The Magical Illusion of Christmas

By Susan Murphy Milano

(originally posted December, 2010)

Every year my mother made a big deal about Christmas from planning out what color to make the eyes on the gingerbread cookies, to the day she, my brother, and myself would go downtown to Marshall Fields department store for our annual Santa visit and photo. The bright lights and holiday decorations lining downtown store windows and street lamps always made me forget, if only for a moment, our lives were anything but bright and hopeful.

I have to give my mother credit, as difficult as our daily fight for survival was, she did the best she could to create happy memories for us. Sometimes, the holiday did not turn out as planned and we ended up on Christmas morning in the emergency room as she received medical attention from injuries caused by my father. My little brother and I viewed stuffing every pocket in our coat and pants with candy canes while at the hospital as a cool thing. Instead of opening presents, like we watched in movies, we went back to the house with a cup of hot chocolate and whip cream prepared with love.

Hope was always a magical illusion, it did not matter if it was Christmas or not. The days and months always felt as if they were all lumped in to a never ending road of unpredictable behavior by a man authorized with a gun and a badge to protect the streets of Chicago, while hiding behind the closed door of our home like a coward, only to terrorize and harm his own family. In our house you told time by the changing of seasons and what you needed to wear before heading out the door. During the holidays it was the one time of year that I didn't wish anything from the Sears catalog that would arrive sometime after Thanksgiving. If Santa was real, then just maybe he would find us a nice safe place like I remembered watching in the movie Miracle on 34th Street, where we could hang our stockings and live happily, with my brother and mom, far away from my father, forever.

Growing up, my brother and I never really counted on much and making plans for anything was wishful thinking. More than fifty years later, I have no closure, just an acceptance of the violent events that would eventually hijack my mothers life. The last memory of her is 10 feet away from the oven where we baked Christmas cookies, throughout the kitchen her blood spilled over onto the once bright yellow pattern on the floor tiles where my brother and I once sat anxiously waiting for the Christmas cookies to finish baking. In the bedroom a couple hundred feet away, dead from a self inflicted gun shot, my father, who had taken from me the only love I knew, my mother. Although not visible to the human eye, there is a tattoo etched deep inside of me, a permanent scar from a battle I would rather forget.

The effects of the violence would follow me into my own world as an adult, a secret I kept hidden from friends, colleagues and relationships. Suddenly, my secret was out, unwillingly I was a victim and a survivor of a life I did not ask for nor chose as my life's journey. In 1988, my parents divorced and the holidays were around the corner. My mother and I spent the Christmas holidays together, the first without my father and the last one without my mother. I rang in the new year with a feeling of hope that we could finally move forward with our lives.

Abruptly, in 1989, after their deaths, I left a successful business career for a world that provided little, if any, hope and assistance to abuse victims and their children.

I did not realize when I began working with victims of intimate partner abuse, my world would be an important life raft for safety in keeping others alive. Over a decade of running a national agency and providing direct services, I began to incorporate strategies like no other in the country, as the agencies were not familiar with the battleground I knew intimately. Service providers and agencies were layered by politics and paperwork with government forms and numbers instead of thinking outside the box, a box that never belonged there in the first place if lives were to be saved.

This rigid box of "rules and restrictions" are what often kicks the safety and services of a victim to the streets and back to the violence. Yes, a woman returns to the abuser numerous times before she leaves but its also because the family courts and services are either limited or dysfunctional. And all too often it is based on income she makes too much, too little or there is not enough funding available for what is required. Ironically, the funding issues in my world were never an obstacle in keeping victims alive. With little or no resources, each person I assisted did not die. Instead, they moved forward with their lives, most went back to school to obtain degrees others found paying jobs as the sole support of the household turning their lives around minus the threat of violence. I think it was because I took the time with them, something I noticed from the begining that was not happening when a victim reached out for help.

I learned from being in the trenches and providing hands on services combined with making time to explain to victims-- meant the difference between life and death. I would go beyond the sterile basic information and red tape of guidlelines set by funders and various government agencies, people who were and continue to do so today, more concerned with tabulating stats of human lives that amounted to nothing more then entering useless garbage into a data base that had nothing to do with safety or leaving and never returning to the abuse or the system for help. One cannot effectively assist a victim of intimate partner by sitting behind a desk when they have never left the comfort of their offices, when they have never been inside the real world of sheer terror and violence that victims endure daily. Often placing victims in something labeled a shelter, government funded that does not in many ways meet the needs of victims. As I have always said like our own DNA no two cases of abuse are alike.

