Discussing Domestic Abuse

The issue for me is a bit different - I really resent the simplistic ways media and the Commissioners Offices handle these things. It's not being handled as a real issue, it's being treated like a PR problem.

A nice parallel example is DUIs. DUIs are bad and deserve punishment but if you're an accountant or work in a coffee shop, your employer doesn't suspend you because you got a DUI. They let the courts run their process and set punishments. Pro sports have taken to suspending or releasing guys with DUIs because they worry about driving off fans or giving newspaper columnists something to rail against. The concern has nothing (or little) to do with being upset about the idiocy of drunk driving or wanting to help a player out - they are focused on money and PR. If they really cared, they'd have programs set up to help players with DUIs get support to make better choices in the future.

This focus on the PR is an even bigger problem when it comes to domestic abuse because the issue is a lot harder to figure out. We have a logical set of punishments for DUIs but don't for domestic abuse because it's not as black-and-white of a crime. If we send abusers to jail, their families often suffer right alongside them. Mom might have to enter a workforce she is not trained for and children suffer without a parent around. And even if Dad gets out of jail a changed man (doubtful since prison is about punishment, not rehabilitation), he's going to have a hard time finding a job with a blemish on his record. That's a big reason why charges are so rarely pursued - everyone involved has an incentive to keep the abuser out of jail because jail solves nothing and can often create larger or different problems. The system society has set up actively promotes women to stay with abusers because they can't afford not to.

What's so frustrating is that pro sports has a chance (for once) to be on the forefront of highlighting solutions to a societal problem but regularly chooses not to. Their money-driven response is to suspend and release players, the equivalent of sending them to jail. It's good PR to suspend guys and seem like you're taking the issue seriously but in reality, it's about the same as ignoring the incidents. Pro sports does nothing to try to solve the actual problem. Baseball could help develop ways of providing real counseling, substance abuse training and relationship dynamics support to tackle the core issues of domestic abuse. They have the resources to provide free anger management and family counseling but instead just suspend a guy and garnish his wages. A logical plan could even help develop a nice treatment pattern to be applied to society as a whole allowing sports to contribute something to society.

But no, it's about money. MLB suspends Chapman and then fans either forget about it and cheer for his fastball or never forgive him and make him a social piranha. Neither one does anything to help Chapman and his family or to change the distressing narrative and patterns of domestic abuse.

It's really very sad.

It is partly PR, of course.. but regardless of what MLB or the teams do, it'll be about PR.

 

I counter my thoughts on how terrible this is with my belief that people deserve second chances in all facets of life. I'd like to see a harsh penalty for a first, but a means whereby a player can get back and get that chance. But a second situation should be a complete ban, and I'd be OK with that.

 

Do the crime.... do the time... once the time is done, I think second chances are OK so long as there is some method in place to ensure contrition, and that there is a certain level of certainty that nothing will happen again.

 

That's where writing up a specific punishment and path to return is important, but it could be very difficult.

Men who beat women so so because they view women as property.

For that reason I don't think they can be rehabilitated.

Sure, they may fake it, to stay out of trouble, but eventually when that instant of anger comes they are going to do it again.

This is all just my opinion of course.

I don't agree with this post on many levels.  Employers punish or terminate employees all the time for such crimes and it's not just because of PR pressure.  

 

However, MLB does appear to be the exception though and that is likely due to their obstinate Player's Union.  Similar to the long time resistance to drug testing, etc.  They are slow to deal with such issues because they feel they don't have to.

 

"We have a logical set of punishments for DUIs but don't for domestic abuse because it's not as black-and-white of a crime. If we send abusers to jail, their families often suffer right alongside them. Mom might have to enter a workforce she is not trained for and children suffer without a parent around. And even if Dad gets out of jail a changed man (doubtful since prison is about punishment, not rehabilitation), he's going to have a hard time finding a job with a blemish on his record. That's a big reason why charges are so rarely pursued - everyone involved has an incentive to keep the abuser out of jail because jail solves nothing and can often create larger or different problems. The system society has set up actively promotes women to stay with abusers because they can't afford not to."

 

I disagree with so many parts of this post.  Not only is this a miscaricaturization it's simply not true much of the time.  Domestic abuse is a crime clear as night and day.  There are plenty of laws on the books including assault charges of various degrees, domestic abuse charges,etc.  You can get a restraining order from ANY judge in Minnesota at the drop of a dime if you claim domestic abuse (especially if the perpetrator is male and the victim female).  

 

The #1 call that police dispatchers receive is domestic abuse calls. Some of the most commonly hear cases in court is typically domestic abuse or child abuse cases.  Unfortunately, shows such as Law & Order romanticize such crimes and create the impression that KNOW ONE presses charges because the abuser is the "bread winner,"  and that the victim feels they will be left helpless if they pursue.  This simply is not true much of the time. 

