Today In [The GOP's War on Women] - Now with Censorship!

SyphonBlue

TOPEKA — The Topeka City Council on Tuesday voted to repeal the city’s law against misdemeanor domestic battery, the latest in a budget battle that has freed about 30 abuse suspects from charges.

One of the offenders was even arrested and released twice since the brouhaha broke out Sept. 8.

It started when Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor announced that a 10 percent budget cut would force him to end his office’s prosecution of misdemeanor cases, almost half of which last year were domestic battery cases.

With that, Taylor stopped prosecuting the cases and left them to the city. But city officials balked at the cost.

Tuesday’s 7-3 vote to eliminate the local domestic violence law was designed to force Taylor to prosecute the cases because they would remain a crime under state law.

The matter has gotten Topeka national attention — and scorn.

“I absolutely do not understand it,” Rita Smith, executive director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said after the vote. “It’s really outrageous that they’re playing with family safety to see who blinks first. People could die while they’re waiting to straighten this out.”

Victim advocates fear more such drastic moves as cities and counties face tight budgets at a time when advocates say domestic violence is increasing with the stress of economic hard times.

“I just hope it doesn’t spread,” said Sharon Katz, executive director of Safehome in Johnson County. “There needs to be a higher priority for people who are going to start getting killed.”

At the council meeting, several speakers, including some council members, attacked repealing the city law if only for the message that sends.

Claudine Dombrowski of Topeka threw dice at the podium. That’s what the council is doing with people’s lives, she told them.

She asked: What if the city repealed their law and Taylor still does not prosecute the crime?

“What a way to honor victims and survivors on the 24th anniversary of domestic violence survivors month,” she said.

Two bills up for consideration by Congress neatly coincide with October’s status as Domestic Violence Awareness Month, one that advocates are cheering and another that would impede justice for victims.

The American Independent reported that an immigration enforcement act called the Hinder the Administration Legalization Temptation Act (HALT), would impose penalties on immigrants who claimed abuse. Sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), one provision of the law would force immigration officials to deport illegal immigrants who claimed they were victims of domestic violence. After reporting the crime, the person would be detained because of their illegal status. They could still receive legal help, but being in detention further complicates and hinders their case against their abuser.

The House is scheduled to vote this week on a new bill that would allow federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions to refuse to perform the procedure, even in cases where a woman would die without it.

Under current law, every hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid money is legally required to provide emergency care to any patient in need, regardless of his or her financial situation. If a hospital is unable to provide what the patient needs — including a life-saving abortion — it has to transfer the patient to a hospital that can.

Under H.R. 358, dubbed the “Protect Life Act” and sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), hospitals that don’t want to provide abortions could refuse to do so, even for a pregnant woman with a life-threatening complication that requires a doctor terminate her pregnancy.

SyphonBlue

Some important facts about Topeka, Kansas

One Domestic Violence Murder Occurred Every 10.4 Days.
One Domestic Violence Incident Occurred Every 22 Minutes, 0 Seconds.
Law Enforcement Made One Domestic Violence Arrest Every 41 Minutes, 48 Seconds.

Feral

SyphonBlue wrote:

Austerity, Ho!

Gabriel_Pitt

This thread is utterly lacking in appropriate context. Let me dig something up for you.

Original Source.

Evaluation: Last month, the Shawnee County District Attorney decided that the best way to solve his current budget problem was to stop prosecuting all misdemeanor offenses committed in Topeka, including domestic abuse. The city council of Topeka, Kansas, naturally considers this to be utter bullshit. As such, they're considering this plan of action--removing city ordinance against domestic abuse, leaving county, state, and federal legislation against it intact--with the aim of forcing these cases unambiguously into District Attorney Taylor's jurisdiction, because they believe the county and state to have more resources and power to deal with them than the municipal agencies of Topeka alone. That is, the idea is to force domestic violence cases to be more strictly prosecuted, not less.

Captain Carrot

Which is pretty fucking stupid, since he explicitly said "I don't have the manpower or money to prosecute these cases."

Dehumanized

It's a bit of a sensational OP, but really fuck austerity measures. This is where bullshit across-the-board budget cuts lead.

SyphonBlue

Gabriel_Pitt wrote:

This thread is utterly lacking in appropriate context. Let me dig something up for you.

Original Source.

Evaluation: Last month, the Shawnee County District Attorney decided that the best way to solve his current budget problem was to stop prosecuting all misdemeanor offenses committed in Topeka, including domestic abuse. The city council of Topeka, Kansas, naturally considers this to be utter bullshit. As such, they're considering this plan of action--removing city ordinance against domestic abuse, leaving county, state, and federal legislation against it intact--with the aim of forcing these cases unambiguously into District Attorney Taylor's jurisdiction, because they believe the county and state to have more resources and power to deal with them than the municipal agencies of Topeka alone. That is, the idea is to force domestic violence cases to be more strictly prosecuted, not less.

No, that was in the OP if you actually read it.

"It started when Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor announced that a 10 percent budget cut would force him to end his office’s prosecution of misdemeanor cases, almost half of which last year were domestic battery cases.

With that, Taylor stopped prosecuting the cases and left them to the city. But city officials balked at the cost.

Tuesday’s 7-3 vote to eliminate the local domestic violence law was designed to force Taylor to prosecute the cases because they would remain a crime under state law."

The problem is they're playing a game of chicken with domestic violence. And they've legalized it within the city, hoping the county or state would pick it up.

Henroid

This was a budget issue?

Thanatos

What they're doing is trying to get their budget back. It's a typical tactic used by "justice" officials everywhere.

Washington's prisons are threatening to release rapists and murderers if their budget is cut.

SyphonBlue

Thanatos wrote:

What they're doing is trying to get their budget back. It's a typical tactic used by "justice" officials everywhere.

Washington's prisons are threatening to release rapists and murderers if their budget is cut.

But did Washington actually legalize rape and murder?

zeeny

This is crazy stupid.

emnmnme

The police will still come over to a house and break up a fight, I bet. The abuser won't be in court the next week but it doesn't sound like the cops are going to just not show up at all.

SyphonBlue

emnmnme wrote:

The police will still come over to a house and break up a fight, I bet. The abuser won't be in court the next week but it doesn't sound like the cops are going to just not show up at all.

Sure, but without a law backing them up, what are they going to do, ask them nicely to not beat each other up?

redx

SyphonBlue wrote:

emnmnme wrote:

The police will still come over to a house and break up a fight, I bet. The abuser won't be in court the next week but it doesn't sound like the cops are going to just not show up at all.

Sure, but without a law backing them up, what are they going to do, ask them nicely to not beat each other up?

Or, you know, hold you until a state or county law enforcement officer can arrest you. Or, arrest you and transfer you to state/county law enforcement custody.

Like, it's still on the books. A sheriff will totally come around, arrest you and dump you in a cell for the night.

SyphonBlue

redx wrote:

SyphonBlue wrote:

emnmnme wrote:

The police will still come over to a house and break up a fight, I bet. The abuser won't be in court the next week but it doesn't sound like the cops are going to just not show up at all.

Sure, but without a law backing them up, what are they going to do, ask them nicely to not beat each other up?

Or, you know, hold you until a state or county law enforcement officer can arrest you. Or, arrest you and transfer you to state/county law enforcement custody.

County already said they're not prosecuting these people, so.......I guess the next part of the plan is to hope and pray the state picks up the tab?

jefe414

Disregarding the "domestic" aspect of this for one moment, assault and battery would still be crimes, right? I mean, if I was walking down the street and some other dude ran up to me and hit me with a brick, that would still be illegal? Why not just arrest someone on an assault & battery charge instead of the domestic violence one?

jothki

I imagine that domestic violence charges are much harder to get dropped by the victim.

JHunz

jefe414 wrote:

Disregarding the "domestic" aspect of this for one moment, assault and battery would still be crimes, right? I mean, if I was walking down the street and some other dude ran up to me and hit me with a brick, that would still be illegal? Why not just arrest someone on an assault & battery charge instead of the domestic violence one?

I'm assuming that any amount of assault and battery that would be prosecuted as a misdemeanor in a domestic case is probably also a misdemeanor if it's a guy on the street. Which means Taylor isn't going to prosecute it, which means the city is going to be pissed about that too, which probably means they'll make assault and battery legal too if they don't get too much backlash over this.

Magus`

I know this is kind of a cliche response but I can't help myself.

Kansas

JustinSane07

jefe414 wrote:

Disregarding the "domestic" aspect of this for one moment, assault and battery would still be crimes, right? I mean, if I was walking down the street and some other dude ran up to me and hit me with a brick, that would still be illegal? Why not just arrest someone on an assault & battery charge instead of the domestic violence one?

I had this same thought yesterday too.

I have to wonder what the difference is between A&B and DV on the books is, then.

Magus`

DV tends to hold a higher penalty, for one.

Also a lot (all?) of police institutions will fire/not hire someone who has been convicted of DV.

DarkPrimus

SyphonBlue wrote:

Thanatos wrote:

What they're doing is trying to get their budget back. It's a typical tactic used by "justice" officials everywhere.

