By reason.com 07/28/2015
“…David Lisak’s serial predator theory of campus rape has made him a celebrity. Once a virtually unknown associate professor at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, his work is now cited by White House officials and reporters for major newspapers. …”
Read the entire article:https://reason.com/archives/2015/07/28/campus-rape-statistics-lisak-problem
By Vox.com 06/03/2015
“… I’m a professor at a midsize state school. I have been teaching college classes for nine years now. I have won (minor) teaching awards, studied pedagogy extensively, and almost always score highly on my student evaluations. …”
Read the entire article:http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid
By abovethelaw.com 11/03/2015
“…Shannon Smith has served almost 6 years of her 10 year sentence for the death of Robert Takach. Smith’s hearing is scheduled for tomorrow. …”
By WashingtonTimes.com 11/05/2015
“…He is an award-winning combat photographer who stands accused of trying to pick up women in the public affairs office at MinotAir Force Base in North Dakota, and for that prosecutors wanted to put him in prison for 130 years. …”
Read the entire article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/5/aaron-allmon-case-makes-minot-air-force-base-groun/
By psmag.com 11/06/2015
“…A new report on sexual abuse within the American military sheds light on male rape and assault—and how little is actually known about the issue. Rates of military sexual trauma among men may be as much as 15 times higher than previously thought, according to the American Psychological Association, which published this new research in its journal Psychological Services. …”
By WashingtonExaminer.com 11/15/2015
“…Chicago Blackhawks ice hockey star Patrick Kane will not face criminal charges over a rape accusation made against him earlier this year. …”
Read the entire article: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/another-high-profile-rape-accusation-falls-apart/article/2575738
The CDC, on its National Center for Injury Prevention and Control website sectionhttp://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm , has a new [not sure just how new] Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) fact sheet posted. This CDC fact sheet provides a welcome change from past presentations that minimized and trivialized male victimization.
Anyone who thinks there is something positive to be accomplished in arguing about the percentage differences between male and female victimization can continue to argue until the cows come home. It is clearly an exercise in futility as domestic violence, because of both personal and professional experiences, is viewed differently, defined differently and different methodologies are used in study after study.
The front page of the CDC posting notes that there is going to be an interactive national seminar concerning “A Call to Men: Ending Domestic Violence, Becoming Part of the Solution” on October 19th.
There is no better or quicker way to engage men in ending domestic violence than to end minimizing, marginalizing or ignoring male victimization. In the past the ideological feminist solution has been to ask men to stop abusing women. In all societies men are acculturated to be more aggressive than women. However, it can not be empirically demonstrated that women are exclusively or primarily passive victims of intimate partner violence.
If anyone doubts that the majority of domestic violence organization websites do not minimize, marginalize or ignore male victimization I suggest that they visit almost any domestic violence website to discover that the position of that organization is that women are the victims of domestic violence 85% to 95% of the time.
The following appeared on page B1 of the October 28, 2002, Boston Globe and is representative of the beliefs held by the majority of domestic violence organizations.
Yet, male victims pose a delicate problem for battered women’s groups who say they are too rare a phenomenon [emphasis added] to warrant drastic change in the core beliefs of the movement against domestic abuse .
“Men are sometimes victims of domestic violence,” said Nancy Scannell, legislative director of Jane Doe Inc., a Massachusetts-based domestic violence coalition. “But the attempt to be inclusive [of male victims] should never be interpreted to mean that the issue is gender-neutral. It does not change our mind about why [domestic violence] happens. It happens because of sexism and power and control of men over women in our society [emphasis added].”
Another example of excluding male victimization is the fact that almost all of those domestic violence sites document that 1 in 10 [the numbers vary] of high school girls suffer from IPV while they ignore that the same studies document that 1 in 20 [the numbers vary] boys are the victims of IPV.
There has been a patented and purposeful exclusion of male victimization by the federal government. Not a single president of the U.S. has ever mentioned male victimization during their October address concerning domestic violence awareness month.
In the hearings before the Senate for the 2005 re-authorization for the Violence Against Women Act the vast majority of those testifying ignored any mention of male victimization. In fact the very title of the act documents its exclusionary nature.
Most professional sites, similar to MedicineNet.com document female victimization while ignoring maleshttp://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=41728 . This site notes 5.3 million women are victims and ignores the 3.2 million male victims.
This recent CDC fact sheet still has an ideological feminist edge. It notes the IPV can cause suicide attempts for women while ignoring the fact that in 1 of 4 IPV homicides the male perpetrator will actually commit suicide.
