www.vtbar.org
SPECIAL ISSUE: Book Review
and issued her a Notice to Appear in immigration court to defend the removal charges now filed against her.
Although Aliya was eventually able
to obtain a U-visa and stay in the United
States, Brian was deported. Aliya dropped
out of school and got a part-time job, but
to this day, struggles to pay her rent and
provide for her family. Aliya still ponders
whether Brian might have changed had
he gotten help with his alcohol problem.
She often complains that things would be
so much easier if she didn’t have to do everything alone. Far from being grateful to
the police who came to her apartment that
night, Aliya is mistrustful of courts and law
enforcement and regrets that Brian was arrested. She appreciates the assistance she
got form the domestic violence agency, but
nonetheless feels that from the beginning,
she was pressured into pursuing a process
she neither fully understood nor asked for.
Aliya’s experience reveals that despite
an objectively good legal outcome—she is
no longer subjected to Brian’s abuse, and
she obtained a U-visa, allowing her to stay
in the United States—Aliya was not empowered by the process. Goodmark explains that all too often state interventions
strip autonomy from women, and despite
our collective goal to protect and support
women subjected to violence, we instead
subordinate them by precluding those
choices we don’t agree with or understand.
In the context of domestic violence, this is
particularly regrettable, considering the
dynamics of coercion and control inherent
to an abusive relationship.
In order to create a more empowering
legal response, Goodmark suggests that
the range of responses offered to women
subjected to abuse ought to be as broad
as possible. In Vermont, this might mean
opening the door to restorative justice.
Currently, Vermont law mandates that “no
case involving domestic violence, sexual violence, sexual assault, or stalking shall be
referred to a community justice center except in department of corrections offender reentry programs pursuant to protocols
protecting victims.”2
This statute is a perfect example of a
mandatory, essentialist response to domestic violence. Keeping domestic violence
cases out of community justice centers,
even in those instances where the victim
herself might want to try such a process,
subordinates individual choice to the concerns and assumptions of the state, namely
that community-based solutions are unsafe
and that untrained community members
cannot provide the proper kind of supports
and responses required by women subjected to abuse.
Goodmark counters these fears by pointing out that carefully constructed restorative justice programs can be safe, just,
and transformative. A Troubled Marriage
includes several examples of community
justice programs that have responded successfully to domestic violence cases. These
programs have several features in common: they are woman-centered, and only
those victims who want to participate do
so; they focus on the needs of the victim
first and foremost, and even where the program is open to trying to reintegrate the
offender, that goal is secondary to restoring the victim-participant; and they listen
to the express goals and concerns of the
individual victim, with the objective of restoring dignity, self-worth, and inclusion in
the community. Not only do such programs
provide a much-needed option to those
who distrust the legal system or who desire
a solution that does not compel separation, over time, they can also disrupt social
acceptance of gender-based violence by
creating a sense of community accountability. One can easily imagine how in towns
across Vermont, where everyone knows everyone, this kind of long-term outcome is a
distinct possibility.
In the United States, one in four women will experience domestic violence in her
lifetime.3 Many argue that such statistics
support the need for sweeping and mandatory interventions by the state. Another
way of looking at these figures is to recognize that they represent an enormous number of individuals, and therefore, many different experiences, identities, goals, and
perspectives. A Troubled Marriage urges us
to listen to these many and varied voices,
and to respond in kind by expanding both
the legal and extra-legal options available
to women subjected to abuse. In contemplating how best to respond, we must accept that the state apparatus can only do
so much. We need to reject the stereotype
of the helples ́