‘I think actually the prosecutions of women would skyrocket.’
Coalition to End Domestic Violence
March 12, 2021
The recently introduced Violence Against Women Act bill includes this proposed redefinition of domestic violence (H.R. 1620, Section 2):
“The term ‘domestic violence’ means a pattern of behavior involving the use of physical, sexual, verbal, psychological, economic, or technological abuse.”
So ask yourself, “In the past year, has my spouse or partner….”:
Called me a name such as “stupid” or “lazy”?
Given me the “silence treatment”?
Scolded me to not over-spend the checking account?
These three questions represent verbal, psychological, and economic abuse, respectively. When these questions have been posed to Congressional staffers, almost all have answered with a sheepish smile, “yes.”
VAWA’s proposed expansion of the definition of domestic violence would serve to classify almost every American as a “victim” of domestic violence. This would have major consequences throughout our society:
Criminal Justice Services: Expansive definitions would result in a sharp increase in the number of calls to police for protection from a spouse or partner who is engaging in such actions — as well as more arrests and prosecutions. This would reduce criminal justice services for the victims of violent crimes.
Victim Service Providers: Turning every American into a victim would create requests for many billions of dollars in financial assistance from victim service providers and other agencies. Persons experiencing such actions could suddenly quit their jobs, costing states billions in Unemployment benefits.[1]
Fragile Families: Eight percent of Americans report being falsely accused of abuse.[2] Claims of verbal, psychological, or economic abuse often are so vague that accused persons have no viable defense against a false allegation. This would exacerbate partner conflict and worsen family instability.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, each year men are more likely than women to be the victims of psychological aggression:[3]
20.8 million male victims
17.0 million female victims
Which is why University of Maryland law professor Leigh Goodmark commented about the criminalization of emotional abuse, “I think actually the prosecutions of women would skyrocket.”[4]
Verbal and psychological abuse is a real problem in our country. But turning this into a crime would wreak havoc on criminal justice services, victim service providers, and on fragile families.
One-Third of Wrongful Convictions Involve Police Manipulation of Evidence. With ‘Victim-Centered’ Investigations, It May Get Worse.
Center for Prosecutor Integrity
January 21, 2021
The National Registry of Exonerations has catalogued every exoneration in the United States since 1989. Recently the NRE published a report on the long-standing problem of police misconduct. Titled, “Government Misconduct and Convicting the Innocent,” the document is based on the review of 2,400 exonerations (1). Overall, the analysis found that 35% of the cases involved police officer misconduct and 30% implicated prosecutorial misconduct.
The document reveals that police actions that lead to a conviction of an innocent person typically involve the manipulation of evidence in order to increase the likelihood of a conviction. The manipulation of evidence by police officers falls into five categories (some cases fell into more than one category):
Witness Tampering — 13% of wrongful convictions
Procuring false testimony — Inducing a civilian witness to testify to facts the officer knows the witness did not perceive (3% of wrongful convictions)
Tainted identifications – Deliberately inducing a witness to identify a suspect during a lineup, whether the witness recognizes that suspect or not (7% of wrongful convictions)
Improper questioning of a child victim – Repeated, insistent, and suggestive questioning of a child, precluding the child from denying that he or she was a victim of sex abuse (3% of wrongful convictions)
Misconduct in Interrogations – 7% of wrongful convictions
Actual or threatened violence
Sham plea bargaining and other lies about the law
Threats to relatives and other third parties
Fabricating Evidence – 10% of wrongful convictions
Fake crimes – Making false claims as ordinary lay witnesses, saying the defendant committed a crime that never happened, often involving the planting of contraband (5% of wrongful convictions)
Forensic fraud – Presenting false evidence against the defendant, concealing/distorting true evidence that might have cleared them, or planting false evidence (3% of wrongful convictions)
Fabricated confessions – Making up confessions by the defendants that in fact did not occur (2% of wrongful convictions)
Concealing Exculpatory Evidence – 7% of wrongful convictions
Impeachment of prosecution witnesses:
Incentives provided to testify
Inconsistent statements
Criminal records and histories of dishonesty
Substantive evidence of innocence:
Forensic tests
Alternative suspects
Evidence that the defendant did not commit the crime
Perjury at Trial – 13% of wrongful convictions
False statements about the conduct of investigations
False statements about witness statements
Overall, there were only small differences in percentages of official misconduct for White versus Black exonerees. But for murder cases, 78% of Black exonerees, compared to 64% of White exonerees, experienced official misconduct. The misconduct disparity was even greater for drug crimes: 47% among Blacks and 22% for Whites.
