How many women will die from domestic violence at the hand of an attacker to whom they have a restraining order against before laws will change to protect them?
70% of all murder victims in the United States suffered previous physical abuse by their killer; 28% of the victims had an order of protection (restraining order), issued by a court, against their killer at the time of their murder. (Websdale, 1999). A piece of paper did not prevent murder. In some cases, calling 911 could not stop a bullet. This is not a new phenomenon; murders as a result of a court order to stay away have escalated emotions to the point of irrational behavior for centuries. It is time to review the situation and revise the way to resolve it. The very goal of a restraining order is nullified when the issuance of it becomes the source of the ensuing irrational behavior that results in a crime of passion known as murder. Violations of a court order attached to a restraining order are not as simple as violations of other types of court orders. Restraining order violations usually consist of violence, physical abuse and quite often, murder and suicide.
Infractions of restraining orders are rarely enforced to the full extent of the law.
Police support is rare. Male police officers tend to side with the male spouse in domestic situations. Understandably, police officers dislike domestic calls; most officers do not think of a domestic situation as a crime but more of an annoyance. The people who seek a restraining order cannot be confident that the defendant or the police will take it seriously. Nevertheless, it may be a last resort effort by a victim to get relief from emotional abuse, physical abuse or harassment and stalking from an abuser. (T. Karlen, personal communication, June 11, 2008)
Restraining orders are counterproductive. Instead of resolving the issues between two people, a restraining order can instill more frustration in an already explosive situation. Mediation, for everyone concerned, could be effectual method of further abuse and crime. When emotions run high, people who lose sight of right and wrong, seek outlets for immediate relief. In too many cases, murder seems to be the answer to ending the pain and frustration. Often the killer will immediately realize what has happened as a result of losing emotional control and will kill themselves, too. Almost all domestic violence cases also involve children. Many children left orphaned by these actions become victims, too. These children are emotional scarred for life. These circumstances happen more in America than most people realize. However, it falls into that gray area of things people do not want to think about. Officials do not want to address the issue because then they will have to come up with a better ways of resolution and prevention. Too often, domestic abuse is thought of as less serious than typical felonious crimes. After all, if two people cannot get along, why is that the law's problem? Is it not a family matter? No, it is not. When it involves violence and leaving children orphaned, it becomes a criminal matter and must be prevented and treated like any other type of crime.
Nearly every single day in America, a court ordered injunction triggers the emotions that end in a murder of a victim by an angry recipient of a restraining order. The majority of these cases are between former spouses or partners. Karri Frazier was killed at work after taking out protection order against boyfriend. Marie Moses Irons was killed with an axe in her sleep six days after she obtained protection order. Police Chief Philip J. Castagna fired from his job after his wife filed for a restraining order on him. He then conspired to murder her through arson and was arrested by his own police officers. Appropriate arbitration by a trained negotiator may well have prevented these all these crimes.
Mediation, arbitration, and offender-victim conferencing can be far more effective for more than various reasons. Properly trained and educated social workers, who will listen to both sides of the disagreement and the ensuing issues, can arbitrate the matters and suggest reasonable alternatives towards resolution. A better understanding between the parties will bring to a close the flow of aggravated emotions, which lead to unreasonable, and criminal, behavior. Sometimes time itself can be part of the solution. Emotions simmer down with time, at least to a level where the aggravated person starts to gain rationale and can think clearly again. Mediation at this point can be successful once the angered person has regained some sense of emotional normalcy.
Many people go through an overwhelming period of emotional turmoil and lose control of their emotions, particularly anger and jealousy, during an unwanted break up of a relationship. Voluntary agreements can be longer lasting and more effective than court-imposed orders. A restraining order can be as deadly as a bullet in highly charged emotional conflict. Instead of being the solution, it becomes the fuel to the already blazing fire.
Enforcing a restraining order is, at best, difficult. Not only for the person seeking protection, but for law enforcement officials as well. Difficulty arises when police are in high demand and answering calls for domestic situations or restraining order violations is not a top priority. Victim advocacy is necessary to help enforce restraining orders because law enforcement officials are not eager to get involved with issues surrounding these disputes. Most people do not know that assistance is available to help enforce court ordered protection and simply rely on police to protect them. Police who are less than eager to answer domestic violence calls. In some cases, time is of the essence. It is simply not possible for the police to be on the scene immediately. Even more disturbing, victims may not be able to reach a phone to call for help because their attackers are holding them at bay. Crimes of passion are executed quickly, and in this type of situation, calling out for help is not an option. Prevention is the key to stopping this deadly situation.
"The astounding fact is that, with the exception of convicted criminals, no one today has fewer rights than fathers," (Baskerville, 1999, para. 3). A New Jersey man killed his former wife when she left the state with their child. Police would not assist the woman because her restraining order had been issued in another state. Unfortunately, their judgment call was erroneous. Restraining orders have no boundaries; a person with a restraining order is supposed to be, according to the law, protected in all parts of the United States. The result of police inaccuracy was an irrational homicide, leaving a young child motherless.
Police officers are only human. In fact, in Michigan, a police officer was served a restraining order from his wife and became so enraged that he murdered her. Even though he was trained as a police officer on how to control his emotions, he lost all rationale and acted against everything he believed in. Mediation, by a trained professional, could have reminded him of his training. He could have found an alternative way of dealing with his emotions that did not include killing his wife.
There is another angle to the ineptitude of a restraining order. In rare cases, a person, usually a woman, who is at the hand of an attacker whom she has a restraining order on, will fight back. A search of documented cases shows that often times, this means of self-defense ends in murder. In such cases, it would seem that it is a clear-cut case of self-defense.
47-year-old Kathie DeFelice stabbed her former boyfriend William Olson, Jr. of Danvers to death. She claimed it was self-defense. But was it? She had just re-newed a restraining order; the court records show a long history of domestic abuse. The relationship left DeFelice in such a mental state that her own sister said that DeFlice was emotionally unstable. It is believed that she contacted Olson earlier that day and was threatening to kill herself. When Olson arrived at the home to prevent her from hurting herself, she stabbed him. He died from multiple stab wounds. Police observed marks on DeFlice's neck that were consistent with choking. Will the truth ever be known? What should have been done by society to prevent this tragic event? DeFlice sought protection in the form of a restraining order yet she was the one contacting her alleged abuser. The man she said she wanted to leave her alone.
This is a clear-cut case of how counseling, mediation and arbitration would have served as a better option. DeFlice manipulated the justice system in retaliation, not because she wanted her abuser to leave her alone. The judicial and social systems need to recognize these situations and treat them differently from true criminal offenses.
By sorting out criminal from emotional situations, not only will the participants be better served, fewer responsibilities will lie upon the shoulders of law enforcement. Deciphering true criminal intent from emotional turmoil should not be part of a police officer's job.
Criminal activity should be dealt with in the court system; mental health professionals should deal with emotional transgressions. Law enforcements benefits are available to all citizens free of charge. Mental health services do not come free. It is no wonder the two opposing issues cross over into a burden on law enforcement. However, at what point does one determine the status of an individual?
Common sense disappears when emotional distress reaches high-levels. Law-abiding citizens, who know right from wrong, lose sight of their own beliefs and morals and act out as if they were in a temporary state of insanity. And perhaps they are. Again, counseling can help make that determination. Can it be proven that emotional distress, left untreated, can cause temporary insanity? We will not know until we examine these situations more closely and scientifically.
The Equal Justice foundation (March 2005) has found "no documented or undocumented case where a protection order was known or claimed to have provided significant protection". (para. 1). Violations of restraining orders are often not punished strongly enough by judges. Violators who do end up in court seldom get more than a stern abolishment from the judge. Police cooperation to help enforce a victim's rights are not a top priority. Fast response time by law enforcement is critical. They need to arrive on the scene before it escalates into a vicious attack. Sometimes it is simply not possible for police to arrive in time to prevent the acceleration from verbal argument to physical attack. Again, we have to examine the burdens put upon law enforcement officials. They are sworn to serve and protect, but from whom? And from what? Does the oath cover an umbrella of both criminal and emotional behavior? Why should the taxpayers pay the bills while this issue remains unresolved?
The most famous trial, and waste of the taxpayers money, was the O.J. Simpson trial. The cost to the taxpayers in that trial exceeded $9 million dollars. The jury, made up of taxpaying citizens, sequestered for nine months, took up about one-third of that $9 million dollars. If the ineffectiveness of restraining orders does not make the point, the cost of the murder trial should. Either way it is looked at, restraining orders are ineffectual and a burden on all citizens including those in law enforcement, the judicial system, and society.
This has been an ineffective system time after time, murder after murder. The answer is intervention by means of mediation, counseling, and arbitration. Only when citizens and legislators realize what the problem is, and the effective means to resolve the issue, will the senseless killings will stop. As will the waste of the taxpayers' money on crimes committed by passion. 70% of the murder trials in the United States fall into the category of domestic abuse.
Prevention, by means of intervention, is the only feasible answer to the problem of domestic abuse.
REFERENCE
Baskerville Stephen , (1999). Why Is Daddy in Jail?. Washington Times. Retrieved April 18, 2008, from http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/why_is_daddy_in_ja il2.htm
Bettinger-Lopez, C. (2007). Time for a new domestic-violence standard. New Jersey Law Journal, (), Retrieved June 4, 2008, from Gale database.
Booth, M. (2002). Domestic violence knows no borders, court told in restraining-order case. New Jersey Law Journal, (), Retrieved June 4, 2008, from Gale database.
Corry Charles E. , (2002). Protection orders do not protect . Domestic violence against men In Colorado. Retrieved April 18, 2008, from http://www.dvmen.org
Michiganoid. (). Michigan officer involved domestic violence. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com