This report on the use of GPS technology in Domestic Violence cases, funded by the Department of Justice, will blow your mind. Even when women are enrolled as abusers, they’re still victims.

16 Jul

Our favorite little feminist, Amanda Marcotte has an article up at Slate extolling the virtues of programs that use GPS to monitor domestic violence (alleged) offenders, and to the surprise of no one, she of course assumes all the accused are men and all the victims are women.  Naturally, her story is illustrated with the proverbial pretty white woman splattered with blood.

white woman

In theory, domestic homicide should be easy to prevent, since men who kill their wives or girlfriends (85 percent of victims are female) generally give us lots of warning by beating, stalking, and even raping their victims, usually for years before they finally kill.

One of the commenters at Slate takes her to task with her assertion that it’s only ever men who kill women, quoting from Warren Farrell, in “Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say” (1999).


On the surface, the Bureau of Justice reports women are the perpetrators in 41 percent of spousal murders. However, the male method of killing is with a knife or gun, done by himself; it is easily detected and reported. The three female methods of killing are designed not to be detected, to have the man’s death appear as an accident, so insurance money can be collected.

The first mostly-female method is poisoning. The second is the wife hiring a professional killer. The third is the wife persuading a boyfriend to do the killing.

These last two methods, IF discovered, are never listed by the FBI as a woman killing a man. They are listed, rather, as “multiple -offender killings. We only know that IN MULTIPLE-OFFENDER KILLINGS THERE ARE FOUR TIMES AS MANY HUSBAND VICTIMS THAN WIVES, according to the FBI. That is, the 41 percent figure does not include either of those female methods of killing.


How common are multiple-offender, usually contract, killings? We don’t know. Perhaps the best hint we have of how many husbands could be killed by contract comes from the FBI, reporting that some 7800 MEN WERE KILLED WITHOUT THE KILLER EVER BEING IDENTIFIED (vs. 1500 women). This number is ALMOST NINE TIMES LARGER THAN ALL OF THE WIVES KILLED BY SPOUSES AND EX-SPOUSES PUT TOGETHER. However, this “nine times as many” figure is a very inadequate hint since many of these men were doubtless killed by other men, and many are unmarried. It just gives us an understanding that multiple-offender killings must be considered before we can claim that more men murder wives than vice-versa.

Most important, of the hundred or so contract killings about which I have read, only a small percentage were originally recognized as such. The very purpose in hiring a professional, as with poisoning, was to have the husband’s death appear as an accident so the wife can collect the insurance money.”


And let’s not overlook the fact that even when women are FILMED BY POLICE trying to hire a hit man to kill their husbands, they are not convicted of any offence.


Some women think organizing their husband’s death because it’s “easier than divorce and I want the insurance money” is just a giggly good walk in the park.

I wanted to know more about exactly who is enrolled in the GPS monitoring programs, and I found this very interesting study, funded by the Department of Justice.  The details are not just shocking, they’re very, very disquieting.


Here’s what happens:  someone (usually a man) gets arrested for domestic violence. Rather than remain in jail until trial, or post a bond, he can agree to wear a GPS tracking device which will monitor him and alert the police when he enters forbidden zones.  He has to pay a fee for that option, and agree to the conditions.


In this report, a total of 3656 defendants who accepted GPS monitoring were studied.

In the mid-west region, 92.2% of the defendants were male (p. 62). In the west region, 95.5% of the defendants were male (p. 75).  In the southern region, 83.6% of the defendants were male (p. 84).

Let’s look first at conviction rates:  for all the charges laid, how many defendants were subsequently convicted?

Midwest?            40.7 % conviction rate

West?                   57.1 % conviction rate

South?                  46.7 % conviction rate

The researchers found that yes, GPS monitoring did indeed have both a long term and a short term impact on whether a defendant was re-arrested between the arrest and trial period.

Could that possibly be because in two regions less than HALF of the charges had any evidence whatsoever to support the charge, and barely more than HALF could be proven in the other region?!?

The DV allegations were either false, unprovable or so mired in mutual violence as to be unpursuable.


