Topeka, Kansas thinks domestic violence should be legal.

I read about this in the Feminists group, but I think it deserves talking about here. Shawnee County got some budget cuts, and they're response was to stop prosecuting domestic violence cases. Now they're voting next week to repeal domestic violence laws, so that the city will have to prosecute instead.

Link. Trigger warning for domestic abuse.

Between this and the virtual anti-choice laws, I'd say that Kansas pretty much hates women. By putting kicking these cases to a locals, they've just poured gasoline onto fire. If Topeka also decides to repeal it's domestic violence ordinance who's going to be left to protect and give justice for the abused, the federal government?

Oops, nope, they're broke too.

Correction: The city of Topeka is voting to repeal it's domestic violence laws, to try to force the county to deal with it, not the other way around. Apologies.

Even if the decision is to "force the county to deal with it", what a terrible message to send to the women who live in and contribute to the city of Topeka, that the prosecutors are willing to sacrifice their safety for the sake of money and politics.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if domestic violence is considered a "misdemeanor" in every state?

Good question, I think it's probably going to come down to whether or not the DV could be described as assault or battery, and the number of prior offenses (DV is itself a classification of a type of offense, but not necessarily an offense in and of itself). Simple assault is typically a misdemeanor, so if one threatens threatens to do harm, but doesn't act on it, the county would not prosecute. If, however, one were to strike another (domestic battery), or threaten another with a weapon (aggravated domestic assault), it would be a felony, in which case, the county would be obligated to act.

Christ, you'd think that advocates for domestic abuse would be happy with this.

^^In that case, is FellOnEarth correct in stating a domestic violence case would only be a misdemeanor if it was the threat of violence, but not actually violence?

It's not considered a misdemeanor in Maryland,

But what about violence against homophobic religious lunatics?

I could see that being more useful in Topeka.

I can only speak with any authority about the law in Pennsylvania, but really I think it depends on what you mean by "domestic violence", since there is actually a lot of behavior that can fall under that term. If you're talking about immediate physical violence, then our legal system is very good at dealing with that: you've got felonies ranging from assault (threat of an imminent battery) to battery (harmful or offensive touching) to attempted murder that could be used to prosecute the perp.

But a lot of abusive behavior is a lot harder to fit under a felony: how, for instance, do you prosecute a husband for strangling his wife's access to money? Despite this being a classic tactic of controlling the victim by rendering them dependent on the abuser, there's really no felony I can think of that applies to unfair distribution of the family finances. The same applies for a lot of other behavior that fits classic abusive behavior: controlling access to food, forcing your domestic partner to engage in excessive or extreme levels of household chores, isolating the partner or moving them to a rural area where the victim's family can't help them, threatening to take custody of the kids if the primary victim runs, etc. When you look at that as part of an abusive pattern, it all fits. More importantly, it's important to realize that psychologically, those tactics can be just as harmful as physical violence. And it's likely the kind of behavior that's prosecuted under misdemeanor domestic abuse statutes.

Here in Pennsylvania, we actually have something similar in the form of the PFA, or Protection from Abuse Act. It basically allows a very flexible form of restraining order that allows the judge to tailor the result to the circumstances. Between that and the lower standard of proof (in short, to convict an abuser of a felony, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt; in a civil PFA case, you only have to prove that it was more likely than not that the abuse occurred), it actually does a fairly decent job at protecting people against controlling tactics that before were never considered crimes at all.

Either Topeka has gone completely mad, or there's a wee bit more to the story. Maybe it's just hope, but I can't imagine them doing nothing against *any* violent act... that just can't fly. Still though.. I don't get what they could possibly be thinking with this decision. Now they'll have 10x more difficulty not looking like complete idiots, when they try to unscramble the PR mess AND sort out this ridiculous law thing.

Right. So... this is a good idea but... somehow... something like... I don't know... legalizing pot is bad?


I mean... yes, I know, I'm going somewhere the story doesn't even touch on. That's not the point. The point is that there are many, many things they could decriminalize or outright legalize, save money and, on top of that create jobs and save their economy... but, instead, they go with this...




I'm writing this out...

What the fuck?

This is a sad state of affairs. In theory it shouldn't matter whether the city or the state handles these cases so long as the cases get handled. However, I find myself thinking that a red tape dispute between these two bureaucratic behemoths could simply make it harder for victims of domestic violence to gain access to justice and could prolong the waiting time for cases to come to trial.

Exactly this.

I also think it makes a difference to public perceptions about the seriousness of the crime. If the city is willing to make domestic abuse (even in the case of misdemeanors) legal just to prove a point and force the county to deal with it, that sends the message that it's ok to let a few cases slip by in the weeks (or months) that it takes to get things working.

All done to meet budgets that have been cut for lack of funds. But remember, everyone, it's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. Obviously, if the city and county spend less, the problem of prosecuting domestic violence will go away.

They actually did it. In a vote of seven to three, Topeka decriminalized domestic violence yesterday.

I think this sums it up pretty well.

And I will never, ever, be visiting Topeka, Kansas.

Fuck you, Topeka.

Wow, unbelievable.

Why do TEApublicons hate women and why do women vote for TEApublicons.
This is all about NO TAXES, just cuts. The disciples of Grover Norquist. Cuts to everything no matter what. the cost.

So your awesome nick-name invention is a sincere attempt at understanding a point of view which is alien to you?

Try adding some substance instead of KAW-KAWing a stupid epithet.