It notes that for women having a verbally abusive, jealous, or possessive partner is a risk factor. All data clearly documents verbally abusive, jealous, or possessive behavior is a risk factor for both males and females.
As difficult as it may be to believe, the CDC fact sheet also notes that simply being female is a risk factor. Using this same broad methodology as a measuring tool, simply being born could be considered a risk factor.
The fact sheet does acknowledges that some researchers document that women are more than twice as likely to report IPV as men and that male victimization is greatly underestimated. However, this fact sheet can not resist presenting misleading criminal justice data that documents, 85% female vs. 15% of males report their abuse to the National Crime Victimization Survey.
Progress is Progress
Never the less this most recent CDC fact sheet should be recognized as progress by the federal government concerning the recognition of male victimization. The CDC often works with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) concerning domestic violence issues. The NIJ is the central agency in setting the direction of research and coordinating criminal justice intervention through the dispersal of grants.
The fact sheet acknowledges that increased social support has significantly reduced IPV but ignores the fact that there continues to be very little support for or recognition of male victimization. And reams of data on domestic violence organizations clearly document that when male victimization can not be ignored, it is often minimized and the victims marginalized.
The CDC fact sheet acknowledges that:
Even fewer IPV incidents against men are reported. Thus, it is believed that available data greatly underestimates the true magnitude of the problem [of male victimization].
In the U.S. every year 5.3 million incidents of IPV occur each year among U.S. women ages 18 and older, and 3.2 million occur among men.
About 1.5 million women and more than 800,000 men are raped or physically assaulted by an intimate partner.
More than 1 million women and 371,000 men are stalked by intimate partners each year
29% of women and 22% of men has experienced physical, sexual, or psychological IPV during their lifetime.
In 2002 76% of women and 24% of men were murdered by an intimate partner
At least 42% of women and 20% of men sustained injuries during their most recent victimization.
While there is no question that men are the offenders of IPV homicides more often than women it is also important to note that the Bureau of Justice Statistics documents that men are the victims of the total number of homicides far more often than women and that males and youths have historically been the most vulnerable victims of the total number of violent victimizations.
IPV homicides account for less than ½ of 1% (0.3) of all family violence between 1998 and 2002. From 1993 to 2002 females were 58% of family homicide victims and males 42% http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fvs.htm.
It is the ideological feminists blame and shame game that keeps men from being part of the solution. The ideological feminist philosophy is designed to keep as many men as possible out as victims and in as offenders. Ideological feminism claims that domestic violence is caused by men who beat and batter women because of sexism and the power and control men have over women in society. This carries the implicit message, believed by men, that men must be the offenders and women their victims.
If domestic violence advocates expect men to become part of the domestic violence solution, those advocates, agencies and the federal government that spends billions to end domestic violence, must recognize that male victimization is not the “rare event” that the National Conference of State Legislatures report, “When Violence Hits Home, and many other ideological feminist claim it is.
This CDC fact sheet is a welcomed and important step but only the first step on the journey to bring about equitable treatment for all victims of domestic violence regardless of age, gender, or sexual orientation.
A Non-Profit Charitable Human Rights Organization
16869 SW 65th Ave PMB 212
Lake Oswego, OR 97035-7865
(503)853-8686
http://www.safe4all.org
A key component of the legislative intent of VAWA is to assist victims of domestic violence and sexual assaults through the allocation of federal funds to public and private agencies and bodies of government that provide services to victims of domestic and sexual assaults. Yet the language within the act, the very title of the Act itself, excludes men, and some of the recent revisions to the act exemplify this exclusion: For example, under the recent revisions to Grants to Combat Violence Against Women which include the STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant, the language for underserved populations states:
Redefines “underserved populations,” to include geographic location, race and ethnicity, language barriers, alien age status, age and any other populations determined to be underserved by the state planning process in consultation with the attorney general.
A realistic interpretation of this provision would recognize that men fall into the “other populations.” It seems reasonable and prudent that because men comprise 27% of all victims according to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 36% of all victims according to the Violence Against Women Survey (NCJ 18167), and 50% according to the National Family Violence Survey (see footnote 1), that men should be named specifically within the language of the Act and in all revisions of the Act. Specifically, the re-authorization of VAWA should include the following language: “The provisions of the Violence Against Women Act shall be applied and administered so as to ensure that men are eligible for benefits and services under all available grants funded by the Violence Against Women Act.”
