VAWA Posts:
The Violence Against Women Act of 2005
Summary Of Provisions
NNEDV
January 05, 2006
The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005
H.R. 3402
NNEDV - National Task Force To End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women
January 05, 2006
Bush renews Violence Against Women Act
Advocate, The (Baton Rouge, LA)
January 6, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Thursday signed an extension of the Violence Against Women Act, which aims to curtail domestic violence through funding for women's shelters and law-enforcement training.
The act, which expired in September, helps children exposed to violence, trains health-care workers on how to support victims of abuse and encourages men to teach youngsters that violence is wrong.
It passed Congress in 1994 and was renewed in 2000. The latest renewal calls for extending the legislation for five years, at a cost of about $3.9 billion. That figure represents a 20 percent increase over the last five-year extension, although actual funding levels will be left to yearly appropriations legislation.
Bush signs extension of Violence Against Women Act
Associated Press Archive
January 6, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
President Bush on Thursday signed an extension of the Violence Against Women Act, which aims to curtail domestic violence through funding for women's shelters and law-enforcement training.
The act, which expired in September, helps children exposed to violence, trains health care workers on how to support victims of abuse and encourages men to teach youngsters that violence is wrong. The extension includes new provisions on health care, early intervention and outreach to American Indian women.
It originally passed Congress in 1994 and was renewed in 2000. The latest renewal calls for extending the legislation for five years, at a cost of about $3.9 billion. That figure represents a 20 percent increase over the last five-year extension, although actual funding levels will be left to yearly appropriations legislation.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and sponsor of the legislation, applauded the bill signing.
"This law supports programs that have been successful in combating domestic violence and changing attitudes toward violence in the family," Sensenbrenner said, adding that the act also works to change attitudes toward dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.
Esta Soler, president of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, urged Congress to fully fund all the programs the law contains.
"Only if we do that will we be able to say that our nation is doing all it can to stop domestic and sexual violence, and help victims," Soler said.
President Signs H.R. 3402, the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005"
Government Press Releases (USA)
January 6, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
On January 5, 2006, the President has signed into law:
H.R. 3402, the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005," which reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act for FYs 2007-2011, makes amendments to criminal and immigration law, consolidates major law enforcement grant programs and authorizes appropriations for the Department of Justice for FYs 2006-2009.
New Violence Against Women Act doing more - Sen. Joseph R. Biden
Delaware State News (Dover, DE)
Author/Byline: Sen. Joseph R. Biden
Section: Opinion Page
February 11, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
When Congress passed the landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994 we changed how victims of domestic violence are treated in the legal system. Even more profoundly, we began to change attitudes, perceptions and behaviors related to violence against women. Domestic violence is no longer a family secret, it is a serious public crime.
Thanks to VAWA, domestic violence has dropped by almost 50 percent. Incidents of rape are down 60 percent. The number of women killed by an abusive husband or boyfriend is down 22 percent.
That is the good news, but sadly the problem hasn't gone away.
Studies show nearly one in three women will be a victim of domestic violence in her lifetime and one in five high-school girls experience dating violence.
President Bush recently signed into law the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 2005. This new bipartisan measure will make a real difference in the lives of millions of women and their children by providing over $3 billion in funding to combat domestic violence.
VAWA 2005 builds on the success of the original bill by developing prevention strategies to stop violence before it starts. It also includes measures to protect victims of abuse from unfair eviction, funds new rape crisis centers and enhances services for young victims.
Thanks to VAWA 2005, women once literally left out in the cold are now protected. For instance, Dorothea from North Carolina, dated her abuser for about two years and then broke up with him. Two months later, he came to Dorothea's home and shot her. When Dorothea returned from the hospital there was a note on her door from her landlord saying Dorothea had violated her lease because she and her "uninvited guest" had been "too loud" and threatened "convenience of others in or near the apartment community, disrupting our business operations." With the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, Dorothea, and her 3-year-old son now have tools to fight their eviction.
Or take Tammy from Iowa who had been staying at a battered women's shelter. She asked the police to drive by her apartment complex before she went home to make sure that her abuser was not there. She had a protective order in place. The police found her batterer at the unit and arrested him for violating the protective order.
This sounds like a success story. But Tammy later received a notice from the Public Housing Authority stating her Section 8 housing assistance was being terminated because the arrest of her abuser broke the lease, which states, "the tenant shall not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the neighbors." Now, with VAWA 2005 in place, such an eviction would be impermissible.
We know if children are abused or witness domestic violence, they are more likely to have abusive adult relationships. With the new law, children become key to stopping violence - not afterthoughts. It supports programs to engage young men and boys to prevent violence, and re-energizes college campuses to end dating violence and rape.
The act also updates the federal criminal code to go after high-tech stalkers. A woman in Wisconsin recently could not figure out how her abusive ex-boyfriend would appear at her work, on her evening dates or when she was out doing errands. Turns out he attached a Global Positioning System (GPS) device to her car. Prior to VAWA 2005 the feds couldn't prosecute this high-tech bully, but now the law has been updated to make cyber-stalking a federal offense.
It's not just statistics that will keep improving, but the lives of families and communities. In Delaware, we used VAWA to create fully-equipped domestic violence units that have dramatically changed the way our police handle cases. We helped a shelter buy a van to pick up battered women and their children who have nowhere to turn. This simple transportation has changed families' lives.
When we passed the original Violence Against Women Act, Congress made a solemn promise to protect and empower battered women, to vigorously prosecute batterers and rapists, and to rebuild families. With the new version, we will do even more.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Sen. Joseph R. Biden, D-Del., is the author of the Violence Against Women Act. He co-wrote VAWA 2005 with Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Penn. and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
Domestic violence victims seeking immigration relief
Federal law lets immigrant women report disputes
Laredo Morning Times (TX)
February 25, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
DALLAS - The number of immigrant women who disclosed they were domestic violence victims doubled in four years under a federal law letting them report the abuse without losing their chance to gain legal status.
Women whose immigration status hinged on their marriage to a U.S. citizen or legal resident can apply for immigrant visas on their own through provisions in the Violence Against Women Act. The law also applies to children who were abused by a parent.
Figures from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services show in fiscal year 1995, the first in which spouses and children could file under the law's provisions, there were no successful cases. By fiscal year 2000, immigration authorities received 3,393 petitions under the domestic violence law and approved 2,968 of them. The latest figures available show 6,877 people filed petitions in 2004, with 5,076 of them receiving approval.
"Sadly, they've been growing each year," said Vanna Slaughter, director of Immigration and Legal Services at Catholic Charities of Dallas, of the petitions. "The more outreach we do, the more cases we get."
Better understanding of abuse by the victims and awareness of the available help has led to more cases, say representatives of Catholic Charities and Mosaic Family Services Inc., two agencies that work with immigrants in North Texas.
Often, those seeking help to end the abuse initially aren't aware about the law that will help them remain in the country legally without having to stay with the abuser, caseworkers say. Some of the women don't speak English, don't drive and have been kept isolated.
"I didn't know about the law ... I would tell myself that I had to put up with it," said 41-year-old Maria Garcia, speaking of violence and threats she said she endured from her husband. "In that moment, I was shut off from the world."
First approved by Congress in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act takes aim at abusers who threaten reporting their victims to immigration authorities or not filing paperwork to obtain legal status for them. A parent or child of a petitioning victim also can derive legal status through them.
The law underwent changes in December 2005 that will allow more immigrants to benefit. The changes extend the self-petition ability to parents of a U.S. citizen who were abused by that son or daughter. They let some people who are now over 21, but were victimized while under that age, to petition for legalization. Modifications also clarify that motions to reopen a case can be filed for victims who were ordered deported, whether the person attended the immigration hearing or not.
Mosaic tries to inform people of the protections and services available to domestic violence victims by sending brochures in various languages to coin-operated laundries, grocery stores and other places frequented by immigrants. The also provide domestic violence information to agencies that resettle immigrants and refugees.
Some shelters also refer their clients to anonymous meetings Catholic Charities holds each week to describe how the law works and what is needed to qualify. Word of mouth from women who've already benefited from the domestic violence law also has helped reach out within the immigrant community, caseworkers say.
