Deseret News | Reader comments: Advocates angry over jailed victim

Reader comments
Advocates angry over jailed victim

Right idea, wrong approach | 2:14 a.m. July 11, 2008

This is a tough situation. I think the prosecutors had the right idea in keeping tabs on her. After all, they need to put this guy behind bars. To do that, she needs to testify. So right idea, wrong approach. Certainly, there had to be a better option than jail. I mean house arrest or battered woman's shelter or some other kind of place where she could be kept. But why lock an innocent victim away with hardened criminals? Jail's a scary place, and I agree she has now been revictimized. They need to think this through.

awesomeron | 3:40 a.m. July 11, 2008

No Harm in this, as this could be saving her life and the lives of others. These abusers if allowed to get away with the Domestic Violence only get Braver and more Brazen. This usually end in some ones Death, Most times the Victim but some times the Abuser. What needs to be remembered however Domestic Violence is a Cross Gender Crime. The out of control female sometimes having support of the Community, to include Police, Clergy, and Judges. She has the added weapons of Custody of Children, Excessive Child Support and Spousal Support and loss of the Males Job or even Church Calling. However Victims who will not help themselves or others need to be jailed. People who support them are Advocates of Fear and doing nothing. Nothing worse then a freed spousal or child abuser coming through the door, home to those that told on him/her.

Bob G | 5:01 a.m. July 11, 2008

Incarcerating witnesses and victims? Talk about stupidity in our courts and justice system. Why didn't they just arrest the perp and incarcerate him? With him in jail and unable to further threaten the victim perhaps the victims would be more willing to testify. Jails are for holding and keeping criminals off the streets and to protect victims from further abuse but our so called justice system is too caught up in procedures instead of justice. We should have more stringent laws to prevent the lazy prosecutors from negotating justice outside of the courts instead of in the courts. Once these criminals are charged with a crime they should be facing the judge and jury to determine what they are guilty of. It's not the prosecutors job to negotiate justice and act as judge and jury. This kind of court system is an injustice and subverts all laws and justice for victims and the rights of victims. They should incarcerate and hold the criminals and aid the victims so victims don't have to fear for their lives if they testify.

Comments continue below

L. G. KIRKPATRICK | 5:17 a.m. July 11, 2008

This is just great - NOT! Now all future victims will have another reason (beyond fear of reprisals from the perpetrator/abuser) to refuse to report the abuse.

Everyone responsible for this flagrant OFFICIAL ABUSE of this and any future victims needs to get down on their knees and thank God that ignorance and stupidity are not painful.

OhBrother | 5:29 a.m. July 11, 2008

And now they have just given the batterer more emotional ammunition to use against new victims in his life....or perhaps even the same one. "See? I told you you'd go to jail!"

Tom | 6:07 a.m. July 11, 2008

I'm no fan of this type of prosecution (i.e. spats between couples) but to arrest a victim because she won't testify clearly will incentivize other victim's to NOT report more serious situations. This new lady DA is a piece of work. It looks like she's got a chip on her shoulder. Please keep her in SL County...thank you.

That will teach her... | 7:01 a.m. July 11, 2008

I'm thinking there is more to the story but I have personally seen judges make off-the-wall rulings like this. Damage the victim so we can see what the criminal will do. So, now she has a record. Other victims are thinking twice after reading this story.

VOTE NO ON ALL JUDGES They need to be replaced. Some have been on the bench since Carter was president. Vote them out and in four more years vote the new ones out. They shouldn't have a "life" sentence on the bench if you know what I mean.

For Shame! | 7:29 a.m. July 11, 2008

Jailing a domestic violence VICTIM? What a miscarriage of justice! Time to get Lohra Miller voted out of office.

Anonymous | 8:31 a.m. July 11, 2008

This article misconstrues the facts. She's in jail not because she's a dv victim but because she refused to respond to a lawful court order.

Just drop the charges | 8:42 a.m. July 11, 2008

If the victim doesn't want to testify, then let it go. Stop forcing people to be responsible.

Victims have to take some responsibility to stop the violence, you know.

Sadly, I bet she'll be back with him within a month or so. Because he "loves" her.

