Law Blog

We often hear that victims of violent crime are more likely to know their attackers than to be the victim of a random act of violence. LegalMatch case data, covering intake reports from all 50 states over the past 12 months, appears to bear this out.

According to our case data, the most common responses prospective clients gave when asked about the identity of their attacker was “someone I know” or “a family member”.

This runs contrary to the image that many members of the public have with respect to violent crime; a crazed stranger jumps out of the bushes, assaults their victim, and runs off. While random acts of violence certainly occur, they are comparatively rare, and it seems that many people spend a disproportionate amount of time worrying about them, given how unlikely they are to occur to a given person.

This is not to say that people shouldn’t take common-sense precautions to reduce the risk of violent crime committed by strangers. These include minimizing time spent alone, outside, at night. Other measures, such as traveling in groups, and sticking to well-lit areas, are also advisable. It might also be helpful, if you are comfortable doing so, to carry some kind of non-lethal defensive weapon, such as pepper spray (but be sure to check your local laws on this).

However, what might be overlooked are conditions that could lead to the more likely scenario: violent crime committed by acquaintances or family members of the victim. The ways to minimize these risks are not nearly as simple as the ones discussed above.

There aren’t many clear-cut ways to avoid violent crime by acquaintances, unless you want to become a hermit. Since that isn’t an option for most people, the situation is complicated.

Not being in a position to give relationship advice, this should be taken with a grain of salt, but it seems that things such as relationship counseling and getting out of abusive relationships (easier said than done) would be helpful in reducing such incidents. Eliminating violent crime altogether is not possible, but any reduction is a good thing.

Recently, a 10-year old boy named Seth Ireland died.  He was, allegedly, beaten to death by his mother’s boyfriend. The death occurred near Fresno, California, an area hard hit by unemployment and a down market economy. Increased financial stresses, are translating to increased incidents of child abuse.[1]  But, how do we protect our children?  We protect them through increased awareness and via support for those families going through hard economic times.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S.D.H.H.S.), during fiscal year 2007, an estimated 794,000 children were victims of child abuse or 10.6 children for every 1,000 children in the population nationally.[2]  Not surprisingly, during the past five years, over 3,500 customers have consulted LegalMatch in an effort to find an experienced personal injury attorney to help them bring suit against a child abuser.

Child abuse ranges from physical neglect (59%), physical abuse (10.8%), sexual abuse (7.6%), and psychological abuse (4.2%), to being medically neglected and multiple categories of neglect.[3]  While the majority of children abused were under age 11 (75%), 25% of children were age 11 to 17 and there was a near equal split of gender.  Slightly more female children (52%) were abused than male children (48%).[4]

But, just who are these perpetrators of child abuse? 

The majority of perpetrators of child abuse, according to U.S.D.H.H.S. were parents, step-parents or adopted parents, accounting for 86.5% of all child abusers.  While this may sound surprising, LegalMatch.com data bears this out (see Figure below) with about 62% of perpetrators reported as being “in the family.” 

The majority of family members reported are the biological parents; abusers are fathers and mother alike. This is no different than national data.[5]  Unlike national data, LegalMatch customers also report a high percentage of family friends or acquaintances (17%) being responsible for child abuse.   This is echoed in the story about Seth Ireland.  Despite movies like “Doubt,” priests/pastors, doctors and other professionals count among the smallest category of child abusers; but they still do count.  Moreover, there is no socio-economic level immune to child abuse.[6]

Makeup of Perpetrators of Child Abuse on LegalMatch.com

Victims of child abuse suffer life-long consequences from being substantially more likely to become abusers of drugs or alcohol than non-abused children, to suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder to becoming perpetrators themselves.[7]  It takes considerable courage and a heavy emotional toll for the child-victim or the parent or guardian of the child to report abuse.  But, count on the toll being much heavier for all concerned if the abuse continues unspoken and unreported.  

To report child abuse, contact your state Department of Child Protective Services. LegalMatch can also help you find an experienced personal injury lawyer to assist you in bringing a private lawsuit against the individual being charged.  Or, if you, yourself, are being accused of child abuse, LegalMatch can help you find a seasoned criminal defense attorney to help. 

Related Links:

• Child Welfare Information Gateway
• Child Help National Abuse Hotline

[2] U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, Dept. of Children’s Services, Child Maltreatment 2007

[3] U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, Dept. of Children’s Services, Child Maltreatment 2007

[4] U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, Dept. of Children Services, Child Maltreatment

[5] U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Service, Dept. of Children Services, Child Maltreatment 2007

[6] Child Help National Abuse Hotline

[7] Child Help National Abuse Hotline

According to LegalMatch.com data, 27% of the victims of domestic violence in the past 12 months did not report the incident to the police. These figures come from an analysis of anonymous customer intake reports between now and April 2008. Studies by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) show that victims of crime are less likely to report incidents involving non-strangers than strangers. Together these figures make sense: because domestic violence involves intimate partners and family members, people may not want the police involved.

Other reasons such as those brought up here may further contribute to a lack of reporting. Mandatory policies based on political grandstanding plus the limited repertoire of tools available to the Police may make people hesitant to call the boys in blue. When a cop’s toolbox is generally limited to handcuffs and a gun, there are only so many things they can do.

What is the exact problem we are looking at when over a fourth of victims are not reporting crimes to the police? That cops should be better trained to deal with these issues, and people should therefore be more encouraged to call them?

I’m skeptical of a solution that sees more police involvement in family disputes as an improvement. Obviously there are situations where the police should show up: a large amount of murders occur between spouses where the offender should have already been in jail, or should have been under more rigorous supervision from law enforcement officials.

On the other hand, there are also situations where police presence might have done more harm than good. The recent murder of 3 officers in Pittsburgh occurred after the shooter’s mother requested that the police come and kick her son out of her house. The police shouldn’t have to expect that an armed lunatic is going to greet them at the door of a domestic disturbance call, but situations like this will stay in the back of officers’ minds and make dealing with these calls all the more difficult.   

Should more people be reporting domestic violence? If there is a genuine crime occurring, yes. But like so many other issues in the criminal justice system, the law is often called on to fix situations it is ill-equipped to handle. Domestic violence and domestic disturbance runs the gamut from genuine crimes that warrant incarceration or arrest, to family disputes where guns and handcuffs may serve to only make matters much worse. Although there are serious problems associated with the non-reporting of violent crimes, there is a context. Should the police be involved in each and every domestic dispute? Does the use or threat of violence always warrant the involvement of the police and of the courts? I do not think so.

Within the past 5 years, tens of thousands of clients have come to LegalMatch.com seeking attorneys in sexual harassment matters. According to LegalMatch.com statistics compiled within the last 5 years, the following jobs had the most reported sexual harassment cases: 

Retail: 28%
Manufacturing: 16%
Government: 12%
Transportation: 9%
Professional (law, accounting, architecture, etc.): 9%
Education: 8%
Construction: 8%
High technology: 6%

Approximately 61% of these respondents reported their sexual harassment to their superiors. Federal whistleblower protections are meant to protect these people from retaliation. With these rules in place, why are almost 40% of employees not reporting sexual harassment?

For one, litigating a claim in federal court is intimidating. Federal Whistleblower cases are costly and complicated. The burden of losing a job often outweighs the small consolation of possible redemption years down the road.

Additionally, whistleblower protections may not have applied to a large portion of sexual harassment victims until recently. The recent Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, finally applied federal whistleblower laws to in-house employer investigations. Prior to this ruling, an employee could be retaliated against for answering an employer’s questions about sexual harassment in a private employer investigation. Lower courts stated that such investigations did not come under the ambit of federal protections, creating the absurd situation where employees reporting discrimination on their own initiative were protected, but employees reporting the same discrimination in the same words when their boss asked a question could be fired.

Such an obvious ruling should have come a lot sooner. How many sexual harassment cases flew under the radar while lower courts created and followed this absurd precedent?

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to weigh in on what kinds of “victim impact” evidence is admissible in trials where jurors are deciding whether to impose the death penalty. The High Court refused to hear two appeals challenging the use of videos documenting victims’ lives and how their deaths have affected loved ones.  For example, in one case at issue, the victim’s mother narrated a 20-minute video set to the music of Enya, which included dozens of photos and video clips depicting the victim’s life. 

The Court hasn’t opined on this subject since the 1991 case of Payne v. Tennessee, in which it held that testimony showing a crime’s impact on the victim’s relatives and other survivors was admissible in the sentencing phase of capital cases.  In Payne, the Court set forth vague guidelines, stating:  “in the event that evidence is introduced that is so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a mechanism for relief.”  The California Supreme Court has issued this advice:  trial judges should be “very cautious” when allowing such evidence, and “irrelevant background music” should not be used. 

Some argue that video impact statements merely even the playing field for victims.  They claim that such evidence merely humanizes victims, and gives a voice to survivors who are uncomfortable testifying at trial in front of the defendant and others. 

While victim impact videos definitely have the potential to elicit sympathy from jurors, they can also be unfairly prejudicial to defendants; further, they often serve no legitimate purpose.  Should the decision to impose the death penalty be based on reason rather than emotion?  If yes, do victim impact statements aid that purpose?

Justice Stevens warned that “when victim impact evidence is enhanced with music, photographs, or video footage, the risk of unfair prejudice quickly becomes overwhelming. While the video tributes at issue in these cases contained moving portrayals of the lives of the victims, their primary, if not sole, effect was to rouse jurors’ sympathy for the victims and increase jurors’ antipathy for the capital defendants.”  And as Justice Breyer stated:  “The videos added nothing relevant to the jury’s deliberations and invited a verdict based on sentiment, rather than reasoned judgment.”

Every state that imposes the death penalty allows victim impact evidence to be presented during the sentencing phase of murder trials; however, without uniform standards, courts across the nation will inevitably impose different standards — some allowing highly emotional videos set to music,and produced by Steven Spielberg; others permitting only bare-bones testimony.  A defendant’s punishment should not depend upon how likable the victim was or how skilled the filmmaker is.  The High Court should set clear standards so victims and defendants across the nation get an equal shot at justice.