"They very fast learn to know who to call," said Mirjana Omeragic, program director at Mosaic in Dallas. "They know we speak their language."
Still, making the cases requires proof that can be hard to obtain. Abusers may have kept their spouse and children's legal documents, such as their Social Security card and immigration documents. Other times, friends or family who witnessed the abuse are reluctant to give their testimony for cases, caseworkers say.
"A lot of them might not have a lot of the proof required. It's a situation where its sometimes difficult to prove," said UCIS spokeswoman Maria Elena Garcia-Upson.
Once a case is approved, the petitioner obtains the ability to legally live and work in the country and is on the way to receiving permanent legal status. Once they begin the process, many become very self-sufficient by finding jobs, learning to drive or becoming involved in their community, caseworkers say.
"It was something that I thought I would never get out of .... Now I'm showing him, I'm showing him I can make it on my own," Garcia said.
ABUSERS ALLOWED TO KEEP GUNS
Orange County Register, The (Santa Ana, CA)
March 19, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The day before William Hoffine killed his teenage son, the San Diego man was served with a restraining order requiring him to surrender his firearms.
But Hoffine did not turn in the guns. Instead, he used one of the weapons -- a Glock .45-caliber pistol -- to shoot Evan Nash 14 times, emptying one magazine of bullets before reloading and firing again at point-blank range.
Evan, tall as a grown man but still weathering the adolescent afflictions of braces and acne, had just turned 14.
More than two years later, his mother, Lucy Nash, is marred by grief and mired in questions:
Why didn't anyone confiscate Hoffine's weapons? Why didn't anyone make sure he surrendered them as ordered?
The same questions haunt the family of Irma Felix, who was shot and killed by her ex-boyfriend Oscar Hernandez inside her Palm Springs dog-grooming business.
Hernandez had also been served with a restraining order that instructed him to turn over his weapons. But in a court statement, Hernandez said he did not agree to the restriction and claimed not to own any guns.
No one checked to see if Hernandez was telling the truth. Even after repeated violations of the order. Even after he left a barrage of messages on Felix's answering machine, cooing expressions of love one minute, vowing to end her life the next.
And Felix's family is also asking why.
The answer: In California, no one enforces a state law prohibiting anyone served with a domestic-violence restraining order from possessing or buying a gun.
There are about 260,000 active restraining orders in California, according to the Department of Justice. But an Orange County Register investigation found that none of the state's 58 counties has a mechanism for ensuring that weapons are surrendered within 24 hours, as required by law.
In addition, about 4,700 restraining orders listed in a statewide database last month did not include the mandatory firearms restriction.
As a result, weapons are being left in the hands of proven and potential abusers; people who have threatened to harm or have already harmed spouses, girlfriends and partners; people who are likely to use guns to injure, intimidate and sometimes kill.
"I sure as hell didn't know they were not going to take the guns," said Nash, a high school art teacher, whose sky-blue eyes darken at the mention of her son's name. "No one should have to go through this. There was no reason we had to."
Guns as tools of abuse
"No guns or other firearms."
Written in bold on every restraining order issued in California, the five words summarize the 1991 state law making it illegal for anyone under a restraining order to own or buy a firearm.
The restrictions are spelled out in detail on the restraining order and again in the instructions given to the defendant and accuser:
"You cannot own, have, possess, buy or try to buy, receive or try to receive, or otherwise get a gun while the order is in effect. If you do, you can go to jail or pay a $1,000 fine."
California and New Jersey were the first states to pass laws prohibiting a restrained person from possessing or buying a gun. Twenty-three states now have similar laws. In 1994, under the Violence Against Women Act, federal legislation limiting gun access was also passed.
The laws were prompted by evidence showing that guns pose a significant danger for people in abusive relationships.
Nationally, guns are used in two-thirds of domestic-violence homicides. In abusive households, guns are the weapons used most often to threaten and intimidate partners.
In 2002, there were 181 domestic- violence homicides in California. About half involved firearms. In Orange County, 73 percent of domestic-violence homicides from 1997 to 2000 involved firearms. It is unclear how many of the cases may have involved restraining orders because authorities do not track those statistics.
"These are people who have demonstrated that they will not hesitate to use violence," said Orange County Judge Pamela Iles, who ran the county's domestic-violence court for eight years. "If someone has weapons they are not supposed to have, it poses a huge threat to the safety of the victim."
That was demonstrated with tragic clarity April 16, 2003, when Richard Namey shot his former lover, Sarah Rodriguez, 21, and her new boyfriend, Matt Corbett. The Placentia woman was killed, and Corbett was left paralyzed and blind in one eye.
Rodriguez had obtained a restraining order against Namey, a Tustin man who harassed and stalked her after their relationship ended. Namey was convicted of the shootings and sentenced to 101 years in prison.
However, officials and advocates for victims of domestic violence say restraining orders can offer a measure of safety and an opportunity to escape an abusive relationship.
"A restraining order is a great tool," said Scott Gordon, a Los Angeles County court commissioner. "But it should be part of an overall matrix."
But what happens when that matrix is faulty? When a glitch or a gap lets someone slip past the protective wall?
"Do you not do anything because it works in the majority of times, or do you do something because of the one time it didn't?" said Jim Barker, a retired San Diego police lieutenant who directs the President's Family Justice Center Initiative, a nationwide program to create one-stop legal clinics for domestic-violence victims. "One life lost is too many."
NO FORMAL PROCEDURES
As is the case with much of California's restraining-order system, mandate does not match reality.
Last month, 187 orders issued in Orange County were listed in the state Domestic Violence Restraining Order System without the required firearm prohibitions.
In some cases, the gap was the result of clerical errors. In others, the gun restriction had been crossed out. In either case, it means that a restrained person may be able to possess or buy guns.
One such case involved Olga Sarabia, a Santa Ana woman who obtained a temporary restraining order against her estranged husband, Roberto Sarabia, on Nov. 19, 2004. On the order issued by Judge Claudia Silbar, the section requiring the husband to surrender his guns was crossed out.
A week later, police say, Roberto Sarabia shot and killed his wife and her male companion, Jose Antonio Huerta, outside a Santa Ana strip mall. He is awaiting trial on murder charges.
Silbar would not comment, saying she is not allowed to talk about specific cases, said Carol Levitzky, spokeswoman for Orange County Superior Court. It is unclear who crossed out the gun restriction.
Even when restraining orders are issued correctly, and the gun restrictions are ordered, enforcement of the law grinds to a halt.
Unlike New Jersey and New Hampshire, where judges can issue a search-and-seizure order with every restraining order, California has no formal procedure for enforcing the gun restrictions.
Here, no one routinely confiscates the defendant's weapons, or checks the restrained person's name against the state database of registered gun owners. No one is charged with verifying that the weapons are surrendered as ordered.
Court and law-enforcement officials trace the inaction to a gap in the law, which doesn't designate which agency is responsible for enforcing the statute.
"I don't think the law specifies at all who's responsible," Riverside County Presiding Judge Sharon Waters said. "We view that as law enforcement's responsibility, but I don't know if they view that as their responsibility."
Judges say they cannot order blanket search warrants for all restrained persons without reasonable cause.
Law-enforcement officials say they can only confiscate weapons with a judge's directive, or if the restrained person has violated the restraining order.
Some judges, such as Orange County Court Commissioner Renee Wilson, try to take extra steps to get guns out of a potential abuser's hands. Wilson, who worked in Domestic Violence Court for five years, said she checks the criminal history and gun licenses of defendants in cases where firearms are suspected.
But such precautions are up to individual judges -- not built into the law. Instead, authorities rely on an honor system that leaves compliance with the law almost entirely to the defendant.
It is up to the restrained person to inform court officials about guns they own, up to them to surrender those weapons, up to them to provide proof to the court that the guns have been turned in to police or sold.
"We should be taking away the gun, so they don't use the gun in a bad way," said Paul Seave, a former director of the Attorney General's Crime and Prevention Center.
Instead, he said, "There is virtually no enforcement -- ever."
