Technology against violence
By Kerry Healy and Jarrett Barrios | January 11,
2007
WHEN assessing domestic violence cases, threats to kill a woman
and her children, abuse during pregnancy, and sexual jealousy
are all lethality factors taken into account. Had they been used
in issuing and enforcing Lien Lam's restraining order against
her estranged husband, perhaps her infant daughter and the woman
baby-sitting her would not be recovering from burns inflicted by
the baby's father, Dung Van Tran, who is also recovering from
burns.
According to court records, the Boston man had a long history of
abusive violence toward his estranged wife, including violations
of restraining orders. What can be done to stop those who seem
bent on continuing their abusive behavior when their partner
seeks to end the relationship? With the help of Diane Rosenfeld
of Harvard Law School, we looked at how to improve the criminal
justice system's response to domestic violence. On the last day
of the 2005-2006 legislative session, a bill we filed was signed
into law that will help remedy the loss of a victim's safety.
Under the new law, an offender who violates a domestic violence
order of protection can be required by a judge to wear a device
that provides Global Positioning System monitoring. The GPS
helps enforce the restraining order by preventing the batterer
from entering "liberty zones," such as the battered partner's
domicile and place of work, their children's schools, and the
residences of extended family members. Probation agents will
monitor offenders to ensure that they do not breach these zones.
If they do, a record of a restraining order violation will be
made, thus making stalking and further violent attacks more
difficult. Further, police and the victim are automatically
phoned if the offender breaches the battered partner's liberty
zone, thus minimizing the victim's fears of an unexpected
confrontation with the batterer.
The limitations of restraining orders are apparent in the
age-old question asked about abused partners: "Why doesn't she
just leave?"
In answering domesic violence calls, police departments
routinely supply information on battered women's shelters, along
with advice on how women can seek protective orders. But why
tell a woman how to leave if you are helping her obtain a
restraining order that is supposed to protect her? Expecting the
victim to leave instead of asking why the justice system cannot
restrain the batterer from reassaulting illustrates how
ingrained it has become to expect danger as a matter of course
when victims seek to end abusive relationships.
Currently, many battered partners leave -- their homes,
families, or jobs. Battered women's shelters must turn away
thousands of women every year. Twenty-three percent of women and
children in homeless shelters report that they are directly
fleeing domestic violence. Instead of asking why a woman doesn't
leave the violent relationship, we need to be asking how can we
help these families stay -- to stay housed, in their jobs, with
their kids.
The new law not only adapts technology that better protects
victims, but it also represents a logical step toward changing
the paradigm of responsibility for domestic violence -- away
from the victim to provide for her own safety by hiding, and
onto the justice system to hold the offender accountable.
Leaving is the most difficult decision for a battered partner to
make. It is also the time she is at greatest risk of violence
from her batterer. By using GPS technology, we align
accountability with criminal behavior and do more than simply
apprise a battered partner of her options. The law utilizes
modern technology to give teeth to restraining orders, making
real progress toward returning liberty to battered partners and
their children.
To be sure, there is more to be done to maximize successful
police and judicial response to a victim's calls for help.
Dangerousness assessments should be used in every domestic
violence call to which police respond across the Commonwealth.
These assessments provide a way of identifying potentially
lethal factors so the criminal justice system can better protect
the victim. Such assessments enable police, district attorneys,
judges, and victim advocates to understand high-risk cases among
the plethora of received domestic calls. Judges can use the
assessments in deciding whom to put on a GPS monitor. The
assessments are on going, so that the judge can alter sanctions
as indicated to keep the offender from re assaulting the victim.
These legislative efforts are aimed at preventing the
predictable escalation of violence that too often culminates in
homicide if domestic violence is not effectively interrupted at
its earliest stage. State power must be used to offer real
protection, lest the victim be left with less protection than
she had before contacting police. The GPS legislation holds real
promise to give meaning to restraining orders and prevent future
violence.
Will these efforts eliminate domestic homicides in
Massachusetts? Probably not. But they will save lives and
greatly enhance the lives of countless others who live with fear
daily.
Kerry Healey is the former lieutenant governor of Massachusetts.
Jarrett Barrios is a state senator.
The Jarrett Barrios
Website is privately paid for and authorized by
The Barrios Committee, Daniel Schlozman, Treasurer
PO Box 391254, Cambridge, MA 02139 (617) 661-1805
Problems? Contact
webmaster@senatorbarrios.org
