Ah, yes — family values in action.

This is obscene. I kind of think, though, that “because of the budget” is just an excuse to do something they’ve wanted to do for a long time. If domestic violence is not a crime, then it cannot be held against them come reelection.

I guess that they want to go back about 20 years. Although domestic violence is simply assult on a family member, so anyone committing D.V. should also be guilty of assult and could be charged under those statutes. I would guess that they continue to prosecute simple assults, just not on a family member.

Creepier and creepier.

Why not just abandon law enforcement altogether? Why single out one crime like this? Think of all he money we could save if we stopped investigating murders and robberies. Maintaining law enforcement agencies costs way too much. Since most people never commit crimes, why should we pay to police people who do?

I just love the Tea Party mindset.

“Why not just abandon law enforcement altogether? Why single out one crime like this?”

I hate to sound unsympathetic, but, the answer to your question is very simply that law enforcement is not a panacea to all of society’s problems and domestic crime is one area where involving the police and the courts has historically been both particularly expensive and particularly ineffective.

False, exaggerated, and malicious claims of abuse are an enormous problem while legitimate cases largely go unreported… and even when legitimate cases are reported, the majority of victims will typically become uncooperative at some point in the process.

That said, it’s somewhat understandable that local governments and police departments that are working with increasingly limited resources are reluctantly having to more sharply focus those resources where they will actually do the most good.

I hate to sound unsympathetic…

Then why be so unsympathetic? The fact that the justice system can be inefficient and even ineffectual at times is hardly a reason to abandon it. I was once accused of rape (falsely, I hasten to add), so I’m well aware of the way the legal system can be manipulated with baseless allegations. But that hardly means I’m in favor of abandoning efforts to police and prosecute rape. Have you ever lived with domestic violence? Do you have any concept of horribly it cripples lives and ambitions? If you don’t think prosecuting it is a substantial good for society, I modestly suggest you need to re-think.

After reading this entire article I was honestly shocked. I immediately read it to my friend in the room and we thought it was a joke. Society has created names for a crime like this, hence “domestic violence”, because they need to be labeled and easily recognized. Men particularly lose control of their so-called power boundary and to gain authoritative control over their partner or another individual they will go to extreme measures. Domestic violence is not a casual crime, so who is the one to judge whether its worth dismissing or not. Clearly that person has not been a victim, or known a serious victim of domestic violence. The effects and memories of domestic violence can last forever and have a great impact on someone’s life. If the county chooses not to take any action than the victims of domestic violence will never get justice; therefore, they will forever live in fear of the reoccurrence of such a horrible act. Men are not usually not the victims of domestic violence so sure, they aren’t going to see this as a big deal, but to women the fear of knowing that no one is looking out for you, is simply not fair. I agree when the author says, “Perhaps they feel it’s more advantageous to roll the dice and hope only some of the abusers will escalate to homicide.” Domestic violence is a stepping-stone and a gateway to much more serious crimes. So by letting the abusers go, they are being allowed back to a dangerous situation where it may soon escalate.

Sadly, “justice” is often applied in our society in a way that serves to benefit the 1% and the dominant minority.
I’d much rather see a city save money by refusing to prosecute non-violent recreational drug use and start using the savings to go after the perpetrators of violence.
Of course, it will never happen, as police departments are allowed to “tax” drug users by seizing their cash and assets. Victims of violence are merely “loss leaders” to cities that are run like corporations.

Here’s the reality of the situation… the majority of all calls made to 911 are directed to the police, and the majority of these calls are for non-emergency domestic situations.

Now keep in mind that the police can’t be everywhere all at once… that’s important to remember!

What this means for you and me is that, while an armed intruder is breaking into our home, the police will be too busy responding to a call from a drunk man whose drunk wife threw the tv remote at his head because he took the last beer and finished off her bag of Doritos. And guess what, it’s the same address the police have already responded to five other times this year.