The menacing father
Before Evan Nash was killed on Sept. 4, 2003, his mother knew nothing about restraining-order loopholes or lack of enforcement. Lucy Nash was simply looking for a way to shield herself and her son from a man whose parental concern had careened into obsession.
For years, Nash and William Hoffine, Evan's father, had been locked in an acrimonious court battle over the boy's upbringing. Evan was born after a brief affair between the two, who were never in a relation ship.
When Evan enrolled in kindergarten, Hoffine was at the school every day. When he struggled with schoolwork, Hoffine threatened to sue his teachers. When he joined sports teams, Hoffine demanded to coach and filed complaints if he thought Evan did not get enough playing time.
The week before Evan entered high school, the boy told his therapist that he was afraid of Hoffine, who had been threatening to commit suicide, Nash wrote in her restraining-order application. The therapist called Nash and urged her to get a restraining order as soon as possible.
That day, Nash went to a San Diego courthouse and obtained a temporary restraining order forbidding Hoffine from having contact with Evan.
On her application, Nash told authorities about Hoffine's gun collection, which included .45-caliber and .357 Magnum pistols and a shotgun. She mentioned the guns -- and Hoffine's volatile state -- again to the sheriff's deputy charged with serving the order.
Nash did not know that Hoffine would be given 48 hours to surrender his weapons. The legal window for relinquishing weapons was shortened to 24 hours in 2004.
"I thought if you are getting a restraining order and telling them the person has guns and is threatening suicide, they would take the guns. It seemed like a complete no-brainer," Nash said. "I had no idea about the waiting period."
But Hoffine knew.
After he shot Evan on a quiet San Diego street, Hoffine barricaded himself inside a nearby home. As his son lay dying, Hoffine taunted police about the restraining-order restrictions.
"He said he had 48 hours to give up his guns, and that 'This is day one,' " recalled Jim Barker, who was the police negotiator on the scene. "He was saying he was in control. He knew what he was doing."
After holding police at bay for 10 hours, Hoffine shot and killed himself.
"That case is a very good illustration of the problems in the system. Restraining orders are issued to protect victims. There is some danger there," Barker said. "If there is danger, why give a person 24 hours to turn in a weapon?"
Orange County's Wilson said she did not wait that long in cases where firearms were suspected. Instead, she crossed out the 24-hour deadline and ordered a shorter time frame of two to 10 hours.
"If people are alleging domestic violence, regardless of the fact of whether the weapon was ever used, it serves no purpose to have one handy," Wilson said. "We need to get it out fast, and get it done with."
Whether the deadline is two hours or 24, guns still are not being turned over to police.
The Orange County Sheriff's Department, the county's largest law-enforcement agency, could not find a record of any firearm being surrendered, according to spokesman Jon Fleischman. "No one comes in to drop them off," he said.
Follow-ups neglected
The problems don't end at the 24-hour mark.
After the deadline for surrendering firearms passes, little or nothing is done to make sure the restrained person has obeyed the order.
In most cases, judges simply ask defendants whether they have firearms.
"Here's how that conversation goes: 'Do you have any weapons?' What is the usual response? 'No, I don't have any,' " said Riverside County Judge Becky Duggan. "That may or may not be true. We have no way of knowing that. If they say they have firearms, they are ordered to surrender. It is all quite haphazard."
After being ordered to surrender his guns, the restrained person is supposed to file proof within 72 hours. But Duggan and other judges admitted that there is little monitoring to make sure the weapons have been surrendered.
In Orange County, follow-up hearings are recommended -- especially in criminal domestic-violence cases. "But frequently judges won't have them come back in," said Judge Iles, who admitted not doing so on occasion.
"Some organized turnover of weapons has to be developed, with proof to the court, to protect the safety of victims," Iles said. "If someone has illegal unregistered guns, it's difficult to get those weapons out of their hands. But if they have registered weapons, the court should be able to go after those weapons."
Last year, Orange County made one of the few attempts to set up a mechanism for confiscating weapons with a pilot program run by the state Department of Justice and the county's Domestic Violence Court.
Under the program, defendants arraigned in criminal domestic-violence cases and subject to mandatory gun prohibitions were given 24 hours to report to the local Department of Justice and make arrangements to surrender weapons.
Justice Department agents then checked the defendant's name and information against the state's Automated Firearms System to determine if the restrained person was a registered gun owner. If the defendants failed to turn in weapons or lied about gun ownership, agents could arrest them for violating the order.
Within a 90-day period, authorities investigated 409 cases and confiscated 13 handguns, three shotguns, four rifles, a machete and a grenade-launcher attachment. In one case, agents stopped a defendant from picking up a gun ordered just before a criminal protective order had been issued.
But that program was suspended due to lack of funding.
"It's back to an issue of priorities," said Seave, the former director of the Attorney General's Crime and Prevention Center who is now counsel for the state Board of Education. "Are we as a law-enforcement community going to spend more resources to take away guns? I would argue that it's worth the effort to take away firearms."
The unstable boyfriend
Oscar Hernandez knew he was forbidden from possessing any guns. Authorities knew Hernandez posed a serious danger to Irma Felix. And Felix knew that Hernandez was capable of carrying out his threats to kill her.
All this was known, yet Hernandez's statement was enough to assure court officials that he had no weapons.
But he did. And this case shows what can happen when enforcement of restraining-order gun prohibitions hinges on the defendant's word.
Felix met Hernandez on the dance floor of a local Cathedral City club. For a year, the couple seemed happy and well-matched.
After Felix moved into Hernandez's apartment, however, the relationship deteriorated. He grew possessive and jealous. They broke up. Then reconciled. Then broke up again. Only to reconcile again.
On July 13, 2003, Hernandez flew into a rage when Felix spent the day with her daughter without telling him. "He started pulling my hair and choking me," Felix wrote in her journal. "After the third time, I couldn't breathe."
Eight days later, Felix applied for a temporary restraining order, asking a Riverside County judge to forbid Hernandez from contacting her and to order him to surrender all his firearms. The order was issued July 22, and later made permanent.
But Hernandez, in a statement filed July 25, refused to obey the order to turn in weapons. "I have no guns," he wrote. "I was storing a rifle for my brother, so I gave it back."
On the form he filed with the court, Hernandez checked off three boxes:
I do not own or have any guns or firearms.
I do not agree to the order requested.
I have not turned in my guns to the police or a licensed gun dealer.
On Sept. 4, 2004, Hernandez pleaded guilty to assaulting Felix and was placed on informal probation. Among the conditions: 52 weeks in a batterers' intervention program, and no access to or ownership of any firearms, deadly weapons or weapons-related paraphernalia.
After Hernandez started attending counseling sessions, Felix gave him one last chance. But this time, when things started sliding downhill, she decided to leave for good.
"It's crazy," she wrote in her journal. "You can love someone in your heart, but in your mind he's not (good) for you."
Felix's decision seemed to infuriate Hernandez. He began calling her incessantly, showing up at her business -- once carrying a gun and another time stealing her keys.
Felix called police twice in early September 2004 to report the incidents. Both times, police said they could not make an arrest and advised Felix to get a temporary restraining order, even though her permanent order was still in effect.
On Sept. 21, Felix again called police to report that Hernandez had violated the order by leaving dozens of ominous messages on her answering machine.
The calls were documented in a police report: Call No. 2: "Your voice is so sweet. I love you." Call No. 6: "Hi, just calling to tell you I loved you so much. I miss you. ... I need to be with you. We need to be together."
Then, a chilling final message: "I told you I'm not going to let you go, you ain't getting away from me, baby. I love you and like I told you, nobody else is going to have us."
As a Palm Springs police officer was listening to the messages, Hernandez called. The officer picked up the phone and confirmed that Hernandez knew he was on probation and was violating court orders by calling Felix.
Yet, an arrest warrant for that violation and another Hernandez committed Oct. 7 was not issued until Oct. 28. Because the violations were misdemeanors, police did not actively look for Hernandez, said Palm Springs police Sgt. John Booth.
