Categories
Violence Against Women Act

REAUTHORIZATION OF VAWA-2020

robert cubbyAt this point in time the House of Representatives have forwarded their amended version of the Violence Against Women Act to the Senate. It is stalled because provisions governing the seizure of firearms among other concerns. I thought it would warrant a review of the House version would bring to light any changes favorable to males in any way in an act focused on women.

With the advent of same sex marriages, civil unions, the abandonment of terms, words and references to marriage has changed to intimate partnerships and civil unions. I was curious as to how this would impact the pronouns used describing the perpetrators in an act of domestic violence. After all, the “he” isn’t necessarily the perpetrators in the union of two women. And of course, in an act entitled Violence Against Women Ace, the woman will never be depicted as the perpetrator. So in House version HR 1585 we find the following citations. Section 204 struck “women” for “people”, page 42 actually mentioned that domestic violence training for complex cases includes male victims, section 402 “women” changed to “adults, youth”, section 701 refers to women victims but no mention of male victims, page 101 does mention male victims, page 102 cites female but not male victims of workplace homicide, page 103 female not male victims of economic hardship due to domestic violence, and section 1001 still holds to the Office on Violence Against Women but no Office on Violence Against Men.

After review we see some change in language of the Act reflective of the change of marital status and change in gender pronouns, but not change in funding or emphasis on male victims in domestic violence. How does this play out in real time? When the police are called to a domestic violence situation, how do they handle the victim being a male?

In previous articles I have written for Mens E-News (Review of Domestic Violence Training in NJ 4/18; It Not Always the Male at Fault, 7/14; The Nightmare of the Male Police Officer Involved as Victim of Domestic Violence, 3/14) I have cited the problems men haver faced as victims of domestic violence. Seeing that these were written 6 years ago and now we are facing a reauthorization of VAWA, not much has changed, except some language, in the amended House version. Has the situation in society changed for men? What are they now facing as victims under VAWA?

Statistics show in the US, an average of 20 people face intimate partner physical violence every minute. This equates to more than 10 million abuse victims annually. 1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men experience severe intimate partner physical violence and/or intimate partner contact sexual violence, and/or intimate partner stalking with impacts such as injury, fearfulness, post traumatic stress, use of victim services, contraction of sexually transmitted diseases. 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner not always reported as domestic violence. 3 in 7 women and 1 in 25 men have been injured by an intimate partner. 1 in 10 women have been raped by an intimate partner.Data is unavailable on male victims. 1 in 7 women and 1 in 18 men have been stalked. Clearly women take the brunt of domestic violence and the need to protect them is acknowledged. But what of the men cited? They are victims too. Do we dare play the numbers game that they are not statistically significant?

So the real life scenarios of men victims then is a nightmare not addressed by VAWA in any version. In a recent article (National Parents Organization Researcher: What Happens When Abused Men Call Domestic Violence Hotlines and Shelters?) of the abused men who called domestic violence hotlines 64% were told that they only help women, 32% the abused men were referred to batterers’ programs and 25% were given a phone number that turned out to be a batterers’ program. A little over a quarter of them were given a reference to a local program that helped. Overall, only 8% were given any hotlines that were helpful and 69% that were not helpful at all. Finally 16% of the hot lines dismissed or made fun of them. Imagine the outcry if these were females treated this way. Yet VAWA stands mute.

(LA Times 8/17 Its hard for a guy to say ‘I  need help.” How shelters reach out to male victims of domestic violence) Last year the National Domestic
Violence Hotline received 12,046 calls and messages from men who said they were victims in abusive relationships- a fraction of the 119,470
interactions with women but a 73% increase from 2014.

12,046 victims who have no voice in the present VAWA as written . No funding for mens shelters for victims of domestic violence. At this time there are only two such shelters in the US. Men are otherwise housed in hotels, cut off from support and counselling that VAWA gives female victims but not males. In the two existing shelters the men are given necessary support and counseling but needless to say, the response to male victims is inexcusable under VAWA. We have the opportunity as it seeks yet another renewal, to breath new life into it and make it equal protection under the law as it was meant to be. We need to acknowledge men as victim and instead of VAWA why not VAPA Violence Against People Act.

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

Violence Against Women Act: Policy Needs to be Driven by Solid Facts, not Fluffy Ideology

The Violence Against Women Act is up for reauthorization this year. And like previous years, VAWA is currently caught up in a partisan cross-fire with dueling versions of the law: Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s S. 2843 and Sen. Joni Ernst’s S. 2920.

Part of the problem is that VAWA has become caught up in a broader political and ideological debate. If we want to curb domestic violence and sexual assault, we need to start with a factual understanding of the problem. These are four key facts to help resolve the current political stalemate:

1. THREE MAIN CAUSES OF PARTNER VIOLENCE

Extensive research points to three main causes of domestic violence:

  1. Substance abuse[1]
  2. Mental health problems[2]
  3. Marital separation:[3]

2. PARTNER VIOLENCE RATES HAVE FALLEN DRAMATICALLY

The federal Centers for Disease Control does an annual survey known as the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey – NISVS. In 2011, the NISVS reported 6.5% of men and 6.3% of women had been on the receiving end of partner aggression in the previous 12 months.[4]

By 2018, these numbers had dropped by about half – 3.8% of men and 2.9% of women reported being domestic violence victims in the previous year.[5]

3. NO EVIDENCE THAT VAWA HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THESE DECLINES

Persons who have examined the trend-lines conclude that VAWA-funded programs cannot take the credit for declines in partner abuse:

  • “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, University of Maryland Law School
  • “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

It’s not difficult to identify the reasons for VAWA’s lack of effectiveness. The language of VAWA does not say a word about addressing the causes of intimate partner violence: substance abuse, mental health problems, or marital separation.[6]

4. MEN ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE THE VICTIMS

Take a second look at the NISVS numbers shown under Number 2. above. In 2011, domestic violence was essentially an equal opportunity problem between the sexes. Then look at the numbers from the 2018 report – a 3.8% male victimization rate versus a 2.9% female victimization rate

In short, men now are 31% more likely to be victims than women.

LIKELY EFFECTS OF CURRENT VAWA BILLS ON OVER-CRIMINALIZATION

Many persons believe that VAWA has contributed to the problem of over-criminalization in America:

  1. Overly broad definitions of domestic violence
  2. Restraining orders issued without due process
  3. Exclusive reliance on mandatory arrest and mandatory prosecution policies
  4. Limited role of diversion programs

With the key facts in mind, let’s look at the two bills being considered in the Senate from the over-criminalization perspective:

Feinstein Bill, S. 2843

Good provisions:

  • Discourages use of bench warrants for complainants who refuse to cooperate (Sec. 101)
  • Adds new section on alternative criminal justice response that would encourage use of restorative justice approaches (Sec. 102)
  • Removes “pro-arrest” language (Sec. 102)

Bad provisions:

  • Expands the definition of domestic violence to include verbal, psychological, economic, and technological abuse. Does not provide a definition of verbal or psychological abuse.
  • Promotes use of “trauma-informed,” guilt-presuming investigations (Sec. 205)
  • Does not distinguish between a “victim” and a “complainant.”

Overall Assessment: The bill’s support for alternative criminal justice response is a welcome step. The most troubling aspect of S. 2843 is its expanded definitions of domestic violence. Although the language of the bill states the verbal, psychological, economic, or technological abuse definitions only apply to victim services, it is likely that such definitions will “bleed” into state-level definitions, especially for issuance of restraining orders.

Ernst Bill, S. 2920

Good provisions:

  • Discourages use of bench warrants for complainants who refuse to cooperate (Sec. 101)
  • Removes “pro-arrest” language (Sec. 102)
  • Recognizes value of addressing substance abuse and mental health problems (Sec. 501)
  • Defines due process rights of defendants in Indian courts (Sec. 804)

Bad provisions:

  • Expands definitions of elder abuse (Sec. 204)
  • Promotes use of “trauma-informed,” guilt-presuming investigations (Sec. 205)
  • Does not mention use of alternative justice approaches
  • Does not distinguish between a “victim” and a “complainant.”

Overall Assessment: Definitions are more constrained than S. 2843, but the bill’s other provisions do not satisfactorily address the problem of over-criminalization.

Citations:

[1] “Substance abuse has been found to co-occur in 40-60% of IPV incidents across studies.” https://www.asam.org/resources/publications/magazine/read/article/2014/10/06/intimate-partner-violence-and-co-occurring-substance-abuse-addiction

[2] Dutton MA: Intimate partner violence, PTSD, and adverse health outcomes. J of Interpersonal Violence, 2006.

[3] https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv9310.pdf.

[4]http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

[5] https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf

[6] SAVE: How Effective are Domestic Violence Programs in Stopping Partner Abuse? http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Why-DV-Programs-Fail-to-Stop-Abuse

Categories
Campus Due Process False Allegations Violence Against Women Act

Violence Against Women Act: Eating Its Own Tail?

On April 4 the House of Representatives passed its version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization – H.R. 1585 – and forwarded the bill to the Senate for consideration. Seven months later, no Senate bill has been introduced, much less voted upon.

It’s not for a lack of trying. So what’s going on here?

Three top-tier issues are consuming much of negotiators’ time and energy:

  1. Definitions of Domestic Violence — The House bill dramatically expands the definition of domestic violence to include emotional abuse, verbal abuse, technological abuse, and financial abuse. Just imagine what would happen if every time a woman gives her husband the “silent treatment,” he calls the police?
  2. Over-Criminalization – Following passage of the First Step Act in December 2018, many, but not all Senators believe we need to rein in mandatory arrest and no-drop prosecution policies. And instead, pay more attention to the proven causes of partner abuse: mental health problems, alcohol abuse, and marital conflict.
  3. LGBT Issues – Following passage of the Equality Act in the House of Representatives – H.R. 5 – Senate Democrats are being pressured to include similar provisions in VAWA. But Republicans are unlikely to agree to this.

As if these top-tier concerns didn’t constitute enough of a Gordian Knot, the Senate is also wrestling with a host of second-tier issues:

  1. Lack of evidence of the effectiveness of VAWA programs in reducing abuse rates
  2. Due process for the accused
  3. Harmful effects on families
  4. Immigration fraud
  5. Problem of campus “Kangaroo Courts” (VAWA Title III)
  6. Neglect of male victims – According to the CDC, men are more likely to be victims in the previous 12 months than women
  7. False allegations
  8. Waste, fraud, and abuse
  9. Onerous budgetary demands on federal and state governments
  10. Ideological biases – The dubious notion that domestic violence is “all about power and control”

At this point, the most likely scenario is a straight-line reauthorization of VAWA through the 2020 elections.

That will give lawmakers an opportunity to re-think the issues and fashion a “Fresh Start” bill that eschews “power and control” ideology, respects the Constitution, and addresses the proven causes of domestic violence.

Categories
Investigations Trauma Informed Victim-Centered Investigations Violence Against Women Act

VAWA Fresh Start: ‘Trauma-Informed’ Provisions in VAWA are Junk Science

The House version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization – H.R. 1585 – features a Demonstration Program on Trauma-Informed Training for Law Enforcement. Section 206 states:

The Attorney General shall award grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities to carry out the demonstration program under this section by implementing evidence-based or promising policies and practices to incorporate trauma-informed techniques.

“Trauma-informed” theorizes that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault are so traumatized by the experience that they are unable to recall key details of the incident, and may offer contradictory accounts.

Despite its intuitive appeal, scientific research reaches a very different conclusion. According to neuroscientists Sujeeta Bhatt and Susan Brandon:[1]

The impacts of trauma on memories and recall are widely variable. The stress accompanying and resulting from trauma may produce strong memories, impair memories, have no effect on memories, or increase the possibility of false memories.

Now, a second article has come out that highlights the dubious science behind trauma-informed. The article is written by Iowa State University researchers Christian Meissner and Adrienne Lyles, who are leading an international research team to develop interview methods for the FBI and CIA to reduce false confessions. The article summary emphasizes:[2]

Some of the training programs Lyles and Meissner examined suggest that investigators can determine the veracity of a Title IX complaint by watching the behavior of the respondent during the interview. The researchers say there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of such an approach. They also found no scientific evidence that victims and perpetrators have different neurobiological responses to the same event, as some programs claimed. [emphasis added]

Rather than relying on hocus-pocus notions of “trauma-informed,” Meissner urges:

By asking open-ended questions, investigators avoid inserting any bias. If they have information from social media, video surveillance and witnesses, they can use that evidence strategically to assess credibility of the subject and verify the information they have collected.

For years, the Violence Against Women Act has been based on unproven criminal justice theories and gender ideology. So it’s no surprise there is no evidence of VAWA’s effectiveness. This time, we have a historic opportunity to take a Fresh Start. We need to assure that VAWA respects Constitutional principles, avoids bias, and is based on solid science.

Citations:

[1] http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Review-of-Neurobiology-of-Trauma-9.1.2019.docx

[2] Training for Title IX Investigators Lacks Tested, Effective Techniques. Science News. October 28, 2019. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191028093945.htm

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

The Long March to Turn Every American into a Victim of Domestic ‘Violence’

When the Violence Against Women Act was first passed in 1994, pretty much everybody agreed with the dictionary definition of violence: a “behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” Accordingly, the original version of VAWA defined domestic violence (DV) as “felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim.”

Then the advocates went to work at the state level. Before long, terms like “fearful” and “afraid” began to pop up in statutory definitions. Some states went even further:

  • New Jersey: Any intrusion into your “well-being”
  • Illinois: “interference with personal liberty”
  • California, Delaware, Michigan, Montana, and Virginia: The mere feeling of “apprehension” of harm qualifies you as a victim of domestic abuse

But the victim advocates weren’t satisfied. So they convinced the DOJ Office of Violence Against Women to publish this sweeping definition:

A “pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.  Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.”

This unauthorized characterization later was removed from the OVW website.

During the 2013 VAWA reauthorization, the DV advocates succeeded in expanding the law’s definition to encompass “dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.”

But the advocates weren’t done.

During the current VAWA reauthorization, they expanded “domestic violence” even more. H.R. 1585 enumerates the following as types of domestic violence: Verbal abuse, emotional abuse, financial abuse, and technological abuse. “Verbal” and “emotional” abuse are not defined in the bill.

When you think about it, the possibilities are endless. Do a Google search, you’ll find information about “silence abuse.” According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, “spiritual abuse” is reportedly “no less difficult to endure than any other kind of abuse.”

So what happens when domestic violence becomes so elastic and amorphous that every American becomes classified as a victim?

  1. A serious problem becomes trivialized — if everything is domestic violence, nothing is domestic violence.
  2. Scarce resources become diverted away from the neediest victims.
  3. All-encompassing definitions open the door to government intrusion into trivial matters and encourage false allegations.

As part of the VAWA Fresh Start, we need to consider the harmful effects of the decades-long push to expand and water-down definitions. We need to ponder whether the trend is helping or hurting the real victims of domestic violence.

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

Clery Act Prohibits Unilateral Changes To Sexual Violence Disciplinary Results

One of the fundamental tenets of the 2013 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) amendments to the Jeanne Clery Act is that participants in “dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking” disciplinary proceedings should never be surprised that an action is being taken by an institution of higher education. Just like a respondent should never be in the dark about when or if their appeal will be heard, for example, no complainant should receive notice of a change in the outcome of their case they had no idea was coming as a result of extraordinary action being taken.

While the changing of results in response to legal challenges or new evidence isn’t new, with the hundreds of cases brought by respondents in recent years it is becoming more common. In addition to being an important reminder why it is critically important to get these cases right in the first place, it also puts the focus on one of the less well understood VAWA requirements that effectively precludes leaving the complainant out of the loop in these cases.

Under Clery regulations which took effect in 2015, at 34 CFR §668.46(k), institutions are afforded very wide latitude in how they resolve sexual violence allegations, and as a result the definition of “Proceeding” is very inclusive. It “means all activities related to a non-criminal resolution of an institutional disciplinary complaint, including, but not limited to, factfinding investigations, formal or informal meetings, and hearings.” An administrative action, including those that are extraordinary, to change the resolution of a disciplinary complaint readily meets this definition.

Clery regulations apply to the entire process, providing specifically that “a prompt, fair, and impartial process from the initial investigation to the final result” is required. “Result”, as a pertinent example, is a fluid term that covers “any initial, interim, and final decision by any official or entity authorized to resolve disciplinary matters within the institution.” If a proceeding is reopened for any reason the Clery regulations continue to apply if there is the potential for a new “final result”.

