While starting an article with a beautiful and heart-wrenching song is an effective “attention grabber,” in the reality of prosecuting family violence assault cases, it is not realistic to have a “No-Drop” policy. The lyrics to Tracy Chapman’s devastating reminder to reality, “Behind the Wall” should be a reminder to prosecutors who investigate and prosecute family violence cases that these cases are serious. That being said, prosecutors are bound by the law and the rules of evidence. When victims of these crimes choose not to testify it affects the ability to prosecute. Period. There is no question that Battered Women’ s Syndrome plays a part in their decision to not prosecute. Nor is there a question that these victims, men or women, choose not to prosecute due to financial or custody issues. The brutal reality is that prosecutors are also bound by these realities. Herein lies the crux of my argument. When prosecution is not possible due to legal constraints, instead of having a “No-Drop” policy, there needs to be a viable substitute that addresses both the reality of non-cooperative victims and ability to argue a viable case in a court of law.
Prosecutors cannot argue a case in front of a judge that has no viable means of achieving a conviction simply because the facts of a case are sympathetic or spark emotional reaction. In these difficult cases, District Attorneys Offices should have in place non-prosecutorial measures that can both prevent future assaults and provide a meaningful and effective way of continuing with cases that are otherwise hopeless.
Family violence cases are difficult in every aspect. Victims are torn because they don’t want to negatively affect the lives of their assailants, their children, their families, or their assailant’s families. Prosecutors are affected because as much as they want to pursue with the case, deep down they know they can’t present a viable argument in front of a court of law. In cases such as this, it is important to take a step back and look at the big picture. We want victims to be safe and we want defendants to rehabilitate. Of course, there are many times when we know this is not possible, but those cases are not what this post is far attempting to address.
At this point, I would open it up to family violence prosecutors to put their input as to what pretrial diversion programs they use in cases likes this. Ultimately, their job as prosecutors is to seek justice and get a favorable result and protect the rights of all parties. Please share means in which your offices deal with cases like this and respond accordingly.
I am not in favor of “no-drop,” because I think it will drive victims further into hiding. Many victims come forward because they hope that when it’s in the open, the abuser will participate in some kind of counseling. It may not be realistic, but the victim does not always want him to go to prison, especially if he is her means of support.
I do personally know of at least one case that was resolved through intervention when the victim came forward, and though they were legally separated for tax purposes and getting insurance for their children, they eventually reunited. He got sober, went through anger management, then said she had to get sober as well, even though her drinking didn’t lead to violence, it contributed to the whole unhealthy household. They eventually reunited. The youngest kid was 10 by this time, and pretty savvy, so they felt a drop-in approximately once a week by the social worker was sufficient. The 10-year-old is in high school and making straight As. The older kids all went into 4-year colleges or community colleges, and one went into the military, and became an officer.
It is my personal opinion that a “no drop” policy would have resulted in a worse outcome for that family. Their struggle lasted about 8 years, from the first report to the reunion (and I’m sure they still struggle).
Also, when I was in high school, the mandatory reporter laws were coming into being. A lot of high school kids who were dealing with abuse by confiding in people, and getting a reality check, and a self-esteem boost, suddenly had to keep their mouths shut. They had tolerated it for 16 or 17 years, and just wanted to finish high school and get out. They didn’t know what kind of rabbit’s hole reporting would drop them into. They certainly didn’t want to spend two months in foster care, and then turn 18 before high school ended, and be left to get a GED and find an apartment all on their own.
When the goal of the victim is to prevent further attacks and harassment, without causing termination of child and spousal support due to job loss upon incarceration of the attacker/harasser, family law restraining orders as opposed to criminal law peace bonds are less risky for the victim.
Also, directives to lay charges upon receiving a complaint, and not dropping prosecutions, increases the incidents of falsely accused persons pleading out (e.g. conditional discharge). Bear in mind that the easiest way to get the spouse out of the house is to have the spouse arrested for assault, regardless of whether there actually was an assault or not.
Serious ongoing education about domestic violence, inclusion of women and minorities in policing and prosecution, discretion subject to oversight in charging and in prosecuting, and making resources available to victims (counselling and family shelters as a minimum) is a better way, particularly if family law based restraining orders are available to keep the peace and maintain residential and financial stability.
It’s a matter of figuring out how best to address the victim’s needs.
Often a victim will call the police, who will arrest the accused. The prosecutor will be working toward a trial of the accused, but then the victim will ask the prosecutor to drop the charges because of any number of reasons, such as to make it easier on the kids, to keep the money flowing rather than go broke when the accused loses employment due to a conviction, or out of love by the victim for the accused (which is very typical in matters of spousal abuse – it is often extremely difficult for the abused spouse to cut the emotional ties with the abusive spouse). That lets the abusers get away with being abusive rather than being convicted. To deal with this, some jurisdictions have no-drop policies, meaning that the prosecution will not be stopped/dropped just because the victim wants it stopped/dropped. Under a no-drop policy, the mechanism used by the prosecutor is to encourage the victim to testify, but failing this, then to pressure the victim by discussing the repercussions that may arise from having made a false accusation.