Freedom Vs Objective Harm prevention

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2006-04-10 06:14am

Are there any good ways of preventing domestic violence? I was looking at the issue, and I really don't know how police solve this problem, since so many say that the women are afraid to come foreward, and I could understand why. It also seems to be a pretty important problem faced by many families.

Someone I know jokingly said to put cameras in everyone's homes to decrease domestic violence, but I don't see how this would work. It would seem to be a be a huge privacy violation prima facie, and I don't even know if that would do what he thinks it will do, because there are many criminals who still break the law, even when caught on camera. But, if we assumed it did work, and I am not saying it would, how much does actual objective minimization of harm, abuse, and suffering stack up against seemingly more subjective harms like freedom loss or rights violations?

There are a couple things I can see wrong with it, but how do you weigh those two concepts? What about if it were just in the homes of individuals with a history of domestic abuse?

It just seems weird. There has to be a better way than that.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2006-04-10 06:35am

Historically the only times it has been successful is when there has been a cultural change which have made other people interfere more. The Police is pretty powerless and can only punish after the fact and only if the victim testifies.

The problem is when you have a cultural acceptence. Either directly or implicitly. So that neighbors and family members are reluctant to interfere or report it.

Steel · Post by **Steel** » 2006-04-10 07:44am

I think security cameras in shops and on streets are fairly different to a camera in someones home. Outside, you dont know if you are being filmed sometimes, and anyway, you are not certainly going to be identified. In your house it would be quite a different situation, as you would certainly be seen and identified.

Not to say this would be a practical, or desirable solution.

haard · Post by **haard** » 2006-04-10 08:27am

I believe one thing that would make a huge difference is if abused women could be sure that they would get help and protection if they reported - as it stands, many does not dare because they (rightfully) fear that society will not help them and they will only make their situation worse.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-04-10 09:00am

I would tend to think that if a woman has suffered injuries which can be corroborated by a medical practitioner and they are due to an assault from her husband, he should be immediately locked up without bail if she demands it, until such time as he faces trial. Currently, he can be charged but he'll get out with a stern warning not to hunt down and murder his wife or else he'll get in big trouble.

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2006-04-10 11:31am

Darth Wong wrote:I would tend to think that if a woman has suffered injuries which can be corroborated by a medical practitioner and they are due to an assault from her husband, he should be immediately locked up without bail if she demands it, until such time as he faces trial. Currently, he can be charged but he'll get out with a stern warning not to hunt down and murder his wife or else he'll get in big trouble.

Problem with this is that you are basically declaring the guy guilty before the trial starts. The current system isn't great either given the fact that restraining orders are often like tissue paper.

If we can get fairly inconspicuous electronic monitoring (the guy is not yet tried and found guilty) this might be the way to have an effective restraining order. Basically tell the guy that if he approaches within X meters of these places (former home, wife's workplace, any hangout peculiar to her and her friends alone, etc...) you will be jailed. Things like school could be handled by certain rules (can only come if a teacher requests, etc...) So if he obeys, no problem. If he doesn't, then jail he goes and all because of his own actions.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-04-10 11:43am

Jalinth wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I would tend to think that if a woman has suffered injuries which can be corroborated by a medical practitioner and they are due to an assault from her husband, he should be immediately locked up without bail if she demands it, until such time as he faces trial. Currently, he can be charged but he'll get out with a stern warning not to hunt down and murder his wife or else he'll get in big trouble.
Problem with this is that you are basically declaring the guy guilty before the trial starts.

Bail is often witheld for criminals which are deemed either a flight risk or some other sort of hazard. If a medical practitioner can testify that this woman suffered injuries commensurate with physical assault and the wife says that her husband did it, that seems like a pretty solid reason to treat him as a potential danger.

The current system isn't great either given the fact that restraining orders are often like tissue paper.

If we can get fairly inconspicuous electronic monitoring (the guy is not yet tried and found guilty) this might be the way to have an effective restraining order.

Bullshit. Do you know how many of these fuckers simply kill their wives with the damned ankle bracelets on? How many times do you read the phrase "estranged boyfriend" or "estranged husband" in the newspaper and not see the word "murder" in the same sentence?

Basically tell the guy that if he approaches within X meters of these places (former home, wife's workplace, any hangout peculiar to her and her friends alone, etc...) you will be jailed. Things like school could be handled by certain rules (can only come if a teacher requests, etc...) So if he obeys, no problem. If he doesn't, then jail he goes and all because of his own actions.

Yeah, that will be of great consolation to the corpse of his wife.

Post by **Simplicius** » 2006-04-10 12:03pm

Jalinth wrote:Basically tell the guy that if he approaches within X meters of these places (former home, wife's workplace, any hangout peculiar to her and her friends alone, etc...) you will be jailed.

Replace "...you will be jailed" with "...you will recieve a hefty electric shock" - and then provde one - and you might be getting somewhere. Some problems with a mere promise of consequences are:

-not everyone is rational enough to make decisions based on a possible consequence to themselves
-not everyone plans on getting caught
-not everyone is smart enough to believe that a threat is more than just bluster.

So, if Mr. Abusive doesn't actually believe that he will be tossed in jail if he gets closer than 10 meters or whatever to his ex's house, the threat will accomplish exactly jack all. The point is to prevent the abusive guy from causing any more harm, to to convince him not to do so.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-04-10 12:20pm

Crimes of passion are characterized by irrationality. That's just their nature. And it's heartbreaking to see stories of women who knew that their husbands would come to kill them, told everyone who would listen, pleaded with the cops to offer protection, and then wound up dead because Mr. Ankle Bracelet just ignored the consequences and killed her.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2006-04-10 03:52pm

So would it be a good idea to devise a similar organization and methodology for abused spouses to child services? I know that, as a teacher, you are able to report any sign of child abuse if you notice it at your work. It then gets checked out.

Should that also be done for women/men who are abused in the home? That doesn't sound bad, since we already have something similar for children in place.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-04-10 04:27pm

Darth Wong wrote:Crimes of passion are characterized by irrationality. That's just their nature. And it's heartbreaking to see stories of women who knew that their husbands would come to kill them, told everyone who would listen, pleaded with the cops to offer protection, and then wound up dead because Mr. Ankle Bracelet just ignored the consequences and killed her.

How about modifying the bracelet to give shock him into unconsciousness if he comes within a given distance of her (combing the bracelet with a tazer perhaps)?

CarsonPalmer · Post by **CarsonPalmer** » 2006-04-10 06:42pm

In that case, you'd have to equip the wife with a bracelet as well, and it sounds like a good solution.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-04-10 07:54pm

Darth Wong wrote:Crimes of passion are characterized by irrationality. That's just their nature. And it's heartbreaking to see stories of women who knew that their husbands would come to kill them, told everyone who would listen, pleaded with the cops to offer protection, and then wound up dead because Mr. Ankle Bracelet just ignored the consequences and killed her.

Those situations are horrible, and while the woman isn't to blame, I never understand why they stay at either the same place she did with the dickhead, or stay somewhere where the ex knows about. I can never figure out why, if they are pretty sure the ex is coming to get them, they don't bail and move.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2006-04-10 08:29pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:So would it be a good idea to devise a similar organization and methodology for abused spouses to child services? I know that, as a teacher, you are able to report any sign of child abuse if you notice it at your work. It then gets checked out.

Should that also be done for women/men who are abused in the home? That doesn't sound bad, since we already have something similar for children in place.

I have a funny story related to this. A couple months ago my GF & I were playing hockey with some friends when she got dinged in the face by the puck and ended up looking like a wife beating victim for a few days. From what I'm told, one of her friends at work made a wife beating joke which got overheard and taken out of context by another co-worker, who then called the cops, and the cops left a message on our answering machine saying they wanted to speak with us. We got things cleared up pretty fast, but it took her a couple days to figure out how the cops got called on us.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2006-04-10 08:46pm

Oh yea. It's real serious at my school as well. Here, teachers have an obligation to report even the slightest evidence of abuse. Of course, they have protections if they are wrong, but they want us and others to do it anyway, because so many kids have gotten hurt when teachers did nothing, so they ended up getting blamed.

That is very sad to hear what happened to you. It's such a shame mistakes like that happen.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-04-10 09:32pm

Knife wrote:Those situations are horrible, and while the woman isn't to blame, I never understand why they stay at either the same place she did with the dickhead, or stay somewhere where the ex knows about. I can never figure out why, if they are pretty sure the ex is coming to get them, they don't bail and move.

Some are really so destitute that they honestly have no place else to go.

defanatic · Post by **defanatic** » 2006-04-10 10:07pm

Have snipers set up a perimeter and gun down the bastard if he tries to come within the "zone". Not economic, but certainly effective. Then again, there is probably an ethic code to stick to... Shoot him in the stomach.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-04-10 11:38pm

defanatic wrote:Have snipers set up a perimeter and gun down the bastard if he tries to come within the "zone". Not economic, but certainly effective. Then again, there is probably an ethic code to stick to... Shoot him in the stomach.

Oh come on. Just blow out the guy's kneecaps.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-04-11 05:25am

Darth Servo wrote:
Knife wrote:Those situations are horrible, and while the woman isn't to blame, I never understand why they stay at either the same place she did with the dickhead, or stay somewhere where the ex knows about. I can never figure out why, if they are pretty sure the ex is coming to get them, they don't bail and move.
Some are really so destitute that they honestly have no place else to go.

And some DO go elsewhere and the man finds them anyway. Particularly now, with how we all leave paper trails and internet traces.

My oldest sister used to work for a women's shelter. On more than one occassion the enraged significant other showed up with threats. On one ocassion, he showed up with a loaded shotgun. I don't know how she did it, but she stalled the guy long enough for the police to show up.

Some people are just bound and determined to have their way. In a very scary fashion.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2006-04-11 01:46pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:So would it be a good idea to devise a similar organization and methodology for abused spouses to child services? I know that, as a teacher, you are able to report any sign of child abuse if you notice it at your work. It then gets checked out.

Should that also be done for women/men who are abused in the home? That doesn't sound bad, since we already have something similar for children in place.

From what I understand, in many places (I know our State Attorney told us this), if the police get called for a domestic disturbance, and they can see at least some (I'm not sure what the threshold is) evidence that there was violence, they can arrest the man and the State Attorney's Office can file charges, even if the victim doesn't for whatever reason.

I don't know how widespread or terribly effective it really is, but I think it's at least a step in the right direction, at least to combat the problem of the victim not wanting to report it out of fear/misguided love/whatever.