lf1

Domestic violence is not a battle of the sexes, it’s a battle against sociopaths

Back in June, a New Jersey judge declared the state’s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act to be unconstitutional. Judge Francis B. Schultz, of the Superior Court in Hudson County, determined that it was too easy for someone who claimed domestic violence to get a restraining order.

The ruling was controversial. When I first read about the case, I was astounded that a court would take such a stand against domestic violence victims. Sandy Clark, associate director of the New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women, considers New Jersey’s law to be among the best in the country, according to NJ.com.

New Jersey’s law

The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act is strict. Some of its provisions include:

  • Police must respond to calls of domestic violence victims.
  • If there are any signs of physical injuries the police must arrest the abuser.
  • Police may also arrest the abuser without witnesses or signs of physical injuries.
  • Police are required to give victims information about their rights and to help them.
  • Temporary restraining orders (TRO) may be issued by the superior court or a municipal court.
  • A domestic violence hearing must be held within 10 days of issuing the TRO.

At the domestic violence hearing, the judge may grant substantial relief to the victim, including:

  • Temporary custody of children
  • Monetary compensation
  • Barring the defendant from the home, regardless of who owns or leases it
  • Prohibiting the defendant from any oral, written, personal or other form of contact with the victim and others, including children

Violating due process

The law allows the judge in the domestic violence hearing to make his or her decision based upon the “preponderance of evidence.” That’s where Judge Schultz had a problem. He wrote that this violates the defendant’s right of due process, and that the standard should be “clear and convincing evidence,” which is more difficult to achieve.

In his 21-page opinion on Crespo v. Crespo, Judge Schultz wrote, “It is well-established that a parent’s right to the care and companionship of his or her child is so fundamental as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”

He continued, “That a fundamental right could be forfeited as a result of a rapidly calendared, summary hearing without discovery, where the only protection afforded the defendant is the ‘mere preponderance standard’ clearly offends the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Quite frankly, given that there are people who falsely accuse their partners of domestic violence, the judge’s arguments make sense.

Battle of the sexes

According to NJ.com, women’s rights groups and the Attorney General’s Office are preparing to challenge the ruling. It appears that the case may be headed for the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Others considered the ruling a victory for men. An article posted on the DailyRecord.com declared that Judge Schultz should be considered an American hero.

“He stood up against the powerful feminist-controlled domestic violence machine and ruled that the New Jersey domestic violence statute is unconstitutional, and that people’s 14th amendment rights were being violated. Judge Schultz could have taken the politically correct route; he did not.

“The state Attorney General’s Office, in league with the battered women’s groups, has come out against this ruling and plans to appeal to the state Supreme Court. These two ‘partners in crime’ are yelling that the sky is falling because a court ruled that the standard of proof is unconstitutionally too low.”

The issue is being cast as today’s battle of the sexes. Unfortunately, people on both sides are fighting the wrong battle.

Men and women perpetrators

Battered women’s groups argue that female victims, and their children, need to be protected from abusive men. Father’s rights groups argue that women file false abuse complaints simply to be vengeful, and get away with it. They both accuse divorce and child custody lawyers of using abuse allegations as a strategy to win their cases.

They’re all right some of the time. None of them are right all of the time.

Lovefraud has heard from plenty of women who were seriously abused by male partners. And we’ve heard from plenty of men who were abused by female partners—including physical violence.

We’ve heard stories of abusive men manipulating the legal system to get children taken away from battered mothers. And we’ve heard stories of men fighting to get custody of their children from abusive mothers, facing judges who believe that mothers simply do not harm their children.

Sociopaths and domestic violence

Dr. Liane Leedom says that half of domestic violence perpetrators are sociopaths, and the other half have sociopathic tendencies.

Sociopaths, as Lovefraud readers well know, are both men and women. And whether male or female, they are equally vicious and destructive.

So this is not a battle of the sexes. The real struggle is between sociopaths and their victims; between people who have a conscience and those who do not.

