Categories
Domestic Violence Law Enforcement Murdered and Missing Sexual Assault Violence Against Women Act

PBS’ ‘Bring Her Home’ Betrays the Truth, Ignores Missing and Murdered Indian Men

PBS’ ‘Bring Her Home’ Betrays the Truth, Ignores Missing and Murdered Indian Men

Rebecca Stewart

March 17, 2022

Imagine Danokoo Hoaglen were your 16-year-old boy who went missing in Montana almost a year ago and you’ve heard nothing since. He’s just gone. Finding him, or any morsel of information on what happened, would be your most important mission.

Hoaglen is one of more than a thousand missing Native Americans, like Jonathan Kent of the Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma, who disappeared in December at age 15; or Willis Derendoff, age 34, missing without a trace since November 2020. It’s a relative’s worst nightmare, not knowing what happened or where a loved one is.

Whether that person is a son or a daughter makes no difference in the level of strife and determination for finding help and bringing that person home. Whether that’s a son or a daughter should make no difference in the level of help that’s offered from the community.

FBI statistics on the plight of Murdered and Missing Indigenous People (MMIP) are detailed in a report from the National Crime and Information Center. In 2020 there were 918 missing indigenous men and boys and 578 missing women and girls. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control reports105 Indian men and 34 Indian women are murdered each year.

Knowing that 75% of murdered Indians are males, it is puzzling and frustrating to notice that most of the media coverage and political attention highlights only the struggle in the female indigenous population. In fact, a soon-to-be-released PBS documentary titled “Bring Her Home,” focuses only on the plight of women and girls, and provides zero mention of the statistical fact that men and boys make up the majority of missing and murdered indigenous people. Instead, men are spoken of as perpetrators with the comment that society must “reteach men how to be in a relationship with women.” This generalized misrepresentation damages the truth of the process and sadly, stagnates progress for the entirety of indigenous society.

PBS backed up its apparent feminist agenda with a discussion panel on March 15, previewing the “Bring Her Home” premiere. While the panelists were supporting a cause that deserves discussion, they only escalated the one-sided analysis that’s gained the exclusive hashtag #MMIW, in which W (for Women) replaces P (for People). Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women locks out any mention that males are victims of the same problem.

Panel members plead their case that we need to “build systems of justice that help us all;” “we are all responsible to each other;” “how do we not harm each other further;” and “we are all on the same team.” That hint at inclusivity, however, was destroyed with phrases like “holding men who are abusers accountable in our community,” and “we have to look at these men and what’s wrong with them.” No mention was made of the men and boys who are victims of the exact same problems, let alone to a greater extent.

Pushing the hot button of blaming men for a problem that actually affects males at a much higher rate runs contrary to finding solutions based on facts. Wouldn’t the process of solving this common problem work better by including every indigenous victim, rather than ignoring the existence of the majority of them? Native American women and girls deserve truth in this process, too. Every fact must be included to arrive at true solutions when it comes to Native Americans, as a whole, suffering from this murdered and missing epidemic.

Categories
Believe the Victim Campus Investigations Prosecutorial Misconduct Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Victim-Centered Investigations Violence Against Women Act

Trauma-Informed, Victim-Centered Training: Text of VAWA Reauthorization Bill

Trauma-Informed, Victim-Centered Training: Text of VAWA Reauthorization Bill

Link: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3/9/39a64d5a-0551-4b9d-9814-521b9af00a18/E0B849C39D8A38B26A503509BD6824E8.vawa-reauthorization-act-of-2022.pdf

Section 205

Subtitle Q—Trauma-Informed, Victim-Centered Training for Law Enforcement

4 ‘‘SEC. 41701. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ON TRAUMA-INFORMED, VICTIM-CENTERED TRAINING FOR

6 LAW ENFORCEMENT.

7 ‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—

8 ‘‘(1) the term ‘Attorney General’ means the Attorney General, acting through the Director of the

10 Office on Violence Against Women;

11 ‘‘(2) the term ‘covered individual’ means an individual who interfaces with victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking,

14 including—

15 ‘‘(A) an individual working for or on behalf

16 of an eligible entity;

17 ‘‘(B) an administrator or personnel of a

18 school, university, or other educational program

19 or activity (including a campus police officer or

20 a school resource officer); and

21 ‘‘(C) an emergency services or medical employee;

23 ‘‘(3) the term ‘demonstration site’, with respect

24 to an eligible entity that receives a grant under this

25 section, means—

1 ‘‘(A) if the eligible entity is a law enforcement agency described in paragraph (4)(A), the

3 area over which the eligible entity has jurisdiction; and

5 ‘‘(B) if the eligible entity is an organization or agency described in paragraph (4)(B),

7 the area over which a law enforcement agency

8 described in paragraph (4)(A) that is working

9 in collaboration with the eligible entity has jurisdiction.

