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.
I am really trying to check my emotions at the door here, and be more thoughtful and logical here.
Honest question: How do you feel the judge accomplished the bolded with her actions?
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.
Judges' decisions are based upon interpretation/application of the law (statutes, regulations, past cases interpreting them, etc). The law permits a judge to jail a domestic violence victim for refusing to testify, but does not require it. Not doing so for public policy reasons (i.e., because you don't think the courts should jail victims because it looks dickish) wouldn't really move the needle on what the law "is" here.
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.
Sentencing, involves so many factors that you really can't say but with a low grading, prior record score of 0 or 1 usually they are looking at RS-2; so, time-served and probation.
What is a big factor also is drugs and alcohol. Many of the victim recants i have witnessed involved an alcohol- fumed assault. Victim sobers up, blames herself for calling the police then tries to rectify it, unfortunately.
Because the next woman that is scared of testifying and thinking there will be no consequences will remember this case and hopefully show up. And with her testimony, maybe the abuser will get more than 16 days and she will be able to heal.
I get it, there's a concern that women won't seek help because of this. But I think that the ones that do will have a better follow through rate because of this case.
There's no magic answer here but is everyone in the community, legal system and justice system really ok with letting things go on as they have? Everyone here has said that the current system is broken and frustrating, are we really going to vilify someone for TRYING to fix it?
I'm with @koko about having feelings about this thread. I've typed and deleted several times now.
I'm an attorney, and I have also been in an abusive relationship. (mostly verbal/emotional)
I guess the closest approximation to my feelings about this is that... I can see now, from a healthy perspective, that I was psychologically not well during the time that I was in the abusive cycle. I very well might have refused to testify (if I had ever called the police, which I should have done on a few occasions). It would have been so, so traumatic to have to testify. But then again, pretty much every day in that relationship was traumatic.
It seems so insensitive to victims to come down so hard on them, but they are frequently not thinking rationally, and time is of the essence. Some harsh reality might be necessary to cut through the layers and layers of denial, in order to come up with a just verdict.
And of course, resources, resources, resources after the fact.
Because the next woman that is scared of testifying and thinking there will be no consequences will remember this case and hopefully show up. And with her testimony, maybe the abuser will get more than 16 days and she will be able to heal.
I get it, there's a concern that women won't seek help because of this. But I think that the ones that do will have a better follow through rate because of this case.
There's no magic answer here but is everyone in the community, legal system and justice system really ok with letting things go on as they have? Everyone here has said that the current system is broken and frustrating, are we really going to vilify someone for TRYING to fix it?
Or more likely, the next woman who is scared to call the police on her abuser won't do it because she remembered that this judge threw another victim in jail.
Because the next woman that is scared of testifying and thinking there will be no consequences will remember this case and hopefully show up. And with her testimony, maybe the abuser will get more than 16 days and she will be able to heal.
I get it, there's a concern that women won't seek help because of this. But I think that the ones that do will have a better follow through rate because of this case.
There's no magic answer here but is everyone in the community, legal system and justice system really ok with letting things go on as they have? Everyone here has said that the current system is broken and frustrating, are we really going to vilify someone for TRYING to fix it?
So, is your argument that it is better to put more domestic violence victims in jail if it means the courts get a better return on their investment?
Also, a criminal conviction tends to preclude people from jobs, public housing and the ability to stay in a long term shelter. Is it still better, in your eyes, to jail more domestic violence victims in the hopes that it decreases the number of people who don't show up when served with a subpoena?
Because the next woman that is scared of testifying and thinking there will be no consequences will remember this case and hopefully show up. And with her testimony, maybe the abuser will get more than 16 days and she will be able to heal.
I get it, there's a concern that women won't seek help because of this. But I think that the ones that do will have a better follow through rate because of this case.
There's no magic answer here but is everyone in the community, legal system and justice system really ok with letting things go on as they have? Everyone here has said that the current system is broken and frustrating, are we really going to vilify someone for TRYING to fix it?
I am a big, huge fan of the rule of law. You're not talking about the rule of law or public policy. You're blaming women for (future) crimes committed by men. To couch your words as anything else is an insult to our collective intelligence. I'm a lawyer who has done domestic violence work and who has been the victim of a violent crime. So, I feel eminently qualified to tell you that you're full of it.
Because the next woman that is scared of testifying and thinking there will be no consequences will remember this case and hopefully show up. And with her testimony, maybe the abuser will get more than 16 days and she will be able to heal.
