Uniform Standards For Domestic Violence Cases Do Not Exist by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.
Uniform Standards For Domestic Violence Cases Do Not Exist by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.© 2003-2006 Equal Justice Foundation
| Home | Abstract | Contents | Site Map | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Comments? | Get Newsletter | Help the EJF |
| Chapter 10 — Demographics Of Domestic Violence In Colorado |
| Next — Marriage, divorce, and charges of domestic violence and abuse |
| Back — Principal effect of 1994 DV law in Colorado Springs is reduction in 911 calls |
Judicial districts with extraordinary numbers of domestic violence and abuse cases
Prosecution trends in the Fourth Judicial District
Recidivism and repeat offenders
Twenty Second Judicial District
The relationship between domestic violence and other misdemeanors
Judicial districts with consistently fewer numbers of domestic violence and abuse cases
Other misdemeanor cases in these judicial districts
Statewide police incidents vs. court cases
Number of male victims reported by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation
Estimates of false allegations
Based on Colorado Bureau of Investigation data
Based on National Crime Victimization Survey data
We currently have ten years of domestic violence incident data for the police agencies of Colorado and nine years of demographic data for the courts (Table 57). The data encompass a population of roughly 4 million people.
Table 57: Per capita number of domestic violence and abuse cases in Colorado for the years 1998 through 2007
|
Notably, the number of per capita domestic violence and abuse cases in Colorado increased almost linearly from 1998 and peaked in 2003. The number has declined and appears to have leveled off since then (Table 57). The reasons for that change are currently unknown.
The data from 1998 (Table 36), 1999 (Table 37), 2000 (Table 39), 2001 (Table 41), 2002 (,Table 43), 2003 (Table 45), 2004 (Table 47), 2005 (Table 49), 2006 (Table 51), and 2007 (Table 53) make it plain that uniform standards are not being applied across the state in the issuance of protection orders and the prosecution of domestic violence cases in the various judicial districts.
With ten years of court data it is obvious that abuse of process under color of law is occurring in judicial districts that consistently issue protection orders and prosecute domestic violence cases in per capita numbers more than one standard deviation above the average for the state's judicial districts.
From the data summarized in Table 58 the Third, Fourth, Seventh, Tenth, Twelfth, and Sixteenth judicial districts stand out as repeatedly (for more than four years) issuing extraordinary numbers of protection orders. Their abysmal records of injustice are summarized in Table 58 and these judicial districts currently (through FY 2007) encompass 23% of the sampled population of 4.3 million residents.
The Twenty Second Judicial District was added to Table 58 beginning in 2006 as the number of cases there suddenly jumped from 80-90 to 132 and then to 154 per 10,000 in 2007. Apparently radical feminism finally penetrated to this rural area and a new district attorney was elected on a promise to get tough on domestic violence, i.e., destroy children, families, and marriages. Note that the divorce rate is commonly above average already in the small counties of Dolores and Montezuma.
There is always a fine line between aggressive prosecution of crime and the persecution that characterizes a police state. The seven judicial districts listed in Table 58 have crossed that line with regard to prosecution of domestic violence and abuse. These seven judicial districts appear to be in a race to see who can destroy the greatest number of children and families by imposing the most draconian enforcement criteria for domestic violence and abuse.
The abuse of restraining orders is obvious in El Paso and Teller Counties, including the city of Colorado Springs, that comprise the Fourth Judicial District, the second most populous judicial district in Colorado (Table 51), where, in every year sampled, the number of restraining orders issued per capita egregiously exceeds the state average.
It is therefore reasonable to infer that the use of protection orders and charges of domestic violence are grossly abused in the Fourth Judicial District. As the second largest judicial district in Colorado, if anything remotely resembling equal justice and equal protection applied, the numbers of protection orders in El Paso and Teller counties would be near the state average over time and comparable with the largest district, the Eighteenth, and the nearly equal First Judicial District (Table 59).
Note that since 2005 the number cases of domestic violence involving protection order violations has been broken out separately and those are shown in parentheses in Table 59. Again the 4 th Judicial District has twice the number of cases as the 1 st and 18 th .
The statewide average would suggest roughly 2,600 civil protection orders and criminal domestic violence cases a year in this judicial district. Instead, from Table 51 we find 6,207 cases of domestic violence and abuse were prosecuted in 2006. Thus, one half of all domestic violence and abuse cases in this judicial district, or roughly 2,600, are an abuse of process just in 2006. By inference, just in the nine years from 1998 through 2006 more than 20,000 men (and women) in this district have been unjustly thrown from their homes with little more than the clothes on their back with no pretense of due process.
With regard to domestic violence and abuse, the actions of DVERT, victim's advocates ( TESSA claims to help 2,500 women per year get restraining orders (about one-half of which are against military men), district attorney, and the courts in El Paso and Teller counties have all the fervor of a witch hunt, with the added horror that they are aided and abetted by current laws and taxpayer funding. Yet police records simply don't bear out the gross numbers of DV incidents. In 2004 Colorado Springs police received only 9,261 domestic and family disturbance calls, 1,829, or 17% fewer than the 11,090 calls they received in 1990, despite a 40% increase in population (see Table 55). Additionally, Colorado Bureau of Investigation data suggest only about 1,300 domestic violence incidents are reported from El Paso and Teller counties in a given year, or about 22 per 10,000 residents (see Table 67 below).
The discrepancy in the application of domestic violence laws is also borne out by the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) that found in 2004 that only 0.4% (1 in 250) households included a member victimized by an intimate partner, e.g., a spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend. The NCVS includes both reported and unreported criminal acts. That translates to less than 0.2% of the population of 609,096 residents and indicates the Fourth Judicial District had ~1,220 actual incidents of criminal domestic violence or abuse in 2007.
Compare the NCVS estimate of 1,220 incidents with 3,014 criminal cases reported (Table 49) and 2,315 domestic abuse restraining orders (5,329 total in 2007) and the evidence suggests at least 75% of the domestic violence and abuse cases in the Fourth Judicial District are, at best, unsubstantiated, and that there are several thousand cases of false allegations of domestic violence and abuse every year.
The Fourth Judicial District is also home to one of the largest military installations in the United States. It is estimated that approximately one fourth of the incredible number of domestic violence charges and restraining orders in this district are made against men, and a few women in the military. Since, under the Lautenberg Amendment, a DV conviction or a restraining order prohibits the possession of a gun or ammunition, the result is such men and women are discharged. As a result the military in El Paso County is losing the equivalent of at least a battalion (~1,000) every year to largely trumped up, exaggerated charges of domestic violence, or to plainly false allegations.
The number of domestic violence and abuse cases prosecuted in the Fourth Judicial District courts are simply unbelievable!
From 2000 to 2007 the population of the Fourth Judicial District increased 13% while, conversely, the total number of domestic violence cases decreased by 15% (Table 59). A logical conclusion might then be that the draconian DV laws and prosecutions are working and domestic violence is decreasing. However, if intimate partner violence is, in fact, decreasing then the number of domestic abuse protection orders should also be decreasing. Instead, through 2007 the number of protection orders has radically increased (Table 62), contradicting the initial conclusion.
As there is little evidence that intimate partner violence is actually diminishing in the Fourth Judicial District, the decrease in DV cases might then be attributed, as previously noted, to the fact that citizens call 911 in far fewer numbers for domestic disturbances (Table 55 and Table 56) since the current laws were passed in 1994.
Coincident with the first posting on this site in November 1999 of the dictum that defendants in DV cases must plead not guilty there has been a dramatic increase in the number of cases where defendants plead not guilty (Table 60) and their case is set for trial. Note that not all DV cases in the 4 th Judicial District are handled in Fast Track and the number of cases shown in Table 59 is always larger than the number of Fast Track cases handled in El Paso County Court and shown in Table 60.
From Table 60, in year 2000 roughly 60% of those charged with domestic violence under the Fast Track program foolishly took the plea bargain. By 2007 only 28% of defendants accepted the plea bargain. In the same period the number of defendants who pled "Not Guilty" increased from 40% to 72%.
Statistics are not available on how many of the defendants who initially plead not guilty are later convicted, or accepted a plea bargain at a later date. However, in our experience those defendants who hold out for a jury trial routinely have their case dismissed, or are acquitted at trial. Unfortunately, that still leads to repeat offenders who are familiar with the overcrowded court system being let off. Conversely, all too frequently first offenders, scared, broke, unfamiliar with legal proceedings, denied defense counsel, and guilty of nothing more than a family argument or lover's quarrel, naively accept the plea bargain proffered at the Fast Track hearing. That particularly works to the disadvantage of female defendants with children at home.
Another issue is whether Fast Track, and domestic violence laws in general, are acting to deter and prevent, or at least reduce recidivism. Whether the number of repeat offenders is decreasing at the same rate as the total number of cases is some measure of both recidivism and whether those with prior experience in DV court have learned how to manipulate the system. Table 61 plots the total number of Fast Track DV cases in the Fourth Judicial District together with the number of repeat offenders and alcohol-related DV cases.
Elementary calculus shows that the total number of DV cases is decreasing at the rate of 76 cases per year (Table 61, slope of red line = –76). The number of cases involving repeat offenders is decreasing at a rate of 29 cases per year (Table 61, slope of orange line = –29). Thus, if current trends continue both the total number of DV cases and those involving repeat offenders would reach zero in 2043-2044, suggesting these variables are strongly coupled.
