Update: This article makes it very clear that the victim’s delusions about the situation put her in very real danger of getting hurt. She’s very young and naive, and the abuse of her was so violent that this really could be a march towards murder in short order if the authorities don’t intervene.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this case where the Toronto cops have detained a pregnant 19-year-old to force her to testify against the man who beats her, because she’s doing what all too many victims do, and changing her mind about pressing charges and trying to return home so her abuser can beat her more. There’s no telling, I guess, what causes women to do this. It varies from woman to woman, I suppose. Some probably think that he’s going to stop the beating. Some probably know he’s going to keep doing it, but have been convinced, possibly by the abuser and relatives, that they don’t deserve any better and that if they lose this man, they’ll never get another. Some might be foolishly holding it together for the children, having been convinced by social conservatives that fathers are absolutely critical, even fathers who beat their girlfriends. Some might fear the abuser’s retribution.
But I’m going to go against my instincts here and try to be sympathetic to the position the police are in, while not excusing this final decision. Feminists have long, and for good reason, accused the cops of being sexist pigs who don’t take domestic violence seriously. We have our list of reasons that they’re in the wrong: They think it’s a private matter. They agree with the abusers that some women need to be beaten down. They don’t like taking a woman’s side against a man. All these criticisms are true, but we’d be intellectually dishonest if we didn’t admit that the fact that women will often file charges and then retract them pretty much immediately contributes to the situation. It’s much, much easier to dismiss a victim as hysterical when she’s behaving like this.
Let’s say a police force decides that feminist criticisms of the way police handle DV should be taken seriously. No more dismissing cases, no more laughing it off, no more driving the abuser across town and letting him sleep it off. Let’s start putting abusers behind bars. Let’s try to prevent DV situations from escalating into murders. Let’s show the feminist community that we do take their complaints seriously and wish to treat women as equally worthy of protection by law enforcement. In that case, what do you do when the victims themselves refuse to let you take DV seriously? It’s not hyperbolic to say that refusing to prosecute cases where victims are still in the thrall of their abusers will lead to significantly lowered conviction rates, which feminist activists will then point to as evidence that the cops don’t care. A real rock and a hard place.
In Canada, apparently the police have a right to hold witnesses to a crime that they have good reason to believe are reluctant to offer testimony or may flee from a subpoena. They do this for witnesses to street gang crime all the time, and if ever there was a reason to think that this is a right that should be extended, it’s DV. While fully agreeing that it’s distressing to see a victim locked up against her will, when the only realistic alternative is to release her to someone who will beat her, and probably immediately as punishment for dropping a dime on him, what do you do?
Family members and friends of DV victims, as well as shelter workers, have all encountered the problem of victims who start to regret their attempts to get out and start looking for ways to go back. And thus it’s imperative on those trying to care for her to stall her until she starts to see reason and realize that her abuser isn’t going to change and doesn’t really love her. Now the cops are in the position to handle this problem, and they’re going to use the one tool they have, which is force. This is alarming, but it doesn’t automatically mean they are anything but well-intentioned. What if they think releasing this woman means she’ll be murdered? What if they think her last chance for survival is putting him behind bars, and they need her testimony for that? What if this strategy works, and they manage to break the bonds between victim and abuser and set the woman free? What if they save her life by doing this?
I don’t know. I can honestly say I don’t know what the right thing to do is. It’s easy to cast judgment, but seriously, there’s no right answer very often in domestic violence cases.
70 Responses to “No right answers”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
The acerbic Rosie DiManno’s take on it:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/414250
One self-justification of tolerating abuse that I heard is “Even the bad need loving”.
:(
There’s no telling, I guess, what causes women to do this. It varies from woman to woman, I suppose.
I betcha that some women are simply afraid — “what if he’s not put away for life? he beats me enough already — if I testify against him, he’s gonna be so mad at me, he’ll track me down and kill me”
I’d need to know a lot more about the conditions of her detainment. There are a lot of ways to ‘detain’ people, some which would make little sense in this situation. Is she in the general criminal population at a jail? Could she be in a woman’s emergency shelter instead? Could she be passed off to thoughtful relatives and checked up on by cops daily? I think you hit the conundrum on the head–what do you do with someone who is using their agency against themselves? There must be a way to intervene, but its possible to intervene with such a heavy hand that you overstep your original goals.
DAS, in this case, it seems that the woman in question thinks if she puts up a big enough display of her willingness to be with him and put up with any level of abuse to keep him, it’ll work out. She argued that she deserved to get tossed out (though she denies that he beat the crap out of her when he did) because he was trying to teach her a lesson. She’s obviously trying to win her abuser over by showing she learned the lesson and will be more obedient and submissive in the future.
I think in these cases, it’s best to separate the “couple” until the victim comes to her senses, if you can.
Loneoak, it seems they do this a lot, so I’m guessing they have separate holding cells. You’re in jail, but probably not with the other prisoners.