We note that on Oct. 11, 2000 in the Congressional Record Co-sponsor of VAWA Senator Orrin Hatch, made the following statement: “Despite the need to direct federal funds toward the most pressing problem, it was not, and is not, the intent of Congress categorically to exclude men who have suffered domestic abuse or sexual assaults from receiving benefits and services under the Violence Against Women Act.” Despite Senator Hatch’s declaration, all grants administered by the Violence Against Women Office specifically exclude male victims from funding, either by limiting the grant offering only to women and children, or by administrative action declining applications that seek to serve men. Linda Mansour, a Justice Department Spokesperson, told the New York Times, “This is the Violence Against Women Act…We cannot fund the men’s groups.”
Throughout the Act and in all revisions to the Act, the term, men, be added when women are specifically named as victims to reflect the legislative intent. The legislative intent could be significantly strengthened by legislation renaming the act: The Family Violence and Sexual Assault Act. The language of all federal grant applications should specifically name men victims as equal recipients of in-kind services when women victims are specifically named.
| Claim | Fact check | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men make up 5% of the victims of domestic violence | Approximately 1.5 million women and 834,732 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States (i.e. men make 36% of the victims), according to the Violence Against Women Survey | ||||||||||
| Every 9 seconds in the U.S. a woman is assaulted or beaten | |||||||||||
| One woman is beaten by her husband or partner every 15 second in the US | |||||||||||
| Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women | Sometimes, said as “domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44 in the United States — more than car accidents, muggins, and rapes combined.”The best research on this is: National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1992 Emergency Department Summary-Centers For Disease Control The CDC study reports on the causes of injury in emergency departments by percentage for women only:
Note that the last figure includes assault by strangers as well, i.e. ALL assault. This study: Violence-Related Injuries in Hospital Emergency Departments-US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics NCJ-156921 found that of those assaults, 17% of all admissions for assaults are due to intimate partner violence (14% women-3% men).You can read about the history of this factoid. A detailed response to this is also available on page 28 and 29: Violent Touch, by David Fontes. |
||||||||||
| About 1 out of 4 women is likely to be abused by a partner in her lifetime | |||||||||||
| Nearly 2,000 American women are killed every year by their partners | |||||||||||
| More than eight out of ten men commit violence against wives in India | http://www.proutist-universal.org/archives/000453.html | ||||||||||
| Police nationwide report that between 40 and 60 percent of the calls they receive, especially at night, are domestic disputes. | |||||||||||
| Domestic violence ranks as one of the nation’s most expensive health problems. | |||||||||||
| According to one study, family violence alone may cost the country from $5 to $10 billion every year in health care and associated costs. | |||||||||||
| Half of all homeless women and children in this country are fleeing domestic violence. | |||||||||||
| More than 90 percent of corporate security directors in one survey had seen at least three cases of men stalking women employees and rated domestic violence as a ”high II security problem.” | |||||||||||
| The No. 1 cause of death among pregnant women is murder | According to longtime domestic violence researcher Richard J. Gelles, co-author of Behind Closed Doors, ”to be pregnant alone doesn’t put a woman at risk.””Women between the ages of 20 and 34 suffer the highest rate of domestic violence, and that is also the most likely age to be pregnant,” he says. ”Age is driving the risk, not pregnancy.” quoted in column by Glenn Sacks in a conservative paper (Please note that SAFE Is not a conservative or liberal organization). |
I believe that as law enforcement officers increase their knowledge about the dynamics of domestic violence, they respond better while markedly decreasing their level of frustration.Susan R. Paisner
It would seem logical that all victims of domestic violence regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation would receive justice from the criminal justice system. However, many domestic violence advocates, even those who claim to be unbiased, continue to view the issue of domestic violence as only or primarily violence against women. Law enforcement and others in the criminal justice system do not have that same luxury.
Domestic violence directly affects many families. The problem for the criminal justice system is that domestic violence, by statute law in all fifty states has become far more complicated than either “violence against women” or “battering behavior.” Domestic violence remains different things to different people.
Domestic violence advocates need to expand their education and understanding of the criminal justice system. Domestic violence advocates need to become more familiar with statute law. It is statute law and not ideological or philosophic beliefs that must guide law enforcement intervention.
In 1981 a group of citizens in Duluth, Minnesota became frustrated with what they perceived was a lack of commitment by the criminal justice system concerning “wife beaters.” With private funding they founded the Duluth Abuse Intervention Project.http://www.duluth-model.org/ The project was a coordinated community wide effort that contained a number of agreed upon written protocols that were intended to connect the police, the court system and social service agencies.
