So even without her testimony, the guy was, in fact, convicted and sent to jail. Furthermore, if the guy had plead guilty or no contest, there wouldn't even needed to be a trial.
I understand that she was in contempt of court. One night in jail would have been sufficient. A fine would have been sufficient. Community service would have been sufficient. Three nights is ridiculous. And her comments were definitely out of line.
Post by underwaterrhymes on Oct 9, 2015 11:41:07 GMT -5
Given that rapists and abusers are routinely let off with very little repercussion, it's absurd to me that this woman spent even three nights in jail.
This judge was trying to make a statement and I do not think it was an effective one. It did not a) help the baby, b) help this woman, c) have any effect on the abuser, or d) pave the way for other current or future victims of abuse.
This was a temper tantrum.
Plus, I'm of the opinion that victims of abuse should not be jailed for refusing to testify. So there's that.
As an attorney who volunteers to work with victims of domestic violence, I am surprised at the lack of empathy for a victim by so many attorneys. What is putting her in jail doing? It's punishing her. It is not helping the baby. It is not making the abuser spend any more time in jail. It is not helping any other cases for domestic violence. All it has done is give other victim's MORE fear, MORE reasons to stay, MORE reasons to NOT call the police. This has done NOTHING constructive.
Legally, yes, she can be held in contempt. But it's discretionary. I get the anger that people feel she did not protect her child. But there is more to this. Many women are scared when they leave, their abuser will get custody or unsupervised visits. There is the psychological abuse that this is all her fault. That she will be blamed (like she is in this very thread). Or that people won't believe her. Or she is flat out confused. She has had a master manipulator beating her for a while and convincing her to stay. She is confused about loving him, and he is sorry, and he didn't mean it.
Yes, her kid comes first. We put the kid first when we give a victim RESOURCES, not JAIL TIME.
Legally I get that they had the right to do it. And I absolutely understand the importance of showing up to court when handed a subpoena to do so. And as I've never done criminal work I don't know whether or not they could have realistically proceeded without her. Yes, she should have shown up at court when she was compelled to do so.
I just think that there had to be other ways to express their displeasure than three days in jail. I don't think they'll get what they want out of the actions the judge took. This won't do anything to help curtail DV. It will just help women stay silent. It sucks.
As a lawyer, you should also know that consequences are generally equally applied. There typically aren't exceptions or new methods of punishment concocted according to every circumstance.
If you want to be angry at somebody, be angry at the woman's shitty counsel who didn't MAKE HER SHOW UP. Seriously. Rules are rules. They're not impossible to follow. Any lawyer worth anything would've made sure the woman went to court when she was ordered to do so.
@cse1960 would never let her client fail to appear. Ever. And, frankly, neither would any of us who have liked her posts.
The rational part of my brain does understand all of this.
The screaming idiot in my brain is having a hard time reconciling it all.
And this is why I don't touch criminal work with a 99.5 foot pole.
Knowing how DV completely fucks with a person's perspective on things, the cycle of abuse, the fear that the person being abused feels, and the confusion of facing the fact that the one they love is actually a bad person (because in the end, it's always their fault they got the shit beat out of them. It's never the abuser's fault, and the person being abused lives a life of guilt and shame for all of it) I don't blame her for not showing up.
Anyone that doesn't see that has obviously never been in those shoes and needs some serious education on just what abuse does to someone. It is much, much more than bruises and broken bones. Those heal.
This. So much this.
And abuse doesn't always have to be physical, verbal and emotional abuse leaves just as many scars, you just can't see them.
Post by deanlicker78 on Oct 9, 2015 12:00:40 GMT -5
It's frustrating when you want to help someone and they tie your hands. I understand how the cycle of abuse works, and still feel frustrated sometimes. I think thats natural. Especially when children are involved. It can be a mind fuck of emotions, not just for the victim but for family, friends, law enforcement, etc.
This judge has probably seen the worst of DV and not been able to do anything. There is probably a high level of frustration there that could have absolutely been handled better. I'm not ready to tear her to shreds because of it though. She made a mistake, in my opinion, but I'm not in her position either. I think she was perhaps doing what she could to get this woman to wake up and protect her child, having seen countless times how abusive relationships can end.
Legally I get that they had the right to do it. And I absolutely understand the importance of showing up to court when handed a subpoena to do so. And as I've never done criminal work I don't know whether or not they could have realistically proceeded without her. Yes, she should have shown up at court when she was compelled to do so.
I just think that there had to be other ways to express their displeasure than three days in jail. I don't think they'll get what they want out of the actions the judge took. This won't do anything to help curtail DV. It will just help women stay silent. It sucks.
As a lawyer, you should also know that consequences are generally equally applied. There typically aren't exceptions or new methods of punishment concocted according to every circumstance.
If you want to be angry at somebody, be angry at the woman's shitty counsel who didn't MAKE HER SHOW UP. Seriously. Rules are rules. They're not impossible to follow. Any lawyer worth anything would've made sure the woman went to court when she was ordered to do so.
@cse1960 would never let her client fail to appear. Ever. And, frankly, neither would any of us who have liked her posts.
How do you know she had an attorney? She was a witness for the state. She wasn't a Plaintiff or a Defendant.
And frankly, I am annoyed the Prosecutor subpoenaed a victim. A victim the prosecutor KNEW would not show. THEN moved for contempt against the victim. California actually has a law that you can't hold victims of DV or Sexual assault in contempt: Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. s. 1219(b).
This isn't as open and shut as you want it to appear. Public Policy is ALSO a part of the law. And sometimes, due to public policy, the rules are bent.
As an attorney who volunteers to work with victims of domestic violence, I am surprised at the lack of empathy for a victim by so many attorneys. What is putting her in jail doing? It's punishing her. It is not helping the baby. It is not making the abuser spend any more time in jail. It is not helping any other cases for domestic violence. All it has done is give other victim's MORE fear, MORE reasons to stay, MORE reasons to NOT call the police. This has done NOTHING constructive.
Legally, yes, she can be held in contempt. But it's discretionary. I get the anger that people feel she did not protect her child. But there is more to this. Many women are scared when they leave, their abuser will get custody or unsupervised visits. There is the psychological abuse that this is all her fault. That she will be blamed (like she is in this very thread). Or that people won't believe her. Or she is flat out confused. She has had a master manipulator beating her for a while and convincing her to stay. She is confused about loving him, and he is sorry, and he didn't mean it.
Yes, her kid comes first. We put the kid first when we give a victim RESOURCES, not JAIL TIME.
Pray tell, how do you make this leap?
You can't possible think that anyone in this thread does not feel empathy for the woman. Do you really think that?
The advocacy of compliance with court orders does not obviate a person's empathy for the victim. If anything, a lawyer who cares about her client would ensure such compliance so this very situation would not have occurred. I know you would make sure of that, and you know that, too.
As an attorney who volunteers to work with victims of domestic violence, I am surprised at the lack of empathy for a victim by so many attorneys. What is putting her in jail doing? It's punishing her. It is not helping the baby. It is not making the abuser spend any more time in jail. It is not helping any other cases for domestic violence. All it has done is give other victim's MORE fear, MORE reasons to stay, MORE reasons to NOT call the police. This has done NOTHING constructive.
Legally, yes, she can be held in contempt. But it's discretionary. I get the anger that people feel she did not protect her child. But there is more to this. Many women are scared when they leave, their abuser will get custody or unsupervised visits. There is the psychological abuse that this is all her fault. That she will be blamed (like she is in this very thread). Or that people won't believe her. Or she is flat out confused. She has had a master manipulator beating her for a while and convincing her to stay. She is confused about loving him, and he is sorry, and he didn't mean it.
Yes, her kid comes first. We put the kid first when we give a victim RESOURCES, not JAIL TIME.
Pray tell, how do you make this leap?
You can't possible think that anyone in this thread does not feel empathy for the woman. Do you really think that?