As noted above, misconduct by police officers contributed to 35% of the 2,400 wrongful convictions. The NRE report reveals that virtually all of the cases consisted of actions designed to manipulate the evidence to increase the likelihood of a conviction. A majority of the cases involved the direct manipulation of evidence – fabricating and concealing evidence, and making false statements at trial. The remaining minority of cases involved the indirect manipulation of evidence by means of witness tampering and misconduct in interrogations.
What are prospects for the future?
In recent years, activists have been promoting the use of so-called “victim-centered” approaches, both in the criminal justice system and on college campuses. A recent announcement from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, for example, makes the claim that “victim-centered” approaches “can support victim recovery and engagement with the criminal justice system” and “promote enhanced victim and community safety while helping law enforcement solve and prevent crime.” (2)
Despite the feel-good aura of this gauzy description, the reality of “victim-centered” approaches is that they compromise investigative impartiality, bias evidence against the defendant, and predispose to wrongful convictions. Victim-centered methods (3):
Presume the guilt of the defendant and refer to the complainant as a “victim”
Avoid asking probing or detailed questions in order to not “retraumatize the victim.”
Reflexively attribute inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements to life-threatening trauma.
“Cherry-pick” the evidence in order to increase the likelihood of a finding of guilt.
Write the investigative report in a way to portray the sexual contact as non-consensual.
One Department of Justice report, “Identifying and Preventing Gender Bias in Law Enforcement Response to Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence,” went so far as to urge victim-centered investigations to hand “control of the process back to the victim” (p. 9) and even allow the complainant “to request certain investigative steps not be conducted” (p. 13). (4) The ill-considered report was later removed without explanation or notice. The original DOJ press release with the defunct link can still be seen online (5).
If we want to curb the police manipulation of evidence and ensuing wrongful convictions, we need to discourage the use of “victim-centered” approaches, and work to restore police investigations that are impartial, balanced, and fair (6).
NY Adds a New Factor to Consider for Equitable Distribution: Domestic Violence
On April 3, 2020, tucked away in a bill largely addressing the New York State budget for the 2020-2021 fiscal year, the Legislature amended Domestic Relations Law (DRL) §236B(5)(d) by adding a new factor a court must consider in distributing property between divorcing spouses. 2020 NY Senate-Assembly Bill S-7505-B, A-9505-B. The law adds domestic violence as a factor and mandates that the court consider “whether either party has committed an act or acts of domestic violence, as described in [Social Services Law §459-a] against the other party and the nature, extent, duration and impact of such act or acts.” DRL §236B(5)(d)(14).
As admirably well-intentioned as this amendment is, it represents a significant departure from current law, which, absent “egregious” misconduct, has principally been fault-neutral since the advent of equitable distribution 40 years ago. It will have repercussions for the courts, practitioners, and litigants.
Contact: Teri Stoddard, 301-801-0608, tstoddard@saveservices.org
WASHINGTON / February 22, 2011 – Attorney General Eric Holder is being called upon to correct a false statement he made about partner abuse, and to set up a task force empowered to review and correct all erroneous domestic violence claims that appear on the DoJ website. The request comes from Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
(SAVE), a victim rights group working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence: www.saveservices.org
At a Domestic Violence Awareness Month event, Attorney General Eric Holder made this claim: “Intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45.” http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-091019.html
But a February 4 USA Today article by Christina Hoff Sommers reveals Holder’s claim is wrong. The leading causes of death for these persons are heart disease, cancer, and accidents, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control:
http://www.saveservices.org/2011/02/for-the-record-leading-causes-of-death-for-blackwomen/
“It’s hard to understand why Attorney General Holder is condoning false information on the Department of Justice website,” according to SAVE spokesperson Dr. Claudia Cornell. “Misleading claims give rise to policies that leave abuse-reduction programs ineffective, and in the case of mandatory arrest policies, place victims’ lives at risk.”
