LafayetteLady
Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007 From: Northern New Jersey Status: offline
|
I'm going to attempt to trim the quotes to save a little space. The batteries in my mouse are also dead which means I'm using the stupid touch pad that I'm simply not coordinated enough to use well. quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswad quote:
What you need to remember when talking about what you have "heard" here and elsewhere is that the stories, more often than not, are told by the ones who are arrested. Sorry, but they do tend to blow things out of proportion. Of course. I'm noting a certain consistency, and a match with what's been said by other sources, but it's quite possible that- as you seem to claim- police usually don't do much on a DV call unless there's evidence that DV has taken place. quote:
Within the majority of the US, IF someone is arrested on domestic violence, the furthest they will go before trial is a county lock up. The question being, do they go there without physical evidence being present? quote:
In other words, police remove the alleged offending party from the situation at hand, but mostly to give both parties time to calm down. Again, quite fine, so long as there's physical evidence when police respond to the call. quote:
Restraining orders are issued on a temporary basis, and the accused is made to leave the premises. Same as above. Fine, if there's evidence. As I have stated several times now, the typical result of a DV call is that police find a couple arguing (or the arguing has stopped by the time they get there). They will talk to BOTH people to find out what is going on, and if the accuser states they are "afraid" of the other person, yes, a temporary restraining order may be issued (typically when the accused pushes for it), but the accused isn't usually put in lock up if they agree to stay away from the accuser until the TRO (temporary restraining order) is heard in court and a determination is made whether to issue a final. IF a final is issued, it will very often be a "two-way" restraining order, whereby BOTH parties are ordered to stay away from the other. I have seen quite a few cases where a final order is NOT issued, but the court (strongly) suggests the parties stay away from each other. So the only "major" inconvenience is that the accused must leave the residence. Sadly, this is typically the whole reason that the accused makes the accusation to begin with. However, I have seen instances where the accuser is forced to leave the residence, typically where the residence belongs to the accused. When the accused owns the home, and there are children in the household belonging to the accuser (or both), then the accuser does usually get to stay in the home until the final hearing. The final hearing WILL take place within a week. As for what constitutes evidence, it will be if the parties are still screaming, there is evidence of injury or destruction of property, or the person accused is stupid and tries to continue the argument while the police are present. And yes, all of the information MUST be contained in the police report, which MUST be completed by the police regarding the event. Without that police report, the judge hearing the final order would have no information. Again, I am really sorry to hear your system works the way it does. That is a gross miscarriage of justice in my opinion. quote:
Now of course, if the accused is stupid enough to make threats to their accuser while the police try to peacefully remove them, then that's on them, isn't it? Suffice to say, screaming, "I'm going to get you for this, you stupid bitch!" (just an example) kind of seals one's fate. quote:
quote:
True false arrests occur in less than 1% of cases, and actually convicting innocent people even less so. When you consider how many are actually arrested each year, that is a very, very small number. However, the media doesn't make a habit of saying, "In today's news, 10,000 people were arrested, had a fair trial and were convicted," you aren't going to hear anything but the problem cases, making it appear that mistakes are the norm, not the exception. Never said mistakes are the norm. However, if false arrests occur in less than 1% of cases, you're doing better than some of the best estimates I've seen for the human error bound (1.6% error rate as the minimum consistently achievable in any public- or publicly run- service over time). That casts doubts on the accuracy of the number. Basically, if you're always doing twice as well as humans can do over time, you're measuring your accuracy the wrong way. When I am talking about the percentage of false arrest, I'm not talking about just DV cases, but comparing ALL arrests with the number of people who are exonerated (see the numbers in my post to Jeff). I'm not saying that my math is correct, since I truly suck at math, however, when you consider more than 14 million arrests per year, and only 239 exonerations by the Innocence Project, for which those exonerated were arrested in all different years, it isn't difficult to roughly say it is less than 1%. Also, while I was able to find the number of arrests, that doesn't talk about how many of those 14 million were actually convicted, so you are correct saying that my calculations could be off.
|