If this keeps up, I’m going to need a cape. Good thing I have some friends who know how to sew!

Today’s ridiculous Facebook debate comes to us courtesy of Judge Hurley, in Broward County Florida, who ordered the defendant in a domestic violence case to take his wife out on a date.

• “Not to defend a potential wife-beater, but…” reads a lot to me like “Not to sound racist, but…” Whenever someone says something like this, you can pretty much rest assured that whatever comes next is doing exactly what they say they’re trying not to do.
• “She also noted that she doesn’t fear him attacking her.” I feel like anyone who would say something like this obviously has no knowledge whatsoever about domestic violence whatsoever. In many cases of domestic violence, the victim will side with the defendant because either 1)they’re in love with the person and don’t want to see anything bad happen to them/don’t want to “get them in trouble”, or 2)they’re afraid of what will happen if they speak out against the defendant. For a woman to stand in front of her attacker in court and say right out that she’s afraid he’s going to hurt her again is pretty rare, especially when there are the legal and emotional complications of marriage involved.
• “ Basically, the judge awarded what she wanted and asked for. If you think he’s wrong, you’re saying the wife (the victim) should not be listened too.” Gahhhh. The combination of ignorance and audacity in this statement has me wanting to run around, flailing and screaming as though my clothing just spontaneously caught fire. Again, there’s seemingly no understanding of what happens in domestic violence cases. As I pointed out in my response, when you’re attacked by someone you care deeply about, who you trusted, there’s a lasting psychological impact. Oftentimes, you’re not fully able to see the repercussions of the situation. You may not have any visible bruises, and you may think you’re just fine…until you’re standing next to someone who reaches for something next to you, or who swats at a mosquito, and you suddenly flinch. Maybe it isn’t even that obvious. Maybe you catch a certain scent, or hear a particular sound, and next thing you know you’re in the midst of a full blown panic attack, and can’t quite figure out why. In many cases, the victim just wants things to return to normal, as quickly as possible. And sometimes, that means going back to their assailant, and acting as though nothing happened. Problem is, something did happen, and by failing to address it, we only heighten the risk of re-occurrence. I think the reverse logic this commenter used is what really disturbs me. It’s clear manipulation…”well if you’re really concerned with what’s best for the victim…” No. Just no. There are times when people aren’t necessarily capable of expressing (or even acknowledging) what is in their best interests. Immediately following an assault? That’s one of those times. That is one of the reasons why many places will have the victim represented by an advocate in court. That doesn’t mean that the advocate just makes a decision on their client’s behalf. Rather, the advocate speaks with their client at length in order to develop a clear picture of what the circumstances are, and what their client wishes to happen. Their job is to obtain a result that both protects their client and upholds their client’s wishes. Protecting their client’s well-being and preventing re-occurrence is the primary focus. Giving the client what they want is secondary.