What if the language we use could change the way we understand and address gender-based violence? Join us for a compelling conversation with Kelsey McKay, a former prosecutor and expert in gender-based violence, recorded onsite at the 2024 Conference on Crimes Against Women in Dallas, Texas. We explore the profound impact of terms like "victim" and "survivor," the importance of personal choice in identification, and the dehumanizing effects of legal jargon. Discover how evolving terminology within law enforcement and the criminal legal system can better recognize non-physical forms of abuse, such as coercive control, and why it's crucial to enhance empathy and support for victims.
Dive into the heart-wrenching complexities of victim credibility in legal contexts involving sexual violence and substance use. Expert insights from Russell Strand illuminate how substance use should never undermine a victim's credibility and highlight the necessity of understanding trauma responses. We critique systemic biases that scrutinize victims more harshly than defendants and emphasize the need to shift perspectives to support victims more effectively. Learn about the significant implications of non-fatal strangulation in abuse cases, as informed by research, and why accurate documentation and better training for law enforcement are paramount.
Finally, we tackle the transformative power of language in the criminal legal system with a focus on initiatives like "Uncooperative," which aims to shift systemic responses through survivor stories. Reflect on the societal burdens placed on victims and the importance of believing them as the first step toward ending domestic violence. This episode is a must-listen for anyone committed to improving the support systems and legal frameworks that protect and empower those affected by gender-based violence.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
We're recording at the 2024 Conference on Crimes
Against Women in Dallas, texas.
My guest is presenter KelseyMcKay on the topic of how we
talk about gender-based violence.
I'm Maria McMullin and this isGenesis, the podcast.
(00:36):
Kelsey McKay is a formerprosecutor and a highly
recognized expert on criminalasphyxiation, domestic violence,
sexual abuse and other forms ofpower-based crimes.
As a prosecutor, she spent 12years handling complex cases and
designing creative solutions.
She has trained practitionersacross all systems and
(00:58):
represented individuals as theynavigate the criminal system.
She is the founder of RespondAgainst Violence, a
multidisciplinary think tankseeking to generate sustainable
change in our society'scollective response to violence
and trauma.
Kelsey, welcome to the podcast.
Thanks, maria.
It's good to see you again andit's good to see you in person
at the 2024 Conference on CrimesAgainst Women.
(01:21):
Absolutely.
I don't know that we've eversat down together in person.
No, we're always on Zooms.
Of course, I'm in Dallas andyou're in a different part of
Texas.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Austin, you're in.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Austin, a great part of Texas, as it were.
So we have talked, though, andtalked and talked, especially
over the past year, about thelanguage we use to identify both
gender-based crimes and thepeople who experience them, and
we keep returning to a fewspecific points, one of them
being the appropriate wordchoice for certain elements and
(01:52):
how names or labels affect thebearer and possibly even the
listener.
But before we get into thespecifics of that, I want to set
the stage for naming andlabeling, because language is
sophisticated and we, as humans,like to label and categorize.
The examples of this areendless, but a great one is
(02:12):
found in an article published inthe New Yorker May 6, 2024,
titled why we're TurningPsychiatric Labels Into
Identities, by Manveer Singh,where the author is discussing
the complexities andcomplications of the DSM-5, that
is, the Diagnostic andStatistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, and the 5, meaningits fifth iteration or revision.
(02:36):
And so just a couple of thingsreal quick.
To be fair, we're not talkingabout psychiatric labels in this
episode, but the article doeshelp to illuminate the concerns
we are going to address intoday's conversation.
And second, this article islikely behind a paywall for many
of you, so you probably need asubscription to access it, but
maybe somebody can gift it toyou for free.
(02:58):
It's a great overview of thesituation about labels.
That I think really does lenditself to lots of different
conversations beyond thepsychiatric labels and
identities.
But here's what I learned.
The author mentions philosopherIan Hacking's thoughts on
labeling and how that affectshuman perception, and this is a
(03:21):
quote.
Human classifications of humans, that is, human classifications
, change how individualsexperience themselves and may
even lead people to evolve theirfeelings and behavior, in part
because they are so classified.
He goes on to talk about thisprocess and its impact and
(03:44):
states and here's another quotenaming creates the thing named.
And that very last bit rightthere naming creates the thing
named is the heart of what youand I have been getting at all
these months and conversationslater and the fallout that
ensues from the naming.
(04:05):
Some examples from our pastconversations In our episode
from September 2023, where wediscussed allocutions, the term
criminal justice system came upand we teetered back and forth
about the accuracy of that term,versus maybe calling it the
criminal legal system or maybethe legal system.
(04:26):
We also debated the terms.
The legal system, specificallyin Texas, assigns to parties in
a trial like replacing victimwith accuser and defendant with
accused, and I think maybe yousaid in that instance, you
preferred reporting parties.
So today, then, our objectiveis to identify some of these
more maybe problematic terms andhow the naming creates and
(04:51):
possibly destroys, and alsooffer some solutions or
alternatives for listeners toconsider.
So let's start with the onethat I find the most challenging
.
Let's start with the one that Ifind the most challenging a
victim or survivor.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
My opinion on that is it's up to the person.
I think it's wonderful if youfeel as though the label that
speaks you of survivor empowersyou, that you survived it.
I feel like the term survivordoesn't get attached to what I
think is quite empowering, whichis they literally survived
something, and that's what wedid our conference on this year
(05:30):
surviving strangulation.
Because the truth is, if she'snot dead, she survived.
That's true with sexual assaultas well, particularly when you
make decisions to survive bycompliance.
And so you know, I tend to leavethat up to the individual
victim, slash survivor or theperson.
You know not everybody wants tobe labeled that.
(05:52):
I feel like a lot ofresponsibility and weight and
pressure comes with beinglabeled, that introducing
yourself like that, having it onyour business card, being out
in public about it, and noteveryone wants that to lead
first.
And so, so long as the term isempowering or, in the case of
victim, perhaps validating for aperiod of time, you know, I
(06:15):
think it can change and thereare some people who don't want
it at all.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
But then when you go into the courtroom with a person
that you're representing andthe courtroom may have a
different set of terms that needto be used, right yeah?
Speaker 3 (06:28):
Well, and you know there's debate, defense
attorneys push back when thevictim is referred to as the
victim.
They think it makes it tooempathetic, right the assumption
that they are a victim.
You know, I guess they couldsay alleged victim, but the
truth is it is the reportingparty which, I think, takes away
not only the judgment but whatis ingrained in the conversation
(06:49):
hundreds of times a day forprosecutors and judges, police
officers, and that isdehumanizing this person to a
name and a category that has noidentity, right, it takes that
individuality out of it and itdehumanizes it.
We already have a lot ofdehumanization, either using
names or asking what would youlike me to call you?
(07:10):
What I do with my clients is Iask what do you want me to call
him?
And right, there's a range andI have my friend, tracy, who I
think you've had on the podcast.
They chose to call him by onename.
I've had people want to nametheir offenders swear words,
some are random, but in the endI always ask them because what I
(07:33):
find is I don't want to triggerthem unintentionally each time
by saying his name If it makesthem feel empowered to call them
a swear word and that's all werefer to him as I'm here for it,
right.
I had a call with one of myclients last's.
All we refer to them as I'mhere for it, right?
I had a call with one of myclients last week and it was
interesting because now that I'mhandling these cases where a
survivor in this case,specifically surviving a
(07:55):
homicide uses violence back anddefends themselves, that often
happens in this microcosm ofwhat they feel is love and their
interpretation right.
The reason they're still thereis because they have been
manipulated by this person tobelieve that this is love and
even after being abused, havinga violent act committed against
(08:17):
them and that violent act beingso severe that they were
justified in killing them, theystill didn't want to kill them,
and so I was having thisconversation.
I thought it was fascinatingbecause my first meeting with
her and she is charged withmanslaughter was how would you
like me to refer to him?
And she just said his name Justdon't want you to call him.
That.
For her to have to accept thathe's a killer or would have
(08:40):
killed her is heartbreaking, andit was interesting because I
hadn't heard that spin and itgave me empathy for that, and so
you know, my focus is more onwhat are the things I would do
to trigger you, and I think thatwe have to be mindful of what
people want to be called orlabeled.
Like I can see I have a lot ofsurvivors or victims I've worked
with who they don't want tohave been a victim.
(09:02):
I've had women when I was aprosecutor who, until they're
meeting with me the week beforetrial, will tell me more about
what happened.
You know whether it's the saferenvironment and they feel like
they're able to tell that to me.
And every time they have sharedwith me things like he actually
raped me as well, and I ask,they always say they didn't want
(09:22):
him to have that power.
So like acknowledging that,saying out loud, like words,
words matter, even if it's justkind of it happened, but to say
it out loud is a different thing.
So all these labels, all theseterms, all these words,
ultimately what we're doing isright.
We're having conversations andwhen things are natural in our
muscle, memory uses certainterms, like we do in the
(09:45):
criminal system, withoutunderstanding how other people
hear it.
It influences them, eitherimpacting and making it painful
for the term that you're usingand that person seeing it or
hearing it, but also for society.
Right, it becomes like how werefer to things.
It's like strangulation.
People call it choking.
It's not choking.
Oh yeah, I totally want to askyou about that one too.
So it's like how we refer tothings.
It's like strangulation.
People call it choking.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
It's not choking.
Oh yeah, I totally want to askyou about that one too.
Yeah, so it's like yeah, so Ithink you're right and I think
that giving the choice to theperson who had something happen
to them because Erica Olson istelling me don't use the word
experience because it's notwhether it is actually, you know
, she didn't experience rape,she was raped by him.
(10:26):
So anyway, yeah, she wasn'texperiencing homelessness.
She wasn't experiencinghomelessness, she didn't have a
house.
Yes, let's talk about domesticviolence versus intimate partner
, violence versus battered womenor other options, because I've
heard people use all of theseterms.
(10:47):
I've even heard people saydon't say domestic violence, say
domestic abuse or abusivepartner, and do those mean
different things to differentpeople than in the court system?
Or is there like a preferredterm?
What's going on here?
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Well, you know it's interesting because when I start
in the system and it's a topicI don't know.
So when I started as aprosecutor I knew nothing about
domestic violence and I'd sayit's pretty routinely referred
to as domestic violence withinlaw enforcement and prosecutors.
Over the course of time it'sbeen kind of re-termed intimate
partner violence.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
I don't see that lots of people in the system, maybe
beyond advocates, use that termas much.
Is that for people who maybeare dating, or can it still be a
married couple that experiencesintimate partner violence?
Speaker 3 (11:37):
Well, you know, like that's, the question is, is it
exclusive of something we alsolike?
In Texas, we call it familyviolence because that's the name
of the statute that attaches,and so it's not uncommon that
law enforcement and prosecutorsuse terminology because it's how
it's named in the penal codeand, unfortunately, what that
doesn't translate to is anynuances around it.
(11:58):
And the truth is I don't likethe word domestic violence
either, except for the crimes Iwas prosecuting was all violent
crime.
But there are a lot of criminalacts beyond violence that are
abusive within a relationshipand an ex-relationship.
So the way family violence isdefined in Texas is it's pretty
broad.
It's dating and relationship,formally live together, live
(12:20):
together, husband wife, havekids together, so then it covers
like the post-separation stuff.
But you know, it wasn't until Istarted to recognize the power
and the worth of the non-violent, non-physical abuse that
occurred and where I thinkeveryone gets confused is well,
(12:43):
they, every officer.
