Technology against violence
WHEN assessing domestic violence cases, threats to kill a woman and her children, abuse during pregnancy, and sexual jealousy are all lethality factors taken into account. Had they been used in issuing and enforcing Lien Lam's restraining order against her estranged husband, perhaps her infant daughter and the woman baby-sitting her would not be recovering from burns inflicted by the baby's father, Dung Van Tran, who is also recovering from burns.
According to court records, the Boston man had a long history of abusive violence toward his estranged wife, including violations of restraining orders. What can be done to stop those who seem bent on continuing their abusive behavior when their partner seeks to end the relationship? With the help of Diane Rosenfeld of Harvard Law School, we looked at how to improve the criminal justice system's response to domestic violence. On the last day of the 2005-2006 legislative session, a bill we filed was signed into law that will help remedy the loss of a victim's safety.
Under the new law, an offender who violates a domestic violence order of protection can be required by a judge to wear a device that provides Global Positioning System monitoring. The GPS helps enforce the restraining order by preventing the batterer from entering "liberty zones," such as the battered partner's domicile and place of work, their children's schools, and the residences of extended family members. Probation agents will monitor offenders to ensure that they do not breach these zones. If they do, a record of a restraining order violation will be made, thus making stalking and further violent attacks more difficult. Further, police and the victim are automatically phoned if the offender breaches the battered partner's liberty zone, thus minimizing the victim's fears of an unexpected confrontation with the batterer.
The limitations of restraining orders are apparent in the age-old question asked about abused partners: "Why doesn't she just leave?"
In answering domesic violence calls, police departments routinely supply information on battered women's shelters, along with advice on how women can seek protective orders. But why tell a woman how to leave if you are helping her obtain a restraining order that is supposed to protect her? Expecting the victim to leave instead of asking why the justice system cannot restrain the batterer from reassaulting illustrates how ingrained it has become to expect danger as a matter of course when victims seek to end abusive relationships.
Currently, many battered partners leave -- their homes, families, or jobs. Battered women's shelters must turn away thousands of women every year. Twenty-three percent of women and children in homeless shelters report that they are directly fleeing domestic violence. Instead of asking why a woman doesn't leave the violent relationship, we need to be asking how can we help these families stay -- to stay housed, in their jobs, with their kids.
The new law not only adapts technology that better protects victims, but it also represents a logical step toward changing the paradigm of responsibility for domestic violence -- away from the victim to provide for her own safety by hiding, and onto the justice system to hold the offender accountable.
Leaving is the most difficult decision for a battered partner to make. It is also the time she is at greatest risk of violence from her batterer. By using GPS technology, we align accountability with criminal behavior and do more than simply apprise a battered partner of her options. The law utilizes modern technology to give teeth to restraining orders, making real progress toward returning liberty to battered partners and their children.
To be sure, there is more to be done to maximize successful police and judicial response to a victim's calls for help. Dangerousness assessments should be used in every domestic violence call to which police respond across the Commonwealth. These assessments provide a way of identifying potentially lethal factors so the criminal justice system can better protect the victim. Such assessments enable police, district attorneys, judges, and victim advocates to understand high-risk cases among the plethora of received domestic calls. Judges can use the assessments in deciding whom to put on a GPS monitor. The assessments are on going, so that the judge can alter sanctions as indicated to keep the offender from re assaulting the victim.
These legislative efforts are aimed at preventing the predictable escalation of violence that too often culminates in homicide if domestic violence is not effectively interrupted at its earliest stage. State power must be used to offer real protection, lest the victim be left with less protection than she had before contacting police. The GPS legislation holds real promise to give meaning to restraining orders and prevent future violence.
Will these efforts eliminate domestic homicides in Massachusetts? Probably not. But they will save lives and greatly enhance the lives of countless others who live with fear daily.
Kerry Healey is the former lieutenant governor of Massachusetts. Jarrett Barrios is a state senator. 
