I don't believe it.
Oct. 26th, 2007 09:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumWell, in fact I do, I just wish I couldn't.
A judge in Maryland aquitted a man of domestic abuse charges because 1: the victim didn't show up in court and 2: (this is the amazing part, swallow the coffee, put objects which might break windows out of arms reach) he said he did it because, according to the Baltimore Sun "without the woman's testimony, he could not be sure that she hadn't consented to the attack."
The exact quotation of the judge, Paul Harris, is worse, ""You have very rare cases; sadomasochists sometimes like to get beat up."
To go out on a limb here, this wouldn't have happened if it wasn't a domestic violence complaint.
Why do I say this? Because the complaint wasn't lodged by the woman who didn't show up in court, but by a witness to the event; a cop.
According to charging documents, a police officer was on routine patrol when she saw Michael Antonio Webb approach a car at an Exxon station in Laurel. Webb reached in the driver's side door and swung his hand three times at the driver, police said...
"I witnessed him use his right hand, not in a fist, but in, I guess, an open hand, and push the female's face. ... As I saw him grabbing her hair ... and trying to pull her out, that's when I called it on the radio," the officer said, according to a recording of the hearing.
The woman told the officer that Webb had attempted to pull her out of the vehicle, causing her hairpiece to fall off, and that he hit her in the face, though she characterized it as "more of a tap than a punch." The woman had no visible injuries, police said.
The officer testified, "She appeared scared. She was talking very quiet to me. She wasn't making eye contact with him."
The judge's comments were first reported yesterday in The Capital of Annapolis.
For more than a year after the June 2006 arrest in the Laurel attack, prosecutors were unable to locate the woman to assist in the case. Two show-cause hearings were held, and the court ordered that she be arrested for failure to appear in response to a witness subpoena.
Attempts to reach the woman, who is 39, were unsuccessful yesterday.
The guy is in jail, for a different offense. He is 24, 6'3" and 215. If he had been accused of assault and battery of a man (say me, 40, 5'9" and 120 lbs.) who thinks my being unavailable would have trumped the testimony of an eyewitness cop?
Me neither.
He refuses to stop digging.
Harris said the sadomasochist comment was intended as a hypothetical. "I'm probably as against domestic violence as anybody, when the case is proven."
When the case is proven... which he seems to think can only be done if the victim testifies. If this were a case where the victim ha filed the complaint, and then failed to show, that's one thing. But a reasonable person can take the testimony of a disinterested observer. We do it all the time.
Maryland is losing points, but not as badly as Philadelphia where a judge declared consent is both irrevocable, and transferrable
A prostitute had made a deal with a john. So far, so good (I am ignore the question of the nature of prostitution, it's not relevant to this discussion IMO).
So, using Craigslist a deal was struck. When she got to the location it turned out to be a, not a house, but a vacant lot. The guy also had a friend. They negotiated an additional fee for him.
Not so good; two men, one prostitute; a abandoned house. Already the issue of real consent is getting fuzzy, and the friend shows up without cash. This is when the story gets ugly. Someone pulled a gun, and three more men showed up.
The last one saw she was crying, refused to take part and took her away.
When it came before the judge, she reduced the charge to theft of services Ignoring the sheer horror of having gang rape at gunpoint dismissed, because a negotiated deal with one man was turned into something else completely, lets look at § 3926. Theft of services.
(1) A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally obtains services for himself or for another which he knows are available only for compensation, by deception or threat...
(b) Diversion of services.--A person is guilty of theft if, having control over the disposition of services of others to which he is not entitled, he knowingly diverts such services to his own benefit or to the benefit of another not entitled thereto.
(c) Grading.--
1. An offense under this section constitutes a summary offense when the value of the services obtained or diverted is less than $50.
2. When the value of the services obtained or diverted is $50 or more, the grading of the offense shall be as established in section 3903 (relating to grading of theft offenses).
3. Amounts involved in theft of services committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether from the same person or several persons, may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense.
We'll skip ahead to § 3903 (b) Other grades.--Theft not within subsection (a) or (a.1)* of this section, constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree, except that if the property was not taken from the person or by threat, or in breach of fiduciary obligation, and:
1 the amount involved was $50 or more but less than $200 the offense constitutes a misdemeanor of the second degree; or
2 the amount involved was less than $50 the offense constitutes a misdemeanor of the third degree.
So it looks as though this is a misdemeanor of the first degree, never mind that a gun was used.
Want to know the grace note in this little song and dance?
Four days later, this guy was arrested for doing the same thing to another woman.
The judge, she, ...acknowledged that her ruling and remarks would be controversial.
"I know I'm going to get killed on this."
But she said she has to "sleep at night with what I decide."
And on the night of Oct. 4, when she ruled in the preliminary hearing of this case?
"I slept well."
* Those sections don't seem to apply in this case
A judge in Maryland aquitted a man of domestic abuse charges because 1: the victim didn't show up in court and 2: (this is the amazing part, swallow the coffee, put objects which might break windows out of arms reach) he said he did it because, according to the Baltimore Sun "without the woman's testimony, he could not be sure that she hadn't consented to the attack."
The exact quotation of the judge, Paul Harris, is worse, ""You have very rare cases; sadomasochists sometimes like to get beat up."
To go out on a limb here, this wouldn't have happened if it wasn't a domestic violence complaint.
Why do I say this? Because the complaint wasn't lodged by the woman who didn't show up in court, but by a witness to the event; a cop.
According to charging documents, a police officer was on routine patrol when she saw Michael Antonio Webb approach a car at an Exxon station in Laurel. Webb reached in the driver's side door and swung his hand three times at the driver, police said...