When I have a case where I'mtrying to say, no, it wasn't a
suicide, I think everyone getsconfused.
Is, well, every officer.
When I have a case where I'mtrying to say, no, it wasn't a
suicide, I think it might bethat, or I'm saying something
their only follow up to anythingis always like well, had there
been physical violence, moreover, that had been reported?
And so I think everyone looksto violence as that thing.
He's a violent man.
Well, no, he's not a violentman to everyone, he's an abusive
(13:03):
man.
He uses violence as one ofthose tools, and so I think what
it's done has really overlynarrowed our focus on spending a
lot of time trying to solve acomplex issue by naming it
something different, and thetruth is naming it, passing a
(13:33):
law about it.
Those things don't do a lot,except for it's an opportunity
to talk about it, because nowit's a legitimate thing.
It doesn't allow us to dobetter at it, to understand it
better.
A great example is stalking,right?
What is the operationaldefinition?
Well, I mean, you hear peoplein society use that phrase
(13:57):
stalking.
Do they know what it means?
I don't know, but we have astatute on stalking and we have
a law called stalking, butstalking is the statute that, I
think, combines all of theseissues, and that is the two
challenging things officers andlaw enforcement, and really I
think society has isunderstanding what is abuse and
what does fear look like and howdoes it influence?
Right, and because every littleelement of stalking doesn't have
(14:18):
to be something serious andit's usually ingrained in like a
secret message, right and so,individually, when the police go
out and she is mentioning, oh,he did this and that, like they
don't know what the legalelements are, and law
enforcement is looking atthrough the lens of what's the
crime.
Well, individually, the crimeis nothing.
The role of fear and multipleacts becomes a crime.
(14:41):
But so when she calls thepolice the first two, three
times, which they will, that'snot a crime.
But so when she calls thepolice the first two, three
times, which they will, that'snot a crime.
And then what happens is shestarts to get documented of
calling the police and then it'slike, oh, this woman is making
things up, or this woman is justtrying to do something to this
guy, and so that is wherewell-intended laws kind of fall
(15:02):
apart.
And so there's a lot ofmovement with passing laws on
coercive control Great.
What I want to know is can yourofficers describe what coercive
control is?
Listen, I think coercivecontrol should be against the
law.
That is what most of the abuseis beyond the violence.
But again, solutions are notmade by giving something a term,
it's the understanding of thatconcept.
(15:23):
That, I think, drives change.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
I think to your point .
We're getting hung up on theword violence in some cases when
we talk about domestic violenceor intimate partner violence.
We get hung up on the wordviolence because we believe it's
physical.
All the time.
Abuse, abuse can broaden it forus using the word abuse or
(15:50):
intimate partner abuse,whichever one you're more
comfortable with, because thatmay then imply some of the
unseen, no visible bruises.
We talk about this book all thetime, the things that don't
leave bruises, like coercivecontrol and other things.
And so now, coercive control inparticular, which is a term
that was really popularized bythe late Evan Stark, that is now
(16:13):
being seriously looked at bylawmakers, and there are a few
states that are implementinglaws and specifically calling
out coercive control as a partof family violence.
Right, yeah, and I'm here forthat.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
Yeah, but my point is , if you label something, it
doesn't change anything.
To change practice, people haveto understand it.
True, and the reason we needcoercive control laws is because
law enforcement and prosecutorsdon't recognize it or identify
it within the context of thecases they might interact with.
Whether it's stalking, domesticviolence, criminal mischief,
(16:50):
whatever it is.
They're responding right and soit's not as though that woman
is standing there with a signthat says I'm being stalked and
lists the element and writes thePC affidavit for them.
So when someone goes to a sceneor responds to a call or speaks
with a victim, they need toknow how to identify it
themselves.
Because it's interesting,because the terms we label
(17:11):
things and give in like acriminal justice system, the DSM
, these become like official,and so then that language
carries on in layperson'sconversations, and an
interesting one is like we seepeople really wanting to
diagnose abusers, because thatmeans we can fix them.
It means there's not justsomething wrong with them, as,
(17:32):
like a human, it's that you knowthey are struggling with
something and therefore it canbe fixed.
And people don't like to giveup on each other, or no one
wants to give up on anyone.
But the truth is, is the DSMlike all of this stuff about
narcissism, all like they?
Like all I've read all thememes like they apply.
I get it.
But read all the memes likethey apply, I get it.
(17:56):
But things like alcoholism,things like all of the different
conditions I've seen abusersattach to themselves so that
they can fake to a judge or makethe survivor think that they
can be fixed, that getsweaponized against them and to
be able to know what really is adiagnosis and what is a
condition of humanity, which isthe hate for women, the need to
control women, the entitlementto do that, that can't be like
(18:18):
therapeutic away, Like itdoesn't happen.
But judges, over and over, wantto say, oh well, he drinks, so
like, let's do that and Ilearned so much from Scott
Hampton about.
Well, no, they do that so theycan abuse more and have a way to
avoid accountability.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
Sure, I mean, the labels in the DSM-5 are created
through a specific method andfor a specific purpose, and so
we're not picking labels fromthe DSM to try to diagnose
abusers or anything.
But the fact remains thatpeople will lean on those types
(18:54):
of diagnoses, and that isn'teven the reason why I wanted to
include that information in thisconversation.
The real reason is that we'renaming things and sometimes we
need to know what we're naming.
So even Dr Romney will say wecan't just call everyone a
narcissist.
Right, there's a lot ofnarcissism out there and people
(19:17):
may exhibit the symptoms.
But we can't just lay thatdiagnosis or condition on
someone if we don't have thecredentials to do so.
And it's probably not a goodthing for all of us to be
walking around saying, oh well,you know he was a narcissist and
I got out of the relationship,if we don't actually know that
that's true.
Speaker 3 (19:37):
Well, it's like calling a victim crazy.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
It's like calling a victim crazy.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
I haven't seen that in the DSM and I would like to
know more each time they tell methat.
And if what they mean by crazyis did something you didn't like
or you didn't understand, well,that's what we call
counterintuitive behavior thatis created by what abusers do
that then force that reaction.
Or she was hysterical, oh yeah,yeah, hysteria, we really are.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Let's talk about the position of the one who's doing
the labeling.
So within this context, itcould be the court system, the
media, the person whoexperienced the crime or many
others and that is going toinfluence the label.
So, in other words, if namingcreates the thing named, then
(20:28):
the intention or even the lifeexperiences of the creator must
be influencing that label.
One who practices law mighthave a very different
perspective of a crime victimthan a sociologist might.
Or gender bias, for example,will influence the name we give
to someone's experience.
So those things and culturalinfluences can impact word
choices.
(20:48):
How have you seen all of thisplay out in different parts of
an investigation or in thecourtroom?
Speaker 3 (20:54):
You know, I think, like we know, gender bias is
ingrained within policing andI've never found it compelling
to a policeman for me to sayyou're gender biased, right, it
is the appropriate term, butwhat we do is we see it play out
in actions and terminology andlabels is definitely one of
those ways that I think, againgoing back to dehumanizes it as
(21:17):
well as victim blame.
So most of the terms that I seewithin law enforcement and
prosecutors are quite punishingto women, and it's usually
attached to women, and moreforgiving to men, as though he
is the victim of a crazy woman,and so the types of terms that I
hear are that she wasuncooperative right, and what's
interesting about these terms isone it's negative connotation
(21:39):
and it's also a blaming right.
So it's not just there'ssomething wrong with you because
you aren't like.
No one thinks of uncooperativeas anything good.
I don't want my kids to beuncooperative Right.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
Like.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
I don't want to.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
It's a super negative word, yeah, super negative word
, with no room, like and in oneword, and just to be clear, this
is a term that law enforcementmight use to describe someone's
behavior at the scene or evenduring the investigation right
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
And what's interesting is because it's
become so normalized that wejust say, oh, the victim's
uncooperative, it's another wayjust to do this, and that is I
don't really want to deal withthis crime, I don't really care,
I don't really know she's beingdifficult.
Because they don't understandthe context and therefore don't
understand the differentinfluences driving the survivor
to do certain things.
(22:27):
They don't understand trauma,so they don't understand why
they can't just tell them alogical, chronological story and
they don't understand that assoon as he gets out of jail he
might kill her, and she knowsthat, and so that might change
that choice.
They get very frustrated and sowhat happens is we victim blame
and we use those terms If shedoesn't do everything they want
(22:47):
at the time.
They want the way they want,without being too difficult.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
So, in other words, it's kind of like they're
describing this behavior andmaybe also how it's affecting
their investigation.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
And as an opportunity to not do their job but blame
the victim.
That is the reason I see somany dismissals is, you know,
victim is uncooperative.
Victim didn't want to presscharges and it's like, well did
she?
And it's like, because itallows it to encompass so many
(23:21):
things, it's kind of likecredibility she wasn't credible.
That's the other huge term thatI did a talk earlier today with
Russell Strand calledcredibility or corroboration.
And the truth is, all thethings that are used to say
she's not credible they miss alot of logical steps.
And that is how does that notmake her credible that she uses
drugs?
How does that make her morelikely to falsely accuse
(23:41):
somebody for sexually assaultingher?
Speaker 1 (23:43):
Yeah, exactly I mean.
Substance use does notnecessarily mean you're lying.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
Well, and in fact it, in my opinion, gives evidence
that it happened.
Because that's a copingmechanism and so you take
whatever it is you don'tunderstand or you don't like or
you don't want to take the timeor have the knowledge to
navigate, and we call it acredibility issue.
And then no one questions thatyou know the witness wasn't
credible.
What are you going to do?
(24:08):
It's kind of like prosecutorsmight say well, we can't prove
it beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have an ethical duty, butit's like who's defined that?
The thing about beyond areasonable doubt is it's such a
subjective per person definition, literally prosecutors.
We can't give a definition ofit to the jury, they just have
(24:29):
to figure it out.
So what happens?
Is A definition?
Speaker 1 (24:32):
for unreasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
For reasonable doubt yeah For reasonable doubt.
Yeah, there's no definition.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
There's no definition for that.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
I mean.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
I have an idea for a definition.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
We're not allowed.
Now, the way you can say it islike it's doubt, and those
doubts are a reasonable doubt.
They're not like monkeys flyout of the sky.
Speaker 1 (24:47):
But wouldn't a reasonable doubt be based on
absence or presence of facts?
Who knows?
I mean, it can't just be my gut, right?
No, no, it is, it is, it is mygut.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
Yeah, and so it allows for.
So like we have legal defenses,right, necessity, duress,
self-defense, justification butthat is really should be the
focus.
Can we prove this case?
Is there a defense?
If not, we believe the victimwe should go forward.
But instead what they do isthey look for reasons that they
think the jury won't like thevictim and then they use it as a
(25:21):
credibility issue and thendismiss the case and don't do
anything about it.
But the truth is, none of uslook credible if we do the
things.
We had the things happen to usthat happened to that victim,
and they would also not lookcredible if they gave over the
kinds of things victims do.
You go through my phone, you gothrough your phone, you will
find something.
The last five days, I am sure.
Right, and go delete my phoneafter this, great, but I've
(25:44):
never had someone in a sessionwant to give me their phone and
let me look through it.
And yet we ask victims toexpose and not just allow your
body to be a crime scene, butlike every piece of their
privacy, mental health records.
We don't see protection on that.