The days of placing a bandage on intimate partner violence, as though it were a boo-boo, are over. When a system does what it has always done, the results will be the same. It did not work out for women like my mother, unable to speak today, because they were silenced in the prime of their lives, murdered in cold blood.

As we enter the year 2011, know that the death toll across the country for those who lose their lives because of intimate partner violence does not have to be a predictable outcome in some hardwired data base, ultimately marked by a cemetary headstone as in years past. A child no longer has to acompany their mother to the emergency room on Christmas morning filling their pockets with candy canes in a cold waiting room as the doctors stich their mothers head or set a broken limb and sent back out into uncertainty and fear that the next time they might not be so lucky.

In the new year I would like everyone who reads this to join me in ending the abuse. How, you ask? Each time a news story about a victim who was killed comes across your facebook page or you read about a case in the Huffington post, AOL News, Google, Newsvine, USA Today, the Examiner, The Washington Post, New York Times or see it on Nancy Grace, Fox News, Good Morning America, MSNBC, the Oprah Show, Dr. Phil, NPR Radio or any number of news programs send them a brief paragraph about the book Time's Up and that these cases no longer have to be tragic. That women such as Susan Powell, Stacy Peterson, Vensus Stewart, Angel Downs, Renee' Pernice, Kathleen Savio and others if killed their words will speak from the grave in a court a court of law. The person responsible will be arrested.

The upside is that this book saves lives. The mothers, sisters, girlfriends and children currently living in fear who live in harms way each and every day need this book the most. It is up to us to see that the information and knowledge is in their hands.

And to ensure every domestic violence agency, court building, library, church, community center, hospital, business and school has a copy of the book Time's Up: A Guide on How to leave and Survive Abusive and Stalking Relationships. And for a domestic violence provider, social worker, first responder, government agency, school, business or individual who says that cannot afford it? You can not afford not too!

Time's UP !!!

From the site www.victimadvocates.blogspot.com:

Susan’s writing is based on doing. It is based on the irrefutable credential of experience, both as a residual victim of interpersonal violence and a tireless advocate for others who suffer. This book is born from working in the trenches for twenty years and the necessity of crafting working solutions to help ensure individual safety from batters and stalkers.

TIMES UP is a comprehensive guide for women in danger. Every advocate owes it to those they work to assist to obtain this book.The contents provide specific steps towards safety and addresses issues that a person who is stressed and in fear may not think of. This guide can provide structure in the midst of chaos.

Among the tools and forms is the original idea of an “Abuse Affidavit”, a sworn statement detailing the facts of an individual’s victimization, preserving the specifics so they are not lost even if the victim is. It is difficult to think about speaking from the grave but no different than any life insurance policy obtained in consideration for those left behind.

An “Abuse Affidavit” has the additional psychological benefit of being forced face reality and admit that the potential for the ultimate kind of violence exists…and that if it occurs the perpetrator will be held accountable.

Purchase and read TIMES UP as an advocate to continue to learn and practice informed advocacy. Give TIMES UP to concerned friends or family members looking for solutions for a loved one who is in danger. Most of all, find a way to share this valuable guide with the domestic violence and stalking victims you know and work with. It has all the information and tools to empower a crime victim to save her own life.......Diane Fanning, Author

Susan Murphy Milano is with the Institute for Relational Harm Reduction and Public Pathology Education. She is an expert on intimate partner violence and homicide crimes. For more information visithttp://www.saferelationshipsmagazine.com/ She is the author of "Time's Up A Guide on How to Leave and Survive Abusive and Stalking Relationships," available for purchase at the Institute, Amazon.com and wherever books are sold.

Susan is the host of The Susan Murphy Milano Show, "Time's Up!" on Here Women Talk http://www.herewomentalk.com/ and is a regular contributor to the nationally syndicated The Roth Show with Dr. Laurie Roth http://www.therothshow.com/

When You Know It’s Murder

by Heidi Hiatt

I was 10 years old the first time it happened.

She was found dead at a campsite in Eastern Washington.

I remember exactly where I was standing, what the weather was like, who was talking to me. I wasn’t sure how to respond. It was not surprising that the suspect was a family member in this case, but I was shocked at the brutal way in which she’d died.

The suspect was never arrested. They knew he did it, and eventually he was found dead somewhere himself, a topic for another time. But until I learned his fate from the lead detective decades later, that cold, vacant feeling never left me.

It was murder.

In this same time frame, a car plunged into a river and the only survivor was the father who was driving. His wife and children died. I remember them telling me, “he was reaching for a cracker.” I remember what happened in his life afterwards and why I regarded him with a growing suspicion.

He was never charged either. But even as a kid, even at that moment, my instincts would not allow me to dismiss those deaths as an unfortunate accident. The way the puzzle pieces fit together, the sequence of events– it didn’t work. But how, as someone so young, do you convince the adults or authorities that their puzzle pieces might be joined in the wrong places?

It could have been murder.

Fast forward far into the future as I’m standing outside a hospital entrance before a relative goes in for surgery. They spoke of a family friend. “He killed her and they think he’s coming here.”

That feeling again. That grey, creeping silent shadow that signals a life has been erased and one still among the living is responsible for it. It crawled past me, wispy like smoke in a shuddering paroxysm of slow motion.

The suspect did come here from two states away. He was apprehended two counties north after rolling his car. He left several children without a mother and also ended the life of the child still inside of her.

Murder.

In this case he was sent to a mental hospital, a controversial decision that didn’t sit right with me. There was no question he did it. But the fact that he had killed his own wife had that same haunting feeling as the times before it that I’d learned of homicides. It’s a gaping, all-encompassing silence where there should be no silence. It is a yawing void that has no bottom.

More years went by. Like a light slowly intensifying as if on a dimmer switch, to my horror I realized that an acquaintance was in danger of death. I told others, “I know exactly how they’re going to die.” I pointed out patterns of behavior and the abhorrent Munchausen’s by proxy signs that were so obvious to me but others didn’t even seem to notice. Once the victim tried to drop hints.

I almost vomited the day I found out how they died. It was just like I said it would be. The authorities said it couldn’t be proven. The very factors and timing that made it suspicious were also the reasons that there was little physical evidence to go on and an accident was believable. All the steps a calculating criminal would take to cover their tracks existed and were to me so ridiculously logical.

That specter slunk in again, that gripping puff of sulfur that settles into an instinctive gut feeling which silently screams, “this isn’t right.” Safety experts tell us to always trust that gut feeling even when it doesn’t make sense and can’t be rationalized. In times like this we may tune into the still, small voice telling us that things aren’t what they seem.

It is a sick, frigid, empty feeling when you know it’s murder but it can’t be proven or the person responsible for extinguishing other lives isn’t arrested and punished. Can you relate? You might risk everything you have, even your life, to expose the truth, but the needed evidence for a charge or conviction just isn’t there. It’s a horrible place to be, a faint stench of decay that never wanders far from the perimeter of your senses.

Part of what motivated me to earn a degree in forensic psychology was this repeated pattern in my life of learning of a suspicious death, or abuse, or fraud, and seeing the perpetrators evade justice. My prolonged and repeated experiences with narcissists and sociopaths who know how to hurt others but appear as beacons of light pushed me to this. Many times in childhood, even, I found myself in the maddening position of having enough information to make a coherent argument in defense of a victim, but not enough to stand up in the legal system.

In time I learned how to testify as an expert witness and build a good case, but that doesn’t help the uncanny number of instances in my life it seems that justice could have been achieved already if someone had delved deeper into these questionable circumstances. Perhaps the police did everything they could each time, or technology hadn’t caught up with the courts yet. But how different life could have been for people around me if I’d found a way to articulate my suspicions earlier.

A common denominator weaves its way through the violence and crime I’ve seen in my life. The type of person who usually gets away with harming others– who even gets away with murder– is the one who maintains the self-sacrificing external image that most people would never question.

They’re the “nice guy” or the “family guy” or the “saintly caretaker.” They are self-sacrificial to excess. Those unfamiliar with sociopaths or who don’t believe one could exist in their circles are quick to believe that these dark souls are simply who they pretend to be. Sociopaths work hard at public relations, constantly cultivating a persona that seems hard-working, caring, involved in their community, giving– whatever scores them points in their professional and social orbits.

Not only do these types ingratiate themselves to those who will blindly protect their false selves later, when some truth-seeker dares question their integrity, but they will do whatever it takes to grind their accuser into a pulp. Dr. Robert Hare describes this beautifully in his Snakes in Suits book. I was floored when I read that book– it described exactly what I’d been through. The closer I got to the truth in some of these situations, the more I was attacked and discredited so that no one would believe me if I tried to convince the legal system.

