Tue, 09/30/2008 - 08:33
by Maxine Bernstein, The Oregonian
Monday September 29, 2008, 8:54 PM
Subpoenas landed on the desks of several domestic violence victims' advocates this summer, ordering them to show up in Multnomah County Circuit Court with files containing victims' statements against alleged attackers in two pending cases.
The subpoenas sent shock waves through the county's nationally recognized domestic violence program, prompting a special team of police, prosecutors, parole officers and advocates who work together to intervene in high-risk cases to stop accepting new ones. The Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team came to a screeching halt.
"We didn't know what to tell victims. We were unable to say 'Trust us, your information would remain confidential.' So we stopped," said Chiquita Rollins, the county's domestic violence coordinator.
Advocates argued that divulging confidential information about victims or subpoenaing records would have a "substantial chilling effect" on victims. Rollins cautioned that offenders could use information gleaned from an advocate's file to intimidate victims and keep them from testifying.
Defense lawyers countered they had the right to review victims' statements before trial. In an unusual circumstance, the Multnomah County district attorneys sided with the defense. Prosecutors demanded that the advocates' material be turned over to the defense as part of pretrial discovery.
"This was a difficult situation for us, because the advocates really are our partners in this program," said Darian Stanford, a Multnomah County deputy district attorney. "But the law is clear. We're obliged to follow the U.S. Constitution and Oregon law."
The dispute landed before a Multnomah County judge, who identified two competing interests: the need to provide a fair process to people accused of a crime and the need for confidentiality to protect victims of domestic violence.
The debate is not unique to Multnomah County. It's arisen elsewhere in the nation where such collaboration between police and community-based advocates has been encouraged to better tackle domestic violence or other serious crimes. Some states afford victims' advocates confidentiality privileges akin to that of attorney-client or doctor-patient, but not Oregon. "It's a growing question and area of debate and legal attention," said Rhonda Martinson, a former domestic violence prosecutor who now is managing attorney at the Battered Women's Justice Project in Minneapolis.
In the Multnomah County cases, Judge Maureen H. McKnight ultimately ordered victims' statements that advocates already had shared with police and prosecutors be turned over to the defense. The county immediately halted its program and spent the summer revamping it.
"I'm bummed out," said Portland police Capt. Chris Uehara, head of the Portland police family services division. "The momentum was strong. The whole point was we're working under one roof, collaboratively. Now, it seems like we're having to take two or three steps backward."
Since it began four years ago, the multiagency team has helped about 480 victims. Program coordinators had hoped to kick off a restructured program by Wednesday with clearer guidelines on what victim information should be shared.
Participants are striving to maintain the collaboration, yet not curtail the independence of advocates who work for nonprofit agencies or compromise the legal obligations of police and prosecutors. Finding that balance has proved tricky.
One immediate change was to discontinue advocates' access to the Portland police database, a practice divulged at the summer court hearings that troubled McKnight.
"Can of worms"
Multnomah County public defender Lisa Pardini filed the subpoenas in June. She represented 28-year-old Donald Leroy Russell, who faced multiple burglary, assault and harassment charges and a restraining order violation.
As part of pretrial discovery, Pardini sought to examine what his alleged victim, Gionni Crawford, said about Russell to the domestic violence victims' advocates. Pardini argued that her client had the right to confront his accuser and determine whether she changed her story. Soon, another public defender who had a similar case representing Kenneth Clowers, now 38, joined in.
"I just did a discovery request," Pardini said. "I didn't realize I was going to open this can of worms."
But that's exactly what occurred.
Shocked by the subpoenas, and disturbed that the district attorney took the defense side, advocates and county domestic violence workers refused to turn over documents and got their own lawyers. "We were not prepared for that," said Joslyn Baker, who coordinates the Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team. "The team felt really attacked. It took a toll on them."