Georgia prosecutor | 8:56 a.m. July 11, 2008

I'm all for this. I prosecuted child abuse cases for three years and saw first-hand the sad consequences that domestic violence has on children and families. In so many of the cases, a woman was victimized, called the police, and then after the dust settled, she dropped all charges against the perpetrator and stayed with him. Domestic violence only escalates unless something is done to break to the cycle. If that means arresting the victim to force her to testify, I'm all for it! It's better than letting the perpetrator continually get away with the violence and then having her and her children end up badly beaten or dead in some future altercation.

Rush to judgement | 9:04 a.m. July 11, 2008

Obviously there is not all the facts in this article. Don't rush to judgement when you don't have all the facts.

I couldn't make an accurate assertation of the situation based on the information given. I doubt anyone could. It seems that 95% of the facts are left out.

Rob | 9:26 a.m. July 11, 2008

To Tom: You call this a spat between couples. No this is violence against another person.

bob | 9:41 a.m. July 11, 2008

I say if they are to weak to stand up to their abuser that this is a good solution, even tho it;s not the best. I agree with G-prosecutor because the abuse never ends if someone does not put a stop to it. I work at the jail and see that the vicim is conditioned as well as the perp to continue on the same tracks to get away with it and vicims let them. The biggest thing I agree with is a VOTE NO TO ALL JUDGES, but for a different reason. It's because they approve the motion to have the pleas cut down the sentences to next to nothing and the perp learns again that they get away with it.

Obsession w/Crime&Punishement | 9:43 a.m. July 11, 2008

14 Points of Fascism - #12

Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

Could fascism happen here? Looks like it already is.

Anonymous | 10:03 a.m. July 11, 2008

I'm a former victum of DV and I know how hard it is to stand up to your abuser in court. I did testify against him - he got 1 year in jail - all suspended, 1 year probation and he was to go to counseling which he never did as his probation officer didn't think it was necessary.

I now live in West Valley and have a neighbor who was beat up and emotional abused by a guy claiming to be a relative. She called the police to report the abuse, they took pictures but wouldn't arrest him "because they didn't see it happen" for all they know she could have done it herself. The guy in currently in jail on other charges none of which have anything to do with his beating her up.

The courts need to rethink what they have done to this woman - it is up to her and only her if she will testify. She will probably go back to her abuser but the next time she could end up dead.

Right to remain silent | 10:13 a.m. July 11, 2008

This is an example of a prosecuting agency trying to boost its statistics over pursuing justice.

Lesson to witnesses who don't want to testify: assert your Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against yourself or incriminate yourself.

Even if you testify, a prosecutor can allege that you made an earlier false statement to a law enforcement officer (remember Dell Schanze?)

If you shut up, it's difficult for prosecutors to prove that you made a later false statement ... or perjured yourself under oath.

Outraged! | 10:26 a.m. July 11, 2008

It is great to read all the comments regarding the system being upside down. Only the victim knows all the threats that have been made if she testifies against the perpetrator. It's called the Stockholm Syndrome. The victim sees everyone who is trying to help her as some who is going to get her killed. In a turn-about, sees the perpetrator as her savior; the person who is going to allow her to stay alive. She may be trying to protect herself, her parents, her animals and the list goes on. This should make national news. I think this needs to be addressed to the Violence Against Women Act and I'm just the person to do it. I am a survivor who knows straight from the heart how some one can be terrorized into believing your children will be murdered.

losing personal power | 10:56 a.m. July 11, 2008

Each and every day, this community embraces the 14 Points of Fascism.
And the lowly bees from the Beehive State lose more and more of their power to authority.
And this is just fine and dandy in the eyes of the modern American conservative movement.
Where will it end?

Bob Pomeroy | 11:18 a.m. July 11, 2008

We have (correctly) decided that domestic violence offends the body politic as a crime, and our system provides that such an offense be addressed by and on behalf of the government. That (correctly) means that all of us are victims of each and every act of domestic violence, not merely the person upon whom the violence was directly imposed. Any person who refuses to provide testimonial information concerning the particulars of the offense violates the rights of all of us to be relieved of the burden imposed by domestic violence. It most assuredly is not a private matter simply between two people, or even limited to any other members of the domestic unit. Refusing to testify is an offense against us all, justifying arrest of the recalcitrant witness. It's not all that different than Mr Rove's or Mr Liddy's refusal to appear before the tribunal and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Perhaps sometime in the future we will have other means of addressing this problem, but this is how things are to be done in the present during our turn on earth.