Sociopaths can and do kill to protect their alter egos. They can snuff out lives to get what they want, and who they want, and to ensure that the shadowy parts of their Jekyll and Hyde lives never see daylight. They are so utterly steeped in their false self that most people around them are convinced of their infallibility and goodness– they will readily join in the destruction of the “crazy” accuser who dares question their beloved saint.

In every case of alleged criminal activity, we must ask “cui bono?”– who benefits? Who has something to gain? Who has something to lose? What is the accuser gaining or losing by coming forward and standing against an alleged criminal? Is the alleged abuser or criminal fighting excessively hard against the person trying to put the blame on them, which could be a sign that they are hiding something? Why would someone risk so much to point out the sins of someone who seems so gracious and delightful?

To prevent dark souls from hurting or killing others, we have to be willing to look at each case objectively. We cannot rush to conclusions; we cannot function on assumptions. We need to be willing to investigate all possibilities, put all of those on the table, and take the time to connect the dots. Sometimes there are no dots to be connected, other times the dots can form a detailed picture of what actually happened.

Our society is quick to dismiss crime and violence because of a person’s job title, fame, or social status. In cases where it’s easy for a suspect to get sympathy, like the death of a loved one, we often let our emotions dictate our thoughts and convince ourselves that they are incapable of that level of depravity. We must listen to any pokes at our consciences, however, and then decide to examine these cases with reason and an open mind.

I can think of a number of cases in which a person’s death was ruled as suicide or as accidental instead of a homicide, but someone close to the victim is overwhelmingly convinced that the official record is not the true record. Talented investigators might have spent years working the case to arrive at their conclusions, but loved ones insist that they’re missing some of the puzzle pieces. I understand that. It’s why closed cases should sometimes be reopened and investigators should leave no stone unturned.

How different our world would be if everyone would find the strength to speak up about the nagging feeling that a death is more than it seems to be—and the authorities would at least listen to them. One of the most frustrating problems I have ever dealt with is trying to convince those in power to listen when I didn’t have tangible evidence to back up my theories. Or as a kid, trying to capture the attention of an adult who could right the wrong or protect those being harmed. Or as a civilian law enforcement employee, being cornered in the department hallway and having the words, “you have no idea what it’s like to be a cop” yelled into my face.

Knowing deep down inside that someone probably didn’t lose their life the way the official record said they did can be a lonely and tortured place. Sharing those suspicions can have a profound impact on how others interact with you, your safety, and even your livelihood. Personally I have faith that God will bring justice in His time and that even those who don’t get caught in this life will have to answer to Him in the end. There is peace in knowing that you’ve done what you can to expose the truth and God is in control.

Accepting some of these circumstances as “solved” though—it hasn’t happened yet. Perhaps we who question the “truth” are who God intends to bring justice through. There are times when I’m thinking through some of these cases and that old familiar translucent twilight sidles up next to me. In that particular kind of silence I’m reminded that something still isn’t right, and the truth might have yet to be found. It’s like a door hasn’t closed yet, or a window latch has come undone in a forgotten room and a breeze is rustling old, worn curtains that should have been taken down 30 years ago.

Pray for justice. Hope for solutions. Trust that God sees all. And if you, like me, find yourself nagged by the unsettling feeling that there is more to the story of someone’s death than you have been told, know that there are others who understand.


It turns out that an eerie type of chaos can lurk just behind a façade of order—and yet, deep inside the chaos lurks an even eerier type of order. –Douglas Hofstadtera

 

Heidi Hiatt, MA is as a Forensic Psychologist.  You can read more of her posts at her personal blog, Truth, Justice, and All-American Allergen-Free Apple Pie Straight Talk in a Crooked World

PERF's Use of Excessive Force Report

By Heidi Hiatt


Last month the Police Executive Research Forum published a report called An Integrated Approach to De-Escalation and Minimizing Use of Force. This is part of its Critical Issues in Policing Series. Thank you to the B&G Report for bringing it to my attention.

This report featured a number of comments from leaders in the law enforcement and mental health communities about how to properly respond to incidents involving people who are mentally ill, developmentally disabled, substance abusers, or have medical problems. If you follow sites that track such incidents like Injustice Everywhere, you will see why there is concern nationwide over how law enforcement officers use force.

Less lethal tools are not always non-lethal. Officers may be trained how to handle calls physically but not mentally. They can go through extensive training on how to go up the use of force continuum but not how to come back down. Being so focused on how to maintain control of a suspect or situation physically, relying on muscle, may mean that officers are inadvertently increasing the dangers to themselves and others by heightening any aggression involved.

While reading these administrators’ comments, I thought about the myths that the public sometimes believes about use of force. Reality is, there are times when nothing else is appropriate but force because lives are in danger. There is no such thing as shooting the gun out of a suspect’s hand or severing a certain tendon in their knee a la Holly Hunter. Someone coming at you with a knife can usually get to you faster than you can draw your weapon– on the list goes. Policing is dangerous and officers definitely need to know how to defend themselves and others.

There is such a thing as overuse of force and it is a problem. I’ve blogged about Christopher Harris, a Seattle-area man whose head was slammed into a concrete wall during a flying tackle from a King County Sheriff’s deputy. You can often find a history of such behavior in the files of cops who do these things and this overkill can become a huge embarrassment to– and liability for– their department.

Several comments in this paper touched on some broader policing issues I’ve either studied or pondered. These have a lot to do with the appropriate use of force, but also with how to run a successful and respectful law enforcement agency.

Indianapolis Deputy Chief Lloyd Crowe said, “And, as with any situation, it is essential for us to have to have the right officer with the right mindset going into these situations. So I think the importance of hiring and selection should not be understated.” Well said. At some agencies there are stereotypes about what an ideal cop is and other agencies hire people who should not be cops.

Is the ideal cop an immaculately dressed applicant with all the right answers? Is it the muscular athlete with the military background? Is it someone with swagger or someone with a quieter approach to interpersonal communications? Is it the academic who majored in an unrelated field or the cookie cutter third generation applicant who’s been part of the lingo and culture their whole life? We need to consider that there is value in diversity.

For many years I’ve had concerns about how troubled and dishonest people cruise through background checks to land law enforcement jobs. Some of these know how to look and act like a department’s preconceived notion of what an employee should be, sociopaths included. Some people know how to flatter, flaunt their personal connections, use sex to get what they want, and practice other shady ways of entering the policing profession. These are often people who use the same tools to gain promotions and wind up in charge of others.

Police departments often run background checks on applicants and do detailed investigations of their personal histories. Thinking back on the psychological evaluation I went through years ago to take a civilian law enforcement job, I can’t believe that the battery of tests administered would actually filter out narcissists and sociopaths. The psychologist in charge was good and our conversation was my first introduction to deviancy among police personalities. But the tools used now seem so pliable including the overrated but venerated polygraph test.

This quote comes from Albuquerque Chief Ray Schultz: “We’ve had a lot of success with hiring civilians, who are all master’s degree level or higher, to work in our Crisis Outreach And Support Team, called COAST. They help field officers to bridge the huge gap between people who are self-medicating or trying to deal with the problems themselves and long-term service providers.”

Yes! Law enforcement needs to utilize the strengths of well-trained civilians to provide maximum benefit to the public. Policing is sometimes seen as a “jock” profession in which only the jocks are allowed to solve crimes, not the “nerds” who work in the office or can’t perform the same physical feats. It can be the so-called nerds who have the best crime analysis skills, or who are best suited to work with victims, or who are most qualified to profile a suspect. Departments need to get away from the stereotypical image of what their strengths look like and start tapping into the civilian talent pool.

Cambridge Commissioner Robert Haas discussed what the report called an essential tool, tactical disengagement: “This goes back to… how easy it is to ramp things up, but much harder to bring them back down. We need to be thoughtful about how officers can de-escalate a situation to get it to a peaceful resolution.” He’s right. This would not only be a useful tool for officers in the workplace but at home.

Some officers perceive a threat and all their agencies train them to do at that moment is ratchet their response up, up, and up. Like a hiker facing a grizzly bear, they might decide to yell and try to appear bigger and scarier than the bear. Some experts, however, advise that hikers should appear non-threatening to bears to deescalate the situation. Trying to be aggressive with a grizzly bear is probably just going to make the bear angry which puts you and everyone around you in mortal peril.

Some officers– please note that the qualifier “some” is used a lot because I know some amazing cops who are excellent at what they do– can never seem to disconnect from the power and control mindset that is infused in them by police culture. Not being willing or able to resolve a conflict by means other than a show of force is how wars happen.

It’s been said that diplomacy is the art of letting someone else get your way and more officers should know how to be diplomatic. They should also have at least some cursory training on how to interact with the mentally ill and others who might pose a challenge. When their default body language and communication skills are abrasive, disrespectful, or aggressive regardless of the situation, they are making enemies, not friends. They could be creating a greater danger than the one that already exists.