During a two-day hearing in June, Pardini pointed out that domestic violence victims' advocates work with police and prosecutors, partly, to hold high-risk offenders accountable. The team also holds bimonthly meetings in which advocates, police, and a prosecutor typically review and discuss individual cases and victim reports. She also recalled that in another case she handled, advocates had recommended that her client be kept in custody as he awaited trial based on a risk assessment they had done.
"So they're actually involving themselves in the case to a level that they want that person to receive the highest punishment or highest level of supervision they can get," Pardini told the court. "Now that they're being asked to produce statements by the alleged victim, they're saying, 'No, no, no, we're not part of the system. We're just out here to help the victim.' They can't have it both ways."
"Not going to happen"
An attorney representing advocates from Raphael House and Volunteers for America argued that the victim's safety is what's at stake. Because the advocates receive partial funding under the federal Violence Against Women Act, she argued they are protected under its confidentiality clause. Advocates don't work for the government but contract with the county. "My clients are third parties. The DA does not have the right to reach into the files of nongovernmental entities for this purpose," Heidee Stoller told the judge.
In an interview, a 29-year-old woman who was a victim of domestic violence said the team's advocates helped her figure out a "safety plan," and find a shelter. "It would be terrifying if my advocate was called to testify about that because it could have made me unsafe," the woman said.
Stanford countered in court that the federal Constitution and state law require prosecutors to disclose any relevant statements of people the district attorney intends to call as witnesses. "We certainly intend to call the victim as a witness," Stanford said.
McKnight ruled that the federal law doesn't prohibit disclosure of such records. She limited her order to those records that advocates had shared with police or prosecutors.
The team's organizers hoped to restart the program by Wednesday, yet not all the partners are ready to sign off. "Not going to happen," Uehara said Friday, noting that police can't accept some language in the new protocols, such as looking the other way when victims have unrelated arrest warrants.
Baker remains hopeful the team can continue. "We're really tightening up what victims' information can be shared with police and prosecutors. I think writing it down is one thing. But practicing it is another. That's going to be a big learning piece."
You Can Read The Comments At:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/ruling_curbs_multnomah_county.html
Tue, 09/30/2008 - 13:13
#2
MMMMMM Let me put on my thinking cap In all seriousness I wouldn't put it past them for filtering content that doesn't meet within their "Politically Correct" vision, that is the nature of the beast ya know
Tue, 09/30/2008 - 13:23
#3
Interesting that a few concepts these so called "Advocates" fail to grasp, * Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. * Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain. * Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel * Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury. * Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Tue, 09/30/2008 - 14:36
#4
Nice thinking cap....
All jokes aside, this is a serious matter that is changing fast. All hell could break loose if somebody forces Biden's hand during the debates. There's a lot of unhappy men and women out there over this. And the ranks will grow until reform happens.
Its just a matter of time. 
Wed, 10/01/2008 - 07:08
#5
I'm going to dissent and take you both on here.
Get fucking real guys.
Yup...that's what I said. Get real.
Though I support the notion that statements relating to the alleged CRIME be disclosed...........that's where my support ends.
It's dispicable to think that the advocates would be forced to cough up anymore than that. Period.
I have always been an advocate for men when it comes to violence against them by women. I am the crazy bitch screaming HEY...LOOK...IT HAPPENS TO MEN TOO....CUT THE SHIT AND GENDER BIAS! I have advocated for equal services for men - equal rights for fathers etc.
But get fucking real.
FACT - MORE WOMEN ARE MURDERED AS A RESULT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE THAN MEN
That alone is reason enough to NOT release safety plan info or other info pertinent to the continued safety of women and their kids who are genuinely fleeing abuse.
The verdict is what determines validity in our culture. And until there's a NOT GUILTY or INNOCENT verdict - women and their children should be protected AT ALL COST.
Goddamn I'm glad I live here. The charter provides for this....for both women AND men. The right to security of the person...and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the fundamental principles of justice. (Jail, arrest etc.)