If you’ve been a victim of domestic violence, or have been falsely accused of domestic violence, please tell Lovefraud about your experience with law enforcement and the courts. Did the police and/or courts act appropriately? Were they able to determine who was telling the truth? Why or why not?

Please don’t use any names, although you may identify the jurisdiction (county or state) if you want.



104 Comments on "Domestic violence is not a battle of the sexes, it’s a battle against sociopaths"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. peggywhoever says:

    Jen:

    Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. And your story sounds entirely feasible to me. NOT reasonable, but certainly possible. Unbelieveable (to a rational person) but entirely believeable (knowing as we do that there are wacko’s in the world). So did this actually happen to you (and if so how long ago) or is it a possible scenario?



    Report this comment

  2. Jen2008 says:

    Oh and one more lovely thing, at the time of my release from the slammer, although the magistrate said at that point she couldn’t make me leave my house since I owned it, IF my P had wanted to push that issue and the judge had agreed, he could have had me KICKED out of my own home that he had not paid a penny towards or a penny of rent towards, with him being allowed to live there “free from my abuse” until the case was settled. I was not convicted, btw.



    Report this comment

  3. Indigoblue says:

    That is so TRUE

    (it) has come back to my house after being given the opp/to leave by the Sherif dep

    It breaks in the house through front window, I am out the garage door

    The sherifs finaly get there and (it) thinks im in the house, I’m in the sherifs car

    (it) says I Hit it when it was breaking in

    It was Baker Acted I think this is the 7 or 8 time



    Report this comment

  4. Indigoblue says:

    Jen we just need to b u r y (it) in the backyard :)~



    Report this comment

  5. Jen2008 says:

    When I said in above post: ” he could have me down on the floor with a knife to my throat and if I fought to get away, I would be the one arrested?” Reply: “That’s right.” ….” This was in reference to if the police came out and he had a visible injury and I didn’t when they got there.

    Anyway, Indigo, as you know both men and women get arrested falsely sometimes. I recently had to write a paper for a couse I was taking on both victim bias and also on the mandatory arrest policy some cities/states have and the pros/cons of it. I read alot of different stuff, plus followed a few forums and I was surprised at the number of men and women who had situations similar to mine and ended up being the one arrested. I also knew my police dept had been previously investigated (by the State Atty generals office) as the internal affairs had swept a bunch of stuff under the rug, and after the investigation some changes had been made.

    A few months ago I read that one of the policemen on the force was under now investigation for rape of a mentally challenged woman he was supposed to be taking to the station, but took somewhere else and allegedly raped. Last I read he was suspended, but not fired or even formally charged as of yet, and they had determined thru forensics that he did have sex with her, but he was saying it was consensual. Don’t know the outcome on that as I haven’t read anything about it lately.

    And, of course, in victim bias, just look at the guy police sent back to Jeffrey Dahmer. Police were called out by two women who spotted the guy who had escaped from Dahmer, and when police found him disoriented they thought it was “just” a gay lovers quarrel and took him back to Dahmer and accepted his explanation. That poor guy ended up dead. From what I read the police, after taking him back to “Dahmer, were heard to be laughing and joking about the gay lovers quarrel.

    Fortunately in my situation, I was able to get my P out of my house within about two weeks (no thanks to police or the courts but rather due to me laying awake at night coming up with different strategies and then trying them till I found one that worked), although the stalking/terrorizing afterwards was horrible and I couldn’t do anything about it or risk being arrested again myself. Then when court was finally over and I was free to leave the state, I DID. Bye bye house, bye business I was trying to open……..best decision I EVER made.

    When the harrassment and threats started up again here in my new location, I made my local police aware of it (small force, only 4 cops). I was very pleasantly surprised one day, while I was out in the yard, when one of the cops on patrol stopped and asked how things were going and said they always keep a check on my house when they come by and look to see if anything looks amiss. At that point, I began to feel safer.



    Report this comment

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.