The Duluth police department put in place a policy that mandates when their officers respond to a domestic violence incident and there is enough probable cause to identify the offender and there was an injured victim present, an arrest must be made. And most people would agree that if someone beats or batterers their wife, they should be arrested, sanctioned, and perhaps placed in an effective treatment/counseling program.
The Duluth courts and social service agencies have specific advocates trained to assist the victims in all steps of the post arrest process. Recognizing that many offenders would return to their home after the arrest and that many victims did not want the offender to be jailed they put in place a courted ordered education and counseling program for offenders. The majority of law enforcement officers at that time agreed that the Duluth approach was a good idea. Today I think that many law enforcement officers and others in the criminal justice system have their doubts about contemporary domestic violence intervention. So what went wrong?
Susan R. Paisner is a Maryland criminologist and writer with more than 20 years’ experience in domestic violence. She writes for and is on the advisory board of the National Bulletin on Domestic Violence Prevention. Paisner recently wrote that the key to effective “domestic violence” training is to make the dynamics of domestic violence very, very clear.
Paisner is absolutely correct. However, Paisner, the bulletin she writes for and the majority of domestic violence advocates lack a basic understanding of just what domestic violence, by statute law in all fifty states, really is. In all fifty states domestic violence can be one push, one shove, one hit, one threat. In fact in some states all that is required is “the fear” that someone may be abused. By statute law domestic violence most often includes family members regardless of age or gender and in many states those who are not related but live in the same household.
How can criminal justice domestic violence training or its dynamics be made clear if those who provide the training do not understand the dynamics of the criminal justice system or the dynamics of domestic violence statute law? Law enforcement and others in the criminal justice system must be guided by statute law not ideological or philosophic beliefs.
Domestic violence can also be a single act of physical abuse towards children, spouses, intimate partners regardless of sexual orientation, and the elderly. In some states it can also include acts that affect the emotional, mental, psychological states of mind. In other states domestic violence advocates also want to include acts that violate the “integrity, dignity and liberty of a person.”
Criminal justice domestic violence intervention has become a problematic series of multifaceted and complicated dynamics that reach far beyond its original intent by the well intentioned group of advocates in Duluth, Minnesota.
Much of the following data is taken from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS)http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf. Everyone who is a member of the criminal justice system or who advocates for victims within the criminal justice system is doing a disservice to the victims of domestic violence if they are not aware of the results of this survey.
The NVAWS documents that 22.1 percent of surveyed women and 7.4 percent of surveyed men report they were physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their lifetime. Approximately 1.3 percent of surveyed women and 0.9 percent of surveyed men report experiencing such violence in the previous 12 months.
Approximately 31.5 percent of female rape victims compared with 16.1 percent of male rape victims report being injured during their most recent rape. About 39.0 percent of female physical assault victims compared with 24.8 percent of male physical assault victims report being injured during their most recent physical assault.
Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States. Because many of the victims suffer multiple victimizations the number of women who are physically assaulted by intimate partners annually is an estimated 4.5 million and 2.9 million against men. These statistics do not document “battering behavior.”
All data documents and almost all researchers agree that in violence between men and women, in which homicides, serious injuries and sexual assaults are suffered, there is little question that women are victims more often than men.
A 1994 federally sponsored family violence conference noted that the problem of family violence in the United States is epidemic. The conference estimates that the annual incidence of abuse of family members is at 2 to 4 million for children, nearly 4 million for women, and 1-2 million for elder adults. At his conference there were 400 professionals and 80 national experts.
The 1994 conference experts did not acknowledge one man as being a victim of domestic violence. Not a single male victim was mentioned. More egregious is a recent report designed for and designated to our public policy makers by the National Conference of State Legislatures. This report claims that domestic violence for men is a “rare event.” The NVAWS notes that because many victims are victimized more than once the number of this “rare event” of male victimization could be as high as 2.9 million annually. Rare indeed!
Each and every October during domestic violence awareness month not a single president has every, just once, mentioned the fact that even one man in the entire nation could be a victim of domestic violence.
Why is it that these experts, our public policymakers, and the president on a yearly basis do not mention men as victims of domestic violence? What is the cause of these dramatic differences? How does this effect law enforcement and others in the criminal justice system?
The last three decades of research reveal that varied interventions are needed for the many different dynamics domestic violence present. It should be clear to everyone that any “one-label- fits-all” or “single philosophic approach” is not suitable for all victims or all abusers. Domestic violence advocates who are concerned with the dynamics of domestic violence need to understand that this behavior can begin with or be as simple as belittlement or demeaning behavior towards another family member.
