Fights between the Topeka City Council and county officials have resulted in a budget impasse, prompting DA Chad Taylor to announce that he will no longer prosecute domestic misdemeanors in Topeka. In response, the city council has threatened to decriminalize domestic violence misdemeanors in city limits, forcing the county to bear the financial burden and political fallout.
The spat goes to show how vast the resources devoted to regulating domestic relations are in a typical American jurisdiction, where a significant proportion of budgets are devoted to policing families, lovers, etc. The breakdown of social norms and marriage as an institution has greatly aggravated the problem, as decreased family stability inevitably leads to more stress and, sometimes, physical aggression. Essentially, we have subsidized hypergamy and “free love” by creating a police state that enforces docility in the face of infidelity, betrayal, theft and other provocations despite the fact that these things normally agitate humans of both sexes.
To both save money and lower DV rates, courts should follow the age-old practice of giving people legal redress for grievances in domestic disputes — i.e. at fault divorce, alienation of affection suits and the like. There is no reason that at fault divorce cannot exist along with no fault, and men and women who thought they had some recourse in the event of adultery or some like betrayal would be less likely to lash out with physical violence. In fact, civilized peoples have allowed for this outlet for thousands of years, because without it the ensuing social disorder becomes bothersome and expensive.
The law in question is misdemeanor domestic battery, and criminalizes the following behavior:
(1) Intentionally or recklessly causing bodily harm by a family or household member against a family or household member; or
(2) intentionally causing physical contact with a family or household member by a family or household member when done in a rude, insulting or angry manner.
The first part looks reasonable; the second, ridiculous. In fact, the latter act is probably more commonly committed by females, who initiate aggressive physical contact more often than men. If being physically contacted in a “rude, insulting or angry manner” by a girlfriend or wife is a crime, I’ve been a victim many times over, and I’m sure just about every male reader who has been in a relationship can remember something along those lines. I wonder, would feminists have supported arresting my ex wife for shoving me out of the way when she came to my place to look for things she wanted weeks after she vacated the premises? Of course not, and neither would I — she was just being rude, pushy and vindictive (and also giving clear evidence she wasn’t afraid of me in the least, which is a helpful thing for a guy to have on the record). But that isn’t the point — the law is intended to be used to prosecute men for anything.
It’s the kind of thing that can be used as a “gotcha” in divorce disputes, typically against the man. Get in an argument with a girlfriend, she’s using some object as provocation (e.g. car keys), snatch it away in anger and that’s domestic battery! Push her out of the way when she’s blocking your way out the door — you’re going to jail! Also, any physical contact could be “rude” if she isn’t in the mood. You might not even know that by putting your hand on her shoulder when she’s grumpy you are committing battery. If she’s snoring at night and you nudge her to make her stop, that’s against the law, etc.
The second part of the law should be thrown out for sure. Intentional harm should be a crime – and already is under plenty of other laws – but when people live together there’s bound to be some unappreciated contact at some point, some time, and if that’s a crime we’re all criminals. Therefore, tossing the Topeka law is entirely justified. Intentional harm is already covered by common assault/battery, so the domestic version isn’t even needed: it’s just a perk for vengeful wives and an excuse to arrest men on no evidence (“victim said suspect poked her arm”), removing them from property to set the stage for the typical divorce scenario — she gets the kids and house and he pays her a chunk of his income in return for her taking back the accusation.
Aggravating the situation in Topeka, there is evidently a feminist on the council:
Rinker told commissioners that while Councilwoman Sylvia Ortiz said last month that council members needed to “man up” and let commissioners know they won’t tolerate a continued lack of domestic battery prosecution, “I’m here to ‘woman up’ to this body.”
Unfortunately for her, somebody is going to have to pay the attorneys handling the cases, and that includes attorneys for the accused — a necessary expense in our country. I expect feminists, in frustration, to start demanding that those accused of DV no longer be afforded legal counsel. They will not take lack of funds for an answer, and they are too unimaginative and ideologically bound to think of the obvious solution: remove the tortuous “domestic” laws written to give women the upper hand and replace them with standardized, uniform criminal law. Assault is assault, battery is battery: lover’s quarrels are not a police matter unless they meet the same criteria as other crimes.
