Deluded Judge Suggests Domestic Violence Victim Wanted to Be Hit

[babylonsister]

Deluded Judge Suggests Domestic Violence Victim Wanted to Be Hit

Posted by Karen Houppert at 1:00 PM on October 25, 2007.

Karen Houppert: If a woman falls in a parking lot and no one is around to hear, does she make a sound?


This post, written by Karen Houppert, originally appeared on The Nation

Domestic violence cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute.

But every once in a while, prosecutors get handed the tools for a conviction on a silver platter: An impartial eyewitness who just happens to be a police officer.

Such was the case in a domestic violence trial that made the local papers here in Maryland last week. A cop pulling into an Exxon station saw a man hit his girlfriend in the face three times, called in back-up and had the man arrested.

But according to Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Paul Harris, who is "probably as against domestic violence as anybody, when the case is proven," one can't simply assume that a woman who is being hit didn't consent to the attack. "Sadomasochists sometimes like to get beat up," the judge reminded the courtroom--then acquitted the man.

The judge appeared to be in a snit because the girlfriend, the alleged victim in the attack, had disappeared, even though she had been ordered to testify. Ignoring decades of research proving that domestic violence victims are often too afraid and intimidated to testify against perpetrators, the judge discounted the female cop's eyewitness account.

more...

http://alternet.org/blogs/peek/66153/

[Kagemusha]

1. He could've just said the defendant has a right to face his accuser.

That's the real reason, not the nonsense he gave the courtroom.

[angstlessk]

2. Does that mean all murders get to go free since there is NO ACCUSER?

just askin?

[Kagemusha]

5. I'm pondering whether to actually give you a serious answer or not.

....Fine.

1. Courts will allow testimony from dead people if it exists even though the defendant can't face the witness, if the judge decides that such testimony has real value as evidence and isn't just pure spectacle. This is a general rule.

2. In cases of murder, the government is the plaintiff, anyway. The defendant has a right to an attorney and to cross-examine all government witnesses and second-guess the evidence.

3. "Accusers" really just means witnesses against you to begin with. A plaintiff can be an accuser, but not all accusers are plaintiffs. They can simply be witnesses... and victims.

So you're confusing the wording. You're trying to say, do all murderers go free because the victims are not present?

The problem here is that the victim is a witness and is quite alive to give that testimony, yet she was not present and therefore the defendant can't get as fair a trial as he probably should. It's just that the judge, rather than making a principled stand for having strong evidence that can withstand cross-examination before convicting a free man, decided to be a TOTAL MORON and speculate about the missing witness' possible desire to be assaulted. If the witness isn't present to give her side of the story against the defendant, the dumb judge shouldn't vilify her in her absence, either.

[KAZ]

9. I guess you decided against the serious answer.

It was witnessed by a cop.

[Kagemusha]

10. There's a legitimate legal issue that deserves not to be mocked.

The judge's words were ridiculous.

But for you to say, but it was witnessed by a cop, like no cop lies ever, I don't know what else to say.

[KAZ]

11. Touche. Good point. Didn't mean the snark. n/t

[babylonsister]

3. HE could have acknowledged he had an eyewitness who was a cop

and not even gone there. :mad:

[backscatter712]

4. What's fucked up about this argument is that the abused girlfriend's not the accuser.

Granted, she is the victim, but the police officer who saw the whole thing and caught the bastard dead to rights is the accuser.

[Kagemusha]

8. I don't really know what to say. The girlfriend was ordered to testify...

She should have been an "accuser" too (a witness against the defense) in order to validate the claims by the cop. What the judge basically said is, even if he accepts that the boyfriend hit her, that's not enough for a conviction of a crime beyond reasonable doubt. Perhaps it isn't. I'm not an attorney. But he said it in a really bad way.

The thing is, the person writing the part quoted above by the original poster wrote it in a very inflammatory way, suggesting that the woman wanted 'to be attacked'. The point of the courtroom is to determine if it is an attack and should be punished as such. But like I said, it just sounds really bad, and if the judge was determined to dismiss the case, he could've given his reason much more eloquently.

And I'm not saying he'd be right. But a judge is a judge and a judge can get away with a lot of reasons for a lot of things, as long as they sound the part.

[LeftyMom]

13. The accuser was the cop

Most states have laws that allow or even mandate DV prosecution when the victim does not cooperate.

[Kagemusha]

14. I guess my point that the judge was stupid was totally lost.

Well sorry. I am aware most states have such laws. I guess I wasn't very successful saying what I tried to say either. I apologize to everyone.

[Triana]

6. Dog Bless that cop - but that assinine judge ...

... needs a brain transplant.

[Bitwit1234]

7. They had a judge in Montgomery Maryland who always dismissed

cases that women brought against abusers. I don't remember but I think he refused a protective order and the guy either killed the woman or seriously wounded her. The judges' wife was Lea Thompson, a consumer advocate on CBS in DC/

[Lurking Dem]

12. So.....gee.

Is this then a victory for the S&m scene? Since they have been told by the courts that one cannot consent to assault?

[Bluerthanblue]

15. regardless of whether the woman "wanted" to be abused-

assaulting another person in public is illegal-

(unless that person is your child :eyes: :nuke: )

As a person who has journeyed where this woman appears to be, i can say, there may be a kernel of truth in what the 'judge' said. There are some people who don't understand they are worthy of being treated with common decency- that they don't deserve to be abused or mistreated, that they have a right
to a life. The fact that some of us enter into or remain in relationships which are harmful, can be because we have grown up believing that is ...'who' we are. I don't mean that there is a pleasure in being abused- but a kind of awful familiarity- if this makes sense?

There is no excuse for this 'judge's' actions. If the woman didn't appear in court- the only way the 'judge' would have of determining what this woman thought/felt/wanted is his own opinion- which would only be idle speculation at best anyway?

This world is so messed up.

:shrug:

[Lurking Dem]

16. How much you want to bet

if this woman had come to court and told the judge, "yes I consented (to getting PUNCHED in the FACE???) and I thought it was really hot!" he would have thrown them BOTH in jail?

This decision was insane on any number of levels.

[Triana]

17. SEND YOUR OUTRAGE about Judge Harris to:

Robert G. Wallace
Court Administrator
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
P.O. Box 2395
Annapolis, MD 21404-2395
FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]

"Domestic violence cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute." Well - with MORONS like this in the courts it's no wonder why, is it?