11 ‘‘(4) the term ‘eligible entity’ means a State,

12 local, territorial, or Tribal law enforcement agency;

13 and

14 ‘‘(5) the term ‘mandatory partner’ means a national, regional, or local victim services organization

16 or agency working in collaboration with a law enforcement agency described in paragraph (4).

18 ‘‘(b) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—

19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall

20 award grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities to collaborate with their mandatory partners to

22 carry out the demonstration program under this section by implementing evidence-based or promising

24 investigative policies and practices to incorporate

1 trauma-informed, victim-centered techniques designed to—

3 ‘‘(A) prevent re-traumatization of the victim;

5 ‘‘(B) ensure that covered individuals use

6 evidence-based practices to respond to and investigate cases of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking;

9 ‘‘(C) improve communication between victims and law enforcement officers in an effort

11 to increase the likelihood of the successful investigation and prosecution of the reported

13 crime in a manner that protects the victim to

14 the greatest extent possible;

15 ‘‘(D) increase collaboration among stakeholders who are part of the coordinated community response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and

19 ‘‘(E) evaluate the effectiveness of the

20 training process and content.

21 ‘‘(2) AWARD BASIS.—The Attorney General

22 shall award grants under this section to multiple eligible entities for use in a variety of settings and

24 communities, including—

1 ‘‘(A) urban, suburban, Tribal, remote, and

2 rural areas;

3 ‘‘(B) college campuses; or

4 ‘‘(C) traditionally underserved communities.

6 ‘‘(c) USE OF FUNDS.—An eligible entity that receives

7 a grant under this section shall use the grant to—

8 ‘‘(1) train covered individuals within the demonstration site of the eligible entity to use evidence10 based, trauma-informed, and victim-centered techniques and knowledge of crime victims’ rights

12 throughout an investigation into domestic violence,

13 dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, including

14 by—

15 ‘‘(A) conducting victim interviews in a

16 manner that—

17 ‘‘(i) elicits valuable information about

18 the domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking; and

20 ‘‘(ii) avoids re-traumatization of the

21 victim;

22 ‘‘(B) conducting field investigations that

23 mirror best and promising practices available at

24 the time of the investigation;

1 ‘‘(C) customizing investigative approaches

2 to ensure a culturally and linguistically appropriate approach to the community being served;

4 ‘‘(D) becoming proficient in understanding

5 and responding to complex cases, including

6 cases of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking—

8 ‘‘(i) facilitated by alcohol or drugs;

9 ‘‘(ii) involving strangulation;

10 ‘‘(iii) committed by a non-stranger;

11 ‘‘(iv) committed by an individual of

12 the same sex as the victim;

13 ‘‘(v) involving a victim with a disability;

15 ‘‘(vi) involving a male victim; or

16 ‘‘(vii) involving a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (commonly referred to

18 as ‘LGBT’) victim;

19 ‘‘(E) developing collaborative relationships

20 between—

21 ‘‘(i) law enforcement officers and

22 other members of the response team; and

23 ‘‘(ii) the community being served; and

24 ‘‘(F) developing an understanding of how

25 to define, identify, and correctly classify a re-

1 port of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking; and

3 ‘‘(2) promote the efforts of the eligible entity to

4 improve the response of covered individuals to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and

6 stalking through various communication channels,

7 such as the website of the eligible entity, social

8 media, print materials, and community meetings, in

9 order to ensure that all covered individuals within

10 the demonstration site of the eligible entity are

11 aware of those efforts and included in trainings, to

12 the extent practicable.

13 ‘‘(d) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM TRAININGS ON

14 TRAUMA-INFORMED, VICTIM-CENTERED APPROACHES.—

15 ‘‘(1) IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING

16 TRAININGS.—

17 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General

18 shall identify trainings for law enforcement offcers, in existence as of the date on which the

20 Attorney General begins to solicit applications

21 for grants under this section, that—

22 ‘‘(i) employ a trauma-informed, victim-centered approach to domestic violence,

24 dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and

1 ‘‘(ii) focus on the fundamentals of—

2 ‘‘(I) trauma responses;

3 ‘‘(II) the impact of trauma on

4 victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking;

6 and

7 ‘‘(III) techniques for effectively

8 investigating domestic violence, dating

9 violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

10 ‘‘(B) SELECTION.—An eligible entity that

11 receives a grant under this section shall select

12 one or more of the approaches employed by a

13 training identified under subparagraph (A) to

14 test within the demonstration site of the eligible

15 entity.

