As many of you know, I’m a candidate for public office in Massachusetts. The campaign is dedicated to real reform: making our district financially independent, exposing government waste, and making arrogant politicians accountable to the citizens they’re supposed to represent.
However, most citizens have no idea how much of their tax money goes to domestic violence programs, how ineffective they are, or how much harm they cause to families, especially already government-weakened black families. Let me explain.
First, the money: Each year the federal government spends over $1 billion dollars for various programs designed to stop domestic violence. That money goes to law enforcement departments, prosecutors, and abuse shelters. Then add the money from state and local government, as well as private contributions, and we’re looking at a $4 billion industry.
If that $4 billion was actually stopping domestic violence, I think we’d all agree it was money well spent.
But the truth is that domestic violence programs have not worked. This is what industry insiders are saying:
- “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women,” according to Angela Moore Parmley, PhD at the U.S. Department of Justice.
- “At worst, the criminal justice system increases violence against women. At best, it has little or no effect,” notes Linda Mills, PhD, New York University vice provost and author of Violent Partners
A cynic might say, “Another ineffective government program – so what else is new?” The problem with domestic violence programs in Massachusetts is that they are actually harmful. Here’s why….
State laws have long made it easy for persons to get a restraining order. These orders essentially order a partner out of the house for a few days for a cooling-off period. Problem, restraining orders are too easy to obtain.
One study by the Massachusetts Trial Court reviewed the domestic restraining orders issued in the Commonwealth. The study found that less than half of the orders involved even an allegation of violence. In other words, the order was issued solely on the basis of alleged fear or emotional distress, not because of actual or imminent violence.
The problem is compounded when a restraining order is then used in a divorce hearing to “prove” one’s spouse is abusive, effectively removing that person’s parental rights.
Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, spoke candidly about the problem: “Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply… In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage.”
Once the “temporary” order is in place, it can be a nightmare to remove.
The following is a court transcript from a Bay State hearing in which the respondent’s attorney requested the court to vacate (i.e., discontinue) the order:
Mr. Hession: “Can you please state your name and your address for the record?” [The Court argues with counsel as to whether Mr. L can testify.]
The Court: “I don’t believe I need to hear any evidence from your client. I’m going to deny your request to vacate the restraining order.”
Let me repeat the judge’s words: “I don’t believe I need to hear any evidence from your client.” Imagine being on the receiving end of that.
Somehow we’ve lost sight of fundamental concepts of due process and innocent until proven guilty.
Much of the problem can be traced to the Commonwealth’s legal definition of “abuse,” which includes “placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm.” Now, almost anything counts as partner “violence” – raising your voice, an honest airing of differences, and even “possessiveness” all invite legal intervention.
As a result, scarce resources end up going to cases that are minor and/or frivolous. As a result, real victims of violence can’t get the help they desperately need.
In short, we have created an abuse-reduction system that is ineffective, unaccountable, and even harmful. These problems are documented in a series of reports by RADAR—Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting.
So how do we go about fixing a costly system that has gone astray? An effective approach to curbing domestic violence needs to incorporate policies that:
- Respect fundamental Constitutional guarantees of due process and equal treatment under the law.
- Are based on the best available research and are able to withstand scientific scrutiny.
- Assure that interventions are based on an individualized assessment, respect victims’ wishes, acknowledge cultural differences, and do not impose a one-size-fits-all approach.
- Emphasize counseling and treatment for minor/one-time cases, rather than law enforcement and criminal justice intervention.
- Discourage the making of false accusations.
- Do not engage in discrimination.
- Assure accountability at all levels.
Now most of you who’ve read my columns know how little sympathy I have for those who make false accusations. Many people have been unjustly incarcerated, while the person who may recant can do so without so much as saying “sorry” while lives are ruined and reputations are destroyed.
Stopping false allegations and helping real victims while using taxpayer money more wisely is an agenda that everyone can support.
Imagine how and immigrant can be motivated to ABUSE the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to fraudulently gain immigration into the US by marrying a US citizen and immediately after accuse him of Domestic Violence.
“A woman seeking help from a VAWA-funded center is not offered any options except to leave her husband, divorce him and accuse him of being a criminal.”
