Vermont Bar Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2 Summer 2014, Vol. 40, No. 2 | Page 31

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 ́