| HeraldNet - Snohomish County's online news source |
 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010 3:19 pm |
||||||||||
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
Commentary 
|
|||||||||||||||
GUEST COMMENTARY / DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWS Biggest civil rights roll-back since Jim Crow era Have you, or a person you know, ever been falsely accused of domestic violence? Targeted with a restraining order? Put in jail?Each year more than 1 million Americans are hit with a false or trivial accusation of partner abuse. It’s now reached the point that domestic violence laws represent the largest roll-back in Americans’ civil rights since the Jim Crow era! Our nation’s domestic violence laws have gone too far, harming innocent citizens and diverting scarce resources away from the true victims. Respect for civil rights is deeply embedded in our national conscience, and constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties form the foundation of our legal system. Unfortunately, these rights have been eroded in the past 15 years by an array of domestic violence laws. For years Americans accepted these civil-rights violations, assuming they were an unfortunate but necessary byproduct of the national effort to curb intimate partner abuse. But it has now become clear that the harmful effects of domestic violence laws far exceed any abuses that may occur. As a result of our nation’s domestic violence laws, 2 million to 3 million restraining orders are issued each year, often without any allegation of physical violence. As a result, persons lose access to their children, homes and financial assets, often their jobs, frequently their friends, with devastating social and financial consequences. One million persons are arrested each year for allegations of domestic violence. But the allegations are often recanted and the evidence doubtful as evidenced by fewer than 5 percent of cases actually being prosecuted in Superior Court in Snohomish County, leaving 95 percent of the arrests unjustified. This is not particularly surprising, when one considers the government’s position. When we offered to present peer-reviewed and published academic research to a major metropolitan county’s sheriff deputies on this subject, the sheriff responded with “No thanks, I prefer my people are indoctrinated by industry insiders.” Both the Children’s Services division of the Department of Social and Health Services, and the State Department of Commerce (formerly Commerce, Trade and Economic Development) supported financially a recent Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence (WSCADV) annual conference in Wenatchee, where invited speaker Amanda McCormick, an employee of Praxis International, said with a grin, “I think I know a lot of men who deserve to be beaten,” during her keynote address. This under banners reading “There’s no excuse for domestic violence” and “Refuse to abuse.” So, I guess the domestic violence industry believes there are exceptions to their oft-stated slogans. Domestic violence laws violate constitutional protections found in the First Amendment (right to assembly and to free speech); Second Amendment (right to bear arms), Fourth Amendment (probable cause for arrest), Fifth Amendment (due process) and Fourteenth Amendment (equal treatment under the law). These civil rights violations have a disproportionate harmful effect on low-income minority communities. The Fourth Amendment, for example, protects innocent Americans by requiring evidence of probable cause before an arrest can be made. But domestic violence laws that “mandate” arrest like those here in Washington ignore constitutional guarantees and set aside the rights of the falsely-accused. Harvard economist Radha Iyengar analyzed the impact of mandatory arrest in 15 states. Her surprising conclusion was reported in the Aug. 7, 2007 edition of The New York Times: “intimate partner homicides increased by about 60 percent in states with mandatory arrest laws.” Why do mandatory arrest laws place persons at greater risk of future violence? Because many victims want their partner to attend relationship classes or get substance abuse treatment, not be thrown in jail. So rather than calling for help, these persons opt to endure the abuse — sometimes with fatal results. The verdict is in. American taxpayers have spent millions of dollars to implement must-arrest policies around the country. And the verdict is clear — these policies: -- Trample on constitutional protections. -- Place victims at greater risk of violence. -- Divert limited funds away from the real victims. Must-arrest laws are an example of a well-intended policy leading to unintended consequences. It’s time to restore civil liberties, respect for victims, and common sense to our nation’s domestic violence laws. Mark Mahnkey served on the faculty at Washington State University and is director of Public Policy for the Washington Civil Rights Council. He can be reached at mark@wacrc.org. |
- A revolutionary 747
- Fire breaks out at Everett car dealer
- Everett rethinks boutique wineries
- A tidy lawn could be law in Lynnwood
- Snohomish County's bargain housing won't last
- Boeing's 747-8 takes off after weather delay
- Plan for I-5 closures this week
- A new bowling alley for Monroe?