Chris Plummer | 11:30 a.m. July 11, 2008

Sadly it is possible that the victim will do more time then the perpetrator. This case disgusts me. Overzealous prosecutors can do a lot of damage to people's lives. It would be one thing if the guy was going to do some time... this says over some cuts and a broken fingernail, the guy will be free to go on probation and the beat up woman does time. This is plain wrong.

Anonymous | 11:56 a.m. July 11, 2008

Way too much authority and power.
People being the way they are - always abuse their power.

Phil | 11:57 a.m. July 11, 2008

South Lake county DA is a joke. And I am republican and former delegate.

Bill | 11:59 a.m. July 11, 2008

Oh, for pity's sake. She broke the LAW. She was served with more than one court-issued SUBPOENA to appear and testify. She didn't show--so, she was jailed for possible contempt of court for only three days so that she this time, she WOULD appear in court, instead of hiding out and wasting the court's and prosecutors' time (which I pay for with my tax dollars). She's not being jailed for being a victim. Let's all grow up and respect court subpoenas.

Blackstone Law | 12:09 p.m. July 11, 2008

She was being compelled to testify in trial. In this country the defense has a RIGHT to confront their accuser. She CHOSE not to appear after being compelled to testify. A warrant for her arrest was issued; she was jailed.

@ Right to remain silent | 10:13 a.m. July 11, 2008

The right to not incriminate yourself, does not apply generally but specifically to questions asked during examination.

A prosecutor can compel anyone related to the crime to testify - if you fail to show, and/or do not answer the questions asked you can be held for contempt of court.

Disclaimer: Nothing herein is legal advice. Consult with a competent attorney for legal advice, not blogger on a newspaper's online forum.

Derek Schwebach | 12:09 p.m. July 11, 2008

Let me get this straight; The District Attorneys Office decides they need to arrest the victim to get her to testify, but then the go and make a plea deal with the perpetrator instead?

I think we need to look at getting DA Miller out of office; this is outrageous!

Rushing to Judgement... | 12:11 p.m. July 11, 2008

It seems many people on here are rushing to certian judgements, without the needed facts.

Notice how most people on here assume that when there is a disagreement, the male is abusive, the female just defending herself? And I thought Feminism would set us free from such sexist tripe.

Notice how everyone here assumes that accused means guilty? How ridiculous to see people on here demanding justice without waiting for the detail of a trial on the facts by a jury of peers. Innocent until proven guilty? Not for a male in this country.

I do not understand why the accused took a plea deal in this case. If the only evidence of abuse was the testimony of the victim (victim of the state clearly, victim of the accused maybe)then why not present it to a jury, along with the information that the tesitmony was coerced out of her, and therefore is utterly unrelaible? Oh, that's right. Becasue the accused is male we do not need evidence. He was condemned by his gender before any evidence was presented.

Welcome to our brave new world, where offences are against the body politic, and some animals are more equal than others.

Derek Schwebach | 12:13 p.m. July 11, 2008

Let me get this straight: The DA decides to arrest the victim in this case so that she will testify, but then strikes a plea deal with the perpetrator instead?

This is outrageous! I think voters need to look at getting DA Miller impeached and out of office.

A brave new world | 1:42 p.m. July 11, 2008

This is absolutely scary. American under the Bush administration has taken some giant leaps towards fascism and this is just another example. Remember all the immigration out of Europe that happened in the first half of the 20th century to escape such oppressive governments? That's the course this country is on. I, for one, am moving my family to South America.

Quinton | 2:04 p.m. July 11, 2008

This is exactly what needs to happen.

If a person makes an accusation of Domestic Violence, but then backs off when the trial comes, that person needs to be held in contempt of court and charged with filing a false criminal report. You can't have it both ways. You can't call the police to charge your spouse with abuse, but then withdraw it when the heat of the moment ends!

She's got issues | 2:28 p.m. July 11, 2008

She's obviously a victim of abuse, but it sounds like she has her own problems and refusing to show up on a subpoena is illegal.

Re: Brave new world | 2:53 p.m. July 11, 2008

Since when did Bush make the Utah laws on responding to a subpoena? This woman refuses to testify, but next week she will call the police for another DV complaint and the cycle will continue. If you move to South America I am certain that it will raise the average IQ of both countries.

