My experience has been that PAs are almost always willing to plea bargain if only to insure conviction and reduce case load. This is little different from civil cases that settle out of court - in other words, a business decision is made.
I am in agreement, but I feel that when you have a crime that is potentialy a felony the second time it is charged, and you have repeated reductions to simple battery. There is something else at play, especialy when it is a SA who won'y accept pleas after you have pled not guilty.(True stories)
My understanding is that this occurs largely because of the difficulty in establishing whether or not there is "a reasonable fear of domestic violence". A police report at least gives something to present to the court, and provides a record of behavior. I don't see this as ignoring the problem, but as a "due process" issue. Otherwise every person involved in a child custody dispute, for example, could obtain a restraining order against his/her spouse that would effectively divorce the spouse from his/her children.
I am specificaly refering to emergency orders of protection, in Illinois the case is set for a plenary hearing and a plenary order can also be issued after the second hearing. The second hearing is solely evidentiary and the respodent has the oppotunity to tesify on thier behalf.
I believe that Illinois statute allows for verbal statements that are credible and from other witnesses to be allowed in a emergent order. There is no requirement of co-oboration by physical evidence. The law specificaly was designed to allow for the potential that verbal threats were the sole force used by the respondant and that there were no coresponding physical acts other than verbal violence.
It could be very likely that the SA is setting a higher standard, but this is also a county where victims often complain that the police will not take the report of domestic violence, sort of like the way it was a long time ago.
So while my impression is that there is such a high level of request for orders and the SA doesn't want to mess with them, it is just an impression. It is also the only county in our district where this is dome, because the law specificaly allows for allegations of verbal violence in issuing an emergency order. Judges do often deny emergent orders, and the plenary sets the usual standard of evidence.
I don't think that laws are inacted to "create a society"; rather I think that they are inacted to codify a society's primary values.
they also do regulate specific conduct that formaly defines social valus, they may or may not define the primary values as well, if we examine Roe vs. Wade, it would seem that there is some controversy between the formal code and the primary vales, al;though Brown vs. Board of Education would be a better example.
I have recently (over the past couple of years) been involved - peripherally - in a domestic violence problem. The ex-wife, an old and dear friend, lives in constant fear of her ex-husband. Her house and car have been repeatedly vandalized, and she believes to a moral certainty that he is responsible. She also has good reason to believe that he has been in the house. When she approached the court with the request that he be restrained from coming near her the court asked her to provide evidence that she has a reasonable fear of him. She has no evidence beyond her word. The judge, while sypathetic, indicated that her word alone was no sufficient to limit the freedom of action of her ex-husband.
I suggest that she set up digital cameras in the vincinity of her house and maybe hire a private detective to monitor her safety.
That is not the way the Illinois statute is written. But it is often interpreted, the assumption in the construction of the statute was that the limitations on the freedom of the respondant are minor in comparison to the potential harm that the plantiff faces.
There is a huge gap in the way that Orders are enforced as well, an order will state very clearly that at no times is the respondant to be within a certain set distance of the individual, police officers often make interesting interpretations regarding the intent of the respondant and refuse to enforce the order. This includes the property restrictions that can be in place because a judge has determined that there is a remedy of keeping the respondant from the house or place of employment.
Lest there be any misunderstanding: I believe her to be correct. I think that her fears are reasonable. I think the man capable of causing her harm. But I also understand that he is protected by due process as am I. I don't like it, but I understand it.
This seems to be a case that is more open to the evidentiary process, I am discussing cases where there is substantial evidence that the respondant has made credible threats in the precense of multiple witnesses and has a history of following through on the threats, all of which can be substantiated. But because there is no police report that alleges current physical harm done to the plantiff, the SA will refuse to allow the petition for the emergency OP.
Okay. But credit the good as well as the bad.
I do, there are just areas where a lot of people still blame the victim. If say they are still 20% or higher of the population, that creates a societal barrier to the victim.
What is "semi consensual sex"? Anyone who defends sex between a 13 year old girl and an adult qualifies in my mind as a slime ball.
This was at a dinner conversation I was at, one of my wife's friends lives in a small town and we were eating dinner with her grandmother, her grand mother's friend and the friends daughter, They were discussing a case where a thirteen year old had engaged in sex with an adult in thier late fifties. They weren't defending the behavior of the convicted, but they were talking as though the behavior of the thirteen year old was suspect.
These are all outstanding and rather nice people.
I say semi consensual just because the thirteen year old was alleged to have done the acts willingly, but we know the age of consent.
