Posted on 09/02/2010 5:21:40 AM PDT by FreeManDC
Kristin Ruggiero of New Hampshire figured it would be a slam dunk. The gambit worked like a charm during the divorce hearing; now she would bring the case to criminal court.
Her husband Jeffrey, an officer in the U.S. Coast Guard, was an incorrigible batterer, at least that’s what she led to the judge to believe. That got him convicted of criminal threatening, and she won custody of their 7-year-old daughter.
But Kristin Ruggiero wasn’t finished.
One day, the woman bragged to her startled ex, “I took all your money, I took your daughter, and now I’m going to take your career.” She went out and purchased a disposable cell phone and registered it in Jeffrey’s name. Then she sent herself a passel of threatening text messages.
Apparently Kristin didn’t realize that in criminal court, allegations are subjected to a higher standard of proof. And all of a sudden the nefarious scheme to frame her ex-husband came crashing down.
Last week Kristin Ruggiero was convicted on 12 counts of falsifying physical evidence and sentenced to 7-14 years in prison.
This tale is not so much about a distraught woman sorely in need of psychological help. Rather, it’s a story of a police department, a prosecutor, and a judge that allowed themselves to be duped by a conniving perjurer. And it’s about a criminal justice system that has all but abandoned due process in a frenzied attempt to curb domestic violence.
Like everything in the law, the problem begins with definitions. The Violence Against Women Act, passed during the first term of the Clinton administration, includes a definition of domestic violence that is so wide you could drive a Mack truck through it.
States picked up on the loophole, and now most states include within their definitions of abuse, actions like making your partner “annoyed” or “distressed.”
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) likewise followed suit. The CDC’s Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements declares that partner violence includes “getting annoyed if the victim disagrees,” “withholding information from the victim,” and even “disregarding what the victim wants.”
Note the CDC’s repeated use of the word “victim.” In VAWA-speak, a victim does not need to be a prostrate body lying in a pool of blood. Rather, a mere accusation elevates you to the status of victim. No proof of violence is necessary. Recall the Queen of Hearts’ disdainful remark, “Sentence first, verdict afterwards.”
Fanciful definitions are just the beginning.
Favored with $1 billion in federal largess each year, our nation’s domestic violence industry has created an alternate-reality legal system that would confound even the likes of Alice.
Our Looking Glass criminal justice system features judges who have been educated to always “err on the side of caution”; victim advocates who coach putative victims how to embellish their claims; and free legal help to accusers (but not defendants).
And for readers with a well-honed sense of fairy-tale humor, mandatory prosecution policies epitomize a legal system run amok. Often the “victim” decides she has taught her boyfriend enough of a lesson and recants her story. But zealous prosecutors have taken to jailing these women until they agree to cooperate. That draconian practice allowed a California woman to secure a $125,000 false arrest award a few years ago.
Such strong-arm practices have not escaped the attention of civil rights groups. The Washington Civil Rights Council has described our current domestic violence system as creating the “biggest civil rights roll-back since the Jim Crow era.”
Last year the Connecticut chapter of the ACLU took on the case of Fernando A., a man who had been falsely accused of throwing his wife down a flight of stairs. When a judge then deprived him of the right to a hearing to decide whether to remove his children, the ACLU took the case to the state’s Supreme Court. Fernando A. won on a 5-2 decision.
Earlier this year, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, a Washington, D.C.-based victim advocacy organization, released a report [1] titled “How Domestic Violence Laws Curtail our Fundamental Freedoms.” The report concludes that each year, over two million Americans have their fundamental civil liberties overruled by the Violence Against Women Act.
Consider the constitutional guarantees of due process, probable cause for arrest, right to a fair trial, and equal treatment under the law — all are cast aside by get-tough-on-crime domestic violence laws.
The tall irony is that Vice President Joe Biden, who proudly championed VAWA when he was a senator in the early 1990s, is a former professor of constitutional law.
Uh. Better take a little trip to Miami or Naples first.
Well, there are certainly some classes of crimes where due process should not apply. We’ve learned that much in the last 10 years.
