Domestic abuse and sexual assault victims imprisoned and fined...

lil peachie

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Posts
152
Media
3
Likes
338
Points
108
Location
Portland
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
This makes me sick. If they are worried about women fleeing or not testifying put them in a safe house. I know it was extremely hard for me to press charges against my ex. I was so scared of the repercussions of pissing him off even more. I even filed a restraining order, which may abused women know does absolutely no good. Majority of the abusers will still go back and beat her worse, or kill her.

Why is this the system making it harder for women who've been through enough hell to stand up for themselves?!?! Obviously whoever is making these laws doesn't have a clue how abusive relationships work. The mental abuse that happens long before the first punch, kick, choking, rape etc. A woman is made into nothing mentally and emotionally so she won't leave once the physical abuse starts. Now the government is going to further humiliate her rather than protect her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlteredEgo

MickeyLee

Mythical Member
Staff
Moderator
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Posts
34,557
Media
8
Likes
50,201
Points
618
Location
neverhood
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
i have trouble calling the actions of the police good intentions
i see it as punishment, men trying to push women back a few decades so far as freedom and rights go
:(
 
  • Like
Reactions: lil peachie

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,496
Media
0
Likes
14,978
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
i have trouble calling the actions of the police good intentions
i see it as punishment, men trying to push women back a few decades so far as freedom and rights go
:(

You think a group of police and/or legislators sat in a room, and planned out "What can we do to strip women of their rights and freedoms?" and came up with this?

Even if that's what it does, that's clearly not the intent. The intent is to free people from a situation of partner abuse by getting testimony that yields a conviction against the abuser. If you brought in wonder woman and had her throw the lasso of truth around them and then asked them why they did this, they would say "we meant well". They wouldn't say "Fuck women! Those bitches belong behind bars!"

Good intentions, evil actions, hence the expression. This is only one of a pretty large number of cases where people in a position of power oppressed others out of a desire to help them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlteredEgo

MickeyLee

Mythical Member
Staff
Moderator
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Posts
34,557
Media
8
Likes
50,201
Points
618
Location
neverhood
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
yeah, cuz groups of white men never get together to strip women of their rights.
no laws have ever been passed to punish women for wanting equality and body autonomy.
i'm just being paranoid
*koof*congress*koff*

i absolutely believe a group of men passed these laws/policies to lower reports of rape and assault on the books.
money and power run the world. those without either suffer.
i absolutely think it's done out of good old boy protecting good old boy aka male privilege.

when rapist serve less than 3 months after conviction, because they didn't want to ruin a young man's life for a few minutes of mistake/bad behavior
when male offenders are referred to as teenage boy while their one year younger victim is spoken of as a woman.
bullshit.

the male backlash is lashing back and it fucking sucks
 

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,496
Media
0
Likes
14,978
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
yeah, cuz groups of white men never get together to strip women of their rights.
no laws have ever been passed to punish women for wanting equality and body autonomy.
i'm just being paranoid
*koof*congress*koff*

i absolutely believe a group of men passed these laws/policies to lower reports of rape and assault on the books.
money and power run the world. those without either suffer.
i absolutely think it's done out of good old boy protecting good old boy aka male privilege.

when rapist serve less than 3 months after conviction, because they didn't want to ruin a young man's life for a few minutes of mistake/bad behavior
when male offenders are referred to as teenage boy while their one year younger victim is spoken of as a woman.
bullshit.

the male backlash is lashing back and it fucking sucks

"Tough Words From Judge as She Sends Abuse Victim to Jail"


http://abcnews.go.com/US/tough-words-judge-sends-abuse-victim-jail/story?id=34324384

*shrug*
 

MickeyLee

Mythical Member
Staff
Moderator
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Posts
34,557
Media
8
Likes
50,201
Points
618
Location
neverhood
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
self-hatred is mad internalized, dude
look at how many women voted for Donald Trump

also..... how many judges are men and how many are women?
cuz i am guessing the numbers ain't 50/50
 

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,496
Media
0
Likes
14,978
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
self-hatred is mad internalized, dude
look at how many women voted for Donald Trump

also..... how many judges are men and how many are women?
cuz i am guessing the numbers ain't 50/50

33% of judges in the US are female. It's not 50/50, but it's still a substantial amount and higher than the global average (including most countries in Western Europe).

That particular judge I linked was reprimanded by her state Supreme Court. What she did was within the bounds of her legal authority, but she was reprimanded on live TV by unanimous supreme court decision and ordered to take an anger management class.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...tim-gets-her-day-in-court-and-it-s-not-pretty
 
9

950483

Guest
33% of judges in the US are female. It's not 50/50, but it's still a substantial amount and higher than the global average (including most countries in Western Europe).

That particular judge I linked was reprimanded by her state Supreme Court. What she did was within the bounds of her legal authority, but she was reprimanded on live TV by unanimous supreme court decision and ordered to take an anger management class.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...tim-gets-her-day-in-court-and-it-s-not-pretty
Women can be sexist too you know. Class could also be a factor.
 

Symphonic

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Posts
1,740
Media
0
Likes
81
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Focusing on the topic of the actual article I think that the concept of a Court Assessment Fee is actually really interesting.

