Uniform Standards For Domestic Violence Cases Do Not Exist by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.
Uniform Standards For Domestic Violence Cases Do Not Exist by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.© 2003-2006 Equal Justice Foundation
| Home | Abstract | Contents | Site Map | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Comments? | Get Newsletter | Help the EJF |
| Chapter 10 — Demographics Of Domestic Violence In Colorado |
| Next — Marriage, divorce, and charges of domestic violence and abuse |
| Back — Principal effect of 1994 DV law in Colorado Springs is reduction in 911 calls |
Judicial districts with extraordinary numbers of domestic violence and abuse cases
The relationship between domestic violence and other misdemeanors
Judicial districts with consistently fewer numbers of domestic violence and abuse cases
Other misdemeanor cases in these judicial districts
Statewide police incidents vs. court cases
Number of male victims reported by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation
Estimates of false allegations
Based on Colorado Bureau of Investigation data
Based on National Crime Victimization Survey data
We currently have ten years of domestic violence incident data for the police agencies of Colorado and nine years of demographic data for the courts (Table 55). The data encompass a population of roughly 4 million people.
Table 55: Per capita number of domestic violence and abuse cases in Colorado for the years 1998 through 2006
|
Notably, the number of per capita domestic violence and abuse cases in Colorado increased almost linearly from 1998 and peaked in 2003. The number has declined slightly or leveled off since then (Table 55). The reasons for that change are currently unknown.
The data from 1998 (Table 36), 1999 (Table 37), 2000 (Table 39), 2001 (Table 41), 2002 (,Table 43), 2003 (Table 45), 2004 (Table 47), 2005 (Table 49), and 2006 (Table 51) make it plain that uniform standards are not being applied across the state in the issuance of protection orders and the prosecution of domestic violence cases in the various judicial districts.
With nine years of court data it is obvious that abuse of process under color of law is occurring in judicial districts that consistently issue protection orders and prosecute domestic violence cases in per capita numbers more than one standard deviation above the average for the state's judicial districts.
From the data summarized in Table 56 the Third, Fourth, Seventh, Tenth, Twelfth, and Sixteenth judicial districts stand out as repeatedly (for more than four years) issuing extraordinary numbers of protection orders. Their abysmal records of injustice are summarized in Table 56 and these judicial districts currently encompass 23% of the sampled population of 4.1 million residents.
Although it doesn't meet the four or more years criteria, the Twenty Second Judicial District has been added to Table 56 for 2006 as the number of cases there suddenly jumped from 80-90 to 132. Apparently radical feminism finally penetrated to this rural area and a new district attorney was elected on a promise to get tough on domestic violence, i.e., destroy children, families, and marriages. Note that the divorce rate is commonly above average already in the small counties of Dolores and Montezuma.
There is always a fine line between aggressive prosecution of crime and the persecution that characterizes a police state. The seven judicial districts listed in Table 56 have crossed that line with regard to prosecution of domestic violence and abuse. These seven judicial districts appear to be in a race to see who can destroy the greatest number of children and families by imposing the most draconian enforcement criteria for domestic violence and abuse.
The abuse of restraining orders is obvious in El Paso and Teller Counties, including the city of Colorado Springs, that comprise the Fourth Judicial District, the second most populous judicial district in Colorado (Table 51), where, in every year sampled, the number of restraining orders issued per capita egregiously exceeds the state average.
It is therefore reasonable to infer that the use of protection orders and charges of domestic violence are grossly abused in the Fourth Judicial District. As the second largest judicial district in Colorado, if anything remotely resembling equal justice and equal protection applied, the numbers of protection orders in El Paso and Teller counties would be near the state average over time and comparable with the largest district, the Eighteenth, and the nearly equal First Judicial District (Table 57).
Note that since 2005 the number cases of domestic violence involving protection order violations has been broken out separately and those are shown in parentheses in Table 57. Again the 4 th Judicial District has twice the number of cases as the 1 st and 18 th .
