This site is copyrighted, supported, and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.
| EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |
| DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Chapter 8 — Demographics Of Domestic Violence In Colorado |
| Next — Demographics of domestic violence in Colorado - 2010 |
| Back — Demographics of domestic violence in Colorado - 2008 |
The fiscal year 2009 statistics for the Colorado courts for domestic violence charges, with associated mandatory restraining orders, are given in their Table 30, with a total of 17.833, including 4,269 cases of protection order violations. Civil restraining orders are tabulated in their Table 29, totaling 13,527 (6.967 of these orders are for domestic abuse), for a combined total of 31,360. Domestic violence cases increased 2.9% and restraining orders increased 2.0% while the sampled population increased just 1.6%.
The tables for domestic violence and restraining orders from which the data presented below are drawn is compiled by the State Court Administrator's Office and are available from the Colorado State Court web site. The data are combined and presented here in Table 59 together with the population-normalized values for each judicial district.
|
orders (DA) 1 |
(RO violation) 2 |
total and percent 3 |
per 10,000 4 |
|||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
First 5 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Eighth 5 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saguache |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Kit Carson, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, and Yuma |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Seventeenth 5 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Eighteenth 5 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
County populations: U.S. Census Bureau Restraining orders and divorces: Colorado State Court Tables 17, 29, and 30 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
1. Prior to fiscal 2002 the courts lumped all civil restraining orders together. Statistics for 2002 and subsequent years separate civil and domestic abuse (DA) orders. For consistency with prior years both the total number and (domestic abuse) restraining orders are given. Again for consistency, the total number of civil restraining orders plus domestic violence cases is used to calculate percentages and per capita values. Where domestic abuse orders exceed 50% the values are shown in (bold). 2. A restraining order is mandated by law C.R.S. § 18-1-1001. Prior to 2005 misdemeanor domestic violence cases were lumped with restraining order violations. As of 2005 restraining order violations are tabulated separately and are shown here in parentheses following the sum of misdemeanor domestic violence cases and violations of protection orders. Restraining order violations are shown in bold if they exceed half the number of domestic abuse orders issued. 3. The percent of restraining orders within a judicial district should equal the percent of the sampled population for that district. Judicial districts where the percent of restraining orders exceeds the percent of the sampled population by more than 0.5% are shown in bold. 4. Divorce includes all dissolutions, legal separations, and invalid marriage and totaled 25,991 in 2008. 5. Municipalities within this judicial district may also issue restraining orders and prosecute misdemeanor domestic violence cases. The state court values given here do not reflect such cases. 6. Statewide average is the sum of civil and criminal restraining order cases (31,360) divided by the state population (5,024,748) minus Denver City and County (610,345), or (???/4,414,403) x 10,000 to make it a useful integer, i.e., xx per 10,000 residents. |
Av —Statewide average 6 |
|||||||||||||||||
A general decline in the numbers of restraining orders begun in 2003 continued through 2008 with the statewide average dropping from the 2003 high of 78 per 10,000 citizens to 72 per 10,000 in 2007 and 2008. But the statewide average moved back up in 2009 to 74 per 10,000 citizens.
In 2009 six of the twenty-two judicial districts exceeded the average by more than one standard deviation and the Third Judicial District hit a disgraceful record high of 175 such orders per 10,000 suffering citizens.
In 2009 the Third, Fourth, Seventh, Tenth, Twelfth, Sixteenth, and Twenty second judicial districts now embarrass the state with 175, 105, 134, 142, 125, 148, and 157 domestic violence and protection order cases per 10,000 citizens respectively (Table 59). But in terms of shear numbers of restraining (protection?) orders and domestic violence cases no district even comes close to the tyranny of the Filthy Fourth, which imposed such orders on 6,537 citizens largely at the behest of TESSA feminists. May god have pity on children, veterans, and families in that draconian district.
In 2006 there was a major upheaval in the Colorado justice system. 17 of 22 district attorneys were term limited and replaced in January 2006 and current district attorneys for all 22 judicial districts are listed here. The impact of the changing of the prosecutorial guard was fully implemented by the 2008 fiscal year. Evident trends that continued through 2009 include:
• As district attorney, Frank Ruybalid, is definitely leading the citizens of the minuscule (23,578 citizens in 2009) Third Judicial District down the path to perdition. In 2009 the number of restraining orders rose to an astounding 175 per 10,000 citizens there (Table 59), although considerable blame must also fall on the corrupt judges of that district. And note that 113 of the 166 restraining orders issued that year were apparently violated. Of what use is a restraining order if they are always violated? Or are they simply being used as tools by redfems in their war against mankind with the aid and succor of the district attorney?
• The number of restraining orders issued in the tiny 22 nd Judicial District (27,308 citizens in 2009) has tripled since 1998, from 54 per 10,000 to 157 in 2009 (Table 59). Since the trend has been continuous for twelve years it is not a statistical fluke. The jump in 2006 to 132 per 10,000 citizens from 90 the previous year, and to 157 per 10,000 citizens in 2009, reflects the policies of the draconian new district attorney, Jim Wilson.
Note that while the district attorney has no control over the filing of domestic abuse restraining orders, he does control the prosecution of restraining order violations. In 2005 of the 128 domestic abuse restraining orders filed only 3 were apparently violated (Table 51). But by 2009, under Jim Wilson's tyrannical rule, somehow there were 233 restraining order violations although only 195 such orders were filed (Table 59).
• Out-of-control charges of domestic violence and abuse appear to only be getting worse in the 7 th Judicial District, rising to 133 per 10,000 in 2007, 129 in 2008, and 134 in 2009 (Table 59).
• The 4 th Judicial District, has long been a leader in tyranny. However, it has become harder to press criminal charges of domestic violence and local radical feminist have switched to a filing a preponderance of civil domestic abuse restraining orders that are issued ex parte at the rate of one a minute by Magistrate Trujillo.
• If there were any indication these draconian practices were actually reducing family violence there might be some justification for them. But Table 59 makes it painfully clear that, if anything, these laws and practices have made problems with intimate relationships worse. The state average for these cases again increased in 2009 to 74 per 10,000 citizens and the standard deviation of 37 is the highest seen in the twelve years the Equal Justice Foundation has been tabulating DV demographics. That result clearly indicates that Colorado is moving further from equal justice for its citizens.
The steadily decreasing percentage of married couples involved in reported domestic violence incidents, as shown in Table 77, down to just 35% in 2009 from 49-50% in 1995-2000 makes clear the destructive impact these draconian laws are having on marriage and families
A simple test of equity is the percentage of restraining orders issued in a judicial district versus the percentage of the population residing in that district. If uniform standards were being applied the percent of population would roughly equal the percent of restraining orders issued in that district. The larger the population of a judicial district the closer the two values should match.
Allowing for differences in the populations of the judicial districts we still find in Table 59 that again in 2009 the Fourth Judicial District has issued an exceptionally high number of restraining orders (20.1% of total) relative to its percentage of the state population (14.1%) sampled. That is especially notable inasmuch as the Fourth has the second largest population of Colorado's judicial districts, 624,227 citizens in 2009, and the variance should be minimal with that large of a population.
It is particularly appalling to note that what is known locally as the Filthy Fourth also has the greatest concentration of active-duty military and veterans within the state. And a soldier or veteran with a domestic violence conviction or permanent restraining order against them is a dead man walking. The Equal Justice Foundation has recently reviewed that problem in their newsletter Violence and Veteran Courts.
The Tenth Judicial District is only mid-size (population 157,224 in 2009) but issued 6.8% of all protection order and domestic violence cases with only 3.6% of the sampled population (Table 59). Similarly, the Seventh issues 4.1% of orders with just 2.3% of the population.
Although small districts, the Third issued 1.3% of restraining orders but has only 0.5% of the sampled population. The Seventh issues 4.1% of such orders with just 2.3% of the population. The Twelfth issues 1.8% of all such orders with just 1.0% of the population. The Sixteenth issues 1.4% of such orders, but has only 0.7% of Colorado's population. And the Twenty second issues 1.3% of such orders with just 0.6% of the population.
These seven judicial districts fail this simple test of equity.
Table 60 is a continuing attempt, for twelve years now, to see where and whether protection orders and domestic violence correlate with other societal problems. The implicit assumption in Table 60, as in previous years, is that domestic violence is associated with other problems such as alcoholism, drug use, etc., in a judicial district. For example, underage alcohol abuse and drug use would be associated with abusive or broken homes, and that Joe Six Pack likely gets into other kinds of trouble, e.g., bar brawls, for which he is arrested as well.
|
Violence 1 |
Persons 2 |
Property 3 |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
First 4 |
|||||||
|
Eighth 4 |
|||||||
|
Kit Carson, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, and Yuma |
|||||||
|
Seventeenth 4 |
|||||||
|
Eighteenth 4 |
|||||||
|
County population estimates: U.S. Census Bureau Misdemeanors: Colorado State Court Table 30 |
|||||||
|
1. Domestic violence includes both domestic violence and protection order violation cases. 2. Offenses against persons includes the crimes of assault, child abuse, forgery, harassment, menacing, and sex offenses. 3. Offenses against property includes the crimes of arson, criminal mischief, and theft. 4. Municipalities within this judicial district may also prosecute misdemeanor domestic violence and other crimes. The state court values given here do not reflect such cases. 5. Values that differ from the state average for a given offense by one standard deviation or more are shown in bold. |
|||||||
However, if all other categories of similar crimes are at or below the state averages except domestic violence, it suggests a witch hunt is being conducted for that specific offense. Such actions by law enforcement officials and the courts are generally regarded as an abuse of process and a violation of the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions.
