Domestic Violence Allegations: The Need for Fair Scrutiny

Domestic violence is a serious issue, but it’s also a topic that has been prone to exaggeration and misuse in legal and social contexts. Allegations can and often do destroy lives, particularly when the evidence is scant and the consequences severe.

The Nature of Domestic Violence

Domestic violence doesn’t always manifest as physical abuse; verbal insults and threats can be equally hurtful. However, much of this behavior stems from learned patterns. If someone grows up in a household where violence or hostility was normalized, they may inadvertently adopt those behaviors.

That said, it’s crucial to distinguish between genuine abuse and conflicts that are part of normal relational dynamics. Words can indeed hurt, but labeling every argument or harsh exchange as “domestic violence” waters down the gravity of real abuse.

Media Influence and Legal Overreach

The push to investigate and enforce domestic violence laws gained traction in the 1980s, fueled by media campaigns. These campaigns often spotlighted extreme cases, pressuring lawmakers to create or strengthen legislation. While well-intentioned, this fervor has led to a system where allegations alone can result in severe consequences, even without substantial evidence.

Child custody battles and the exclusive use of shared residences are frequently at the heart of these cases. These disputes often devolve into “he said, she said” scenarios. Since most incidents occur behind closed doors, physical evidence, such as injuries, becomes critical—but even then, interpretation can be subjective. For instance, bruises might indicate defensive injuries, or they could result from restraint. Without clear evidence, the accused is often at a disadvantage.

Restraining Orders and the Impact on Lives

Restraining orders are issued liberally, often with minimal evidence, as judges fear media backlash if someone were to get hurt after an order was denied. These orders can lead to significant disruptions in the accused’s life. In cases involving firearms, for example, police may break in to dwellings to confiscate weapons from the accused—even if there’s no indication the weapons played any role in the alleged incident.

For those in professions like law enforcement or security, such orders can mean immediate suspension from their jobs, even before a case is resolved. The system errs on the side of caution, but this often comes at the expense of fairness.

Long-Term Consequences of Allegations

A domestic violence conviction carries lifelong repercussions. Beyond the immediate legal penalties, it permanently labels the accused as an abuser, barring them from owning firearms, limiting employment opportunities, and tarnishing their reputation. Even without a conviction, the stigma of an accusation can follow someone indefinitely.

In many cases, the burden of proof is unfairly shifted onto the accused. Instead of being presumed innocent, the accused must often prove their innocence—a reversal of the foundational principles of justice.

A Need for Balanced Assessment

The prior conduct of the accused is one of the most reliable indicators of guilt or innocence. If someone has no history of violence or similar allegations, this should weigh heavily in their favor. However, in many cases, this context is ignored in favor of a “better safe than sorry” approach that disproportionately harms the accused.

Conclusion

Domestic violence is a real problem that deserves attention and resources. However, the system’s current approach often punishes the innocent and overextends its reach. A balanced, evidence-based approach is essential to ensure justice for both the accuser and the accused. False or exaggerated allegations not only harm the accused but also undermine the credibility of genuine victims, diluting the seriousness of this critical issue.

Domestic Violence Laws Have Gone Too Far

Phoenix, AZ— It all began in the 1980s. I clearly remember groups of butch lesbians dressed like Hells Angels gang members demonstrating on Jefferson Street, demanding stronger domestic violence laws.

The push at the time was to create tougher court restraining orders and to punish cowardly men who physically and emotionally abused women. These same groups also sought tax-supported shelters for battered women.

Those advocating for stricter laws ultimately succeeded, but things didn’t unfold as planned. As a licensed private investigator and court process server, I found myself serving these orders on lesbians who were allegedly abusing each other.

Obtaining restraining orders that eject a person from their own home and confiscate firearms requires only a single, unsupported allegation. Although there is a hearing later, the accused doesn’t get a public defender since these cases are considered civil matters, meaning due process is minimal at best.

I also discovered that the battered women’s shelters were often staffed by aggressive lesbians who preyed on the victims/residents.

However, the most significant issue arose when orders of protection and domestic violence allegations surged, not due to actual violence, but because people embroiled in divorce and custody battles were fabricating claims to gain an advantage in court.

`

Another significant issue with these restraining orders is that judges tend to sign them automatically. They do this because should something terrible were to happen after refusing to sign, they would face intense scrutiny from the media and the public. As a result, judges often feel they have no options but to approve every order.

The real tragedy is that people are being convicted, castigated, and punished for life simply based on the unsubstantiated claims of their domestic partners. It gets even worse when the accuser decides to drop the allegations they initially brought to court. Prosecutors still find ways to convict the accused, often bypassing hearsay rules and without the testimony of the alleged victims.

Two things routinely happen to innocent people. First, they are publicly branded as abusers in court records, which severely impacts their future employment, relationships and marriages. Second, an innocent person can be barred from possessing a firearm for life, no matter how dire their future circumstances may be.

What I’ve learned is that the stigma attached to these accusations is often worse than the jail time itself.

Domestic violence should be treated like any other assault or battery case. Misdemeanors should not be escalated into major crimes.

Let me be clear: I absolutely abhor spousal abuse and believe in both enforcement and punishment for those who terrorize their partners. However, we must recognize that the system is often abused, and perjury becomes a tool for some to resolve their legal issues. The rampant misuse of domestic violence laws calls for urgent reform. We also need to understand that this is a complex issue, and a one-size-fits-all approach is inadequate.

Divorce, Guns and Public Court Records

Chicago, IL—Before 1969 divorce was no simple process in most jurisdictions.  The laws were designed to make divorce difficult with the idea that couples could solve their differences and continue to responsibly raise their children.

There had to be specific grounds and the most popular was “extreme cruelty”. 

There was abandonment and adultery, however they were much more difficult to prove.  The petitioner had to prove that the marriage had not only failed but was dangerous! Without what we’d today call terroristic threats, a divorce would not be granted.

The lawyers would all tell their clients, “Don’t worry it’s only a formality, just sign here or no divorce.”

If you go to the court clerk’s office and pull random case files they’re all carbon copies of each other.

“The Respondent has repeatedly pulled a handgun on Petitioner threatening to kill her” was written right at the top of nearly every petition!

The respondent in most cases also wanted the divorce and simply failed to appear in court to guarantee the divorce was granted by default. 

The petition was always made under oath meaning that in all but an insignificant few cases perjury was committed.

The lawyers and judges all knew the petitions were perjured but they all played along in an exercise of pragmatism. 

I have had a few clients over the years ask me to obtain their parents divorce records to satisfy curiosity after they’d hear extreme cruelty was the basis for the divorce.  It would affect how they regarded their fathers.

In a very large percentage of these cases there was never a gun kept in these homes!

Finally in 1969 the no-fault divorce laws swept the nation to end the filing of these outrageous documents.

Thankfully I’m old enough to know how things were done.  I would have to reassure my clients that their fathers were not deranged gunslingers.  Sometimes it was a tough sell because it made a perjurer out of their mothers.

I can’t help but wonder how many divorce filings led to the rejection of security clearances, job rejections or promising romances after various background investigations.