Washington's prisons are threatening to release rapists and murderers if their budget is cut.

But did Washington actually legalize rape and murder?

Topeka did not legalize spousal abuse, because they did nothing to overturn or sidestep the state law against it.

Let's not misrepresent what's going on here, because the situation is scummy enough as it stands.

zepherin

Why are these states so resistant to releasing drug offenders. We are going to release murders and rapists, but those non violent offenders can enjoy their 5 years of mandatory minimum.

Thanatos

zepherin wrote:

Why are these states so resistant to releasing drug offenders. We are going to release murders and rapists, but those non violent offenders can enjoy their 5 years of mandatory minimum.

It's possible that the mandatory minimum won't allow them to do that, and it also makes it more likely that their funding won't be cut if they threaten to release murderers and rapists.

electricitylikesme

I really don't see what's to talk about here. This isn't "omg disaster" this is a jurisdictional fight and it sounds like Topeka is in the right. With any luck this gets money allocated to the right places.

mcdermott

JustinSane07 wrote:

jefe414 wrote:

Disregarding the "domestic" aspect of this for one moment, assault and battery would still be crimes, right? I mean, if I was walking down the street and some other dude ran up to me and hit me with a brick, that would still be illegal? Why not just arrest someone on an assault & battery charge instead of the domestic violence one?

I had this same thought yesterday too.

I have to wonder what the difference is between A&B and DV on the books is, then.

Usually some simple 'with which you cohabitate' language, iirc.

zepherin

Thanatos wrote:

It's possible that the mandatory minimum won't allow them to do that, and it also makes it more likely that their funding won't be cut if they threaten to release murderers and rapists.

Nah people get off early on mandatory minimums for a variety of reasons, good time parole, etc. The mandatory minimum only applies to the sentencing guidelines which the judge can give. Now the later part is probably true, sounds like a terrorist threat to me. Maybe some rendition is in order.

Dehumanized

electricitylikesme wrote:

I really don't see what's to talk about here. This isn't "omg disaster" this is a jurisdictional fight and it sounds like Topeka is in the right. With any luck this gets money allocated to the right places.

Topeka is in the right in the sort of way that involves putting dozens of people who probably should be going though a domestic violence trial on the street. It's a shit situation.

Eat it You Nasty Pig.

This kind of thing is pretty common in cash-strapped cities and counties. It's just that normally, they stop enforcing nonviolent misdemeanors like drug possession before they stop enforcing violent ones. Maybe this county has already done that and is having it's budget cut farther, I'm not sure.

zepherin

Eat it You Nasty Pig. wrote:

This kind of thing is pretty common in cash-strapped cities and counties. It's just that normally, they stop enforcing nonviolent misdemeanors like drug possession before they stop enforcing violent ones. Maybe this county has already done that and is having it's budget cut farther, I'm not sure.

Sounds like whoever they have contracted for the prison is trying to scare money out of the state. If I were in charge of that contract I would set a list of priorities for them in terms of which groups to release in the event of budget cuts (have my superiors oversee and edit it) and if they deviated I would get them fined or in severe violation recommend their contract be terminated and assume control of the prisoners, shipping them to other prisons. They will comply because you essentially cost them 100s of millions of dollars if they are stubborn.

So It Goes

JustinSane07 wrote:

jefe414 wrote:

Disregarding the "domestic" aspect of this for one moment, assault and battery would still be crimes, right? I mean, if I was walking down the street and some other dude ran up to me and hit me with a brick, that would still be illegal? Why not just arrest someone on an assault & battery charge instead of the domestic violence one?

I had this same thought yesterday too.

I have to wonder what the difference is between A&B and DV on the books is, then.

when you assault/batter an intimate partner or family member it's DV

depends on the state exactly what crimes are on the books but the relation between defendant and vicitm is what makes a crime domestic violence or domestic violence related

So It Goes

zepherin wrote:

Thanatos wrote:

It's possible that the mandatory minimum won't allow them to do that, and it also makes it more likely that their funding won't be cut if they threaten to release murderers and rapists.

Nah people get off early on mandatory minimums for a variety of reasons, good time parole, etc. The mandatory minimum only applies to the sentencing guidelines which the judge can give. Now the later part is probably true, sounds like a terrorist threat to me. Maybe some rendition is in order.

in which state?

some mandatory minimums don't allow good time

So It Goes

Dehumanized wrote:

electricitylikesme wrote:

I really don't see what's to talk about here. This isn't "omg disaster" this is a jurisdictional fight and it sounds like Topeka is in the right. With any luck this gets money allocated to the right places.

Topeka is in the right in the sort of way that involves putting dozens of people who probably should be going though a domestic violence trial on the street. It's a shit situation.

it's no big deal to let an abuser out after a victim has cooperated with police on the night of the arrest

worried about victim safety? nah

SyphonBlue

More news in the War on Women

Two bills up for consideration by Congress neatly coincide with October’s status as Domestic Violence Awareness Month, one that advocates are cheering and another that would impede justice for victims.

The American Independent reported that an immigration enforcement act called the Hinder the Administration Legalization Temptation Act (HALT), would impose penalties on immigrants who claimed abuse. Sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), one provision of the law would force immigration officials to deport illegal immigrants who claimed they were victims of domestic violence. After reporting the crime, the person would be detained because of their illegal status. They could still receive legal help, but being in detention further complicates and hinders their case against their abuser.

The House is scheduled to vote this week on a new bill that would allow federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions to refuse to perform the procedure, even in cases where a woman would die without it.

Under current law, every hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid money is legally required to provide emergency care to any patient in need, regardless of his or her financial situation. If a hospital is unable to provide what the patient needs — including a life-saving abortion — it has to transfer the patient to a hospital that can.

Under H.R. 358, dubbed the “Protect Life Act” and sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), hospitals that don’t want to provide abortions could refuse to do so, even for a pregnant woman with a life-threatening complication that requires a doctor terminate her pregnancy.

emnmnme

I do not understand the thread title change.

So It Goes

SyphonBlue wrote:

More news in the War on Women

Two bills up for consideration by Congress neatly coincide with October’s status as Domestic Violence Awareness Month, one that advocates are cheering and another that would impede justice for victims.

The American Independent reported that an immigration enforcement act called the Hinder the Administration Legalization Temptation Act (HALT), would impose penalties on immigrants who claimed abuse. Sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), one provision of the law would force immigration officials to deport illegal immigrants who claimed they were victims of domestic violence. After reporting the crime, the person would be detained because of their illegal status. They could still receive legal help, but being in detention further complicates and hinders their case against their abuser.

The House is scheduled to vote this week on a new bill that would allow federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions to refuse to perform the procedure, even in cases where a woman would die without it.

Under current law, every hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid money is legally required to provide emergency care to any patient in need, regardless of his or her financial situation. If a hospital is unable to provide what the patient needs — including a life-saving abortion — it has to transfer the patient to a hospital that can.

Under H.R. 358, dubbed the “Protect Life Act” and sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), hospitals that don’t want to provide abortions could refuse to do so, even for a pregnant woman with a life-threatening complication that requires a doctor terminate her pregnancy.

What are we supposed to be cheering about here??

SyphonBlue

emnmnme wrote:

I do not understand the thread title change.

There wasn't enough substance in the original OP, so I made it about the war on women.

Magus`

Look up.

SyphonBlue

So It Goes wrote:

SyphonBlue wrote:

More news in the War on Women

Two bills up for consideration by Congress neatly coincide with October’s status as Domestic Violence Awareness Month, one that advocates are cheering and another that would impede justice for victims.

The American Independent reported that an immigration enforcement act called the Hinder the Administration Legalization Temptation Act (HALT), would impose penalties on immigrants who claimed abuse. Sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), one provision of the law would force immigration officials to deport illegal immigrants who claimed they were victims of domestic violence. After reporting the crime, the person would be detained because of their illegal status. They could still receive legal help, but being in detention further complicates and hinders their case against their abuser.

The House is scheduled to vote this week on a new bill that would allow federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions to refuse to perform the procedure, even in cases where a woman would die without it.

Under current law, every hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid money is legally required to provide emergency care to any patient in need, regardless of his or her financial situation. If a hospital is unable to provide what the patient needs — including a life-saving abortion — it has to transfer the patient to a hospital that can.

Under H.R. 358, dubbed the “Protect Life Act” and sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), hospitals that don’t want to provide abortions could refuse to do so, even for a pregnant woman with a life-threatening complication that requires a doctor terminate her pregnancy.

What are we supposed to be cheering about here??

I didn't post it, but:

Another domestic violence bill long praised by advocates, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), is up for congressional reauthorization.

Magus`

Women are one of those demographics that I never quite understood what the GOP has that appeals to them. Then again, voting against your own self interest is a thing, I guess.

MentalExercise

Magus` wrote:

I know this is kind of a cliche response but I can't help myself.

Kansas

Haha, yeah! Those silly hicks eliminating a local law to simplify jurisdictional issues making it easier to solve a thorny budget issue, which is difficult to do in the best of times, let alone during a recession. Next thing you know they'll be readin, MIRITE?! OLOLZ!!!11!1!