"I witnessed him use his right hand, not in a fist, but in, I guess, an open hand, and push the female's face. ... As I saw him grabbing her hair ... and trying to pull her out, that's when I called it on the radio," the officer said, according to a recording of the hearing.
The woman told the officer that Webb had attempted to pull her out of the vehicle, causing her hairpiece to fall off, and that he hit her in the face, though she characterized it as "more of a tap than a punch." The woman had no visible injuries, police said.
The officer testified, "She appeared scared. She was talking very quiet to me. She wasn't making eye contact with him."
The judge's comments were first reported yesterday in The Capital of Annapolis.
For more than a year after the June 2006 arrest in the Laurel attack, prosecutors were unable to locate the woman to assist in the case. Two show-cause hearings were held, and the court ordered that she be arrested for failure to appear in response to a witness subpoena.
Attempts to reach the woman, who is 39, were unsuccessful yesterday.
The guy is in jail, for a different offense. He is 24, 6'3" and 215. If he had been accused of assault and battery of a man (say me, 40, 5'9" and 120 lbs.) who thinks my being unavailable would have trumped the testimony of an eyewitness cop?
Me neither.
He refuses to stop digging.
Harris said the sadomasochist comment was intended as a hypothetical. "I'm probably as against domestic violence as anybody, when the case is proven."
When the case is proven... which he seems to think can only be done if the victim testifies. If this were a case where the victim ha filed the complaint, and then failed to show, that's one thing. But a reasonable person can take the testimony of a disinterested observer. We do it all the time.
Maryland is losing points, but not as badly as Philadelphia where a judge declared consent is both irrevocable, and transferrable
A prostitute had made a deal with a john. So far, so good (I am ignore the question of the nature of prostitution, it's not relevant to this discussion IMO).
So, using Craigslist a deal was struck. When she got to the location it turned out to be a, not a house, but a vacant lot. The guy also had a friend. They negotiated an additional fee for him.
Not so good; two men, one prostitute; a abandoned house. Already the issue of real consent is getting fuzzy, and the friend shows up without cash. This is when the story gets ugly. Someone pulled a gun, and three more men showed up.
The last one saw she was crying, refused to take part and took her away.
When it came before the judge, she reduced the charge to theft of services Ignoring the sheer horror of having gang rape at gunpoint dismissed, because a negotiated deal with one man was turned into something else completely, lets look at § 3926. Theft of services.
(1) A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally obtains services for himself or for another which he knows are available only for compensation, by deception or threat...
(b) Diversion of services.--A person is guilty of theft if, having control over the disposition of services of others to which he is not entitled, he knowingly diverts such services to his own benefit or to the benefit of another not entitled thereto.
(c) Grading.--
1. An offense under this section constitutes a summary offense when the value of the services obtained or diverted is less than $50.
2. When the value of the services obtained or diverted is $50 or more, the grading of the offense shall be as established in section 3903 (relating to grading of theft offenses).
3. Amounts involved in theft of services committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether from the same person or several persons, may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense.
We'll skip ahead to § 3903 (b) Other grades.--Theft not within subsection (a) or (a.1)* of this section, constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree, except that if the property was not taken from the person or by threat, or in breach of fiduciary obligation, and:
1 the amount involved was $50 or more but less than $200 the offense constitutes a misdemeanor of the second degree; or
2 the amount involved was less than $50 the offense constitutes a misdemeanor of the third degree.
So it looks as though this is a misdemeanor of the first degree, never mind that a gun was used.
Want to know the grace note in this little song and dance?
Four days later, this guy was arrested for doing the same thing to another woman.
The judge, she, ...acknowledged that her ruling and remarks would be controversial.
"I know I'm going to get killed on this."
But she said she has to "sleep at night with what I decide."
And on the night of Oct. 4, when she ruled in the preliminary hearing of this case?
"I slept well."
* Those sections don't seem to apply in this case
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-27 04:55 pm (UTC)There is no good reason for treating these things differently. An assault is an assault, no matter who you commit it on or what your relationship is to them.
Too many people want to haul the "well the victim didn't want to testify" thing into the argument, which ignores the fact that the cops do a piss-poor job in too many cases of protecting victims of DV who actually testify, and who leave the person who did it to them. It's hard to get someone to testify against somebody who has beaten the crap out of them in the past and who has promised to kill them when he gets out. We give the victims no motivation to testify, and then we complain that they're uncooperative.
(Pardon some awkward constructions there. I'm trying really hard to keep this gender-neutral. Women commit domestic violence too, and I'm really trying not to make it look like I think all men are evil and all women are victims.)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-27 05:01 pm (UTC)Do women commit DV? Yes. But the relative numbers are so disparate that to be gender neutral is probably giving aid and comfort to the men who make up the, vastly, greater number, by making it seem as if they are just as likely to be victims as not.
Moreover, it gives cover to those who want to minimise it by letting them think there is an equivalence, when there is no such thing.
TK
no subject
Date: 2007-10-27 05:14 pm (UTC)Believe me, I'm aware of the numbers. I helped write a policy and procedure manual for a domestic violence shelter, and the law clinic I worked in last semester drew clients from a local domestic violence shelter. We had several classes on how to serve that kind of client, and what kind of questions to ask, and how appalling the statistics are. The thing that brought it home the most, about who the victims are and what it does to them, was having to bring a client to court when she was terrified of her husband, and we were all terrified he was going to shoot us in the parking lot if he lost.
It may actually be that I should have recused myself from this topic altogether. I may be too close to it, and in danger of typing before I think.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-27 05:21 pm (UTC)I don't think there's much risk here of becoming a man-bashing place, in part because this is about the judges (one of whom is female) in these cases, and the system which encourages them/they are perpetuating.
Then again, I don't see it as a "mere" women's issue. That's nonsense (more than half the population is women, the effects reach beyond them, etc., etc.).
TK