CBS News picks up on the push to establish Monica’s Law with a poignant interview with the victim’s mother, Joanne Paul…
“Every night I cry and I miss her,” Joanne Paul said.
Her daughter, Monica Paul, was shot and killed by her ex-boyfriend in front of their 11-year-old daughter inside a Montclair YMCA on June 26, 2008.
“Every day, I struggle with the pain of losing her and the pain of thinking of what she went through and the terror and how she must have felt,” Joanne Paul said.
The 31-year-old mother had filed a restraining order against Kenneth Duckett, the father of her children. The man now charged with her murder.
“She loved life and I want her life to count for something for other women,” Joanne Paul said.
Family members would like to see anyone who violates a restraining order to face a three-to-five year prison sentence because they truly believe Monica would have been alive today had Duckett faced penalties earlier.
“He didn’t care. He continued to come around,” Joanne Paul said.
Assemblyman Thomas Giblin plans on working with Paul’s family.
“Unfortunately in Monica Paul’s case it was very tragic,” Giblin said. “I am going review the petitions that are being submitted.”
Video of the interview here.
Family members would like to see anyone who violates a restraining order to face a three-to-five year prison sentence because they truly believe Monica would have been alive today had Duckett faced penalties earlier.
Now, that I would get behind. Way better than what was discussed in the previous b-net article.
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the most controversial part of the proposed law is left out of the “reporting” by Christine Sloan – the provision that fathers must pass “psychological testing” to see their children if there is any allegation of abuse.
I guess Ms. Sloan figures it would damage the chance of this law passing if the public knew.
Beefing up the penalty for ignoring a restraining order is something I would favor.
This is really a follow up to the discussion on the last Monica Paul post.
As a woman who survived a very abusive relationship, and was lucky enough to get away with my life, and a volunteer with a women’s crisis hotline, I can tell you that many abusive men think a restraining order is a joke.
They know that a peice of paper won’t stop a bullet or a knife, and they know that in the time it takes to dial 911 and have the police arrive, they can cause grevious bodily harm and leave the scene.
One of the biggest flaws in the restraining order program is that women have to give their current addresses and places of work to the offender when they apply. For a woman like me, who had to leave her job and the state she was living in to escape the relationship, giving my attacker that information would have provided him with information he could have used against me.
I understand the point of view that some women are vindictive and will use false accusations of abuse against a man to futher their own interests, but as with anything there are people who will always abuse the system. Our courts were not designed so that people who ate three Big Macs a day could sue McDonalds for their weight gain either, yet we have to have laws in place to protect the people who are in danger, rather than protect attackers.
Having a man who beats his wife, sometimes to the point of hospitalization, turn around and say “But I’m a good father and deserve the right to see my children” is disgusting. A “good father” would never raise his hands in anger, against his wife/girlfriend or anyone else.
In Monica’s Law the psycological testing that would be put in place should be enough of a safe guard to guarantee that false accusations will come to light, hopefully resulting in penalties against the women who make them, making the system better for everyone involved.
I’m sorry for making my first post so long, but as you can see, this is a situation I am very passionate about.
We don’t prove or disprove allegations by psychological testing. Not to mention that a cold hearted abuser could probably pass a psychological test.
“One of the biggest flaws in the restraining order program is that women have to give their current addresses and places of work to the offender when they apply. For a woman like me, who had to leave her job and the state she was living in to escape the relationship, giving my attacker that information would have provided him with information he could have used against me.”
Biggest flaw? That is an understatement. I did not know this, Secret Reader, an am appalled at the stupidity of this law.
“Biggest flaw? “”
It also happens to be untrue.
https://www.njcbw.org/legaladdress.htm
SecretReader, thank you for sharing on such a personal level. Any legislation that can help prevent another tragedy like Monica Paul–as well as the two little girls who were drowned by their father in 2007–should receive serious consideration.
ROC-
There is a difference between being abusive and being a sociopath, which is what it would take to truely hide yourself from competent psycological testing.
And as for your assertion that it is untrue, I wonder how many restraining orders you’ve had to apply for. On a certain level it makes a lot of sense, an offender needs to know the location from which he or she needs to stay 500 feet away from (not sure if that made grammatical sense) in order to comply. And perhaps we should send that link to all the police depatments that have told myself and others that the addresses were needed.
ROC, the link you provided does not pertain to restraining orders.
All I can say secret is that NJ law provides for address confidentiality.
So this statement:
“One of the biggest flaws in the restraining order program is that women have to give their current addresses and places of work to the offender when they apply.”
Is simply not true. If certain police departments are not following the law that’s another issue.
Since we’re talking legal remedies here I don’t quite know how you would suggest fixing this “flaw”? With a law? Perhaps with a law like the one which has already been written and is on the books?
“ROC, the link you provided does not pertain to restraining orders.’
“State and local government agencies must accept the Address Confidentiality Program substitute address.”
“Applying for ACP Participation
The New Jersey Address Confidentiality Program provides these services for residents of New Jersey. An applicant must be a victim of domestic violence who has relocated to an address unknown to the batterer. Applicants must be at least 18 minors old, an emancipated minor, a parent or guardian acting on behalf of a minor or a guardian acting on behalf of an anticipated person.”
This does not specifically cover restraining orders only relocation to avoid a batterer.
God I feel like I am teaching a class.
Those are the requirements of participation in the program. Yes participation in the program (by design, mind you!) does not require a restraining order.
Gold star!
However you may avail yourself of all the benefits of this law even if you have a restraining order.
“On a certain level it makes a lot of sense, an offender needs to know the location from which he or she needs to stay 500 feet away from (not sure if that made grammatical sense) in order to comply.”
Yes it does if that is how the restraining order is written. Yes, if you want someone to stay away from some location, you probably have to tell them what that location is.
So it’s not so much a “flaw” in the “system” as much as a “flaw” in reality I guess or perhaps a “flaw” in 3-dimensional space.
SecretReader,
Thank you for your informative post.
There should be a law requiring psychological testing for all Republican men who want to post on this site.
“There should be a law requiring psychological testing for all Republican men who want to post on this site.”
Yes, they have manifest, masochistic tendencies.
Honestly ROC, I have no solution. Which is why I’m a volunteer and not a politician, but even you have to admit giving a violent person the means to find his victim isn’t the safest thing in the world.
After reading this blog for a year I get the sense that you’re not the sort of person to have your mind changed by anyones argument and that the only way your views on this particular situation would change is if a woman you loved became a victim. With that in mind I hope you never have to agree with me.
sure would be nice to have a “conversation” without the usual sanctimonious grabs for the unimpeachable moral imperative.
You presume much to think I am not aquatinted with the issue and reality of domestic violence.
But (if I might borrow your parlance) someone such as yourself is unlikely to have their sense of moral superiority shaken by a little reason.
It does not take a politician, or a sage, or even a fifth grader to realize that you cannot issue a location based restraining order – a prohibition from being in a certain place without actually, you know, mentioning where that certain place is.
Your efforts to make such obvious realism (not “practicality” but actually reality) some kind of “failure” of “the program” makes me think you are putting the blame in the wrong place.
The state of NJ has quite adequate laws regarding restraining orders, visitation rights, child protection and confidentially for the abused. Without ham-handed claims the “system is broken”. And without allowing one parent to decide by themselves, without judicial review, when and if the visitation rights of the father can be restricted.
ROC, your post above completely discounts the fate of Monica Paul.
That was a horrific crime. But we make laws not with only one crime in mind.
“Yes it does if that is how the restraining order is written. Yes, if you want someone to stay away from some location, you probably have to tell them what that location is.”
I’m glad somebody noticed this… “We can’t tell you where she is… but you can’t come within 500 feet of this intersection…”
SecretReader:
If it were an option, would you have been willing to getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon and the necessary training to protect yourself? In my opinion that’s the only real way to defend yourself against somebody… The cops are not at fault for failing to protect you, no matter what laws are in place… (just ask the supreme court).
I kind of remember from being in school about ten years ago, that domestic violence statistics showed that a woman with a restraining order actually increased her chances of being assaulted. Sounds a little perverse, yet not necessarily so given the nature of inflaming an already tenuous situation. No easy fixes here.
I don’t usually agree with ROC’s posts, but on this one — he’s right. Battered persons are not required to provide their address to the abuser in order to get a restraining order – not in NJ anyway; although the court or police will usually require it, it can be withheld from the alleged abuser upon order of the court. The law mentioned by ROC provides an extra level of security — it means a battered person doesn’t have to provide their address even to the court, or the police.
But all of this is besides the point – the Monica’s Law, as I said in the last post, is unconstitutional in the way the family wants to have it written. Even if it gets passed, it will be struck down the first time it is used.
You may have a point there, Jimmy. Much of the domestic violence described here occurs when the woman threatens to leave or actually does leave the abuser.
I don’t usually agree with ROC’s posts, but on this one — he’s right. Battered persons are not required to provide their address to the abuser in order to get a restraining order; although the court or police will usually require the address, it can be withheld from the alleged abuser upon order of the court (in fact, you can file all sorts of legal claims without your private information being provided to the other side). The law mentioned by ROC provides an extra level of security — it means a battered person doesn’t have to provide their address even to the court, or the police.
But all of this is besides the point – Monica’s Law, as I said in the last post, is unconstitutional in the way the family wants to have it written. Even if it gets passed, it will be struck down the first time it is used.
Oh – and sorry about the double post…had a minor internet incident.
Seems to me that Monica Paul’s family is trying to make the best of an unimaginably bad situation by bringing attention to the problem of continued abuse and murder by people who ignore restraining orders.
Changes in laws and systems happen over time with input and negotiation from a lot of people. No doubt that would be the case with Monica’s Law or any similar statute that might finally be enacted. But there has to be a starting point and there has to be enough attention, concern, and momentum to galvanize lawmakers and media to get involved. The especially horrific circumstances around Monica’s death shocked and pained every human who has a pulse. I think the Pauls are right to believe that they can help other abuse victims and honor Monica’s legacy by beating the drum about the possibility she might have been helped if more resources had been available to her and her family, and to her ex-boyfriend.
The little bit of reading I just did online about domestic abuse screening instruments and lethality assessments suggests that it’s an area of intense study but there are a lot of caveats to be heeded in their use–in other words, they’re not highly reliable as sole predictors in identifying abusers at highest risk for escalating attacks. BUT there has been some success with these instruments and they’ll be improved with every study that provides more data.
So for instance, maybe Monica’s Law might evolve to mandate that accused batterers judged by psych testing/screening to be at highest risk of escalating violence would be required to attend counseling and have more tightly supervised visits with their children. Point is, the debate has to start somewhere. I think the Pauls are doing a good thing by provoking the conversation.
I mean, look at how much discussion has been engendered by the 2 posts about this on this web site alone.
While what happened to Monica Paul is without a doubt one of the greatest tragedies to befall Baristanet, it was an exception to the rule. There have to be thousands of complaints for domestic violence filed each year and restraining orders are not difficult to obtain. Thankfully, most of the case do not have the same result as Monica Paul’s case. I don’t believe that we should implement universal laws to protect the isolated incident.
Unfortunately, in many situations, one party “uses” a restraining order to gain an advantage in divorce situations as that party is granted sole use and occupancy of the marital residence as well as financial support. With this new proposed law, people will also be able to “use” domestic violence to gain an upper hand in custody litigation. Litigants will run to court, file false allegations and then the other party will have to jump through hoops to speak with his/her own child(ren).
Monica’s ex-boyfriend was a bad bad man. But we do not know whether taking–and perhaps failing–a psychological examination would have changed the result. I happen to think it would not have.