If you begin with the assumption that most domestic violence is mutual, then the simple act of keeping the warring partners apart will reduce any subsequent charges and accusations.  In a way, the report DOES acknowledge that DV tends to be mutual, but the spin they put on that is really quite astonishing.

The context of domestic violence is often fraught with claims and counter-claims by estranged partners. Justice personnel at times become enmeshed in intimate partners’ conflicts, as one party – often more experienced with the system – attempts to use court procedures and restrictions to harass or drain the other. The justice system often struggles to sort out disputes about who is the abuser and who is the victim, a struggle in which an experienced abuser may have an advantage in comparison to a less experienced victim. In an especially troubling scenario, GPS technology may become one more tool that unscrupulous parties can use to “punish” their adversary.

Thus, some victims described how their abuser managed to turn circumstances in his favor, resulting in the victim being placed on GPS. As described in the section on defendants’ experiences, victims as offenders – victims whose abusers succeeded in turning the tables against them and having them placed on GPS – were found among the female defendants who were interviewed.

(Page 107-8)

You’ve got to be fucking kidding me!  Hardly any women are ever arrested for DV in the first place, and even fewer are convicted.

The idea that judges can be manipulated into placing women on GPS monitoring when really it’s the women who are the victims is laughable.  My guess would be that the evidence for abuse when it’s women who are charged is OVERWHELMING.  So much so that judges can’t issue the standard pussy pass.


But the report still wants us to see women as “victims”.  Poor victims.  So abused that the courts have ordered the women to stay away from their male partners.


For some men, the GPS monitoring had a positive effect, forcing them to disentangle themselves from dysfunctional relationships and providing structure and routine to their lives.

Although most defendants remain resentful of the restrictions that they must observe in order to remain in good standing with their case manager, some clients in these GPS programs spoke of the benefits of being on GPS. Positive aspects include acquiring a newfound appreciation for the comforts of home, feeling relieved of pressure to be “on the street” every night, thus helping in the severing of ties with “bad company,” i.e., those who participate in activities that introduce legal jeopardy for someone who has “caught a case.” These defendants may see their tenure with the program as an opportunity, in fact, using it to spur themselves toward altering their ordinary practice, thereby marking a turning point in their lives.

It may entail something as simple as finally finishing a home improvement project; it may involve something more emotionally rewarding, such as renewing ties with one’s parents or other important persons who otherwise the client would have found little reason to spend time with. References to this moment as a “wake up call,” for example, were not uncommon in interviews.

In particular, the experience may lead some defendants to ruminate on patterns in their interpersonal relations with women. In other cases, defendants may see their estranged partner in a new light that is less favorably disposed toward continuing the relationship once their tenure in the program is completed.

(P. 140-1)

In plenty of other cases, the effect was anything but positive.

cant sleep

You know, it’s just, I, I think that’s just part of the stress that I’m under. I’m not able to sleep at night. Ah, you know, I’m constantly making sure that this thing can [get a signal], and I’ll even so much as point it at a window, pull the antennae out to make sure that, you know, if I have to prop it on a pillow so it lays at an angle, I mean, I get a little, just, emphatic about it, which, I’m sure, it doesn’t have to be. I mean, I think whatever signal it picks up in, in realistic concepts, it’s going to pick it up no matter what.

I have a hundred and fifty tenants that we take care of. You know, if any one of those tenants knows what happened, the charges that I got, they might not want me in their suite. And if they don’t want me in their suite, you know, word gets around and I don’t have a job.

Yea, so I would definitely have a lot less stress, absolutely. And I definitely would be, have a lot less stress on a daily basis, an hourly basis of making sure this thing can read a signal somewhere, but still being able to carry out my job and make sure I’m leading this group of people through a successful night at work. So, yea, absolutely, there’s definitely a huge amount of stress just by having this thing that, that is completely unjust.

(p. 114-15)

Keep in mind in two jurisdictions less than HALF of the men subjected to this level of anxiety and control will be convicted of any offense at all.

It all sounds so good on the surface:  yeah, let’s keep these violent people away from their victims and allow everyone to go about their life with some semblance of sanity.

6d7c0-Big Brother

In reality, GPS monitoring is an unprecedented use of technology by the state to control the movements and curtail the freedoms of mostly men.  The majority of whom will never be convicted of the offence for which they are charged.