By then, Felix had lost faith in the weight of her restraining order. Her journal entries indicate that she had begun reconciling herself to the possibility of death:
"All week he has threatened to kill me if I don't take him back. He said he will kill me and then kill himself. ... I don't think he would kill me because how can you kill someone you love. Sleeping with the enemy, huh?"
On Nov. 9, 2004, Hernandez gunned down Felix with a .45-caliber pistol in her Palm Springs dog-grooming shop, then shot himself. He died the next day.
"My mother did everything by the book and it didn't help her at all," said Rebecca Sandoval, 25, one of Felix's five children. "I don't understand. What is a restraining order for?"
Risk seen for police
After Evan Nash was killed, his mother wanted to hide from the world. She didn't want to face reporters or television cameras. Most days, she didn't even want to face the sunrise.
Only one thing drew her out of that grief-induced trance: a determination to change the law so that guns are taken when restraining orders are issued.
Last March, Nash went to Sacramento to testify on behalf of a bill proposed by state Sen. Christine Kehoe that would have allowed judges to issue a warrant for the immediate search and seizure of any firearms in the possession of a restrained person.
She remembers being excited and comforted by the proposed legislation that would have authorized police to confiscate guns while serving a restraining order. Currently, officers can seize weapons when responding to a domestic-violence call but need a warrant to search a house when serving an order.
Then, Nash heard testimony from the opposition.
"They said what we have in place is sufficient," Nash recalled. "I wanted to scream. If what we have is sufficient, my son would be alive."
The California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the Family Law Section of the California State Bar objected to the bill, saying it appeared to violate the Fourth Amendment and due-process rights.
In addition, the bar association and some law-enforcement officials expressed qualms about having police seize weapons when serving an order. They say it would tax already-strained forces and thrust police officers into high-risk situations.
"When you are out there, are you going to ask: 'Sir, can you go into the darkened house and get your gun?' " said Los Angeles County sheriff's Sgt. Mike Torres. "Darn right it's dangerous."
After substantial changes, the Kehoe bill was passed by the Senate in February, and is now scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
It no longer authorizes judges to order search warrants, but instead requires the restrained person to surrender weapons immediately "upon the request of a law enforcement officer." If there is no such request, the restrained person still would have 24 hours to turn in weapons, but only 48 hours to submit proof that the firearms have been surrendered.
"It's not as strong as we would like, but it's as strong as we could make it and avoid constitutional problems," said Kehoe, D-San Diego, who decided to introduce the bill after a meeting with Lucy Nash. "It made me feel like I should do something so that it never happens again."
Kehoe's bill also would allow the attorney general to work with local law-enforcement agencies to develop procedures for removing firearms and enforcing the gun restrictions.
When they are enforced, gun restrictions can work, said Elizabeth Richardson Vigdor, a Duke University researcher who studied the effect of such bans.
In states such as Massachusetts and Pennsylvania where restraining orders also require gun restrictions, intimate-partner homicides dropped 10 percent. That decrease included firearms-related homicides and killings by other means.
"But for the law to be 100 percent effective, all the steps have to be in place," Vigdor said. "It's not just a matter of getting restraining orders in."
To enforce the law effectively, it is crucial to have a statewide domestic-violence registry that is accurate and easily accessible, Vigdor said.
Although California has a statewide restraining-order database, advocates and state officials say the records are incomplete or incorrect. Hundreds of active restraining orders may not be included in the database because of clerical gaffes or bureaucratic snarls.
Despite its flaws, the state database has helped thwart some gun purchases. About 223 of the 3,325 gun-license applications denied in 2004 were because the person applying was listed as having an active restraining order.
Still, far too many guns are not being seized or surrendered, said state official Seave.
"If I had to prioritize what we should work on, it would be firearms, because it is so dangerous and because improving our performance can be done at little or relatively little additional expense," Seave said. "We can achieve the most without cost."
There have been some steps forward.
Last year, the state Judicial Council amended restraining-order forms to ensure that gun restrictions are always ordered, reducing the possibility of someone crossing out the prohibition.
In October, the Legislature passed a bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Judy Chu, D-Monterey Park, that authorizes law enforcement to tell anyone protected by a domestic-violence restraining order if the restrained person is a registered gun owner. The bill was one of the recommendations to come out of a report issued by the Attorney General's Task Force on Domestic Violence.
But more can -- and should -- be done, Seave said. To start, authorities should automatically check the name of everyone subject to a restraining order against the state's gun-license registry.
"It is a time of danger, and we owe it to the victim and to public safety to do whatever we can. Why aren't we running the names?" he said.
"If they have a firearm, law enforcement could act because they would be in violation of the order. Then we could get out there and get those firearms."
Weak women, bad men, the Bill of Rights
Hannibal Courier-Post (MO)
March 29, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The most controversial case for the U.S. Supreme Court this term does not concern abortion, gay rights, the death penalty, or even the detention of enemy combatants. No, the hottest legal issue is based on an argument between Hershel Hammon and his wife about their daughter going to a boyfriend's house.
For this, the administration of President George W. Bush filed a special friend-of-the-court brief, and even insisted on participating in oral argument before the Supreme Court despite the complete lack of any federal issue at stake.
The decisions in Hammon v. Indiana and in a very similar case heard the same day, Davis v. Washington, will reveal whether the justices believe that Americans are entitled to all the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights, or believe the Supreme Court can push the delete button on one of those rights.
The Sixth Amendment promises Americans that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia mentioned in the oral argument, the prosecutors in these two cases are seeking to get the court to create an exception to the Confrontation Clause for the benefit of any woman who makes an accusation against a man.
Officers from the Peru, Ind., police department had made an unsolicited visit to the Hammon couple (presumably after a call from a neighbor). Finding that the Hammons' argument had ended, but broken glass and a broken gas heater in the house, the policeman asked both husband and wife what happened. Each said the argument was over and everything was fine.
Unwilling to accept the couple's own resolution of the dispute, a policeman interrogated the Amy Hammon separately to get her side of the argument. This time, she informed the officer that she and her husband had indeed had an argument. Unlike her husband, Amy Hammon claimed it was violent - culminating with Hershel Hammon shoving her head into a gas heater, breaking its glass, and punching her in the chest. At the officer's request, the wife completed a battery affidavit conveying these allegations.
The wife did not press charges and never showed up in court. Undeterred, without ever putting the wife on the witness stand, the prosecutor obtained a battery conviction of the husband based on the signed legal paper.
Hershel Hammon received a one-year prison sentence, for which he spent 20 days in jail. His home was ruined and, with this serious conviction on his record, his ability to support his family was diminished.
The Davis case heard by the Supreme Court the same day was a similar case where the prosecutor ignored the Confrontation Clause. The prosecutor obtained a conviction of the Adrian Martell Davis without ever putting the woman on the witness stand or allowing the man to confront his accuser.
A 911 operator had called back to a household and elicited allegations about domestic violence. The jurors heard only a tape-recording of a 911 operator prodding Davis' former girlfriend, Michelle McCottry, to give her side of the story without the boyfriend telling his side on the tape.
Why are overzealous prosecutors trying to put men in prison for an alleged crime that no one will corroborate in court that the alleged victim may not want prosecuted or punished? The answer to this question is prosecutors' acceptance of the radical feminist doctrine that women are naturally victims and men are naturally batterers, and that a man can be denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser.
The Violence Against Women Act, funded by federal taxpayers to the tune of nearly $1 billion dollars a year, holds training sessions for law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges to teach them anti-male and anti-marriage notions, and how to bypass men's constitutional rights. Radical feminists have lobbied state legislators to pass laws that require a policeman to arrest someone any time they are called to investigate an alleged domestic-violence incident.
The issue is, which comes out on top: the Constitution or the feminist agenda?
- - -
Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of "The Supremacists."
