Aron Ralston, Mandatory Arrest, and Colorado Law

Aron Ralston (subject of the film “127 hours”, the outdoorsman who cut his arm off to free himself in Canyonlands National Park) made news last week after being arrested for domestic violence and wrongs to minors (child abuse, essentially) in Denver. The next day, he made news when the charges were dropped by the prosecution. But he had already spent a night in jail, certainly a rough experience and insult for anybody. On top of that, he suffered the public humiliation of being criminally accused, a humiliation that can never completely be undone. The episode appears to be a routine example of the weak cases that are charged domestic violence in Colorado, largely due to Colorado’s mandatory arrest laws.

Now, I don’t have access to the police reports in the Ralston case, but news reports indicate he was suspected of domestic violence for simply pushing his girlfriend in the shoulder. The police also wrote him up for “wrongs to minors”, because a child was present during the altercation. Nevermind that he was also struck in the incident, which obviously raises the question of self-defense, but a lot of people (myself included) would argue that not every push needs to involve the criminal justice system. Bad and unpleasant things happen, people make mistakes, but not all mistakes deserve criminal charges.

In the case of Aron Ralston, the charges were even more trumped up: the police accused him of child abuse due to the fact that the child was present for the fight, according to reports. There is, of course, a crime for endangering the physical well-being or morals of a minor (Denver Municipal Code section 34—46), but that phrase has to mean something. Now, certainly it is true that children should not be exposed to fighting. Even arguing in front of kids might be a sign of bad parenting, but there’s no crime for a moment of less than perfect parenting. If a single push in the presence of a child endangers their morals or health, then it is hard to imagine how many thousands of criminal acts of child abuse are committed each day in Colorado, from kids watching PG movies or listening to a loud argument, or watching a parent smoke a cigarette. Of course if a kid is directly in the crossfire of an ugly fight, then that’s a different case. But in my experience, the vast majority of child abuse charges associated with misdemeanor or municipal domestic violence cases are based solely on the child being in the same room (or even farther away) as the minor incident that gave rise to the domestic violence charge.

But the Aron Ralston arrest seems even more absurd. Not only was he about to face domestic violence and child abuse charges for what appears to be a single push causing no injury, but all this was in spite of the fact that his girlfriend appears to have hit him twice in the head. And she was charged. Now, they both have a right to use force in self-defense, so the most important question at trial would likely be: who used force first? In a case like this, they’d both point the finger at each other if they testified in each other’s trial. But they wouldn’t have to—they both have a 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and would likely invoke it to avoid testifying under oath. But even if they did testify, how on earth would the DA prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either of them started it?

In practice, the police and DA charging both parties in a fight kills their chance at a conviction for either. It is usually a sign that they have no idea what happened in the fight. And if the government doesn’t know what happened, how can they convince a jury? It’s appropriately hard (sometimes impossible) to paint a person as both a victim and aggressor in the same incident. Without unique circumstances, these are cases that arguably shouldn’t be brought at all, but certainly not against both parties. It should be the job of government (police and DA) to evaluate if they can make a reasonable case against either party as the initial aggressor. If they can’t, the police should separate the parties, warn them, and write a report. If the situation in the home is actually dangerous, social services can get involved or a relative can come get the child for a few days.

But Colorado’s mandatory arrest laws largely take away those options, they take away the ability of officers to use judgment. Now that’s not always bad (some officers’ judgment is bad, which is part of the justification for the mandatory arrest laws), but here it seems to have hurt both Ralston and his girlfriend. Instead of evaluating the evidence better on scene, and either charging just the girlfriend, or neither party, the state is left with a very difficult prosecution against a woman who might (who really knows?) actually be a victim.

Again, I don’t know the evidence beyond what was reported in the news, but one theme argued by the defense lawyer will be “the officer on scene wasn’t sure who started this fight, how can the jury be?” The case against the woman is not stronger because the DA dismissed the case against Aron Ralston. Self-defense, he-said/she-said, and an utterly inconclusive police investigation will be the themes that carry her defense at trial. The jury will likely shrug, acquit, and tell their families at dinner about how disturbingly little evidence it takes to get charged with domestic violence in Colorado.

If I’m wrong, and there is ample evidence that the girlfriend was the primary aggressor and is guilty, then it would suggest that the police who made a more egregious error by charging Ralston, too. More likely, though, it was simply average police work by officers who felt pressured by Colorado law to make two weak arrests rather than none.