Cara is absolutely right. I can empathize with the apparent feeling of the police here, because I feel the same frustrations working with DV victims myself. But victims have to be allowed the dignity and personal agency in the system that they’re being denied in their personal relationship, even if on occasion that results in their death. And really, Amanda, this statement
“…what do you do when the victims themselves refuse to let you take DV seriously?”
Who’s preventing you from taking her plight seriously, or understanding why she might be making these choices?
I noticed some thing in the comments to the story alleging that she was also being held for some outstanding warrants for shoplifting, etc. If that is the case, then there is additional justifcation to keep her in custody, let alone protective custody.
Should have said, “this statement is pure nonsense.”
Fighting the good fight in California as well.
http://cbs5.com/localwire/22.0.html?type=bcn&item=DOMESTIC-VIOLENCE-BILL
Take it seriously=do something about it. It sucks the cops are run by stats, but if you have 100 DV arrests, and only 1 prosecution, activists will have your hide and say you don’t take DV seriously.
In Canada there is no right for a victim to withdraw charges (even if the victim isn’t the one who reported the crime): only police and/or crown prosecutors can make the determination whether or not to pursue a case.
So the fact she regrets making the call, and/or doesn’t want it to go forward, is immaterial under the Criminal Code.
We’ve been dealing with this subject at FG when a story about a horrific crime turned into a larger discussion about domestic abuse: http://www.feministgamers.com/?p=382
It’s frustrating to see people declare from their position of comfort that women just “need to get out” when they don’t have to suffer the consequences: they don’t face social and economic hardships for leaving their abuser, they don’t have to worry about how they’re going to safely get their kids out and provide for them, they don’t have to worry about how serious he was being when he said “if you leave me I’ll kill you.”
We get such pleasure from raining down condemnation on women for not doing what we *surely* would do if we were in that situtaion. This is just another example of this.
Cass, and maybe you’re right. Maybe we should let women walk to their own doom.
But in this case, the legal reason to hold her was she was trying to flee a subpoena. I don’t see that DV victims should have a special right to avoid witnessing a crime that the rest of us don’t have.
loneoak, she was apparently being held in a women’s prison designed to house 124 ppl, including those charged but not yet convicted of crimes and witnesses being held by court order. I don’t think that prison was a dangerous situation for her (except that apparently she caught the flu and had to be taken to hospital for treatment and to monitor the fetus, but that was done as necessary and from the news without incident or endangerment to either mother or fetus. Of course, if she hadn’t had the flu shot, which is free to any resident of Ontario, then she was at as much risk going to her doctor’s office for pre-natal checkups).
One could argue that beaten and brainwashed women are in mental health crisis, and should be treated the same way as anybody who is considered a danger to themselves.
In other words, they could be committed for a short time to receive the mental health services they require to fully restore their agency.
In Toronto the police are required by order to make arrests of alleged domestic assaulters. The guidelines were brought into play in the 1990s in large measure due to pressure from organized feminist and DV community groups. The responding cops cannot decline to lay a charge based on “likelihood of obtaining a conviction in court” as they would in other cases.
There have been complaints that the police have moved too readily to a default setting [as they sadly often do in other contexts] of “always arrest the man” no matter how skimpy the allegation. Whether those complaints have merit I cannot say.
“But in this case, the legal reason to hold her was she was trying to flee a subpoena. I don’t see that DV victims should have a special right to avoid witnessing a crime that the rest of us don’t have.”
Obviously that’s another factor.
“It sucks the cops are run by stats, but if you have 100 DV arrests, and only 1 prosecution, activists will have your hide and say you don’t take DV seriously.”
This activist, and the others I know don’t reproach the cops or the courts for women choosing to return to their abusers. We reproach them for not enforcing protective orders, giving token sentences to abusers, awarding child custody to the abusive parent, among many other things…
“In other words, they could be committed for a short time to receive the mental health services they require to fully restore their agency.”
Bah, perfectly good comment eaten… short response:
They did exactly that in the 50’s here in Canada, except the women were committed for “as long as it took”, and their mental health was called into question because they were white and were dating men who weren’t.
There’s a disturbing parallel that could be drawn of how far this could go with the teenagers who are enrolled against their will in those “anti-gay” “christian” programs…
In any case, when society is not on the same ethical wave-length as I am, I’m not certain I want to trust it with my agency.
Both denial of agency (e.g. “abortions should be banned because women will regret having them”) and the false assumption of agency (e.g. “the poor just aren’t trying hard enough to better their lot”) are well-established forms of ideological propping-up of subjugation.
Like Amanda, and unlike Cass, I don’t see how we can decide into which of these categories the present case better fits, at least based only on the press reports available.
No right answers, indeed. She’s obviously deluded about her thug BF, and her family and friends have failed her. But the Canadian legal system, in its harsh way, seems designed not to fail here. The judge could have found a better secure facility to confine her in than the pokey, though.
