There is one major flaw these changes do not address: They do not take into account that an
allegation of domestic violence may be false. When someone is accused, usually a male, the legal
and judicial systems heavily favor the alleged victim. Even if a wife or domestic partner admits
that the account was fabricated, she is believed to be "in denial" according to certain psychological
dogma. The result? The prosecution proceeds against an innocent man.

What is it like to be accused and considered a batterer before evidence is presented to the
court in your favor?

• If you cannot make the unreasonably high bail, you could loose your job.
• If you cannot go to therapy with you wife or domestic partner because there is a stay-away
order, you are denied the access to help for working out genuine family problems.
• If you decide you want therapy and are innocent of the charges, court-sanctioned therapy
demands that you, the accused, "admits" guilt. The concept that an accused individual might be innocent is not considered--neither is the possibility that the accuser be in need of therapeutic intervention for having falsely accused you.
• Finally, there is a gender bias in the enforcement of the law. The penal code sections do not distinguish between the accused being a man or a women. However, the vast majority of the
people entrusted to enforce these laws favor a woman's testimony, not only because of cultural
bias, but because of the out-dated psychological training that the police, judges and prosecutors receive from one school of health care professionals.

The Jury

In a legitimate but emotional attempt to correct the serious problem of domestic violence in our
society, the rights of those falsely accused have been ignored. For those falsely accused of
domestic violence in today's judicial system, the only salvation is a fair jury trial. Even that is
no guarantee for justice, however.

When an innocent defendant faces people specially selected for a jury, he must realize that most
jurors usually enter the court room with a bias against the defendant in a domestic violence
case. They are well acquainted with the Simpson trial and its failure to protect Nicole Brown.
And yet, the jury is the best chance for the falsely accused to be fairly heard and acquitted.
First of all, jurors are not elected but chosen and therefore serve the court, not the public.
Secondly they are American, and as such, they understand the need for fair and impartial
justice-no matter what the charges. That is why jurors must be educated on the fact that false
allegations happen and that there is no remedy for the innocent other than a jury trial.

Education begins with a thorough investigation of the individual case and a clear presentation of
the findings to the jury members. Education continues with the use of expert witnesses and the
skills of the trial counsel in helping the jury understand the complexities of domestic violence
allegations and how false allegations can occur.

The concept of a "jury"-a judgment of peers-comes from the Magna Carta, a legal document
written in the 13th century and later applied to the first colonies in the New World to ensure
one's basic civil liberties. Although English nobles first used the Magna Carta in America to
protect themselves from the king's excesses, caprices, and biases in legal issues, they ultimately
ensured the balance of power in the courtroom by requiring the jury as part of the larger legal
system. Today, the primary purpose of the jury in the United States is to protect an individual
from the excesses, caprices and biases of the government's many offices. That is why there is
no better safeguard for an innocent man than a jury trial. Those falsely accused must rely on
a jury more than anyone else to examine the facts of a case, and not be mislead by the popular
social and cultural biases that have affected the legal and judicial systems with respect to
domestic violence allegations.

<< Previous

Top of Page