The statewide average would suggest roughly 2,600 civil protection orders and criminal domestic violence cases a year in this judicial district. Instead, from Table 51 we find 6,207 cases of domestic violence and abuse were prosecuted in 2006. Thus, one half of all domestic violence and abuse cases in this judicial district, or roughly 2,600, are an abuse of process just in 2006. By inference, just in the nine years from 1998 through 2006 more than 20,000 men (and women) in this district have been unjustly thrown from their homes with little more than the clothes on their back with no pretense of due process.
With regard to domestic violence and abuse, the actions of DVERT, victim's advocates ( TESSA claims to help 2,500 women per year get restraining orders (about one-half of which are against military men), district attorney, and the courts in El Paso and Teller counties have all the fervor of a witch hunt, with the added horror that they are aided and abetted by current laws and taxpayer funding. Yet police records simply don't bear out the gross numbers of DV incidents. In 2004 Colorado Springs police received only 9,261 domestic and family disturbance calls, 1,829, or 17% fewer than the 11,090 calls they received in 1990, despite a 40% increase in population (see Table 53). Additionally, Colorado Bureau of Investigation data suggest only about 1,300 domestic violence incidents are reported from El Paso and Teller counties in a given year, or about 22 per 10,000 residents (see Table 62 below).
The discrepancy in the application of domestic violence laws is also borne out by the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) that found in 2004 that only 0.4% (1 in 250) households included a member victimized by an intimate partner, e.g., a spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend. The NCVS includes both reported and unreported criminal acts. That translates to less than 0.2% of the population of 587,500 residents and indicates the Fourth Judicial District had ~930 actual incidents of criminal domestic violence or abuse.
Compare the NCVS estimate of 930 incidents with 3,144 criminal cases reported (Table 49) and 2,318 domestic abuse restraining orders and the evidence suggests some 80% of the domestic violence and abuse cases in the Fourth Judicial District are, at best, unsubstantiated, and that there are several thousand cases of false allegations of domestic violence and abuse every year.
The Fourth Judicial District is also home to one of the largest military installations in the United States. It is estimated that approximately one fourth of the incredible number of domestic violence charges and restraining orders in this district are made against men, and a few women in the military. Since, under the Lautenberg Amendment, a DV conviction or a restraining order prohibits the possession of a gun or ammunition, the result is such men and women are discharged. As a result the military in El Paso County is losing the equivalent of at least a battalion (~1,000) every year to largely trumped up, exaggerated charges of domestic violence, or to plainly false allegations.
As bad as it is, the Fourth Judicial District is far from the worst in Colorado. From Table 56 it is clear that the totalitarian regime in the tiny Sixteenth Judicial District, encompassing Bent, Crowley, and Otero counties in southeastern Colorado, would make Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini proud. In the nine years from 1998 to 2006 this district of ~30,500 court-ravaged souls has averaged 138 domestic violence and abuse cases per 10,000 citizens (Table 56). In 2002 the Sixteenth Judicial District issued an astounding 168 restraining orders per 10,000 citizens.
Summing the restraining orders shown for the Sixteenth Judicial District (Table 36 for 1998, Table 37 for 1999, Table 39 for 2000, Table 41 for 2001, Table 43 for 2002, Table 45 for 2003, Table 47 for 2004, Table 49 for 2005, and Table 51 for 2006) we find that 3,854 domestic violence and abuse cases were processed in nine years. No data are available for the years 1994-1997 but a reasonable estimate would be ~1,200. At the current rate of issuing restraining orders it is a simple matter to extrapolate that before 2015 every adult male over the age of 18 in the Sixteenth Judicial District will have been issued at least one restraining order and about two-thirds of the men will have been charged with domestic violence.
