Site Meter

Scorned Law: Rethinking Evidentiary Rules in Cases of Gender-Based Violence

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Just curious: when the defendant denies the charges, will the prosecution be prohibited from attacking his veracity with any dishonest act unrelated to the charges, as well? Or are we selectively changing the rules of evidence simply to facilitate conviction?

  2. Brett Bellmore says:

    Yet another convoluted arguments about why true equality demands that women be provides special advantages in legal proceedings. Not impressed, no, the pigs are NOT entitled to be more equal than the other animals.

  3. Joe says:

    Will gay men, e.g., who are domestic violence victims get such privileges?

    Using traditional concepts of relevancy in a fair way would benefit women in various ways, such as rules on what evidence is appropriate in rape cases (note: men get raped too), but anything that only benefits one sex is suspect.

  4. Orin Kerr says:

    Maybe I’m just missing something, but is there really a stereotype that women are more likely than men to commit perjury? Or is the point that most sex crime charges are brought against men for alleged crimes against women, so allegations that the victim is lying are most often allegations that a woman is lying against a man? If the former, I’m not sure of the evidence for it: the post links to an article by Geneva Brown, but that article only discusses one case. If the latter, it seems to reflect what crimes are charged, not gender stereotypes.

  5. AYY says:

    ” Moreover, meta-analysis of police and judicial statistics reveals that only one out of six domestic violence cases reported to the police in the United States results in a conviction. Furthermore, only a third of the people arrested for domestic violence ends up convicted. These numbers illustrate a twofold problem. First, a large percentage of the afflicted population of women is not seeking judicial redress. On the other hand, those who do go through the legal process are not receiving the justice they deserve and seek.”

    Then again it might mean that a lot of domestic violence arrests are based on false complaints.

    As for your evidentiary point, is there a state that doesn’t have something akin to this procedure already on the books? normally if you want to impeach a witness with a prior felony conviction or prior act of moral turpitude not resulting in a felony conviction, you have a pretrial hearing and the judge (the same judge who conducts the jury trial because you don’t need a second judge for this) rules on whether it’s admissible.

  6. Mike S. says:

    Women so commonly falsify domestic violence assertions against men in divorce, it’s become just a matter procedure. It’s a joke and a lie and everyone knows it, but it still must be granted based on the statutes. This gives women the ability to say they are victims of abuse or even merely potential victims of abuse and get default custody of the children and sole possession of the marital assets.

    So now you propose to take this a step further, that we should make criminal prosecutions of these kinds of accusations as rubber stamp expeditious as their civil litigation counterparts? No thanks.

    Speaking as someone who spent 19 days in jail over a false accusation during a divorce, you can stick your idea where the sun doesn’t shine. Thanks goodness there is some due process left in this world and I got the case dropped.

    Who cares about aggregate statistics? Lets look at context. We’re talking about many, many thousands of dollars in support payments being gained by leveraging domestic abuse charges. It’s not just revenge they are seeking – it’s money. This has created a natural conflict of interest that has become pervasive. It’s rampant. There are legal workshops that demonstrate just how to commit perjury for the sake of gaining material advantages in divorce proceedings. It’s become institutional.

    Now you want to make it more difficult for men to defend themselves against criminal charges? What’s to stop a woman from throwing her soon to be ex in jail over a lie – especially when she knows such a thing will lock in a divorce court victory? It’s not like many women don’t try doing just that – and that’s why they don’t often get successfully prosecuted.

    I find your suggestion unconscionable, if not downright diabolical. Shame on you.