Philadelphia Captain Fran Healy addressed this: “They have told us that the instinctive behaviors they encountered by police, such as boxing in or staring, have actually escalated situations, placing officers in incredible danger. We hear from these individuals how the ‘cop mode’ tactics have increased the pressure inside these individuals, causing them to feel like a volcano ready to explode. Nonetheless, the officers are often completely unaware that it is their actions that were creating the pressure or danger.”

Think about that for a moment. Say you’ve had some friends over, it’s getting late, and a neighbor comes up to the fence to ask you to quiet down because their kids are sleeping. If the neighbor starts in with, “Hey! )(**#$*&@!” in a commanding, irate tone of voice with clenched fists, you’re likely to tense up and respond in an irritated manner too.

This is human nature. It revs up the fight or flight response. Add mental illness or substance abuse to human nature and you can get a much more potent, unpredictable cocktail. When all pistons of someone’s brain aren’t firing correctly, you could be taunting a grizzly bear whose primary interest, instinctively, is self-preservation. If you respond rather than react, and use a civil tone when appropriate, you might be able to keep control of a situation better than any other way.

This is an interesting report. I never read the comments of police administrators without considering what officers out on the street might say but found a lot of truth in these insights. Ultimately departments need to invest in appropriate training for their officers and objectively document officers’ interactions. They need to involve outside experts and look to civilians to augment public safety functions. They should be very careful about who they hire and how they handle questionable employee actions.

Most of all, law enforcement agencies need to do what Sheriff Doug Gillespie of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department said, be sure that their culture supports their policies: ”You can have the best policies in the world, but if your institutional culture doesn’t support them, they won’t work.” He’s spot on. A department that values respect, empathy, and professionalism, and that maintains an open mind about how to best serve the public, will have a better chance of surviving potential use of force incidents unscathed physically and legally.


If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. -Louis D. Brandeis

 

Heidi Hiatt, MA is as a Forensic Psychologist.  You can read more of her posts at her personal blog, Truth, Justice, and All-American Allergen-Free Apple Pie Straight Talk in a Crooked World

Investigation 101: Law Enforcement and Families Must Unite

By Tad DiBiase

As a former homicide prosecutor and now consultant on murder cases, I often hear complaints from victim's families about how they are treated by the police. The complaints repeatedly center on a number of issues.

• First, that the police aren't providing the family with enough information or that they fail to keep the family in the loop on where the investigation is. 
• Second, families complain that the police haven't followed up on the leads they've provided. 
• Third, families complain that the police don't want to accept help from outside parties, be they other law enforcement agencies such as the FBI or state investigative bureaus or retired detectives or consultants and third party search groups. 

It has always struck me that in going behind these complaints, that both the victims' families and the police are partially to blame for these complaints. But more importantly, the solution to these complaints is often straightforward. 

First, it is incumbent upon the police to keep the family informed. Whether the investigation is a day old, a year old or a decade old there should be regular communication between the lead investigator and a family member. The family should assign one member to handle the police communications so the police aren't bogged down by replying to several different family members. Having one member keeps the communication clear and enables the police to tell others who inquire about the investigation to contact that family member. 

Obviously the longer an investigation goes on, the more infrequent the communications but it's hard to imagine any investigation (this is a murder after all) that doesn't warrant a call to the family once every two to three months. 

Second, the complaint that the police aren't following up particular leads can have merit. Police do often fail to really listen to the family about who may be responsible for a loved ones death. Investigators need to constantly go back to the family and ask, "Is there anything we missed? What else or who else is out there?" Often leads come to family well after the victim's murder or disappearance when a guilty conscience finally gets to someone. On the other hand, families need to let the police do their job. They are paid and trained to investigate and even a rookie police detective has more training to do an investigation than virtually any regular citizen. Often investigative methods are so sensitive to reveal them even to a family member can jeopardize their success. 

Finally, yes the police are often reluctant to seek outside help. Whether it's true or not (and I suspect it's usually not) the FBI has a reputation for taking over a case and leaving the local law enforcement authorities behind. However, virtually any investigation, especially as leads grow cold, can benefit from fresh eyes and most small departments are ill equipped to handle complex, long term cold cases. 

Having faced skeptical police departments myself during my role as a consultant, it's obvious that many departments ask themselves about the motives of any volunteer. "You in this to help or to get your name in the paper?" Any non-law enforcement group should be viewed skeptically but there are groups that want to help without pay or glory. 