I just can’t get on board with forceful detention of a DV victim. I don’t see how it helps her. I’m not disagreeing that she needs help - but the second it becomes a question of force, of being detained like a criminal - it is doing her more harm than good. Why would she go to the police again when they shit all over her like this?
Yes, it might very slightly help improve conviction rates (but it won’t help much, if she continues to perjure herself). But it won’t help the VICTIM, which is far more important. She shouldn’t have to martyr herself to a ‘conviction rate’.
I feel very uncomfortable with the idea of detaining people, or denying them other freedoms and rights, even if it is, “for their own good” or for the good of others. It reminds me of other times when this is used as an excuse, ie Guantanamo, and, in the UK, detention without charge or a court date in order to be tried.
I am not saying that I know the answer to this problem, and I agree that something seriously needs to change. But I just can’t get on board with the idea that detaining traumatised victims of DV is ever a good idea.
Dimanno seems to have fallen, by the way, for a common abuser’s trick. They’ll tell you they hate you and you’re ruining their life, and they’re more than happy to play the victim for the police. They’ll never throw you out, however, unless they’re already sure you have no money and no place to go, or at least, no willingness to go there. The goal is power and control (”forcible confinement”, Rosie?) not just the release of anger.
Cass, you are no doubt about that abusers M.O. But I’ve met DiManno. She doesn’t fall for shit, a throwback to a different era when reporters actually did their homework and left their credulity and obedience to authority at home.
There’s an interesting article at the Women’s Justice center called “Why Doesn’t She Leave?”
http://www.justicewomen.com/cj_whydoesntsheleave.html
I’ve read at least three or four of the links to this story now. Of course I can’t say I KNOW for sure what’s going on, I don’t actually know anyone involved and I’m not even in the same country as the various players in this drama…but…I wanna say it. Cause it sure does look like a drama I’ve seen play out a fair number of times. I’m not saying that this whole mess doesn’t ever play out in the higher socioeconomic brackets, and you know, none of the articles actually give any background details on either protagonists’ family that I saw. However, it’s pretty reminiscent of a nasty track I saw too much during my disadvantaged childhood and adolescence.
It really doesn’t matter that the cops held her, or if they hadn’t held her, or if they made her testify or if they didn’t. Nothing and nobody is going to keep her from chaining herself in every way available to her to this guy. Even if they put him in jail, she’d be waiting for him when he got out, unless she managed to replace him in the meantime with an identical make and model. The best outcome would be of course if she yanked her head out of her ass and got as far away from him as possible of her own accord; however, I only ever saw that happen once, and that only because the girl in question had the help of someone else (female friend) who genuinely loved her and was willing to pretty much sacrifice her entire life for two years to enable that to happen. The next best outcome is him completely cutting off all contact with her. The men don’t usually do that because it’s a hell of a lot of work, can involved calling the cops on *her* and also, their hatred at being forced to pay child support makes it much more tempting to keep her around and get pleasurable revenge.
Unfortunately there is no third best. Option three is her and the kid becoming meat.
It’s too late for society to intervene in the form of the cops. They needed to intervene a long time ago in the form of preventing him from becoming a victimizer waiting to happen and her from becoming a victim waiting to happen. But maybe it isn’t too late…I can’t speak for the efficacy of counseling programs for people like either of them because I never knew anybody in that situation who tried that. Maybe those would actually help and it wouldn’t be too late.
I think the real key is here (quote from the article you linked): Also – often underestimated – there’s gripping psychological conflict between loving and hating the tormentor.
Having been in an emotionally (thank god not physically) abusive relationship, that was the biggest thing. By the time it got bad I already believed it was supernatural true love, meant to be by the gods and universe, we were made for each other, one soul and one person, and I could no more leave him than I could leave my own right arm. So anything that happened — any abuse — had to be gotten through, because we had to stay together. There was just no other option. If he had been hitting and beating me, instead of just insulting and gaslighting me, it would have been the same.
It’s a state of mind that’s hard to explain if you’ve never been in it. Imagine the feeling of fairy-tale romantic love, multiply by teenage first-love, then raise to the tenth order of magnitude. Or imagine being in a cult, where the rules of reality seem suspended. I have actually likened it to being in a cult, when I did a lot of reading about Aum Shinrikyo, for example.
Having been there, I’d be inclined to agree with Ms Kate at #14. I was not in my right mind and I was a danger to myself.
However, involuntary commitment is a power easy to abuse, and mental health care in this country can be worse than useless. What’s more, a pretty common thing for abusers to say is that their victims are crazy. Having been committed might add teeth to that accusation. I do think it needs to be something in that direction, though.
What helped me? My family, and two friends who, not also being his friends, believed me rather than him. By the example of their reactions, they helped me understand that what he was doing was wrong and unacceptable, and helped me understand that I could actually live without him — and protected me from him.
But I was a minor, living in my parents’ house. I had economic support and shelter other than him. I’m not sure how to extend that to someone who’s over 18, who lives with her abuser, and who may not have supportive friends or family to take her in.