16 ‘‘(2) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall consult with

18 the Director of the Office for Victims of Crime in

19 order to seek input from and cultivate consensus

20 among outside practitioners and other stakeholders

21 through facilitated discussions and focus groups on

22 best practices in the field of trauma-informed, victim-centered care for victims of domestic violence,

24 dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

 

1 ‘‘(e) EVALUATION.—The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of the National Institute of

3 Justice, shall require each eligible entity that receives a

4 grant under this section to identify a research partner,

5 preferably a local research partner, to—

6 ‘‘(1) design a system for generating and collecting the appropriate data to facilitate an independent process or impact evaluation of the use of

9 the grant funds;

10 ‘‘(2) periodically conduct an evaluation described in paragraph (1); and

12 ‘‘(3) periodically make publicly available, during

13 the grant period—

14 ‘‘(A) preliminary results of the evaluations

15 conducted under paragraph (2); and

16 ‘‘(B) recommendations for improving the

17 use of the grant funds.

18 ‘‘(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

19 are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General

20 $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2027

21 to carry out this section.

Categories
Domestic Violence Victims Violence Against Women Act

Congressional Research Service Warns Against Turning VAWA into the ‘Anti-Nagging’ Law

Congressional Research Service Warns Against Turning VAWA into the ‘Anti-Nagging’ Law

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

November 2, 2021

Nagging has long been recognized as an annoyance in intimate partner relationships. But nagging was never seen as a legal matter.

In recent years, domestic violence activists have replaced “nagging” with a new term: “coercive control.” The CDC reports that each year, men are more likely than women to be victims of coercive control by their partners:[1]

  • Males: 17.3 million victims
  • Females: 12.7 million victims

These numbers do not come as a surprise to most. The question is, Do we really want to turn nagging into a legal offense?

The recent House bill, H.R. 1620, dramatically expands the definition of domestic violence to include “verbal” and “psychological” abuse. But the bill never defines what these words mean.

Tellingly, VAWA activists emphasize examples of male abuse, but seldom if ever cite examples of female-perpetrated coercive control. Shouldn’t we be calling out the dishonesty and bias?

CRC Weighs In

In its most recent analysis of the Violence Against Women Act,[2] the Congressional Research Service commented on the controversy.

Noting that adding “coercive control” to the VAWA reauthorization would “expand the number of individuals who are eligible for support from VAWA grantees,” the CRC issued this stern warning:

“some argue that a violent physical act is qualitatively different from other forms of abuse such as economic abuse, and legal definitions should reflect that distinction. Further, defining domestic violence as a pattern of behavior seemingly excludes isolated domestic violence incidents that do not involve a pattern of behavior. The proposed definition could exclude isolated incidents of domestic violence that do not meet the pattern of behavior standard.”

The CRC report also cites the Supreme Court’s United States v. Castleman decision, which ruled that the crime of domestic violence must be defined as the “use or attempted use of physical force.” Justice Scalia further argued, “when everything is domestic violence, nothing is.”

Mockery and Betrayal

So we need to ask, Do we really want to turn VAWA into the federal “anti-nagging“ law? Do we want to divert limited VAWA funds away from the men and women who are victims of severe, physical abuse?

This would represent a mockery of the anti-violence effort and a historic betrayal of victims.

Citations:

[1]https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf  Tables 4.9 and 4.10.

[2]https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46742 , pages 5-6.

Categories
VAWA Inclusion Mandate Victims Violence Against Women Act

VAWA: Are Missing and Murdered Indigenous Men in US Being Ignored?

Are Missing and Murdered Indigenous Men in US Being Ignored?

By Cecily Hilleary

Voice of America News

https://www.voanews.com/usa/are-missing-and-murdered-indigenous-men-us-being-ignored

WASHINGTON – Hub Binion Williamson, 34, was last seen in April near Hardin, Montana, about 12 miles away from his home on the Crow Indian Reservation.  It was a trip he made almost daily, said his cousin Rachel Reddog. Along the way, she said he stopped at his aunt’s house for a drink of water.  After that, he vanished without a trace, leaving his family devastated.

“It’s like having a huge splinter in your foot,” Reddog said. “Things just aren’t the same.”

Williamson is one of thousands of American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) men and boys who are missing or murdered in the U.S. but capture little media attention in the shadow of the greater campaign seeking justice for missing and murdered indigenous women (MMIW).

Faulty reporting

Lissa Yellowbird-Chase, a member of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota, steps in where tribal police have failed to locate the missing.

“I can tell you from what I’ve witnessed personally, that men are murdered and missing more than the women,” she said. “But not all their deaths are reported.”

Medical examiners, she explained, trying to avoid the burdensome paperwork required in homicide cases, may note the cause of death as “overdose” or “alcohol-related” for both men and women.

Several federal agencies collect homicide data, but reporting is mostly voluntary.  Federal law requires police to report all missing juveniles to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) but not adults.

Currently, only 47 tribes have access to NCIC.

In 2018, the FBI reported more than 9,900 adult and juvenile Native Americans were missing, but did not break them down by gender.

A better-known database is the Justice Department’s (DOJ) National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs) that tracks missing, unidentified and unclaimed persons and allows police, medical examiners and families of the missing to post, search and update cases at no charge.  But participation is voluntary, and its data is also incomplete.

As of late September 2019, NaMus listed 404 missing Native Americans — 250 males and 154 females.

Meskee Yatsayte, a Navajo citizen who tracks and shares information on the missing and murdered on Facebook, believes these numbers represent the tip of the iceberg.

“Everybody is talking about MMIW, and that’s good. But our men and boys are missing and murdered in way higher in numbers,” Yatsayte said. “In the Navajo Nation alone, 57 persons are currently missing. Thirty-seven of them are men.”

Legislative remedies

A number of bills have been introduced that would address these issues:

Savanna’s Act would improve tribal access to national databases and require DOJ to develop national guidelines for handling missing and murdered Native Americans and report statistics annually to Congress.

The Bridging Agency Data Gaps & Ensuring Safety (BADGES) for Native Communities Act would improve sharing of law enforcement agency data and boost officer recruitment and retention.

The Not Invisible Act of 2019 would require the DOJ to allocate more resources toward missing and murdered Native Americans based on input from local, tribal and federal leaders.

Congresswoman Deb Haaland, a Democrat from the Laguna Pueblo in New Mexico, has introduced amendments to the Violence Against Women’s Act (VAWA), which expired in February and is pending reauthorization, that would provide victim advocate services to urban Indians.

In the interim, advocates are calling on the MMIW movement to change their acronym to MMIR — “Missing and Murdered Indigenous Relatives.”

Categories
Victims Violence Against Women Act

‘Discarded’ Abuse Victim Speaks Out: VAWA Bill Reveals How Victimhood Professionals Exploit Victims

‘Discarded’ Abuse Victim Speaks Out: VAWA Bill Reveals How Victimhood Professionals Exploit Victims

Wendy McElroy

April 24, 2021

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is currently in the Senate awaiting debate and reauthorization. VAWA is the federal touchstone for how sexual abuse, especially domestic violence (DV), is addressed and funded nationwide. It has vastly expanded from its 1994 roots and epitomizes not only the inevitable drift of government toward greater power but also the dynamics of how the victimhood industry abets in and weaponizes this power.

Much of current politics devolves to the question of who has a right to speak for the victim. Speaking for victims is a massive industry through which politicians and advocates can achieve immense status and wealth. They can also implement unrelated agendas as long as they are attached to cries of racism or rape. No wonder there is stiff competition among victimhood professionals for who has the right to speak for victims so that they can acquire tax-funding and the weight of law. In the jostle for power and podium, however, the victims themselves are often lost in the shuffle so that no one seems to speak for them, except out of self-interest.

VAWA is an example of victimhood professionals and legislators damaging the very people they claim to protect. It expresses the ground game of most if not all social justice campaigns?

A social justice campaign begins by sculpting the definitions of what constitutes DV and who is viewed as a “victim” in order to make them useful to the “correct” narrative and policies. Whoever controls the definitions wins the argument.

The House VAWA bill H.R. 1620 amends Section 40002 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12291). The bill defines DV as:

“a pattern of behavior involving the use or attempted use of physical, sexual, verbal, psychological, economic, or technological abuse or any other coercive behavior committed, enabled, or solicited to gain or maintain power and control over a victim.”

This vague and expansive definition would include lover’s quarrels (verbal abuse), threats of leaving the relationship (psychological), imposing a budget (economic), and sending emails repeatedly after a break-up (technological). It criminalizes common, nonviolent behavior so that government and law enforcement can intervene in the minutia of relationships to benefit one side. An example of an amendment: “Sexual contact is not a necessary component of such a relationship.”

Over time, VAWA’s has deeply embedded “the personal is political” into DV policies and law. The underlying theory of this slogan is that all actions and attitudes, however personal they may seem, have political significance; they occur within the political framework of an oppressive culture and impact society. Almost in self-defense, therefore, society has a ‘right’ to encourage—if not mandate—‘proper’ actions and attitudes; it has a ‘right’ to discourage improper ones, by law if necessary. This is the stripped-down core of political correctness and purpose of the social justice warrior….

Armed with obedient definitions, the next step toward social justice is to create a hysteria to establish the urgency of action. A common way to do this is to cherry-pick statistics that paint an alarming picture. Consider the VAWA section headed “Title IX, Safety for Indian Women,” especially on Native American women’s safety. It opens, “More than 4 in 5 American Indian and Alaska Native women, or 84.3 percent, have experienced violence in their lifetime.”

The statistic comes from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), “Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and Men.” But VAWA makes a curious omission. Immediately after the 84.3 percent figure cited, the NIPSVS reads, “More than 4 in 5 American Indian and Alaska Native men (81.6 percent) have experienced violence in their lifetime.” This is only 2.7 percent less violence than women but this data is ignored. If VAWA cares for “victims,” why the conspicuous omission?