I am on the fence about this one. I just read an article about a woman who was murdered by her husband while she had a restraining order. On the other hand there are those who use the system against their spouse like this woman. I just don’t see an answer that is fair to both situations.
I knew of a couple where the wife did this to her husband.
sharia law will put an end to a lot of this.
Squeezing the toothpaste in the middle of the tube will likely qualify...and people wonder why guys aren't interested in getting married nowadays.
“...so wide you could drive a Mack truck through it”
Also know as a “beurocratic employment and career advancement provision”
“...so wide you could drive a Mack truck through it”
Also known as a “beurocratic employment and career advancement provision”
‘And it’s about a criminal justice system that has all but abandoned due process in a frenzied attempt to curb domestic violence.’
This sums it up well.
Good. In return, he took her entire life away from her. Now he and his daughter can live a normal life.
The weakest part of Domestic Violence investigation is the investigation. I took over a small department where officers never arrested. I changed that but it was not easy.
These investigations require solid investigative steps. When the laws first past, we arrested only for visible injuries. The law has since changed. To my knowledge, there is nothing in there about irritating the spouse. What may be misinterpreted is the dominant agressor theory.
Dominant aggressor creates an environment of fear or threatening environment. If properly investigated and documented, an arrest can be made without an assault occurring.
Things like: destroying your spouses property. This is especially true if the property was either a gift from a former lover OR a gift of great importance to the victim such as a mementor from a deceased parent.
Must run but the above is only ONE example. I arrested a guy who trapped his wife on the couch, screamed in her ear and smashed a lammp next to her head. Never touched her but she was in fear and not free to leave.
Sadly, far too many lawyers seek temporary restraining orders just as a matter of course, which immediately causes the man to lose is RKBA.
The problem there is that even though laws were in place to protect her, they weren't enforced, for whatever reason. (E.g. police responding to a violation of a restraining order is probably lower priority than responding to a break-in.) The laws need to be based in common sense. They need to be enforced. Seems to me those two measures would greatly increase the "fairness" of the system.
The Violence Against Women Act, passed during the first term of the Clinton administration, includes a definition of domestic violence that is so wide you could drive a Mack truck through it.
States picked up on the loophole, and now most states include within their definitions of abuse, actions like making your partner “annoyed” or “distressed.”
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) likewise followed suit. The CDC’s Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements declares that partner violence includes “getting annoyed if the victim disagrees,” “withholding information from the victim,” and even “disregarding what the victim wants.”
Note the CDC’s repeated use of the word “victim.”
what a load of stupid crap !!
getting annoyed if the victim disagrees
WTF?
I have a feminist friend who shocked me when I observed how brutal it was that a Muslim could beat and disfigure his wife (Time cover) then abandon her to die.
She said: It’s no worse than an American woman who is married to some redneck ape who beats her.
I was aghast!!
I reminded her that:
• ANY married women in the US, CHOSE her husband
• ANY married woman in the US, made her ‘selection’ freely and at the AGE OF CONSENT
• Any woman in THIS country who wants out of her marriage/relationship can accomplish it SO easily that no comparison is possible with Muslim women who have NO support system, encouragement or sympathy (even from their own families) when trying to divorce
• Even assuming a Muslim woman successfully breaks with her husband, he likely keeps her children, dowry, etc. She goes away dishonored, with NOTHING and worse, with NO PROSPECT for the rest of her life, of ever being accepted or employed
My Liberal friend has just this same imbecile and flawed understanding of ALL issues. THAT level of reasoning is pretty typical of Feminists and ALL Liberals!
“Squeezing the toothpaste in the middle of the tube will likely qualify...and people wonder why guys aren’t interested in getting married nowadays. “
Thanks for the laugh. Its a horrible truth however.
The problem there is that even though laws were in place to protect her, they weren’t enforced, for whatever reason. (E.g. police responding to a violation of a restraining order is probably lower priority than responding to a break-in.) The laws need to be based in common sense. They need to be enforced. Seems to me those two measures would greatly increase the “fairness” of the system.
You think that maybe they should have lie detector tests for both people or a psychological evaluation so they can decide exactly who is the victim?
All of this stuff changes with gay marriage. Domestic violence laws will have to be tossed out to accommodate it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.