,
17 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
1. This is such a good example of the thinking that produced mass incarceration. @RLSWrites's piece about domestic violence – a serious issue – doesn't consider that many impacted by DV don't cooperate w prosecutors, because don't want a loved one caged. nytimes.com/2019/05/04/opi…
2. As prosecutors have been exposed as the main drivers of mass incarceration – and have been criticized for their cruel, shameful, destructive caging of people for tiny crimes – they have sought out new ground on which they could continue lustily caging people.
3. One arena in which they have chosen to re-situate their destructiveness and proclaim that their approach is righteous/good is DV cases. They chose this ground in part because it has a patina of progressivism.
4. And they are right in the sense that for far too long DV was not taken seriously by police, prosecutors. Often women were victimized by their partners and it was seen as a private matter – law enforcement looked the other way.
5. But now – in part as a response to that bad old approach – what happens in far, far too many places is police have been taught that when they go out on a DV call, someone is coming back in handcuffs. Often *both parties.
6. So there is a far larger number of DV cases coming into the system. Sometimes these are real, scary, violent situations. Sometimes one partner wants to get away from the other in an ongoing way. But that's only *some cases. Certainly not a majority.
7. In many more cases, one partner wanted some help with a drunk, angry, belligerent partner – but not necessarily to get away from that person in an ongoing way. In fact just the opposite. The partner wanted momentary help in a relationship they hope will succeed.
8. But police and prosecutors have chosen to use this ground – DV cases - to show how righteous their approach is. They love caging people for DV. As they've retreated from marijuana and broken windows, DV is where they are making their stand.
9. So rather than offer partners couples therapy, they offer cages. And rather than recognizing that calling the police one night may be a bump in a relationship that both partners want to survive, they arrogantly press forward with their caging agenda.
10. This piece suggests that the main reason DV victims fail to press forward with prosecuting their partner is that they are scared. And surely that happens sometimes. DV victims think pressing charges is dangerous. nytimes.com/2019/05/04/opi…
11. And like so much of the dishonest journalism that produced mass incarceration, this piece cherry picks the outlier awful examples to make that point. It's Willie Horton style journalism. nytimes.com/2019/05/04/opi…
12. But this piece erases what the bulk of DV cases look like. Very low level altercations. Police called because one partner is at wit's end – not because they are scared in a ongoing way. Because they want help tonight, not because they want to end the relationship.
13. And the arrogance that it – inadvertently – reveals about prosecutors is just breathtaking. It depicts prosecutors pressing forward with prosecutions EVEN WHEN THE DV VICTIM DOESN'T WANT IT as heroic! Such insanity.
14. It doesn't consider that the DV victim may *like the relationship, may want it to survive. And the reason the DV victim doesn't want to go forward with the prosecution is because THEY DON'T WANT TO CAGE THEIR LOVED ONE!!!!
15. The idea that caging a victim's loved one *against the victim's* will is heroic rather than wildly arrogant says so much about the worldview of prosecutors. It's just breathtaking.
16. There may be some number of DV cases that warrant prosecution – if that is what the victim wants. And sure there should be things like TRO protecting the victim who does want separation from a relationship. That is important.
17. But the prosecutorial arrogance depicted in this article and the style of writing that erases complexity, cherry picks the sensational, depicts the arrogance as heroic, is the morally corrupted ideology of mass incarceration in full view. nytimes.com/2019/05/04/opi…
