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 — Uniform standards for domestic violence cases do not exist |
| Back — Demographics of domestic violence in Colorado - 2009 |
The fiscal year 2010 statistics for the Colorado courts for criminal misdemeanor domestic violence charges, with associated mandatory restraining orders, are given in Colorado State Court Administrator's Table 30, with a total of 18,402 (12,968 plus 5,434 cases of protection order violations). Civil restraining orders are tabulated in their Table 29, totalling 13,257 (7,480 of these orders are for domestic abuse), for a combined total of 31,659. Domestic violence cases decreased 1.6% overall and protection (restraining) orders decreased 4.5% overall while the sampled population increased 0.3%. However, the overall decreases disguise a 6.3% increase in restraining order violations, continuing a trend that has become increasingly obvious since 2005.
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 62 together with the population-normalized values for each judicial district.
As 2010 is a census year Table 62 also includes an estimate based on the National Crime Victimization Surveys (NCVS). The NCVS estimate is based on Dugan's (2003) finding that 0.5% of households suffer an incident of criminal domestic violence in a given year. Whereas in year 2000 (Table 41) the NCVS estimates exceeded the number of domestic violence cases in the First, Eighth, and Eighteenth judicial districts in 2010 only in the Eighteenth was the NCVS estimate even close and even there the estimate was a couple of hundred cases below those reported. Overall for the sampled population in year 2000 the number of DV cases was 68% greater than the NCVS estimate. By 2010 the reported number of cases exceeded the NCVS estimate by 160%. However, when compared with domestic violence cases reported to Colorado police agencies (Table 80) the number reported only exceeds the NCVS estimate by 20-29% from 2007 to 2010. Obviously the domestic violence laws are not reducing domestic violence crimes in Colorado, almost certainly due to the continued widening by the legislature of what constitutes the crime of “domestic violence,” e.g. throwing crayons.
|
orders (DA) 1 |
(RO violation) 2 |
total and percent 3 |
|||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 |
||||||||||||||||||
Reversing a decline in the numbers of restraining orders from 2003 to 2008, in 2009 the statewide average increased to 74 per 10,000 citizens and then to 77 per 10,000 in 2010, very near its 2003 high of 78 per 10,000 citizens. In 2010 nine (up from six in 2009) of the twenty-two judicial districts exceeded the average by more than one standard deviation (Table 62). While not quite as bad as in 2009, the Third Judicial District still led the state with a disgraceful 163 such orders per 10,000 suffering citizens. Colorado clearly continues its vendetta against men, children, and families.
In 2010 the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Tenth, Twelfth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Twenty second judicial districts embarrass the state and civilization with 163, 105, 100, 127, 128, 134, 103, 136, and 132 domestic violence and protection order cases per 10,000 citizens respectively (Table 62). 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 6,799 citizens largely at the behest of TESSA redfems. 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 Third Judicial District Attorney, Frank Ruybalid, is definitely leading the citizens of the minuscule (22,218 citizens and decreasing in 2010) district down the path to perdition. In 2009 the number of restraining orders rose to an astounding 175 per 10,000 citizens there but tapered off slightly to 163 in 2010 (Table 62), although considerable blame must also fall on the corrupt judges of that district. And note that 98 of the 137 restraining orders issued in 2010 were apparently violated. Of what use is a restraining order if they are always violated? However, it seems likely they are simply being used as tools by redfems in their war against mankind with the aid and succor of this pandering district attorney?
• The number of restraining orders issued in the tiny 22 nd Judicial District (27,599 citizens in 2010) has tripled since 1998, from 54 per 10,000 to 157 in 2009. But that sad total decreased slightly to 132 in 2010 (Table 62). However, since the upward trend has been continuous for thirteen years it is not a statistical fluke. The jump in 2006 to 132 per 10,000 citizens from 90 the previous year 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). That mockery of justice improved somewhat in 2010 with only 79 of 161 restraining orders apparently being violated.
• Out-of-control charges of domestic violence and abuse appear to only be getting worse in the Seventh Judicial District, rising to 133 per 10,000 in 2007, 129 in 2008, 134 in 2009, and 127 in 2010 (Table 62). In cities like Delta and Montrose there are two to three times the number of restraining order violations in 2010 as there were orders issued.
• Seventh Judicial District Attorney Myrl Serra was arrested in October 2010 for unlawful sexual contact and official misconduct that included adultery, among a plethora of other charges.
• The 4 th Judicial District, has long been a Colorado leader in tyranny. However, it has become harder to press criminal charges of domestic violence and local radical feminist groups 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 William Trujillo.
If there were any indication these draconian practices were actually reducing family violence there might be some justification for them. But Table 62 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 2010 to 77 per 10,000 citizens. 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 2009-2010 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 62 that yet again in 2010 the Fourth Judicial District has issued an exceptionally high number of restraining orders (21.5% of total) relative to its percentage of the state population (14.6%) sampled. That is especially notable inasmuch as the Fourth has the second largest population of Colorado's judicial districts, 645,613 citizens in 2010, and the variance should be minimal with that large of a population. This problem is particularly noxious when the Filthy Fourth is compared with the three other largest judicial districts in Colorado (Table 65).
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 reviewed that problem in their newsletter Violence and Veteran Courts.