Hoff Sommers will headline a press conference to be held in Washington, DC on Thursday, February 24. The event will analyze Attorney General Holder’s claim, as well as other domestic violence myths that have been repeated so often that the American
public has come to accept them as true. Panelists at the press conference will include Philip Cook, author of Abused Men, and
Carl Starling, a victim of domestic violence who was falsely accused by his wife. SAVE recently released a report that shows how often programs fail to provide a truthful depiction of the problem of partner abuse. The analysis concludes that nine out of 10
training, education, and public awareness programs fail to meet minimum standards of objectivity: http://www.saveservices.org/pdf/SAVE-DV-Education-Programs.pdf
Each year the federal government spends $76 million for domestic violence training, education, and public awareness programs. Few of these programs are required to meet quality assurance standards.
The press conference will be held 12:00 – 1:30pm at the Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Ave, NE, Washington, DC. Media representatives who wish to attend the conference, or to interview Christina Hoff Sommers or other panelists, can register here:
tstoddard@saveservices.org .
Does Repeating a Lie 1,000 Times Make it the Truth?
Need to Remove $40M ‘Pork’ for Transitional Housing
Coalition to End Domestic Violence
December 23, 2020
On March 23, the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence issued an Alert with this startling coronavirus claim: “Survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault are facing extreme danger and risk.”
Even though the Alert did not provide any evidence to support its claim, the CARES Act, signed into law just four days later, included $45 million for transitional housing for domestic violence victims.
But the predicted abuse catastrophe never happened. Four separate studies concluded that overall, there was no increase in domestic violence, and some cities saw a significant decrease:
The National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice concluded, based on reports from 13 cities, “No significant change in domestic violence over the previous year.”[1]
The Marshall Project found declines in domestic violence cases in Chicago, IL, Austin, TX, and Chandler, AZ, ranging from 13% to 23%.[2]
The Coalition to End Domestic Violence compiled police reports from 33 police departments around the country, which revealed steady numbers of domestic violence calls in 19 departments, small increases in three departments, and decreases in 11 jurisdictions.[3]
The Major Cities Chiefs Association reported a 16% decline in rapes in large cities during the first 9 months of 2020, compared to 2019.[4]
Despite these reports, countless media accounts continued to promote the COVID-abuse myth, sounding the constant alarm of an imminent “spike” in domestic violence and sexual assault. Even lawmakers were fooled by the hoax.[5]
The credibility of the claims was cast into further doubt because they never mentioned the existence of the 4.2 million male abuse victims, compared to 3.5 million female victims, each year (based on CDC numbers).
The bill that was approved by Congress on Monday included $40 million for transitional housing (page 168).
Commentator Corrine Barraclough reveals, “The myth that domestic violence is surging in lockdown will become one of the biggest lies the gendered narrative leans on for additional funding.”[6]
We can’t allow this pernicious lie to continue. Congress needs to remove the $40 million for this wasteful domestic violence program.
WCASA and End Abuse uphold the ‘Moment of Truth’ letter of acknowledgement and intention, created and affirmed by several coalitions across the country. This statement has been released on behalf of the signatories to several national partners.
As coalitions, we will use the letter as a catalyst for discussions within our membership; guidance for our policy initiatives and community building actions; and a blueprint for how we conceive of our work.
We will continue to have challenging discussions on white supremacy, our role in upholding it, our responsibility to dismantle it, while centering the survivors we serve and, most importantly, acting on what this necessitates.
The letter includes explicit support of reframing the idea of “public safety”, removing police from schools, decriminalizing survival, providing safe housing for everyone, and investing in care and not the police.
Many of us feel confused, unsure of the next steps, or are looking to develop a deeper understanding. We hope to move through these challenging discussions by thinking critically, together, so that we can work to affect real change.
As the letter states:
“The Coronavirus pandemic, unchecked and increased police violence, political and economic upheaval, and stay-at-home isolation have produced the “perfect storm.” We have a choice to make: run from the storm or into it. We choose to run into it and through it. We choose to come out the other side better, whole, loving, just, and more human. We have spent decades building our movement’s voice and power. How we use them now will define us in the years ahead. Let our actions show that we did not stand idly by. Let them show that we learned, changed, and will continue to demonstrate that Black Lives Matter is a centering practice for our work.”
Let’s keep moving forward, together, learning and in community.
This is a moment of reckoning.
The murder of George Floyd broke the collective heart of this country, and now, finally, millions of people are saying their names: George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade, Ahmaud Arbery – an endless list of Black Lives stolen at the hands and knees of police. The legacies of slavery and unfulfilled civil rights, colonialism and erasure, hatred and violence, have always been in full view. Turning away is no longer an option. Superficial reform is not enough.
We, the undersigned sexual assault and domestic violence state coalitions, call ourselves to account for the ways in which this movement, and particularly the white leadership within this movement, has repeatedly failed Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) survivors, leaders, organizations, and movements:
● We have failed to listen to Black feminist liberationists and other colleagues of color in the movement who cautioned us against the consequences of choosing increased policing, prosecution, and imprisonment as the primary solution to gender-based violence.
● We have promoted false solutions of reforming systems that are designed to control people,
rather than real community-based solutions that support healing and liberation.
● We have invested significantly in the criminal legal system, despite knowing that the vast
majority of survivors choose not to engage with it and that those who do are often re-traumatized by it.
● We have held up calls for “victim safety” to justify imprisonment and ignored the fact that prisons hold some of the densest per-capita populations of trauma survivors in the world.
● We have ignored and dismissed transformative justice approaches to healing, accountability, and repair, approaches created by BIPOC leaders and used successfully in BIPOC communities.
We acknowledge BIPOC’s historical trauma and lived experiences of violence and center those traumas and experiences in our commitments to move forward. We affirm that BIPOC communities are not
homogeneous and that opinions on what is necessary now vary in both substance and degree.
This moment has long been coming.
We must be responsible for the ways in which our movement work directly contradicts our values. We espouse nonviolence, self-determination, freedom for all people and the right to bodily autonomy as we simultaneously contribute to a pro-arrest and oppressive system that is designed to isolate, control, and punish. We promote the idea of equity and freedom as we ignore and minimize the real risks faced by BIPOC survivors who interact with a policing system that threatens the safety of their families and their very existence. We seek to uproot the core drivers of gender-based violence that treat colonialism, white supremacy, racism, and transphobia as impossibly complex other forms of harm.
A better world is within reach.
It is being remembered and imagined in BIPOC communities around the world, and it is calling us to be a part of it. In this world:
● all human beings have inherent value, even when they cause harm;
● people have what they need – adequate and nutritious food, housing, quality education and
healthcare, meaningful work, and time with family and friends; and
● all sentient beings are connected, including Mother Earth.
It is time to transform not only “the state,” but ourselves.
Divestment and reallocation must be accompanied by rigorous commitment to and participation in the community solutions and supports that are being recommended by multiple organizations and platforms.
We are listening to and centering BIPOC-led groups, organizations, and communities. We join their vision of liberation and support the following:
● Reframe the idea of “public safety” – to promote and utilize emerging community-based practices that resist abuse and oppression and encourage safety, support, and accountability
● Remove police from schools – and support educational environments that are safe, equitable, and productive for all students
● Decriminalize survival – and address mandatory arrest, failure to protect, bail (fines and fees), and the criminalization of homelessness and street economies (sex work, drug trades, etc.)
● Provide safe housing for everyone – to increase affordable, quality housing, particularly for adult and youth survivors of violence, and in disenfranchised communities
● Invest in care, not cops – to shift the work, resourcing, and responsibility of care into local
communities
The undersigned coalitions agree that the above actions are both aspirational and essential. While timing and strategy may differ across communities, states, and sovereign nations, we commit to supporting and partnering with BIPOC leaders and organizations. We commit to standing in solidarity with sovereignty, land and water protection, and human rights. And we say resoundingly and unequivocally: BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The Coronavirus pandemic, unchecked and increased police violence, political and economic upheaval, and stay-at-home isolation have produced the “perfect storm.” We have a choice to make: run from the storm or into it. We choose to run into it and through it. We choose to come out the other side better, whole, loving, just, and more human.
We have spent decades building our movement’s voice and power. How we use them now will define us in the years ahead. Let the record show that we did not stand idly by. Let it show that we learned, changed, and did all that we could to help make Black Lives Matter.
Affirmed by:
Alabama Coalition Against Rape
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Arkansas Coalition Against Sexual Assault
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
CAWS North Dakota
Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault
End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin
Florida Council Against Sexual Violence
Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Georgia Network to End Sexual Assault
Idaho Coalition Against Sexual & Domestic Violence
Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
Jane Doe Inc. (Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence)
Kentucky Association of Sexual Assault Programs, Inc.
Kentucky Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault
Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence
Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence
Mississippi Coalition Against Sexual Assault
Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence
Nebraska Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence
Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence
New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault
New Jersey Coalition to End Domestic Violence
New Mexico Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs, Inc.
New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assault
North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence
North Carolina Coalition Against Sexual Assault
Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence
Ohio Domestic Violence Network
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape
Tennessee Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence
Utah Coalition Against Sexual Assault
Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence
Violence Free Colorado
Virginia Sexual & Domestic Violence Action Alliance
Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs
Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
WASHINGTON / June 11, 2020 – The Coalition to End Domestic Violence today reports that the oft-repeated claim that coronavirus stay-at-home policies are causing a global “surge” or “spike” in domestic violence has been refuted by police reports gathered from countries around the world.
On April 5, United Nations chief Antonio Guterres issued a Tweet declaring, “Many women under lockdown for #COVID19 face violence where they should be safest: in their own homes….I urge all governments to put women’s safety first as they respond to the pandemic.” (1) The following day, UN Women director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka issued a statement warning, “We see a shadow pandemic growing, of violence against women.” (2)
But police reports received from 10 countries across the globe, listed below in alphabetical order, reach a different conclusion:
Albania: In March 2020, the number of domestic violence reports decreased by 141, as compared to the same month in the previous year (3). Likewise, Judge Durim Hasa reported a decrease in domestic violence cases in his district (4).
Australia: In New South Wales, domestic violence assaults decreased from 2,434 in April, 2019 to 2,145 in April, 2020, representing a 12% drop. Bureau executive director Jackie Fitzgerald said there was no evidence that social isolation measures have led to an increase in domestic violence (5). In Queensland, “Reports of domestic violence breaches dropped 5.6% between March 6 and 27, while court applications related to such matters fell 20% in that time.” (6)
Austria: The incidence of domestic violence has not risen, and many places have seen a reduction, according to reports from dozens of police departments across the country (7).
Canada: The Ottawa Police Service reported that calls requesting an officer’s intervention in domestic disputes were down more than 23% from March 16 to April 30, compared to the same period in 2019. (8) In Toronto, police report a “small drop” in domestic violence numbers since social distancing measures went into effect (9). Police in Vancouver have not seen any increase in domestic violence statistics (10).
India: Earlier this week, Smriti Irani, Minister for Women and Child Development, was asked whether the lockdown has increased domestic violence against women. Her response, “It is false.” (11)
Netherlands: A March newspaper account reported the National Police noted a 12% domestic violence decline, compared to the same week in 2019. (12)
Russia: The number of domestic violence crimes fell by 13% during the lockdown, compared to the same month in 2019. (13)
Spain: During the first two weeks of April, “there has been a sharp drop in complaints being made to the police.” (14)
Tasmania: According to police Acting Commander Stuart Wilkinson, “we’re not seeing an increase at all.” (15)
United States: Among reports gathered from 33 police departments across the country, 11 noted a decline and 19 saw steady numbers of domestic violence cases. Only three offices indicated an increase of 10% or more in domestic violence cases (16).
Many countries have reported increases in calls to domestic violence hotlines. But commentator Wendy McElroy explains why police reports are more accurate than hotlines in tracking trends: “People access [domestic violence] hotlines and services for help on many non-DV issues, including housing, immigration, and medical problems, but they report crime to the police. The same person may phone a hotline many times, but a police report is almost always ‘one person, one case’. The funding of a DV service often depends on its volume, which encourages overstatement. Police accounts also ground DV in reality, with real names and verifiable details rather than anonymous reports.” (17)
While it is possible that domestic violence has increased in some areas, the United Nations’ startling prediction of a new “pandemic” of violence against women around the world has been shown to be false. And extensive global research shows men and women engage in domestic violence at equal rates (18).
In India, Smriti Irani expressed dismay over the domestic violence “scaremongering” at the hands of certain non-governmental organizations (11). In Austria, one group charged feminist-oriented domestic violence groups with using the coronavirus issue to make “untrue statements,” thereby ignoring male victims of violence (7). In Australia, Corrine Barraclough noted, “The myth that domestic violence is surging in lockdown will become one of the biggest lies the gendered narrative leans on for additional funding.” (19)
Anatomy of a Hoax: The Great Coronavirus Abuse Myth of 2020
WASHINGTON / May 29, 2020 – Domestic violence is in retreat in many cities during a time of coronavirus stay-at-home policies, according to reports received from police departments across the nation.
A recent ABC News report documented declines in police calls for domestic violence in Los Angeles and San Francisco on the order of 18%. (1) A similar fall has been reported in New York City (2). The Marshall Project found declines in domestic violence cases in Chicago, IL, Austin, TX, and Chandler, AZ, ranging from 13% to 23%. (3) A fourth analysis found that domestic violence police calls were steady or had decreased in 30 out of 33 localities around the country (4).
But good news may not make for an optimal fund-raising strategy. So domestic violence activists around the country have worked with national and local reporters to publish dozens of headline-grabbing articles that rely on eight strategies that serve to bias, camouflage, and even obfuscate the truth:
Anecdote and conjecture: Articles on this topic follow a predictable script — Open with a shocking abuse tale (which cannot be verified); briefly mention police reports showing a steady or decreasing number of incidents; and then frame these reports as “proof” that the domestic violence problem is spiraling out of control.
Victims as helpless and weak: One New York Times article quotes unnamed “authorities” as saying, “victims were in such close quarters with their abusers that they were unable to call the police.” (5) Considering that a victim can go into the bathroom, turn on the water, and dial 911 — all within a few seconds — this claim lacks plausibility and disempowers victims.
Fabricated numbers: On April 5, the New Mexico Political Report made this claim: “Last week, domestic violence incidents in Bernalillo County reportedly jumped 78 percent.” (6) But when contacted for confirmation, County Undersheriff Larry Koren was unable to confirm anything resembling these numbers.
Fear-engendering language: Articles often utilize fear-provoking terms such as “locked-down,” “trapped,” “horrifying,” and the like. But coronavirus orders allow persons to leave their homes for reasons of health and safety. The Illinois policy, for example, says persons can go outside their residences, “To engage in activities or perform tasks essential to their health and safety, or to the health and safety of their family or household members.” (7)
Front-loading: Police reports of domestic violence typically increase during the Spring months (8). A valid conclusion rests on a comparison of call volume from 2-3 weeks before the imposition of stay-at-home policies in late March or early April, with the numbers immediately afterwards. But many media accounts, such as an NBC News article by Tyler Kingkade (9), include numbers from February, which depress the averages and bias the result.
Vagueness: The Marshall Project article is exemplary because it indicates the time periods being reviewed and provides the actual numbers. This essay is the exception to the rule. Reporters often accept at face value vague claims about a “small decline” or a “tiny uptick.” One article quoted a spokesman for the Des Moines Police Department as saying recent domestic violence calls had been, “garden-variety.” (10)
Sexism: Articles consistently rely on male-as-perpetrator, female-as-victim stereotypes. An article in The Nation opens with this startling claim: “In many households when men are at home, the women are in danger.” (11) None of the articles hint at the reality that according to the Centers for Disease Control, each year there are 4.2 million male victims and 3.5 million female victims of domestic violence (12).
Conclusion by headline: The headlines of many media accounts directly contradict the police reports featured in the article, in many cases. For example, the New York Times reported, “The New York City Police Department said that reports of domestic violence have ‘progressively declined’ since the onset of the pandemic. The crimes fell nearly 15% last month compared to March 2019.” But the headline somehow concluded these declines “might not be a good sign.” (13
Reasons for the steady or reduced number of domestic violence cases vary. Responding to a query from a CEDV staffer, an officer in the Boston Domestic Violence Unit offered this explanation: “Both verbal and aggravated assault are down because people are more focused on good hygiene, their own survival skills and frankly have nowhere to go if they get kicked out of the house (or kick someone out), so they are learning coping skills and learning how to get along with each other by taking walks, etc.”
Commentator Wendy McElroy recently concluded, “The assumption that stay-at-home orders are increasing DV must be questioned because it is deeply flawed.” (14) Corrine Barraclough reaches a more pointed conclusion: “The myth that domestic violence is surging in lockdown will become one of the biggest lies the gendered narrative leans on for additional funding.” (15)
The coronavirus relief bill, the HEROES Act, HR 6800, was recently introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill proposes $3 trillion (with a ‘T’) in new federal expenditures.
There is little evidence that coronavirus stay-at-home policies are causing a “surge” or “spike” in domestic violence cases. Nonetheless, the HEROES Act bill contains numerous domestic violence and sexual assault provisions that would increase spending by $170 million. Many of the provisions are budget-focused, while others would mandate policy changes in existing programs.
These provisions are listed below.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Office On Violence Against Women
Violence against women prevention and prosecution programs
For an additional amount for “Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs”, $100,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which—
(1) $30,000,000 is for grants to combat violence against women, as authorized by part T of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Acts of 1968;
(2) $15,000,000 is for transitional housing assistance grants for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, or sexual assault, as authorized by section 40299 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–322; “1994 Act”);
(3) $15,000,000 is for sexual assault victims assistance, as authorized by section 41601 of the 1994 Act;
(4) $10,000,000 is for rural domestic violence and child abuse enforcement assistance grants, as authorized by section 40295 of the 1994 Act;
(5) $10,000,000 is for legal assistance for victims, as authorized by section 1201 of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–386; “2000 Act”);
(6) $4,000,000 is for grants to assist tribal governments in exercising special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction, as authorized by section 904 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013; and
(7) $16,000,000 is for grants to support families in the justice system, as authorized by section 1301 of the 2000 Act:
Indian Health Service
(4) $20,000,000 shall be used to address the needs of domestic violence victims and homeless individuals and families;
Children and Families Services Programs
(1) $50,000,000 for Family Violence Prevention and Services grants as authorized by section 303(a) and 303(b) of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act with such funds available to grantees without regard to matching requirements under section 306(c)(4) of such Act, of which $2,000,000 shall be for the National Domestic Violence Hotline:
Community Planning And Development
That funds made available under this heading in this Act and under this heading in title XII of division B of the CARES Act (Public Law 116–136) may be used for eligible activities the Secretary determines to be critical in order to assist survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking or to assist homeless youth, age 24 and under:
Public And Indian Housing
$1,000,000,000 shall be used for incremental rental voucher assistance under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 for use by individuals and families who are—homeless, as defined under section 103(a) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302(a)); at risk of homelessness, as defined under section 401(1) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(1)); or fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking:
SEC. 40306. GRANTS TO ASSIST LOW-INCOME WOMEN AND SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN OBTAINING QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDERS.
(a) Authorization Of Grant Awards.—The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Director of the Women’s Bureau and in conjunction with the Assistant Secretary of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, shall award grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities to enable such entities to assist low-income women and survivors of domestic violence in obtaining qualified domestic relations orders and ensuring that those women actually obtain the benefits to which they are entitled through those orders.
(b) Definition Of Eligible Entity.—In this section, the term “eligible entity” means a community-based organization with proven experience and expertise in serving women and the financial and retirement needs of women.
(c) Application.—An eligible entity that desires to receive a grant under this section shall submit an application to the Secretary of Labor at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the Secretary of Labor may require.
(d) Minimum Grant Amount.—The Secretary of Labor shall award grants under this section in amounts of not less than $250,000.
(e) Use Of Funds.—An eligible entity that receives a grant under this section shall use the grant funds to develop programs to offer help to low-income women or survivors of domestic violence who need assistance in preparing, obtaining, and effectuating a qualified domestic relations order.
EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE VOUCHER PROGRAM
DATORY PREFERENCES.—Each public housing agency administering assistance under this section shall provide preference for such assistance to eligible families that are—
(i) homeless (as such term is defined in section 103(a) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302(a));
(ii) at risk of homelessness (as such term is defined in section 401 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360); or
(iii) fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
(5) ESSENTIAL WORK.—The term “essential work” means any work that—
(A) is performed during the period that begins on January 27, 2020 and ends 60 days after the last day of the COVID–19 Public Health Emergency;
(B) is not performed while teleworking from a residence;
(C) involves—
(i) regular in-person interactions with—
(I) patients;
(II) the public; or
(III) coworkers of the individual performing the work; or
(ii) regular physical handling of items that were handled by, or are to be handled by—
(I) patients;
(II) the public; or
(III) coworkers of the individual performing the work; and
(D) is in any of the following areas:
(i) First responder work, in the public sector or private sector, including services in response to emergencies that have the potential to cause death or serious bodily injury, such as police, fire, emergency medical, protective, child maltreatment, domestic violence, and correctional services (including activities carried out by employees in fire protection activities, as defined in section 3(y) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(y)) and activities of law enforcement officers, as defined in section 1204(6) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10284(6)).
(xi) Social services work, including social work, case management, social and human services, child welfare, family services, shelter and services for people who have experienced intimate partner violence or sexual assault, services for individuals who are homeless, child services, community food and housing services, and other emergency social services.
Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic the feminist lobby has claimed that there has been a surge* in domestic violence. (*Note that the term ‘surge’ has been well and truly overtaken by now, most recently by ‘staggering increase‘). This development has manifested itself across several countries, with the UN Women agency being a significant player. The feminist lobby has linked this alleged increase in violence to, in particular, the common practice of governments requiring people to quarantine in their own homes.
The proof offered to support the feminist position has varied somewhat, but has primarily been claimed to be significant increases in call volume to DV help-lines (largely operated by feminist NGO’s). There have also been similar claims made in relation to alleged increases in traffic to web sites dealing with the welfare of victims of DV.
In only one of the media articles I have read thus far, was reference made to an increase in the number of calls to police. This did not relate to increases in the number of charges laid, nor punishments meted out, but rather to queries made by people concerned about a perceived threat of DV.
I would suggest, as have others, that domestic violence is the feminist lobby’s primary cash-cow. Consider too, for example, the salary of DV agency bosses such as Sandra Horley, who is reported to receive a remuneration package of more than £210,000. The British Prime Minister is currently paid approx. £155,000.
To base government policy, even just one-off hand-outs of public money, based on unverified allegations, is at best naïve. And when such claims are being provided by individuals with a vested interest in promoting a public view of a problem that they assert to be large & growing. Well, one might label such vested interest ‘ideological bias’, ‘pecuniary interest’, or worse. But whatever you call it, it is by no means competent, objective, unbiased research.
It is particularly annoying that whilst the feminist-saturated domestic violence industry is loudly proclaiming a jump in violence in the home, they are maintaining their silence with respect to the reality of female-perpetrated assaults/abuse of men and children.
What follows now are a series of media releases or articles dealing with the issue, presented in reverse chronological order:
“But Labour said this fell “woefully short” of what was needed and proposed amendments to the bill that would see 10% of the £750 million charity support package announced last month ring-fenced in a fast-track fund for domestic abuse charities”
” … I have just had 50 front-line workers on a statewide forum on the phone and all of them are saying how much busier it is… and now the stats come back to prove it”. “Stats” that agency staff themselves generated … what could go wrong?
“Ms Foster said the figures were concerning because they conflicted with a recent report from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, which found “domestic violence assaults recorded by police did not increase in March 2020, despite social distancing measures commencing … But Ms Foster said the report had sent a “dangerous message” to victims and policymakers. She said it was “irresponsible to put out a report drawing a conclusion that fears that domestic violence would increase hadn’t been realised.”
“The Queensland Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, Di Farmer, said authorities across the country were grappling with an “amplification” of abuse caused by the COVID-19 outbreak and tough health restrictions.
Domestic violence crisis centres in the state have experienced a 40 per cent spike in calls for help since the start of the pandemic …”
“The most concerning statistic came from Google data, with the Federal Government seeing a 75 per cent increase in searches about family and domestic violence compared to the average number of searches over the previous five years.”
“Alison Macdonald, acting chief executive of Domestic Violence Victoria, said there was clear evidence a surge in demand was coming. “We know from international evidence that there are spikes in family violence in post emergency and post crisis situations,” she said. “We know from Australian experience with bushfires, with floods and with cyclones.”
“To estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on efforts to end gender-based violence, Avenir Health modelled a delay in the scale-up of prevention efforts as attention and resources are devoted to COVID-19, and an increase in violence during the period of lockdown. Assuming a slow start to the scale-up of prevention programmes (i.e., a 2-year delay in 2020 and 2021), followed by a rapid expansion of prevention programs in the middle of the decade, an estimated 2 million additional instances of intimate partner violence in 2020-2021 are expected.”
“COVID-19 pandemic is likely to cause a one-third reduction in progress towards ending gender-based violence by 2030”
“For every 3 months the lockdown continues, an additional 15 million additional cases of gender-based violence are expected”
That’s right, no police reports were used to generate predictions. It was all based on modelling. Remarkable. And of course, no mention anywhere of female perpetration.