Wed, 10/01/2008 - 07:19
#6
Like I said above Lynn Interesting that a few concepts these so called "Advocates" fail to grasp, * Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. * Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain. * Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel * Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury. * Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Wed, 10/01/2008 - 07:26
#7
Also - just because the 6th says the perp has a right to confront the witness (or victim as the case may be) doesn't mean that this ALWAYS happens does it?
Jesus christ....I'm a bit confused here. On the one hand Pagan, you laugh at bible thumpers who hold so tightly to their dogmatic and archaic ways of seeing and doing things.....but on the other hand the constitution is infallable.
I disagree. I believe that change happens period. And as a result of those changes in our society, we have to change laws as well as ways of doing things.
Which is why there is an exemption for children who have been raped.
If we did not CHANGE the way things are..............MEN WOULD NOT be afforded equal rights as women where children are concerned. And while I don't think this has quite happened....it IS happening in many places in both the US and Canada.
One other thing...upon closer reading of the original article...I see that there was "no real threat" of releasing info regarding a persons' safety plan etc.
Another provision. hmm
Wed, 10/01/2008 - 07:27
#8
Apply your attitude to a case where I 9 y/o boy has been raped by his uncle perp Pagan.
DO you feel the same contempt for those advocates? The same contempt for the child victim?
Why not?
Wed, 10/01/2008 - 08:02
#9
OK Lynn you say someone can be accused, thrown in jail on only an accusation with zero evidence, only on a mere accusation. Then when going to court they are not allowed to even see nor challenge any so called evidence? MMMMM kinda sounds like King George's Gitmo. I see Lynn that you are agreeing with King George that the Constitution is just a "God Damn piece of paper" and that Government, the Courts and Justice System can write and change the rules on the fly. So the Rule of Law is only "Optional" eh? BTW Lynn this thinking is the same as when Religion Ruled, it was called the "Dark Ages". Then when we started coming out of the Dark Ages and into the Age of Enlightenment came the Magna Carta (ought to read it sometime Jesus christ....I'm a bit confused here. On the one hand Pagan, you laugh at bible thumpers who hold so tightly to their dogmatic and archaic ways of seeing and doing things.....but on the other hand the constitution is infallable. Really Lynn who's the one here following the Bible thumpers? ), which was a heavy influence in the creation of the U.S. Constitution. So Lynn you want to follow King George's lead into returning to the Dark Ages?
Wed, 10/01/2008 - 08:34
#10
Back up that bus!
You put words in my mouth on the first damn sentence - anmd every sentence that followed!!!!!
I DID NOT SAY TO CONVICT W/O ANY EVIDENCE WHERE THE HELL DID THAT COME FROM??????????
Show me where in ANY post I have EVER written where I even REMOTELY ellude to this?????????????
No-where and never Pagan.
Additionally, NOWHERE have I EVER said they should not be "allowed to even see nor challenge any so called evidence"
Perhaps you ought to go back and read my post. I have never been accused of being vague Pagan. In fact I am often criticized for being too blunt...or at least crystal clear.
NOWHERE have I suggested that the const. is a gd pieceof paper either Pagan. Where are you coming up with this absolute bullshit?
Re-read darlin.
You are way the hell off base on your falty interpretation of my post.
And YES....we moved from the dark ages to the age of enlightenment...and had we not...we would be as stuck as we are now. Just because we progressed long ago - DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which is also why we do not put 9 y/o rape victims on the goddamn witness stand!
oy!
Also, Pagan, you would do well to not challenge me on any form of eduication (ie. read the magna carta sometime). Because to the degree that you can be sarcastic...so too can I be demeaning about one's lacking (comparative to me) education.
I try not to stoop that low. "Try" being the operative word.
If you want to "inform" someone...you can do so without demeaning comments like the one above. You can do so by providing that information. In that way you do not alienate yourself, nor place yourself above the person you are communicating with. This encourages continued discussion - rather than the thread dying.