Another way of stating this is that in 2000 repeat offenders accounted for 37% of all DV cases in Table 61. In 2007 repeat offenders still account for 37% of all Fast Track DV cases. Clearly, the present system is doing little or nothing to deter repeat offenders and the decrease in total numbers of domestic violence cases is unrelated to deterrence of repeat offenders.
Further, the slope of a linear fit (orange line, Table 61) to the number of repeat offenders in Table 61 is essentially flat after 2002. That suggests the number of repeat DV offenders will remain essentially constant in the future, rather than continue to decrease. Either way the problem of intimate partner violence is not being solved by current laws and practices.
Table 61 shows the number of alcohol-involved DV cases is decreasing at a rate of 55 cases per year and would reach zero in 2028, significantly earlier than total DV cases. Why these slopes differ at all is not understood but in 2000 alcohol was involved in 47% of all Fast Track DV cases and by 2007 only 42% of DV cases involved alcohol.
It seems unlikely that DV laws are deterring people from drinking, or drunken couples from fighting.
Given that criminal prosecutions of domestic violence are decreasing in the Fourth Judicial District (Table 59 and Table 60), one might reasonably infer that as of 2007 the laws are working and family violence is decreasing. However, if that were the case then there would not be any need for more domestic abuse protection orders. Instead, quite the reverse is occurring.
While criminal prosecutions of domestic violence have been decreasing, and convictions becoming more difficult to obtain as defendants increasingly plead not guilty (Table 60), radical feminists (redfems) have adapted by radically increasing the numbers of domestic abuse protection orders sought by TESSA as shown in Table 62.
Domestic abuse protection orders do not require due process and are awarded ex parte without prosecutorial review. So they are much easier to obtain and have much the same impact as a criminal charge without the troublesome requirement of requiring proof. In addition TESSA can script the form for the protection order and what to say on it for women.
Anecdotal evidence suggests such protection orders are used in one-third to one-half of all divorces and are known colloquially as the "silver bullet" for winning child custody. Clearly the domestic violence industry, as exemplified by TESSA, is having a horrifying effect on families and children. Divorces in the Fourth Judicial District are consistently more than one standard deviation above the state average (Table 68).
As bad as it is, the Fourth Judicial District is far from the worst in Colorado. From Table 58 it is clear that the totalitarian regime in the tiny Sixteenth Judicial District, encompassing Bent, Crowley, and Otero counties in southeastern Colorado, would make Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mussolini proud. In the ten years from 1998 to 2007 this district of ~31,000 court-ravaged souls has averaged 138 domestic violence and abuse cases per 10,000 citizens (Table 58). In 2002 the Sixteenth Judicial District issued an astounding 168 restraining orders per 10,000 citizens.
Summing the restraining orders shown for the Sixteenth Judicial District (Table 36 for 1998, Table 37 for 1999, Table 39 for 2000, Table 41 for 2001, Table 43 for 2002, Table 45 for 2003, Table 47 for 2004, Table 49 for 2005, Table 51 for 2006, and Table 53 for 2007) we find that 4,282 domestic violence and abuse cases were processed in ten years. No data are available for the years 1994-1997 but a reasonable estimate would be ~1,200. At the current rate of issuing restraining orders it is a simple matter to extrapolate that before 2015 every adult male over the age of 18 in the Sixteenth Judicial District will have been issued at least one restraining order and about two-thirds of the men will have been charged with domestic violence.
One might view this through a gender feminist lens as proof that all men are "batterers" and all women are "victims." But somewhere common sense should suggest the legal system has run amok.
Marriage and families are quaint relics of the past in this hell hole of "justice" where a state of war appears to exist between the courts and citizens. In fact, the number of divorces in the Sixteenth Judicial District shows a marked decline from 77 per 10,000 citizens in 2004 to just 58 per 10,000 in 2007 (Table 68), not because people are staying married longer, but because there are fewer married couples left to get divorced.
Tied for third place in the roll of infamy depicted in Table 58 is the minuscule Third Judicial District embracing Huerfano and Las Animas counties along Colorado's southern border. This hive of petty dictators rules over about 24,000 Colorado residents. Things stink so bad that Huerfano County Judges Claude W. Appel and Robert E. Haeger were disciplined in October 2001 after allegations of improper judicial conduct surfaced. The Colorado Supreme Court also appointed Norman Arends chief judge after District Judge Jesse C. Manzanares was relieved because of the same allegations. Apparently Appel and Haeger were "cleared" as Appel was promoted to district judge and is now chief judge of the Third Judicial District. Haeger is still a Huerfano County Court judge as well. Clearly, matters only got worse in fiscal 2002-2003 (Table 58) and persecution has not diminished with 114 domestic violence and abuse cases for every 10,000 suffering citizens in 2006.