New Lifetime Pulse Poll by Roper Poll Reveals Violence Against Women Emerging As Important Election Issue For Women And Men
U.S. Newswire (USA)
March 30, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
According to a new "Lifetime Women's Pulse Poll," conducted for the network by Roper Poll, when women and men vote in the mid-term elections this fall, expected issues such as homeland security, jobs and the economy and the war in Iraq will be very important, but an issue that receives far less attention -- preventing violence against women and girls -- will be just as, if not more, important to them. This and other poll results demonstrating the growing prevalence and importance of the issue of gender violence come as Lifetime Television launches its 2006 public education and advocacy campaign, Our Lifetime Commitment: Stop Violence Against Women:
-- Launching National Sexual Assault Awareness Month and Lifetime's New 2006 Campaign to "Stop Violence Against Women," Network Unites Advocates, Celebrities and Bipartisan Political Leaders in Nation's Capital for Special Week of Events, Including Actress Gabrielle Union Testifying About Her Experience --
-- "Desperate Housewives" Star, Ricardo Antonio Chavira, Hosts Specially Themed Weekend of Anti-Violence Programming on Lifetime
The Emmy(r)-winning initiative commences with the Network's annual "Stop Violence Against Women Week" in Washington, DC, April 3-7 (complete schedule of events available) during which Lifetime joins with thousands of advocates, survivors, business and bipartisan political leaders and celebrities, such as Gabrielle Union ("Bad Boys 2" and "Deliver Us From Eva") and filmmaker, survivor and activist Angela Shelton, for special events to encourage greater attention for and increased action to address all forms of gender violence, including domestic abuse, sexual assault, stalking and sex trafficking.
In addition, throughout April, National Sexual Assault Awareness Month, Lifetime Networks will offer powerful original programming and PSAs, including a special weekend of anti-violence-themed movies and series, hosted by "Desperate Housewives" star Ricardo Antonio Chavira and his real-life father, Family Court Judge Juan Antonio Chavira, and punctuated by the April 22nd television premiere of the documentary "Searching for Angela Shelton." The initiative also incorporates extensive online content, community outreach and legislative activity.
The "Lifetime Women's Pulse Poll" - "Lifetime Women's Pulse Poll" is the largest women's multi-platform research project ever undertaken by a television network, and throughout the year, explores a wide range of areas examining women's lives, from consumer behavior and spending habits, usage of new technologies, impressions of pop culture and positions on key public policy issues. Highlights of the new nationally representative pulse poll of women and men 18-plus on violence against women include:
Violence Against Women Is Seen as Key Election Issue: Nearly all women (97 pct.) feel that the issue of domestic violence and sexual assault against women and girls is important and will impact who they vote for in the 2006 mid-term elections.
Violence Against Women of Equal or Greater Importance to Voters than Expected Top Issues Like Homeland Security, Jobs and the Economy, the War in Iraq and the Environment: Nearly eight out of ten (77 pct.) women and men said that preventing violence against women was of paramount importance to them as an election issue - more so than or on par with issues that receive much greater attention such as jobs and the economy (79 pct.), health care (79 pct.), education (80 pct.), homeland security (68 pct.), the war in Iraq (65 pct.) and the environment (63 pct.).
Violence Against Women Perceived as an Increasing Problem: Six out of ten (59 pct.) Americans feel violence against women is worse today than it was ten years ago. Sixty-one percent personally know a woman who has been the victim of violence.
Sexual Assault and Dating Violence on College Campuses a Bigger Fear than Binge Drinking or Hazing: Approximately nine out of ten (87 pct.) Americans would encourage their daughter to reconsider enrolling in a school that had a high incidence of sexual assault or dating violence - even more than for binge drinking (77 pct.) and hazing (74 pct.).
Celebrity Voices Make a Difference: Teri Hatcher, "Desperate Housewives" star, recently revealed she was a victim of sexual abuse as a child. Seven in ten Americans (72 pct.) think that such celebrity revelations do help reduce acceptance of violence against women.
Americans Are Starting to Take Action: Three in four parents (73 pct.) say they have explicitly talked to their children about violence against women being wrong. Among those who knew a friend or family member was being abused, an overwhelming 87 pct. said to have intervened in some way to help the victim, including reaching out beyond their immediate circle to police (46 pct.), local shelters (35 pct), the internet (28 pct.) and hotlines (24 pct.).
"As we head to Washington, D.C., for the fifth year-in-a-row, we are encouraged that this poll suggests that violence against women is top of mind and that women and men are taking action to stop it," said Meredith Wagner, Executive Vice President, Public Affairs, Lifetime Entertainment Services. "Lifetime is proud to build on the incredible momentum of our partners who work on the front lines every day to ensure that these critical issues continue to be heard and addressed at every level."
Week in Washington - From April 3-7, Lifetime, advocates, political and business leaders and celebrities will join in Washington for the 5th annual "Stop Violence Against Women Week," which includes events such as:
Premiere advance screening of Lifetime documentary, "Searching for Angela Shelton," at the Library of Congress with filmmaker and activist Angela Shelton, the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues and leading advocates. The film showcases Angela's journey across America to find women with her same name, and her discovery that more than half of the Angela Shelton's she met had been raped, abused or molested -- and her hopeful and inspiring message of courage, strength and survival.
Congressional Briefings focusing on the newly passed Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), improving the economic situation of domestic violence survivors and creating innovative programs to help survivors and victims of sexual assault, where actress/activist Gabrielle Union ("Bad Boys 2" and "Deliver Us From Eva") will testify about her sexual assault while in college.
Our Lifetime Commitment: Stop Violence Against Women - Lifetime's Emmy(r)-winning campaign includes: On-Air Programming
"Desperate Housewives" star, Ricardo Antonio Chavira, and his real-life father, Family Court Judge Juan Antonio Chavira, lend their voices to the anti-violence movement on Saturday, April 22nd during a special programming weekend which will feature: original public service announcements; the powerful new dcumentary, "Searching for Angela Shelton"; an encore of Lifetime's groundbreaking miniseries, "Human Trafficking"; and thought-provoking movies and specially themed episodes of the Network's original dramas. The day is part of a special weekend of programming dedicated to the stop violence message.
PSAs, emphasizing that women and men need to work together to prevent violence against women. PSAs will air throughout April and at the end of all dedicated anti-violence programming, directing viewers to life-saving resources from organizations such as the National Domestic Violence Hotline (800-799-SAFE) and National Sexual Assault Hotline, operated by RAINN (800-656-HOPE).
Online Resources
Advice from experts and links to Lifetime's campaign partners.
A map that will drive visitors to local resources and shelters.
An "action center" where women and men, families, community members and employers can get involved and support efforts to stop violence against women in their own communities.
Community Outreach
In communities across the nation, Lifetime and its partners will:
Distribute thousands of new brochures highlighting the message that violence against women is a community issue that affects all of us and, therefore, takes all of us --men and women, parents and siblings, educators and religious leaders, law enforcement and employers -- t prevent, address and stop it.Encourage viewers to "wear their support" with specially created "Stop Violence Against Women" bandanas and (temporary) tattoos.Hold college campus special events, screenings and discussions of "Searching for Angela Shelton."
Legislative Advocacy
Lifetime will continue to join with anti-violence advocates and bipartisan political leaders to push for the passage of legislation addressing prevention of domestic abuse, sexual assault, stalking and human trafficking. Lifetime and its partners have already been instrumental in getting five pieces of legislation passed and signed into law to stop violence, including: the Violence Against Women Act 2005 (VAWA); the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA - H.R. 972); the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA); the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2004; and the Video Voyeurism Protection Act of 2004.