Wed, 10/01/2008 - 08:55
#11
Lynn I was responding to your direct challenge to my post which consisted solely on the point of the disregard for the Rule of Law which is the U.S. Constitution. This is what the story is about and what the judge ruled on that you find seem to find so offensive. As to my "sarcasm", sorry it wasn't meant to be, it's honestly meant to be a suggestion. You know me I'm blunt and more times than not I'm more like a Bull in a China Shop. I'm by no means an English Major, hence my shitty vocabulary and writing skills
Wed, 10/01/2008 - 09:09
#12
Lynn I was responding to your direct challenge to my post which consisted solely on the point of the disregard for the Rule of Law which is the U.S. Constitution...
Pagan - if you had read my entire post...you would see that I retracted - citing the original article and saying that there was no real threat to disclose info pertaining to the victims safety.
Again...this is an exemption - DESPITE the constitution Pagan.
What I am REALLY challenging you on is this notion that the constitution need never be changed...that it is the be-all-end-all of the American way of life...when in fact it is simply guiding principles - that DO require change over time....
To negate this is to share the dogmatic and archaic "ways" of bible thumpers.............
My post was clear in that I agree that disclosure is NECESSARY....but disclosure of information that may potentially put the "victim" at risk is not.
Wed, 10/01/2008 - 10:49
#13
Quote:
But get fucking real.
FACT - MORE WOMEN ARE MURDERED AS A RESULT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE THAN MEN
This is how real I will get, Lynn. That is only part of the story.
Here is a statistic from Fathers for life.
American government agencies report numbers that are more objective, not as subjective as those Jeff White selected. In the US in 1999, 70.3 percent of perpetrators of child abuse were female parents acting alone or with others. Out of an estimated 826,000 victims of child maltreatment, nation-wide, 1,100 were fatalities. Their perpetrators break down as follows:
PERPETRATOR RELATIONSHIP [3]
31.5% Female Parent Only
10.7% Male Parent Only *
21.3% Both Parents *
16.3% Female Parent and Other
1.1% Male Parent and Other *
4.5% Family Relative
6.1% Substitute Care Provider(s)
5.7% Other
2.7% Unknown
* "Male parent" in that context most likely is just about anything but a natural father.
But, if you wish to talk about murder, this is very telling.
That means that, acting alone or with others, female parents were responsible in 69.1 percent, and male parents in 33.1 percent of cases of fatal child maltreatment.
This also comes down to reliability in statistical reporting. This is one of the MAJOR issues here. Now, to get things straight, murder is murder. NONE of it is any good. But, to be fair here, I'm not talking about murder inasmuch as I am about how DV courts circumvent due process. Reform this, and I will be silent. Make it fair and I will be silent. Make it gender-neutral, and I will go silent forever. That's all I'm asking for.
Quote:
Goddamn I'm glad I live here. The charter provides for this....for both women AND men. The right to security of the person...and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the fundamental principles of justice. (Jail, arrest etc.)
Hear, hear!
Wed, 10/01/2008 - 10:37
#14
OK Lynn here we go, let me make myself as clear as I can.
Lynn4Peace wrote:
What I am REALLY challenging you on is this notion that the constitution need never be changed...that it is the be-all-end-all of the American way of life...when in fact it is simply guiding principles - that DO require change over time....
To negate this is to share the dogmatic and archaic "ways" of bible thumpers.............
I don't believe I've ever said that it should never be changed. There is a process to change the Constitution, it's very difficult as it should be but that is the one of the examples of the brilliance of our Founding Fathers that it can be changed. How else would we have gotten things like the Bill of Rights? But the FACT still remains the same, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme rule of law for the U.S. To allow a certain privileged few and our Government to ignore it "at will" does what Lynn? It allows the ruling class and their "anointed pets" to do what ever the fuck they choose with no disregard to the rule of law is what Tyranny is all about and I will never ever condone nor support that.
Lynn4Peace wrote:
My post was clear in that I agree that disclosure is NECESSARY....but disclosure of information that may potentially put the "victim" at risk is not.