That’s a nice weapon to put in women’s arsenal, isn’t it?  A woman can charge a man with domestic violence, have him arrested, force him to choose between being in jail or having his whereabouts constantly monitored (which he gets to pay for out of his own pocket), forbid areas of his community to him, forbid access to his children, delay court dates and trials and eventually, have the charges dismissed or acquitted.

Gee, what could possibly be wrong with that scenario?

Does GPS monitoring “work”?  Depends what you mean by “work”.  It certainly has a dramatic effect on the people subjected to the monitoring, most of whom are men.  And it’s not all negative.

Defendants reported having both positive and negative experiences during their time on GPS, viewing it as “a mixed bag.” Most felt it was far preferable to “sitting in jail” and were grateful that participation enabled them to maintain their employment. They also appreciated the fact that GPS shielded them from false accusations that could be (and in some cases were) made by a vengeful estranged partner. Defendants at a more treatment-oriented site spoke of being thankful for the various kinds of assistance they received from supervising officers. Defendants also spoke about using their time in the program, and away from the alleged victim, as an opportunity to engage in various constructive pursuits, including rebuilding relations with family members, looking for work, returning to school, and reimagining their lives without the victim having a part in it.

(p. xviii)


Does it work to prevent domestic violence from turning into homicide?  If Washington, D.C. is anything to go by, nope.

“If someone has access to a gun and motive, we can’t prevent them,” Keenan said. “Technology by itself is not a cure for illegal conduct.”

GPS doesn’t deter someone bent on murder –  it is used against individuals who will go on to either be acquitted or have the charges filed against them dismissed, it curtails the freedom of defendants severely and may violate a number of different civil liberties, including the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.

What worries me the most about the use of GPS tracking in domestic violence cases is not that it is applied mostly to men (although that is troubling).  It’s the fact that researchers, even when confronted with women who are abusers, refuse to acknowledge that sometimes it’s men who need protection from women.

…although it happens infrequently, men do seek out protection orders against women. The implication of these trends is that women are becoming likelier candidates for EM programs as tethered parties, raising questions about how women fare in programs designed with male batterers in mind.

(p. 12)

Women …. Candidates, tethered parties….

Men … Batterers

And how will the poor little girl duckies fare under a program designed with the assumption that only men abuse?

Even when women abuse, they are still deserving of our sympathy and attention.  The snowflake, she is special! Even a program designed to keep her away from the man she is abusing must be designed with her needs in mind.

Even when women abuse, they’re still the victims.


That pretty white woman splattered with blood? Don’t be so quick to assume it’s her own.  It could be from the man she just hit with a baseball bat.  But don’t worry.

She won’t be convicted of any crime.  Not even if she kills him.

And she sure as hell won’t have to wear a GPS tracking device.


They’re not very comfortable, you know.  Her ankle might get sore.  And it totally ruins a great pair of shoes.  Can’t have that, now can we?

Lots of love,


28 Responses to “This report on the use of GPS technology in Domestic Violence cases, funded by the Department of Justice, will blow your mind. Even when women are enrolled as abusers, they’re still victims.”

  1. RedPillOverdose July 16, 2013 at 16:52 #

    I ran across that charming little Slate piece from Marcotte this morning. Nothing like starting the day with a dose of Amanda Marcotte’s hamster fapping wisdom. She is among the many fine examples of why feminism should be a certifiable mental disorder. I also find it ironic that she chose today to type her messiah complex driven dribble. Today in court is none other than Jodi Arias, already convicted of first degree murder, and is now pleading for her life. It will be interesting to see the response of feminists if she is sentenced to death and if she is then maybe, just maybe, I may find with some digging a little faith that the tides are slowly but painfully turning. But that will not diminish my belief in what a police state the U.S. has become.


  2. tarzanwannabe July 16, 2013 at 17:36 #

    Just taking the opportunity to say AWESOME, JB. (This and previous writings.) Seriously grateful-R-Us!