One might view this through a gender feminist lens as proof that all men are "batterers" and all women are "victims." But somewhere common sense should suggest the legal system has run amok. And likely marriage and families are quaint relics of the past in this hell hole of "justice" where a state of war appears to exist between the courts and citizens.
In third place in the roll of infamy depicted in Table 56 is the minuscule Third Judicial District embracing Huerfano and Las Animas counties along Colorado's southern border. This hive of petty dictators rules over about 23,000 Colorado residents. Things stink so bad that Huerfano County Judges Claude W. Appel and Robert E. Haeger were disciplined in October 2001 after allegations of improper judicial conduct surfaced. The Colorado Supreme Court also appointed Norman Arends chief judge after District Judge Jesse C. Manzanares was relieved because of the same allegations. Apparently Appel and Haeger were "cleared" as Appel was promoted to district judge and is now chief judge of the Third Judicial District. Haeger is still a Huerfano County Court judge as well. Clearly, matters only got worse in fiscal 2002-2003 (Table 56) and persecution has not diminished with 114 domestic violence and abuse cases for every 10,000 suffering citizens in 2006.
The Third Judicial District has generally led the state in the per capita underage alcohol offenses, and offenses against persons and property in 2000 (Table 40), 2001 (Table 42), 2002 (Table 44), 2003 (Table 46), 2004 (Table 48), and 2005 (Table 50) in addition to the extraordinarily high levels of protection orders. A local attorney even accused the judges of using cocaine.
At the current rate every remaining man over the age of 18 in the Third Judicial District will receive a restraining order by 2020 and over half of them will be charged with domestic violence.
Table 56 shows the Tenth Judicial District ( Pueblo County) has fully joined the wolf pack of DV persecution. While their nine year average of 115 domestic violence and abuse cases per 10,000 citizens is toward the low end of the contenders in Table 56, they placed second for 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 for per capita restraining orders. And in 2006 they placed first in the state with 146 domestic violence and abuse cases per 10,000 people, a very dubious distinction.
The Tenth is nearly five times the size of the tiny Sixteenth, so the human suffering resulting from this persecution is similarly magnified. For example, the NCVS data suggest that only about 240 domestic violence and abuse cases actually occurred, compared with the 2,230 shown in Table 51. The inference is that 90% of these court cases are, at best, unsubstantiated.
The Twelfth Judicial District, also along Colorado's southern border, is fifth in our lineup of judicial villains (Table 56). The Twelfth includes Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saguache counties. Since 1999 the Twelfth has placed in the top three or four judicial districts charging men with domestic violence in these already economically-stressed communities.
Perhaps the judiciary and prosecutors in the Seventh Judicial District didn't feel they were doing enough to destroy families and marriages? After a strong beginning of 108 restraining orders per 10,000 citizens in 1998 (Table 36) their totalitarian efforts lagged until 2003 when they managed to jump up again to 106 orders per 10,000 (Table 45). And though they slacked off to 102 domestic violence and abuse cases per 10,000 suffering citizens in 2005 (Table 49) they did pull their draconian average back up to 120 in 2006 (Table 51). And the have managed to maintain a fairly impressive average of 102 such cases per 10,000 souls over the past nine years (Table 56). Adolf would be proud of them.
Another approach to isolating judicial districts that are abusing their discretionary powers with regard to domestic violence is to examine all misdemeanor cases. Table 38 for 1999, Table 40 for 2000, Table 42 for 2001, Table 44 for 2002, Table 46 for 2003, Table 48 for 2004, Table 50 for 2005, and Table 52 for 2006, show selected, population-normalized misdemeanors from data presented by the Colorado State Courts except for the 2 nd Judicial District (Denver).
If a judicial district has a high incidence rate for several categories of misdemeanors as well as domestic abuse and violence, then it is likely that a general problem exists in the society.