In the end, a fractured relationship between a family and the investigating authorities makes a challenging case even more difficult to solve. And in the end, both families and law enforcement want the same thing: justice. 

Tad DiBiase is a former US Attorney who has successfully prosecuted cases of murder without a body.  To learn more, visit Tad's website:  http://nobodycases.com

Breaking Through: Why is there still resistance to victim rights in the justice system?

Since so many countries have granted rights to crime victims, guaranteed in legislation, surely this means that each and every victim will receive the full benefit of these rights?

Unfortunately, no.

Rights for victims of crime and abuse of power has been a popular political issue for some time; after all, what office-holder would want to be seen as being against helping the injured and weak?

While the actions of politicians and governments have been welcomed, we need to recognize that simply enacting a law -- or legislating a right -- into existence does not mean it will be willingly accepted, completely embraced, actively promoted and fully funded by all the individuals, agencies and services it will affect.

While victims of crime receive sterling service from the vast majority of criminal justice system, there are constant reports from victims of both individuals and (at times) entire offices offering poor service or showing a lack of empathy. This resistance to supplying the information, services and support which law or policy requires that victims be given becomes the source of a form of re-victimization. The crime victim loses all sense of control and worth to officials of a seemingly uncaring criminal justice system, and certainly loses any sense of satisfaction with the justice system.

Resistance to fully accepting and implementing these relatively new rights is normally seen through several different behaviours. Each of these three commonly seen behaviours also has a different potential remedy (or set of remedies).

• Individual attitudes
  
• Political inertia
• Systemic resistance

We'll take a look at these one at a time.


Individual attitudes
When it comes to applying basic victim rights, such as the right to be informed of available social services, or the right to be kept informed of case development, much is left to up the individual police officer, detective, or prosecuting attorney. Their personal views on the importance of victim rights, and the impact workplace issues such as case load and funding, can greatly influence the manner in they comply with regional law or agency policy on the application of victim rights.

Let's face it, the criminal justice system is a high-pressure environment. A busy police officer may forget to inform crime victims of the availability of victim services. Harried detectives can overlook giving victims case updates. An underfunded prosecutor with a heavy case load may cut corners. These are situations which, while deplorable, are understandable. Yet, time and time again, victims of crime report that individuals within these agencies show not only occasional forgetfulness, but a shocking lack of understanding -- if not actual disregard -- for the rights granted victims by law and demanded by policy.

Victim Participation and Therapeutic Jurisprudence
"In a recent study on victims' experiences in the Quebec criminal courts, Wemmers and Cyr (2006) found that victims were not systematically informed about the services available to them. Most victims were not asked by police if they wanted information about victim support and most did not know where to go for help or information. This might not be an issue if the victims in this study were not affected by their victimization, but almost three-quarters of respondents were victims of violent crime and most victims said that they were affected by the crime. In all, 45% of the victims who participated in the study showed symptoms of PTSD."

In individuals, this disregard may be rooted in a lack of empathy (simply not understanding what victims are going through, and why these rights are important), a simple resistance to change ("we've never had to do this before"), or the individual may be suffering from professional burnout (they have seen so much pain they no longer wish to deal with it; this is a form of caregiver stress).

No victim should accept less than reasonable service and their full rights under the law. Don't be afraid to speak to a superior at the agency in question; they may be able to supply a reasonable answer as to why the incident in question occurred. Alternatively, they may not be aware of the behavior of the person in question. Often sensitivity training on victimization (its effects and why providing victim rights and services provide tangible results) can help overcome individual issues for staff finding it difficult to see why providing the services are important.

As mentioned, such behavior in a representative of the justice system can also be caused by burnout. If a staff person shows evidence of psychological stress or burnout, supervisors need to know; victims may not realize the seriousness of the traits being exhibited. The concern is for the mental health for the employee, as employees in this field can develop their own form of PTSD from their constant exposure to horrendous cases of victimization.

Never be afraid to speak up if you suffer poor treatment. You will be helping the agency in question learn to deliver better service to future victims, and you may well be helping agency staff.

However, where a number of individuals within an agency or service display the same traits, we are likely looking at an issue of systemic resistance, which we will cover shortly.


Political inertia
As I mentioned earlier, few politicians want to be seen as being hard on victims, or soft on crime. The granting of theoretical victim rights via legislation generates strong political capital for those involved, which is one reason it is so popular. The hard work comes in creating effective programs which ensure authentic and needed services to victims.

A major component in this is providing sufficient funding. This is where the next level of resistance comes into play.

In the world of government funding, with a finite amount of resources, there is always fierce competition for money, whether between government offices, the funded agencies, or simply different levels of government (local, regional, national)

It is not unusual to see politicians pass bills which, while sounding wonderful, do not provide access to the funds needed for the legislation to actual work.

Adding Insult to Injury: Investigation into the treatment of victims by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (Ontario, Canada)
"The primary reason for the Board’s colossal failure is that successive Ontario governments have been unprepared to fund the promises they have made to crime victims. The Province has proclaimed a grandiose program of support through the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, but then imposed fiscal control so tightly that it has choked off not only the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board’s effectiveness, but its compassion as well. Today, the primary responsibility for this lies with the present government, and urgent action is needed."

Victims not informed they are eligible for compensation (UK)
"Two-thirds of UK crime victims are not informed that they are eligible for crime victim compensation. Even those who are informed often decide not to apply because the the bureaucratic application process…"

The remedy to this form of resistance can only be political action and lobbying by advocacy groups and the general public. Join a victim rights organization, take part in advocacy programs, write to your government representatives. If you see a problem in services, get active!


Systemic resistance
The final form of resistance to victim rights comes from groups or classes of people who, by training or by occupation, view the application of victim rights as threatening, or simply outside the scope of their work. Most often these are found in the court system.

By long tradition and training, members of the legal profession often view the criminal justice system as a dialog between two parties: the prosecution and the defense. The introduction of rights for a third party, in the form of the victim of crime with rights equal to the offender, is creating serious tension in today's court system.

Giving Crime Victims More of Their Say: A federal law has created tensions in the legal system (USA)
"But defense attorneys say that changing the adversarial system further would have dangerous consequences. Most problematic, they say, would be allowing victims more control over prosecutorial decisions. Victims can be biased, attorneys say, and they sometimes fail to understand how their case fits into the system as a whole.

...Defense attorneys are also wary of the influence that victims may have on plea agreements. And they point out that a victim's testimony, in bail or sentencing hearings, is not subject to the same cross-examination as is the testimony of other witnesses. Overall, they worry that inserting victims more broadly into the process pits the defendant against not one, but two, adversaries."

Judge: Defendant’s rights trump those of victims (USA)
"Attorney Herbert S. Moncier, who represents Sudderth’s mother in a wrongful death lawsuit against Whiteside, alleged Sudderth’s survivors’ rights were violated when prosecutors and Whiteside attorney Gregory P. Isaacs struck a deal that allowed Whiteside to be arraigned a day early and his bond cut without a hearing.

But (Judge) Leibowitz opined that while prosecutors are required under the victims’ rights law to notify victims of any changes in hearing dates, they are immune from penalty if they fail to do so. She also opined that a defendant’s rights trump victims’ rights."

If you have a few minutes, you can view an impassioned plea for the rights of crime victims in an uncaring justice system from Dr. Marlene Young and Dr. Irvin Waller, at a WSV press conference given at the 11th UN Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice 2005 (note RealPlayer plugin required).

Some in the legal community take the view that giving rights to victims equals taking away rights from the accused. Others are concerned that overly emotional victim involvement will unduly sway judicial sentencing.

High court cracks down on emotional testimony (USA)
"Three members of the U.S. Supreme Court today expressed concern about the growing use during death penalty trials of elaborate victim impact statements and video presentations."

There is no easy remedy to this form of resistance. Certainly the legal aspects of this debate can only be settled in the manner normal in the courts when dealing with new law; by case-by-case testing and review, until a body of formal and common precedent establishes the precise limits to which they courts will accept victim interaction.

Changing professional attitudes is another matter. Victim advocates and legal educators are coming to believe that attitudes and ways of thought in the justice system can be best influenced by working on the next generation of lawyers and jurists. How? By providing training to law students on victim rights, the effects of crime, and other sensitivity training.

In other words, working to change the criminal justice system from within, by working to change the attitudes of the next generation of jurists. This will take time, but is the most likely way to change the present two-party court model (accused and prosecution) to a three-party model (victim, accused and prosecution).

While highly unlikely to take place in the near future, it is to be hoped victim rights will eventually advance to match those of Japan (and a few other countries), where victims now have rights to directly take part in court proceedings, under specific conditions and limits.