  3. Modern Drummer July 16, 2013 at 19:01 #

    While growing up, one of my sisters would bruise herself and tell our dad I hit her. This was very stressful for me because it was out of my control.She apologized to me later,and I forgave her,but I still don’t completely trust her.
    She is intelligent,but has educated herself into stupidity. Her feminist ideology has been largely responsible for her divorce,subsequent alcohol abuse and ruined life. She is the only one of my four sisters who is a feminist and has made a mess of what should have been a beautiful life.


  4. Jeremy July 16, 2013 at 20:32 #

    Unfortunately for me, I think any prosecutor would be able to make the argument that I was a GPS tracker flight risk based on my experience, uhm, circumventing normal electronics protections.

    >yes, I realize this would land me in jail if I ever found myself in that situation.
    >>I would do it anyway, then post an instructable.


  5. thehumanscorch July 16, 2013 at 20:55 #

    JB, you are the champion of MGTOW.


  6. LostSailor July 16, 2013 at 21:17 #

    Manjaw Mandy is certainly a piece of work. From her piece:

    trying to figure out which abusers are just run-of-the-mill woman batterers and which will actually kill is surprisingly hard to do.

    Perhaps that’s because finding actual statistics is fairly hard to do. What data there exists are largely “surveys” and self-reported data that is often combined and conflated in different ways, usually to inflate the numbers. The nearest thing I could find to actual data (still mostly survey) was from 2000.* Extrapolating the figures, in 2000, out of a U.S. population of 143 million women, 1.3 million experienced at least one incident of domestic violence (0.9%) and there were 1,247 women murdered by an “intimate partner” (0.09% of DV victims over all). Keep in mind that the incidence of spousal murder and domestic violence (not to mention general rape) has been declining for decades.

    But, hey, let’s just assume that most men accused of domestic violence are potential wife/partner killers. It’s just easier. So, how to deal with them?

    Domestic violence social workers there developed a high-risk assessment team that, using statistical methods and employing the court system in creative ways, has figured out a way to target the men most likely to kill

    Well, I’m sure domestic violence social workers will treat the guys fairly. Even if they have to use the courts in “creative ways” to do so. And “statistical methods” are always objective. How could this possibly go wrong?

    How do they do it? They take the details of each reported case of abuse, looking at risk factors such as stalking and chronic unemployment, and rate each abuser on a point system for how violent and controlling he is. Men who are rated high are then subject to heightened risk monitoring, and their victims are given extra resources to stay safe.

    Oh. “Risk factors.” And then they “rate” the guys. Well, I’m sure that’s fair and impartial. Especially since these guys haven’t necessarily been convicted of anything. And the ladies get extra resources free, like cash and fabulous prizes. That’s nice.

    So what can all this “heightened monitoring” lead to? Loss of access to children? GPS monitoring? Yup. Still not necessarily convicted mind you. But, guys, that’s not all! Behind Door Number 3 is this:

    They may even be put in jail or in a psychiatric hospital for violating probation or restraining orders…a program that gives the government leeway to restrain you even if your behavior otherwise falls short of the threshold to charge you with further crimes.

    Okay, some of those guys might have been convicted of something, but clearly not all or even most. But you can get a free vacation in jail or the psych ward even if you haven’t committed a crime. And ain’t that ‘Murica?

    It’s sad, but it’s necessary to protect the 0.0009% of women who will potentially be killed by a violent spouse or partner.

    *side note: same survey showed that 66% of men and 52% of women reported incidences of abuse by an adult as children. Of course help for boys who have been abused might just reduce the incidence of domestic violence as adults, but let’s keep the focus on the ladies…


  7. feeriker July 16, 2013 at 22:28 #

    Of course help for boys who have been abused might just reduce the incidence of domestic violence as adults, but let’s keep the focus on the ladies…

    REDUCE the incidence of domestic violence? Seriously? And put all that fat tax funding of the DV industry in jeopardy and risk loss of “jobs” for all those otherwise-unemployable feminist ideologues?

    ARE YOU MAD, man?!


  8. Goober July 16, 2013 at 23:56 #

    Here’s the thing – men are generally bigger and stronger than women, by a pretty large factor. So, when a man decides to use a woman as a punching bag, she shows the signs of it much more readily.