- Lake Stevens man homeless after fire
- I-5 bridge joint may give you a jolt, but it isn't damaged
- Vote on school levies by Tuesday
(11) - A tidy lawn could be law in Lynnwood (10)
- Everett police officers cleared in 2008 shooting death (5)
- 1949 travel aid shows how few places blacks were welcome in Washington (4)
- I-5 bridge joint may give you a jolt, but it isn't damaged (4)
- Everett rethinks boutique wineries (4)
- Lynnwood sets height limit on grass: 8 inches (4)
- County archive software paid for but waiting for set-up (3)
- Three politicians who want Gregoire's job in 2012 (3)
- Toyota has powerful D.C. friends (3)
- Edmonds educator, famous announcer dies
- Mill Creek to appeal ruling on annexation
- Through the air, with the greatest of ease
- E-W thriving under new coach
- The path to citizenship
- EUUC puts on ‘Pants & Shoes’
- Wolfpack wins the ‘Battle'
- Lynnwood’s annexation plans OK’d
- Arlington's Cascade Valley Hospital celebrates expansion, national award and 100 years of service
- Business Licences Feb. 2010
- Technology tips for launching your own business
- Business Events Feb. 2010
- Tech Talk: No excuse today for going without a Web site
- State already raising fees and rates that restrict business growth
- Some legislators again targeting people’s initiative petition rights
|
 
|
|
|
|
| TODAY'S TOP JOBS |
| View All Top Jobs |
| Top Cars |
|
| Top Homes |
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT |
|
|
|Contact Us
|Advertiser Services
|Home Delivery
|Newsstand Locations
|Classifieds
|Feedback
|About the Company
|Work@the Herald
|Site Map |
|
COMMENTS
Log in or register to post a new comment.
To read other terms and conditions, click here
I can verify that women charge men falsly to be able to get the upper hand in a divorce. My ex wife did that to me when she wanted the kids in the divorce. She claimed I had hit her etc, even though she had no bruises or evidence of such. Of course the cops believed her and off I went to jail. Her sister bailed me out but I fought the charge in court and I won in a jury trial, Thank God. It could have gone the other way easily. Today I enjoy my 2nd Amendment rights in hunting and CCW. This stupid loss of constitutional rights on a misdameanor charge must go. It is abused and it needs to go
Rich Haynes | Oct 13, 2009 11:00 am | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply
What Mr. Mahnkey describes here has become a national sport, portraying self made "victims" where none exist. Sadly, these laws and the way they are set up, allow the woman to alienate their children against their fathers, while the fathers not only lose their families, their homes, and sometimes their livelihood, all at their own expense. Then, to add insult to injury, some wind up in jail as they don't have enough money left for exorbitant child support payments, that are also allowed and also take years to repair.
These laws are severely in need of repair. Contact your representatives and let them know of these damages done to their constituency.
WADVPress
http://wadvpress.org
WADVPress WADVPress | Oct 13, 2009 10:45 am | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply
Recently a Snohomish County man was falsely accused of DV. It was thrown out after the ex-wife admitted she made it up. Of course, the Prosecutors would have crusified him, because they get re-imbursed under VAWA. But, they won't prosecute the false accuser because of the expense to Snohomish County. SO, the beatings from false accusers continues unabated in Snohomish County.
Now, this ex-wife is driving her kids around Snohomish County without a valid drivers license due to several DUI's, and freelancing in escort services while putting the children at risk.
A great example of how our policies in this State, and in Snohomish County are just not good policy for families, and especially children.
As long as Ms. Ellis allows her department to be driven by incentive dollars from the Feds and the State of Washington, instead of driving policy that is common sense for the TAX PAYORS, we will have negative results in our society, which lead to higher teen pregnancy, higher teen suicides, higher dropouts, and lower test scores.
Geez, aren't we proud of what we do for our kids.
It's time for the Presiding judge in Snohomish County to throw out the contract by Washington's Division of Child Support that pays them to hear their cases, and start ruling on the laws. They shouldn't be filling out a DCS timesheet each day anyways. It's time for the VAWA funded Prosecutors to start doing what they were taught in school, prosecute those that break the law, and stop working on what is funded by other agencies.
Or, it's time to start replacing those in Government that refuse to do the right thing by representing those that pay the wages - the TAX PAYORS.
Joel Johnston | Oct 13, 2009 10:10 am | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply
Well stated. It seems in that in the interest of "doing good", as usual, the Constitution is dismissed by the "do-gooder's". No amount of Constitutional law and common sense will impede those, who's motto is "I'm looking out for you".
hope floats | Oct 13, 2009 4:19 am | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply