clovenhooves The Personal Is Political General The Feminist Law Professor Who Wants to Stop Arresting People for Domestic Violence

The Feminist Law Professor Who Wants to Stop Arresting People for Domestic Violence

The Feminist Law Professor Who Wants to Stop Arresting People for Domestic Violence

 Print Thread
 
Pages (2): 1 2 Next
eyeswideopen
Find
21
Mar 9 2025, 7:50 AM
#1
Thought this was an interesting article - I personally disagree with much of what Professor Goodmark is advocating for, because given the disfunction in our legal system, it will inevitably be simplified into reducing penalties for men who commit domestic violence and will result in more harm to their victims. But it's always helpful to read about positions you disagree with, if only because it helps refine and strengthen your own arguments for your beliefs (and sometimes you might change your mind).

https://archive.ph/QgwF3

link to original: https://www.newyorker.com/news/persons-of-interest/the-feminist-law-professor-who-wants-to-stop-arresting-people-for-domestic-violence
Reply
Reply
eyeswideopen
Mar 9 2025, 7:50 AM #1

Thought this was an interesting article - I personally disagree with much of what Professor Goodmark is advocating for, because given the disfunction in our legal system, it will inevitably be simplified into reducing penalties for men who commit domestic violence and will result in more harm to their victims. But it's always helpful to read about positions you disagree with, if only because it helps refine and strengthen your own arguments for your beliefs (and sometimes you might change your mind).

https://archive.ph/QgwF3

link to original: https://www.newyorker.com/news/persons-of-interest/the-feminist-law-professor-who-wants-to-stop-arresting-people-for-domestic-violence

Reply
Reply
Elsacat
Find
223
Mar 9 2025, 9:34 AM
#2
"Unemployed and underemployed men are far more likely to use violence than those with stable jobs" Is it possible that many of these men aren't violent because they're un/underemployed, but un/underemployed because they're violent, volatile, unable to function effectively within the structure of a job?

And the cash provisions she talks about; how to ensure that money would be used appropriately and not be another tool of abuse or coercion?

I just don't see how decriminalizing domestic violence would ultimately help. If the actions are something that would get a person arrested if they did it to a stranger, that person should be arrested for doing it to their spouse or partner. Otherwise, I think it sends a message that violence toward your family or loved one(s) is less bad than violence toward a stranger.
Reply
Reply
Elsacat
Mar 9 2025, 9:34 AM #2

"Unemployed and underemployed men are far more likely to use violence than those with stable jobs" Is it possible that many of these men aren't violent because they're un/underemployed, but un/underemployed because they're violent, volatile, unable to function effectively within the structure of a job?

And the cash provisions she talks about; how to ensure that money would be used appropriately and not be another tool of abuse or coercion?

I just don't see how decriminalizing domestic violence would ultimately help. If the actions are something that would get a person arrested if they did it to a stranger, that person should be arrested for doing it to their spouse or partner. Otherwise, I think it sends a message that violence toward your family or loved one(s) is less bad than violence toward a stranger.

Reply
Reply
eyeswideopen
Find
21
Mar 9 2025, 11:54 AM
#3
totally agree - I think DV is already underprosecuted for a multitude of reasons and reducing and removing what penalties there are (which are typically only imposed after the victim has to go through an enormous amount of work to document the abuse) will only lead to more men getting away with it. What's the point in even filing a DV charge if the perpetrator will get off with a slapped wrist.
Edited Mar 9 2025, 3:22 PM by eyeswideopen.
Reply
Reply
eyeswideopen
Mar 9 2025, 11:54 AM #3

totally agree - I think DV is already underprosecuted for a multitude of reasons and reducing and removing what penalties there are (which are typically only imposed after the victim has to go through an enormous amount of work to document the abuse) will only lead to more men getting away with it. What's the point in even filing a DV charge if the perpetrator will get off with a slapped wrist.

Reply
Reply
emergencyhexit
Find
2
Mar 9 2025, 1:49 PM
#4
(Mar 9 2025, 9:34 AM)Elsacat "Unemployed and underemployed men are far more likely to use violence than those with stable jobs" Is it possible that many of these men aren't violent because they're un/underemployed, but un/underemployed because they're violent, volatile, unable to function effectively within the structure of a job?

And the cash provisions she talks about; how to ensure that money would be used appropriately and not be another tool of abuse or coercion?

I just don't see how decriminalizing domestic violence would ultimately help. If the actions are something that would get a person arrested if they did it to a stranger, that person should be arrested for doing it to their spouse or partner.  Otherwise, I think it sends a message that violence toward your family or loved one(s) is less bad than violence toward a stranger.
And also- might it be that men with stable jobs are not less likely to use violence, but just more likely to get away with using violence and for their violence to go unreported, so that it only appears they are less violent? There are plenty of wealthy men with stable, high-paying jobs who abuse their wives.

If the cash provisions go directly to the victims, I can see that being helpful- UBI is an effective tool for reducing domestic violence, because many abuse victims want to leave but don't have the financial means to do so. But if domestic violence is "decriminalized", once the victim leaves she is now still vulnerable to being stalked and harassed by the abuser.
Reply
Reply
emergencyhexit
Mar 9 2025, 1:49 PM #4

(Mar 9 2025, 9:34 AM)Elsacat "Unemployed and underemployed men are far more likely to use violence than those with stable jobs" Is it possible that many of these men aren't violent because they're un/underemployed, but un/underemployed because they're violent, volatile, unable to function effectively within the structure of a job?

And the cash provisions she talks about; how to ensure that money would be used appropriately and not be another tool of abuse or coercion?

I just don't see how decriminalizing domestic violence would ultimately help. If the actions are something that would get a person arrested if they did it to a stranger, that person should be arrested for doing it to their spouse or partner.  Otherwise, I think it sends a message that violence toward your family or loved one(s) is less bad than violence toward a stranger.
And also- might it be that men with stable jobs are not less likely to use violence, but just more likely to get away with using violence and for their violence to go unreported, so that it only appears they are less violent? There are plenty of wealthy men with stable, high-paying jobs who abuse their wives.

If the cash provisions go directly to the victims, I can see that being helpful- UBI is an effective tool for reducing domestic violence, because many abuse victims want to leave but don't have the financial means to do so. But if domestic violence is "decriminalized", once the victim leaves she is now still vulnerable to being stalked and harassed by the abuser.

Reply
Reply
emergencyhexit
Find
2
Mar 10 2025, 3:37 AM
#5
Also...

" Unemployed and underemployed men are far more likely to use violence than those with stable jobs,"..." Other actions that have been shown to reduce violence, like increasing green space in low-income neighborhoods"..." Many programs then monitor that repair, offering resources such as drug treatment or anger-management classes". These "solutions" make it seem like the abusers are not doing what they do on purpose. That they just need "help". But they are doing it on purpose. We know from the section "Is He Doing it on Purpose" from Why Does He Do That? that abusers will claim they "lost control", but can always give a reason they didn't do something worse. They are choosing to be abusive and they have complete control over themselves. No stable employment, green space, counselling, etc. will make them choose not to be abusive.
Reply
Reply
emergencyhexit
Mar 10 2025, 3:37 AM #5

Also...

" Unemployed and underemployed men are far more likely to use violence than those with stable jobs,"..." Other actions that have been shown to reduce violence, like increasing green space in low-income neighborhoods"..." Many programs then monitor that repair, offering resources such as drug treatment or anger-management classes". These "solutions" make it seem like the abusers are not doing what they do on purpose. That they just need "help". But they are doing it on purpose. We know from the section "Is He Doing it on Purpose" from Why Does He Do That? that abusers will claim they "lost control", but can always give a reason they didn't do something worse. They are choosing to be abusive and they have complete control over themselves. No stable employment, green space, counselling, etc. will make them choose not to be abusive.

Reply
Reply
skunk
Find
29
Mar 11 2025, 10:18 AM
#6
This was such an insanely upsetting thing to read as someone who grew up with constant DV in my home and witnessed my mother and stepmother regularly getting beaten half to death by my father (and yes he did this to us kids too but im focusing on the women in the situation). I'll have to go back and try to finish reading it to provide a more useful response, but as it stands, so much of what this woman thinks and says so far severely misrepresents my entire personal experience with DV and ignores so fucking many issues that it's hard not to just straight up absolutely loathe her so far. And these kinds of "progressive policies" are the exact sort of thing that reminds me of the fact that so many liberal people are going heavily into the direction of pretending to give a fuck about women while supporting things that would either make my life fucking suck or would have made my life growing up and my mother's life fucking *horrific*. And its *really* hard to not absolutely despise them for what, to me, feels like just straight up betrayal.
Edited Mar 11 2025, 10:22 AM by skunk.
Reply
Reply
skunk
Mar 11 2025, 10:18 AM #6

