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.