Once they’re done taking statements, hauling the wife off to jail, booking her for misdemeanor simple assault, and throwing her in a cell (so her husband can just come bail her out first thing in the morning), then they’ll be able to respond to our call.

Ooops, too late, we’re dead.

If these folks were talking about no longer prosecuting felony domestic assaults and abuse, that would be another discussion altogether… but decriminalizing simple misdemeanors will free up a lot of resources that can be put to much better use towards other, more serious matters. It will improve police response times, fewer cases will improve the quality of court appointed legal representation, and it will speed up the time it takes to get these things through the courts. Frankly, it’s actually a very practical and sensible thing to do.

The city is decriminalizing all misdemeanors, which would include minor drug offenses as well…

Know what’s even crazier? October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

Can you please supply specifics of major crimes going uninvestigated and/or unprosecuted because of frivolous domestic violence complaints? Or is your position based solely on these “pretend” situations?

I do have to admire your moxie. Conjuring up a lot of unsubstantiated scare stories and calling them “the reality of the situation” takes and good measure of boldness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7ukm-z75UQ&feature=player_embedded

Here’s an excellent video of a chief of police explaining the realities of the budget crisis his department is having to deal with and the tough decisions they are having to make…

I can pretty much sum the video up for you, though, by simply saying that if you have “X” number of police on patrol and “Z” number of calls to 911, then you’ve got a serious problem!

On the court side of the criminal justice system, the situation is even worse… over 90% of all cases never make it to court for the very simple reason that there aren’t enough judges, lawyers, courtrooms, hours in the day, or days in the year to handle the massive case load. Prosecutors do everything in their power and discretion to plead cases out and down to manageable levels, but they are often forced to severely reduce serious charges or drop charges altogether because our court systems simply can’t handle the volume of cases being thrown at them. It’s important to note, too, that if the courts can’t meet a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial… that criminal will walk free no matter how serious their crime.

Noted criminologist Herbert Packer summed the situation up nicely when he stated that, “We can have as much or as little crime as we please, depending on what we choose to count as criminal.” … and because we are increasingly wanting to make everything under the sun illegal and defer every matter big and small to the criminal justice system, America now has many of the world’s largest police departments and by a wide margin THE single highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.

More cops, more jails, more citizens behind bars… this is not a workable solution.

The financial crisis was simply a catalyst for this city to finally do something that many in the criminal justice system would argue needed to be done anyway… again, the criminal justice system is not and was never intended to be a panacea for all of society’s problems.

So you can’t provide even one concrete example of what you’re arguing. Why am I not surprised?

Using the trumped-up (by Obama and his fellow Republicans) “budget crisis” as an excuse to slash vital services makes no sense whatever. There’s plenty of non-essential and wasteful government activity that eats up far more public money than investigating domestic violence cases ever could. Merely ending the Bush/Obama wars would free up more funds than would ever be needed for local law enforcement initiatives. Like the Teabag Party of which I suspect you must be a member, you’ve identified a problem and focused on entirely the wrong solution.

Interesting that the boys picked a crime not to enforce that primarily affects women. We campaigned for years TO GET the domestic violence laws; now Kansas City in Jesusland gets rid of them.

Hmmm, d’ye suppose that the DA and the City would save more by stopping arrests for Marijuana??

And to Q’s antagonist: Prosecuting assaults is hardly using the criminal justice system to solve society’s problems nor is it a panacea. Everyone on this board would be screaming if they stopped prosecuting gay-bashings, but a crime primarily againt women,…

Amen.

…once again, the city is considering decriminalizing misdemeanors, all misdemeanors.

Misdemeanors are not significant crimes. They are only slightly more serious than “ticketable” offenses, and they are usually dealt with in much the same manner (fines, court costs, etc).

The city is NOT singling out domestic situations and it will NOT stop prosecuting serious cases of assault and felony domestic violence as the Chicken Littles of the web are trying to claim.

The sky is not falling…