Validating Violence: The Need for Judicial Education

Charged with the task of interpreting the law, the judicial branch of our government is bestowed great authority. Given the power assigned to judges, we would like to believe they possess the requisite knowledge and moral discernment to carry out their duties in alignment with our conception of justice. When it comes to matters of sexual and domestic violence, how much faith can we have in our officials’ expertise and ability to adjudicate fairly? Unfortunately, the answer seems to be rather little.

Take the example of Judge Timothy Dooley, a superior court judge in Nome, Alaska. Dooley was cited last year for violations of the state’s judicial conduct code based on inappropriate statements made in court. One violation happened at a sentencing hearing, where Dooley spoke to a man convicted of sexually assaulting a teenaged girl: “From what I’ve read, this was not someone who was — I hate to use the phrase ‘asking for it.’ There are girls out there who seem to be temptresses, and this does not appear to be anything like that.”[i] Another came during the trial phase of a domestic violence case: when a juror had trouble hearing the soft-spoken victim, Dooley said, “I’m sorry, folks, but I can’t slap her around to make her talk louder.[ii]” Dooley initially denied any wrongdoing, but later admitted the impropriety of his conduct during a disciplinary hearing by the Alaska Committee of Judicial Conduct. “I probably caused grief for some victim, perhaps,[iii]” Dooley said in his apology, where he does not seem to take full accountability for the effects of his words. The committee suggested public censure, supervision by a mentor judge, and sensitivity training on domestic violence; the matter is now before the Alaska Supreme Court, which will determine the ultimate outcome[iv].

Similar stories of what is to me outrageous behavior on the part of judges are all too common, and “causing grief for some victim” may be the least of the harms. Judges’ misinformed, callous attitudes can leave victims wary of the legal system, feeling that they will not be believed, understood, or treated with respect and dignity. One consequence of this is that victims may elect to drop charges or cease pursuing a restraining order because it seems easier than facing the condescension of those who are supposed to serve in their aid, and they will be far less inclined to utilize the justice system in the future. A more grave result is that of additional violence that may befall victims who do not receive the protection they need due to judges’ shortsightedness. One of many examples is the story of Dorene Seidl, who in 2008 was denied a Domestic Violence Order against her husband Gerry Seidl. Despite a documented history of abuse and testimony that would indicate otherwise, the judge deemed there to be insufficient evidence to grant the order.[v] The next day, Seidl’s husband purchased a gun, which he used to shoot and kill her two days later while she was collecting her belongings from their home.[vi] If Seidl had received the DVO, her husband would have been prevented from buying a firearm, and she would have been able to receive the protection of a police escort when returning to get her things.

Lack of education on sexual and domestic violence is cited as the chief culprit for the mishandling of related cases by judges. It is likely, or at least hoped, that most judges do not intend to be crass when speaking in court or to bring about results like those in the Seidl case when providing their rulings, but without proper exposure to the sociocultural and psychological dynamics of abuse and assault, good intentions do not go far. For this reason, it is essential that judges receive training in these areas. So, what’s being done on this front? One major initiative comes from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Enacted in 1994, VAWA is composed of various legislative measures that aims to reduce the incidence of acts of domestic and sexual violence and augment the justice system’s capacity to handle them, as well as to enhance services and support available to victims, spread awareness, and challenge traditional cultural attitudes that impede progress.[vii] A primary avenue for this challenge is the use of grant provisions that allocate funds to state, local, and tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, and universities for the institution of various programs advancing these efforts.

One such endeavor, initially called the Court Training and Improvements program, pertains to training for judges and court personnel in both state and federal courts on issues related to sexual and domestic violence. During VAWA’s most recent reauthorization in 2013, the program was consolidated with others to create the Grants to Support Families in the Justice System program.[viii] The overhead legislation is conveyed in the United States Code Service, 42 USCS Section 10420(b)(3), which relays that a grant may be used to “educate court-based and court-related personnel [et. al.]...on the dynamics of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, including information on perpetrator behavior, evidence-based risk factors for domestic and dating violence homicide, and on issues relating to the needs of victims, including safety, security, privacy, and confidentiality, including cases in which the victim proceeds pro se.”[ix]

The relevant provisions for state and tribal governments are detailed in 42 UCSC Sections 13991 and 13992. The latter expands upon the range of issues to be incorporated into training, which include but are hardly limited to the following: “the historical evolution of laws and attitudes on rape and sexual assault;” “the physical, psychological, and economic impact of rape and sexual assault on the victim, the costs to society, and the implications for sentencing;” “the psychology and self-presentation of batterers and victims and the implications for court proceedings and credibility of witnesses;” and “the legitimate reasons why victims of domestic violence or dating violence may refuse to testify against a defendant.”[x] The related provisions for the federal court system are outlined in 42 USCS § § 14001 and 14002.

These legislative efforts are certainly laudable, but to what end? Though some states now mandate that judges who oversee matters of sexual and domestic violence receive basic training, in many states all educational programs of this purpose are strictly voluntary. This is problematic, as numbers show that we are failing to fully capitalize on these opportunities to improve: a recent opinion piece on a the website of a nonprofit organization that details Connecticut’s current affairs revealed that since 2007, only five of the state’s nearly three hundred judges have completed the training program offered by the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence, which is funded through VAWA grants.[xi] Unfortunately, this is simply insufficient, and until judges participate in such programs in greater numbers, it is likely we will continue to encounter stories where a judge’s unrefined attitude or simple ignorance results in impropriety like that displayed by Judge Dooley, or worse, a tragedy as in the Seidl case.



[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid.


[vi] Ibid.


[viii] Ibid.

[ix] 42 UCSC § 1042.

[x] 42 USCS § 13992.



Julie Cummings

Although I suspect Judge Dooley may be an outlier, I can see why you are passionate that more judges complete special VAWA-funded training. Perhaps even though the training may be funded, overcrowded dockets preclude judges from placing the training high on their priority list?


Wow. I had no idea that there was a program for court personnel and judges. In Philadelphia, the Family Court typically hears domestic violence cases. Are court personnel and judges for Family Court required to go through any special training?


The requirements for court personnel and judges for Family Court vary by state; many states have mandatory ‘training,’ but available information is in most cases vague about what this actually consists of. Here’s a link to a semi-helpful 2013 report on different states’ training policies - not that a lot of the language indicates that judges and personnel “shall receive appropriate training in understanding domestic violence” (see New Mexico statute 18-204 NMRA) without specifying exactly what this entails. The few instances I found where more detail is revealed are pretty unfortunate - in West Virginia, the training requirement can be met with only three hours of education (see W. Va. Code § 48-27-1104.) Given that most volunteers at DV-related organizations are required to do a forty-hour certificate program, a handful of hours for a judge seems pretty insufficient!


Edit on the above - here’s the link I mentioned:


I saw this article today and thought of your article:


Oh man. It’s so frustrating to me that so much of the discussion that surrounds rape cases focuses on the victim’s behavior - what she wore, what she said or didn’t say, whether she fought back, if she smiled at him earlier. There’s this need that exists to locate elemental variables of the offense within the territory of victim’s agency, to find some way that she contributed. “Did you close your legs firmly?” is saying, you had a part in why this happened. Another unfortunate piece of evidence of how we make it a woman’s responsibility to not be raped, instead of making it a man’s responsibility to not commit rape.

Write a comment

Please login to comment

Remember Me

Become a Member

FREE online community for women in the legal profession.



Subscribe to receive regular updates, news, and events from Ms. JD.

Connect with us

Follow or subscribe