Misdemeanors, such as offenses against persons or property, fraud, drug use, and underage alcohol use would probably be prevalent in conjunction with domestic violence in a troubled society. Such a correlation contains the implicit assumption that underage alcohol abuse and drug use would be associated with abusive or broken homes, and that Joe Six Pack would likely get into other kinds of trouble such as bar brawls, besides fighting with his wife or girlfriend. Thus, a high rate of court filings on domestic violence charges would simply be the result of diligent efforts on the part of the courts and law enforcement in those districts, a job for which they are paid and expected to perform.
However, if all other categories of similar crimes are at or below the state averages except domestic violence, it suggests a witch hunt is being conducted for that specific offense. Such actions by law enforcement officials and the courts are generally regarded as an abuse of process and a violation of the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions.
The six judicial districts showing persistent and continuing high levels of domestic violence and abuse cases, as described above and in Table 56, are compared with other misdemeanors prosecuted in those districts for the years 1999 through 2006 in Table 58.
|
Orders 1 (Abuse only) 2 |
Violence 3 |
Offenses 3 |
Drugs 3 |
Person 3 |
Property 3 |
Fraud 3 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
124 4 |
||||||||
|
1. Values for restraining order column are the sum of all civil and criminal restraining orders. 2. For year 2002 and later, per capita restraining orders for domestic abuse are shown in parentheses and bold if more than one-half of the civil orders are for domestic abuse. 3. Misdemeanors and restraining orders are from Colorado State Court tables. Domestic violence misdemeanors include domestic violence and protection (restraining) order violation cases. 4. Values that exceed state average by more than one standard deviation are shown in bold. |
||||||||
These six judicial districts encompass 23% of the 4.2 million Colorado residents sampled (excludes Denver).
As apparent in Table 58, consistent relationships between domestic violence and abuse and other misdemeanors are evident in the Third, Twelfth, and Sixteenth Judicial Districts. These are depressed rural areas ranging in population from 23,000 to 47,000 residents.
Conversely, the evidence seems clear that with regard to domestic violence in the urban Fourth and Tenth Judicial Districts along the Front Range, the courts are engaged in abuse of process under color of law in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Domestic violence is not the only witch hunt possible by police and prosecutors under current laws. Illicit use of drugs may certainly fall under such a heading in some districts where misdemeanor drug use would reflect crackdowns on possession of such drugs as small amounts of marijuana. Despite the attitude of Sheriff Bill Masters of San Miguel County that "...the war on drugs is ludicrous, the criminal justice system is a farce and the law-making arm of government has run amok." (Denver Post, August 28, 2000, p. B1), the sprawling Seventh Judicial District, which encompasses San Miguel County, had an above average record for drug prosecutions for the four years 1999-2002 (Table 58) though domestic violence and underage alcohol cases were near average. However, after 2002 the emphasis seems to be shifting to family persecution in the form of protection orders in this district.
The 5 th (2000-2001, 2003-2005), 14 th (1999-2005), and 21 st (1999-2001, 2003-2005) judicial districts all have above average drug prosecutions for three or more years as well, but no relation between domestic violence and drug prosecutions is consistently evident.
One might also expect use of marijuana and underage alcohol offenses to be related. Thus, a crackdown on drugs might result in an increase of arrests for teenage alcohol use, or vice versa. That relationship is only consistent in the Fourteenth Judicial District (Table 38 for 1999, Table 40 for 2000, Table 42 for 2001, Table 44 for 2002, Table 46 for 2003, Table 48 for 2004, Table 50 for 2005, and Table 52 for 2006) in the northwest corner of Colorado encompassing the ski town of Steamboat Springs. But domestic violence prosecutions are consistently at or below average in this judicial district (Table 51).
In stark contrast with the six districts shown in Table 56, six other judicial districts encompassing 59% of the sampled population of 4.1 million residents consistently have significantly fewer domestic violence and abuse cases than the state average. The numbers are shown in Table 59.
|
First 1 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Eighth 1 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kit Carson, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, and Yuma |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seventeenth 1 |
||||||||||||||||||||