There is a major shakeup in Clark County Child Protective Services. This time a high-ranking assistant director has asked for a voluntary demotion after years of outcry.
A Report on the Battered Women's Rights for Protection and Domestic-Violence Victim's Right for Equal Protection by Cathy Cherry From October 1982 to June 10, 1983, Tracey Thurman and others notified Torrington police numerous times that Tracey's husband, Charles (Buck) Thurman, had made repeated threats against her life. The complaints were generally ignored or rejected even though Buck was under court order not to make contact with his wife. On November 9, 1982 Buck was arrested on a breach of peace charge after he broke the windshield of Tracey's car while she was in the vehicle, screaming threats at Tracey the entire time. This incident was watched by police without taking any action (says the suit). Buck, who was a cook in a Torrington restaurant frequented by local police officers, even told police he was going to kill his wife (says the suit). The suit also charges that this case was not isolated and that for a long time the Torrington Police Department "condoned a pattern or practice of affording inadequate protection, or no protection at all, to women who have complained of having been abused by their husbands or others with whom they have had close relations." On June 10, 1983 Buck stabbed Tracey in the chest, neck and throat with a knife 10 minutes after she had called police. A single police officer arrived 25 minutes after the call was made. That officer did nothing to stop Buck from kicking his wife in the head while she lay injured on the ground. Buck was arrested only after several other police officers arrived at the scene and again made a threatening move toward his hurt wife. Buck was convicted of first-degree assault. The "Tracy Thurman Movie" and Tracey's lawsuit present troubling information that our police force and the constitution interpret the safety of women from someone they have or have had an intimate relationship differently than the safety of women from someone who is a stranger. Tracey's case is based on violations of her constitutional rights, mainly the Fourteenth Amendment. The defense argued that 1) there were no valid federal violations of Tracey's civil rights, 2) that equal protection under the Constitution does not guarantee equal application of public services, 3) that the Constitution only prohibits intentional discrimination which is racially motivated, 4) that Buck's actions did not result from an intent to discriminate against Tracey, and 5) that any discrimination was not a result of Tracey's race or gender. On October 24, 1984 U.S. District Judge M. Joseph Blumenfeld ruled that "city officials and police officers are under an affirmative duty to preserve law and order and to protect the personal safety of persons in the community" and that "this duty applies equally to women whose personal safety is threatened by individuals with whom they have or have had a domestic relationship as well as to all other persons whose personal safety is threatened, including women not involved in domestic relationships." He stated, "failure to perform this duty would constitute a denial of equal protection of the laws." This landmark decision is referred to as the Thurman Law. The ruling said that officers could indeed be held accountable for violating the rights of battered women. But Connecticut quickly adopted a more comprehensive domestic violence law and many courts have taken a different view and have ruled against battered women. Although this case was precendent setting because it was at the federal level and held valid the provision that wives may sue police for protection, the win for battered women was not long lasting. This can be seen in the Nancy Watson lawsuit based on domestic violence victim's right to equal protection. In her case it was proven women make up 95 percent of the victims of domestic assault. In addition, police records were used to prove that 31 percent of perpetrators in non-domestic assaults are arrested but only 16 percent in domestic assaults are arrested. This trend, proven in the courts, demonstrates domestic violence victims being treated differently. Alarmingly, the court held that this policy which discriminates against victims of domestic violence, does not necessarily adversely affect women. The court also held that even if it could be proven that it does adversely affect women, it would have to be proven that the police purposefully adopted the policy to discriminate against women. This is not the end of the legal system's ambivalence toward domestic violence. A landmark child abuse case decision based on due process not equal protection (DeShaney 1989) has successfully been used to block the claims of battered women under any provision of the Fourteenth Amendment. At first Glance it would seem that the Thurman Law made important and necessary strides towards justice for victions of domestic viloence in our country. It made for mandatory arrest in wife beating cases in Connecticut and several other states. In the twelve months after the new law took effect, the number of domestic violence assaults reported increased by 92 percent. And the movie certainly brought national attention to the problem. But as further court rulings have demonstrated, a battered women's struggle is not only with her batterer, but also with the very justice system that she is depending on for protection. It is apparent that the law has created even more obstacles for battered women. The implications for the future suggest that women will have more difficulty freeing themselves because of the legal system. These court rulings also lend themselves to further variability in communities from very supportive to very unsupportive in law enforcement and court systems.
February 2007 This is considered a DRAFT until the biblography is published. Battered Rights
I thought you might be interested in this. feel free to repost & do you have a myspace page, if so plz join my friends list, thank u 4 the great info http://www.myspace.com/bellahasbeenkidnapped
Another thing real abuse victims have to fight is the fact that most abuse claims are BS. My idiot brother in law is a pothead. He and his girlfriends will argue, and it get out of hand. They'll call the law, put restraining orders on him, have him arrested, etc. But by the time the case comes around, they'll have let him move back in with them. I have also seen where many couples will leave the court room where orders have been made to stay away from each other, and go out for pizza.
Like with my idiot brother in law, the first time he and the second girlfriend I met broke up, both my husband and I told her not to take him back. Mind you, he's my husband's brother, and for my husband to say this...anyway, she didn't listen, and a few nights later she called us. He was in a drug rage, raising H, cussing, and wanted me to come get him. She let him move back in with her. She didn't call the law at all, because she knew she'd be arrested, because she had a court order to stay away from him as well. The judge issued orders on both of them. I told her we weren't getting involved and hung up. She finally called the law and both were arrested. Anyway, this was a few years ago, and they still play games.
I forgot to mention she had a child as well, but God stepped in where social services failed. They failed to remove the child from her custody and God took this child to live forever in Heaven.
I hate to be the one to tell you this...But it doesn't sound like your brother in law is a "pothead"...Methamphetamine, Cocaine, or Heroin is a bit more likely! I am sure taking a step back like that was difficult, but I commend you for doing so. They are both adults, and have to handle this themselves.
A Report
ReplyDeleteon the
Battered Women's Rights for Protection
and
Domestic-Violence Victim's Right for Equal Protection
by
Cathy Cherry
From October 1982 to June 10, 1983, Tracey Thurman and others notified Torrington police numerous times that Tracey's husband, Charles (Buck) Thurman, had made repeated threats against her life. The complaints were generally ignored or rejected even though Buck was under court order not to make contact with his wife.
On November 9, 1982 Buck was arrested on a breach of peace charge after he broke the windshield of Tracey's car while she was in the vehicle, screaming threats at Tracey the entire time. This incident was watched by police without taking any action (says the suit).
Buck, who was a cook in a Torrington restaurant frequented by local police officers, even told police he was going to kill his wife (says the suit).
The suit also charges that this case was not isolated and that for a long time the Torrington Police Department "condoned a pattern or practice of affording inadequate protection, or no protection at all, to women who have complained of having been abused by their husbands or others with whom they have had close relations."
On June 10, 1983 Buck stabbed Tracey in the chest, neck and throat with a knife 10 minutes after she had called police. A single police officer arrived 25 minutes after the call was made. That officer did nothing to stop Buck from kicking his wife in the head while she lay injured on the ground. Buck was arrested only after several other police officers arrived at the scene and again made a threatening move toward his hurt wife. Buck was convicted of first-degree assault.
The "Tracy Thurman Movie" and Tracey's lawsuit present troubling information that our police force and the constitution interpret the safety of women from someone they have or have had an intimate relationship differently than the safety of women from someone who is a stranger. Tracey's case is based on violations of her constitutional rights, mainly the Fourteenth Amendment.
The defense argued that 1) there were no valid federal violations of Tracey's civil rights, 2) that equal protection under the Constitution does not guarantee equal application of public services, 3) that the Constitution only prohibits intentional discrimination which is racially motivated, 4) that Buck's actions did not result from an intent to discriminate against Tracey, and 5) that any discrimination was not a result of Tracey's race or gender.
On October 24, 1984 U.S. District Judge M. Joseph Blumenfeld ruled that "city officials and police officers are under an affirmative duty to preserve law and order and to protect the personal safety of persons in the community" and that "this duty applies equally to women whose personal safety is threatened by individuals with whom they have or have had a domestic relationship as well as to all other persons whose personal safety is threatened, including women not involved in domestic relationships."
He stated, "failure to perform this duty would constitute a denial of equal protection of the laws."
This landmark decision is referred to as the Thurman Law. The ruling said that officers could indeed be held accountable for violating the rights of battered women. But Connecticut quickly adopted a more comprehensive domestic violence law and many courts have taken a different view and have ruled against battered women.
Although this case was precendent setting because it was at the federal level and held valid the provision that wives may sue police for protection, the win for battered women was not long lasting. This can be seen in the Nancy Watson lawsuit based on domestic violence victim's right to equal protection. In her case it was proven women make up 95 percent of the victims of domestic assault. In addition, police records were used to prove that 31 percent of perpetrators in non-domestic assaults are arrested but only 16 percent in domestic assaults are arrested. This trend, proven in the courts, demonstrates domestic violence victims being treated differently.
Alarmingly, the court held that this policy which discriminates against victims of domestic violence, does not necessarily adversely affect women. The court also held that even if it could be proven that it does adversely affect women, it would have to be proven that the police purposefully adopted the policy to discriminate against women.
This is not the end of the legal system's ambivalence toward domestic violence. A landmark child abuse case decision based on due process not equal protection (DeShaney 1989) has successfully been used to block the claims of battered women under any provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.
At first Glance it would seem that the Thurman Law made important and necessary strides towards justice for victions of domestic viloence in our country. It made for mandatory arrest in wife beating cases in Connecticut and several other states. In the twelve months after the new law took effect, the number of domestic violence assaults reported increased by 92 percent. And the movie certainly brought national attention to the problem. But as further court rulings have demonstrated, a battered women's struggle is not only with her batterer, but also with the very justice system that she is depending on for protection. It is apparent that the law has created even more obstacles for battered women. The implications for the future suggest that women will have more difficulty freeing themselves because of the legal system. These court rulings also lend themselves to further variability in communities from very supportive to very unsupportive in law enforcement and court systems.
February 2007
This is considered a DRAFT until the biblography is published.
Battered Rights
I thought you might be interested in this. feel free to repost & do you have a myspace page, if so plz join my friends list, thank u 4 the great info http://www.myspace.com/bellahasbeenkidnapped
Another thing real abuse victims have to fight is the fact that most abuse claims are BS. My idiot brother in law is a pothead. He and his girlfriends will argue, and it get out of hand. They'll call the law, put restraining orders on him, have him arrested, etc. But by the time the case comes around, they'll have let him move back in with them. I have also seen where many couples will leave the court room where orders have been made to stay away from each other, and go out for pizza.
ReplyDeleteLike with my idiot brother in law, the first time he and the second girlfriend I met broke up, both my husband and I told her not to take him back. Mind you, he's my husband's brother, and for my husband to say this...anyway, she didn't listen, and a few nights later she called us. He was in a drug rage, raising H, cussing, and wanted me to come get him. She let him move back in with her. She didn't call the law at all, because she knew she'd be arrested, because she had a court order to stay away from him as well. The judge issued orders on both of them. I told her we weren't getting involved and hung up. She finally called the law and both were arrested. Anyway, this was a few years ago, and they still play games.
ReplyDeleteI forgot to mention she had a child as well, but God stepped in where social services failed. They failed to remove the child from her custody and God took this child to live forever in Heaven.
ReplyDeleteI hate to be the one to tell you this...But it doesn't sound like your brother in law is a "pothead"...Methamphetamine, Cocaine, or Heroin is a bit more likely!
ReplyDeleteI am sure taking a step back like that was difficult, but I commend you for doing so. They are both adults, and have to handle this themselves.