I get it, there's a concern that women won't seek help because of this. But I think that the ones that do will have a better follow through rate because of this case.
There's no magic answer here but is everyone in the community, legal system and justice system really ok with letting things go on as they have? Everyone here has said that the current system is broken and frustrating, are we really going to vilify someone for TRYING to fix it?
You really think the abused are thinking clearly? They are in survival mode. Not kidding survival mode, but for real, legit survival mode. If anything, this will prevent countless victims from seeking the immediate help they need from the police. Who are there for that purpose, to protect people.
Able to heal? Most of these women will never be healed, not even in an entire lifetime.
One magic answer is to not criminalize the victim.
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.
Do you think it's possible the woman didn't know the difference between appearing and testifying?
1. This case is out of Florida, not California so the statute may be different.
2. That's irrelevant. Being ignorant of the meaning of the law does not excuse compliance.
1. This case is out of Florida, not California so the statute may be different.
2. That's irrelevant. Being ignorant of the meaning of the law does not excuse compliance.
I get what you are saying, but if she doesn't have representation or other education of law, this may have been a factor. And just not understanding law doesn't immediately mean one is ignorant (although I am certain you don't mean it that way).
It is very very unlikely to have been a factor, since she didn't show up at all. And she was in court in Florida, not California.
And not understanding or knowing something means you are ignorant of it. I am not careless in my word choice.
It is very very unlikely to have been a factor, since she didn't show up at all. And she was in court in Florida, not California.
And not understanding or knowing something means you are ignorant of it. I am not careless in my word choice.
I know it's true definition but it's a harsh term.
It isn't. Either generally or as I used it here. There is no animus in saying that someone is ignorant of something if they do not know or understand it. "Ignorant jackass," yes. "Ignorant of the law," no.
This makes me so sad. And so do some of the comments here. There are very real reasons, up to fearing for her life, that may have led this woman not to appear in court. I understand the legality of it all, but I don't think it's out of line for a judge to have some compassion in this instance.
I'm a victim and former DV educator. I still, now almost ten years later, have to talk myself back from a panic attack when I happen to see my ex around town. Luckily it doesn't happen often.
Because the next woman that is scared of testifying and thinking there will be no consequences will remember this case and hopefully show up. And with her testimony, maybe the abuser will get more than 16 days and she will be able to heal.
I get it, there's a concern that women won't seek help because of this. But I think that the ones that do will have a better follow through rate because of this case.
There's no magic answer here but is everyone in the community, legal system and justice system really ok with letting things go on as they have? Everyone here has said that the current system is broken and frustrating, are we really going to vilify someone for TRYING to fix it?
LOLOLOL, no. Instead, the woman just won't call the police. So, yeah, the judge did nothing but jail a mom with a one year old who is a victim. But, sure, put the burden on the victim if it helps you sleep at night.
Would you want your sister jailed because she didn't want to testify against her abuser?
Absolutely not. But I would understand why she might be jailed, if she failed to appear after being subpoenaed.
I can understand WHY and still think it was the wrong call. I understand the judge had the legal authority to do it; I just still think it was a bad call and disagree that this was the correct choice because people should respond to Subpoenas. I agree people should respond to Subpoenas, and have myself sought contempt charges for witnesses who did not appear. But, the reason it is discretionary is because our legal system recognizes there are times when a failure to appear is understandable. I believe this is a situation where it is understandable.
I can hardly believe the victim blaming going on here. A woman called for help and he was arrested - are you seriously suggesting that a woman shouldn't do that if she is not prepared to take the case all the way through trial or risk being jailed for it?
It would be great if every woman got out the first time DV happens and stood strong and faced down her abuser in open court and he received a good long sentence. That's not the goddamn world we live in.
I can't believe the "it's her fault he isn't in jail" mentality. That's true for every DV victim who never calls, for every rape victim who isn't strong enough to report, for every DV or rape victim who loses her nerve and doesn't want to testify.
Treat these victims with respect and care and maybe, one day, they'll find the strength to go all the way through the justice system. Treat them like criminals, with subpoenas and contempt jailings, and they will never again call for help.
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.
Do you think it's possible the woman didn't know the difference between appearing and testifying?
Well for the woman in question here, this law doesn't apply since she lives in FL. I just wanted to address the distinction since a pp referenced this specific code section.