Remy Domestic abuse - example of blaming the victim?

Could Massachusetts Have Stopped Jared Remy From Allegedly Murdering Jennifer Martel?
By Amanda Marcotte
Aug. 19, 2013

As with most men who allegedly commit domestic homicide, Jared Remy—son of broadcaster and former Boston Red Sox player Jerry Remy, and himself a Red Sox security guard until he was fired for steroid use in 2008—gave everyone lots of warning. When he was arrested Thursday night on charges of stabbing his girlfriend, Jennifer Martel, to death in front of their 4-year-old daughter and neighbors, it was only one day after he had been brought in front of Waltham District Court in Massachusetts on charges of slamming Martel's face into a mirror—and was then released. Despite 14 previous arrests, including domestic violence against two other women, Remy was allowed to walk free without bail—just a paper-thin order to not abuse Martel. The next night he, in the words of Martel's mother, "went back and finished the job."

This all happened despite the option, recently highlighted in a New Yorker piece, that exists in Massachusetts to hold high-risk offenders in jail for a period of time, after a "dangerousness hearing," to prevent them from doing things like murdering their victims. So what went wrong here?

Part of the problem is an old and frequent one: The victim's lack of cooperation appears to have allowed prosecutors to lull themselves into believing Remy wasn't that big of a threat. Martel did not come in to renew the emergency restraining order that had been put on Remy. Martel's family told the Boston Globe that Martel backed off due to pressure coming from Remy's mother, "who begged her not to file any kind of complaint because it would ruin Remy’s life." Prosecutors have confirmed that Martel's unwillingness to get a restraining order was a major factor:

Officials with the Middlesex prosecutor’s office would not discuss whether they considered pursuing a dangerousness hearing. They did, however, say their conversations with Martel were a prominent factor in how they pursued charges against Remy.
“We had conversations with [Martel] about what her wishes were, and she expressed to us that she was not coming [to ask for a new restraining order],” Long said.
However, as critics point out, a dangerousness hearing doesn't require the victim's cooperation, though that cooperation does dramatically improve the chances that a judge will decide to hold an abuser. Suzanne Dubus, the CEO of the Jeanne Geiger Crisis Center, which was profiled in that New Yorker piece for its innovative work in domestic homicide prevention, told me Monday morning that although her team isn't privy to the facts in this particular case, "We know from research that the period after arraignment is one of the most dangerous times for victims of domestic violence," and that dangerousness hearings should be strongly considered for many cases.

Dubus works closely with the Massachusetts high-risk assessment team, a government-funded program that ties law enforcement and social services together to determine if an offender is in danger of escalating and takes steps to prevent that from happening. The team covers much of Massachusetts, but not Waltham, where Remy abused Martel. What might have happened had Remy been in the team's jurisdiction? "A few things we have learned is that on-scene risk assessment by law enforcement is critical, as that is the information given to prosecution to build their case," Dubus explains. It's impossible to know what would have happened had there been an on-scene assessment when Remy slammed Martel into that mirror, but certainly he had many of the red flags that the high-risk team takes into account when making its determinations, including employment problems and a serious past of domestic violence.

Still, even with a high-risk assessment team on hand and much more pressure on law enforcement officials to use the dangerousness hearing and strategies like GPS trackers on abusers to keep them away from their victims, without a victim willing to file a restraining order, it can be hard for prosecutors to make the case that a man is dangerous. This is why interventions aimed at victims, something that the high-risk assessment team includes in its responses, can be so critical in preventing future violence. A 2003 study of 11 cities found that about half of victims of successful or attempted domestic murders did not believe their partners capable of murder. In response, many states such as Maryland have created programs where victims of domestic violence are given a checklist that not only helps law enforcement determine how dangerous the abuser is but can also help a victim in denial see how much danger her abuser presents to her—and therefore help convince her to be more cooperative with efforts to restrain him.

Interventions such as victim counseling, on-scene risk assessment, and more aggressive use of dangerousness hearings to keep abusers away from their victims can't stop all crimes like Jared Remy's. Some men will slip through the cracks, and some victims will be so recalcitrant that it makes it nearly impossible to push forward with prosecution. Still, Remy's history and the very few obstacles in his path to murder should serve as a reminder of how important these interventions really are. Not all men like Remy can be stopped by thorough law enforcement and social service interventions, but some can, which is a start.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/08/19/jared_remy_walked_out_of_court_and_murdered_jennifer_martel_could_he_have.html

The state of Massachusetts can no longer protect Jennifer Martel, but it can offer better safeguards to future potential victims, and that's what it should focus on now. Rather than blame Martel, her case should be used to help alert others

Massachusetts’ Simple Solution for Preventing Domestic Homicide
By Amanda Marcotte
July 15, 2013

In theory, domestic homicide should be easy to prevent, since men who kill their wives or girlfriends (85 percent of victims are female) generally give us lots of warning by beating, stalking, and even raping their victims, usually for years before they finally kill. In reality, it's surprisingly hard to stop someone who really wants to murder you, especially if he has easy access to a gun. Restraining orders don't create a magic force field around the victim. Shelters help, but they are underfunded and depend on the victim giving up substantial rights to hold a job (which gives the abuser the ability to find you), have a social life, or even speak to family members. And trying to figure out which abusers are just run-of-the-mill woman batterers and which will actually kill is surprisingly hard to do.

Rachel Louise Snyder, writing for the New Yorker, details one solution that's being implemented in Massachusetts. Domestic violence social workers there developed a high-risk assessment team that, using statistical methods and employing the court system in creative ways, has figured out a way to target the men most likely to kill and take special care to make it that much harder for them to do so. Kelly Dunne started the Domestic Violence High Risk Team in 2005, and since then, not a single case she's taken on has ended in murder, and the men who have been sentenced to GPS tracking have not committed any future acts of violence. In addition, the team has done wonders to help victims return to normal life:

Dunne also notes that, of the hundred and six high-risk cases documented in the team’s most recent report, only eight women were forced to seek refuge in shelters. She estimated that, before the formation of the high-risk team, ninety per cent of similar cases would have resulted in the women’s going into shelters.

How do they do it? They take the details of each reported case of abuse, looking at risk factors such as stalking and chronic unemployment, and rate each abuser on a point system for how violent and controlling he is. Men who are rated high are then subject to heightened risk monitoring, and their victims are given extra resources to stay safe. If the abusers start acting up, they can have their child visitations terminated or be made to wear GPS trackers. They may even be put in jail or in a psychiatric hospital for violating probation or restraining orders—courtesy of a preventive detention program that was mostly used to prevent gang or drug violence in the past, a program that gives the government leeway to restrain you even if your behavior otherwise falls short of the threshold to charge you with further crimes.

The system works in no small part because it turns the logic of an abusive relationship on its head. The abuser works by making the victim feel like she will never be free of him, his violence, and his surveillance. If she tries to leave, he escalates. If she gets a new boyfriend, he escalates. The idea is to make her feel like her choices are to submit or to live in terror. The high-risk teams shift the burden of being surveilled from the victim to the abuser. Now, if he makes a threat, Massachusetts has the power to escalate. If he uses visitation time to attack her or her children, Massachusetts restricts visitation. Now he's the one who has to make his decisions with the understanding that someone with power can further restrict his movements and his ability to live freely. Abusers often victimize for years before taking things to the level of a serious beating or murder. By restricting movements in the early stages, it appears that the program helps keep abusers from getting to that point.

It's such a simple principle and one that hopefully other states will pick up on: The person who should pay for the abusive relationship should be the perpetrator, not the victim. It's not just the fair and moral way, but it also seems to be more effective.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/07/15/massachusetts_figured_out_a_simple_solution_to_prevent_domestic_homicide.html

http://restrainingorderabuse.com/restraining-order-q-a/

In 2005, The Family Law News, California State Bar's official publication in the field, noted
that the state issued on average 250,000 orders of protection annually. It acknowledged that the issuance of such orders were "routine" and conceded that they were misused by parties seeking to "jockey" for an advantage in custody matters and as retaliation***. Similarly, the Illinois Bar Journal called orders of protection "part of the gamesmanship of divorce****."

A few recent studies examine this problem. One study found that 59% of allegations of domestic violence between couples involved in custody disputes could not be substantiated by the courts as true*****. A 2008 analysis of orders issued in one county in West Virginia concluded that 81% were unnecessary or false******. A 2010 review by Connecticut's Judicial Department noted that ex parte orders increased over 25% from 2003 and 2004, and that nothing was being done to stop frivolous requests*******.

Given the foregoing, this problem is certainly one that our judicial system should address and remedy. Part of the reason I believe that it hasn't is due to the fact that, unfortunately, those raising this legitimate concern tend to do so using vitriolic rhetoric. Websites focusing on men's and father's rights abound, and most use bombastic language that pretty much undermines their point that these men are peaceful and non-threatening. Even the notoriously controversial Phyllis Schlafly jumped into the discussion starting in 2007 complaining that liberal feminists are to blame for the misuse********.

