Comment by BryantD
Cites, please? A quick skim of the literature doesn't support this and I'm dubious, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Cites, please? A quick skim of the literature doesn't support this and I'm dubious, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Sincere thanks!
Some notes: in Connecticut, restraining orders can be granted for a variety of reasons, not restricted to domestic violence alone. Fairly close correlation but it does include, for example, stalking.
It seems unwise to assume that restraining orders alone represent the entire count of domestic violence complaints that reach the legal system. For example, surely domestic violence arrests should be counted? Which seem to be a much higher count than restraining order applications -- 24,850 DV arrests in 2011 vs. 9033 DV applications. I'm not sure how to count the 32,111 "Family Violence Protective Orders" in 2011; are they the result of arrests? Are they yet another possible outcome of law enforcement involvement, separate from either a requested restraining order or an arrest?
There are way more reasons a restraining order might not make it to a final order besides "the requestor was proven wrong." I'd want more detailed data here before reaching a conclusion. Otherwise, this assumes that failure to grant a restraining order proves lack of DV. I am not sure that it would change the percentages you've shown significantly -- we're all aware of cases where restraining orders weren't granted with very bad results, but there's always a tendency to report on the most clickbaity outcomes. Still, worth digging into that one a bit more.
Again, appreciate the cite.
Yes I'm sure we could keep digging up more. I've been down this rabbit hole before so I know how it always ends: I provide a data driven take backed by source after source which ends in endless nitpicking and scrutiny and rejection of the sources, meanwhile unsourced hot takes go completely unchallenged without the demand sources, as seen in your sister comment.
This is the key of this two-pronged approach, one commenter can bury the data driven comment in source rejection (without being beheld to prove a counter point, since the asserter has the burden of proof) while the sister comment can drive the more approved comment unchallenged. Of course we really know, in many cases, the two separate commenters are advancing the same line of opinion, but using this split strategy both are compartmentalized in their burdens.
Although, the truth is, the scrutinizer is rarely offering counter sources of their own, which they of course are under no obligation to provide. But barring that, we're left at worst with "I don't know" which is a terrible standard under which to assume the word of the wife is predictive of guilt, thus even if all the sources are rejected you leave from a practical perspective no off no better than you started in predictive guilt.
Oh, I have no interest in going around and around about it -- that's not a good use of anyone's time. I think it's a somewhat understudied field, and was legitimately interested in your cites. Your material is way better than surveys about how many people feel like they've been falsely accused; relying on self-reporting like that is clearly flawed.
I also, for what it's worth, think that "did you talk to the wife" is too high a standard in this case. For one thing, the wife didn't bring a complaint, as I understand it.
My hot take is the majority of complaints made by people who otherwise had planned on staying together are probably valid.
The divorce industry and divorce lawyers request these orders like candy, as leverage for proceedings and to take away custody briefly during the temporary order while the custody hearing is going on so that during custody hearings it can be argued the child already is only with the mom or dad and they should get full custody. It also lets you eject the partner from the home without a legal eviction process, so they are at their weakest and homeless when fighting in court. They produce a massive number of weak DV claims, the point was never to take them final but to provide enough of a discontinuity in their life to crush them.
Note that it's not trivial to demonstrate that a restraining order is necessary, even in cases where domestic violence has occurred and has a reasonable risk of recurring.
I understand that you're simply using this as a proxy for the actual unknowable data, but I think it's worth pointing out that the map is not the territory.
It is trivial in many states and jurisdictions to get a temporary order. One was obtained against David Lettermen just by a woman in a different state claiming he was sending her secret messages through the TV.
The final order is more difficult, but quite often (i.e. in divorce / custody court) the only goal was to evict them from the home and disrupt custody to get the upper hand in hearings, so temporary is all that's needed to do the job and then no need to actually defend the claim made 14+ days later when they're already homeless and with the baseline of out of the kid's life.
Here's an example in connecticut[].
DV applications: ~8800
DV ex parte granted (no chance for defendant to defend him(her)self): ~5100
DV final order granted after defendant able to defend him(her)self): ~3200
So for example in CT on just a civil standard, only 2/3 of the accusers were able to get even a temporary order when the defendant had zero chance to tell their side of the story. Once the defendant was able to come to court and defend themselves, only about 1/3 of them made it to a final order. And that was by the much weaker civil rather than criminal standard.
[] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tYBTsF7-px-3lCnBFOol...