[Peace-discuss] Domestic violence

[David Green]

Given recent events, I feel the need to post a more academic/legal perspective on domestic violence, so as to avoid the conflation of distinct issues--obviously regarding the relationship between domestic violence and mass shootings. This summary was provided to me a year ago May, subsequent to the murder of my former colleague Jessica Thomas by her husband, who has since been convicted. It was provided by my friend and local community member, Robert Ferrer, an IT specialist who has worked on legal issues related to parental rights. It is distributed with his permission:
Scholars in this field have identified a typology (Michael P.Johnson).  The situation with Jessica (of blessed memory) is classified asIntimate Terrorism.  This iswhere the partner from a basis of misguided male privilege controls and abuseshis/her spouse in the most extreme way.  Only a tiny percentage of thepopulation would be classified as such.  The overwhelming category isknown as Situational Couple Violence. In this scenario we are dealing not with the desire for control but aninability to engage in effective conflict resolution.  It tends to spiralout of control.  Both partners are equally involved.  The appropriateintervention is couple counseling and conflict resolution classes.  Theonly intervention that the court mandates is known as the Duluth Model where itis assumed that the man is engaged in Intimate Terrorism.  All men aremandated to this model, hence the reason for its abysmal failure.  Themodel does not apply to most men mandated to this intervention. 


Most issues that impute domestic violence (especially those thatoccur at the time of divorce) are handled is Civil Court where the standard ofproof is the lowest.  The court (under pressure) maintains a ‘better safethan sorry’ attitude and therefore issues Orders of Protection like there werecandy.  No proof is needed.  The accuser only needs to soundcredible.  The standard of proof (Preponderance of Evidence) only requiresthe court be 51% correct.  In civil court, the normal due processprotections guaranteed by the Constitution do not apply.  Famous NJ case,Crespo v. Crespo, the court applied the US Supreme Court Mathews Decision todetermine the appropriate standard of proof to adjudicate such cases. They concluded that it should be the more stringent Clear and Convincingstandard.  It was quickly overturned by the higher court.  That iswhy local attorney, Scott Lerner, writing for the ISBA Journal said the OPs aremore used as a sword rather than as a shield.  As a sword, the issuance ofan OP to the father, for example, not only deprive him of his home but alsoaccess to his children (OPs can include the children as well as thespouse).  This automatically gives the spouse a strategic advantage ingetting full custody (the defendant is automatically denied custody) andseverely limit or terminate contact with his children. 


We do not make distinctions and throw everything into one basket.

 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20171108/fb32e771/attachment.html>