Search legislation

Most Recent Comments

1) Why Not All Crimes  by Anonymous Citizen on February 17, 2006 
You Say, "Domestic violence has to end. The women we are elected to represent deserve this at the very least. It's time to put a stop to this madness"
And I agree, but wouldn't it be nice for murder to end? How about breaking and entering? Let's end all crime. This would bias juries to convict every time. There are some women out there that use the system to "get even" with some man that they used to love but now hate. Just another step down the slippery slope. If you believe the feminists about 9 out of 10 women are victimized, raped, or abused. Funny that I don't personally know any. Maybe it's just luck that I only meet the lucky 10%.
Reply

2) Sen. Cropsey's "journal statement"  by Admin003 on November 4, 2005 
Senator Cropsey's statement is as follows:

Before we vote on these two bills, I want to again publicly thank the Senators from the 13th District and the 17th District for introducing these bills and pushing the issue forward. As I mentioned yesterday, they have spent five tireless years attempting to get these policy changes implemented through the court rule process, only to see opposition from certain attorneys kill those rule changes.

Allow me to once again quote from two sources on these policy changes: first, from the Department of Justice based on the police reports, including rape, physical assault, and stalking, almost 25 percent of the white women in America have reported some type of domestic victimization; and this goes up to a staggering 37.5 percent of American Indian women.

Secondly, from a report entitled "The Motherhood Study" from the University of Minnesota and the University of Connecticut, findings that should be obvious, and I quote: "Presented with a list of possible changes to make life better for mothers and children, mothers most often indicated as high priorities: first, reducing all forms of family violence--94 percent; second, enabling mothers to spend more time with their children--86 percent; and third, promoting healthy marriages--86 percent." As the authors summarize this, they state, "Three issues identified in the key findings seem to have particular salience with mothers in this study, and appear to be ripe for immediate action. First, mothers place a high priority on reducing family violence and promoting healthy marriages." And then they go on.

Domestic violence has to end. The women we are elected to represent deserve this at the very least. It's time to put a stop to this madness. The time is, indeed, ripe for immediate action. It's time to pass these bills, and again, I want to thank Senators Johnson and Hammerstrom, and I urge your support for Senate Bill No.120 and Senate Bill No.263.

Reply

3) I support Bill 120  by Anonymous Citizen on June 21, 2005 
Victims of domestic violence are heavy users of health care. The cost of domestic violence exceeds $5.8 billion dollars per year. About $4.1 billion is spent on direct physical and mental health care. The remaining indirect cost covers loss of productivity and earnings (Nelson, 2004).
Currently, typical forms of evidence used in domestic violence cases by prosecutors include: the victim and police officer’s testimony, recordings of 911 calls, and documentation of the victim’s injuries. Victims tend to be reluctant to testify against the perpetrator for a myriad of reasons. Police reports tend to be incomplete or the police may only write down the victim’s statement. Many domestic violence victims do not get treatment or lie about how they got the injuries for various reasons. With such little evidence it is helpful to be able to use prior offenses as evidence (Kovach, 2000).
Prior acts of child abuse and rape are now admissible for prosecuting child molesters and rapists. This should be extended to cover domestic violence cases, in Michigan, also.
Congress amended federal rules of evidence in 1994 to allow prior victims of rape and child molestation to testify concerning a defendant’s propensity to commit such crimes. At the time, the American Bar Association and some judges denounced the changes as unconstitutional and prejudicial to defendants. However, the rules not only have withstood constitutional challenges, they also have proven effective in prosecuting habitual sex offenders (2003).
Domestic violence defendants have high recidivism rates (Kovach, 2000). This is related to the fact that domestic violence is a cycle that tends to escalate in frequency and severity (Woman’s Aid, 1992).
California and Alaska have already implemented policies similar to Bill 120, which allow prior domestic violence offenses to be admissible in court. In both states, the policy has withstood constitutional challenges.
In "Rosiak v. Melvin," the New Jersey Superior Court ruled that past history of domestic violence is admissible as evidence. They claimed that, since the man had a history of domestic violence, a threatening statement he made to a former live-in girlfriend was harassment. This was needed in order for her to have a domestic violence restraining order against him (Domestic Violence, 2002). This illustrates that using an offender’s history of domestic violence can already be used in some circumstances. However, this cannot always be used as evidence due to Michigan's "Rule of Evidence 404".
This bill would affect women, children, and men if it were passed. All three could be charged as a perpetrator of domestic violence. It could make the difference if a perpetrator is put in jail and for what length of time. It will give the victim time to figure out a game plan and give them time away from the abuser to think about things. The victim may not want to have their abuser convicted. In this case they might not want previous history to be included as evidence. Domestic violence negatively affects the entire family in which the abuse is occurring. Some possible effects on adults include: homicide, suicide, injuries, depression, difficulty obtaining, maintaining, and adjusting to employment, emotional abuse, breakup of the family unit, court fights, social isolation, escalating violence, possible reoccurrence of violent behavior with a new partner, and expansion of violence in the community. Some possible effects on children under six years of age include: poor health, poor sleeping habits, aggression, along with excessive screaming, hiding, shaking and stuttering. Some possible effects on children from 7 to 12 years old include: emotional injuries, depression, guilt feelings, aggression, shy withdrawn behavior, distant, poor school adjustment, and physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse. Some possible effects on children from 13 to 17 years old include: truancy, role reversal, running away, modeling of behaviors, early marriage, delinquency, violence toward parents, and expansion of violence into the community (Woman’s Aid, 1992).
On the mezzo level, legal advocates and other workers at domestic violence shelters as well as prosecutors will benefit if evidence of prior domestic violence is admissible. They have one more form of evidence to use during a trial. This is important since lack of evidence often hinders prosecution. There is often a lack of physical evidence. Also, many times there are not witnesses to testify, given that the act typically occurs in the victim’s own home. Frequently, the victim is not cooperative. There tends to be a jury bias against victims of domestic violence. As if this was not enough, victims of frequent abuse may suffer from Battered Women’s Syndrome or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. This can cause them to "black out" or not remember much of what happened (Reutter, 2003).
On the macro level this will influence the way all courts in Michigan conduct domestic violence trials. It will influence the evidence that can be used therefore, changing the outcomes. If this bill were to pass it would likely be put up to Constitutional challenges like similar evidence used in rape and child molestation cases, which may be considered prejudicial.

Reply

View Full Conversation