Data document that domestic violence often presents itself in low levels of aggression such as shouting, pushing, shoving, slapping or threats of violent physical acts. Some of it can also include severe physical injurious and sexual assaults coupled with extreme controlling behavior.
Often low levels of assertive or aggressive behavior can be mutual and mild, however, it can escalate quickly into violent and injurious behavior. These behaviors are often fueled, but not caused by, alcohol or drug abuse. There is no question that the abuse of drugs and alcohol lessens reason and logic, hence its abuse can often promote or exacerbate the violence, however, most researchers agree it is not the casual factor of the aggressive or violent behavior,
Proper identification of victim-specific and batterer-specific dynamics is vital concerning proper intervention. Women, who are the primary victims of chronic injurious physical and sexual assault, need the most assistance. In general the basic dynamics are:
Without a doubt two of the most common questions I have received from domestic violence advocates over the last decade are
The problem is that many domestic violence advocates come to the criminal justice system with a bias that causes them to view law enforcement as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. They also view domestic violence as violence against women caused by the patriarchy and not familial violence in general.
The bias against law enforcement is so entrenched in many advocates that there is actually a nationally recognized “domestic violence” organization that claims that in law enforcement academies law enforcement officers are trained how to inflict great physical pain on the general public while leaving no external marks or bruises. This organization then makes the claim that law enforcement will do the same to their wives.
It is not just one domestic violence organization that reveals its extreme bias against law enforcement. There are many domestic violence advocates who, while not making that excessive claim, do believe these extreme and unrealistic assertions to be true.
The majority of domestic violence organizations continue to believe, as their websites and pamphlets document, that domestic violence is caused by men because men in general are misogynists. These organizations ignore the fact that there is not a single empirical scientific study that can document this fundamental feminist ideology is valid.
The majority of feminists still believe in “equal” rights, however, fundamental feminist ideology [people who believe women’s rights are more important than victims or civil rights] cause many in domestic violence organizations to claim that men objectify women.
These fundamental feminist organizations rarely hesitate to remind us that most law enforcement officers are men. They stress that men do not respect women and that contemporary masculine mores and norms cause men in general to view women as property to be used and abused and/or sexual assaulted at will. They assert that those men who do not abuse or sexually assault women condone the behavior of men who do.
They believe in their hearts and minds that men cause domestic violence because men in general hate women in particular. They remind us that the majority of police officers are men and these agencies then expect that the general public will connect their dots.
The fundamental feminist patriarchal ideology is commonly held by the majority of domestic violence advocates. In many states public policy makers actually mandate that batterer intervention programs are based on this myopic feminist patriarchal model.
This “one-label-fits-all” intervention for the criminal justice system and batter programs continues despite any evidence that this single minded, biased, and ideological based intervention works, in and of itself, any better than other criminal justice sanctions.
A recent National Institute of Justice Report “Batterer Intervention Programs: Where Do We Go From Here?” documents that the fundamental feminist ideological based batterer programs, in and of themselves, have demonstrated little to no real scientific empirical evidence that they work.
In addition to holding ideological and gender biased views many domestic violence advocates who train law enforcement officers have little real understanding of the complexities of statute, federal, state and common law. They often have less knowledge of individual police department policy and procedure concerning domestic violence.
The fact is many law enforcement agencies wonder why the domestic violence advocates and public policy makers don’t get it! Law enforcement agencies, as do the majority of physicians, nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists, family counselors, educators, social workers, attorneys, judges understand that domestic violence does not fit only a single dynamic.
Domestic violence by statute law in all fifty states is child, intimate partner regardless of sexual orientation, spousal and elder abuse. Domestic violence is not only or primarily violence against women, it is a multifaceted complex dynamic.
However, the majority of contemporary domestic violence interventions continue to disregard and ignore those complexities. Too often law enforcement domestic violence training is presented as “one-label-fits-all.” That label claims that domestic violence is battering behavior.
The lack of agreement between many professionals concerning just what domestic violence is continues to cause confusion and disarray between law enforcement, domestic violence advocates, and public policy makers. Domestic violence advocates claim they are right and want to train law enforcement, while the fact is that law enforcement must be guided by statute law.
Because there is no agreement between researchers, scholars and professionals on definition, it logically follows that there can be no agreement concerning cause and consequences. Hundreds of studies to date only serve to document that there is no single researcher, scholar or professional that has discovered the single correct answer to cause or consequence.
How can domestic violence advocates provide training for law enforcement officers when there are dramatic differences between their ideological philosophy and statute law concerning the definition of domestic violence? A great many criminal justice agencies resist domestic violence training because it is most often presented by advocates who continue to believe in their “one-label-fits-all” batterer dynamic.