For 2009 in Table 60 a relationship between domestic violence and abuse and other misdemeanors is obvious in the Twelfth Judicial District and a weak correlation is present in the Third, Ninth, Sixteenth, and Twenty Second Judicial Districts. Conversely, in 2009 the Seventh, Tenth, and Thirteenth judicial districts have very high numbers of domestic violence cases that show no correlation with other crimes.
These relationships are examined over a period of eleven years in Table 66 but there is little evidence to support a consistent correlation of domestic violence cases with other crimes in most judicial districts.
As has been true in previous years Colorado courts again failed to aggressively prosecute perjury. Table 30 from the state court administrator only shows 9 cases of perjury in 2009. In our experience the only time perjury is prosecuted at all is if the person admits it, and most times not even then.
Subornation of perjury is not a criminal offense in Colorado and in People v. Turner 04 SA 178 the state supreme court ruled that a defendant in a criminal domestic violence case had no right to obtain documentation of what was probably subornation of perjury against him.
The rule of law cannot long endure if perjury continues to be tolerated and subornation of perjury is condoned, protected, and encouraged.
Beginning in 2005 the state court reported protection order violations separately. Table 30 shows 5,113 total cases of restraining order violations in 2009, up from 4,269 in 2008 and just 365 in 2005, a 93% increase in just five years while the sampled population grew just 7%.
In 2009 there were 13,578 criminal domestic violence cases, each of which had a protection order included, and 7,803 civil domestic abuse protection orders, or a total of 21,381 mandatory and civil protection orders (Table 61). In 2009 there were 5,113 restraining order violations (Table 61). Thus, at least 24% of all protection orders were violated in 2009.
|
First 5 |
|||||
|
Eighth 5 |
|||||
|
Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saguache |
|||||
|
Kit Carson, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, and Yuma |
|||||
|
Seventeenth 5 |
|||||
|
Eighteenth 5 |
|||||
|
!. County populations: U.S. Census Bureau 2. DV cases, restraining orders, and violations: Colorado State Court Tables 29, and 30 3. Judicial districts where criminal domestic violence cases decreased between 2005 and 2009 shown in bold. 4. Judicial districts where number of restraining order violations filed exceeded number of domestic abuse orders filed in 2009 shown in bold. |
|||||
It became apparent by 2008 that it has become more difficult to obtain convictions in criminal domestic violence cases. More defendants now refuse plea bargains, insist on jury trials, and police and prosecutors have become more aware of the many false allegations made in DV cases. As a result criminal domestic violence cases decreased in 13 of the 22 judicial districts between 2005 and 2009. Table 61 shows a –9% statewide decrease in criminal domestic violence cases despite a +7% increase in the sampled population.
In response to this threat to their funding, ideologues and radical feminist groups, typically operating under the guise of DV advocacy groups, have begun focusing more on filing civil domestic abuse protection (restraining) orders. These orders are easily obtained by females in an ex parte hearing, require no proof, hearsay is admissible, and subornation of perjury by victim's advocates cannot be questioned (see People v. Turner 04 SA 178) .
Anyone who violates a domestic abuse protection (restraining) order, however unintentionally or accidentally, is guilty of criminal domestic violence under C.R.S. § 18-6-803.5 and subject to immediate mandatory, warrantless arrest. It can be virtually impossible for a man to avoid violating a restraining order unless they simply leave the area. That quandary is particularly true in small towns and rural areas where there may be a single grocery store, gas station, laundromat, etc., or if he wants to see his children or they him. The not very humorous joke is that cell phones were invented to give women a better method of reporting restraining order violations.
The magnitude of the shift became glaringly evident in 2009 and is illustrated in Table 61 by comparing the number of restraining order violations in 2005 with those in 2009. Note that there has been more than an order of magnitude overall increase in the total number of violations in just five years, from just 365 in 2005 to 5,113 in 2009. In many small, rural judicial districts, e.g., 3 rd , 5 th , 7 th , 9 th , 12 th , the number of violations now far exceeds the number of civil restraining orders issued in 2009 as shown in bold in Table 61.
That magnitude of increase in such a short period cannot be either random or accidental. The only reasonable conclusion is that the increase in restraining order violations was the result of a planned and coordinated maneuver to corrupt justice by state- and federally-funded feminist activists who insist, beyond reason, that any man must be guilty of domestic violence and abuse if a woman says he is.
Elsewhere we have pointed out that increasing prosecution of protection order violations has been shown to increase the risk of homicide.
| EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |
| DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Chapter 8 — Demographics Of Domestic Violence In Colorado |
| Next — Demographics of domestic violence in Colorado - 2010 |
| Back — Demographics of domestic violence in Colorado - 2008 |
This site is supported and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.