Facing homelessness, having to apply for welfare and Medicaid and other programs to support yourself and a child — those things are hard enough for people who ARE in their right minds. A woman leaving a DV situation with no other means of support has to both handle deprogramming herself, and navigating the bureaucracy of social services. Those are both monumental tasks. Maybe there needs to be something like a halfway house.
I wrote an extra-long comment that’s stuck in invisible moderation, but in short: Ms Kate @14 is right, but it’s complicated. Need to figure out both the mental-health aspects and the food-and-shelter aspects for the victim — maybe some sort of halfway-house/counseling?
“But I’ve met DiManno. She doesn’t fall for shit, a throwback to a different era when reporters actually did their homework and left their credulity and obedience to authority at home.”
I didn’t mean to imply she’s an idiot. This case is similar to hundreds of others I’ve heard of, and I think she lacks some sophistication in dealing with the issue. (A failing she shares with 99% of her fellows in the media and the pop. at large.)
And yes, I’m afraid its a major coup for this abuser to have his victim labelled a “stalker” in the local paper.
I’ll imply that DiManno’s an idiot—or flat-out state it, actually. She never misses an opportunity to blame a victim.
“What helped me? My family, and two friends who, not also being his friends, believed me rather than him. By the example of their reactions, they helped me understand that what he was doing was wrong and unacceptable, and helped me understand that I could actually live without him — and protected me from him.”
That’s it in a nutshell; that’s what has been found, over and over again, to work. Even so, it takes a tremendous amount of courage for a victim to leave, and its an act of free will. And (therefore) there will always be those who choose differently.
But I’ve met DiManno. She doesn’t fall for shit
Sure she does. She falls for every single right-wing frame out there, and never fails to put in a few subliminal antifeminist remarks while she’s at it. She’s the house neocon at the Star. She might be perfectly nice socially, but as a reporter, she’s slanted way to the right.
Unlike Antonia Zerbisias, whom I think is just clueless and tone-deaf most of the time, DiManno seems to do this enough that it can’t possibly just be a massive series of screw-ups.
I don’t just think she’s an idiot; I think she’s an ass.
Facing homelessness, having to apply for welfare and Medicaid and other programs to support yourself and a child
Caroline, this is happening in Toronto. Nobody applies for “Medicaid” in Toronto. In Ontario, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan is automatic, and will apply to the baby once it’s born, too, no extra paperwork required.
I’ve also applied for Welfare and social housing in Toronto, and it’s definitely a survivable process. (I’ve been on social assistance in three different municipalities in Ontario; I’m practically an expert by now.) Yeah, it sucks, and yes, it’s difficult and there’s a lot of bullshit and hurry-up-and-wait, but compared with getting the crap beat out of you on a regular basis, it’s a walk in the park on a sunny afternoon. I’ve been, if not exactly homeless, then definitely “at no fixed address,” in Ontario, as well.
If the police don’t explicitly give her all the information she needs to get into the social benefits system, or directly connect her into that system, they’re not doing their jobs.
I agree with Sabotabby about the article. The news story linked to in the original post is shot-through with victim blaming.
It’s supposed to be a man-bite-dog type of lead: Delusional domestic abuse victim is stalking a man who wants nothing to do with her, a man whom she may have attempted to trap by conceiving his child.
I can understand the motivations of the police here, yes, but this is not the right thing to do. Imprisoning innocent people — in mental institutions or jails, it hardly matters — is wrong, it opens the door to all sorts of ridiculous state abuses, and it’s a terrible way to win victims’ trust.
I think it might be useful to compare women in some DV situations — relationships like the one Caroline described at #27 — to drug addicts. If you look at the chemical effects of that kind of intense emotional bonding, what it does to the brain, it isn’t necessarily that different.
Is it? I thought there was a huge affordable-housing shortage in Toronto, ever since the Harris Tories rode to power on their “fuck Toronto and fuck the poor” platform in ‘95.
But it’s true, she and the baby do/will have health insurance automatically.
I’m 100% with Cass on this one. Amanda’s responses are pretty weird, like she’s been taken over by a podperson.
This story sounds to me like the classic scenario: girl feels worthless, finds boy who treats her like she is except occasionally makes her feel special, those occasional moments are the best thing she’s ever experienced, she’s getting those feelings nowhere else in her life, least of all from a Real Live Man Worth 100% More Than She is Worth,
She cain’t let go. No matter how badly he behaves, b/c she knows that other side is there somewhere. And sure, probably his life is kinda crappy too — so the opportunity to feel god-like vis a vis this girl, alternately benevolent and cruel by turns, is awesome. I mean, come on. Sure, it’s hard for the police to deal with these effed up situations. But the girl displaying a CLASSIC m.o. should somehow make it difficult for us to take DV seriously? As feminists? Are you kidding me?
How about mutual restraining orders compulsory until after trial regardless of victim’s decision to testify?
