Judge's comments regarding domestic violence

[treaclesoda]

Belfast Telegraph report

I was reading this report thinking that it was great that the perpetrator had been prosecuted for a first time offence, thinking how good it was that it had been taken seriously.

Then I got to the judge's comments about how he had been spared prison because it wouldn't help him rebuild the relationship with his wife. Why should he rebuild the relationship, and why should she let him? And why is it up to the judge to suggest that it happens?

Because obviously they're not going to get divorced, because that's a worse crime than beating a woman up, right?

shakes head<

There's so much wrong about this. Just. So much.

I also don't like that alcohol is seen as any mitigation. The aggression was always there. The alcohol might have helped give him "permission", but more, I think the piece of paper did.

Anyway, it's bullshit: If he was able to make his way home without getting himself dead in a ditch, he was able to not beat his wife.

He strangled her. Huge, huge red flag. Why do judges not know this? The message he's sent out to DV perpetrators is that it's OK to beat up and strangle your wife once. That is acceptable in today's society. You don't actually have to be responsible for your actions if you are a first offender - or second or third because lets face it will the wife bother reporting next time as clearly the authorities won't do anything about it anyway. Or next time she may be dead, of course.

Lundy Bancroft is good on why alcohol/drugs are not the cause of domestic abuse. It may change the nature, frequency or escalation of the abuse but the man will be abusive with or without alcohol. It is not the root cause though. His wife said as much herself - he was bad-tempered and stubborn. Imagine my surprise. But hey ho that's men for you.

Seriously, Bancroft should be required reading for judges trying DV/DA cases. He is so good on many levels. Including correlations between DV and child abuse (as they have a child).

But apparently she was "scolding" him . Glad they put that in quotes though.

Quite!

I don't know how many others are old enough to remrmber when that judge made Muffin the Mule references that nobody got, highlighting how out of touch some of them were. It was the start of the awareness that Continuing Professional Developmentwas needed by the law ptofession.

So, they can be updated. And they have to be, yo keep their practising certificate. But, to the best if my knoeledge, they can still choose what they learn, year on year.

So, why not require them to learn/relearn a.n.topic, say, every 5 years? And why not make domestic violence a required subject?

It's so true that alcohol is no excuse for violence. In all the, rather too many, times my DH got drunk he was never verbally aggressive let alone in any other way. He just slurred how much he loved me and passed out. Typical of nice but drunk blokes.

Violent men will be violent. Non violent men will not.

Not good.
If they didn't have sex she could get an annulment on grounds of non consummation actually particularly as she has not seen him since the wedding night although she might want a marriage with later divorce to legitimise their child who was born before marriage and indeed might want marriage rights on a divorce.

I saw this yesterday and was unsurprised. I vented quite a lot of anger on the comments section underneath the article (not in the bel tel). Some of the comments regarding the victim were fucking vile, it's no wonder the judges are making these sorts of 'sentences', they're being entirely validated by the general public. It makes me so angry.

I think it is more that they are validating public opinion as they are allegedly the authority. They are upholding a society where trying to strangle your wife is seen as a misdemeanour.

Yes you're right scallops but the public reaction will go some way to the judge feeling they're on the right track with this sentence.

I believe there is a mechanism as part of the attorney general's office to review unduly lenient sentancing. If enough people call/write in it will trigger a consideration for reviewing the sentence. You can cite it's in the public interest that violence towards women and girls must be seen as unacceptable and this sentence actually creates the opposite impression.

YY Jen - vicious circle!