Domestic Non-Violence

A simple Internet search of "domestic violence" produces all manner of hysterical commentary, respecting the asserted "epidemic" of same. New Jersey reported 77,567 cases in 2004, which looks an awful look like an "epidemic". (Caveat: those appear to be allegations, not necessarily proven cases) But as with many such statistics, the devil lies in the details.

Logical discussion about domestic violence resembles discussing – say – school funding. Anyone looking askance at the cost of "education" in urban districts finds himself instantly branded as "against the children". Just so, anyone questioning the breadth of the domestic violence statute finds himself labeled "anti-woman", or some such.

But discussion we should have.

Of the 77,567 cases of "violence", fully 41% – 33,333 – of those cases were not, by any reasonable definition, "violence". Instead, the complainant in each such case asserted that her (or, in a much smaller number of cases, his) significant other engaged in "harassment".

The consequences of being adjudicated guilty of domestic violence are severe. And justifiably so. In 33,712 cases, the defendant assaulted the victim; in almost 21,000 cases, injury resulted. In each of these cases, obviously, the perp deserves what he/she gets. Assault does not become acceptable simply because one exchanges wedding vows; a marriage license is not a hunting license.

"Harassment" is quite another matter. The statute defines that crime, essentially, as being annoying. It’s a petty disorderly persons offense which means that, in the vast majority of the cases, if one harasses one’s neighbor, one might face a fine of a hundred bucks or so. No particularly big deal.

But if one "harasses" one’s spouse...?

A person can be summarily exiled from his/her home; be forced to pay large sums in counsel fees, lose access to his/her kids; forever forfeit his/her right to own a firearm, etc. All this because a judge – often reluctant to deny such an application – finds that one has been annoying?

Consider the recent case of Hunter v. Scheinert; you can find the opinion

"... defendant's two-month period of successive emails, laced with threats of criminal complaints and police involvement; his disparaging comments about plaintiff's psychological well-being and parenting ability; and his demands to initiate attorney intervention and other litigation, despite having actual knowledge of the requested information regarding the children, satisfied the elements of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4c, necessitating the entry of the Final Restraining Order."

Defendant’s conduct there may have been many things, but one thing it was certainly not, was violent.

The problem here lies more with the Legislature than with the Courts. Courts do not exist to protect the populace from foolishly written legislation, and the Legislature included harassment under the heading of "violence".

But "annoyance" is NOT violence, and the law should be amended to delete this provision.

The Courts have better things to do with their time than police annoying behavior between significant others.