This was such an insanely upsetting thing to read as someone who grew up with constant DV in my home and witnessed my mother and stepmother regularly getting beaten half to death by my father (and yes he did this to us kids too but im focusing on the women in the situation). I'll have to go back and try to finish reading it to provide a more useful response, but as it stands, so much of what this woman thinks and says so far severely misrepresents my entire personal experience with DV and ignores so fucking many issues that it's hard not to just straight up absolutely loathe her so far. And these kinds of "progressive policies" are the exact sort of thing that reminds me of the fact that so many liberal people are going heavily into the direction of pretending to give a fuck about women while supporting things that would either make my life fucking suck or would have made my life growing up and my mother's life fucking *horrific*. And its *really* hard to not absolutely despise them for what, to me, feels like just straight up betrayal.

Reply
Reply
komorebi
“I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.” – Audre Lorde
Find
316
Mar 11 2025, 12:24 PM
#7
Here to provide something of a counterpoint, though let me first state categorically that I am against the decriminalization of domestic violence. A friend of mine is currently in the midst of a divorce with her abuser and, to be frank, I'm afraid that he's going to go over there and kill both her and the kids. Locking that guy up would certainly help prevent that.

That being said, I understand parts of her argument and she has some stats to back up what she says—though the stats themselves might be questionable. If it is true, per the article, that "states that do not have mandatory-arrest policies have thirty-five per cent fewer domestic-violence homicides," then if we have the goal of reducing domestic-violence homicides, I think this is something worth understanding. (OTOH, with no citation, we can't know how they arrived at such a conclusion. Might just as well be that states without mandatory-arrest policies also don't classify their homicides correctly 🤷)

Though it is a phenomenon worth acknowledging from a problem-solving perspective, I think it's "handmaideny" (for lack of a better word) for her to put such a heavy focus on how going to prison is just soooo degrading for men who beat the shit out of their wives. But I take the greater point about how male violence is not a problem that can be solved just by sometimes putting them in jail; it's a societal problem that needs to be addressed more holistically. She also seems to make a distinction between the "simple" question of male violence and the more specific question of female vulnerability to male violence, which I think is also useful from a problem-solving perspective. Hence the suggestions of, e.g., giving cash directly to victims so they can get themselves out of bad situations, rather than just leaving them in the bad situation while sometimes putting their husband in jail.

Anyway, all this to say that I kinda get where she's coming from, but I disagree with her ultimate conclusions. This article did not convince me that it is necessary to decriminalize abuse in order to achieve what she's working towards. IMO, both approaches are useful and necessary.
Reply
Reply
komorebi
“I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.” – Audre Lorde
Mar 11 2025, 12:24 PM #7

Here to provide something of a counterpoint, though let me first state categorically that I am against the decriminalization of domestic violence. A friend of mine is currently in the midst of a divorce with her abuser and, to be frank, I'm afraid that he's going to go over there and kill both her and the kids. Locking that guy up would certainly help prevent that.

That being said, I understand parts of her argument and she has some stats to back up what she says—though the stats themselves might be questionable. If it is true, per the article, that "states that do not have mandatory-arrest policies have thirty-five per cent fewer domestic-violence homicides," then if we have the goal of reducing domestic-violence homicides, I think this is something worth understanding. (OTOH, with no citation, we can't know how they arrived at such a conclusion. Might just as well be that states without mandatory-arrest policies also don't classify their homicides correctly 🤷)

Though it is a phenomenon worth acknowledging from a problem-solving perspective, I think it's "handmaideny" (for lack of a better word) for her to put such a heavy focus on how going to prison is just soooo degrading for men who beat the shit out of their wives. But I take the greater point about how male violence is not a problem that can be solved just by sometimes putting them in jail; it's a societal problem that needs to be addressed more holistically. She also seems to make a distinction between the "simple" question of male violence and the more specific question of female vulnerability to male violence, which I think is also useful from a problem-solving perspective. Hence the suggestions of, e.g., giving cash directly to victims so they can get themselves out of bad situations, rather than just leaving them in the bad situation while sometimes putting their husband in jail.