The Tenth Judicial District is only mid-size (population 159,063 in 2010) but issued 6.4% of all protection order and domestic violence cases with only 3.6% of the sampled population (Table 62). Similarly, the Seventh issues 4.0% 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. Sixth Judicial District issues 2.0% of these orders with only 1.5% of the population. The Seventh issues 4.1% of such orders with just 2.3% of the population. The Twelfth issues 2.0% of all such orders with just 1.0% of the population. The Sixteenth issues 1.3% of such orders, but has only 0.7% of Colorado's population. And the Twenty second issues 1.2% of such orders with just 0.6% of the population.
All eight of these judicial districts fail this simple test of equity.
From 1999 through 2009 an attempt was made to locate a consistent correlation between domestic violence in Colorado's judicial districts and other misdemeanors. The intent was to see where and whether protection orders and domestic violence correlate with other societal problems. The implicit assumption was that domestic violence is associated with other societal problems such as alcoholism, drug use, etc., in a judicial district. For example, underage alcohol abuse and drug use should 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.
These relationships were 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.
No consistent correlation was found, particularly in large urban areas where one might reasonably expect such relations to be strongest. As a result in 2010 the tabulation was discontinued as simply a waste of time. Since all other categories of similar crimes are at or below the state averages except domestic violence in all but a few rural judicial districts 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.
As has been true in previous years Colorado courts again failed to aggressively prosecute perjury. Table 30 from the state court administrator only shows 3 cases of perjury in 2010. 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.
In 2005 the state court began reporting protection order violations separately. Table 30 shows 5,434 total cases of restraining order violations in 2010, up from 5,113 in 2009, and just 365 in 2005, a 15-fold increase in just six years while the sampled population grew just 8%.
In 2010 there were 12,968 criminal domestic violence cases, down from 13,578 in 2009. Each of these had a mandatory protection order included. 2010 saw the issuance of 7,480 civil domestic abuse protection orders (Table 62). Thus a total of 20,448 mandatory and civil protection orders were issued in 2010. As noted above, according to the state court administrator (Table 30) in 2010 there were 5,434 restraining order violations. Thus, at least 27% of all protection orders were violated in 2010 although in reality such orders are “violated” at a much higher rate, commonly because couples simply ignore them.
Around 2005 it became apparent that unless the defendant can be deceived or coerced into accepting a plea bargain, an increasingly rare occurrence convictions for criminal domestic violence have become almost impossible to obtain. Rather than waste scarce resources on cases they could not hope to win in front of a jury, district attorneys across the state became more selective about domestic violence cases they would bring forward.
As a result criminal domestic violence cases decreased in 14 of the 22 judicial districts between 2005 and 2010. Table 63 shows a ~12% statewide decrease in criminal domestic violence cases despite a +8% increase in the sampled population.
|
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 2010 are shown in bold. 4. Judicial districts where number of restraining order violations filed exceeded number of domestic abuse orders filed in 2010 shown in bold. |
|||||
Sensing that their campaign of hate and family destruction using domestic violence laws was faltering, and in response to this threat to their funding, ideologues and radical feminist groups, typically operating under the guise of DV advocacy groups, altered their strategy.
The magnitude of this strategic shift became glaringly evident by 2009 and continues in 2010. The problem is illustrated in Table 63 by comparing the number of restraining order violations in 2005 with those in 2010. Note that there has been more than an order of magnitude overall increase in the total number of violations in just six years, from just 365 in 2005 to 5,434 in 2010. In many small, rural judicial districts, e.g., 3 rd , 5 th , 7 th , 9 th , 12 th , 13 th , 14th, and 22 nd the number of violations now far exceeds the number of civil restraining orders issued in 2010 as shown in bold in Table 63. The trend has now even extended to the 20 th judicial district, usually low in domestic violence cases but a bastion of radical feminism.
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.
Civil domestic abuse protection (restraining) 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) . While Table 63 shows that overall the number of protection orders issued remained unchanged between 2005 and 2010, it is also evident that in 10 of the 22 judicial districts the numbers increased. That is particularly obvious in the Filthy Fourth where the number of protection orders increased by 22% between 2005 and 2010.
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, turn off their cell phone, eliminate all email addresses in their computers at home and work, and doesn't want to visit, talk to, or (better yet) have any children. That quandary is particularly true in small towns and rural areas where there may be a single grocery store, gas station, laundromat, etc.
Further, the Equal Justice Foundation has received numerous reports of women bent on revenge, vengeance, involved in a divorce, or seeking custody of children have stalked male partners, and sometimes the reverse, in order to insure the man (or woman) violates the restraining order. Examples include women stalking partners to bars, restaurants, grocery stores, malls, etc., or simply reporting seeing him pass them driving the other way on the highway. When called police have little option but to make an arrest, particularly after the Castle Rock vs. Gonzales case.
The not very humorous joke is that cell phones were invented to give women a better method of reporting restraining order violations. Further, a man accused of violating a protection (restraining) order is left with the logical impossibility of proving a negative. So redfems have simply shifted from charging men with criminal domestic violence to insuring by fair means or foul that he violates the restraining order she has gotten against him.
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 — Uniform standards for domestic violence cases do not exist |
| Back — Demographics of domestic violence in Colorado - 2009 |
This site is supported and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.