Domestic abuse is a crime, a social malady and a sickness, one that frequently afflicts both the batterer and the victim. It is an especially infuriating crime to prosecute, because the couple drawn together in an abusive relationship often form bonds that even the threat of injury and death won’t loosen sufficiently to allow one party to testify against the other. Thus domestic abuse goes unpunished more often than not, and some prosecutors have decided that in the interest of society, these cases need to be prosecuted whether the beating victim likes it or not. They are correct. Violence and battery are crimes against the state, not just one individual. There is not much a prosecutor can do, however, when the judge is an Ethics Dunce, prepared to go the extra mile to free a loving couple for future mayhem. This brings us to the case of Baltimore Judge Darrell Russell,who recently charted new waters in judicial abuse of power, arrogance, incompetence, and irresponsibility.
When Frederick Wood’s girlfriend called the police to the home she shared with him, the responding officer found her visibly injured, with a bloody nose, a swollen left side of her face and a long red mark her neck. She told him she thought Wood might try to kill her and had threatened to harm her or her children in the past. She said that he had a gun, and had tried to strangle her. But by the time these love birds got to trial, all was forgiven. She didn’t want to press charges, and Wood told the judge she wanted to get married.
Prosecutors see this all the time. The victim is manipulated by the abuser, who makes a grand effort to avoid prosecution by promising to change and pledging his undying love. The victim, afflicted by low self-esteem, believes the unbelievable, and drops all charges, placing herself and her children in mortal danger. Too often, it is a fatal mistake. This time,Baltimore prosecutor resolved that it wasn’t going to work. He was determined to put Wood behind bars.
So Judge Russell, that old softie, interrupted the trial and married the couple in his chambers, effectively preventing the new Mrs. Wood from testifying against her batterer because of spousal privilege.
“It’s very frustrating. We view very seriously the crime of domestic violence,” Deputy State’s Attorney Leo Ryan told the press. “We understand that very often the nature of this crime means the victims are reluctant to testify.”
According to an audio recording of the proceedings, Judge Russell puckishly told the groom, “Mr. Wood, I found you not guilty, so I can’t sentence you as a defendant in any crimes … but earlier today, I sentenced you to life married to her.”
A spokeswoman for the Maryland Judiciary Office of Communications and Public Affairs later announced that Russell has been indefinitely reassigned and will no longer presiding over domestic violence cases.
Ethics Alarms 
Only reassigned? GAH! I just feel so sorry for the kids….
Wow. What’s his liability and future if she and her kids float down the river?
Jack,
A crime against an individual is a crime against an indidual; not the state or society at large. Crimes like theft and abuse are without a doubt violations of the social contract, but they’re directed towards a specific person (or group of people) and need to be handled as such. I recognize the dangers inherent in domestic abuse situations but when are we going to lay at least some of the responsibility on the victims themselves (or at least those of repeat offenders)?
I have no excuse to offer for the abuser (nor am I suggesting that his/her culpability is lessened in any way), but it seems a waste of effort trying to force someone who is otherwise uncooperative into testifying against a former abuser. Abuse situations are a serious problem, but not one that can or should be solved in the courts. Even the cases which are won do little to exact any real justice or help the families involved; instead creating more animosity and worsening existing problems.
In the classic comic book tale, Peter Parker once had a chance to stop a thief, but chose instead to do nothing. When the same thief was later involved in the murder of his Uncle, he felt he bore some of the responsibility (which he did) .. why doesn’t the same principle apply here? It’s not our fault that evil exists in the world, but we only make ourselves part of the problem why staying silent.
Legal theory and philosophy takes a different position, Neil. A person can’t declare an individual who robbed him at gun point immune from prosecution. A citizen has an obligation to society to cooperate and assist law enforcement efforts. This one is especially easy: she doesn’t have the right to endanger her children, and the state has an obligation to protect them. He has to be prosecuted, for their sake at very least.
Peter Parker is a fictional character, and that was a fictional situation. As you recall, the man who that thief had stolen from had just effectively stolen money from Peter Parker. Then, in a twist of coincidence that could only occur in a comic book about a man granted amazing powers by a radioactive spider bite, the sneak thief turned out to be a murdering carjacker who just happened to kill Peter’s uncle.
The analogy isn’t even very similar: The abused spouse is the victim, not the hero who overcomes the villain by application of physicality; the victim, by definition, is incapable of also being the hero. Putting the burden of stopping abuse on the victim is simply wrongheaded. Abuse victims should be given every bit of help and encouragment as possible, not accused abusers.
Pingback: Valuable Internet Information » Ethics Dunce: Judge Darrell Russell « Ethics Alarms