She is “in the thrall” of her abuser and does need to be separated from the situation because “thrall” like Stockholm syndrome is serious and needs to be taken as such. Her entire social world has been eroded and formed anew in this dysfunctional relationship–he may have forced her to abandon ties with family/friends/co-workers, etc. and he literally is the only person she has social tie to. Also, as many have pointed out, there’s economics and the crushing problem of poverty to contend with here (and any woman who is dependent upon a man for income/shelter is in poverty, even if you’re Trumps latest wife–because you have no real economic feet to stand on).
Get to work, ladies.
“How about mutual restraining orders compulsory until after trial regardless of victim’s decision to testify?”
Well, I think that’s a perfectly fatuous idea. I’d be happy to be explain why I hold that opinion, except …
“Get to work, ladies.”
It is my f***ing work, brother.
One of the striking things about the article is that it seems (from an American perspective) like her testimony shouldn’t even be necessary to obtain a conviction here. They have physical evidence, arresting officers who can testify as to what they learned through investigation, and they may have a hearsay exception that would allow the officers to testify as to what she said when they initially responded. We convict people of murder on less.
What’s more, this guy was already on probation, and here in the States, a probation revocation is an administrative hearing with limited procedural and evidentiary requirements. If the prosecution just wanted to separate the victim from the abuser, getting his probation revoked would be easier and more certain than a trial and wouldn’t involve locking up an abuse victim. It looks like they’re going to get a conviction in spite of the victim, which makes it kind of implausible to suggest that she needed to be detained to secure her testimony.
I can imagine a closer case where lack of a victim’s testimony might lead to an acquittal; but here the choice between arresting her and letting her abuser go free seems like a false dichotomy.
Can any of you Canadians tell me if there’s something I’m missing?
Getting good testimony about a traumatic experience someone has been through is hard — on top of all the reasons it’s hard to talk about in normal situations, the prosecutor has to somehow get her to tell her story in the weird legal code of the courtroom. So I have a lot of trouble imagining that you’ll get very useful testimony when your witness is someone who has been detained against her will in some hellhole of a jail to force her to testify against someone that she rightly or wrongly wants to go back to.
If it is true that some feminists unfairly accuse police of not caring because of poor statistics, then what is needed is more nunaced analysis of the statistics by feminists.
I tend to presume that at least some feminists are very meticulous, and tend to rely on the considered judgements of particular people I think are reasonably sophisticated, careful, and fair, to shape my opinions.
In the case of DV, I don’t know the numbers. I don’t much care, either. If the outrageous anecdotes I have picked up over the years were isolated abberations–I would expect society to be outraged by these incidents and react strongly. My impression is, the opposite is true–we only hear of a fragment of the cases, and a major factor is indifference, not based on people feeling overwhelmed but on ideology–PDs, prosecutors, and pulics shrugging off violence on the “grounds” that it is “natural” and “necessary” and “no big deal.”
Perhaps so, but still, the picture is incongruous. A pretty Latina-next-door tries hard to do a simple math problem, because she’s the brains of the operation, while her impatient bisexual lover bides his time striking poses.
It just doesn’t add up.
They do indeed have merit; I have seen the lives of two male friends here in Toronto just destroyed by demonstrably false allegations that they were abusers. One of them, a very gentle and kind man, is so incensed by the way he’s been treated by the criminal justice system (and so angered by the overrepresentation of certain visible minorities within it) that he is planning to become a lawyer.
Interrobang, you have a point. I was speaking from an American social-services perspective (I’ve not had to apply for them myself, but have heard some horror stories about it requiring a lot of time and mental energy). It’s also certainly not the only obstacle to a DV victim leaving — but it adds to the sense that you’d better stick with this guy, even if he hits you, because you can’t make it on your own.
To you and me, it may seem obvious that it’s easier and better than getting beaten, but it’s not if you don’t know where to start, don’t know that you’ll be taken care of, and don’t have any trust left in yourself or your own abilities after being systematically torn down by your abuser.
I agree that the cops need to put her on the right track towards these services. I’ve rarely heard of U.S. police doing that, although I could be wrong.
“50 Obstacles to Leaving, a.k.a. Why Women Stay”
www.vcpionline.org/pdfs/50%20Reasons%20Why%20Victims%20Stay.pdf
The original article was extremely strange. The journalist introduces as important evidence that this guy is being “stalked” by the girl the fact that only his name is on the lease of the apartment and that he (supposedly) asked the police to get the girl to leave him alone–after the original complaints about his own beatings had been made. How detached from reality would you have to be, as a journalist, not to grasp that controlling the money an d the residence in a relationship doesn’t mean that no relationship exists, it just means that an unequal one exists. Or that accusations made to the police about how you “don’t care about the girl” or “want her to go away” have literally nothing to do with behavior you undertook days before the police got involved? After they don’t pay their rent for several months lots of people claim that the landlord is in violation of the lease and so money “was withheld” but that doesnt mean that is why the money was withheld in the first place. Its a second order strategy.
aimai
aimai
Wow, this is just twisted. Criminalizing victims? Already happens inside mental hospitals, which are not set up to meet the therapeutic/recovery needs of inmates, to put it mildly. The issue is power and coercion. Put her in an institution to regain her agency? Is this a belated April fools thread?