 

Most honest physiologists will also tell you that the relationship of abuser and victim is not always as simple as "black and white" or "right and wrong" as you put it.  Often times police receive dozens and dozens of repeat calls from the same address and sometimes repeatedly arrest the perpetrator only to have the victim not press charges.  The explanation is often times not a simple one like the "bread winner argument".   More often then you think it's two people choosing to CONTINUE to engage / enable a tit for tat abusive relationship.  Keep in mind that this is no justification for abusive behavior but it is a common scenario that takes place.

I think you misunderstood what I mean by black and white. Or perhaps you didn’t read it – I suspect the latter is true since you’re indicating that I was talking about right and wrong in reference to abuser and victim. That’s nowhere near what I was saying. Let me try again.
----
DUIs are pretty straightforward crimes. A person drives with too much alcohol and is busted by the cops. There are field sobriety tests and physical evidence (blood or a breathalyzer number). Society has a clear and reasoned set of punishments – you drank and drove so you lose your license; you owe a fine and have to take a drunk driving education course; your insurance rates go up. There’s no need to convince the passenger in the car or the passenger in another car nearby to testify against the perpetrator. The crime itself is pretty straightforward, as are the punishments.

Domestic violence (DV) is a whole different story. There is evidence but the officer in charge of prosecuting didn’t gather that evidence and has to navigate often conflicting stories (see Solo, Hope) to try to guess the truth. The officer also needs to convince the victim to testify in court, often against his or her own self-interest. Families face financial hardships that often include eviction if the perpetrator of DV goes to jail. This isn’t to mention that they have to look a loved one in the eye months after the incident and send them to jail. That’s a much harder thing to do and it becomes even harder since unlike with DUIs, the punishments for DV don’t really provide much of a solution or rational punishment. Time in jail is unlikely to correct abusive behavior and punishes the victims of DV right alongside their victimizers.

For that reason, the NFL/MLB/NBA etc. tendency to punish crimes with big splashy suspensions is even more misguided for DV than it is for DUIs. It’s just another version of ignoring the basic issues behind it.
-----
Hopefully that clarified this a bit more. A few more things that struck me from your response:

1) Ummm, it’s not the players union stopping punishment, it’s the league only caring when it became a big deal in the papers that delayed punishment. In fact, the players unions basically rolled over in the PA and Ray Rice cases because of PR issues as well. If the union is against things, it’s because owners are taking player paychecks and the basic function of a union is to protect member ages. I can’t see any player’s union being opposed to real solutions like treatment and counseling/support.

2) Really disagree about the restraining orders. The point isn’t how easy it is to get a restraining order, it’s how easy is it to enforce that restraining order. Real heartless victimizers aren’t often deterred by a piece of paper. And that also ignores people who have children and need a partner to help with childcare, bills and other household duties. A restraining order doesn’t solve that problem.

3) I’m not sure where you got that police dispatchers #1 most common call is domestic violence. I found nothing stating that. Source? 

4) Similarly, not sure where you’re getting that the most common court cases are domestic abuse or that shows that indicate domestic abuse is rarely prosecuted are wrong. The stats I saw said 8 out of 10 never result in charges being filed, let alone successfully pursued.

5) Not disagreeing with you about the “it takes two to tango” aspect to some domestic abuse but (like you) I feel the need to strongly assert that verbal arguing and physical violence are two very different things. We should never diminish the horridness of slamming someone’s head of the wall by saying, “well but she was always fighting with him about things and was the one who started the argument.” Screaming and yelling isn’t health and productive but it also isn’t anything near physical violence. With that caveat noted, that cyclical thing is a real thing and is another reason that the blanket suspension/release is a terrible real-world solution. Intervention is needed, not blind mandated punishment.

Thoughts?

Men who beat women so so because they view women as property.

For that reason I don't think they can be rehabilitated.
Sure, they may fake it, to stay out of trouble, but eventually when that instant of anger comes they are going to do it again.

This is all just my opinion of course.

Um, this opinion is pretty limited. I'm nervous anytime anyone proposes a one-size-fits-all cause to anything. Men hit women for all kinds of issues - one time anger blowups, stress from work, depression, alcohol/drug addiction, inadequacy issues, etc. 

And to say that they can't be rehabilitated is crazy. I've known people who have rehabilitated anger issues through hard work and counseling - it's a similar process to drug/alcohol addiction, which we all know can be licked. For a rather dumb example, I knew kids who were heartless bullies growing up who later became the nicest people you've ever met,to the point that when you tell others who didn't know them when they were young that they were bullies, they don't believe you.