RL | 3:59 p.m. July 11, 2008

"no harm"??? The harm is her record and the whole image of her in chains while he's a free man. I understand why they did it, but there needs to be an alternative way to handle such situations. Right idea, wrong method!

Ronald A. Young | 5:33 p.m. July 11, 2008

Time and time again, you here that when an abused person is killed, kills themselves, or kills the Abuser, that there where Prior, that the Police where call X Number of times and responded and the Abused Person either refused to press charges or dropped charges, or refused to Testify. Kids and Relatives and Neighbors also shut up. Every time the Abuser gets away with it He/She becomes worse, even treating to harm extended family members. Anyone that the Abuser feels is in the way of their control over the Abused Person. Abuse is about control and sometimes trust issues, and some times just because the Abuser was Abused and it is the Learned Behavior of handling having No Life.
It seems odd to send the Abused Person To Jail in order to get to the Abuser but if the Cycle Continues the Abuser will be DEAD. Or others will be Abused. Most Abusers are Cowards and Hard Jail time has an affect on them. They may learn to at least think twice or work at learning to break the cycle of Abuse.

Blame yourself | 7:12 p.m. July 11, 2008

You vote an inexperienced person into D.A. this is what you get. Good job Salt Lake County.

Justice for none | 7:18 p.m. July 11, 2008

Can someone please call for the resignation of Lohra Miller??? Haven't we all had enough of her incompetence??

You Help The Victims | 11:03 p.m. July 11, 2008

Lets say the victim has children, she gets arrested and the abuser takes the kids and leaves the state. Now she (VICTIM) is in jail not knowing what is happening to her kids. Sounds far fetched. My mom and us were abused and when my dad was in jail she gathered us up and left the state. Now to read how the D.A. office arrested the victim is insane. Arresting the abuser gave us time to get away and start a new life, thank god the D.A. didn't arrest my mom. The D.A. needs to talk to victims of abuse and find out what would help them, I know not one will say put me in jail.

Female specific ? | 11:51 p.m. July 11, 2008

If the victim were male, under the same circumstances, you can bet he would never have been jailed for refusisng to testify. Why is it that women are still treated like chattel (possessions)?

Anonymous | 11:50 p.m. July 11, 2008

Why didn't you post my comments ... I made a two-sentence comment a few minutes ago regarding male/female treatment.

understand before you comment | 1:24 p.m. July 12, 2008

1. she won't have a record. she wasn't charged with a crime.
2. you don't get to choose whether or not to come into court. never have been able to do that. it's not some right-wing conspiracy, it's part of being a resident here, and has been for over 200 years.
3. prosecutors don't issue warrants, judges do.
4. prosecutors don't let defendants out of jail, the sheriff does, or a judge does. prosecutors would like nothing better than to keep them in custody.
5. the guy wasn't given a deal "in spite" of her being held. if she hadn't been held, the case would have been dismissed.
6. at least now the guy has to go to counseling and be on probation. better than a dismissal.
sounds like this new prosecutor has figured out how to make domestic violence convictions work.

Chris M | 5:03 p.m. July 12, 2008

This is an abuse of prosecutorial power. The DA had the alleged victim arrested by a staff person (process server) not authorized to affect an arrest. Under Utah Ann. impersonating a police officer is a second degree felony. There should be a special prosecutor appointed to fully investigate the facts in this case. Subsequent charges should be filed against those who actually broke the law in this case.

Anon | 10:12 a.m. July 15, 2008

If the male in this case spent one day in jail, it is because the woman/victim/witness called the police and reported a crime. She has an obligation to appear in court after that and respond to questions about her report. The courts and the DA have the power to compel people to appear to state the facts, and the DA has an obligation to make sure that power is not ignored.

What if the male is really innocent, and the women had him falsely arrested? How is the system to discover that if she refuses to appear in court?

Reporting a crime obligates you to follow it through.

jim | 7:12 p.m. July 16, 2008

Perhaps someone in the DA's office should have read rule 7 before they had a $100,000 CASH ONLY! witness warrant issued to secure the appearance of a witness when they only asked for a $15,000 non-cash bond on Mr. Milline. The rule allows for the witness to be arrested and then testify after which she must be released. If Ms. Andrussi truly wanted the evidence there was a method already in place, but she failed to use it. It is also interesting that the warrant was issued on July 1st, but not served until the afternoon before the 4th of July weekend began. Kinda tough to get a lawyer maybe.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.