The Third Judicial District has generally led the state in the per capita underage alcohol offenses, and offenses against persons and property in 2000 (Table 40), 2001 (Table 42), 2002 (Table 44), 2003 (Table 46), 2004 (Table 48), and 2005 (Table 50) in addition to the extraordinarily high levels of protection orders. A local attorney even accused the judges of using cocaine.
At the current rate every remaining man over the age of 18 in the Third Judicial District will receive a restraining order by 2020 and over half of them will be charged with domestic violence.
Tied with the Third for third place for dishonor in 2007, Table 58 shows the Tenth Judicial District ( Pueblo County) has fully joined the wolf pack of DV persecution. While their ten year average of 115 domestic violence and abuse cases per 10,000 citizens is toward the low end of the contenders in Table 58, they placed second for 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 for per capita restraining orders. And in 2006 they placed first in the state with 146 domestic violence and abuse cases per 10,000 people, a very dubious distinction.
The Tenth is nearly five times the size of the tiny Sixteenth, so the human suffering resulting from this persecution is similarly magnified. For example, the NCVS data suggest that only about 245 domestic violence and abuse cases actually occurred, compared with the 1,804 shown in Table 53 for 2007. The inference is that 85% of these court cases are, at best, unsubstantiated.
The Twelfth Judicial District, also along Colorado's southern border, is fourth in our lineup of judicial villains (Table 58) for 2007. The Twelfth includes Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saguache counties. Since 1999 the Twelfth has placed in the top three or four judicial districts charging men with domestic violence in these already economically-stressed communities.
Perhaps the judiciary and prosecutors in the Seventh Judicial District didn't feel they were doing enough to destroy families and marriages? After a strong beginning of 108 restraining orders per 10,000 citizens in 1998 (Table 36) their totalitarian efforts lagged until 2003 when they managed to jump up again to 106 orders per 10,000 (Table 45). And though they slacked off to 102 domestic violence and abuse cases per 10,000 suffering citizens in 2005 (Table 49) they did pull their draconian average back up to 120 in 2006 (Table 51) and to a staggering 133 per 10,000 in 2007. And the have managed to maintain a fairly impressive average of 105 such cases per 10,000 souls over the past ten years (Table 58). Adolf would be proud of them.
When this tabulation of tyrants was begun the 22 nd Judicial District was maintaining an average or below number of domestic violence and abuse cases. But a new district attorney has fixed that. The number of DV cases started to go up in 2001 but took an amazing jump in 2006 and by 2007 had reached a sickening level of 154 per 10,000 citizens (Table 58), the highest level in the state by a considerable margin. The jump in the destruction of families and marriages has been so sudden that the 10-year average is the lowest, 91 per 10,000, of the miscreants in Table 58.
It is clear that District Attorney Jim Wilson is hell bent on the destruction of society in Dolores and Montezuma counties.
Another approach to isolating judicial districts that are abusing their discretionary powers with regard to domestic violence is to examine all misdemeanor cases. Table 38 for 1999, Table 40 for 2000, Table 42 for 2001, Table 44 for 2002, Table 46 for 2003, Table 48 for 2004, Table 50 for 2005, Table 52 for 2006, and Table 54 for 2007, show selected, population-normalized misdemeanors from data presented by the Colorado State Courts except for the 2 nd Judicial District (Denver).
If a judicial district has a high incidence rate for several categories of misdemeanors as well as domestic abuse and violence, then it is likely that a general problem exists in the society.
Misdemeanors, such as offenses against persons or property, fraud, drug use, and underage alcohol use would probably be prevalent in conjunction with domestic violence in a troubled society. Such a correlation contains the implicit assumption that underage alcohol abuse and drug use would be associated with abusive or broken homes, and that Joe Six Pack would likely get into other kinds of trouble such as bar brawls, besides fighting with his wife or girlfriend. Thus, a high rate of court filings on domestic violence charges would simply be the result of diligent efforts on the part of the courts and law enforcement in those districts, a job for which they are paid and expected to perform.
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.
The six judicial districts showing persistent and continuing high levels of domestic violence and abuse cases, as described above and in Table 58, are compared with other misdemeanors prosecuted in those districts for the years 1999 through 2006 in Table 63.
|
Orders 1 (Abuse only) 2 |
Violence 3 |
Offenses 3 |
Drugs 3 |
Person 3 |
Property 3 |
Fraud 3 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
124 4 |
||||||||
|
|