Current Events

TOPICS:

11/11/11

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

Calico

Calico

New Zealand
April 2007

OCT 06, 2011 12:27 AM

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.




TOPEKA, Kan.— Domestic abuse advocates in Topeka are outraged after the Shawnee County District Attorney's Office said that they will no longer be prosecuting domestic violence cases, and now the city of Topeka is talking about repealing its anti-domestic violence law.

Shawnee County prosecutors, dealing with a 10 percent budget cut, told city officials that they will no longer prosecute misdemeanor cases, including domestic violence. The move has left domestic violence victim's advocate Claudine Dombrowski furious, saying that the move leaves victim caught in the middle.

"It's appalling, it's disgusting," said Dombrowski. "A week after this started there were over 30 cases that had been dismissed because the county dropped it on the city, and the city says we can't do it."

Dombrowski says that she was the victim in a "misdemeanor" domestic abuse case 16 years ago - a crowbar strike to the head left her with 24 stitches and two broken wrists. Now, she worries that nothing is being done to protect victims.

"They need to invest in headstones, because these women are going to end up in cemeteries," said Dombrowski.

In an apparent attempt to force the county to prosecute the misdemeanor cases, the city wants to repeal its domestic violence ordinance. The city council will vote on the issue next Tuesday.

"The city of Topeka just said domestic violence is legal and you can beat your wife," said Dombrowski.

Neither the Topeka interim city manager nor the Shawnee County district attorney would talk to FOX 4 about the conflict. The interim city manager had agreed to talk, but then backed out after learning that FOX 4 was talking to Dombrowski.

"No matter how political you want to be, or you want to play hardball with peoples lives, how can you in good conscious say it's okay to repeal domestic battery as a crime in the city of Topeka just so you can get out of prosecuting them," said Dombrowski. "I'm terrified for these women."



FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

OCT 06, 2011 12:39 AM

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. frown

Calico

Calico

New Zealand
April 2007

OCT 06, 2011 12:53 AM

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?

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

OCT 06, 2011 01:18 AM

Calico said:
Even if the decision is to "force the city to deal with it", what a terrible message to send to the women who live in and contribute to Shawnee County, 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.

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

OCT 06, 2011 07:40 AM

Calico said:



TOPEKA, Kan.— Domestic abuse advocates in Topeka are outraged after the Shawnee County District Attorney's Office said that they will no longer be prosecuting domestic violence cases,




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

Thistle

Thistle

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

OCT 06, 2011 11:47 AM

Calico said:
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?



they will no longer prosecute misdemeanor cases, including domestic violence.



I think they mean they will no longer prosecute those domestic violence cases that are misdemeanors, but they will prosecute the ones that are felonies.

Calico

Calico

New Zealand
April 2007

OCT 06, 2011 02:46 PM

^^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?

Thistle

Thistle

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

OCT 06, 2011 02:58 PM

Calico said:
^^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?



I think so. While that is still a huge deal, and a setback for victims and their advocates, it is not quite the same as simply not prosecuting domestic violence at all. I think one problem is that there won't be as good a paper trail when actual violence occurs, since misdemeanors won't have been prosecuted.

I can't tell from anything I've read if they're threatening only to repeal the laws against domestic battery (threats of violence), to repeal all misdemeanor laws, or to repeal all domestic violence laws.

Comic_Guy

Comic_Guy

Dundalk, MD
May 2011

OCT 06, 2011 04:19 PM

Calico said:

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



It's not considered a misdemeanor in Maryland,

semiretiredpunk

semiretiredpunk

USA
March 2007

OCT 06, 2011 05:42 PM

But what about violence against homophobic religious lunatics?

I could see that being more useful in Topeka.

Towelly

Towelly

Philadelphia, PA
January 2007

OCT 06, 2011 07:18 PM

Calico said:
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?



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.

diekart

diekart

I'm lost
December 2010

OCT 06, 2011 10:45 PM

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.

NateHevens

NateHevens

Boca Raton, FL
September 2008

OCT 08, 2011 08:59 PM

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? surreal

Waldo_Jeffers

Waldo_Jeffers

United Kingdom
OLD SKOOL

OCT 09, 2011 03:49 AM

PointBlank said:

Calico said:



TOPEKA, Kan.— Domestic abuse advocates in Topeka are outraged after the Shawnee County District Attorney's Office said that they will no longer be prosecuting domestic violence cases,




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



biggrin

Waldo_Jeffers

Waldo_Jeffers

United Kingdom
OLD SKOOL

OCT 09, 2011 03:53 AM

Calico said:
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.



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.

Calico

Calico

New Zealand
April 2007

OCT 09, 2011 12:38 PM

Waldo_Jeffers said:

Calico said:
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.



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.

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

USA
May 2006

OCT 12, 2011 02:31 PM

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.puke

Calico

Calico

New Zealand
April 2007

OCT 17, 2011 06:51 PM

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

I think this sums it up pretty well.

But regardless of how this ultimately gets resolved, the message has already been heard loud and clear: Not one, not two, but three arms of government in Topeka don’t care enough about prosecuting domestic violence to pay for it unless they are absolutely, positively, back-against-the-wall forced to.

NateHevens

NateHevens

Boca Raton, FL
September 2008

OCT 17, 2011 07:50 PM

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

I think this sums it up pretty well.

But regardless of how this ultimately gets resolved, the message has already been heard loud and clear: Not one, not two, but three arms of government in Topeka don’t care enough about prosecuting domestic violence to pay for it unless they are absolutely, positively, back-against-the-wall forced to.



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

Fuck you, Topeka.

Otoki

Otoki

SUICIDEGIRL

Minnesota, USA

OCT 17, 2011 08:08 PM

I just think it's awful that when budget cuts come up, this is even on the table.

Fatality

Fatality

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

OCT 19, 2011 06:22 AM

I literally don't understand.

Iso

Iso

SUICIDEGIRL

Pennsylvania, USA

OCT 19, 2011 06:29 AM

Fatality said:
I literally don't understand.



Right? My mind is completely blown on this one.

Nea

Nea

New York, NY
October 2006

OCT 19, 2011 06:48 AM

Wow, unbelievable. surreal

scorp17yh

scorp17yh

Brookings, OR
November 2004

OCT 19, 2011 07:42 AM

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.

Toku666

Toku666

Columbus, OH
May 2004

OCT 19, 2011 08:49 AM

scorp17yh said:
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.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next