"Stop Violence Against Women" Campaign Partners: Lifetime's campaign is informed by and is in partnership with leading experts, advocates, corporations and organizations, including:
Alianza: National Latino Alliance for the Elimination of Domestic Violence; American Bar Association; American Domestic Violence Crisis Line; Amnesty International; Asian and Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence; New York Asian Women's Center; Avon Foundation; Battered Women's Justice Project; Break the Cycle; Communities Against Violence Network (CAVNET); Childhelp USA; Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence; The CTIA Wireless Foundation; Darkness to Light; Day One; The Department of Justice: Office of Violence Against Women; Equality Now; Family Violence Prevention Fund; Feminist Majority Foundation; HADASSAH - The Women's Zionist Organization of America; Help USA; H- E-A-R-T, Inc. (Hope Exists After Rape Trauma); Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community; International Justice Mission; It Happened to Alexa Foundation; Joe Torre Safe At Home Foundation; Legal Momentum; Men Can Stop Rape; Mending the Sacred Hoop; Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP) Program; Michael Bolton Charities; Ms. Foundation; MVP Strategies; National Alliance to End Sexual Violence; National Center for Victims of Crime; National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence; National Council of Women's Organizations; National Domestic Violence Hotline; National Domestic Violence Hotline: Texas Council on Family Violence; National Institute on Media and the Family; National Network to End Domestic Violence; National Resource Center on Child Custody and Protection; National Sexual Violence Resource Center; National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women; NOW - National Organization for Women; NYC Mayor's Office to Combat Domestic Violence; Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape; Polaris Project; RAINN - Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network; Sacred Circle: National Resource Center to End Violence Against Native Women; Safe Horizon; Sakhi: For South Asian Women; Sanctuary for Families; Searching for Angela Shelton; Second Chance Employment Services; Sheila Wellstone Institute (Wellstone Action); Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault; Sports Leadership Institute; Stop It Now; StopFamilyViolence.org; Stop the Silence: Stop Child Sexual Abuse; Tahirih Justice Center; The Body Shop; The Miles Foundation; United Nations Development Fund for Women; V-Day; Vital Voices; WITNESS; Women's EDGE; WomensLaw.org; YWCA USA.
Campaign sponsors: Verizon Wireless and Whirlpool.
LIFETIME is the leader in women's television and one of the top- rated basic cable television networks. A diverse, multi- media company, LIFETIME is committed to offering the highest quality entertainment and information programming, and advocating a wide range of issues affecting women and their families. LIFETIME Television, Lifetime Movie Network, Lifetime Real Women, Lifetime Home Entertainment and Lifetime Online are part of LIFETIME Entertainment Services, a 50/50 joint venture of The Hearst Corporation and The Walt Disney Company.
Survey Methodology: The findings presented are the results of a telephone study conducted March 17-19, 2006, by Roper Poll - a part of GfK NOP - among a nationally representative sample of 1008 adult Americans ages 18 or older. Data was weighted using US Census data to accurately represent the population of adult Americans. The margin of error for the total sample is plus/minus percentage points at the 95 pct. confidence level. The margin of error for subgroups is higher. Complete tables available upon request.
Establishment of the Office on Violence Against Women
ACTION: Final rule. Federal Register (USA)
Office of the Attorney General
April 18, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
SUMMARY: This rule updates the Department of Justice (DOJ) organizational regulations to reflect the establishment of the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) as a separate and distinct office within the DOJ. OVW carries out the duties of the Department of Justice under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Pub. L. 103-322) and the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (division B of Pub. L. 104-386), and any other duties otherwise authorized by law, or assigned to it or delegated to it by the Attorney General. This rule sets forth the duties of the Director of OVW. This rule also reflects the continued applicability to OVW of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) regulations that apply to components of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), and which were therefore previously applied to OVW when it was part of OJP.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective April 18, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marnie Shiels, Attorney Advisor, Office on Violence Against Women, 810 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531; Telephone: (202) 307-6026; Fax: (202) 307-3911.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 402(3) of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (Pub. L. 107-273, Division A, Title IV, 116 Stat.1758 (Nov. 2, 2002)), provided for the establishment of OVW as a separate and distinct office within the Department of Justice, to be headed by a director, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director of OVW is responsible, under the general authority of the Attorney General, for the administration, coordination, and implementation of the programs and activities of OVW. Specifically, the Director is responsible for carrying out the functions of the Department of Justice under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Pub. L. 103-322) and the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (division B of Pub. L. 104-386), and exercising such other powers and functions as may be vested in the Director pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 3796gg et seq., or by delegation of the Attorney General, 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-0-42 U.S.C. 3796gg-0b. Under the authority of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, the Attorney General directed the separation of OVW from OJP, its former parent organization within the Department.
Because OVW was formerly an office within OJP, regulations applicable to OJP were applicable to OVW. This rule reflects the continued applicability to OVW of certain procedures issued pursuant to the NEPA, found in 28 CFR part 61, Appendix D, which are applicable to OJP (the regulation refers to the Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics, which was the predecessor to OJP), and were, therefore, applicable to OVW before it was separated from OJP. No substantive changes are being made to the regulation, and the continued applicability of the regulation to OVW will not add or remove any substantive rights or obligations of OVW grantees or cooperative agreement recipients. It is only because of the reorganization of the Department of Justice that the NEPA regulation, by its express terms, makes no reference to OVW. This rule clarifies that the NEPA regulation will continue to apply to OVW. OVW effectuates other regulatory requirements through grant conditions with which the grantees agree to comply.
Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. 553
This rule is a rule of agency organization and is therefore exempt from the notice requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(b). This rule is effective upon publication.
Executive Order 12866
This action has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review, section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. This rule is limited to agency organization, management, and personnel as described by Executive Order 12866 section 3(d)(3) and, therefore, is not a "regulation" or "rule" as defined by that Executive Order. Accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13132
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, the Department has determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
Executive Order 12988
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a "major rule" as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
This action pertains to agency management, personnel, and organization and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. Accordingly, it is not a "rule" for purposes of the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it pertains to personnel and administrative matters affecting the Department. Further, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not required to be prepared for this final rule since the Department was not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this matter.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 0
Authority delegations (government agencies), Government employees, Organization and functions (government agencies), Whistleblowing.
Accordingly, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Attorney General, including 5 U.S.C. 301, 28 U.S.C. 509 and 510, Chapter I of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 0--ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515-519.
[Section] 0.1 [Amended]
2. Revise [Section] 0.1 by adding at the end of the list under "Offices" the title "Office on Violence Against Women."
3. Add Subpart U-2 to Part 0, to read as follows:
Subpart U-2--Office on Violence Against Women
Sec.0.122 Office on Violence Against Women.
[Section] 0.122 Office on Violence Against Women.
(a) The Director, Office on Violence Against Women, under the general authority of the Attorney General, shall:
(1) Exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions described in section 402(3) of title IV of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (Pub. L. 107-273); and
(2) Perform such other duties and functions relating to such duties as may be authorized by law or assigned or delegated by the Attorney General, consistent with constitutional limits on the Federal Government's authority to act in this area.
(b) Departmental regulations set forth in 28 CFR part 61, Appendix D, applicable to the Office of Justice Programs, shall apply with equal force and effect to the Office on Violence Against Women, with references to the Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics, and its components, in such regulations deemed to refer to the Office on Violence Against Women, as appropriate.
Dated: April 12, 2006.
Alberto R. Gonzales,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 06-3673 Filed 4-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-FX-P
Vol. 71, No. 074
28 CFR Part 0; [Docket No. OAG 113; AG Order No. 2811-2006]
Rules and Regulations
New Survey of American Teens Reveals Shocking Levels of Teen Dating Abuse and Violence
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Announces New Efforts to Address Teen Dating Abuse and Violence
PR Newswire (USA)
April 25, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
PRNewswire -- A new survey on teen dating abuse and violence reveals that significant numbers of teens across America are experiencing rampant emotional, verbal, sexual and physical abuse in their dating relationships. The problem gets worse as teens get older and involved in more serious relationships.
Startling numbers of teens in serious relationships also report accepting disturbing controlling behavior by their partners. The reports of abuse extend across suburbs and cities, all ethnic groups and regions; yet teens in the South and the Midwest report abuse in greater numbers then other regions.
To address the pervasiveness of teen dating abuse and violence highlighted in the survey, Senators Mike Crapo and Hillary Rodham Clinton held a press conference today with Liz Claiborne Inc. to underscore the need to educate teens about this problem through programs like Liz Claiborne's teen violence and abuse curriculum.
The survey on teen relationships was conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited (TRU) and commissioned by Liz Claiborne Inc. Teens surveyed ranged from 13-18.