    Not so much when a woman does the same to a man.

    I’m perfectly ready to accept that domestic violence is a 50/50 thing as far as the number of occurrences. That being said, I think it is also very likely a true statement to say that even though it is 50/50 in number of occurrences, women still get the worst of it in the 50% of the time that they are the true victim. Just looking at the folks I know that are close to me, and the weight, size, and strength differences in the relationships that they have, I can’t think of a single couple where the guy couldn’t absolutely ruin the woman in a few seconds. I can’t think of a single couple where the woman is physically stronger, or even bigger in size, than her husband/boyfriend.

    So I wonder something given all of this being true – taking gender out of the situation, do the courts use comparative harm to decide who the guilty party is in non-domestic scuffles? For instance, if a big guy like me (6’4” and 300 pounds) smashes some 150 pound lightweight’s face in, do I get in trouble just because of the size difference and harm differential, even if he started the fight? I mean, he takes a swing at me, connects soundly, and it hurts a little. I take a return swing and break his face. Do I get in trouble? Do the courts consider this? Do they look at him, a head shorter than me, and half my weight, and look at me, and say “Mr. Goober, I understand that he took the first swing and hit you in your face, but just look at him! He’s frigging tiny and you destroyed him! You are in the wrong, here!”

    I’m asking an honest question here, because I don’t know.

    It seems to me that the courts do not do this – I would assume that they would consider that the little guy threw the first punch, and that as long as my reaction to that was measured (ie, I threw a punch in return, as opposed to stomping him half to death) they would not consider me to be the aggressor.

    However, in a domestic dispute situation, I doubt very much that the same test would be applied. My guess is that the woman can throw as many punches as she wants, and as long as the man takes it without attempting to restrain her or hit her back, she is the aggressor (assuming the police believe him and not her when she tells them that he hit her knuckles with his face over and over again). But the second he tries to use physical force to stop her from attacking him, he becomes the aggressor and is charged. This would probably be logged into the books as “man on woman domestic violence” too. So I’m pretty cautious about the statistics on this one, because I can’t imagine how a man could get free of this situation. Walk away? She can follow him, beating on him the whole way. So are we expected to run, then? To run away from a person who is assaulting us, rather than try to stop them, as long as that person is a woman?

    I’ll bet I’m a lot closer to the true way of things than anyone would ever care to admit – and that is wrong.


  9. Alex July 17, 2013 at 02:48 #

    “I’ll bet I’m a lot closer to the true way of things than anyone would ever care to admit – and that is wrong.”

    highly likely. what gets me is that self-defense goes out the window once a man uses, say his forearms, to block the blows. i just hope it’s not the same when she starts throwing things.


  10. Radical Suburbanite July 17, 2013 at 06:58 #

    I was a teacher for a short time before I had my kids and I had a little girl in my class who would always try to claim her father would hit her if she got bad grades. She was quite the little manipulator and put her family through the CPS mill the year prior to my having her in my class. The kid never showed an ounce of fear when she was around her father (if anything she pushed him around) and, thankfully, he had been exonerated through the investigation. But he and his wife were whipped by that kid. It’s amazing that a child could be so evil at such a young age (she was 10).


  11. jgr12 July 17, 2013 at 09:14 #

    You also need to remember that it’s the scars we don’t see that do the real damage and in that respect you simply cannot gauge how men or women really suffer.

    I’d have to find the stats for it but am pretty sure that most female on male abuse is psychologically based and just try to get a court to understand that.

    It would also go a ways to explaining some cases where for example a male is being psychologically abused and reacts physically, as soon as he does that he is the abuser and she is the victim irregardless of what drove him to it.


  12. jgr12 July 17, 2013 at 09:19 #

    ‘Defendants also spoke about using their time in the program, and away from the alleged victim, as an opportunity to engage in various constructive pursuits, including rebuilding relations with family members, looking for work, returning to school, and reimagining their lives without the victim having a part in it.’

    This part right here reads more like these men are the victims, particularly rebuilding relationships with family, how many times have we seen isolation from family in abusive relationships and the last part, reimagining their lives without the alleged victim? That sounds more like they have escaped a toxic relationship rather than are being reformed.


