Diamond reports: "Domestic violence is no longer taken lightly legally or by society. That's the way it should be, but two bills under consideration by this most unusual of legislatures, would undo that progress and put lives in danger. Both deserve a speedy defeat."
House Bill 1581 would prevent police from making an arrest in a domestic violence case without a warrant unless they witnessed abuse. (photo: WomenOnTheFence.com)
GOP Bill Would Prevent Protection of Domestic Abuse Victims
27 January 12
ince the 1970s, New Hampshire police have operated under a progressive policy for handling domestic violence cases that has saved countless lives. Under current law the presumption is that an arrest will be made when police observe evidence of abuse. They have a large degree of discretion and don't need to witness the assault firsthand or obtain a legal warrant before they can separate the alleged attacker from his victim.
All that will change if Republicans get their way. The state's GOP legislators are pushing two bills that will reverse a half century of progress, the Concord Monitor reports:
Domestic violence is no longer taken lightly legally or by society. That's the way it should be, but two bills under consideration by this most unusual of legislatures, would undo that progress and put lives in danger. Both deserve a speedy defeat.
House Bill 1581 would turn the clock back 40 years to an age when a police officer could not make an arrest in a domestic violence case without first getting a warrant unless he or she actually witnessed the crime. That's an exceedingly dangerous change. Consider the following scenario, one outlined for lawmakers by retired Henniker police chief Tim Russell:
An officer is called to a home where she sees clear evidence that an assault has occurred. The furniture is overturned, the children are sobbing, and the face of the woman of the house is bruised and bleeding. It's obvious who the assailant was, but the officer arrived after the assault occurred. It's a small department, and no one else on the force is available to keep the peace until the officer finds a judge or justice of the peace to issue a warrant. The officer leaves, and the abuser renews his attack with even more ferocity, punishing his victim for having called for help. [...]
It's impossible to say how many lives the policy, in place since the 1970s, has saved or how many injuries it's prevented. If they adopt House Bill 1581, lawmakers might find out, but the price paid could be extraordinarily high.
The other bill Republicans have proposed, HB 1608, limits judges' ability to order the arrest of someone who has violated a domestic violence restraining order by contacting or abusing the person named in the order. It would also prevent judges from ordering defendants to surrender their weapons or block them from buying guns.
Police say the bill stops them from intervening to protect victims. For instance, they would be stripped of their power to arrest someone who is threatening to use violence against a victim or child. It's unclear why New Hampshire Republicans have set their sights on repealing protections for abuse victims when promised to focus on economic priorities.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
This isn't the only controversial bill to come up either.More time spent on real problems would yield results.
In my case, they help the woman file a restraining order (for reasons including "his office is messy" and "he sleeps late"), they boot the man out of his own home under threats of arrest should he return, and when he asks for the standard services offered to a victim of domestic abuse, they deny them and refer him to a group that provides services to abusive men. Then they help the woman who made the accusations get her locks changed, get an attorney, and provide her with an advocate, all free of charge.
Her victim, meanwhile, manages to make the restraining order mutual after spending a small fortune on an attorney. She violates it repeatedly and police will do nothing about it. He hires another attorney and gets another restraining order. Since her free attorney and the judge both believe that men cannot be victims of domestic abuse, it is once again a mutual order filled with allegations of misconduct on his part that are never so much as mentioned in open court.
Does any political party or entity have a plan for dealing with this sort of situation? Because I know I am not the only man who could use some help. My abuser alone has victimized at least three other men--so far.
Hit back and leave. In fact, don't even get involved with abusers in the first place. They almost always give signals about their character.
MEN, DON'T EVER HIT BACK! If I had done that, as opposed to just stopping her assault and leaving, (see above), I'd be a convicted felon now, instead of a man who knows how biased the system is against men. All abusers are criminals! However, female abusers are presumed to be victims under most state's laws.
As for hitting back and leaving; most of the time if a woman hits back the man then beats her worse. It is a very complicated issue, and that is why we need decent laws to protect both men and women, not legal gamesmanship.
As to the other bill, it is a state bill for New Hampshire only. As I don't live in New Hampshire, there is nothing I can do about the 1608 bill in their congress.
RSS feed for comments to this post