Deborah Capaldi, is a research scientist and the author of a recent study issued by the Oregon Social Learning Center. Andy Klein, is a former probation officer, domestic violence consultant and author concerning domestic violence. Both appeared on the June 24, 2003 MSNBC show “Scarborough Country.”
Their appearance document the difference between what the majority of domestic violence incidents look like when law enforcement respond to calls for service and what many of the contemporary domestic violence advocates, who are involved indomestic violence training, claim they are.
Capaldi asserts that her study is not an attempt at “victim blaming” however, it does document that women are often involved in mutual assertive behavior with partners. The study notes that women initiate many “domestic violence incidents.” Capaldi is talking about domestic violence incidents in general and not battering behavior in particular. There are more than 100 scientific scholarly empirically based studies that agree with the findings of the Capaldi studyhttp://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm.
Klein asserts that Capaldi’s study is a “real misstatement of what domestic violence is all about.” Klein maintains that domestic violence as seen in civil and criminal courts is not people engaged in mutual fights and pushing or slapping or pinching each other. Klein claims the domestic violence as seen in the courts is the type of behavior that lands female victims in the hospital and the morgue. And concerning the men Klein interacted with, he is correct.
However, Klein is not talking about the thousands of domestic violence incidents that cause restraining orders to be issued or the incidents that police officers respond to. Klein is describing the results of what he saw as a probation officer when the most serious cases reach his office. Data documents that majority of domestic violence abusers that Klein dealt with had histories of both violent and criminal behavior. Many, if not all, of these abusers were in front of Klein as a consequence of the physical beatings of their partners.
The majority of law enforcement agencies can relate to the Capaldi study. They recognize these forms of domestic violence incidents because a great many of the incidents they respond to are “family conflict” incidents.
The Capaldi study documents, if one actually takes the time to read the study, that the majority of the incidents in her study are “family conflict” and not “battering behavior.” Rather than being on opposite sides of the fence, both Klein and Capaldi are right. However, they are engaged in the decades old apples (battering behavior) and oranges (family conflict) dilemma.
The officer’s view of domestic violence must be comparable to how it is defined by statute law in the individual officer’s state. Anyone remotely familiar with law enforcement understands that officer’s respond to both minor “family conflict” and “battering behavior” incidents. These two, distinct domestic violence behaviors, are very different yet they must be treated exactly the same because of “one-label-fits-all” statute law.
Most researchers and professionals agree that a “battered victim” is a victim whose life is thoroughly, extensively, and completely controlled by an abuser. The victim’s behavior is purposely altered to satisfy the abusers desires while they live in a familial or intimate partner styled relationship. The batterer manipulatively uses psychological methods, physical violence, economic subordination, threats, isolation, and a variety of other behavioral and controlling tactics to ensure the victim does what the abuser wants.
Sociologist and researcher Michael P. Johnson, in his many papers concerning “Conflict and Control,” labels this behavior “intimate terrorism.” At times only one partner is violent and controlling and the other is violent only while resisting an assault. There are other couples where both partners “mutual violent control” are both violent and controlling. Often this mutually violent behavior is fueled, not caused by, the abuse of alcohol and/or drugs.
It is important to understand that most victims do not rationally choose to stay in violent relationships. They often stay because they do not understand their problem is outside the mores and norms of society and/or why the relationship has gone wrong.
Some victims remain because they were raised in a violent home and/or neighborhood, thus the violence they face is not viewed as aberrant or abnormal. Some do not realize or understand they can leave. Some lack the education or economic resources to survive on their own. Some have little to no community support. Some will be ridiculed by their own family for leaving.
Some believe that leaving will publicly document the shame they privately feel. Some mistakenly view the failure of the relationship as their failure. Some are concerned that the physical and emotional harm their children suffer may increase if they attempt to leave. And some, rightly so, fear greater physical abuse or death.
Unconditional love can keep some victims in relationships far too long. Some confuse sexually acts with acts of love and jealously and possessiveness with romantic behavior. Many who are used and abused believe that their abuser needs their help. Many learn that their abuser has been physically or sexually abused as a child.
Other victims remember that their family was loving and caring and they believe they must make their chosen relationships succeed. Some victims believe that their abuser is the person suffering and their abuser wants to, can and will change. Many being abused believe that if they can demonstrate to their abuser what unconditional love is, their abuser will stop the abuse. Many victims believe that their abuser, given unconditional love, will return that love.
It is a fact that the majority of people who are married or who live in a familial or intimate partner styled relationship will occasionally struggle with individual or family problems. A lack of education and economic resources often create or exacerbate stress and conflict.