The short answer: the omitted data do not support the social justice narrative or the goal of assisting the oppressed class of “women.” The dismal does not come from the ignorance of advocates or from indifference toward male suffering; they fear presenting an accurate picture. If a balanced discussion of sexual violence occurred, then their preferred group would lose its monopoly on victimhood; advocates would lose funding, status, and power.

Instead, they selectively use stats to declare a DV epidemic against women and to demand legislation. Often, the next step in a social justice campaign is to have carefully selected victims testify in public about their suffering. The testimonials serve at least three purposes other than stoking hysteria. They allow advocates to ride a wave of moral and emotional outrage that sidesteps the need for reasoned arguments. They silence critics who appear to be callous and indifferent to the revealed agony of women if they ask questions. They also push aside inconvenient victims who interrupt the desired narrative; not all of these victims are male.

If the foregoing analysis sounds cynical, it is partly because I am one of the discarded victims. I am legally blind in my right eye due to a severe DV beating I experienced in my 20s. But I do not agree with the ideology, goals, methodology, or conclusions of VAWA. And I am convinced that my experience would have been much worse if I had been processed by the victimhood industry. For one thing, they would have insisted on that my blindness were caused by the system and culture. I knew it had been caused by one man—not by all men, not by society—by one man. I am not the voice VAWA advocates want to hear; I am one of the voices they need to silence. As such, VAWA and other DV advocates have been cynical toward me simply because I want to speak the truth of my own experience.

The victimhood complex is a huge network of bureaucracy that directly results from “the personal is political.” But the personal cannot be found in a government agency. People will never be empowered by bureaucrats; people are empowered by speaking themselves.

Excerpted from: http://www.ifeminists.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.1504 

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

VAWA Reauthorization Must Stop Overly Aggressive Policing in Black Communities

VAWA Reauthorization Must Stop Overly Aggressive Policing in Black Communities

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

April 23, 2021

The “criminalization of social problems has led to mass incarceration of men, especially young men of color” Ms. Foundation for Women[i]

Domestic violence is an important problem in the African-American community. According to the Centers for Disease Control, each year Black men are more likely than Black women to be victims of sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking:[ii]

  • 48 million Black men (Table 5.6)
  • 38 million Black women (Table 5.3)

Analyses show programs funded under the Violence Against Women Act have not helped women,[iii] are often ineffective,[iv] rely on biased arrest policies,[v] disregard due process,[vi] and weaken the family.[vii]

These problems are especially pronounced in the African-American community:

  • One study found that protection order statutes were associated with an increase in the number of black women killed by their unmarried partners.[viii]
  • Columbia University law professor Kimberle Crenshaw has noted that many women of color are reluctant to seek intervention from the police, fearing that contact with law enforcement will only worsen the system’s assault on their lives.[ix]
  • According to the FBI, African-Americans – mostly men — are disproportionately affected by mandatory-arrest policies. Blacks represent 23% of all spouses and 35% of all boyfriends or girlfriends arrested for partner aggression.[x]
  • A Harvard University study of mandatory arrest policies found that mandatory arrest laws brought about a 54% increase in intimate partner homicides.[xi]
  • Attorney Aya Gruber wrote, “Day after day, prosecutors proceeded with cases against the wishes of victims, resulting in the mass incarceration of young black men.”[xii]

According to the Congressional Black Caucus, African-American men are incarcerated at more than six times the rate of White men, partly as a result of “overly aggressive policing.”[xiii]  The over-reliance on law enforcement and criminal justice interventions has sent millions of Black men to jail, escalated partner conflict, and broken up families.

The upcoming reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act needs to end this travesty.

Links:

[i] Ms. Foundation for Women. Safety and justice for all. New York, 2003, p. 17.

[ii] https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf

[iii] CEDV. Domestic Violence Programs Are Shortchanging Women. 2021.  http://endtodv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Shortchanging-Women.pdf

[iv] CEDV. How effective are domestic violence programs stopping partner abuse? 2021. http://endtodv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/How-Effective-are-DV-Programs.pdf

[v] CEDV: Justice denied: Arrest policies for domestic violence. 2021. http://endtodv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Arrest-Policies.pdf

[vi] CEDV: Without restraint: The use and abuse of domestic restraining orders. 2021. http://endtodv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Restraining-Orders.pdf

[vii] CEDV: How VAWA harms families and children. 2021. http://endtodv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/False-Allegations-Harm-Families.pdf

[viii] Dugan L, Nagin D, and Rosenfeld R. Exposure reduction or backlash? The effects of domestic violence resources on intimate partner homicide. NCJ Number 186194, 2001.