People can change, it's the only thing that makes getting up in the morning worth doing.

if the victim is unwilling to cooperate there isn't always a way to realistically prosecute.  I don't understand that mentality, but I don't have to.  I know that it exists, for better or worse.

Disagree. I think it is vitally important to understand that mentality. It's not trying to understand this mentality and the reasons behind it that led the NFL and MLB to their stupid harsh punitive suspension policy. If they cared to take the time to understand the people involved, they wouldn't suspend people at all. It hurts the victims as much or more than the victimizers and doesn't attempt to address the real issues at play in the relationship. We (and pro sports) need to try to understand the victim's reasons for not pressing charges if we're going to be able to provide real help.

I also think I might have worded things poorly. I don't think DV is black-and-white - my whole point is that the gray area with DV makes the NFL/MLB reaction simplistic and counterproductive. The DUI is stupid but applying that logic to DV is just asinine.

Um, this opinion is pretty limited. I'm nervous anytime anyone proposes a one-size-fits-all cause to anything. Men hit women for all kinds of issues - one time anger blowups, stress from work, depression, alcohol/drug addiction, inadequacy issues, etc.

 

And to say that they can't be rehabilitated is crazy. I've known people who have rehabilitated anger issues through hard work and counseling - it's a similar process to drug/alcohol addiction, which we all know can be licked. For a rather dumb example, I knew kids who were heartless bullies growing up who later became the nicest people you've ever met,to the point that when you tell others who didn't know them when they were young that they were bullies, they don't believe you.

 

People can change, it's the only thing that makes getting up in the morning worth doing.

I disagree that it's an anger issue.

Everyone gets angry. Most people don't react by hitting a woman.

And rehabilitating children is much easier than adults. That is why the juvenile justice system is geared towards rehabilitation, while the adult system is geared towards punishment.

Like I said, this is just my opinion. I'm sure there are exceptions on the fringes. But by and large, I think to be a habitual abuser they must view women in general, or at least particularly, "their woman", as a piece of property, not an equal person.

I disagree that it's an anger issue.
Everyone gets angry. Most people don't react by hitting a woman.

And rehabilitating children is much easier than adults. That is why the juvenile justice system is geared towards rehabilitation, while the adult system is geared towards punishment.

Like I said, this is just my opinion. I'm sure there are exceptions on the fringes. But by and large, I think to be a habitual abuser they must view women in general, or at least particularly, "their woman", as a piece of property, not an equal person.

Everyone gets bored. Most people don't react by smoking crack. But some do. That doesn't mean that boredom isn't a reason some people get into smoking crack.

I just feel sad if you think people can't be rehabilitated. And scared - I feel like a lot of the problems we have in the world are because people think that other people are broken and thus not as human (not saying that's you, just that it's the same mindset). And I think a lot of abusers don't see women as property - I think they're scared of women having independence, cheating on them, not needing them etc. I don't think it's dismissive-based, I think it's fear-based.

That said, you have an excellent point about our punishment system being geared towards useless punishment and not towards rehabilitation, though I think you're being wildly optimistic that juvenile programs are markedly different. I think the only real difference is that we erase a juvenile record at 18 so their blemishes don't carry over to the work force. We have a lot of problems in this country but perhaps the biggest is changing our concept of prison.

Go Twins! Go Mauer (I feel very confident we won't hear any Kirby Puckett-esque stories about Mauer down the line.)

If the DA can make a case without a cooperative victim, then it should be pursued regardless of what the victim wants.

Couldn't disagree more. We always need to listen to the victim and take it into consideration. If the DA just pursues a case without the consent of the victim and without talking to them, he or she hurts that victim all over again. Whether it’s losing a home because the family loses an income, having to get a second job and not see their kids or dealing with shunning in the community from people who downplay the incident and play the blame game, these consequences are real. We should take the victim’s preferences into consideration (obviously some concept of the egregiousness and violence of the crime plays a role but most cases fall into a gray zone).

That’s really why we need something between “Your partner is going to jail” and “Your partners is coming home to probably abuse you again.” Something that involves access to resources to prevent further recurrences or help to gain independence without going under.

Vanimal quoted this article, a must-read when thinking about this issue.

I'd just like to add to your statement that it's not just about women.  Children are abused, men are abused, anyone can be abused for a variety of reasons - anger and the lack of being able to control it being one of them.  I know that the focus here is geared more towards women, but they're only part of the broader issue.

Yeah, I felt weird making things gendered as I wrote them but it's so awkward to always have "he or she" and "him or her" throughout. And the vast majority of abuse is female on male so I went with it but still didn't feel good.

Excellent and needed aside.