There's always measures that can be taken to "protect" the alleged "Victim". Things like testimony behind screens, not disclosing their address, etc. This is what a Judge is for, to insure the rule of law is followed without putting the "alleged" Victim at risk.
Wed, 10/01/2008 - 10:38
#15
Quote:
One other thing...upon closer reading of the original article...I see that there was "no real threat" of releasing info regarding a persons' safety plan etc.
Another provision. hmm
If ANY information is shared with the police, it MUST be attainable by those being charged. Otherwise, you get coached behavior in courts, which also trump up the charges and makes these cases utterly indefensible.
Wed, 10/01/2008 - 10:44
#16
Quote:
Apply your attitude to a case where I 9 y/o boy has been raped by his uncle perp Pagan.
DO you feel the same contempt for those advocates? The same contempt for the child victim?
Why not?
What contempt? Due process should be due process, shouldn't it? When a nine year old has been raped (which isn't what this article is about, BTW), the accused should be charged based upon the evidence.
But, to get real here, I know what you are talking about.
Here's my take. To base a system upon the worst of the worst slings an umbrella out there that many innocent and lesser degree of offenders get caught up in. Therein lies the dilemma. One of the MAJOR problems is manipulation of statistics that vilifies all based upon the actions of a few EXTREME cases. You know my take on reform. And that would be to ticket first time level 4 offenders as a warning. But taking the EXTREME cases like you do here and present them as your "basis", is part of the problem.
Wed, 10/01/2008 - 19:07
#17
I don't lnow how to quote in this forum...so I'll do my best here....
Rep said...
This is how real I will get, Lynn. That is only part of the story.
Here is a statistic from Fathers for life.
American government agencies report numbers that are more objective, not as subjective as those Jeff White selected. In the US in 1999, 70.3 percent of perpetrators of child abuse were female parents acting alone or with others. Out of an estimated 826,000 victims of child maltreatment, nation-wide, 1,100 were fatalities. Their perpetrators break down as follows:
......................I want to assure you that I read your entire post...and do not need to address the evidence....I have never disagreed that women are child abusers......
You were referring to my quote....as follows....
But get fucking real.
FACT - MORE WOMEN ARE MURDERED AS A RESULT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE THAN MEN
What you quoted has absolutly nothign to do with what I wrote.......
I WAS SAYING...since no information relating to a woman's safety is at risk....then disclose ALL else. Because fair is fair.
anyway....
Pagan my response to you about changing the constiotution - is - where there's a will there's a way. If the people want a change, there will be one. That's how the constitution is ammended....it has to start with the people.
MF you said
If ANY information is shared with the police, it MUST be attainable by those being charged.
Totally disagree. She will likely share her place of residence with police...and if she truly is terrified...there's going to be a serious problem.....
Feel free to replace the word He for she
In my opinion, violence should not be a measure we reduce ourselves to....ever....
But who's perfect? lol
And this...
What contempt? Due process should be due process, shouldn't it?
And exemptions are made where necessary......
Holy crap ...smoked one and can't do this anymore tonight!
g'night!
Wed, 10/01/2008 - 19:20
#18
Here Lynn I just created another button for quotes That will give you the quote brackets, you can also edit the first quote box to give a specific reply from by This will give you the output of -
[quote=Big Sexy Beast] I'm just too damn sexy [/quote]
Big Sexy Beast wrote:
I'm just too damn sexy
Wed, 10/01/2008 - 19:32
#19
There you are!
Quote:
I have never disagreed that women are child abusers......
And I never disagreed that child rape is bad either. See the point? There is none. We're off on a tangent now. Let's get back on topic, shall we? I know. It was a cheap stunt. I'll refrain from this point forward.
Quote:
But get fucking real.
FACT - MORE WOMEN ARE MURDERED AS A RESULT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE THAN MEN
I'm not so sure about that. I KNOW the statistics are skewed and biased. I don't trust them. That was one of my major points above.
Quote:
I WAS SAYING...since no information relating to a woman's safety is at risk....then disclose ALL else. Because fair is fair.
