Domestic violence is a complex societal problem that requires a complex, multifaceted approach. A recent unanimous opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes this fact and will make a real difference by enhancing protections for victims of this crime.
In U.S. vs. Castleman, the court issued an important opinion about interpretation of the law that prevents people convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence from possessing firearms (the Lautenberg Amendment). This case held that the legal standard for force that would constitute a misdemeanor crime is less than the standard for force constituting a violent felony. Common sense? Yes, and that point was reinforced by the court's unanimity in the case, a rarity these days.
This case is particularly important for domestic violence victims because the court recognized that: (1.) Domestic violence is a crime unlike most others. (2.) Domestic violence offenders are often convicted only of misdemeanors. (3.) The presence of firearms in a home is highly correlated with lethality in domestic violence. (4.) The law that prohibits domestic violence perpetrators from having firearms is vital to victim safety and should be interpreted so it has broad application.
James Castleman, a Tennessee man, pleaded guilty in 2001 to "intentionally or knowingly" causing bodily injury to his girlfriend. When he was later charged with selling black-market firearms, and with possessing firearms in violation of the Lautenberg Amendment, he argued the crime for which he was convicted did not involve use of "physical force" as required in the federal statute, so he was not prohibited from possessing firearms. Based on a Supreme Court case interpreting "physical force" in the context of a law defining when someone can be classified as a "violent felon," Mr. Castleman convinced the trial court, and the 6th Circuit, that his argument made sense. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing the majority decision, vividly outlined the problem of domestic violence and the increased likelihood of lethality when a firearm is present in a home where domestic violence is being perpetrated. She highlighted the benefits of Lautenberg and noted that interpreting "physical force" to mean the "violent" physical force required for the "violent felon" classification might render the law almost meaningless.
The New York state Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, which works to prevent domestic violence and improve the state's response to the crime, knows that this decision will save lives — lives of the victims and lives of law enforcement officers who respond to this crime. We are happy to see common sense prevail.
