SB #2629 passed House Judiciary "B" Committee this morning. The bill makes it easier for law enforcement to pursue felony convictions of domestic violence. The bill allows police to charge someone with aggravated domestic violence without an affidavit from the victim. Senator Will Longwitz sponsored the bill. JJ reported last month:
Protective orders are nice but felony convictions are better. The law currently states a felony prosecution for domestic violence must have a warrant based on an affidavit. If the victim withdraws the complaint and affidavit, the prosecution stops. It is no source of madness to the police and prosecutors when they try to throw these savages in jail only to be backstabbed by the victim. A victim who is often intimidated or dependent upon the abuser for support. The police can pursue a misdemeanor prosecution but the fine is only $500 and carries a jail sentence of six months or less. The court can also order "anger management" on the first offense and nothing else. Earlier post
SB #2629 states (the changes in the law are underlined):
SECTION 1. Section 99-3-7, Mississippi Code of 1972, is amended as follows:
3)(a)Any law enforcement officer shall arrest a person with or without a warrant when he has probable cause to believe that the person has, within twenty-four (24) hours of such arrest, knowingly committed a misdemeanor or felony which is an act of domestic violence or knowingly violated provisions of an ex parte protective order, protective order after hearing or court-approved consent agreement entered by a chancery, circuit, county, justice or municipal court pursuant to the Protection from Domestic Abuse Law, Sections 93-21-1 through 93-21-29, Mississippi Code of 1972, or a restraining order entered by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction to protect an applicant from domestic violence.
(b)If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that two (2) or more persons committed * * * an act of domestic violence as defined herein, or if two (2) or more persons make complaints of domestic violence to the officer, the officer shall attempt to determine who was the principal aggressor. The term principal aggressor is defined as the party who poses the most serious ongoing threat, or who is the most significant, rather than the first, aggressor. The officer shall presume that arrest is not the appropriate response for the person or persons who were not the principal aggressor. If the officer affirmatively finds more than one (1) principal aggressor was involved, the officer shall document those findings.
SB# 2626 died in committee. This would have tripled the fine for simple domestic violence (misdemeanor) from $500 to $1,500 and double the maximum term of imprisonment from six months to one year.
17 comments:
This is great! Most abused people would not sign an affidavit against an abuser so this will make it easier for the police to get these people the first time! Stop them in their tracts. Make them go though anger management from the get go on the first offense.
"In their tracts"??? Are these malefactors publishing pamphlets advocating wife-beating? And good luck with those anger management classes. Probably a higher relapse rate than alcoholics, there.
this is worthless. victim's don't typically sign felony affidavits for any crime.
If the victim won't sign an affidavit, what the hell happens when they won't testify?
the. case. gets. dismissed.
political stunt.
This will save countless lives!
12:04, not true. Why should felony DV require no affidavit from law enforcement but misdemeanor DV should?
Mississippi is near the top of the list when it comes to prevalence of domestic violence in this country. It's time to get serious. You got any better ideas, 12:04? Didn't think so.
so what happens when the victim gets up and tells the jury, they are back together and doesn't want him/her to be found guilty. wasted trial slot and taxpayers money
2:36 because of state statute on who may make arrest. officer can arrest a felon on probable cause, then sign affidavit and the physical warrant issues.
officer cannot make a misdemeanor arrest unless he/she witnesses the offense. victim signs affidavit, warrant issues and then the officer can arrest. DV is an exception to this under certain circumstances.
bottom line is this: if they aren't willing to cooperate in any manner in having the suspect ARRESTED, its not likely they cooperate in proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt. sure these cases are diffuclt at times, but all criminal prosecutions are DESGINED to be difficult to protect the innocent.
Want to stop domestic violence? Stop animal abuse. Almost all perpetrators of domestic violence start out as animal abusers. Any Google search will confirm this fact.
"so what happens when the victim gets up and tells the jury, they are back together and doesn't want him/her to be found guilty."
Has this EVER happened? Name the case please.
3:20 it doesn't happen in that scenario. Victims routinely sign statements/affidavits that they don't want to proceed, sometimes they have reconciled and sometimes they want child support, so the case never has a jury put in the box. sometimes they won't sign a statement like that, but they evade service of the subpoena or verbally tell the prosecutor they won't testify. sometimes they've been threatened and won't cooperate out of fear. THE BOTTOM LINE: prosecutor needs a cooperative victim or these cases will not get a conviction UNLESS a credible law enforcement officer witnessed the crime, which does happen occasionally. making cute amendments to the statute to gain publicity and political clout doesn't help the prosecution of these cases much, if at all.
It is perfectly possible to prove felony DV by circumstantial evidence, without eyewitness/victim testimony, just like any other felony.
4:31 you are wrong. just wrong. I've been doing this 34 years. It doesn't work that way. Juries want to hear the victim and question why not when they don't. Stick to selling real estate or whatever you do. You don't know shit about law or trial strategy. You are probably like Matt Steffey whose trial court experience is appearing to plead guilty to speeding.
Losers always blame juries.
Well...it seems to be that first of all, an assault shouldn't be a misdemeanor.
It seems to me that police seldom witness a crime but rather gather evidence.
Broken bones and bruises and neighbors/friends testimony of constant fighting and seeing evidence of assault ought to be more persuasive to a jury that what the victim might say or not say.
And, it might be a bit of a deterrent for the abuser to have to cool his heels in jail. Hurting his wallet with lost wages and legal fees might also be useful.
Let the SOB get mad at society and the system rather than the spouse.
Yes, it's harder to gather evidence and actually work a case but it can be done. It is done in other states.
Indeed, it was done in 1972 when my friend who married a preacher was shocked on her honeymoon when he tied her up and held lit cigarettes to her body. Without her testimony, the police got photos of the burns and the person who called the police after hearing screams testified.
We can't prosecute criminals anymore because it's hard and costs money and we might lose?????
occasionally police witness DV when they answer the call and the fight is still in progress. sometimes the police presence will prompt another attack. sometimes neighbors witness the DV, or even other household members. but to make a blanket statement that you can convict without the cooperation of the victim is foolish. this is a passionate subject that some people can't be objective about. these posts prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
"to make a blanket statement that you can convict without the cooperation of the victim is foolish"
I don't see how "can" (= "possible") is a blanket or foolish statment; "can't" (= "impossible") qualifies.
Or suppose there is a case where there is video evidence and a ton of medical evidence. The victim's testimony is not needed.
Just suppose.
Post a Comment