[ix] Crenshaw K. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review Vol. 43, 1991. p. 1257.

[x] Durose MR: Family violence statistics. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, June 2005. NCJ 207846. Table 5.9. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf

[xi] Iyengar R. Does the certainty of arrest reduce domestic violence? Evidence from mandatory and recommended arrest laws. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, June 2007.

[xii] Gruber A. The feminist war on crime. Iowa Law Review Vol. 92, p. 941. 2007.

[xiii] https://cbc.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=14891

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

If We Want to End Mass Incarceration, We Need to Stop Unconstitutional Mandatory Arrest Policies

If We Want to End Mass Incarceration, We Need to Stop Unconstitutional Mandatory Arrest Policies

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

April 21, 2021

The United States has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Higher than Russia, South Africa, or anywhere else.

Mass incarceration hurts all of us: The persons who are arrested for minor or trivial offenses. The family members who lose, usually, a brother, a husband, or a father. The taxpayers who pay $50,000 per prisoner per year. And more.[1]

An arrest triggers the workings of the entire criminal legal system: Investigations, prosecutions, incarceration, and more.

Part of the cause of mass incarceration can be traced back to provisions in the Violence Against Women Act. The original law required VAWA grantees:

“To implement mandatory arrest or pro-arrest programs and policies in police departments, including mandatory arrest programs and policies for protection order violations.”

This provision obviously violates the Fourth Amendment, which requires “probable cause” before police can make any “seizures.”

Nonetheless, police departments across the nation instituted mandatory arrest policies. These policies have given rise to two serious problems:

  1. Women now commit the majority of domestic violence incidents each year, according to the CDC.[2] But most arrestees are male,[3] reflecting a troubling sex bias.
  2. Mandatory arrest has been shown to cause an increase in subsequent homicides. A Harvard University study concluded, “Intimate partner homicides increased by about 60% in states with mandatory arrest laws…Mandatory arrest laws are responsible for an additional 0.8 murders per 100,000 people.”[4]

Mandatory arrest policies have had a devastating effect on Black communities. The Ms. Foundation for Women decries how the “Criminalization of social problems has led to mass incarceration of men, especially young men of color, decimating marginalized communities.”

Given these compelling facts, one would have expected the House VAWA bill, H.R. 1620, to have addressed these concerns. But it didn’t. In fact, H.R. 1620 actually states we need to “encourage arrests of offenders,” ignoring the fact that a police officer often is unable to determine which party is the true “offender” (Sec. 102).

So if a woman slaps her boyfriend, and he shoves her back, who in their right mind believes both of them should be arrested?

The Coalition to End Domestic Violence calls on Senators to assure the upcoming VAWA bills take proactive steps to remove the harmful mandatory arrest policies that are still on the books across the nation. That will be good start to end our nation’s epidemic of mass incarceration.

Links:

[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/conviction-imprisonment-and-lost-earnings-how-involvement-criminal?ms=gad_prisons%20in%20america_465051828443_8626214133_111612472200&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIzoiouOiP8AIVYsqzCh0jjwR6EAAYASAAEgL0f_D_BwE

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf Tables 9 and 11.

[3] https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/prdv0615.pdf

[4]https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w13186/w13186.pdf

 

Categories
Domestic Violence Violence Against Women Act

Ernst Editorial Ignores Most Important Fact in VAWA Debate

4.2 million male victims, 3.5 million female victims:

Ernst Editorial Ignores Most Important Fact in VAWA Debate

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

April 20, 2021

According to the Centers for Disease Control, each year there are 4.2 million male victims of domestic violence, and 3.5 million female victims.[1]

This recent incident illustrates the problem:[2]

On April 3, Elizabeth Grace Johnson attacked her boyfriend, Draven Upchurch, in a dormitory room at Southeastern Louisiana University. The woman stabbed Upchurch eight times in the lungs, stomach, and colon. Johnson was arrested and charged with aggravated battery.

The 4.2 million and 3.5 million numbers should be at the forefront of discussions about the upcoming reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

For example, it’s time that we ask, Has the years-long debate been overly focused on female victims, to the detriment of female abusers? And what about male victims of abuse, are they any less deserving of help?

Over the years, senators have emphasized that VAWA services are intended to help both men and women:

  • Joe Biden: “Nothing in the act denies services, programs, funding or assistance to male victims of violence.”[3]
  • Orrin Hatch: “Men who have suffered these types of violent attacks are eligible under current law to apply for services and benefits that are funded under the original Act—and they will remain eligible under the Violence Against Women Act.”[4]

But Sen. Joni Ernst’s recent editorial in USA Today moves the debate in the opposite direction. Titled, “Democrats’ Violence Against Women Act Pressures Women to Negotiate with Abusers,”[5] the article is factually flawed, and is defiant and angry in tone.

