A Monday kind of question

[Karen-Annie]

Before I ask the question(s), let me just say that I am asking out of genuine curiosity and NOT because I'm pointing a finger at any particular person/incident. OK, here goes.....

We read the police beat items and court case items in the various local media. We see many of the same names repeatedly. And we see names for the first time. My question has to do with the domestic violence instances. Fairly frequently we see charges being brought for disobeying court orders, recognicances, etc. where the accused has been in contact with the victim by phone, e-mail, in person. In some of those cases, the victim is a willing particpant and, in some of those cases, has initiated the contact. If the police happen to spot them or if police are called when things go south, the accused is charged.

Soooo, my question is: Should the "victim" be charged with something like obstruction of justice for "causing" the breach ? Yes, I know the accused is responsible for his/her own actions and should be smart enough to stay away, etc. But we know there are a whole lot of relationship dynamics that come into play and make people do some incredibly stupid things. And there are some "victims" who purposely do it to cause the "accused" more grief. Should the "accused" be the only one charged with an offence?

[Soundbear]

I think you make a good point. A single "contact" from the accused to the victim should never cause any issues, but if that contact is not reported, then the victim becomes an enabler, and SHOULD suffer some consequence for impeding justice.

[dancingqueen]

I do think the "victim" should be brought up on some sort of charges like obstruction in such a case. If they want nothing to do with the accused, they should keep it that way, if they are contacting the accused....there is likely some sort of fishy play going on.

[gouligann]

Sadly, it happens all too often that the "victim" has regrets after charging their spouse with a domestic problem. (after the bruises mend)

Even more sadly, sometimes I think the "victim" is threatened into allowing the accused back into their lives. How do the police know the difference?

It would be pretty sad to charge the "victim" if they are just allowing the accused to talk to them because they fear for their lives if they deny them. ASAP, the police should be called again when it is safe to do so.

As soundbear said, if they do this multiple times and are clearly enabling them, they should also face some consequences. What an effed up world the police have to deal with sometimes eh?

[hobo]

If the police are called out to a situation which ends up being a domestic dispute and in their estimation charges are warranted it is the police who lay the charges and not the victim. The victim has no say in the matter at the point of arrest.

[Karen-Annie]

If the police are called out to a situation which ends up being a domestic dispute and in their estimation charges are warranted it is the police who lay the charges and not the victim. The victim has no say in the matter at the point of arrest.

Here's the thing though.....IF it is a conniving "victim" or something along those lines, do the police make the arrest and ask questions later? I'm not talking about where there has obviously been an assault but where it is a straight "breach" of being there,etc.

Believe me, I am aware of the stats re: domestic abuse and all the dynamics that come into play. But there ARE women out there who are nasty, devious or just plain crackers. And there ARE stupid men who would go when she crooked her finger and said "C'mon over. I miss you." I am REALLY glad that our laws and protocols have evolved such that the victim is not the one who gets to decide if charges are to be laid when domestic violence occurs. But has the mind-set of the public and legal system got so far that it is impossible to imagine a devious "victim"?

[hobo]

I am no expert on the matter but in the past I have journeyed down the path of domestic violence as a witness to an assault on relative of mine who was the victim. There were also several breaches on the part of the accused over a period of time prior to a trial. My relative at no time wanted anything to do with the accused and had enough to deal with in repairing the damages to their life so I can't speak for someone that was involved with as a "conniving victim".

Here is the way I see it. Once the police respond to an incident they use their discretionary powers to make an arrest. Once the arrest is made someone who is the head of the domestic violence section makes a decision to go on with the charges. A judge or Justice of the peace will see the accused and set any condition until the trial. During the arrest process the victim gives statements first to the arresting officers and then later to a detective. This statement to the detective involves a process of the victim being informed that they must give truthful evidence - it's an offence to do otherwise. As I recall the detective also notes the accused's conditions and that the victim should not be in contact with the accused.

Prior to trial the victim meets with an impartial worker in the crown attorneys service who will offer assistance to the victim, explain the conditions situation and pretty much take a of of notes which I suspect go to the prosecutor who sizes the situation up. When a breach occurs the accused goes back before a judge or justice of the peace. As I said the victim I know did not attempt top make contact but I would think that the judge or JP would take into consideration any attempt by the victim to contact the accused and rule accordingly.

[Soundbear]

"But has the mind-set of the public and legal system got so far that it is impossible to imagine a devious "victim"? "

Yes.

[Soundbear]

Men too.

[Soundbear]

Came back to say that maybe there's a bit of irony, in that the person who has the most effect on a young boy is his mother.

[NewCasa]

Came back to say that maybe there's a bit of irony, in that the person who has the most effect on a young boy is his mother.

And your source is....Dr Seuss?

[Soundbear]

And your source is....Dr Seuss?

Boy, ya say the most obvious stuff, and somebody just can't resist.

Wait'l I dig out my doctoral thesis on the topic, I'll send it right over!!!

PS, Suess was wrong, and I'll bet everybody knows it except you!!!

[NewCasa]

Boy, ya say the most obvious stuff, and somebody just can't resist.

Wait'l I dig out my doctoral thesis on the topic, I'll send it right over!!!

PS, Suess was wrong, and I'll bet everybody knows it except you!!!

What?!?!? You mean you Sam I Am LIKES green eggs and ham??!??!??