So like it almost reinforcesthe she's crazy, which also just
goes in that credibilitycategory with it, instead of
(26:09):
doing it differently andchanging practice or
understanding trauma, or havinghumanity and empathy to
understand why the victim isdoing that thing that you
think's a bad thing, withoutunderstanding it.
It allows them to blame theloss on a victim, not have to
change anything about practice,and it really can end up easing
their load.
Now for prosecutors that framereasonable doubt.
(26:31):
So you have defenses, but right, the other category they have
to be worried about isreasonable doubt, and so that's
where all of these things canfall.
But most of the crimes andviolence and sexual violence
against women is going to be.
Credibility will be at issue.
Right and credibility of thevictim, yeah, credibility, yeah.
And unfortunately, when we lookthrough, the normal model of
(26:54):
this is a guilty person who didsomething bad and we're trying
to break them and get aconfession.
We interrogate them.
We have ways that lawenforcement will identify
deception, like what are thosecues?
What are the things asprosecutors we use in
cross-examination to expose alie or break them and get a
confession?
Those are the same tactics theyapply to victims.
(27:16):
Now, when you've experiencedtrauma, you aren't going to
remember things.
Chronologically, you're notgoing to remember some things.
But when you have an officerwho you think is helping you ask
you a question and you've saidthree times like I don't
remember, I don't know.
Then he'll start to suggestsome things to you.
This is what I see in the caseswhere women get charged with
(27:36):
homicide as well, and it's likeyou're doing maybe yeah, and
then you're pinned down for thatamount, Like oh yep, so it was
that hand, and ultimately therewill be something that is
inconsistent with that, butwithout knowing to protect
yourself.
Victims do their best to answerthe questions and we almost set
our own credibility cases up forfailure because we're not
investigating ways tocorroborate the story.
(27:59):
We are looking for ways todiscredit her story.
Now the same doesn't happen somuch for the defendants.
They feel comfortable enoughwalking in and saying it was
consensual, and I was justtalking about earlier today.
You know, if he said she said Ikind of think it's he said, he
said and the other, he is thesystem, and so you have no
chance, it's very difficult fora victim and you know every
(28:22):
prosecutor says, when they'repicking a jury, like this
courthouse is made for allpeople.
Well, it's really not, frankly,on both ends.
So credibility is one of thosethings that if you know how to
look at it differently, you canturn that credibility issue,
that challenge, into evidence ofa conviction.
And that's what Russell and Iwere talking about today.
But you just have to look at it.
(28:42):
You have to look at it adifferent way empathize,
humanize, and that's where yourevidence is.
My friend Allison, who's atrafficking survivor, once said
about drugs.
She said thank God for drugs.
I wouldn't have gotten throughthat without drugs and that made
me understand, just with thatsentence.
I hope that makes other peopleunderstand.
If you're in the kind ofhorrible situation like that, I
(29:05):
hope I could numb myself right,right, or die or die and they
try that too.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
Yeah, I totally get that.
Now, I think a really strongexample for what you're talking
about is when we talk about thewords, and actually not only a
strong example, but a successfulexample when we talk about the
words choking and strangulation,because you developed a tool
(29:31):
related to strangulation, thatis, the strangulation supplement
, and so let's talk about how wego from what choking is and how
that's not the right label toput on when someone puts their
hands around your neck and stopsyour breathing.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
Yeah, so right, medically it's incorrect
terminology because choking isan internal obstruction,
strangulation is externalpressure on the neck causing
that impediment.
And the funny thing aboutasking what the name of it, the
strangulation supplement, is, itactually really should be
called and I try to do it and myfriend Andrea, who does the
aquatic stuff asphyxiationassessment, because
(30:07):
strangulation is one narrow typeof act that can occur that can
result in asphyxiation.
And what is asphyxiation?
So asphyxiation is the processof depriving the body of oxygen
and therefore the brain, andthere's a lot of things that can
cause asphyxiation.
For whatever reason,strangulation got identified and
I think the reason, the basisfor those laws, was the research
(30:29):
that Dr Jackie Campbell did, drGlass, where they identified
that in the context of domesticviolence, a non-fatal
strangulation of a woman who'sbeing abused made it seven times
more likely that she would getmurdered.
So we've known for a long timethat there's something real bad
and dangerous about it andpredictive of homicide within
the domestic violence universe.
(30:49):
And then over time it wasidentified that it wasn't well
identified by law enforcement,it wasn't treated or documented
well by law enforcement, thelegal system or the medical
community, and so the answerreally to that problem became
pass legislation.
Well, the problem is like a lotof legislation that's
well-intended, we pass reallynarrow legislation and that
(31:10):
legislation at least in Texasand a lot of states, is only in
domestic violence.
So it is something in domesticviolence and that's great, it
can manage those.
But then we miss it in childabuse, we miss it in sex crimes
and trafficking because peoplethink it's just a domestic
violence issue.
And then in turn we havenarrowly defined laws in a way
(31:30):
that we're missing other typesof asphyxiation that can be
criminal, because we don't evenknow they exist, because we
don't see it, because we don'tunderstand it, we don't ask for
it and we don't listen for it.
So what I encourage is lawenforcement one.
The reason they use choking isthat's kind of a layperson term,
like I got choked out.
You know that can come fromlike jiu-jitsu, where they do
choke you out and it's like arear naked chokehold.
(31:51):
Same thing with law enforcementuse of force.
That's like vascular neckrestraint chokehold.
So I think that because thatterminology was being used in
those areas and also it's theterminology most people use when
they have experienced it,because I think it's become,
just like you know, alayperson's term.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
And you may feel a similar sensation to what you
feel when you are choking, likeliterally something internally
stuck in your throat or you havea, you know something
aggravating your throat andobstructing your breathing.
It could be from natural causes, right, obstructing your
breathing.
That could be from naturalcauses.
Uh right, you know, likeanaphylactic, anaphylactic type
(32:31):
reactions can kind of restrictthe, the um the throat and cause
, make it hard for you tobreathe and you might start
coughing and then you mightstart panicking.
So it feels like choking.
Quote unquote.
But it's not necessarily thesame sometimes happening for the
same reason.
Speaker 3 (32:46):
Right and like if an officer comes and it's like what
happened, like if you can tieit up in a word I was joking, or
he was joking.
Right, right, right Rather thanhe placed his hands on mine.
Like that, they feel thefeeling, and so I think that's
an example of I really care lessabout, I don't really care what
term is used.
What I need is people toidentify it and understand it,
treat it seriously, know how todocument it and know how to
(33:08):
support the trauma associatedwith it and prevent the homicide
that will be connected to itRight Because, to your point, it
is an indicator of lethality100%.
And what we are.
You know, the more I do workwith Andrea, the more we see
that abusers and predators whohave started and begun to use
strangulation, often they'reusing it because it works for
(33:29):
whatever reason a lot ofdifferent reasons but also that
they get away with it because ofthe lack of injury.
Speaker 2 (33:34):
We don't identify it.
Speaker 3 (33:35):
Even if they report it probably won't go anywhere.
But what we're seeing is thatthese perpetrators who have
identified this is a powerfuluse of abuse, not just violence,
it's abusive, it'spsychologically terrorizing, it
causes trauma and, as youmentioned, it's a lethality
indicator.
So there are really three hugeroles that strangulation plays.
What we're seeing is thatperpetrators who use that form
(33:56):
of asphyxiation seem to be usingother forms as well and it
makes sense.
They figured out the key.
So suffocation, for instance,and in a non-fatal strangulation
I will see a lot of.
It's actually three differentkinds all in that act.
If they're sitting on them andstraddling them and they can't
get air all the way in theirlungs, that's a type of
(34:17):
asphyxiation.
If she starts to yell or saysomething and he covers her
mouth and nose to get her to bequiet, that's another form.
So they kind of have thesynergistic effect.
So you know, asphyxiation is alonger word In strangulation.
It's another example of we madea law right and then we made it
defined this way and so that'show people identify it.
So I really encourage officersand this is, I think, plays a
(34:40):
huge role in how we identify inchild abuse particular, because
children may not know the termchoke out.
So the kinds of thing a childmight say is he pushed me.
Well, that could be pushed onthe leg, it could be pushed by
the arm, or it could be pushedby the neck up against a wall.
And so teaching officers,people who are in charge of
identifying crimes, what theacts are that can cause it to me
(35:02):
is more important in expandingthe definition of it, you know,
not just narrowing that focus ondomestic abuse and domestic
violence.
And then you brought up another.
I think it's important tomention the media.
So the media.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
I've gone back and forth so many times because they
always use the word choking andit makes me frustrated because
I feel like it minimizes whathappened and it's also just
wrong and I think there arecertain words and Erica Olson
and I talked about this too islike the ones that are more
difficult to hear, like the wordrape is hard, for it can be
(35:37):
traumatizing.
I think she said to an audiencebut if your audience is a jury.
Yeah, I know if your audience isa jury or people who really
need to know that this person isa rapist.
But to say, on the news, I'mtrying to imagine this like
being in my living room hearingyou know, Mrs Smith was
strangled.
It just seems like such aforeign word in a way, to hear
(36:01):
that someone you know you don'tnormally hear.
The word she was strangled orwords she was strangled, Choked
to death, I think is more of oursociety's expression, Right,
and the media has.
But then again to Erica Olson'spoint, that removes the actor
in the situation.
So Mrs Smith was choked todeath.
(36:21):
By whom?
Probably Mr Smith the choker.
Speaker 3 (36:24):
Right, the person who choked her.
She's really the chokie.
Poor Mrs Smith, I shouldn smiththe choker, right the choker
she's really the chokie.
Uh, poor mrs smith, I shouldn'tbe laughing.
Yes, um, miss smith, if you'relistening, please call the
domestic violence hotline.
Yeah, but media, the thing isthat like here is the crux of
why I think that happens and itis.
There's an association withstrangulation, that it's fatal
and yes, yes you.
Speaker 1 (36:45):
That's, that's exactly right.
That could be the only outcome,for, yeah, I mean, as far as we
know, yeah, there's a solutionto that.
Speaker 3 (36:51):
Yeah, non-fatal strangulation, right, right, I
mean, it's that easy, right, andthis is something that's kind
of universal in media.
It's something where I wouldlove journalists to know more
and understand more, becausethey all default, like to their
editors, that default to likecertain apia, like guidelines,
and so I haven't had the time togo talk to the person in charge
of the guidelines in journalismyet, but if you're out there,
(37:13):
we'd love to talk, but that'skind of the thing.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
It's another example of these terms that get used
widespread law enforcement,media and really the impact it
has on society and everybodythat is one of the points here
right Is that the effect ofthese word choices have an
impact on everyone, and so bysoft selling it or toning it
(37:37):
down, or judging it.
Yeah, so that the audience hasa better response, or is more
amenable to the fact thatsomething happened to a victim
that's not necessarily tellingthe whole truth.
Speaker 3 (37:50):
For sure, and it discourages victims from coming
forward because if me comingforward which is already going
to be difficult and I don'treally want to do, but mainly a
woman is doing it in abuse soshe doesn't die, and women who
are sexually assaulted often doit to protect other women.
It's a pain, like it's a lot,to go through the process of
reporting a sexual assault, andso the last thing they want to
(38:14):
feel like is they did the wrongthing.
They think they're helpingsociety by reporting, so then
when they are labeled accuser orcomplainant, you know, to me
that is some of the language.
If I could change two things,one would be uncooperative,
right, which we're working onthe website, and the program and
empowering and kind of changingwhat that word means, or at
least making people think twiceafter they hear it and start a
(38:37):
conversation about what thatmeans.
Because it's really, as we'vediscussed, the uncooperative
system.
But by using the language it'slike, oh, you're complaining
about your sexual assault.
Like, stop complaining which Idon't know about you.
Speaker 1 (38:53):
But like I don't like to complain I don't want people
to see me as a complainer well,if it's a, it's only a
complaint.
If, like, maybe it's how yousee it or I mean, we're not
talking about your feelingsabout something.
Yeah, if you, if you've beenraped, then that's it's not a
complaint.
That complaint, that's an actof violence.
Speaker 3 (39:09):
I'm a complainant on a lot of things.
I'm a complainant on I wish mykids did chores better.
I'm a complainant on whysomeone didn't write this the
right way.
I can complain but that is thatterm and so to associate it
with someone who is strong andwilling to stand up and say I
have identified an offender, tokeep our community safe, Well,
(39:30):
exactly.
Speaker 1 (39:31):
I mean, I'm just sitting here thinking about the
phrase file a complaint, so I'mnot filing a complaint.
I'm accusing you of a crime.
For God's sake, I'm notaccusing you.
Speaker 3 (39:43):
You did it, I'm telling you, I've chosen to tell
it to you, I've chosen to telleveryone.
Yeah, I've chosen to telleveryone, yeah.
But you know, it's just, it'sthe very.
From the very beginning theresponsibility is on the victim
right To identify, be willing toreport, willing to cooperate,
risk her life, risk her body andthen be judged by the
communities, who then then relyon the outcome of a criminal
case which is really good tothen speak the truth of the case
(40:06):
.
And it's funny because, you seeright, we have a constitutional
right for defendants and thatis to be presumed innocent.
That doesn't mean society hasto presume innocent.
That is within the criminallegal system.
But what happens is somehowthat right gets transferred to
all of us and it's just not thecase.
It's like we can't let her beraped and give her her support
(40:29):
until we are allowed to callthem that, and we can't do that
until there's a conviction.
So it's almost like asurvivor's reliance on that
criminal outcome combined withsociety's reliance, and the
negative consequence of anoutcome sets it up from failure
from the beginning.
Her identity is so attached tothat criminal case as opposed to
(40:49):
moving past it and finding someother kind of pathway to get
justice because, as we'vediscussed, that's not the
justice intended in the criminalsystem and that's really what's
been the touch point fordeveloping the programs and the
initiatives within Respond liketaking that power back and also
spreading awareness that thissystem, that is not what.
(41:11):
We should just say, oh there'sa problem, call 911.
I'm not saying we shouldn'tcall 911 or engage in the system
, but like there have to beother solutions out there
whether a survivor chooses toreport or not, because when they
do it's going to be a wholenother process and that needs
support and if they don't, theystill have to have access to
resources and process thattrauma.
But right now we focus all ofour resources within systems as
(41:34):
opposed to finding ways to helppeople who don't want to
identify themselves right butare still experiencing the
trauma hearing the judgment.
And it's interesting, thecomplainant thing.
I did a post on our Instagramonce that was like language
matters and I put interesting,the complainant thing.
I did a post on our Instagramonce that was like language
matters and I put like this ishow we define victims, right,
complainers, accusers and thenhow we label the defendant is,
(41:55):
you know, the accused, thealleged, and just that title,
from the very beginning, gives alens of judgment, like you know
, all the women, we make thosethings up which, right, is
statistically inaccurate.
And then that's where I came upwith the replacement and it
really is that easy is bringingsociety, giving them the
awareness of what they do everyday, that they've never
(42:17):
questioned because we all do it,and then giving them a
replacement and in the end thatallows conversations.
And I can't actually I don'tknow if everyone on earth
listens to the podcast yet, but,right, we need everyone to
understand this and change theirlanguage because survivors hear
it.
I had a client that we did ahearing and it was like within a
Title IX system, and she'd seenmy post and I didn't even know
(42:40):
that, and she, the entirehearing, they and that's what in
Title IX, it's complain it andrespond it.
Like I'm just responding tothat complaint and for the
audience, I just flipped my head.
It was really good, it wasappreciate that, but the entire
hearing, that's how they willthe complaint in this.
And afterwards, you know Ibrought it up, I was mentioning
(43:01):
not what happened in the hearing, but she said you know, I read
that post and I was so happybecause every time they said
that in this hearing, I wouldhave heard it very differently
if I had not known that languageand why they do it.
I would have like theyinternalize it, and so that's
just one more contribution tothem and a reason why they don't
want to engage.
Speaker 1 (43:22):
Definitely I have to let you go because we're just
about out of time, but youmentioned a couple of words to
me in the show and thenpreviously when we spoke
uncooperative is one anduninterruptible.
Tell me why those words are sospecial to you.
Speaker 3 (43:38):
Sure Well.
So uncooperative is kind of thebranch of respond, where we
turn things on their head.
We use the experiences and fuelchange through the stories of
survivors, through theexperience of practitioners, and
build new solutions.
So let them drive themselves.
And so uncooperative was reallyin response to the term I hate
most.
(43:58):
I've been asked that multipletimes and in particular I was
working and helping a woman on acase where she had been the
prior victim of a sexual serialkiller but they had not accepted
her case for prosecution, orthe investigator.
Let me say it didn't even getthat far.
The investigator didn't moveforward with it and she had
marks on her neck he hadstrangled, he had raped her and
(44:21):
the detective didn't evenidentify the scratches on her
neck, which are survivalinjuries.
He said they were from thejacket.
Now, over the course of thenext 10 years, multiple women
get strangled and raped and twoare murdered.
And in having my conversationwith Melissa I asked her.
I said what is the thing thathas I use another term but like
made you mad over the last 10years the most?
(44:43):
And she said that it was everytime I read an article about
these homicides and there was alot of media coverage.
It always said there was aprevious victim in Plano who
wasn't cooperative.
Speaker 1 (44:57):
And she was cooperative.
She was I know, I know whatcase you're talking about 100%,
they said she was uncooperativeYep and I said that's the thing,
I hate that phrase.
Speaker 3 (45:08):
I don't even think they knew what they were saying.
So we have to educate thesystem.
Who is really criminals?
Like that's the only people whouse this term.
And so that's when I thought,well, I wonder if that website's
available and started to buildthat.
And that's just where I've kindof pushed back.
Speaker 1 (45:24):
So wait, what's the website?
Speaker 3 (45:32):
Dungcooperativeorg Okay, and
respondingagainstviolenceorgwill get it to you, and so what
we're starting to build isinitiatives under that.
And so I see these categoriesof ways that victims get treated
in the system and they'reeither unseen or there's not a
nonprofit about it and it kindof has.
Well it has.
It is an empowering moment.
It is doing things that usuallyyou know we don't get a step
out of line and survivors,certainly when they're going
(45:52):
through a criminal case, cannotstep out of line.
But I don't mind stepping outof line, I like stepping out of
line if it's going to push backand make change.
So that is where I feel likewhenever I talk about it, I
don't think there's anyonethat'll bring it up to.
That's why we have stickersthat won't hear it the next time
someone says it and thinkdifferently and, in my hope, say
something about it, Becausethen ultimately, the use of that
(46:15):
word that they use so freelywill become their own training
tool.
And then the other things areabout programs as well
Uninterrupted, I think we talkedabout in a prior podcast and
that's how I found writing andhelping victims write
allocutions in court, which wasthe only enforceable right I
could find how it made them feelto be able to do that.
And I actually had a survivor.
When asked by the media how itmade her feel, she said it was
(46:37):
so nice to be able to speak howI felt to the DA's office and do
that.
And she paused and she saiduninterrupted, and I was like
that's what we call this alaculebuilding and unsilencing and
telling stories, Right.
And then the final one that wehave, some of the little fidget
toys here today is untangled andthat is as a result of another
case.
All of these were driven by myexperiences with survivors.
(46:58):
I wasn't just like, oh, thismight work, they were accidental
, Right.
But then I realized they applyeverywhere.
And so I had these littlefidget toys in my car one day
when I was helping a survivorwith a deposition and I handed
it to her kind of just out ofinstinct to give her something
tactile.
And throughout the course ofthat deposition which is
horrible she untangled it andabout four months later, when
(47:19):
she had to go to trial, she camein and she told me that the
night before she just didn'tthink she could do it again.
And then she said and I lookedup at my mantle, which is where
she had what I think is like themost gorgeous sculpture on
earth.
She said I looked up there andI said, yes, I can.
And so the moment she said that, I was like we have to make,
because now I give them outeverywhere.
Practitioners like they are atwo cent solution to trauma and
(47:40):
what we need is for victims tobe able to communicate to us.
So what is the little item?
Yeah, so these are littleacupuncture rings.
It literally came in a varietypack of fidget toys that my
daughter, like two years ago,was obsessed with, and this was
not like the puppets, this wasthis, and she didn't care about
it, so she like threw it in mycup holder.
I happened to have it in my cupholder when I drove up to
(48:02):
Madison's case, and so he handedit to her.
And I'm a creative art, I loveany kind of that type of process
, and I also know that tactiletools is something that when you
were a survivor of trauma, oryou're nervous, like you're
about to testify, or you haveanxiety which we like all do in
this field that you needsomething tactile, and that's
something I learned fromadvocates.
(48:24):
But right, it really does alsorepresent how their minds
function, and so anything tiedto that we're going to put under
Untangled and that's thejustice for her, the case not
great, but the justice to beable to pass this on.
I think we've given out over2,000 at the conference and we
hope to get follow-up from allof those agencies, and it's just
(48:46):
to me a lovely way to serve andprovide a healing tool to help
others going forward, whichreally is the ultimate way to
heal.
And then the last one is just Inotice myself processes through
art and I see a lot ofsurvivors do that as well, and
it's another way just to occupytheir time, so they have a
distraction, and so for thatwe're going to call anything
(49:06):
associated with that type of art, or any art or healing art as
unglued, Because it really doesthen make a play on women being
crazy and unglued, and I thinkit empowers that which we are
not.
We are not.
We are not or are weuncooperative, but we are now.
We will be unglued if somethingdoesn't change.
Sorry if I interrupted you.
We will, something doesn'tchange.
Sorry if I interrupted you.
Oh, we will come in blue ifsomething doesn't change.
Speaker 1 (49:28):
No, I was just being a joke About interrupted.
Sorry if I interrupted you.
Well, all of this has beenserendipitous.
Thank you, kelsey, for being onthe show.
Thanks for taking me Attention.
Spanish-speaking listenersListen to the end of this
(49:49):
podcast for information on howto reach a Spanish-speaking
representative of Genesis.
Speaker 2 (49:51):
Atención hispanohablantes escucha este
podcast hasta el final pararecibir información de cómo
comunicarse con el personal deGenesis en español.
Speaker 1 (50:01):
If you or someone you know is in an abusive
relationship, you can get helpor give help at
genesisshelterorg or by callingor texting our 24-7 crisis
hotline team at 214-946-HELP214-946-4357.
Bilingual services at Genesisinclude text, phone call,
(50:23):
clinical counseling, legalservices, advocacy and more.
Call or text us for moreinformation.
Donations to support women andchildren escaping domestic
violence are always needed.
Learn more at genesisshelterorgslash donate.
Thanks for joining us.
I'm reminding you always thatending domestic violence begins
(50:43):
when we believe her Genesis.
Speaker 2 (50:45):
el podcast anuncia servicios bilingües disponibles
en Genesis Women's Shelter,esupport.
Si usted o una conocida está enuna relación abusiva, puede
recibir ayuda o dar ayuda agenesisshelterorg, o por llamar
o mandar mensaje de texto anuestra línea de crisis de 24
horas al 214-946-4357.
(51:11):
Genesis Bilingual Servicesinclude text messages, calls,
counseling, legal services,advice and more.
Call us or send us a text formore information.
Donations are always needed tosupport women or children
escaping domestic violence.
Thank you for joining us.
(51:32):
Remember that ending domesticviolence begins when we believe
in the victim.
El terminar la violenciadoméstica empieza cuando creemos
a la víctima.
We're recording at the 2024 Conference on Crimes
Against Women in Dallas, texas.
My guest is presenter KelseyMcKay on the topic of how we
talk about gender-based violence.
I'm Maria McMullin and this isGenesis, the podcast.
(00:36):
Kelsey McKay is a formerprosecutor and a highly
recognized expert on criminalasphyxiation, domestic violence,
sexual abuse and other forms ofpower-based crimes.
As a prosecutor, she spent 12years handling complex cases and
designing creative solutions.
She has trained practitionersacross all systems and
(00:58):
represented individuals as theynavigate the criminal system.
She is the founder of RespondAgainst Violence, a
multidisciplinary think tankseeking to generate sustainable
change in our society'scollective response to violence
and trauma.
Kelsey, welcome to the podcast.
Thanks, maria.
It's good to see you again andit's good to see you in person
at the 2024 Conference on CrimesAgainst Women.
(01:21):
Absolutely.
I don't know that we've eversat down together in person.
No, we're always on Zooms.
Of course, I'm in Dallas andyou're in a different part of
Texas.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Austin, you're in.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Austin, a great part of Texas, as it were.
So we have talked, though, andtalked and talked, especially
over the past year, about thelanguage we use to identify both
gender-based crimes and thepeople who experience them, and
we keep returning to a fewspecific points, one of them
being the appropriate wordchoice for certain elements and
(01:52):
how names or labels affect thebearer and possibly even the
listener.
But before we get into thespecifics of that, I want to set
the stage for naming andlabeling, because language is
sophisticated and we, as humans,like to label and categorize.
The examples of this areendless, but a great one is
(02:12):
found in an article published inthe New Yorker May 6, 2024,
titled why we're TurningPsychiatric Labels Into
Identities, by Manveer Singh,where the author is discussing
the complexities andcomplications of the DSM-5, that
is, the Diagnostic andStatistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, and the 5, meaningits fifth iteration or revision.
(02:36):
And so just a couple of thingsreal quick.
To be fair, we're not talkingabout psychiatric labels in this
episode, but the article doeshelp to illuminate the concerns
we are going to address intoday's conversation.
And second, this article islikely behind a paywall for many
of you, so you probably need asubscription to access it, but
maybe somebody can gift it toyou for free.
(02:58):
It's a great overview of thesituation about labels.
That I think really does lenditself to lots of different
conversations beyond thepsychiatric labels and
identities.
But here's what I learned.
The author mentions philosopherIan Hacking's thoughts on
labeling and how that affectshuman perception, and this is a
(03:21):
quote.
Human classifications of humans, that is, human classifications
, change how individualsexperience themselves and may
even lead people to evolve theirfeelings and behavior, in part
because they are so classified.
He goes on to talk about thisprocess and its impact and
(03:44):
states and here's another quotenaming creates the thing named.
And that very last bit rightthere naming creates the thing
named is the heart of what youand I have been getting at all
these months and conversationslater and the fallout that
ensues from the naming.
(04:05):
Some examples from our pastconversations In our episode
from September 2023, where wediscussed allocutions, the term
criminal justice system came upand we teetered back and forth
about the accuracy of that term,versus maybe calling it the
criminal legal system or maybethe legal system.
(04:26):
We also debated the terms.
The legal system, specificallyin Texas, assigns to parties in
a trial like replacing victimwith accuser and defendant with
accused, and I think maybe yousaid in that instance, you
preferred reporting parties.
So today, then, our objectiveis to identify some of these
more maybe problematic terms andhow the naming creates and
(04:51):
possibly destroys, and alsooffer some solutions or
alternatives for listeners toconsider.
So let's start with the onethat I find the most challenging
.
Let's start with the one that Ifind the most challenging a
victim or survivor.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
My opinion on that is it's up to the person.
I think it's wonderful if youfeel as though the label that
speaks you of survivor empowersyou, that you survived it.
I feel like the term survivordoesn't get attached to what I
think is quite empowering, whichis they literally survived
something, and that's what wedid our conference on this year
(05:30):
surviving strangulation.
Because the truth is, if she'snot dead, she survived.
That's true with sexual assaultas well, particularly when you
make decisions to survive bycompliance.
And so you know, I tend to leavethat up to the individual
victim, slash survivor or theperson.
You know not everybody wants tobe labeled that.
(05:52):
I feel like a lot ofresponsibility and weight and
pressure comes with beinglabeled, that introducing
yourself like that, having it onyour business card, being out
in public about it, and noteveryone wants that to lead
first.
And so, so long as the term isempowering or, in the case of
victim, perhaps validating for aperiod of time, you know, I
(06:15):
think it can change and thereare some people who don't want
it at all.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
But then when you go into the courtroom with a person
that you're representing andthe courtroom may have a
different set of terms that needto be used, right yeah?
Speaker 3 (06:28):
Well, and you know there's debate, defense
attorneys push back when thevictim is referred to as the
victim.
They think it makes it tooempathetic, right the assumption
that they are a victim.
You know, I guess they couldsay alleged victim, but the
truth is it is the reportingparty which, I think, takes away
not only the judgment but whatis ingrained in the conversation
(06:49):
hundreds of times a day forprosecutors and judges, police
officers, and that isdehumanizing this person to a
name and a category that has noidentity, right, it takes that
individuality out of it and itdehumanizes it.
We already have a lot ofdehumanization, either using
names or asking what would youlike me to call you?
(07:10):
What I do with my clients is Iask what do you want me to call
him?
And right, there's a range andI have my friend, tracy, who I
think you've had on the podcast.
They chose to call him by onename.
I've had people want to nametheir offenders swear words,
some are random, but in the endI always ask them because what I
(07:33):
find is I don't want to triggerthem unintentionally each time
by saying his name If it makesthem feel empowered to call them
a swear word and that's all werefer to him as I'm here for it,
right.
I had a call with one of myclients last's.
All we refer to them as I'mhere for it, right?
I had a call with one of myclients last week and it was
interesting because now that I'mhandling these cases where a
survivor in this case,specifically surviving a
(07:55):
homicide uses violence back anddefends themselves, that often
happens in this microcosm ofwhat they feel is love and their
interpretation right.
The reason they're still thereis because they have been
manipulated by this person tobelieve that this is love and
even after being abused, havinga violent act committed against
(08:17):
them and that violent act beingso severe that they were
justified in killing them, theystill didn't want to kill them,
and so I was having thisconversation.
I thought it was fascinatingbecause my first meeting with
her and she is charged withmanslaughter was how would you
like me to refer to him?
And she just said his name Justdon't want you to call him.
That.
For her to have to accept thathe's a killer or would have
(08:40):
killed her is heartbreaking, andit was interesting because I
hadn't heard that spin and itgave me empathy for that, and so
you know, my focus is more onwhat are the things I would do
to trigger you, and I think thatwe have to be mindful of what
people want to be called orlabeled.
Like I can see I have a lot ofsurvivors or victims I've worked
with who they don't want tohave been a victim.
(09:02):
I've had women when I was aprosecutor who, until they're
meeting with me the week beforetrial, will tell me more about
what happened.
You know whether it's the saferenvironment and they feel like
they're able to tell that to me.
And every time they have sharedwith me things like he actually
raped me as well, and I ask,they always say they didn't want
(09:22):
him to have that power.
So like acknowledging that,saying out loud, like words,
words matter, even if it's justkind of it happened, but to say
it out loud is a different thing.
So all these labels, all theseterms, all these words,
ultimately what we're doing isright.
We're having conversations andwhen things are natural in our
muscle, memory uses certainterms, like we do in the
(09:45):
criminal system, withoutunderstanding how other people
hear it.
It influences them, eitherimpacting and making it painful
for the term that you're usingand that person seeing it or
hearing it, but also for society.
Right, it becomes like how werefer to things.
It's like strangulation.
People call it choking.
It's not choking.
Oh yeah, I totally want to askyou about that one too.
So it's like how we refer tothings.
It's like strangulation.
People call it choking.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
It's not choking.
Oh yeah, I totally want to askyou about that one too.
Yeah, so it's like yeah, so Ithink you're right and I think
that giving the choice to theperson who had something happen
to them because Erica Olson istelling me don't use the word
experience because it's notwhether it is actually, you know
, she didn't experience rape,she was raped by him.
(10:26):
So anyway, yeah, she wasn'texperiencing homelessness.
She wasn't experiencinghomelessness, she didn't have a
house.
Yes, let's talk about domesticviolence versus intimate partner
, violence versus battered womenor other options, because I've
heard people use all of theseterms.
(10:47):
I've even heard people saydon't say domestic violence, say
domestic abuse or abusivepartner, and do those mean
different things to differentpeople than in the court system?
Or is there like a preferredterm?
What's going on here?
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Well, you know it's interesting because when I start
in the system and it's a topicI don't know.
So when I started as aprosecutor I knew nothing about
domestic violence and I'd sayit's pretty routinely referred
to as domestic violence withinlaw enforcement and prosecutors.
Over the course of time it'sbeen kind of re-termed intimate
partner violence.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
I don't see that lots of people in the system, maybe
beyond advocates, use that termas much.
Is that for people who maybeare dating, or can it still be a
married couple that experiencesintimate partner violence?
Speaker 3 (11:37):
Well, you know, like that's, the question is, is it
exclusive of something we alsolike?
In Texas, we call it familyviolence because that's the name
of the statute that attaches,and so it's not uncommon that
law enforcement and prosecutorsuse terminology because it's how
it's named in the penal codeand, unfortunately, what that
doesn't translate to is anynuances around it.
(11:58):
And the truth is I don't likethe word domestic violence
either, except for the crimes Iwas prosecuting was all violent
crime.
But there are a lot of criminalacts beyond violence that are
abusive within a relationshipand an ex-relationship.
So the way family violence isdefined in Texas is it's pretty
broad.
It's dating and relationship,formally live together, live
(12:20):
together, husband wife, havekids together, so then it covers
like the post-separation stuff.
But you know, it wasn't until Istarted to recognize the power
and the worth of the non-violent, non-physical abuse that
occurred and where I thinkeveryone gets confused is well,
(12:43):
they, every officer.
When I have a case where I'mtrying to say, no, it wasn't a
suicide, I think everyone getsconfused.
Is, well, every officer.
When I have a case where I'mtrying to say, no, it wasn't a
suicide, I think it might bethat, or I'm saying something
their only follow up to anythingis always like well, had there
been physical violence, moreover, that had been reported?
And so I think everyone looksto violence as that thing.
He's a violent man.
Well, no, he's not a violentman to everyone, he's an abusive
(13:03):
man.
He uses violence as one ofthose tools, and so I think what
it's done has really overlynarrowed our focus on spending a
lot of time trying to solve acomplex issue by naming it
something different, and thetruth is naming it, passing a
(13:33):
law about it.
Those things don't do a lot,except for it's an opportunity
to talk about it, because nowit's a legitimate thing.
It doesn't allow us to dobetter at it, to understand it
better.
A great example is stalking,right?
What is the operationaldefinition?
Well, I mean, you hear peoplein society use that phrase
(13:57):
stalking.
Do they know what it means?
I don't know, but we have astatute on stalking and we have
a law called stalking, butstalking is the statute that, I
think, combines all of theseissues, and that is the two
challenging things officers andlaw enforcement, and really I
think society has isunderstanding what is abuse and
what does fear look like and howdoes it influence?
Right, and because every littleelement of stalking doesn't have
(14:18):
to be something serious andit's usually ingrained in like a
secret message, right and so,individually, when the police go
out and she is mentioning, oh,he did this and that, like they
don't know what the legalelements are, and law
enforcement is looking atthrough the lens of what's the
crime.
Well, individually, the crimeis nothing.
The role of fear and multipleacts becomes a crime.
(14:41):
But so when she calls thepolice the first two, three
times, which they will, that'snot a crime.
But so when she calls thepolice the first two, three
times, which they will, that'snot a crime.
And then what happens is shestarts to get documented of
calling the police and then it'slike, oh, this woman is making
things up, or this woman is justtrying to do something to this
guy, and so that is wherewell-intended laws kind of fall
(15:02):
apart.
And so there's a lot ofmovement with passing laws on
coercive control Great.
What I want to know is can yourofficers describe what coercive
control is?
Listen, I think coercivecontrol should be against the
law.
That is what most of the abuseis beyond the violence.
But again, solutions are notmade by giving something a term,
it's the understanding of thatconcept.
(15:23):
That, I think, drives change.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
I think to your point .
We're getting hung up on theword violence in some cases when
we talk about domestic violenceor intimate partner violence.
We get hung up on the wordviolence because we believe it's
physical.
All the time.
Abuse, abuse can broaden it forus using the word abuse or
(15:50):
intimate partner abuse,whichever one you're more
comfortable with, because thatmay then imply some of the
unseen, no visible bruises.
We talk about this book all thetime, the things that don't
leave bruises, like coercivecontrol and other things.
And so now, coercive control inparticular, which is a term
that was really popularized bythe late Evan Stark, that is now
(16:13):
being seriously looked at bylawmakers, and there are a few
states that are implementinglaws and specifically calling
out coercive control as a partof family violence.
Right, yeah, and I'm here forthat.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
Yeah, but my point is , if you label something, it
doesn't change anything.
To change practice, people haveto understand it.
True, and the reason we needcoercive control laws is because
law enforcement and prosecutorsdon't recognize it or identify
it within the context of thecases they might interact with.
Whether it's stalking, domesticviolence, criminal mischief,
(16:50):
whatever it is.
They're responding right and soit's not as though that woman
is standing there with a signthat says I'm being stalked and
lists the element and writes thePC affidavit for them.
So when someone goes to a sceneor responds to a call or speaks
with a victim, they need toknow how to identify it
themselves.
Because it's interesting,because the terms we label
(17:11):
things and give in like acriminal justice system, the DSM
, these become like official,and so then that language
carries on in layperson'sconversations, and an
interesting one is like we seepeople really wanting to
diagnose abusers, because thatmeans we can fix them.
It means there's not justsomething wrong with them, as,
(17:32):
like a human, it's that you knowthey are struggling with
something and therefore it canbe fixed.
And people don't like to giveup on each other, or no one
wants to give up on anyone.
But the truth is, is the DSMlike all of this stuff about
narcissism, all like they?
Like all I've read all thememes like they apply.
I get it.
But read all the memes likethey apply, I get it.
(17:56):
But things like alcoholism,things like all of the different
conditions I've seen abusersattach to themselves so that
they can fake to a judge or makethe survivor think that they
can be fixed, that getsweaponized against them and to
be able to know what really is adiagnosis and what is a
condition of humanity, which isthe hate for women, the need to
control women, the entitlementto do that, that can't be like
(18:18):
therapeutic away, Like itdoesn't happen.
But judges, over and over, wantto say, oh well, he drinks, so
like, let's do that and Ilearned so much from Scott
Hampton about.
Well, no, they do that so theycan abuse more and have a way to
avoid accountability.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
Sure, I mean, the labels in the DSM-5 are created
through a specific method andfor a specific purpose, and so
we're not picking labels fromthe DSM to try to diagnose
abusers or anything.
But the fact remains thatpeople will lean on those types
(18:54):
of diagnoses, and that isn'teven the reason why I wanted to
include that information in thisconversation.
The real reason is that we'renaming things and sometimes we
need to know what we're naming.
So even Dr Romney will say wecan't just call everyone a
narcissist.
Right, there's a lot ofnarcissism out there and people
(19:17):
may exhibit the symptoms.
But we can't just lay thatdiagnosis or condition on
someone if we don't have thecredentials to do so.
And it's probably not a goodthing for all of us to be
walking around saying, oh well,you know he was a narcissist and
I got out of the relationship,if we don't actually know that
that's true.
Speaker 3 (19:37):
Well, it's like calling a victim crazy.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
It's like calling a victim crazy.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
I haven't seen that in the DSM and I would like to
know more each time they tell methat.
And if what they mean by crazyis did something you didn't like
or you didn't understand, well,that's what we call
counterintuitive behavior thatis created by what abusers do
that then force that reaction.
Or she was hysterical, oh yeah,yeah, hysteria, we really are.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Let's talk about the position of the one who's doing
the labeling.
So within this context, itcould be the court system, the
media, the person whoexperienced the crime or many
others and that is going toinfluence the label.
So, in other words, if namingcreates the thing named, then
(20:28):
the intention or even the lifeexperiences of the creator must
be influencing that label.
One who practices law mighthave a very different
perspective of a crime victimthan a sociologist might.
Or gender bias, for example,will influence the name we give
to someone's experience.
So those things and culturalinfluences can impact word
choices.
(20:48):
How have you seen all of thisplay out in different parts of
an investigation or in thecourtroom?
Speaker 3 (20:54):
You know, I think, like we know, gender bias is
ingrained within policing andI've never found it compelling
to a policeman for me to sayyou're gender biased, right, it
is the appropriate term, butwhat we do is we see it play out
in actions and terminology andlabels is definitely one of
those ways that I think, againgoing back to dehumanizes it as
(21:17):
well as victim blame.
So most of the terms that I seewithin law enforcement and
prosecutors are quite punishingto women, and it's usually
attached to women, and moreforgiving to men, as though he
is the victim of a crazy woman,and so the types of terms that I
hear are that she wasuncooperative right, and what's
interesting about these terms isone it's negative connotation
(21:39):
and it's also a blaming right.
So it's not just there'ssomething wrong with you because
you aren't like.
No one thinks of uncooperativeas anything good.
I don't want my kids to beuncooperative Right.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
Like.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
I don't want to.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
It's a super negative word, yeah, super negative word
, with no room, like and in oneword, and just to be clear, this
is a term that law enforcementmight use to describe someone's
behavior at the scene or evenduring the investigation right
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
And what's interesting is because it's
become so normalized that wejust say, oh, the victim's
uncooperative, it's another wayjust to do this, and that is I
don't really want to deal withthis crime, I don't really care,
I don't really know she's beingdifficult.
Because they don't understandthe context and therefore don't
understand the differentinfluences driving the survivor
to do certain things.
(22:27):
They don't understand trauma,so they don't understand why
they can't just tell them alogical, chronological story and
they don't understand that assoon as he gets out of jail he
might kill her, and she knowsthat, and so that might change
that choice.
They get very frustrated and sowhat happens is we victim blame
and we use those terms If shedoesn't do everything they want
(22:47):
at the time.
They want the way they want,without being too difficult.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
So, in other words, it's kind of like they're
describing this behavior andmaybe also how it's affecting
their investigation.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
And as an opportunity to not do their job but blame
the victim.
That is the reason I see somany dismissals is, you know,
victim is uncooperative.
Victim didn't want to presscharges and it's like, well did
she?
And it's like, because itallows it to encompass so many
(23:21):
things, it's kind of likecredibility she wasn't credible.
That's the other huge term thatI did a talk earlier today with
Russell Strand calledcredibility or corroboration.
And the truth is, all thethings that are used to say
she's not credible they miss alot of logical steps.
And that is how does that notmake her credible that she uses
drugs?
How does that make her morelikely to falsely accuse
(23:41):
somebody for sexually assaultingher?
Speaker 1 (23:43):
Yeah, exactly I mean.
Substance use does notnecessarily mean you're lying.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
Well, and in fact it, in my opinion, gives evidence
that it happened.
Because that's a copingmechanism and so you take
whatever it is you don'tunderstand or you don't like or
you don't want to take the timeor have the knowledge to
navigate, and we call it acredibility issue.
And then no one questions thatyou know the witness wasn't
credible.
What are you going to do?
(24:08):
It's kind of like prosecutorsmight say well, we can't prove
it beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have an ethical duty, butit's like who's defined that?
The thing about beyond areasonable doubt is it's such a
subjective per person definition, literally prosecutors.
We can't give a definition ofit to the jury, they just have
(24:29):
to figure it out.
So what happens?
Is A definition?
Speaker 1 (24:32):
for unreasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
For reasonable doubt yeah For reasonable doubt.
Yeah, there's no definition.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
There's no definition for that.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
I mean.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
I have an idea for a definition.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
We're not allowed.
Now, the way you can say it islike it's doubt, and those
doubts are a reasonable doubt.
They're not like monkeys flyout of the sky.
Speaker 1 (24:47):
But wouldn't a reasonable doubt be based on
absence or presence of facts?
Who knows?
I mean, it can't just be my gut, right?
No, no, it is, it is, it is mygut.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
Yeah, and so it allows for.
So like we have legal defenses,right, necessity, duress,
self-defense, justification butthat is really should be the
focus.
Can we prove this case?
Is there a defense?
If not, we believe the victimwe should go forward.
But instead what they do isthey look for reasons that they
think the jury won't like thevictim and then they use it as a
(25:21):
credibility issue and thendismiss the case and don't do
anything about it.
But the truth is, none of uslook credible if we do the
things.
We had the things happen to usthat happened to that victim,
and they would also not lookcredible if they gave over the
kinds of things victims do.
You go through my phone, you gothrough your phone, you will
find something.
The last five days, I am sure.
Right, and go delete my phoneafter this, great, but I've
(25:44):
never had someone in a sessionwant to give me their phone and
let me look through it.
And yet we ask victims toexpose and not just allow your
body to be a crime scene, butlike every piece of their
privacy, mental health records.
We don't see protection on that.
So like it almost reinforcesthe she's crazy, which also just
goes in that credibilitycategory with it, instead of
(26:09):
doing it differently andchanging practice or
understanding trauma, or havinghumanity and empathy to
understand why the victim isdoing that thing that you
think's a bad thing, withoutunderstanding it.
It allows them to blame theloss on a victim, not have to
change anything about practice,and it really can end up easing
their load.
Now for prosecutors that framereasonable doubt.
(26:31):
So you have defenses, but right, the other category they have
to be worried about isreasonable doubt, and so that's
where all of these things canfall.
But most of the crimes andviolence and sexual violence
against women is going to be.
Credibility will be at issue.
Right and credibility of thevictim, yeah, credibility, yeah.
And unfortunately, when we lookthrough, the normal model of
(26:54):
this is a guilty person who didsomething bad and we're trying
to break them and get aconfession.
We interrogate them.
We have ways that lawenforcement will identify
deception, like what are thosecues?
What are the things asprosecutors we use in
cross-examination to expose alie or break them and get a
confession?
Those are the same tactics theyapply to victims.
(27:16):
Now, when you've experiencedtrauma, you aren't going to
remember things.
Chronologically, you're notgoing to remember some things.
But when you have an officerwho you think is helping you ask
you a question and you've saidthree times like I don't
remember, I don't know.
Then he'll start to suggestsome things to you.
This is what I see in the caseswhere women get charged with
(27:36):
homicide as well, and it's likeyou're doing maybe yeah, and
then you're pinned down for thatamount, Like oh yep, so it was
that hand, and ultimately therewill be something that is
inconsistent with that, butwithout knowing to protect
yourself.
Victims do their best to answerthe questions and we almost set
our own credibility cases up forfailure because we're not
investigating ways tocorroborate the story.
(27:59):
We are looking for ways todiscredit her story.
Now the same doesn't happen somuch for the defendants.
They feel comfortable enoughwalking in and saying it was
consensual, and I was justtalking about earlier today.
You know, if he said she said Ikind of think it's he said, he
said and the other, he is thesystem, and so you have no
chance, it's very difficult fora victim and you know every
(28:22):
prosecutor says, when they'repicking a jury, like this
courthouse is made for allpeople.
Well, it's really not, frankly,on both ends.
So credibility is one of thosethings that if you know how to
look at it differently, you canturn that credibility issue,
that challenge, into evidence ofa conviction.
And that's what Russell and Iwere talking about today.
But you just have to look at it.
(28:42):
You have to look at it adifferent way empathize,
humanize, and that's where yourevidence is.
My friend Allison, who's atrafficking survivor, once said
about drugs.
She said thank God for drugs.
I wouldn't have gotten throughthat without drugs and that made
me understand, just with thatsentence.
I hope that makes other peopleunderstand.
If you're in the kind ofhorrible situation like that, I
(29:05):
hope I could numb myself right,right, or die or die and they
try that too.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
Yeah, I totally get that.
Now, I think a really strongexample for what you're talking
about is when we talk about thewords, and actually not only a
strong example, but a successfulexample when we talk about the
words choking and strangulation,because you developed a tool
(29:31):
related to strangulation, thatis, the strangulation supplement
, and so let's talk about how wego from what choking is and how
that's not the right label toput on when someone puts their
hands around your neck and stopsyour breathing.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
Yeah, so right, medically it's incorrect
terminology because choking isan internal obstruction,
strangulation is externalpressure on the neck causing
that impediment.
And the funny thing aboutasking what the name of it, the
strangulation supplement, is, itactually really should be
called and I try to do it and myfriend Andrea, who does the
aquatic stuff asphyxiationassessment, because
(30:07):
strangulation is one narrow typeof act that can occur that can
result in asphyxiation.
And what is asphyxiation?
So asphyxiation is the processof depriving the body of oxygen
and therefore the brain, andthere's a lot of things that can
cause asphyxiation.
For whatever reason,strangulation got identified and
I think the reason, the basisfor those laws, was the research
(30:29):
that Dr Jackie Campbell did, drGlass, where they identified
that in the context of domesticviolence, a non-fatal
strangulation of a woman who'sbeing abused made it seven times
more likely that she would getmurdered.
So we've known for a long timethat there's something real bad
and dangerous about it andpredictive of homicide within
the domestic violence universe.
(30:49):
And then over time it wasidentified that it wasn't well
identified by law enforcement,it wasn't treated or documented
well by law enforcement, thelegal system or the medical
community, and so the answerreally to that problem became
pass legislation.
Well, the problem is like a lotof legislation that's
well-intended, we pass reallynarrow legislation and that
(31:10):
legislation at least in Texasand a lot of states, is only in
domestic violence.
So it is something in domesticviolence and that's great, it
can manage those.
But then we miss it in childabuse, we miss it in sex crimes
and trafficking because peoplethink it's just a domestic
violence issue.
And then in turn we havenarrowly defined laws in a way
(31:30):
that we're missing other typesof asphyxiation that can be
criminal, because we don't evenknow they exist, because we
don't see it, because we don'tunderstand it, we don't ask for
it and we don't listen for it.
So what I encourage is lawenforcement one.
The reason they use choking isthat's kind of a layperson term,
like I got choked out.
You know that can come fromlike jiu-jitsu, where they do
choke you out and it's like arear naked chokehold.
(31:51):
Same thing with law enforcementuse of force.
That's like vascular neckrestraint chokehold.
So I think that because thatterminology was being used in
those areas and also it's theterminology most people use when
they have experienced it,because I think it's become,
just like you know, alayperson's term.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
And you may feel a similar sensation to what you
feel when you are choking, likeliterally something internally
stuck in your throat or you havea, you know something
aggravating your throat andobstructing your breathing.
It could be from natural causes, right, obstructing your
breathing.
That could be from naturalcauses.
Uh right, you know, likeanaphylactic, anaphylactic type
(32:31):
reactions can kind of restrictthe, the um the throat and cause
, make it hard for you tobreathe and you might start
coughing and then you mightstart panicking.
So it feels like choking.
Quote unquote.
But it's not necessarily thesame sometimes happening for the
same reason.
Speaker 3 (32:46):
Right and like if an officer comes and it's like what
happened, like if you can tieit up in a word I was joking, or
he was joking.
Right, right, right Rather thanhe placed his hands on mine.
Like that, they feel thefeeling, and so I think that's
an example of I really care lessabout, I don't really care what
term is used.
What I need is people toidentify it and understand it,
treat it seriously, know how todocument it and know how to
(33:08):
support the trauma associatedwith it and prevent the homicide
that will be connected to itRight Because, to your point, it
is an indicator of lethality100%.
And what we are.
You know, the more I do workwith Andrea, the more we see
that abusers and predators whohave started and begun to use
strangulation, often they'reusing it because it works for
(33:29):
whatever reason a lot ofdifferent reasons but also that
they get away with it because ofthe lack of injury.
Speaker 2 (33:34):
We don't identify it.
Speaker 3 (33:35):
Even if they report it probably won't go anywhere.
But what we're seeing is thatthese perpetrators who have
identified this is a powerfuluse of abuse, not just violence,
it's abusive, it'spsychologically terrorizing, it
causes trauma and, as youmentioned, it's a lethality
indicator.
So there are really three hugeroles that strangulation plays.
What we're seeing is thatperpetrators who use that form
(33:56):
of asphyxiation seem to be usingother forms as well and it
makes sense.
They figured out the key.
So suffocation, for instance,and in a non-fatal strangulation
I will see a lot of.
It's actually three differentkinds all in that act.
If they're sitting on them andstraddling them and they can't
get air all the way in theirlungs, that's a type of
(34:17):
asphyxiation.
If she starts to yell or saysomething and he covers her
mouth and nose to get her to bequiet, that's another form.
So they kind of have thesynergistic effect.
So you know, asphyxiation is alonger word In strangulation.
It's another example of we madea law right and then we made it
defined this way and so that'show people identify it.
So I really encourage officersand this is, I think, plays a
(34:40):
huge role in how we identify inchild abuse particular, because
children may not know the termchoke out.
So the kinds of thing a childmight say is he pushed me.
Well, that could be pushed onthe leg, it could be pushed by
the arm, or it could be pushedby the neck up against a wall.
And so teaching officers,people who are in charge of
identifying crimes, what theacts are that can cause it to me
(35:02):
is more important in expandingthe definition of it, you know,
not just narrowing that focus ondomestic abuse and domestic
violence.
And then you brought up another.
I think it's important tomention the media.
So the media.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
I've gone back and forth so many times because they
always use the word choking andit makes me frustrated because
I feel like it minimizes whathappened and it's also just
wrong and I think there arecertain words and Erica Olson
and I talked about this too islike the ones that are more
difficult to hear, like the wordrape is hard, for it can be
(35:37):
traumatizing.
I think she said to an audiencebut if your audience is a jury.
Yeah, I know if your audience isa jury or people who really
need to know that this person isa rapist.
But to say, on the news, I'mtrying to imagine this like
being in my living room hearingyou know, Mrs Smith was
strangled.
It just seems like such aforeign word in a way, to hear
(36:01):
that someone you know you don'tnormally hear.
The word she was strangled orwords she was strangled, Choked
to death, I think is more of oursociety's expression, Right,
and the media has.
But then again to Erica Olson'spoint, that removes the actor
in the situation.
So Mrs Smith was choked todeath.
(36:21):
By whom?
Probably Mr Smith the choker.
Speaker 3 (36:24):
Right, the person who choked her.
She's really the chokie.
Poor Mrs Smith, I shouldn smiththe choker, right the choker
she's really the chokie.
Uh, poor mrs smith, I shouldn'tbe laughing.
Yes, um, miss smith, if you'relistening, please call the
domestic violence hotline.
Yeah, but media, the thing isthat like here is the crux of
why I think that happens and itis.
There's an association withstrangulation, that it's fatal
and yes, yes you.
Speaker 1 (36:45):
That's, that's exactly right.
That could be the only outcome,for, yeah, I mean, as far as we
know, yeah, there's a solutionto that.
Speaker 3 (36:51):
Yeah, non-fatal strangulation, right, right, I
mean, it's that easy, right, andthis is something that's kind
of universal in media.
It's something where I wouldlove journalists to know more
and understand more, becausethey all default, like to their
editors, that default to likecertain apia, like guidelines,
and so I haven't had the time togo talk to the person in charge
of the guidelines in journalismyet, but if you're out there,
(37:13):
we'd love to talk, but that'skind of the thing.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
It's another example of these terms that get used
widespread law enforcement,media and really the impact it
has on society and everybodythat is one of the points here
right Is that the effect ofthese word choices have an
impact on everyone, and so bysoft selling it or toning it
(37:37):
down, or judging it.
Yeah, so that the audience hasa better response, or is more
amenable to the fact thatsomething happened to a victim
that's not necessarily tellingthe whole truth.
Speaker 3 (37:50):
For sure, and it discourages victims from coming
forward because if me comingforward which is already going
to be difficult and I don'treally want to do, but mainly a
woman is doing it in abuse soshe doesn't die, and women who
are sexually assaulted often doit to protect other women.
It's a pain, like it's a lot,to go through the process of
reporting a sexual assault, andso the last thing they want to
(38:14):
feel like is they did the wrongthing.
They think they're helpingsociety by reporting, so then
when they are labeled accuser orcomplainant, you know, to me
that is some of the language.
If I could change two things,one would be uncooperative,
right, which we're working onthe website, and the program and
empowering and kind of changingwhat that word means, or at
least making people think twiceafter they hear it and start a
(38:37):
conversation about what thatmeans.
Because it's really, as we'vediscussed, the uncooperative
system.
But by using the language it'slike, oh, you're complaining
about your sexual assault.
Like, stop complaining which Idon't know about you.
Speaker 1 (38:53):
But like I don't like to complain I don't want people
to see me as a complainer well,if it's a, it's only a
complaint.
If, like, maybe it's how yousee it or I mean, we're not
talking about your feelingsabout something.
Yeah, if you, if you've beenraped, then that's it's not a
complaint.
That complaint, that's an actof violence.
Speaker 3 (39:09):
I'm a complainant on a lot of things.
I'm a complainant on I wish mykids did chores better.
I'm a complainant on whysomeone didn't write this the
right way.
I can complain but that is thatterm and so to associate it
with someone who is strong andwilling to stand up and say I
have identified an offender, tokeep our community safe, Well,
(39:30):
exactly.
Speaker 1 (39:31):
I mean, I'm just sitting here thinking about the
phrase file a complaint, so I'mnot filing a complaint.
I'm accusing you of a crime.
For God's sake, I'm notaccusing you.
Speaker 3 (39:43):
You did it, I'm telling you, I've chosen to tell
it to you, I've chosen to telleveryone.
Yeah, I've chosen to telleveryone, yeah.
But you know, it's just, it'sthe very.
From the very beginning theresponsibility is on the victim
right To identify, be willing toreport, willing to cooperate,
risk her life, risk her body andthen be judged by the
communities, who then then relyon the outcome of a criminal
case which is really good tothen speak the truth of the case
(40:06):
.
And it's funny because, you seeright, we have a constitutional
right for defendants and thatis to be presumed innocent.
That doesn't mean society hasto presume innocent.
That is within the criminallegal system.
But what happens is somehowthat right gets transferred to
all of us and it's just not thecase.
It's like we can't let her beraped and give her her support
(40:29):
until we are allowed to callthem that, and we can't do that
until there's a conviction.
So it's almost like asurvivor's reliance on that
criminal outcome combined withsociety's reliance, and the
negative consequence of anoutcome sets it up from failure
from the beginning.
Her identity is so attached tothat criminal case as opposed to
(40:49):
moving past it and finding someother kind of pathway to get
justice because, as we'vediscussed, that's not the
justice intended in the criminalsystem and that's really what's
been the touch point fordeveloping the programs and the
initiatives within Respond liketaking that power back and also
spreading awareness that thissystem, that is not what.
(41:11):
We should just say, oh there'sa problem, call 911.
I'm not saying we shouldn'tcall 911 or engage in the system
, but like there have to beother solutions out there
whether a survivor chooses toreport or not, because when they
do it's going to be a wholenother process and that needs
support and if they don't, theystill have to have access to
resources and process thattrauma.
But right now we focus all ofour resources within systems as
(41:34):
opposed to finding ways to helppeople who don't want to
identify themselves right butare still experiencing the
trauma hearing the judgment.
And it's interesting, thecomplainant thing.
I did a post on our Instagramonce that was like language
matters and I put interesting,the complainant thing.
I did a post on our Instagramonce that was like language
matters and I put like this ishow we define victims, right,
complainers, accusers and thenhow we label the defendant is,
(41:55):
you know, the accused, thealleged, and just that title,
from the very beginning, gives alens of judgment, like you know
, all the women, we make thosethings up which, right, is
statistically inaccurate.
And then that's where I came upwith the replacement and it
really is that easy is bringingsociety, giving them the
awareness of what they do everyday, that they've never
(42:17):
questioned because we all do it,and then giving them a
replacement and in the end thatallows conversations.
And I can't actually I don'tknow if everyone on earth
listens to the podcast yet, but,right, we need everyone to
understand this and change theirlanguage because survivors hear
it.
I had a client that we did ahearing and it was like within a
Title IX system, and she'd seenmy post and I didn't even know
(42:40):
that, and she, the entirehearing, they and that's what in
Title IX, it's complain it andrespond it.
Like I'm just responding tothat complaint and for the
audience, I just flipped my head.
It was really good, it wasappreciate that, but the entire
hearing, that's how they willthe complaint in this.
And afterwards, you know Ibrought it up, I was mentioning
(43:01):
not what happened in the hearing, but she said you know, I read
that post and I was so happybecause every time they said
that in this hearing, I wouldhave heard it very differently
if I had not known that languageand why they do it.
I would have like theyinternalize it, and so that's
just one more contribution tothem and a reason why they don't
want to engage.
Speaker 1 (43:22):
Definitely I have to let you go because we're just
about out of time, but youmentioned a couple of words to
me in the show and thenpreviously when we spoke
uncooperative is one anduninterruptible.
Tell me why those words are sospecial to you.
Speaker 3 (43:38):
Sure Well.
So uncooperative is kind of thebranch of respond, where we
turn things on their head.
We use the experiences and fuelchange through the stories of
survivors, through theexperience of practitioners, and
build new solutions.
So let them drive themselves.
And so uncooperative was reallyin response to the term I hate
most.
(43:58):
I've been asked that multipletimes and in particular I was
working and helping a woman on acase where she had been the
prior victim of a sexual serialkiller but they had not accepted
her case for prosecution, orthe investigator.
Let me say it didn't even getthat far.
The investigator didn't moveforward with it and she had
marks on her neck he hadstrangled, he had raped her and
(44:21):
the detective didn't evenidentify the scratches on her
neck, which are survivalinjuries.
He said they were from thejacket.
Now, over the course of thenext 10 years, multiple women
get strangled and raped and twoare murdered.
And in having my conversationwith Melissa I asked her.
I said what is the thing thathas I use another term but like
made you mad over the last 10years the most?
(44:43):
And she said that it was everytime I read an article about
these homicides and there was alot of media coverage.
It always said there was aprevious victim in Plano who
wasn't cooperative.
Speaker 1 (44:57):
And she was cooperative.
She was I know, I know whatcase you're talking about 100%,
they said she was uncooperativeYep and I said that's the thing,
I hate that phrase.
Speaker 3 (45:08):
I don't even think they knew what they were saying.
So we have to educate thesystem.
Who is really criminals?
Like that's the only people whouse this term.
And so that's when I thought,well, I wonder if that website's
available and started to buildthat.
And that's just where I've kindof pushed back.
Speaker 1 (45:24):
So wait, what's the website?
Speaker 3 (45:32):
Dungcooperativeorg Okay, and
respondingagainstviolenceorgwill get it to you, and so what
we're starting to build isinitiatives under that.
And so I see these categoriesof ways that victims get treated
in the system and they'reeither unseen or there's not a
nonprofit about it and it kindof has.
Well it has.
It is an empowering moment.
It is doing things that usuallyyou know we don't get a step
out of line and survivors,certainly when they're going
(45:52):
through a criminal case, cannotstep out of line.
But I don't mind stepping outof line, I like stepping out of
line if it's going to push backand make change.
So that is where I feel likewhenever I talk about it, I
don't think there's anyonethat'll bring it up to.
That's why we have stickersthat won't hear it the next time
someone says it and thinkdifferently and, in my hope, say
something about it, Becausethen ultimately, the use of that
(46:15):
word that they use so freelywill become their own training
tool.
And then the other things areabout programs as well
Uninterrupted, I think we talkedabout in a prior podcast and
that's how I found writing andhelping victims write
allocutions in court, which wasthe only enforceable right I
could find how it made them feelto be able to do that.
And I actually had a survivor.
When asked by the media how itmade her feel, she said it was
(46:37):
so nice to be able to speak howI felt to the DA's office and do
that.
And she paused and she saiduninterrupted, and I was like
that's what we call this alaculebuilding and unsilencing and
telling stories, Right.
And then the final one that wehave, some of the little fidget
toys here today is untangled andthat is as a result of another
case.
All of these were driven by myexperiences with survivors.
(46:58):
I wasn't just like, oh, thismight work, they were accidental
, Right.
But then I realized they applyeverywhere.
And so I had these littlefidget toys in my car one day
when I was helping a survivorwith a deposition and I handed
it to her kind of just out ofinstinct to give her something
tactile.
And throughout the course ofthat deposition which is
horrible she untangled it andabout four months later, when
(47:19):
she had to go to trial, she camein and she told me that the
night before she just didn'tthink she could do it again.
And then she said and I lookedup at my mantle, which is where
she had what I think is like themost gorgeous sculpture on
earth.
She said I looked up there andI said, yes, I can.
And so the moment she said that, I was like we have to make,
because now I give them outeverywhere.
Practitioners like they are atwo cent solution to trauma and
(47:40):
what we need is for victims tobe able to communicate to us.
So what is the little item?
Yeah, so these are littleacupuncture rings.
It literally came in a varietypack of fidget toys that my
daughter, like two years ago,was obsessed with, and this was
not like the puppets, this wasthis, and she didn't care about
it, so she like threw it in mycup holder.
I happened to have it in my cupholder when I drove up to
(48:02):
Madison's case, and so he handedit to her.
And I'm a creative art, I loveany kind of that type of process
, and I also know that tactiletools is something that when you
were a survivor of trauma, oryou're nervous, like you're
about to testify, or you haveanxiety which we like all do in
this field that you needsomething tactile, and that's
something I learned fromadvocates.
(48:24):
But right, it really does alsorepresent how their minds
function, and so anything tiedto that we're going to put under
Untangled and that's thejustice for her, the case not
great, but the justice to beable to pass this on.
I think we've given out over2,000 at the conference and we
hope to get follow-up from allof those agencies, and it's just
(48:46):
to me a lovely way to serve andprovide a healing tool to help
others going forward, whichreally is the ultimate way to
heal.
And then the last one is just Inotice myself processes through
art and I see a lot ofsurvivors do that as well, and
it's another way just to occupytheir time, so they have a
distraction, and so for thatwe're going to call anything
(49:06):
associated with that type of art, or any art or healing art as
unglued, Because it really doesthen make a play on women being
crazy and unglued, and I thinkit empowers that which we are
not.
We are not.
We are not or are weuncooperative, but we are now.
We will be unglued if somethingdoesn't change.
Sorry if I interrupted you.
We will, something doesn'tchange.
Sorry if I interrupted you.
Oh, we will come in blue ifsomething doesn't change.
Speaker 1 (49:28):
No, I was just being a joke About interrupted.
Sorry if I interrupted you.
Well, all of this has beenserendipitous.
Thank you, kelsey, for being onthe show.
Thanks for taking me Attention.
Spanish-speaking listenersListen to the end of this
(49:49):
podcast for information on howto reach a Spanish-speaking
representative of Genesis.
Speaker 2 (49:51):
Atención hispanohablantes escucha este
podcast hasta el final pararecibir información de cómo
comunicarse con el personal deGenesis en español.
Speaker 1 (50:01):
If you or someone you know is in an abusive
relationship, you can get helpor give help at
genesisshelterorg or by callingor texting our 24-7 crisis
hotline team at 214-946-HELP214-946-4357.
Bilingual services at Genesisinclude text, phone call,
(50:23):
clinical counseling, legalservices, advocacy and more.
Call or text us for moreinformation.
Donations to support women andchildren escaping domestic
violence are always needed.
Learn more at genesisshelterorgslash donate.
Thanks for joining us.
I'm reminding you always thatending domestic violence begins
(50:43):
when we believe her Genesis.
Speaker 2 (50:45):
el podcast anuncia servicios bilingües disponibles
en Genesis Women's Shelter,esupport.
Si usted o una conocida está enuna relación abusiva, puede
recibir ayuda o dar ayuda agenesisshelterorg, o por llamar
o mandar mensaje de texto anuestra línea de crisis de 24
horas al 214-946-4357.
(51:11):
Genesis Bilingual Servicesinclude text messages, calls,
counseling, legal services,advice and more.
Call us or send us a text formore information.
Donations are always needed tosupport women or children
escaping domestic violence.
Thank you for joining us.
(51:32):
Remember that ending domesticviolence begins when we believe
in the victim.
El terminar la violenciadoméstica empieza cuando creemos
a la víctima.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.