Inexplicably, the article whitewashes the existence of male victims. Worse, the article stereotypes men as abusers through its misleading use of pronouns: “Under the Democrats’ bill, the victim would be responsible for publicly stating to her community whether her abuser should face consequences or not.” The article uses inflammatory language about a male “wife-beater,” ignoring the reality of female “husband-beaters.”

Such statements have real-world consequences. The most recent Biennial Report to Congress documents large gender disparities in the provision of victim services, with males representing only a tiny fraction of recipients of VAWA-funded services.[6]

As the VAWA bills come up for consideration, the Coalition to End Domestic Violence urges senators to avoid sexist stereotypes, and to engage in debate that is thoughtful, factual, and acknowledges the needs of men and women alike.

[1]https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf , Tables 9 and 11.

[2] https://nypost.com/2021/04/09/louisiana-college-student-allegedly-stabbed-her-date-in-dorm/

[3]http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/BidenOnGenderNeutralVAWA_HCN_06.02.05.pdf

[4] 146 Cong. Rec. S10,188, S10,193 (2000).

[5]https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/04/08/joni-ernst-violence-against-women-act-reauthorization-democrats-column/7124333002/

[6]https://www.justice.gov/ovw/page/file/1292636/download

Categories
Domestic Violence Violence Against Women Act

Do We Really Want to Turn Every American into a ‘Victim’ of Domestic Violence?

Do We Really Want to Turn Every American into a ‘Victim’ of Domestic Violence?

‘When everything is domestic violence, nothing is.’

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

April 14, 2021

The House bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, HR 1620, features a sweeping expansion in the definition of domestic violence:

“(8) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. – The term ‘domestic violence means a pattern of behavior involving the use or attempted use of physical, sexual, verbal, psychological, economic, or technological abuse, or any other coercive behavior committed, enabled, or solicited to gain or maintain power and control over a victim.”

So ask yourself, Has your partner ever:

  1. Given you the “silent treatment”? (Psychological abuse)
  2. Called you a name like “stupid”? (Verbal abuse)
  3. Chided you for over-spending the checking account? (Economic abuse)
  4. Told you to do certain chores around the house, often referred to as a “honey-do” list? (Other coercive behavior)

This expansive definition would turn almost every American into a victim of “domestic violence.” And would define almost every American as a perpetrator of domestic violence, as well.

As University of Maryland law professor Leigh Goodmark warns, “I think actually the prosecutions of women would skyrocket.”

The Coalition to End Domestic Violence warns against the use of such a definition, which would dramatically dilute the services to victims of true violence, worsen the problem of false allegations, and create a basis for nearly endless demands for government services for such “victims.”

The Congressional Research Service has raised doubts about going in this direction, as well. These comments – see below — were focused on HR 1585, which was introduced in the previous session of Congress, and which proposed the same broad definition of domestic violence.

++++++++++++++++++++

DEFINING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Congressional Research Service

Lisa N. Sacco, Analyst in Illicit Drugs and Crime Policy

In 2018, the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) changed the expansive domestic violence (DV) definition that appeared on its website to the more narrow statutory definition used for grant programs. There is some confusion as to the meaning and implication of OVW’s change. In the 116th Congress, legislation has been introduced that would amend the definition used in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grant programs—the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019 (H.R. 1585), if enacted, would amend and expand the definition of DV.

Federal Definitions of DV

The federal government defines DV in different ways and for different purposes. Under criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. §2261 defines a DV offender that falls under federal jurisdiction as:

[a] person who travels in interstate or foreign commerce or enters or leaves Indian country or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner, and who, in the course of or as a result of such travel or presence, commits or attempts to commit a crime of violence against that spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner.

For VAWA grant purposes, VAWA states:

The term “domestic violence” includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction.

OVW administers VAWA grants, and the DV definition on OVW’s website matches the definition Congress established for grants. OVW previously (April 2018 and earlier) posted a more expansive definition that described DV as a “pattern of behavior” and included both economic and emotional abuse. Of note, changes to the OVW website definition have no impact on VAWA grantees. In the 116th Congress, H.R. 1585, if enacted, would amend the statutory definition used for grant programs to resemble the more expansive definition previously published by OVW. This change would impact future VAWA grantees.

Expanded Definition for VAWA Grant Programs under H.R. 1585

H.R. 1585 would define DV as:

a pattern of behavior involving the use or attempted use of physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, economic, or technological abuse or any other coercive behavior committed, enabled, or solicited to gain or maintain power and control over a victim, by a person who—

(A) is a current or former spouse or dating partner of the victim, or other person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the family or domestic violence laws of the jurisdiction;

(B) is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or dating partner, or other person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the family or domestic violence laws of the jurisdiction;

(C) shares a child in common with the victim;

(D) is an adult family member of, or paid or nonpaid caregiver for, a victim aged 50 or older or an adult victim with disabilities; or

(E) commits acts against a youth or adult victim who is protected from those acts under the family or domestic violence laws of the jurisdiction.