I'm on the fence. I don't think it is necessarily bad or good. The reason that it would be bad is because forcing someone to pay money for bringing up charges and dropping them seems a little unfair though I can see why it would work as a deterrent to prevent people from not seeing their own cases through. The fee itself is only applied if the victim of a crime refuses to press charges against their perpetrator which, if we are logical and rational beings, makes a lot of sense. Refusing to press charges if you're in a domestically unstable relationship isn't going to save you anything at all; if nothing else it delays the violence that is inevitable. Knowing that State Prosecution is severely weakened by the victim refusing to press charges and / or dropping charges is meaningful. At times if the victim drops charges it is due to psychological reasons (read: Abusive Relationships tend to mess your judgment up) such as belief that it could get better or promises from the abuser, not even necessarily threats like most people would be lead to believe, and the case itself can end up being completely dropped. Ignoring the nature of any crime for a moment the idea itself is not a bad one; the implementation in a human legal system is always going to leave something to be desired no matter what it is since laws are often either too lax or too stringent.

As for the woman in Oregon who was "jailed" (read properly as: detained) until her trial the article is written to make it sound like the person's background is sound. I'm going to presume that her being a flight risk isn't some imaginary concept on the courts part and considering she tested positive for meth her actual behavior suggests she'd be nothing short of a flight risk. The objective isn't to keep the person in jail due to their part in the crime but to actually keep them until the justice can be met out. The notion that it prevents people from stepping forward, especially in Oregon where it specifically is a bad law, rather than the normal week or less everywhere else is using exaggeration to make the reader feel uncomfortable. People don't report crimes (esp. those of domestic nature) rarely because they are afraid of being detained; I can't imagine that's #1 on anyone's mind.

The Texas thing is an extraordinarily rare error. Not to write it off as bad but it was a clerical error. It has nothing to do with civil rights etc. As for the prosecutor stating that she could have been protected at a hotel etc., first the actual use of detention in jail for witnesses is very rare. It isn't something you just "do" on whim. Generally the person is safer not because they will "leave of their own accord" but because someone will hunt them down and murder the fuck out of them before they get to court or run them out of town to say the least. The idea is that it prevents both scenarios from occurring.

This article is written not as a factual presentation of situational elements but to grip heart strings and cause false alarm and poor calls to action to arise. This gross misrepresentation of what is actually happening is what causes sound practices such as forcing commitment to a case to stop (note: people who drop charges against their perpetrators are not exercising "personal freedom" but often coercion) meanwhile expressing that people who are vulnerable in their communities should be let out into the community are just not seeing the bigger picture or true nature of the statutes. Crime is far more complicated than is being let on in this article. Very few bother to care about the nature of victimization and how it actually plays out alongside due process in law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mercurygirl

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,175
Media
37
Likes
26,254
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
This gross misrepresentation of what is actually happening is what causes sound practices such as forcing commitment to a case to stop (note: people who drop charges against their perpetrators are not exercising "personal freedom" but often coercion) meanwhile expressing that people who are vulnerable in their communities should be let out into the community are just not seeing the bigger picture or true nature of the statutes.
I don't agree completely. While coercion or internalized fears are probably the most common reasons that charges get dropped, every adult must be free to choose his or her own safest course. These are not children, but grown women with some measure of autonomy. Should the women be reincarcerated when 6-18 months later the brute is back out looking for revenge for his sentence? Should she just live in fear when the state fails to secure the prosecution, or worse, successfully prosecutes the monster just to have some impotent judge release him on his own recognizance anyway? You're talking about seeing a grander picture, but you're not applying reality in that manner either.
 

Draconis71

Loved Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Posts
1,558
Media
12
Likes
551
Points
333
Location
Ottawa (Ontario, Canada)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Not only women are made the perpetrators of the crime they're victim to, but, guys too.
Drunk hit-and-run
Had the whole police thing "did you meet them earlier tonight" (yes) Did you meet them before tonight (no, tonight was the first time I met them).
Story kept changing, so, no charges laid.
Not the first, nor would it be the last time police villainize the victims
 

Symphonic

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Posts
1,740
Media
0
Likes
81
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I don't agree completely. While coercion or internalized fears are probably the most common reasons that charges get dropped, every adult must be free to choose his or her own safest course. These are not children, but grown women with some measure of autonomy. Should the women be reincarcerated when 6-18 months later the brute is back out looking for revenge for his sentence? Should she just live in fear when the state fails to secure the prosecution, or worse, successfully prosecutes the monster just to have some impotent judge release him on his own recognizance anyway? You're talking about seeing a grander picture, but you're not applying reality in that manner either.

You've posed the exact problem. How does a person, clearly in distress and/or suffering coercion, know what's in their best interest? What may make them most comfortable at the time of crisis is likely not what is in their long-term best interest I'm afraid. It is in fact because of the autonomy that we must consider the fact that humans are not rational, especially in situations such as this, and it is not in their best interest to simply allow them the freedom to face a monster by themselves and when they grow frightened or weary simply run away.

The application of reality in relation to a person getting out of prison and the like would fall under witness protection. No one detained because someone got out of jail. That is not "reality" to begin with; the questions themselves, though thought provoking to say the least, don't ever actually play out in a consistent fashion. The reason these individuals are being detained is to help calm the flight response that humans exhibit in these situations not necessarily to keep them safe for the rest of their lives; when that has to happen there are clearly better alternatives available.
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,175
Media
37
Likes
26,254
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
Witsec is also not freedom. Basically, in is in the victim's best interest to execute the assailant during an attack. No fines, limited incarceration (none if she can post bond while awaiting trial and is acquitted on the grounds of self defense), no fear of reprisals.