There's pretty much no doubting my feminist camp allegiance, and it was a personal challenge to review many anger-driven websites and commentaries blasting women and still write this article and acknowledge that there is a systemic-wide problem.

What none of these websites do, however, is offer any solutions. Here are some actions that may serve as a starting point:

Study the issue in a non-partisan manner to assess how prevalent the problem truly is.

Cease the nasty rhetoric. Pointing the blame at a particular political or social group is unhelpful. Both sides must acknowledge that there are many women truly in need of protection, and both must acknowledge that many abuse the system for strategic reasons.

If the jurisdiction allows for it, concerned men who anticipate that their partner or spouse plans to misuse the system should tape record conversations. Such recordings have saved many innocent persons from losing their homes and families.

In complaints, incorporate stronger language delineating the penalties for perjury. Enforce those penalties.

Treat temporary orders similar to criminal charges by requiring an "arraignment" relative to the charges within a 48 hour period. Treat a temporary order as analogous to an arrest, and require within that short time frame an offer of proof similar to the "reasonable suspicion" standard.

At that preliminary hearing, if an initial threshold is met, allow the accused to list necessary personal items (such as clothes) and valuables (such as identification and financial paperwork) at the residence and order the accuser coordinate their release within a specific timeframe. Impose sanctions for non-compliance or obstruction.

Award attorneys' fees for motion practice to recoup personal property that is not timely released.

Because no judge likes to overrule herself, assign different judges to hear a temporary and permanent order of protection.

Require corroborating evidence for permanent stay away orders where there is no prior history of domestic violence and there is no allegation of actual physical harm.

Give the tort of "abuse of process" some teeth. This tort, rarely used or recognized, basically allows one party to sue another party who has abused a civil or criminal process, such as requesting an unfounded order of protection. Abuse is evident where someone has used the process based on ulterior motivations sounding in economic or social advantages. Unfortunately, some jurisdictions specifically state that the tort is not ripe until after a divorce is finalized, and after the harm is done. These jurisdictions should amend their rules to allow for joinder of this action with divorce proceedings.

Allow any finding of abuse of process to be relevant in custodial considerations where, by clear and convincing evidence, a party proves that 1) a parent willfully misused the protection process in order to gain a tactical advantage, and 2) the willful misuse is evidence that the parent is likely to be unwilling to worth with the other parent in their joint responsibilities*********.

*U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office o

whether they could have, or should have, done more to evaluate the danger that Jared Remy posed to Jennifer Martel.

I find it hard to believe that "should they have done more to evaluate the danger " is even a question in anyone's mind.

DA promises wide review of decision to let Remy go
By Todd Wallack and Sean P. Murphy
Globe Staff
August 20, 2013

WOBURN — Middlesex District Attorney Marian T. Ryan vowed Monday to conduct a full review of the way her office handled the case against Jared W. Remy, who had been arrested for allegedly slamming his longtime girlfriend, Jennifer Martel, into a mirror just two days before he allegedly killed her.

The district attorney’s office has come under fire from the public in recent days for not asking a judge to continue to hold Remy, based on his history of domestic violence charges, or ordering him to stay away from Martel following his arraignment last Wednesday in Waltham District Court on charges of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

Ryan said the internal investigation will look at whether the prosecutor in this case properly considered all the appropriate factors before deciding not to seek bail or a “dangerousness” hearing to determine whether Remy should have been kept in jail. She said the review will also look at steps that could be taken to better protect victims of domestic violence in future.

“Anytime you engage in a process, no matter how careful, no matter how thoughtful, and it is followed by something as tragic as loss of life, as in the case of Jennifer Martel, one would be irresponsible not to reexamine what happened in that case,” Ryan said.

But Ryan said that so far it appears that her staff made the right call, given all the facts of the case. She said there was no need to bring outside investigators to review the case.

“The Middlesex district attorney’s office is fully capable of conducting a review of our internal processes,” she said.

Remy, the son of former Red Sox player and beloved broadcaster Jerry Remy, was arrested Tuesday night after Martel dialed 911 and told police that he “slammed her face against a mirror.”

But prosecutors declined to seek bail or request a dangerousness hearing, like one that kept Remy behind bars for months after he allegedly attacked another woman eight years ago. Instead, prosecutors asked a judge to order Remy not to abuse Martel.

Remy, who has a 4-year-old daughter with Martel, is facing charges that he stabbed Martel to death a day after he was released on personal recognizance, prompting many observers to wonder whether prosecutors and the courts could have done more to protect Martel.

“It is important to get all the facts to determine what, if anything, could have been done differently,” Attorney General Martha Coakley said in a statement to the Globe Monday.

In addition to welcoming the review, Coakley also repeated calls she first made last week after Martel’s death to reexamine the state’s domestic violence laws to make sure they do enough to protect victims.

“This is yet another horrible tragedy due to domestic violence,” Coakley said. “Jennifer Martel should be alive today, but now a daughter is without a mother, and a family is without a daughter who died much too young.”

Ryan, defending her office’s actions, said her prosecutors made decisions based on the information they had at the time.

She pointed out that the victim did not attend Remy’s arraignment and told prosecutors that she did not want them to extend the emergency restraining order that was initially granted after Remy’s arrest on Tuesday and that expired Wednesday morning.

Prosecutors also found no physical evidence that Martel was seriously injured, Ryan has said. An officer did not find any marks on her head where she said it struck the mirror, and Martel declined medical treatment the night she called 911, saying she would be fine, according to a report filed by the Waltham Police Department.

“There were no injuries,” Ryan said, describing the alleged assault as a “grab and push.”

In addition, this was the first time in their seven-year relationship that Remy was arrested for assault. There was “no documented history of offenses in this relationship,” Ryan said.

But Remy, who has admitted to using steroids to boost his weightlifting, had a long history of arrests for violence that raised questions about whether prosecutors could have done more to protect Martel or whether Remy was treated differently because of his famous father.

Remy’s criminal history goes back at least to 1998, when he was charged with assaulting a Weston woman and vandalizing her property. He was accused of hitting a woman on the head with a beer bottle at a Waltham bar in 2003.

Remy also faced a series of charges of assaulting and threatening a former girlfriend between 2002 and 2005 — including threatening to kill her at least twice, cutting up her clothing and pictures, and punching and kicking her until she ran to a neighbor’s house — and violating a restraining order, according to court records. Prosecutors sought a dangerousness hearing in 2005 after the assault charges, and he was held in jail for 81 days while the case was pending, court records show.

He also faced miscellaneous other charges, ranging from having a hypodermic needle in 2000 to driving with a suspended license in 2011.

One district court judge said he thought the prosecutor should have requested a hearing on whether Remy was too dangerous to release from jail.

“Domestic violence is the third rail,” said the judge, who is not involved in the case and asked not to be named. “You usually throw the kitchen sink at it.”

But several attorneys said they hesitated to second-guess prosecutors’ decisions, given the lack of serious injuries in the latest case, the reluctance of the victim to renew a restraining order, and the fact that the previous charges of violence were at least eight years old.

“It does look like [prosecutors took] a reasonable course of action, given all the factors,” said Ann McGonigle Santos, who specialized in domestic violence prosecution when she worked for the Middlesex district attorney from 1992 to 1998, noting that it was not a clear-cut case. “It is very easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.”

David Newton, a former Boston prosecutor, said he had a practice of asking for bail or a hearing to determine whether suspects were too dangerous to release in cases in which suspects had a past record of violence. But he said other prosecutors in other jurisdictions might handle the case differently. And he did not think the decision to allow Remy to be released on his own recognizance was unusual.

“There’s a lot of gray” in such cases, said Newton, who now works as a criminal defense attorney.

A Salem attorney who has represented people accused of assault and domestic violence said the criticism against prosecutors is “absurd.”

“The prosecutors made the right call here,” said Daniel Gindes, a criminal defense attorney from Salem, adding that a judge probably would have rejected any push to keep Remy in jail, given the circumstances of the case. “It was just a routine case, and it was handled in the proper routine way.”

Gindes noted that there are thousands of domestic violence cases in Massachusetts a year.

“If they tried to put all these people in jail, they wouldn’t have enough jails.”

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/08/19/middlesex-district-attorney-marian-ryan-orders-review-jared-remy-murder-case/eqoKGHUGqotRDDbZt3XHVL/story.html

I find it hard to believe that "should they have done more to evaluate the danger " is even a question in anyone's mind.

Quote:

I find it hard to believe that "should they have done more to evaluate the danger " is even a question in anyone's mind.

That's because hindsight is 20/20.

But legal opinion is divided

Nope. It's because I think our public servants have a duty of care to protect us - their employers.

Nope. It's because I think our public servants have a duty of care to protect us - their employers.

She states the abuse victim is in the best position to determine what is right for her safety...is she really?

n this jurisdiction, the police would have followed through on extending the restraining order - regardless of the desires of the victim. It's standard practice.