The bill would describe DV as a pattern of abusive behavior, and extend the current definition beyond crimes of violence to include verbal, emotional, economic, and technological abuse (the bill also defines the latter two forms of abuse).

Potential Implications of an Expanded Definition

A more expansive definition of DV would generally expand the number of individuals who are eligible for support from VAWA grantees. A broader definition captures harmful behavior (such as financial abuse) that is not physical in nature but is another form of abuse common in relationships involving domestic violence. Victim advocates support this more inclusive definition.

On the other hand, some argue that a violent act is qualitatively different from other forms of abuse such as economic abuse, and legal definitions should reflect that distinction. In United States v. Castleman, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a misdemeanor offense of having “intentionally or knowingly cause[d] bodily injury to” the mother of the respondent’s child qualified as “a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” The opinion of the Court (delivered by Justice Sotomayor) included extensive discussion of defining and distinguishing between acts of physical force. The Court ruled that it must attribute “the common-law meaning of ‘force’ to [18 U.S.C.] §921(a)(33)(A)’s definition of a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ as an offense that ‘has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force.'” In a concurring opinion, Justice Scalia argued that “[w]hen everything is domestic violence, nothing is.” He further argued that if a DV definition were to include all harmful domestic acts, Congress would “have to come up with a new word … to denote actual domestic violence.”

Further, defining DV as “a pattern of behavior” seemingly excludes isolated DV incidents that do not involve a pattern of behavior. So while the goal may be to be more inclusive, the proposed definition could exclude isolated incidents of domestic violence that do not meet the “pattern of behavior” standard.

Congress may choose to expand the definition of DV for VAWA grants or maintain the current definition. Alternatively, it could separately define terms such as “economic abuse” and “technological abuse” and add them to the eligibility criteria for grant programs. The addition of these terms to grant programs’ purpose areas would achieve some advocates’ desired goal of expanding VAWA support for more victims, not solely those of violent physical acts.

Source: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11085#:~:text=The%20term%20%E2%80%9Cdomestic%20violence%E2%80%9D%20includes,spouse%20or%20intimate%20partner%2C%20by

Categories
Domestic Violence Violence Against Women Act

Women Say VAWA Programs Lack Effectiveness

Women Say VAWA Programs Lack Effectiveness, Fail to Address Root Causes

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

March 17, 2021

Numerous women believe the Violence Against Women Act has not been effective in reducing partner violence because it has not addressed the root causes:

  1. “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.” — Angela Moore Parmley, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
  2. “We have an authority in the Department of Justice who says that there’s absolutely no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.” — Janice Shaw Crouse, PhD, Senior Fellow, Beverly LaHaye Institute
  3. “There is limited empirical support for the assumption that mandatory arrest and prosecution policies in domestic violence cases have the intended effect of reducing violence against women.” — Linda G. Mills, Professor of Social Work, Public Policy, and Law, New York University
  4. “Many women’s advocates have come to question whether VAWA’s approach—which relies heavily on law enforcement to reduce the incidence of sexual assault and domestic violence—could be having adverse effects. In the two decades since its passage, VAWA has been criticized by anti-violence campaigners who believe it may fuel mass incarceration but fail to address the root problems of gender violence.” — Rebecca Burns, Award-winning investigative reporter
  5. “Between 2000 and 2010, rates of domestic violence actually fell less than the drop in the overall crime rate – at a time when VAWA was pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the criminal system.” — Leigh Goodmark, Professor, University of Maryland Law School
  6. “Feminist efforts to reform rape and domestic violence law have been criticized by some for relying too much on state power and criminal punishment, a particular concern in an era of unprecedented U.S. incarceration and a persistently racially biased criminal punishment system.” — Giovanna Shay, Assistant Professor of Law at Western New England College School of Law
  7. “Many women who experience domestic violence do not want the current limited menu of criminal justice responses. We urge Congress, therefore, to consider and support programs that explore alternatives to the current criminal adjudication models, and that address the underlying causes of abuse.” — Caroline Bettinger-López, Professor, University of Miami School of Law
  8. “As it is currently organized, the criminal justice system doesn’t protect the vulnerable in our society. It punishes them.” — Elizabeth Schulte, journalist
  9. “Framing violence against women as a criminal issue rather than, for example, a civil rights, human rights, or public health issue, inevitably narrows the framework for understanding the scope, causes, consequences, and remedies for violence against women.” — Donna Coker, Professor, University of Miami School of Law
  10. “Men experience the same identical feelings that women experience in violent relationships. Yet our American society has embraced the notion that men can and should ‘take it.’” –Christine Grant, University of Pennsylvania, Nursing Education