Institutional settings are by definition disempowering and dehumanizing. You don’t have basic choices there, what you will find are unrelenting violations of human rights. And, detaining DV victims will likely push them further into the environments and deviant identities we are trying to free them from. I would like to see more sincere interest in respecting the victim here, which might entail engagement with certain psychological constructs some might want to dismiss, such as masochism, learned helplessness, Stockholm Syndrome, and yes, hysteria, all of which can be treated and overcome under the rubric of feminist therapy. The scholarship is out there, interested parties might begin with this interview with Judith Herman, since I’m sure we’re all familiar with her work:
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Herman/herman-con0.html
Excerpt, Part 3:
And…
wow, cass. that was a pretty amazing document.
i have a hard time standing in any kind of judgment on this woman. considering the economic and physical difficulties, psychological torment and general waffling that involved my leaving a NON-abusive, albeit dysfunctional, marriage…I really can’t imagine that the process of leaving an abusive relationship is anything but sheer torture.
Dang, I might have fallen into moderation limbo.
“One of them, a very gentle and kind man, is so incensed by the way he’s been treated by the criminal justice system (and so angered by the overrepresentation of certain visible minorities within it) that he is planning to become a lawyer.”
He’s a gentle and kind man, but an over-abundance of minorities infuriates him? You make him sound so charming.
I wonder. Judges in Toronto have been letting guys out on bail effectively allowing them to murder the women they’ve been threatening to murder.
Did you see the Toronto Star article about her? The headline was along the lines of “pregnant teen being the instigator?” Sorry, I can’t remember exactly but it was all bad stuff about her. A full article, including excerpts from the police interview.
An overabundance of minorities incarcerated by the system, not working for it.
I’ve been in the situation that Caroline (27) was in. I remember talking to people about the problems we had, and my response whenever someone said we should break up was “that’s not an option.” I also remember the night he threw me out of the house when I was naked and didn’t have my car keys, only to come out and get me half an hour later and apologize profusely. I remember the night he kicked me out, and then begged for me to come back, the night he hit me.
It is cult-like in a way. You may feel bound to the person. I’ve been hit by other people in my life. I’ve had lots of bad shit happen to me. But if it was at the hands of someone close to me, family or lovers, I never called the police. If someone suggested it, I probably looked at them like they were crazy.
I, unlike Caroline, didn’t get myself out of it. I stopped being quite so enthralled by him when he dumped me for a more subservient woman.
As a Torontonian and a law student, I was completely appalled by this story.
As seeker6079 and JoshK mentioned above, the guidelines for the police and Ontario Crown prosecutors require them to follow through with charges and prosecution in domestic violence cases regardless of the complainant’s wishes.
It’s obviously difficult (but not impossible with physical evidence, other witnesses, and police testimony as to what they observed) to get a conviction if the complainant refuses to testify. It’s probably worse if the victim witness refuses to cooperate or recants on the stand, both of which happen depressingly often.
This is why there are services - badly funded and overused, I’m sure - to support complainants through the trial process. One of them is run by students at one of the law schools: http://www.osgoode.yorku.ca/clasp/claspwom.htm. Also - aside from the fact that Rosie DiManno is a far from credible source, even if the complainant’s behaviour was exactly as described, it’s far from unusual for a DV victim. I doubt you would find many advocates for abused women suggesting they should be locked up for their own good.
One of the first things I was taught is that a witness whose testimony is compelled is unlikely to be cooperative and it’s important to find a way to get people to testify voluntarily whenever you can. I find it difficult to believe that jailing this woman was more likely to work than getting her support.
On top of that, what effect do you think seeing this woman jailed days before her due date will have on other women thinking of calling the police? The complainant told the media she’s never going to call the police again, even if he’s about to kill her. I’m willing to bet a lot of other women unfortunately decided the same thing.
On the one hand, the forced detention of the victim does not sit well with me because I think it is more likely to backfire as a strategy for getting her away from her abuser and I fear that there will be many cases where this policy is abused in the name of “for their own good.”
On the other hand, this week my city received a terrible reminder that the police need to take DV more seriously– a woman’s burned and mutilated remains were found at a power substation. She had been choked and beaten to death by her husband in front of their child. Neighbors reported that they only heard “normal fighting” and if they had known he was abusive would have looked out for her better. He also had a restraining order against him. The police are now looking at ways they can better enforce those orders.
When I lived in a certain California county in the 1990s, the sheriff there denied DV victims applications for concealed weapons permits but also refused to enforce restraining orders against abusers.
I guess I’m with Amanda that there are really no good responses– either the police are negligent, ineffective, or overzealous.
flawedplan @47, that’s what I was fumblingly trying to get at in part of my comment — that a DV victim definitely needs help, but an institution does not seem like the right place to get it. Thanks so much for the links and info.
And Cass @45, thanks so much for that link too.
And (I wish this wasn’t going to sound like snark) of course this woman is going to say she’s never going to call the police again. They didn’t satisfy her desire to get help when she wanted it and to pretend nothing had happened when she wanted that. Does that mean she actually won’t call them? That’s anybody’s guess.
I’d like (not really) to be a folklorist watching this story run the rounds of the urban-legend circuit. If there’s not already a version that says “so the police put a woman in jail for filing a domestic violence complaint and then sent her back to her abuser” there will be soon.
Paul, surely you can see the difference between “didn’t pretend nothing happened when she wanted that” and “threw her in jail for 11 days while she was 9 months pregnant.”
Because this is my own city, I did a bit more digging on standard practices. Her original statement to the police was videotaped, which is now a common procedure with vulnerable complainants (rape, DV, child abuse) BECAUSE they are often reluctant to testify in open court. The taped statement doesn’t carry as much weight as sworn testimony, nor should it, but it can be admissible. Physical evidence is also used whenever possible. As one advocate put it, “the system is a mess if it’s only relying on victims.” So while there may be “no right answers,” the legal system here is trying to address the problem of getting complainants to testify without resorting to the clearly wrong answer of throwing them in jail.
*No one* seems to have wanted this woman jailed except the judge and the JP who denied bail. The cops opposed detention. If anything, I would think it would weaken the Crown’s case. Even if the complainant didn’t recant on the stand the accused’s lawyer would tear her apart on the stand, point out that she had to be put in jail to get her to testify, and suggest that she only said what the Crown wanted to hear because of that.
My biggest worry is still that other women will be deterred from calling the police. Since even if the Crown can’t get a conviction, having the police come serves an important purpose in stopping the immediate attack, (not to mention that even without the victim’s testimony, the Crown can often get at least a peace bond or probation), discouraging women from calling would be way too high a price to pay to increase the conviction rate - which is in any case already quite high.
Although I understand the concerns and frustration, I have to say I’m really surprised to see a feminist blog suggest that jailing complainants is appropriate. I wonder if some of this is a Canada/US difference. Our legal system is far from perfect, and we have the usual problems with light sentences, releasing the wrong accused on bail, enforcing restraining orders, etc. But I think our charge rate on domestic violence is about 90% and the conviction rate something like 70%. We already take domestic violence pretty seriously without further disempowering the victims.
Here’s a better article than DiManno’s: http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/413498. I’m always skeptical of unnamed sources, but Alan Young’s analysis is useful.
Sorry to be obsessive, but here’s a summary of some of the initiatives in place across Canada: http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/responses.htm
The question looks to be: how much right does society have to keep people from doing really stupid things of their own will? If the woman goes back to this guy, there’s a high percentage she’ll end up dead.
I guess I’m misanthropic enough to say, fine, let her out. She’ll discover the mistake of not testifying against her jerk boyfriend just before he kills her, but hey, at least she had her “free will to do what she wanted”…for a short while.
The only other tactic I can see is throw HIM into the pokey for a year or so and shove her through an intense education on How To Survive Without Him. At the end of the year, let him out. If at that point she still wants to go back to him, fine, and we won’t cry any tears at the inevitable bruhaha.
Certain levels of stupidity cannot be fixed.
“Certain levels of stupidity cannot be fixed.”
I really don’t think it is “stupidity” that makes people stay in these kinds of “relationships” and I think its a bit of an insult to the commenters here who have been in similar situations to suggest that. It’s always the easy answer, “Why does she stay/go back? She must be stupid”
From the (little) I understand about DV, like addiction, or being in a cult, or any other self destructive behaviour, the victim has to believe themselves that there is a problem in order to get anywhere in fixing it. Taking away all her agency is likely to make everything much worse, and make her feel like “It’s the whole world against him and me and only I understand him”
To be a cynic, it’s also not a workable solution because I don’t think for one minute that the police would be prepared to incarcerate a wealthy woman who was a victim of DV, no matter what the situation or how much danger they thought she was in.
“Certain levels of stupidity cannot be fixed.”
If you read through the link I so thoughtfully provided above, and are still no more enlightened than this… I might just have to agree.
I hope we can have a thread some time on the strangeness and irrationality of the abuser’s thoughts and actions, and how society can best address itself to that.
I can understand why some women can’t leave. I can’t understand why every time my sister-in-law’s abusive boyfriend leaves her, she goes out and searches for him to talk him into coming back. He leaves and she won’t let him stay gone.
And given that he’s an unemployable ex-con who’s in and out of jail, she can’t even argue that he’s supporting the family, because she pays for everything, including her own hospital bills the last time he knocked her out and burst her eardrum.