There are many types of psychological and physical tactics employed by family members or intimate partners, regardless of age or gender, who attempt to “get their way” in a specific or general disagreement. Too often in contemporary society, many family members accept this type of behavior as “normal.”
Johnson documents that this family styled conflict is the most common form of domestic violence and labels it “situational couple violence.” Johnson believes that this style of familial violence is most often documented in family violence surveys.
The findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey are documented in the National Institute of Justice report the Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women. This report documents that most familial or intimate partner incidents are relatively minor.
Family conflict does not always involve violent assaults nor is it the result of a specific, long term, carefully crafted, well thought out pattern of controlling behavior. Data documents many forms of family conflict can be assertive or aggressive mutual behavior, regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation.
Esta Soler is the founder and president of the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) (www.endabuse.org). The FVPF receives national recognition concerning domestic violence intervention and training. Soler acknowledges that the debate between Capaldi and Klein, “goes to the definition of domestic violence.” And Soler is absolutely correct.
Soler asserts that, “Certainly, all violence is wrong regardless of who is the perpetrator. But domestic violence is not one person pushing another person one time. Soler claims that domestic violence occurs when there is an ongoing pattern of fear, intimidation and violent assault.”
And it is here that Soler displays her complete lack of understanding of statute law. It is both frustrating and painfully obvious that Soler has little to no knowledge of the statute laws that define domestic violence for law enforcement officers in all fifty states.
Soler may be well intentioned, however, she just one of many domestic violence advocates who do not or choose not to understand criminal statute law. In the real world of statute law and the criminal justice system, domestic violence does not require ongoing pattern of fear, intimidation and violent assault.
Soler has it absolutely wrong. Domestic violence, by statute law in all fifty states, can be one person pushing another person one time. What Soler is describing is “battering behavior” and not “domestic violence” as defined by statue law in all fifty states.
There is not a single domestic violence law in this nation that matches Soler’s definition of domestic violence. And as bizarre as it seems, it is organizations similar to FVPF that continue to claim they want to educate the criminal justice system and the general public concerning domestic violence.
And worse still it is organizations like the Family Violence Prevention Fund and the National Conference of State Legislatures that sometimes do train law enforcement and actually do drive many of our public policies concerning domestic violence.
The National Institute of Justice sponsored study, Controlling Violence Against Women, documents that “The vast majority of law enforcement policies, procedures, statute law and mandatory and preferred arrest laws make no distinctions between “family conflict” and “battering behavior.”
The criminal justice system now has in place in all fifty states mandatory and/or preferred arrest laws. The majority of domestic violence advocates who train law enforcement continue to insist law enforcement officers must arrest every time there is any probable cause that a domestic violence incident occurred.
This “one-label-fits-all” intervention process makes little sense. In some communities approximately one quarter to one third of all “domestic violence” arrests are of female offenders. Many domestic violence advocates think that law enforcement officers need more training so the officers will better understand just who the real “batterer” is. What these advocates do not understand is that there is often no “batterer” or “battered victim” in many of these incidents.
There is no question that the vast majority of domestic violence advocates do not believe that many of these women who are arrested are “batterers.” They believe that these women should not be arrested. And they are right, most of these women are not involved in “battering behavior.” However they are involved in “domestic violence” as defined by statute law. It is stupefying that after all these years so many domestic violence advocates still do not understand domestic violence statute law is not about battering behavior.
An ever increasing number of women are being arrested for domestic violence because many women can be just as aggressive and assertive as men concerning “family conflict” incidents. It comes as no surprise to any reasonable and prudent person that some women can be just as violent and jealous as some men concerning intimate relationships.
What follows is an example of a “family conflict” incident that law enforcement officers respond to:
A live in boyfriend stays out all night, spends his entire pay check, sleeps with his girlfriends best friend. He comes home at 5:00 AM. His girlfriend, who told him they need the money for rent and food for the kids, finds out, gets mad and throws glasses and plates at him. A concerned neighbor, hearing all the noise, calls law enforcement. Officers arrive and by statute law in the majority of our states she is the one who is guilty of “domestic violence.” In those states with mandatory arrest she must be arrested and in many other states she most likely will be.
Should the woman in the preceding paragraph be considered a “batterer?” Few if any domestic violence advocates agree that this woman is a “batterer.” However, she is an example of the type of domestic violence perpetrator, regardless of age or gender, that law enforcement often responds to.
What is truly sad is that contemporary domestic violence “one-label-fits-all” laws do not reflect the “battered” victims or perpetrators described by Soler or Klien. Often those arrested by law enforcement are reflections of “family conflict” found in the Capaldi study.
The vast majority of law enforcement officers understand that a great many of the calls they respond to are the result of “family conflict” and not “battering behavior.” Statute law makes no distinction despite the dramatic differences between the two dynamics.
Most tragic of all is the fact that data from court systems across this nation document that the violent and chronic “batterer” offenders often receive the same sentence as minor “family conflict” first time offenders. This may be directly attributed to the demand of a “one-label-fits-all” approach in reverse.
In 1983 Charles “Buck” Thurman was sentenced to 20 years in prison after his brutal attack on his wife Tracey Thurman led to a $1.9 million suit against the Torrington, Connecticut police. In the Torrington case, Thurman was found guilty of stabbing his wife 13 times, stomping on her head, and partially paralyzing her for life.
Thurman was released from prison in 1991 after serving only nine years of the twenty year sentence. In 1999 a woman Thurman was living with in Northampton, Massachusetts, and mother of their child, fled the state accusing him of repeatedly choking and sexually assaulting her.
No criminal charges were filed as she only asked for a restraining order to keep him away from her. The order was issued, she returned to Massachusetts and Thurman, who has a long history of ignoring court orders, violated this latest order.
Thurman pleaded guilty only to violating a restraining order. A judge placed Thurman on probation for a year. He ordered Thurman to participate in any counseling ordered by the probation department and ordered him to comply with the restraining order against him.
This was the only action taken by the judge despite the fact that Charles “Buck” Thurman is a chronic violent abuser who has a history of beating women and ignoring court orders. Buck Thurman had a restraining order against him and he was on probation when he beat and stabbed Tracey Thurman and traumatized her for life.
In 1996 in Bristol County, Massachusetts Debbie Melo asked for and received a restraining order against her husband Luis. In an affidavit before the court she wrote that Luis made threats to do bodily harm to himself, her or both. She was afraid of what he might do to her or their daughter.
In 2000 Luis Melo reported to the police that Debbie disappeared after they had a road side argument. Debbie Melo has never been seen or heard from since. The last person to see her alive was Luis Melo. No report of using credit cards, no phone calls and no attempts to reach either of her two children. Luis Melo, for good reason, should be more than a person of interest to the criminal justice system.
In 2004 the live-in girlfriend of Luis Melo would appear in a civil court to get a restraining order because she and her daughter were afraid of Luis Melo. She has good reason to be afraid because Melo had beaten her in the past. Court records document that Melo is a dangerous man who should be feared. Earlier in a Bristol County court Melo had pleaded guilty to assaulting his girlfriend.
For that previous assault Luis Melo received no jail time and was placed on probation. Luis Melo is a man that many believe may have murdered his wife. He is a man with a history of violent abusive behavior. And he is a man with no respect for the court system.
Apparently domestic violence awareness month must slip by, year after year, unnoticed by the Bristol County District Attorney and this judge.
Is there anyone other than the judge that really thinks a restraining order is going to protect this woman from Melo? Is this really the best that the District Attorney and the judge can do for this woman and her child? After decades of intervention is this as far as we have come?
What is truly sad is that these two cases are not aberrations. Data from court systems across this nation document that the most chronic violent abusers often receive the same sentence as minor first time offenders.
And just as tragic, first time offenders with minor violations often are treated the same as violent chronic abusers. It is families with little education and less money, that are in need of resources, education and assistance who will receive false hopes and broken hearts from a system that puts in writing that it “will protect them.”
Contemporary “one-label-fits-all” “domestic violence is battering behavior,” “mandatory arrest,” “no drop prosecutions,” and “ignore the wishes of the families” intervention process document how a good idea can become such a tragedy for many families.
There is an ever increasing number of studies that document how many of these poorly conceived “good ideas” can harm as many people as they help. There is a long line of domestic violence advocates and public policy makers wanting to take credit for people who have been helped over the last couple of decades.
It is time we question why there is no line of domestic violence advocates and public policy makers willing to take the blame for those who have been harmed by their “one-label-fits-all” policies. It is time to weigh successes against the failures. It is time to reevaluate the promise of “We are they criminal justice system and we are here to help you.”
The Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women athttp://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf, Batterer Programs: What Criminal Justice Agencies Need to Know athttp://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/171683.pdf, and The Criminalization of Domestic Violence athttp://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/crimdom.pdf, and Findings About Partner Violence From the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/170018.pdf. Controlling Violence Against Women at
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/197137.pdf.
