WhatFinger


Stopping false allegations and helping real victims

Correct “The Violence Against Women Act” Now



As many of you know, I’m the Republican candidate for State Representative in the Second Franklin District of Massachusetts. My 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.

Support Canada Free Press


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 billon 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.


    View Comments

    Bob Parks -- Bio and Archives

    Bob Parks is a is a member/writer of the National Advisory Council of Project 21. Bob’s websites are Black & Right and youtube.com/BlackAndRight


    Sponsored