The advocacy of compliance with court orders does not obviate a person's empathy for the victim. If anything, a lawyer who cares about her client would ensure such compliance so this very situation would not have occurred. I know you would make sure of that, and you know that, too.
Yes, I do. The "SHE DIDN'T PROTECT HER KID! SHE DESERVES IT!" response makes me think that. When so much more goes into it than that.
And who was her attorney? She was a witness. Witnesses don't necessarily have attorneys.
Post by bohemianmango on Oct 9, 2015 12:13:01 GMT -5
I don't know the law side of DV. I only know what it's like to be living with DV. The abuser has a hold on pretty much all aspects of the victim's life. While it may seem that life will be better without the abuser, the victim might not know how to live that life and fear can take a hold on him or her. They might not make decisions that appear to be in their best interest.
This story just shows me how the system can be flawed and defendants' rights are sometimes more protected than their victims. It's another reason why victims feel they have no options.
Yes, I do. The "SHE DIDN'T PROTECT HER KID! SHE DESERVES IT!" response makes me think that. When so much more goes into it than that.
And who was her attorney? She was a witness. Witnesses don't necessarily have attorneys.
Not one person in this thread expressed a lack of empathy for what she went through. What they do not empathize with is refusing to obey a court order. There were any number of ways this could have been handled; I don't know that the judge was right, but I don't necessarily think she was wrong. Courts see a massive waste in terms of time and resources over people who fail to appear. And in this particular case, the witness called indicating she was refusing to show, was nasty and uncooperative, and said she "didn't care if she got arrested." So -- she got her wish.
Being the victim of abuse is a terrible, wrenching thing. But you don't get to break rules and defy court orders simply because you were the victim of a crime. I think this woman went through hell, but I also think she should have shown up for court. When you don't show up for court in defiance of an order, you are held in contempt.
Sue sue specifically SAID her empathy stops at the child. So, yes, that is a lack of empathy for the mother.
And contempt is discretionary, at least in my state. The statute says MAY, not MUST. So, you don't show up, you MAY be held in contempt. And public policy plays a part in that. Hence why California contempt laws specifically state a DV victim CAN'T be held in contempt.
I am sure she was nasty. She was scared, a victim, and being told she HAD to face her abuser.
You can't possible think that anyone in this thread does not feel empathy for the woman. Do you really think that?
The advocacy of compliance with court orders does not obviate a person's empathy for the victim. If anything, a lawyer who cares about her client would ensure such compliance so this very situation would not have occurred. I know you would make sure of that, and you know that, too.
Yes, I do. The "SHE DIDN'T PROTECT HER KID! SHE DESERVES IT!" response makes me think that. When so much more goes into it than that.
And who was her attorney? She was a witness. Witnesses don't necessarily have attorneys.
^o)
At no point in time did I say anything of this sort.
Let's say that she did not have an attorney. Even then, she really should have appeared. I understand that the layperson may not comprehend the gravity of a court order, and I also understand that she may have been in a bad mental state, but I don't know how else our legal system would work if people did not follow directions to be where they're supposed to be at certain times and dates. Most people are knowledgeable enough that they comprehend and comply with jury summons, and that's not even as remotely as important as the instant matter.
The abuser walked as a direct consequence of this woman's failure to appear.
Nobody in this thread wants that result.
If she had simply complied with the order, there wouldn't be this mess.
What makes me angry is that you all make the assumption that the victim was thinking clearly and just decided not to show. She said she was not in a good place right now. For all we know, she might not be able to get out of bed in the morning. She might not have anyone helping her or counselling her. She might not understand how court and law works. We don't know. But we do know that she was a victim of domestic violence and has a baby to take care of. And I think we can all agree that sending her to jail in those circumstances is a fucking gross thing to do.
The judge was out of line with her comments, and one night would have been more appropriate, but I am generally with @cse1960 on this one. The guy walked because she no showed. There is no indication she was willing to appear by closed circuit television, or even tried to.
There's plenty of blame to go around- the DA should have offered close circuit as an option, though we don't know for a fact that they didn't; victim-witness services should have been more robust; the woman should have been given her own lawyer- but 99% or the time the victim won't testify because they get back together with the abuser. And I completely understand the frustration with that when there is a child victim.
This is what I wondered reading the article. CC is a really great option in DV cases and I wondered why that wasn't used in her case.
Yes, I do. The "SHE DIDN'T PROTECT HER KID! SHE DESERVES IT!" response makes me think that. When so much more goes into it than that.
And who was her attorney? She was a witness. Witnesses don't necessarily have attorneys.
At no point in time did I say anything of this sort.
Let's say that she did not have an attorney. Even then, she really should have appeared. I understand that the layperson may not comprehend the gravity of a court order, and I also understand that she may have been in a bad mental state, but I don't know how else our legal system would work if people did not follow directions to be where they're supposed to be at certain times and dates. Most people are knowledgeable enough that they comprehend and comply with jury summons, and that's not even as remotely as important as the instant matter.
The abuser walked as a direct consequence of this woman's failure to appear.
Nobody in this thread wants that result.
If she had simply complied with the order, there wouldn't be this mess.
Sue sue did. And many here said they agree with her, so, I am sorry if I thought your agreement included that sentiment.
As to your last sentence-you have no idea how this would have turned out had she shown. He may still have walked. You act like compliance was super easy. Facing someone who has abused you mentally and physically is NOT so easy. Hence why some states don't allow you to hold victims of DV in contempt. There is more to this than, "Show up or go to jail." Especially since contempt is discretionary. The judge CHOSE to put her in jail, not simply followed a law where she had to go.
No one wants an abuser to walk, agreed, but this contempt did nothing to stop that. Likely, it has just made it so fewer victims will reach out for help.
I understand the annoyance when a witness doesn't show. I have had it happen (the guy was not held in contempt for it either). I understand the annoyance with DV victims even. It's hard to have the SAME WOMAN show up for a VPO against the SAME person over and over and over again. But this was not the way to effectuate change.
Sue sue specifically SAID her empathy stops at the child. So, yes, that is a lack of empathy for the mother.
And contempt is discretionary, at least in my state. The statute says MAY, not MUST. So, you don't show up, you MAY be held in contempt. And public policy plays a part in that. Hence why California contempt laws specifically state a DV victim CAN'T be held in contempt.
I am sure she was nasty. She was scared, a victim, and being told she HAD to face her abuser.
Florida has no such law, obviously. Contempt may be discretionary; this judge had discretion and used it in a way she thought was appropriate.
I get that she was scared. I do not get the viewpoint that being scared means you are exempt from the law and from an order of court.
Do you get the viewpoint that it's bad public policy to jail victim's of DV for contempt? And that public policy should play a part in a discretionary decision? Because that is my point.
So, then, what should the court do? Honest question.
Just as much as the cycle of dv abuse occurs, there is also a cycle in cj system. Abuse occurs. The victim calls the police. The defendant is charged. The victim recants. Gets back with he/she. Writes letters to the judge/DA on behalf of the defendant.Shows up with the defendant to their attorney's office. Refuses to testify. Agrees to testify for defense. DA is now in a very tough position. They agree to one year probationor or drop the charges.
Six months later, repeat cycle. Same situation. Rinse and repeat.
That above situation is the norm not the rarity, unfortunately.
I hate that this occurs. I can't tell you how many times i have spoken with victims testifying for the defendant who look me straight in the eye stating their black eyes/ injuries were caused by walking into wall. Denying abuse despite 30 pages of police interaction I have in my hand, etc.
But, such is law. Defendants have rights for a reason and those laws protect them not the victims and as miso said the courts need to apply law equally.
Do I think 3 days is extreme? Absolutely. Do I feel the judge made inappropriate statements? Yes. Do I believe she deserved jail? No.
The question is now, what are the courts supposed to do? What is the duty of the DA? Can they still attempt to proceed? Sure. But it is mighty had to get a conviction especially if the victim is testifying for the defense.
So, understanding the cycle of DV, what is the courts responsibility? Again, honest question because I do not have an answer.
My point is simply this: Contempt is discretionary. Therefore, this was not a case of don't show, go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. The judge had a choice. He CHOSE to put her in jail. I disagree with his choice as it is bad public policy. I feel he made it harder for DV victim's to get the help they need. You can disagree with that. BUT, arguing she went to jail for contempt and that is what happens is just incorrect. It's what MAY happen. And I am bowing out now, because this is obviously a tough topic for me.
My sister is a victim. Her husband who held her at gun point when she left ended up with full custody because she was scared and fled with her kid. CAN a court make the decision because she did that to give custody to him? Sure, but it was the wrong decision. So, I will never just believe holding victim's to the harshest punishments allowed is the right thing to do.
My point is simply this: Contempt is discretionary. Therefore, this was not a case of don't show, go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. The judge had a choice. He CHOSE to put her in jail. I disagree with his choice as it is bad public policy. I feel he made it harder for DV victim's to get the help they need. You can disagree with that. BUT, arguing she went to jail for contempt and that is what happens is just incorrect. It's what MAY happen. And I am bowing out now, because this is obviously a tough topic for me.
My sister is a victim. Her husband who held her at gun point when she left ended up with full custody because she was scared and fled with her kid. CAN a court make the decision because she did that to give custody to him? Sure, but it was the wrong decision. So, I will never just believe holding victim's to the harshest punishments allowed is the right thing to do.
I expressly indicated in my previous post that I understand this was discretionary. Her choice may or may not be bad public policy; it's ultimately moot, as it's her choice to make.
My sister is also a victim of domestic abuse.
Would you want your sister jailed because she didn't want to testify against her abuser?
The CA code section pp cited applies to refusal to testify, not refusal to appear. A person falling within that code section still needs to show up if subpoenaed or otherwise ordered to appear, and say under oath, "I will not testify."
Failure to appear and failure to testify are two entirely separate matters.
Unfortunately, when CA enacted the refusal to testify legislation, there wasn't any companion legislation introduced to allow police reports in lieu of live testimony from a victim who refuses to testify. So the defendant pretty much gets to walk in the majority of those cases.
Most jurors can see through a recanting victim and deliberate accordingly. But if a jury doesn't hear anything at all from a victim who they know is available? Not many good outcomes there.
At no point in time did I say anything of this sort.
Let's say that she did not have an attorney. Even then, she really should have appeared. I understand that the layperson may not comprehend the gravity of a court order, and I also understand that she may have been in a bad mental state, but I don't know how else our legal system would work if people did not follow directions to be where they're supposed to be at certain times and dates. Most people are knowledgeable enough that they comprehend and comply with jury summons, and that's not even as remotely as important as the instant matter.
The abuser walked as a direct consequence of this woman's failure to appear.
Nobody in this thread wants that result.
If she had simply complied with the order, there wouldn't be this mess.
Sue sue did. And many here said they agree with her, so, I am sorry if I thought your agreement included that sentiment.
As to your last sentence-you have no idea how this would have turned out had she shown. He may still have walked. You act like compliance was super easy. Facing someone who has abused you mentally and physically is NOT so easy. Hence why some states don't allow you to hold victims of DV in contempt. There is more to this than, "Show up or go to jail." Especially since contempt is discretionary. The judge CHOSE to put her in jail, not simply followed a law where she had to go.
No one wants an abuser to walk, agreed, but this contempt did nothing to stop that. Likely, it has just made it so fewer victims will reach out for help.
I understand the annoyance when a witness doesn't show. I have had it happen (the guy was not held in contempt for it either). I understand the annoyance with DV victims even. It's hard to have the SAME WOMAN show up for a VPO against the SAME person over and over and over again. But this was not the way to effectuate change.
We're really on the same team here, but I don't know what the solution is.
All I know is that, even with a terrible situation and depression and whatever other horrible obstacles exist, you simply cannot fail to appear.
You may not need to testify, but you do need to show up.
As a lawyer, you should also know that consequences are generally equally applied. There typically aren't exceptions or new methods of punishment concocted according to every circumstance.
If you want to be angry at somebody, be angry at the woman's shitty counsel who didn't MAKE HER SHOW UP. Seriously. Rules are rules. They're not impossible to follow. Any lawyer worth anything would've made sure the woman went to court when she was ordered to do so.
@cse1960 would never let her client fail to appear. Ever. And, frankly, neither would any of us who have liked her posts.
The rational part of my brain does understand all of this.
The screaming idiot in my brain is having a hard time reconciling it all.
And this is why I don't touch criminal work with a 99.5 foot pole.
I'm not certain she would have had an attorney representing her interests.
I'm also an attorney, and I grew up in a domestic violence household. Never once was my mother ever shamed for any decision to not testify, or any hesitation in doing so. She was instead urged, gently, to come forward and was given resources to help her.
This judge is a piece of shit who was on a fucking power trip and I still believe she absolutely abused her discretion. The comments regarding anxiety alone are enough to warrant a complaint to the judiciary committee and she should really be absofuckinglutley ashamed of herself.
So, then, what should the court do? Honest question.
Just as much as the cycle of dv abuse occurs, there is also a cycle in cj system. Abuse occurs. The victim calls the police. The defendant is charged. The victim recants. Gets back with he/she. Writes letters to the judge/DA on behalf of the defendant.Shows up with the defendant to their attorney's office. Refuses to testify. Agrees to testify for defense. DA is now in a very tough position. They agree to one year probationor or drop the charges.
Six months later, repeat cycle. Same situation. Rinse and repeat.
That above situation is the norm not the rarity, unfortunately.
I hate that this occurs. I can't tell you how many times i have spoken with victims testifying for the defendant who look me straight in the eye stating their black eyes/ injuries were caused by walking into wall. Denying abuse despite 30 pages of police interaction I have in my hand, etc.
But, such is law. Defendants have rights for a reason and those laws protect them not the victims and as miso said the courts need to apply law equally.
Do I think 3 days is extreme? Absolutely. Do I feel the judge made inappropriate statements? Yes. Do I believe she deserved jail? No.
The question is now, what are the courts supposed to do? What is the duty of the DA? Can they still attempt to proceed? Sure. But it is mighty had to get a conviction especially if the victim is testifying for the defense.
So, understanding the cycle of DV, what is the courts responsibility? Again, honest question because I do not have an answer.
I hate that this occurs too.
I think though, it is probably the best we can do, unfortunately. It is one of those shitty areas where mental health issues and the criminal justice system intersect and the courts just can't effectively manage it.
I did see one idea I found interesting. And of course for the life of me I cannot find the article now. But basically, they had some sort of investigator watch who walked into the courthouse together in the morning, and report it to the judge. If the investigator noted that the accused walked in with the victim in violation of a protective order, the accused was arrested on the spot for the violation, no matter what the victim said. It took the victim out of the equation, but put the accused back in jail for a few weeks, and bought the victim some more time to secure help/plan their next move/etc. I don't know how to incorporate that idea in a larger urban area though.
Post by MeMyselfandI on Oct 9, 2015 13:03:55 GMT -5
I'm not a lawyer, so forgive my ignorance. There has been talk of the judge not having to decide one way or another to because of public policy. But judges decisions are used as precedence for other cases correct? So if judges start deciding to jail victims of DV for not testifying, does that not set a precedence and would it not therefore encourage other victims to not call the police or ask for help? Maybe I'm not thinking clearly or am getting terms or something confused.
Serious question for those of you who practice this type of law-- what is a typical sentence for someone who commits domestic abuse?
I can see why a victim would call the police in the moment. They are scared for their life in that moment. I can also see why they wouldn't show up to testify for the same, except scared for their life forever.
The stats about victims who return to their abusers are frustrating and sad. I don't know what the solution is, but the threat of jail time doesn't seem to make sense. I can also see how frustrating it would be to work on these cases.
In this case, Im assuming we don't have all the details. Other lawyers have mentioned testifying behind closed doors, via video, etc. I wonder if those options were extended to her.
As an aside and a general observation to this thread is that lawyers are trained/designed/whatever you want to call it to look at a case in a legal, objective looking glass while a layman views it more emotionally. This doesn't make us unsympathetic,lacking in empathy or otherwise we just automatically view how the law is applied.
Surprisingly, we can be both ( not all, some are straight up assholes ) empathetic to the victim's plight but also follow the rule of law despite potential negative outcome for said victim. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
As shown in this thread we all really on the same side despite the appearance.
Eta: i hope that made sense, i am chasing two kids around, lol.
I tend to side with the judge on this one although cases can be made for both sides of it. I Do empathize with this woman, which is why she should have testified, to stop the cycle. It may have made her life better, as well as the life of her child as well as the life of the next woman.
I get that it's hard but unfortunately it's necessary to stop these men. How many of those women that we know as victims of abuse might not have had to endure that if the woman before had testified? The abusers have the power because we give it to them every time we let them walk. They get more and more empowered and the violence gets worse and worse. If they start facing consequences earlier on, before they are too far gone, maybe there would be less overall violence.
The way I look at it is the men use intimidation and fear tactics to keep the women from testifying. The message this judge sent will give the justice system a little leverage in the other direction. Is it her job to set a precedent beyond the individual case, I don't know, but I can't be mad about it.
And for the record, I agree the anxiety comment was uncalled for. I hope this lady can get the help she needs and make a better life for herself and her daughter.
Serious question for those of you who practice this type of law-- what is a typical sentence for someone who commits domestic abuse?
It really depends on the state, the facts of the case, and the individual defendant.
In CA it could be a 1 year misdemeanor or a 2, 3, or 4 year felony as a base term on a single charge. But if you factor in any additional charges that may be related to the offense (e.g. false imprisonment, criminal threats, vandalism, kidnapping, etc.), and factor in any prior convictions the defendant has or any special enhancements for use of a weapon, then the potential exposure jumps up dramatically.
ETA: Typically though, I tend to see the lower end of the felony range for run of the mill DV cases (for lack of a better phrase). With good time credits and early releases, that means that maybe a year gets actually served. On misdemeanors I usually see prison either without any jail time, or with 10-60 days weekend work service.
Serious question for those of you who practice this type of law-- what is a typical sentence for someone who commits domestic abuse?
I can see why a victim would call the police in the moment. They are scared for their life in that moment. I can also see why they wouldn't show up to testify for the same, except scared for their life forever.
The stats about victims who return to their abusers are frustrating and sad. I don't know what the solution is, but the threat of jail time doesn't seem to make sense. I can also see how frustrating it would be to work on these cases.
In this case, Im assuming we don't have all the details. Other lawyers have mentioned testifying behind closed doors, via video, etc. I wonder if those options were extended to her.
The anxiety comment was totally inappropriate.
I've only done this pro bono, but generally speaking the answer is "not fucking long enough."
The cycle of abuse is horrifying. But, imo, so is anarchy. This judge handled this woman in a way I would never want to or want to see anyone else be treated. Nor do I want to see people treat the justice system like it's optional. I am sympathetic to the victim and to the judge's frustration. I am revolted by the manner in which the judge choose to express that frustration.
Serious question for those of you who practice this type of law-- what is a typical sentence for someone who commits domestic abuse?
I can see why a victim would call the police in the moment. They are scared for their life in that moment. I can also see why they wouldn't show up to testify for the same, except scared for their life forever.
The stats about victims who return to their abusers are frustrating and sad. I don't know what the solution is, but the threat of jail time doesn't seem to make sense. I can also see how frustrating it would be to work on these cases.
In this case, Im assuming we don't have all the details. Other lawyers have mentioned testifying behind closed doors, via video, etc. I wonder if those options were extended to her.
The anxiety comment was totally inappropriate.
depends on the type of domestic violence charge. In my state, a simple assault and battery type of DV is just a misdemeanor. However, there are also felony charges as well depending on what the assault entailed.