  13. judgybitch July 17, 2013 at 11:41 #

    That’s how I read it, too


  14. thehumanscorch July 17, 2013 at 12:04 #

    Emma Roberts got arrested for domestic violence, and SHE’S still the victim:


  15. Athan Nyx July 17, 2013 at 14:05 #

    I’m not surprised by this at all. Mary Bell, one of the most well known youth killers, was 12 when she killed two boys. She did get punished and reformed for this. Still gets punished every time people find out about her again. Certain kids are just outright disturbed and although I’m not one of those people who think kids are impossible to reform at that point… I still think it is almost more effort then it is worth.


  16. feeriker July 17, 2013 at 14:07 #

    Looking at that URL, seeing MTV and “news” together makes me laugh my ass off.


  17. Spaniard July 17, 2013 at 15:06 #

    Today I was having a coffee in a cafe and I was assisted by a rude waitress. I cannot deal with the customers who treat like shit the waiters of the waitress. I think that kind of rude an arrogant customers are scum on Earth, but since a time ago, you can see more and more summer season waitress who treat MALE customers like shit.
    I would never ever react like I did today because I was taught that “never ever be rude or aggressive to a woman under any circumstances”, but since I took the red pill and I learned (shocking lesson) that women want to be treated like shit, I am starting to have ZERO tolerance to certain female behaviour.
    So, I got angry and I called “rude” the waitress. And I left the cafe. She remained in silence.
    But… after a while, I could not deal with my behaviour and start regretting. “How could you treat a poor young waitress that way? You are monster”. So, I went back from my steps, got to the cafe, and apologize repeatedly to the waitress. She accepted it. And I left.
    Honestly: I prefer 1000 times to be a “nice guy” and treat always women like princesses. I cannot deal about treating women like dirt. I cannot. I f they just respect rude treatment and that is what they really want, good for them, but, they do not count with me for that. Not at all. Sorry. If being nice to women means that women do not respect you and they see you as “pathetic”, well, OK, I’d rather to be pathetic than a “real man” (rude, batterer, pimp, etc)


  18. LostSailor July 17, 2013 at 17:33 #

    There’s a difference between defending yourself and more chronic domestic violence. If someone has a history of police being called to defuse a domestic dispute, then, yeah, a self-defense claim probably goes out the window or, at least, won’t be given much weight by a court. But without that history, a much stronger case can be made for self-defense.

    I’m not in the habit of hitting women and haven’t had much cause to. In the few relationships where she was physical beyond a playful punch on the arm while calling me an “asshole” and grinning the entire time, I’ve made it quite clear that any actual violence on her part would be met with enough violence in return to defend myself, after which she would be promptly kicked to the curb. I’ve found if you’re clear that certain behavior won’t be tolerated, you see less of that behavior.

    As for the question about a larger man defending himself against a smaller man, as a plain legal issue (and I’m not a lawyer, so for what it’s worth) both would be guilty of assault and battery, but in practice, the larger man would likely be singled out by police and DAs for the charge and the other guy would likely skate.


  19. Christian_J. July 18, 2013 at 04:24 #

    Excellent article JB.


  20. Cicero July 18, 2013 at 21:58 #

    My guess would be that a portion of female murderers are lost7covered up in the statistics but I am a bit vary of the reasoning here:

    IN MULTIPLE-OFFENDER KILLINGS THERE ARE FOUR TIMES AS MANY HUSBAND VICTIMS THAN WIVES, according to the FBI. That is, the 41 percent figure does not include either of those female methods of killing.

    Given that far more men are murdered outside of relationships anyway it is no surprise that there are more husbands than wives who are victims of multiple offender killings, gang murders etc.

    It is interesting to look into these things but we need more than this.


  21. Itchy July 18, 2013 at 22:01 #

    I have read that a study found that in US states that have the most liberal gun laws, so women have the best possible access, women kill husbands at the same rate men kill wives. I have been looking for the study but not found it yet.


  22. Ter September 25, 2013 at 23:32 #

    Woman convinces husband to kill neighbor for telepathically raping her.
    (At first I thought this was a photo of two men..)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: