Save money, don't prosecute domestic violence cases

October 10, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Officials in Topeka, Kan., are considering decriminalizing domestic violence in their city code. It’s not because they don’t think the crime is worth prosecuting, it’s because they need to save money. The reason they are considering this stems from the county government’s decision to transfer domestic violence crime enforcement to the city level.

In September, the Shawnee County district attorney office said it would no longer prosecute misdemeanors that happen within city limits, including domestic violence cases. The district attorney came to this decision after his office faced budget cuts. Apparently the city attorney’s office has far fewer resources than the district attorney’s office, and only one prosecutor has ever worked on domestic violence cases, with the last being 10 years ago.  

Now faced with a growing caseload due to the misdemeanor case transfer, the city officials debated whether to decriminalized domestic violence in order to save money. Repealing the code would force the DA’s office to start prosecuting that crime again. The offices of the district attorney and city are disputing who should prosecute these cases. The Topeka City Council meets Tuesday to discuss the measure.

This is terrible news for the victims of domestic violence in this area. No government entity wants to take their case. If the district attorney’s office refuses to file charges and the city attorney’s office doesn’t have the resources to do so, then the victims of domestic violence are not only physical victims at the hands of their partner or family member, but victims of inefficient and inadequate government. Those who have been arrested since the DA’s office made the decision have been released from jail after charges weren’t filed.

Did I mention that October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month? It seems as though Kansas is doing its part – and not it a good way – to bring attention to this issue.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT