While domestic violence is truly a problem for a lot of women, current practices make it virtually unnecessary to prove allegations of abuse. Unlike any other crime in the United States, those accused of domestic violence are presumed guilty before having to prove themselves innocent. The evidence of guilt in these cases is often nothing more than the testimony of the alleged victim. While juries are always asked to convict based upon evidence and testimony that shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, domestic violence issues are, for some reason, treated differently. Often these cases are left for juries to decide based upon the alleged victims' and abusers' testimony. Surely a jury would need more evidence to convict than a case of "he said/she said." Different standards than other crimes should not judge domestic violence cases.
             Why would anyone accuse someone of a crime they did not commit? Incentives for such accusations can be purely emotional; however, the state does make provisions for guidelines on government aid to be lifted if a woman claims to be a victim of domestic violence. The Friend of the Court Domestic Violence Resource Book states, "Studies show that a significant percentage of welfare recipients are victims of domestic violence" (148). This is interesting, considering that the next page says that people who have been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty are exempt from the time limits on government financial aid that non-battered people are subject to (149). Given this information, it is not unreasonable to draw the conclusion that someone already receiving aid may be likely to seek a way out of losing it once they have become dependant. Also, many domestic violence cases are brought to court only after the relationship has gone sour, where the woman is given a cushion by claiming that she suffered from Battered Women's Syndrome. In these cases, the potential for bias is typically ignored when the allege...