While I agree with that in principle, I would question it in practice based upon my experiences with the system. It's a dangerous gray area wrought with lots of problems. This would only serve to further that cause, I fear.
Quote:
MF you saidIf ANY information is shared with the police, it MUST be attainable by those being charged.
Totally disagree. She will likely share her place of residence with police...and if she truly is terrified...there's going to be a serious problem.....
Feel free to replace the word He for she
Fair enough. But if one is accused, there should not be an open season, should it? I've seen this law (and the scale in which it has been abused), on a first hand basis, I fully understand the quandary here. If it is just a level 4 offense, I would say NO! If it were a level 3,2 or 1 offense, I would say yes. But as it stands today, it isn't even close to what is happening out there.
Quote:
In my opinion, violence should not be a measure we reduce ourselves to....ever....
But who's perfect? lol
Its time. For some violence isn't violence at all, unless you want to get into the areas of psychological abuse. Then, we would have thought control. I agree. its ugly. But to enable one's sex to make baseless charges is just as wrong. Clearly, improvement is needed here.
Quote:
What contempt? Due process should be due process, shouldn't it?And exemptions are made where necessary......
Scary stuff. Especially when exceptions come into play. There should be stiff penalties for those that abuse them. Currently, there is not.
Quote:
Holy crap ...smoked one and can't do this anymore tonight!
g'night
Good night, sweetie. You have always been a good woman with a good heart in my eyes.
Thu, 10/02/2008 - 06:37
#20
Quote:
Quote:
But get fucking real.
FACT - MORE WOMEN ARE MURDERED AS A RESULT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE THAN MENI'm not so sure about that. I KNOW the statistics are skewed and biased. I don't trust them. That was one of my major points above
MF....Dead bodies are a stitistic that CANNOT be skewed....
Perhaps in war yes. Not in the general mainstream population though. That too is a fact. Look, in crim 101 students are taught about "hidden crime" and how this affects stats for programs laws etc. But one thing is consistant. You cannot hide the fact that there is a dead body. Eventually most are "found". And even when we calculate for possible deaths...ie....missing persons....we see that here too the majority of "missing persons" are women.
The facts are the facts.
Now I just want to point out something to ya MF.
You and I have talked about how the system has swung farrrr too much in favor of women - where it USED to be farrrr too much in favor of men.
You and I have talked about this and you know that I am not on board with it. I have said in the past that this is no more effective than when it was in favor of men. That to achieve true justice in to have equal balance.
So, you cannot keep denying the reality if you want people to get your point. Sometimes when I see you saying things like the stats of dead people are skewed and you don't trust them...I wonder if you are really serious about informing people of the inequalities for men in the justice system.
Facts are facts. Yes - as I have said before - stats for women "fleeing abuse" ARE skewed.....NO ARGUMENT HERE..............but some things you MUST concede to because denying them doesn't help your case.
One last point....
You mentioned psychological abuse. Evidently you have been only referring to physical abuse? I have not and do not separate the various methods to abuse a partner. There is physical, emotional, psychological, sexual and financial. All are forms of abuse used to control the other person. And all of them have an element of fear/terror..... Abuse is abuse. Any one of those reasons are reason enough for a man or woman to flee the relationship.
Thanks for the new quote button Pagan!!
Thu, 10/02/2008 - 07:28
#21
Quote:
MF....Dead bodies are a stitistic that CANNOT be skewed....
Perhaps in war yes. Not in the general mainstream population though. That too is a fact. Look, in crim 101 students are taught about "hidden crime" and how this affects stats for programs laws etc. But one thing is consistant. You cannot hide the fact that there is a dead body. Eventually most are "found". And even when we calculate for possible deaths...ie....missing persons....we see that here too the majority of "missing persons" are women.
Lynn. Respectfully, I think Rubo is in your ear. I can smell it. Please let me know if I am wrong. Either way, I still expect a full denial.
But, let me clarify further. I am talking about awareness within interpersonal relationships. Let's talk about Tomascz Matczak shall we? He was killed in cold blood with a knife after filing for restraining order against his girlfriend. She claimed self-defense and was let go after two days. There was no statistic here as it was "wriiten off" due to self defense, as if it had nothing to do with murder. There's more.
Here is what his family had to say about it.
Here's what Alan Dershowitz has to say about murder as it pertains to men vs. women. And it quotes him supporting my assertions:
Quote:
The most shocking finding of this study--which analyzed nearly ten thousand cases--is that wives murder their husbands far more frequently than press reports would suggest. To put the issue in context, women in general account for only about 10 percent of defendants charged with all murders. But for all spousal murders, women accounted for more than 40 percent of defendants. And "among black marital partners, wives were just about as likely to kill their husbands as husbands were to kill their wives." Not surprisingly, when it comes to parents who kill their children, mothers kill more often than fathers.The real headline of this report, therefore, is that women almost as often as men do in the context of all family murders, though men much more often kill strangers--nearly always other men
Now, if you want to be semantic here, men do kill women more often, but not by much. Maybe you should call Alan Dershowitz and get in his ear for polluting my mind with these facts.
How fucking real would you like me to get here?
Am I "not real" for asking for fairness in reporting statistics? Am I "not serious" for pointing these facts and discrepancies out?
Thu, 10/02/2008 - 07:28
#22
Quote:
Lynn. Respectfully, I think Rubo is in your ear. I can smell it. Please let me know if I am wrong. Either way, I still expect a full denial.But, let me clarify further. I am talking about awareness within interpersonal relationships. Let's talk about Tomascz Matczak shall we? He was killed in cold blood with a knife after filing for restraining order against his girlfriend. She claimed self-defense and was let go after two days. There was no statistic here as it was "wriiten off" due to self defense, as it had nothing to do with murder. There's more.
Here is what his family had to say about it.
Here's what Alan Deschowitz has to say about murder as it pertains to men vs. women.
Now, if you want to be semantic here, men do kill women more often, but not by much.
How fucking real would you like me to get here?
Am I "not real" for asking for fairness in reporting statistics? Am I not serious for pointing these facts and discrepancies out?
You are dead wrong re Rubo MF.
Look - I don't depend on ANYONE to help me make a point. I like to think I am intelligent and articulate enough to make that happen on my own.
That being said - I see you still did not accept the facts re: Dead bodies being women. (To be clear - that is dead bodies as a result of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women) In your response you then state an isolated case. I KNOW where you are going...I am simply refusing to go there with you until you accept what is already fact.
The process for change is first to acknowledge what is REAL....then determine what needs to CHANGE....then pursue that goal from a realistic standpoint with true facts...
Do you not see that this is precisely HOW the laws have changed in favor of women in the first place?
Then you say this tidbit that's nothing short of bullshit fantast....
Quote:
Now, if you want to be semantic here, men do kill women more often, but not by much
Domestic Homicides
On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.16
Women are much more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner. In 2000, intimate partner homicides accounted for 33.5 percent of the murders of women and less than four percent of the murders of men.17
Pregnant and recently pregnant women are more likely to be victims of homicide than to die of any other cause18 , and evidence exists that a significant proportion of all female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners.19
Domestic violence is a leading cause of death for women ages 15-44, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. It is a leading cause of death of pregnant women, mortality research shows. And African American and Native American women are at the highest risk of intimate partner homicide.
How clear do I need to be?
You cannot - WILL NOT - effect change by denying FACT MF.
What you need to do is capitalize on the stats for men that are there....WITHOUT DENYING OR NEGATING THE STATS FOR WOMEN. Because by doing do - you merely appear jaded. People who are jaded have a personal agenda....not a social justice one.
I like to think that you want to effect chaqnge that is balanced and fair. Not effect change to get even with women...which is sort of how you are coming across.
Hmmmm. I posted a comment this morning and it was not allowed in. I wonder why as it was a clean post with good data in it.