Anyway, all this to say that I kinda get where she's coming from, but I disagree with her ultimate conclusions. This article did not convince me that it is necessary to decriminalize abuse in order to achieve what she's working towards. IMO, both approaches are useful and necessary.

Reply
Reply
Possum
angry lesbian 🌈
Find
86
Mar 11 2025, 1:49 PM
#8
(Mar 11 2025, 12:24 PM)komorebi Anyway, all this to say that I kinda get where she's coming from, but I disagree with her ultimate conclusions. This article did not convince me that it is necessary to decriminalize abuse in order to achieve what she's working towards. IMO, both approaches are useful and necessary.

I basically came here to say this lol.

It almost seems like she's force-teaming abuse decriminalization with an expanded social safety net for victims. Why can't we have both? Put the abuser in jail AND give the victim cash directly. Put men who are currently abusive in jail while simultaneously addressing the societal issues that lead to abuse, so that hopefully we can start reducing abuse in the next generation. Keeping abusive men in the community is counterproductive, they will teach their sons to hate women and the cycle will never end.
Reply
Reply
Possum
angry lesbian 🌈
Mar 11 2025, 1:49 PM #8

(Mar 11 2025, 12:24 PM)komorebi Anyway, all this to say that I kinda get where she's coming from, but I disagree with her ultimate conclusions. This article did not convince me that it is necessary to decriminalize abuse in order to achieve what she's working towards. IMO, both approaches are useful and necessary.

I basically came here to say this lol.

It almost seems like she's force-teaming abuse decriminalization with an expanded social safety net for victims. Why can't we have both? Put the abuser in jail AND give the victim cash directly. Put men who are currently abusive in jail while simultaneously addressing the societal issues that lead to abuse, so that hopefully we can start reducing abuse in the next generation. Keeping abusive men in the community is counterproductive, they will teach their sons to hate women and the cycle will never end.

Reply
Reply
Wandering_Feminist56
Find
39
Mar 12 2025, 1:23 PM
#9
I disagree for a lot of reasons but to me, an important one is also that criminalization of something also sends a strong message of what a society stands for. Just for context I'm not from the US so I can't say much about their legal system, but I think it's not just a matter of practicality (''how succesful are these cases and interventions and what do they achieve'') but also a matter of morality, and a message of what a society's values are.

It's not even about the punishment, which these men ABSOLUTELY deserve, but also about boundaries and dignity. Women deserve to be valued and appreciated so much more: how fucking dare these men. How DARE they.

I feel uncomfortable with her approach of comparing it to public health. She seems to treat it as a force of nature rather than as a choice. Read ''Why does he do that'' by Lundy Bancroft to know that these men are very entitled, their nature could be called abusive, they're beyond intervention and they're very much deliberate in what they do. That the justice system so massively fails to protect victims is in essence due to the very same reasons that these men feel emboldened to do what they do: Nauseating levels of misogyny.  A woman who's a victim of DV is not a casualty of ''public health'', she didn't just catch a particularly aggressively fist-swinging flu. She mentions therapy; I see that as incredibly naive. (it won't change men)

Personally, I can't stand the idea of ''restorative justice'' at least as I understand it. A lot of things men do are monstrous and can't be restored, their victim owes them nothing and no amount of regretful gardening or whatever the fuck they do can compensate for what they do. There's no restoration where there's no conscience. Where there's no conscience nor empathy, apologies mean nothing. It just means that victims have to forego seeing justice taking place, which unfortunately happens too much already.

The US has an immense prison population but DV perpetrators imo very much belong in jail. Maybe there're other offenses that they could punish less harshly, shorter sentences or no prison sentences at all, where community service would suffice but abusers very much belong behind bars.

Women deserve a good support system and lots of options to build a life free from their abusers, but they also deserve justice. Currently they lack both. But we can't afford any naivety about men and their nature, especially when they're proven abusers.
Edited Mar 12 2025, 1:25 PM by Wandering_Feminist56.
Reply
Reply
Wandering_Feminist56
Mar 12 2025, 1:23 PM #9

I disagree for a lot of reasons but to me, an important one is also that criminalization of something also sends a strong message of what a society stands for. Just for context I'm not from the US so I can't say much about their legal system, but I think it's not just a matter of practicality (''how succesful are these cases and interventions and what do they achieve'') but also a matter of morality, and a message of what a society's values are.

It's not even about the punishment, which these men ABSOLUTELY deserve, but also about boundaries and dignity. Women deserve to be valued and appreciated so much more: how fucking dare these men. How DARE they.

I feel uncomfortable with her approach of comparing it to public health. She seems to treat it as a force of nature rather than as a choice. Read ''Why does he do that'' by Lundy Bancroft to know that these men are very entitled, their nature could be called abusive, they're beyond intervention and they're very much deliberate in what they do. That the justice system so massively fails to protect victims is in essence due to the very same reasons that these men feel emboldened to do what they do: Nauseating levels of misogyny.  A woman who's a victim of DV is not a casualty of ''public health'', she didn't just catch a particularly aggressively fist-swinging flu. She mentions therapy; I see that as incredibly naive. (it won't change men)

Personally, I can't stand the idea of ''restorative justice'' at least as I understand it. A lot of things men do are monstrous and can't be restored, their victim owes them nothing and no amount of regretful gardening or whatever the fuck they do can compensate for what they do. There's no restoration where there's no conscience. Where there's no conscience nor empathy, apologies mean nothing. It just means that victims have to forego seeing justice taking place, which unfortunately happens too much already.

The US has an immense prison population but DV perpetrators imo very much belong in jail. Maybe there're other offenses that they could punish less harshly, shorter sentences or no prison sentences at all, where community service would suffice but abusers very much belong behind bars.

Women deserve a good support system and lots of options to build a life free from their abusers, but they also deserve justice. Currently they lack both. But we can't afford any naivety about men and their nature, especially when they're proven abusers.

Reply
Reply
skunk
Find
29
Mar 13 2025, 10:09 AM
#10
(Mar 11 2025, 1:49 PM)Possum
(Mar 11 2025, 12:24 PM)komorebi Anyway, all this to say that I kinda get where she's coming from, but I disagree with her ultimate conclusions. This article did not convince me that it is necessary to decriminalize abuse in order to achieve what she's working towards. IMO, both approaches are useful and necessary.

I basically came here to say this lol.

It almost seems like she's force-teaming abuse decriminalization with an expanded social safety net for victims. Why can't we have both? Put the abuser in jail AND give the victim cash directly. Put men who are currently abusive in jail while simultaneously addressing the societal issues that lead to abuse, so that hopefully we can start reducing abuse in the next generation. Keeping abusive men in the community is counterproductive, they will teach their sons to hate women and the cycle will never end.

Yes, i agree with this and i think adding in the decriminilization part is what was bothering me so deeply. The reality is that my step mother specifically managed to escape her hell at all *because* her abuser was in jail at the time and she finally got to a point where she saved a stash of cash to get away when he was trapped in jail. If he wasn't, I don't think she'd be alive today.
Reply
Reply
skunk
Mar 13 2025, 10:09 AM #10

(Mar 11 2025, 1:49 PM)Possum
(Mar 11 2025, 12:24 PM)komorebi Anyway, all this to say that I kinda get where she's coming from, but I disagree with her ultimate conclusions. This article did not convince me that it is necessary to decriminalize abuse in order to achieve what she's working towards. IMO, both approaches are useful and necessary.

I basically came here to say this lol.

It almost seems like she's force-teaming abuse decriminalization with an expanded social safety net for victims. Why can't we have both? Put the abuser in jail AND give the victim cash directly. Put men who are currently abusive in jail while simultaneously addressing the societal issues that lead to abuse, so that hopefully we can start reducing abuse in the next generation. Keeping abusive men in the community is counterproductive, they will teach their sons to hate women and the cycle will never end.

Yes, i agree with this and i think adding in the decriminilization part is what was bothering me so deeply. The reality is that my step mother specifically managed to escape her hell at all *because* her abuser was in jail at the time and she finally got to a point where she saved a stash of cash to get away when he was trapped in jail. If he wasn't, I don't think she'd be alive today.

Reply
Reply
Pages (2): 1 2 Next
 Print Thread
Recently Browsing
 1 Guest(s)
Recently Browsing
 1 Guest(s)