(BTW, this is not a post along the lines of "Everything I Need To Know, I Learned in Law School." That may be coming, but it'll be later.)

Howdy, everyone. (OK, I use the term everyone liberally. Thus far, it's a few friends I've sent to and some folks searching for PMBR info.)

A bit of a note -- this post is sort of a mixture of what I've put together for the blog and some of my weekly newspaper column, although slightly more detailed.

So, after three days, I sort of disappeared on the reporting from PMBR, and I apologize; I got busy and so I will need to give you more of an update on Robert Feinberg's associate, Steve Palmer, who I believe doubled as the car salesman in " Fargo," and more antics from Feinberg, of course. But, suffice it to say, I have survived PMBR and am in the middle of a two-week block of no classes and minimal studying to relax me and prepare me for the summer ahead.

I found myself back at the University of Toledo College of Law again last Thursday, which may lead some people to wonder whether or not I will ever break free of the place. (No, I promise, I will.) I wasn't there for anything related to law school or the bar exam (OK, I took the opportunity to visit a professor who's being slightly dilatory in reviewing a paper I need completed for my graduation); but rather there to attend a lecture by Lundy Bancroft, who is a well-known speaker and author on domestic violence.

How I came to be there is an interesting story I'm not quite prepared to share completely with you. Part of the story is that I deal with it every day in my employment with the prosecutor's office. The very first case I ever saw go to a jury trial ten years ago was a felony domestic violence case. They are always difficult, always heartrending, always tough to prove.

The other part has involved a journey I've taken in the past several years with a person very close to me (no, I\'m not a victim of domestic violence, thanks for your concern.) I've seen not only what it can do, but how sophisticated abusers can be and how their behavior is sometimes not only excused, but actively aided and abetted, by the justice system. Domestic violence creates a hell on earth for many people, as it has for this person, but in a way, it has been an eye opening experience that is very valuable to me. About that more later, perhaps.

So, Lundy Bancroft. (BTW, for those of you familiar with the University of Toledo, you'll know it sits on Bancroft Street, which led me to suggest the title of the lecture should have been "Bancroft On Bancroft." C'mon, I thought it was good.) He's worked extensively with this issue, as a counselor, trainer and author. He took a wide view of the issue, and pointed out there are reasons society chooses not to confront it, as it brings us face to face with other problems we’d rather not think about (think poverty, roles of men and women and behavior we as a society will tolerate for starters.)

What result? Estimates are that at least three and a half million, and possibly as many as ten million, children are living in homes with domestic violence. (There are eighty million children in the United States.) Not only that, but it’s expensive: The Centers for Disease Control estimates that domestic violence costs $67 billion a year, making it a most costly public health problem.

There’s an easy solution, though, and that’s to leave, right? Not exactly. It’s important to stop looking at batterers as “the husband who hits his wife” and start looking at them as a person whose campaign goes far beyond the physical aspects and far more into the psychological aspects. Batterers are consistently controlling, manipulative people who see themselves as the victim of their partner’s problem. They believe there is an excuse for what they do, hence the common refrain, “I don’t beat her up without a reason!”

It’s probably a good time to take a detour and say a word about who’s doing the battering. Men can be battered, but the overwhelming amount of battering is occurring against women. It’s wrong when a man is truly battered, but it’s worth considering a few things: (a) a man who is being battered will often have fewer ties to the relationship (i.e., worrying about child care (b) a man who is being battered will often have more economic ability to get out; and (c) men are often physically equipped to defend themselves far better than women. Please be aware I believe that, if a man is battered, it’s heinous and just as bad, but while “men can be battered, too,” the problem is affecting women, and their children, disproportionately. All of which is a way of saying, you may notice I refer to women as the ones being battered. I make no apology for that, because, most of the time, they are.

The sense of entitlement and self-centeredness a batterer has leads him to be not just surprised but also angry when his partner leaves the relationship. (Remember, he beat her up for a good reason!) He will retaliate – seeking custody, stalking her, telling others she is mentally ill. In fact, the danger can increase post-separation.

This same sense of entitlement is the reason he will batter “serially.” In other words, it’s not the woman in particular, it’s any woman in contact with the batterer is in danger.

Let’s also be clear that there are myths about batterers that are out there that need to be addressed. First, it’s not just incorrect but offensive to assume that this only happens in homes where there is a lack of education, lack of money or in certain ethnic minorities. Batterers can be of any social strata, economic income or race.

It’s also crucial to not be sucked in to believing that the batterer is “insecure” (in fact, they’re quite secure in what they’re doing…they have a reason, remember?); suffering from low self-esteem (Bancroft said that you can have batterers with self-esteem, and if you repair their self-esteem, you will then have a happy, well-adjusted batterer); or unable to communicate.

In fact, communications skills are often very helpful to the batterer when (and if) they ever end up in court. Having thought through what they have done, and their reasons, they can present what happened in a very logical manner. They’ll even admit to some responsibility. “I went too far, but…” is a favorite statement.

As human beings, it appeals to us when a person is willing to make a mea culpa, which makes us inclined to believe the batterer has learned from his mistakes. Meanwhile, the victim is still living in terror of the consequences the batterer may be threatening (loss of custody of her children, economic harm, physical harm) and appears disjointed, embittered and scared when she deals with the system.

That’s if she maintains contact with the system, which often doesn’t happen due to threats from the batterer. It’s not uncommon for battered women to encourage charges be dropped, so she needn’t cope with the hassles of dealing with the system or the retribution from the batterer. As a result, she appears indecisive or uncommitted to prosecution.

Another reason this happens is that the victim – and the system – may fall prey to the same phenomenon I mentioned a moment ago, in believing the batterer’s apologies and accepting his promises. “This won’t happen again, because…” Watch what happens after the “because” – it’s what sounds like a positive that’s actually an excuse.

This problem is far more detailed than what I’ve just described above, obviously, and the solutions are going to be just as detailed. It’s going to take a demand from society, a response from law enforcement, and heavy education of those in the court system. We’ll need to understand that therapeutic responses have to be detailed, extended and thorough. Two words are key in trying to deal with the problem: ACCOUNTABILITY and CONSEQUENCES.
This is difficult. Batterers are frequently “creators of confusion,” who create many storms around them and then run to watch the fallout. And it’s also difficult because, even in some of the most effective programs, the success rate is incredibly low. This is going to take a societal change and a major expression of displeasure for this problem to change. It’s going to take a commitment to not treat domestic violence as “one more problem,” but one that requires serious commitment.

Some other things that were interesting to me, in no particular order:

• Sending a batterer to anger management training is a mistake. Anger management is needed when you beat someone up who took the parking spot. Battering is different.
• Battering programs should, ideally, last up to two years for maximum effect. Sending a batterer to an 8-week program doesn't help, and may hurt, because the batterer now feels he's a graduate of batterer's school.
• The recidivisim rate for batterers is high.

There was more, but it's not springing to mind right now. Fear not; I will return to this topic in varying forms and ways over the coming weeks and months. As mentioned above, I've recently had the opportunity to do some personal research, and what's going on is frightening.

Anyway, thanks for allowing me to rattle on on this stuff. Expect more on this. And more studying for the bar. :)

(On that subject, btw, my friend Lindsay, one of the smarter cookies in my address book and whose GPA approaches minor miracles says the study schedule Feinberg put forth frightens her. Yikes.)