Basically she PROSTITUTED herself to me for 3 entire years just so I would marry her. I feel so DISGUSTED by this…
What in reality happened was as follows: As soon as we got married she began the process of destroying and sabotaging everything around and between us. She created a conflict between her children and me by making her children walk with her on a regular basis telling them that I would not let her use the car. She did that so that they would fully cooperate when the time came to accuse me in front of the police and get to a shelter. Because of that I was forced to file for divorce only 3 months after we got married.
She had a problem though because she got accepted to the shelter, but when she got there she had no proof of any violence on my part because there hadn’t been any. What they do in this case (the woman and the shelter) is they utilized legal help paid for by the Federal Government as VAWA grants to write a petition for a Temporary Protective Order against me.
Again, in my case the petition for a Temporary Protective Order ended up being dismissed because there was no proof of any violence on my part because there hadn’t been any.
This whole VAWA business is very funny. First they accepted her to the shelter without requiring any proof of Domestic Violence. Then they find themselves in a position that they must prove to immigration that there was violence. They do that by fabricating evidence and by keeping her and her children in the shelter for a long, long time. They do that to prove that she is afraid of her alleged abuser, where in fact the only thing they prove is that she is eager to get immigration.
Phyllis Schlafly, JD:
“Let’s have a reality check. VAWA’s gender-specific title is pejorative: it’s based on the false, unscientific, unjust, and blatantly offensive premise that men are innately violent and abusive toward women, making all women victims of men….
VAWA encourages women to make false allegations, and then petition for full child custody and a denial of all fathers’ rights to see their own children…. A woman seeking help from a VAWA-funded center is not offered any options except to leave her husband, divorce him, accuse him of being a criminal…
VAWA uses a definition of domestic violence that blurs the difference between violent action and run-of-the-mill marital tiffs and arguments. Definitions of abuse can even include minor insults and refusing to help with child care or housework…
It’s time to stop VAWA from spending any more taxpayers’ money to promote family dissolution and fatherless children.”
Cathy Young:
“Under VAWA, nearly all rapes and spousal assaults are presumed, by definition, to be ‘gender-motivated.’ One reason orthodox feminists saw VAWA as a major achievement was that it endorsed a key tenet of their creed: that male violence against women is a form of collective political terrorism, both an expression of woman-hating and a deliberate strategy to perpetuate patriarchal dominance…
Most VAWA supporters frankly admit that the real purpose of the law is to send a message about violence against women. That message, however, is not a message of equality. It’s a message that combines the traditional paternalistic belief that women deserve special protection from harm with the feminist fictions of a male ‘war against women,’ pitting the sexes against each other instead of treating offenders and victims as individuals.”
Wendy McElroy:
“Largely viewed as an anti-domestic violence measure, VAWA has become a flashpoint for the men’s rights advocates who see it instead as the living symbol of anti-male bias in law.
Although a significant number of domestic violence victims are male, VAWA defines victims as female. As one result, tax-funded domestic violence shelters and services assist women and routinely turn away men, often including older male children…. A lower-bound figure is provided by a recent DOJ study: Men constituted 27 percent of the victims of family violence between 1998 and 2002….
By omitting male victims from their efforts, however, domestic violence activists create the impression of a national epidemic that uniquely victimizes women who require unique protection.
I believe VAWA is not only ideologically inspired and discriminatory, it is also an example of why bureaucracy-driven solutions to human problems do not work.”
You must find a simplified way to present this to the voting public.
Perhaps by isolating a few people, both men and women, who have suffered wrongfully and highlighting their stories.
I was subjected to the problem long ago, that divorce is behind me, but the trauma of what was done remains.
I am so thrilled to see a candidate who recognizes this issue that I will seek out Bob Park’s campaign site and contribute to it.
Meanwhile, readers should be advised of VAWA’s evil twin sister: IMBRA. This is a law that criminalizes communication between American men and foreign women by internet. The same cabal that brought us VAWA based on fraudulent statistics did this with IMBRA, claiming that American men are “buying” foreign women and then selling them to local US brothels. (My foreign wife – a chemical engineer and international businesswoman – keeps asking me which brothel I am going to sell her to if I get tired of her.)
For more details see my site at http://www.onlinedatingrights.com We are on board with RADAR.