You’d take away rights based on an accusation and psychological testing?
So few here seem to have any semblance of an understanding of civil rights?
(except rights for Jihadists, I should say)
“you” meaning Katie
Vezina:
But we do not know whether taking–and perhaps failing–a psychological examination would have changed the result. I happen to think it would not have.
I am curious what your opinion about this is based on. Plenty of legal and psych people who’ve devoted their careers to the study of domestic violence appear to believe they’ll be able to ID factors that reliably predict a higher risk of escalation and/or recidivism. It would make sense to devote more resources to preventing incidents by those statistically most likely to commit them.
ROC, troll elsewhere.
My opinion is based is based on the 5th amendment. “Due Process”.
Thankfully, we’re not yet a society which takes away rights based on the opinion of behavior experts and the likelyhood of future crimes.
That you would so willingly toss out due process gives me the willies, Rex.
(though I can’t say I am much surprised, actually)
Statistically, this was a rare occurrence. Nearly 72,000 reported incidents of DV in NJ in 2007. Only 38 resulted in homicide. That’s less than 1/2%. Although no statistics, I would hope you agree that there was more than 38 false allegations of DV that same year.
My opinion is based on nothing except my own conjecture. Unfortunately, I do not think we will ever be able to manage and/or stop the few individuals who commit these acts. They are uncontrollable and sadly even knowing they are uncontrollable won’t stop them.
I mean, about 0.05%
“But all of this is besides the point – Monica’s Law, as I said in the last post, is unconstitutional in the way the family wants to have it written. Even if it gets passed, it will be struck down the first time it is used.”
You never know, look at Meghan’s Law, that’s unconstitutional and that passed.
ackme – I didn’t say it couldn’t pass. I said it couldn’t withstand constitutional challenge. Unlike Meghan’s Law, which only affects CONVICTED sex offenders, the proposed Monica’s Law would only apply to men ACCUSED of domestic violence. Not only is the law patently sexist, it seeks to punish without process. Its an entirely different world than Meghans Law.
Let’s make this fair and amend it to include the same for any mother who is accused of having postpartum depression… But that brings up another question… what if the psychological screening reveals that somebody is likely to harm their spouse, but not their children? Do you deny them access to their children because of this? On what grounds?
I think this proposed law is one of NJ’s absurd “feel good” laws which won’t actually do anything, and just (inadvertently) erode more of your rights… Thankfully, I think ‘stna is correct, and this thing would be torn apart the first time anybody tried to use it…
am curious what your opinion about this is based on. Plenty of legal and psych people who’ve devoted their careers to the study of domestic violence appear to believe they’ll be able to ID factors that reliably predict a higher risk of escalation and/or recidivism.
And at what percentage of certainty? 50%? 90%? Aren’t you then preemptively punishing someone for a crime they might commit?
Mike91, I’m not sure why people construe my example of counseling and tighter supervision as “punishment” or a “civil rights violation.” Can you please explain that to me?
If a validated screening instrument could predict which accused abusers–male or female–have a significantly higher risk of escalation, then I absolutely believe it would be worth putting more counseling resources toward those particular people and more protective resources toward their families.
And by the way, that doesn’t just help the families; it could potentially help the accused abuser. Kenneth Duckett’s life also might as well be over now. Who knows if he (and Monica, and their kids) could have been helped, but now we’ll never know.
One thing I do know: nihilism and inaction don’t solve complex problems.
“Mike91, I’m not sure why people construe my example of counseling and tighter supervision as “punishment” or a “civil rights violation.” Can you please explain that to me?”
I can.
It would be mandatory counseling. “tighter supervision” means less than full parental visitation rights.
Both are restrictions on the right to see your own children.
You are making a guess as to future possibly criminality and forcing someone to undergo “treatment” to prevent it.
Sounds practically soviet.
If you mean that the whole thing should be voluntary, then you just have another useless, expensive, liberal social experiment.