I’m a volunteer counselor/advocate at a Women’s Center in my town, and I have to say that I don’t think that the issue is whether or not police, family members, counselor/advocates or anybody else can sever the bonds between people. What you’re asking in that case is for one relationship of power and control to be replaced by another. I’m 100% certain that people can tell me of a number of cases where that sort of thing worked, and the person went on with their lives, happy and healthy. I’m also 100% certain that people can tell me stories about times when that resulted in the abuser killing the person who was being abused, times when the person who was abused went on to go into another relationship that was maybe even more violent, or even times when the person who was abused went on to abuse other people as a result.
The goal in these cases should not be to take over the part of the abuser and make the decisions for somebody else. That’s not to say that people shouldn’t express concern. In fact, that concern can often be the grounds for someone feeling like they’re not crazy, despite what the abuser is telling them. The goal should be to make sure that the person in the relationship knows that there are people who are there for them, who care about them, and that they have a safe place to go if they ever want to get out of the relationship. There are a number of reasons why people stay in those relationships, and to assume that the person is not capable of understanding their situation and making choices is to continue a long trend of taking control away from the person who has been abused.
Geez, I really didn’t read the comments before very well. Other people have said similar things, and they’ve said them well.
I’d support some sort of constraint for such victims based on “behavior dangerous to self” and even “non compos mentis due to abuse”, but not in an effing jail! There has to be some better way!
How much of her detention was because she was heavily pregnant at the time? Being in possesion of a state owned uterus, of course the state wanted to protect that property currently in use. The article states that the authorities would be compelled to remove the baby from her custody if she went back to an abusive situation. So part of the goal, it would seem, would be to keep her away from her abuser while she was risking her child’s life as well as her own in returning to him.
One of the things I learned as a “second wave” feminist is that it’s crucial to be specific when trying to extract theory or policy implications from individual cases. The devil is often in the details. I suppose that it’s possible to imagine some hypothetical case in which it makes sense to imprison a woman who refuses to testify against a man whom she has accused of abuse. But this isn’t that case. And until there is a case in which such imprisonment truly does make sense, I suggest that it’s dangerous to give any kind of dispensation to police and judges to put women in jail, including this hypothetical dispensation we seem to be talking about here.
Noelle Mowatt is a woman in the last WEEK of her pregnancy. She has been in Canada for two years and before living in Toronto, she lived in Jamaica. She has no relatives in Canada. In December, 2007, Ms Mowatt called police to report that her boyfriend, the father of her child, was assaulting her. The police attended, arrested her boyfriend and documented Ms Mowatt’s injuries by taking a statement and photographs. Her boyfriend was held in jail without bail, pending trial.
With that trial coming up, police had difficulty tracking Ms Mowatt down to serve her with a subpoena to attend the trial. Apparently, they left messages for her somewhere, or with someone, asking her to pick up her subpoena at a police station. She never did so. A judge issued a bench warrant for her arrest as a material witness. The police managed to find her at that point and, with the approval of a Justice of the Peace, they imprisoned her, without charge, for one week, until she could be heard in Court.
This is both a ridiculous and counterproductive result. On the ridiculous side, hard to understand how the police could find Ms Mowatt to arrest her but not to serve the subpoena. Interesting that they should decide that she wasn’t going to testify BEFORE she failed to show up in court. It’s been quite a while since I’ve seen a bench warrant enforced with such alacrity. They sure do a better job of putting women in jail than they do of protecting them from harm!
On the counterproductive side, after spending her time in jail, some of it in segregation, the 19-year old, heavily pregnant woman was brought to court in a police wagon and forced onto the stand, where she denied that her boyfriend had ever assaulted her. What the Crown (prosecution) has now is her original statement and the photographs and the evidence of cops and doctors. They had all that to begin with. They have accomplished absolutely nothing, but at great cost to Ms Mowatt, who has stated that she will never be able to trust the police again.
I don’t think it’s difficult to imagine what motivated Ms Mowatt to withdraw her testimony against her boyfriend. Frankly, I’m getting tired of the notion that women behave this way basically because they’re delusional about the cost versus the benefit of staying with violent men. Often, as here, the choices are objectively difficult. Poverty, the vulnerability of immigrant status, lack of family or community support, shrinking social services - all these things and more influence women’s ability to make healthy choices for themselves and their children. Our justice system needs to take the complexity of these cases into account. We can’t expect that will ever happen if we forget that complexity ourselves.
Noelle Mowatt is a racialized woman with no job and no community ties. It is no coincidence that perhaps the first woman to be jailed in Canada in these circumstances was not a rich or middle-class white woman. Can you imagine the uproar?
hysperia — thank you for adding the context that was so desperately lacking in much of the thread. It’s always illuminating to know the whole story.
Exactly. The first time I served on a jury, the victim was compelled to testify under threat of arrest if he didn’t show. If a male gun-shot victim has to show up in court, I don’t see why a domestic violence victim doesn’t. What they choose to do on the stand at that point is up to them.