The principal requirement at issue then is that in order to be “fair” proceedings must be “transparent to the accuser and accused” (the Clery statute uses these terms which are generally understood to be equivalent to complainant and respondent respectively). As part of this both parties and any decision maker must be provided with “timely and equal access…to any information that will be used during informal and formal disciplinary” proceedings. Additionally, institutions must provide “timely notice of meetings at which the accuser or accused, or both, may be present” if any.

While this does not preclude an institution from taking steps to remedy potential procedural or factual deficiencies that may be identified through a legal action or other means it does mean that such action may not be taken unilaterally without notice to both complainant and respondent that includes access to “any information” to be used. While, consistent with the broad latitude under Clery, there is no set framework for what this must look like it should be “consistent with the institution’s policies”.

If proceedings are reopened then both the complainant and respondent should be afforded an opportunity to examine the information to be used and a meaningful opportunity to be heard in a manner consistent with the institution’s policies. While following Clery guidelines in the first place should generally limit this type of occurrence from ever happening, any exceptional means used to deal with them should be written into policy and disclosed as part of the Clery Annual Security Report policy statements to ensure that institutions have the authority to meet these Clery obligations.

This blog does not provide legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, please contact an attorney directly.

https://safecampuses.biz/clery-act-prohibits-unilateral-changes-to-sexual-violence-disciplinary-results/

 

This is the Clery Handbook Alison referred to.

Chapter 8 in the Clery Handbook:

https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/handbook.pdf

Categories
Domestic Violence Violence Against Women Act

Stop Treating Domestic Violence Differently From Other Crimes

All of a sudden, it seems like criminal justice reform is on everyone’s policy agenda. Politicians across the political spectrum in the United States are finally thinking about policies to reverse the decades-long expansion of the criminal system, and the mass incarceration that has resulted.

But legislators have been doubling down on the system when it comes to domestic violence. Concerns about intimate partner violence threatened the campaign for pretrial bail and discovery reform in New York State. Iowa abandoned some mandatory minimum sentences in 2016, but created new ones for intimate partner violence. Various federal reform proposals would have decreased mandatory minimum sentences for many crimes, but increased them for crimes of domestic violence.

The implication is obvious: Crimes of violence, and particularly domestic violence, should be exempt from criminal justice reform — and may even merit harsher treatment than they’re currently subject to.

These efforts are misguided. The effectiveness of the criminal legal response to domestic violence is a sensitive subject. Questioning it is a harder sell politically than reconsidering our responses to drug or property crimes. But intimate partner violence should be included in criminal justice reforms. This is not an argument for treating incidents of domestic violence differently than other crimes; rather, it’s an argument to stop treating them differently.

Assaults and threats of physical violence against intimate partners have been illegal for centuries. The Massachusetts Bay Colony outlawed wife abuse in 1641; by the late 1800s, a number of states had criminalized violence against a spouse. But by the second half of the 20th century, those laws were rarely enforced. Police made few arrests; prosecutors rarely brought charges. To be clear: This was a bad state of affairs.

But in 1984, three things happened. First, Attorney General William French Smith’s task force on family violence declared that intimate partner violence was a criminal justice problem that required a criminal justice solution — the first time that the federal government had taken that position.

Second, a woman from Connecticut named Tracey Thurman won a multimillion dollar judgment against the city of Torrington. Ms. Thurman sued after the police failed on numerous occasions to arrest her husband, despite her reports of violence; he eventually left her partly paralyzed. Jurisdictions around the country took notice, concerned that they too could be held liable for police inaction.

Finally, state and local governments latched on to research published in 1984 by the sociologists Lawrence Sherman and Richard Berk suggesting that arrest deterred intimate partner violence. Cities and states responded by putting in place mandatory arrest laws for such cases (laws that don’t apply in the case of non-domestic violence related assaults); Not surprisingly, arrest rates skyrocketed.

The push for more vigorous law enforcement gained additional momentum with the passage of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. The act dedicated hundreds of millions of dollars each year to funding courts, prosecutors and police and community-based agencies. As of 2013, about 85 percent of its funding was dedicated to law enforcement efforts.

Prioritizing criminal justice responses to intimate partner violence would make sense if there was reason to believe that it was working. But that’s not what the evidence shows.

It’s true that rates of domestic violence have been dropping in the United States for years. But so has the overall violent crime rate. From 1994 through 2000, those rates fell about the same amount — a 47 percent decline for violent crime generally, a 48 percent decline for intimate partner violence. For the decade following, however, total violent crime decreased much more than rates of intimate partner violence, which stayed essentially the same — even though during this period, the Violence Against Women Act continued to devote hundreds of millions of dollars to criminal justice responses. Domestic violence homicides actually increased 19 percent between 2014 and 2017; and gun-related domestic violence homicides were up 26 percent between 2010 and 2017.

In 1984, Drs. Sherman and Berk warned that their influential study should be replicated before the police followed its suggestions. That warning was prescient: Replication studies have shown that arrests have modest effects on deterrence in some places, no effect in others, and can actually spur violence. One study found that the likelihood of reoffending was entirely attributable to other factors — like a criminal history — rather than arrest. The impact of prosecution is similarly inconclusive: A conviction may have some effect on recidivism, but its deterrence largely disappears without continuous monitoring, such as intensive probation.

What we do know is that relying primarily on arrest and prosecution exacerbates conditions associated with intimate partner violence, which strongly correlates with poverty. Low-income women are more likely to be victims; under- and unemployed men are much more likely to be batterers. Having a conviction makes it much more difficult to find and keep employment — and employed former prisoners earn 40 percent less than people who have never been incarcerated.

Trauma also contributes. Childhood experiences like abuse, neglect or witnessing violence suggest whether a person will bring violence into his or her home. And incarceration is traumatic. We punish people for violence by putting them in places where they are likely to witness or experience violence, and then send them back into their communities and relationships.

Encouraging a larger role for law enforcement also had the unintended consequence of punishing victims. In the aftermath of the Sherman and Berk study, cities and states rushed to adopt mandatory arrest policies. But the largest increases were in arrests of women. In California, for example, arrests of women increased 156 percent; arrests of men increased by 21 percent. Mandatory arrest policies tend to lead to an increase in arrests of women particularly in “situationally ambiguous” cases, where police officers may be unclear about what exactly occurred before their arrival.

Even if victims avoid arrest, prosecutors, in their zeal to win convictions, sometimes confront them with a horrible choice: Testify against your partner or go to jail. Victims can be held for days or weeks until they testify. This can lead to absurd outcomes: In 2015, at the request of the Orleans Parish prosecutors, Renata Singleton was held in jail for five days to compel her testimony. The boyfriend she was called to testify against pleaded guilty, and served no jail time at all.

We have other options. Rather than continuing to rely primarily on the criminal legal system, we could provide economic support to low-income men and women. We could intervene to prevent the childhood traumas that lead to violence in adulthood. We could address the attitudes and beliefs among adolescents that drive intimate partner violence. We could use community accountability and restorative justice programs to meet the needs of victims who will never willingly turn to state systems. We could focus our efforts and resources on stopping violence before it starts, rather than intervening ineffectually after the fact.

Intimate partner violence has many of the same characteristics that have driven criminal justice reform across other areas. Increased reliance on the criminal justice system hasn’t lowered rates of domestic violence, and has worsened conditions that spur on that violence. In some cases, it harms some of the people it was meant to benefit.

But violence, and particularly intimate partner violence, has beenthe third rail of criminal justice reform. Violent crimes feel viscerally different from other forms of crime; the desire for retribution may be stronger. And in the case of intimate partner violence, concern that we will return to the bad old days when the police and prosecutors ignored it prevents policymakers from considering alternatives.

But the criminal justice system isn’t stopping intimate partner violence. And it might even be making it worse.

Leigh Goodmark is a professor of law at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and the author of “Decriminalizing Domestic Violence: A Balanced Policy Approach to Intimate Partner Violence.”

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/23/opinion/domestic-violence-criminal-justice-reform-too.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Categories
Campus Trauma Informed Violence Against Women Act

Highlights from the ATIXA Position Statement on Trauma-Informed Methods

On August 22, the Association of Title IX Administrators – ATIXA – issued a Position Statement on Trauma-Informed Training and the Neurobiology of Trauma that exposes the many fallacies of “trauma-informed” concepts and methods: https://cdn.atixa.org/website-media/atixa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20123741/2019-ATIXA-Trauma-Position-Statement-Final-Version.pdf

The Statement begins by quoting a claim that is often cited in trauma-informed training materials:

“Trauma leaves tracks on its victims. It is very difficult to fake or ‘act’ the sorts of symptoms [of trauma]. When someone displays these symptoms, this alone is evidence that they have been victimized.”

ATIXA delivers a strong rebuke to this claim: “Proffered as truth that a mere claim of trauma is proof of assault, this quote should be troubling to any rational mind. To assert that trauma cannot be faked is as flagrantly false a claim as asserting that trauma is proof of assault.”

The eight-page Statement goes on to address many of the flaws of the claims of trauma-informed proponents:

  • “Using a study of lab rats to reach any conclusion about the story of a victim of sexual assault is troubling..Do rats tell stories? Do they experience sexual assault?..there is science behind these ideas, but they are not empirical conclusions.”
  • “The ‘Neurobiology of Trauma’ should not significantly influence the way that colleges and schools evaluate evidence… improper use of trauma-informed methods turns trauma into evidence, which IS junk science and goes way too far.”
  • “application [of trauma-informed theories].. has gotten way ahead of the actual science… is being misapplied, and…some purveyors of this knowledge are politically motivated to extrapolate well beyond any reasonable empirical conclusions…”
  • There’s an “important distinction between practices that help an impacted party retrieve memory and avoid gratuitous re-triggering…and those [relying] on neurobiological theories to influence the interpretation of evidence.” Only the former is correct.

The ATIXA Statement concludes with this unequivocal message:

“The truth is that we understand perhaps 1/100th of 1% of what we need to know and may someday understand about how the brain responds to trauma. With such a nascent body of knowledge, most conclusions are premature. It is irresponsible to attribute much about how we interpret evidence to existing neuroscientific understandings of trauma, except to correlate scrambled memory encoding and retrieval with life-threatening incidents, and to see that flight/fright/freeze may be common reactions to such incidents. That is about it. Anything more than that is really theory, thus far unsupported by conclusive evidence.”

The ATIXA report may turn out to be a game-changer.

 

Quotes compiled by Cynthia Garrett, Esq.

Categories
#MeToo Violence Against Women Act

How the #MeToo Movement is Trying to Weaponize the Violence Against Women Act

Not too long ago, the Violence Against Women Act enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Every five years, senators Joe Biden of Delaware and Orrin Hatch of Utah collaborated in a fine display of bipartisan unity to urge their fellow lawmakers to reauthorize VAWA. That abruptly changed on February 12, 2013, when 22 Republican senators – including Sen. Hatch – voted a defiant ‘no’ on Sen. Patrick Leahy’s VAWA bill, and his ham-fisted refusal to involve Republicans during the drafting of the bill. Similar Republican ire was evident in the House of Representatives.

Part of VAWA’s not-so-hidden agenda is to progressively expand its scope, balloon its budget, and designate more and more Americans as members of the victim-class. As Joe Biden admitted earlier this year, “VAWA’s power is that it gets stronger with each reauthorization.”

In the 2013 reauthorization, the definition of domestic violence was expanded to include “dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.” College campuses came under VAWA’s purview. Tribal authorities were accorded greater jurisdiction. And immigration provisions were expanded.

So what would be the next step of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the behind-the-scenes group that had orchestrated the previous VAWA reauthorizations?

The answer appeared like a bolt from heaven in October, 2017 when actress Alyssa Milano popularized the #MeToo hashtag in order to popularize the prevalence of sexual assault and harassment. Despite its broad appeal, many suspected a more nefarious agenda. Julia Hartley-Brewer charged the #MeToo movement was “turning women into perpetual victims.” And one #MeToo group admitted, “We need a complete cultural transformation if we are to eradicate sexual assault in our lifetimes.”

For the so-called VAWA Mafia, the timing couldn’t have been better, since the 2013 VAWA law was set to expire within a few short months. Before long, VAWA proponents began to call out #MeToo as part of their justification for continuing the controversial law.

Dianne Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, noted at a VAWA hearing, “In recent months, we’ve all witnessed the bravery of women and men all over the country who have come forward to tell their stories of #MeToo…So it’s within this backdrop that it’s vitally important to discuss the strides that we have made under VAWA to protect all survivors.”

Karen Bass, VAWA’s lead sponsor in the House, likewise argued, “Movements like #MeToo across this country demand Congress’ attention to better deal with the gaping holes left unfilled in current law around the issues of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, harassment, and stalking.”

By “gaping holes,” Bass was alluding to yet another gargantuan expansion of VAWA’s definitions. On March 3, 2019, Bass introduced H.R. 1585, which dramatically increased the definition of “violence” to include emotional abuse, verbal abuse, technological abuse, and financial abuse. Emotional and verbal abuse aren’t defined in the law, but calling your partner a nasty name or giving your spouse the “silent treatment” certainly fall within the scope of these terms.

Only a month later, the bill came up for a vote, and was passed along mostly party lines by a vote of 263-158.

Like a lightning rod, H.R. 1585 drew sharp criticism. The Conservative Action Project charged it was an “act of immense political overreach.” The Eagle Forum charged the bill “encourages obscurity in the law through its loose interpretation of what defines violence against women.”

The Center for Immigration Studies chimed in on the law’s immigration provisions: “It doesn’t take deep reflection to recognize that a scheming alien might very well dupe a citizen into marriage, then claim abuse, file a self-petition, and take the citizen for the emotional and financial roller-coaster ride of his or her life. It happens all the time.”

Columnist Wendy McElroy argued, “every couple has fights in which both sides shout hurtful accusations, bicker about money, give ultimatums, slam doors and speak indiscreetly to friends in a bar or online. But lovers’ quarrels and angry outbursts are not DV.”

McElroy also noted, “the vagueness and elasticity of the DV definition invites frivolous or false allegations, which could raise skepticism about all accusations and prevent victims from coming forward.” Which harkens back to the prophetic warning by #MeToo advocate Emily Linden: “I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations.”

So the ball is now in the Senate’s court. Will it take the politically expedient route, hold its nose, and pass the House’s deeply flawed, unconstitutional version of VAWA? Or will the Senate realize that the Violence Against Women Act is being co-opted by a fulminating, anti-male ideology?

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

New VAWA Entitlement Will Worsen Crisis of Unemployment Insurance Trust Funds

It’s no secret that many state unemployment insurance trust funds are in trouble right now.

According to the Department of Commerce’s latest Trust Fund Solvency Report,[1] unemployment trust funds do not meet minimum standards for solvency in 24 areas: AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, IL, IN, KY, MA, MD, MN, MO, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, WI, WV, and the Virgin Islands. In addition, nine other states are teetering on the brink of insolvency because they have Average High Cost Multiple ratings of less than 1.10: DC, FL, GA, MI, ND, NH, NM, and VA, and WA.

Under a bill recently passed in the House of Representatives, things could get much worse.

The Violence Against Women Act bill, H.R. 1585, features a new entitlement for unemployment insurance. Titled “Entitlement to Unemployment Compensation to Victims of Sexual and Other Harassment and Survivors of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking,” Section 703 states:

“no person may be denied compensation under such State law solely on the basis of the individual having a voluntary separation from work if such separation is attributable to such individual being a victim of sexual or other harassment or a survivor of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking”

Eligibility to receive such benefits could only require “an attestation that such voluntary separation is attributable to such harassment, violence, assault, or stalking.”

Equally troubling, H.R. 1585 features newly expanded definitions of domestic violence:

“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…” (Section 2)

Which means that any person who has experienced a pattern of “attempted” verbal or emotional abuse could simply quit his or her job – no requirement for involuntary, not-for-cause termination — and then qualify for unemployment benefits merely by providing an “attestation.”

Over 100 thought leaders have noted that H.R. 1585 “would dramatically increase unemployment insurance and thus impose an enormous tax on employers that would result in a loss of jobs.”[2] In CY 2018, unemployment benefits in the United States amounted to $27.5 billion.[3] VAWA’s new entitlement could easily cause payouts to balloon by 10%, costing taxpayers $2.75 billion a year.

Such open-ended eligibility criteria would be unsustainable and fiscally irresponsible. In addition, they would also encourage of the filing of trivial and even false claims of “domestic violence.” That would greatly undermine the credibility of victims of physical, severe partner violence.

VAWA’s unemployment entitlement should be removed from further consideration by the Senate.

Citations:

[1] https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/docs/trustFundSolvReport2019.pdf

[2] https://tinyurl.com/y2948xku

[3] https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/DataDashboard.asp