Category: Violence Against Women Act

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

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

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