The research shows deep and troubling evidence that significant numbers of today's teens are not only victims of dating abuse, but are accepting it as normal. Many teens face tremendous pressure to have and keep relationships, particularly if it is "serious". Teens in serious relationships report -- often by a 2 to 1 margin -- more abuse, controlling, and even violent behavior compared to other teens. In fact nearly 1 in 5 teens who have been in a serious relationship said their boyfriend or girlfriend would threaten to hurt themselves or their partner if there were a break-up and 1 in 3 teens who have been in a serious relationship report that sex is expected.
Key Findings:
Physical threats and safety:
-- 30% of all teens report worrying about their personal physical safety in a relationship;
-- 1 in 5 teens (20%) in a serious relationship report they have been hit, slapped or pushed by a partner;
-- 13% of Hispanic teens reported that hitting a partner was permissible.
Controlling/Abusive Behavior:
-- 64% of teens have been with someone who acted really jealous, asking where they were all the time;
-- 55% of teens in serious relationships have done something that compromised their values to please their partner;
-- 1 in 4 teens in serious relationships were asked to only spend time with their partner and prevented from spending time with family or friends;
-- 1 in 3 teens in serious relationships were asked by their partner where they were and who they were with all the time;
-- 61% of teens said they have had a boyfriend or girlfriend who made them feel bad or embarrassed about themselves;
-- More than 1 in 4 teens have been in a relationship where their partner calls them names and puts them down.
Sexual Pressures:
-- Almost one third of girls who have been in a relationship (29%) said they have been pressured to have sex or engage in sex they don't want;
-- Nearly 1 out of 4 teen girls of all ages report that they have gone further sexually in a relationship then they wanted;
-- Nearly 1 out of 2 girls worry that their partner will break up with them if they did not agree to engage in sex;
-- 1 in 3 teens between the ages of 16 and 18 and 1 in 4 teens between the ages of 13 and 18 say sex is expected in their relationships.
LOVE IS NOT ABUSE CURRICULUM
Responding to the data, Senators Mike Crapo and Hillary Rodham Clinton are joining with Liz Claiborne Inc. Chairman and CEO, Paul R. Charron to announce the national distribution of new curriculum designed to help teens understand and prevent teen dating abuse and violence. During the week of April 24th, Love Is Not Abuse will be taught in over 365 schools in 37 states reaching more than 33,000 students.
Created with the Education Development Center, Inc (EDC) and with the guidance of some of the nation's pre-eminent authorities on intimate partner abuse and teens, the Love Is Not Abuse Curriculum was developed by Liz Claiborne Inc. to help 9th grade students recognize, respond and seek help for their friends and peers who may be victims of abuse. It was pilot tested last year and is now being taught across the country in health or English classes. The curriculum contains detailed background information for teachers on the scope of the issue and provides strategies for responding to students who disclose being in an abusive situation. Break the Cycle, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to help teens who are victims of dating violence, is working with Liz Claiborne to be a resource for teachers and students who may need help with an abusive situation.
Commenting on the data, Paul R. Charron, chairman and chief executive officer of Liz Claiborne Inc., said: "The fact that significant numbers of teens are not only victims of dating abuse, but are experiencing this behavior as normal is particularly distressing when you consider that today's teens are our best hope to help create a society where intimate partner violence is simply not tolerated. That is why Liz Claiborne Inc. worked with the Education Development Center and an advisory board of experts to create a curriculum that provides a basic understanding of dating abuse, how to recognize it and suggestions for getting help."
Senator Crapo and Senator Clinton wrote all their colleagues in the Senate to express support for the use of this curriculum and asked their fellow Senators to seek distribution of their curriculum in their states.
"Teen dating violence affects all communities regardless of race, gender, socio-economics or rural/urban divisions," said United States Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). "I am pleased to support the work of Liz Claiborne Inc., the Education Development Center, Break the Cycle and Teenage Research Unlimited in their collaborative Love is Not Abuse, curriculum designed to raise awareness of the crime of teen dating violence. I commend them on their work in this compelling issue facing families and communities nationwide today."
"It is critical that we teach young men and women that abuse of any kind is never acceptable. Education programs like the Liz Claiborne curriculum are essential to help raise attention to this problem," said Senator Clinton.
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) also commented on the importance of the issue by stating, "The Love is Not Abuse campaign promises to give teens the tools to recognize and avoid abusive relationships. As Congress recently underscored when it reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, education and prevention are fundamental elements of the nationwide battle against domestic violence, dating violence, sexual abuse and stalking."
"It is our hope that schools currently signed on to use Love is Not Abuse will inspire more high schools across the country to participate in the program," said Senator Joe Lieberman. "Greater understanding and awareness of teen dating violence brought about through sensitive and thoughtful instruction increases awareness of the problem and will inspire those who need help to seek it."
The Love is Not Abuse Curriculum will be taught this week throughout the country including the Senators' states of New York, Idaho, as well as other states including Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.
For more information on the curriculum, including how to get it, contact Liz Claiborne Inc. at www.loveisnotabuse.com.
Since 1991 Liz Claiborne Inc has been working to end domestic violence. Through its Love Is Not Abuse Program, the company provides information and tools that men, women, children, teens and corporate executives can use to learn more about the issue and find out how they can help end this epidemic.
Designed to protect women against violence, act comes under scrutiny
Muskogee Daily Phoenix and Times-Democrat (OK)
April 30, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Domestic violence affects one out of six Oklahoma couples.
Fifteen thousand domestic violence calls are answered every year by law enforcement. It is a problem getting more attention each year.
The Violence Against Women Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 and reauthorized this year by President Bush, has been touted as the first comprehensive federal legislation to address violence targeted at women and children.
Deana Franke, executive director of Tahlequah's Help in Crisis shelter, said the act helped draw attention to a problem of domestic violence.
"This problem was ignored too long," Franke said. "Doors have been closed to victims every where they turn."
The act, however, has come under fire from some circles. One group, Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting, calls the act a "well-intentioned government program" that "escalates partner conflict and promotes the break-up of families."
Opponents say protective orders discriminate against men
In its recently released report, VAWA: Threat to Families, Children, Men and Women, the men's rights organization claims the act promotes discriminatory practices against men. While the report cites such things as a federally funded buildup of a "domestic violence industry" and gender-specific discrimination, a major focus of the report is what it sees as a widespread abuse of temporary and permanent victim protective orders.
"The most injurious effects of VAWA on family stability are a direct result of the misuse of restraining orders, about 85 percent of which are filed against men," the organization asserts in its report.
The group's study claims protective order applications are issued routinely even where no physical harm has occurred or appears to be imminent. And when an order is granted, the alleged aggressor often is ordered to vacate the family home, fracturing the family and hastening its collapse.
A report published in 2004 by the Oklahoma Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board discussed the issue of protective orders in Oklahoma. Data collected by the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Center showed that in 76 of the state's 77 counties, 21,812 temporary protective orders were filed. Sixty counties reported that 13,256, or 80 percent, of those orders were served. Sixty-three counties indicated that of all the temporary orders issued, only one-third, or 5,818, were made permanent.
Applications for protective orders in 62 responding counties increased only 0.06 percent, from 14,560 in 1998 to 14,659 in 2003, according to studies by the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Center.
The number of temporary orders made permanent declined 18.28 percent: Court clerks in 52 counties reported 4,508 temporary orders were made permanent in 1998; in 2003, those same counties reported 3,684 temporary orders became permanent.
Officials question orders' effectiveness
Local advocates for the prevention of domestic violence, prosecutors and counselors say protective orders are used cautiously and sparingly.
Franke said the agency she heads routinely helps its clients file for protective orders -- but only in situations where a protective order can be effective.
"Sometimes a protective order is not the way to go," Franke said. "It will get them (the aggressor) all stirred up and make them madder."
Green Country Behavioral Health Services director Dean Williams agreed, saying a protective order can be "a double-edged sword."
"Protective orders only work (against those who) have something to lose," Williams said. "If they've got a home, a job or something else they don't want to lose."
Williams said those aggressors who don't have something to lose won't care whether a protective order has been issued.
System deters false protective orders
But when a protective order is chosen as a means to protect a victim of domestic violence, those in the legal field believe there are enough protections built into the system to deter frivolous or false applications.
"In Oklahoma, we have the necessary protections to keep the system free from abuse," said Muskogee County District Attorney John David Luton.
For example, state laws provide an emergency order can only be issued "to protect the victim from immediate and present danger of domestic abuse, stalking, or harassment." Otherwise, the alleged aggressor is given notice of the application and an opportunity to be heard before the order is issued.
Franke said its not the Violence Against Women Act that is destroying families, it is the aggressors -- men and women -- who threaten family stability.
"The perpetrator of the violence is the one destroying the families," she said.
In Oklahoma
· More than 15,000 domestic violence calls are answered every year by law enforcement.
· Saturdays and Sundays account for more domestic violence reports than any other days of the week.
· More domestic violence incidents are reported between the hours of 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. than any other time of day.
· Of reported domestic violence incidents, 61 percent are assault and battery, 35 percent are assault, 3 percent are sex crimes, and less than 1 percent are murder.
· One out of 10 females report being physically hurt by or in a physical fight with their partner during the 12 months prior to delivering a baby.
· More than 25 percent of pregnant females who experience domestic violence do not receive adequate prenatal care.
· Domestic violence and sexual assault programs serve more than 17,700 persons yearly.
Oklahoma Department of Health
Domestic violence crimes
According to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, 23,773 domestic violence cases were reported to Oklahoma law enforcement agencies in 2002, the most recent year available. Those reports resulted in:
· 57 homicides.
· 5,282 felony assaults.
· 406 violent sex crimes.
· 18,028 felony assault and battery.
It is estimated that only 50 percent of intimate violence incidents that occur are actually reported to law enforcement agencies.
Protective orders by county 2003
County POs filed Rate per 1,000 Deaths
Adair 215 10.2 0
Cherokee 500 11.8 1
Haskell 63 5.3 1
McIntosh 121 6.2 0
Muskogee 655 9.4 1
Sequoyah 400 10.3 3
Wagoner 447 7.8 0
Oklahoma Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board
Protective order violations by county 2003*
County VPO Calls Reports completed Passed to DA's office
Cherokee 166 84 63
McIntosh 18 18 18
Muskogee 149 149 149
Oklahoma Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board
* Law enforcement agencies in Adair, Haskell, Sequoyah and Wagoner counties failed to respond to the survey.
Violence Against Women Act abuses the rights of men
Intelligencer, The (Doylestown, PA)
May 17, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
In January, President George W. Bush signed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act without public debate, even though evidence has surfaced that Congress should have examined before the law was extended.
The act, which costs nearly $1 billion per year, is one of the major ways former President Bill Clinton bought the support of radical feminists.
Why Republicans passed this bill is a mystery. It's unlikely that the feminists who will spend all that money will ever vote Republican.
Passage of the Violence Against Women Act was a major priority of the American Bar Association, for whose members it is a cash cow. More than 300 courts have implemented specialized docket processes to address the cases stemming from the act, more than 1 million women have obtained protection orders from the courts and more than 660 new state laws pertaining to domestic violence have been passed, all of which produce profitable work for lawyers.
A recently issued ABA document called "Tool for Attorneys" provides lawyers with a list of suggestive questions to encourage their clients to make domestic violence charges. Knowing that a woman can get a restraining order against the father of her children in an ex parte proceeding without any evidence, and that she will never be punished for lying, domestic violence accusations have become a major tactic for securing sole child custody.
Voluminous documentation to dispel the feminist myths that created and have perpetuated the act are spelled out in seven reports just issued by an organization called Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting, or RADAR, and in an 80-page report called "Family Violence in America" published by the American Coalition for Fathers & Children.
For example, it is a shocker to discover that acts don't have to be violent to be punished under the definition of domestic violence. Name-calling, put-downs, shouting, negative looks or gestures, ignoring opinions or constant criticizing can all be legally labeled domestic violence.
The ABA report states flatly: "Domestic violence does not necessarily involve physical violence." The feminists' mantra is, "You don't have to be beaten to be abused."
Advocates of the Violence Against Women Act assert that domestic violence is a crime, yet family courts often adjudicate domestic violence as a civil (not a criminal) matter. This enables courts to deny the accused all Bill of Rights and due process protections that are granted to even the most heinous of criminals.
Specifically, the accused is not innocent until proven guilty but is presumed guilty, and he doesn't have to be convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt." Due process rights, such as trial by jury and the right of free counsel to poor defendants, are regularly denied, and false accusations are not covered by perjury law. The act provides funding for legal representation for accusers but not for defendants.
Those concerned about judicial activism, i.e., judges legislating from the bench, could observe judges doing this every day in domestic violence cases. Every time a judge issues a restraining order, the judge creates new crimes for which an individual can be arrested and jailed without trial for doing what no statute prohibits and what anyone else may lawfully do.
This criminalizing of ordinary private behavior and incarceration without due process follow classic police-state practices. Evidence is irrelevant, hearsay is admissible, defendants have no right to confront their accusers and forced confessions are a common feature.
Some of these injustices result from overzealous law enforcement officials (sometimes running for office) and some from timid judges who grant restraining orders and deny due process to defendants for fear of being blamed for subsequent violence. Most of this, however, is the result of feminist activism and the taxpayer money given them by Congress.
The ease and speed with which women can get restraining orders without fear of punishment for lying indicates that the dynamic driving domestic violence accusations is child custody rather than violence. Restraining orders don't prevent violence, but they do have the immediate effect of separating fathers from their children and imprisoning fathers for acts that are perfectly legal if done by anyone else (such as attending a public event at which his child is performing).
The restraining order issued against TV talk show host David Letterman, allegedly to protect a woman who claimed he was harassing her through his TV broadcasts, is a good example of how easy it is to get a court order based on false allegations. Another ridiculous restraining order was issued against celebutante Paris Hilton to protect a man she had bad-mouthed.
Violence Against Women Act money is used by anti-male feminists to train judges, prosecutors and police in the feminist myths that domestic violence is a contagious epidemic, and that men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims. Feminists lobby state legislators to pass must-arrest and must-prosecute laws even when police don't observe any crime and can't produce a witness to testify about an alleged crime.
Assault and battery are crimes in every state and should be prosecuted. But people so accused should be entitled to their constitutional rights. Is this America or not?
Phyllis Schlafly is a columnist for Copley News Service
Report Charges 'Misinformation' about Domestic Violence, Child Abuse
U.S. Newswire (USA)
May 17, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Government policies and campaigns to combat domestic violence and child abuse are based on faulty information, a new report charges. The report also claims that current government policies worsen child abuse. The report, Family Violence in America: The Truth about Domestic Violence and Child Abuse, is released by the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC, http://www.acfc.org) and authored by ACFC President Stephen Baskerville, PhD. Among the highlights of the report:
-- Child custody disputes are probably the main engine driving both fabricated accusations of domestic violence and actual violence.
-- The main cause of child abuse is family dissolution, and family violence programs probably contribute to child abuse.
These findings challenge long-standing assumptions about family violence and policies to combat it promoted by government agencies and many advocacy groups.
Domestic violence programs have recently become the subject of sharp criticism. Studies from the Independent Women's Forum and RADAR: Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting have already challenged the accuracy of information behind current policies. A Rutgers Law Review article recently called domestic violence "an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice" and a "due process fiasco," identifying six major denials of due process in one statute.
The ACFC report goes further in suggesting that domestic violence allegations are driven primarily by child custody disputes and by suggesting that child abuse is made worse, rather than diminished, by current policies.
The report comes as Congress is considering appropriations for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the principal federal legislation that funds domestic violence programs nationwide. The report is critical of VAWA.
The report's findings also contrast with two recently published studies on family violence: "Child Maltreatment 2004," issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, and Renee McDonald, et al., "Estimating the Number of Children Living in Partner-Violent Families," Journal of Family Psychology, March 2006.
Family Violence in America: The Truth about Domestic Violence and Child Abuse can be read and downloaded at http://www.acfc.org.
Bill does more violence to men
Daily Breeze (Torrance, CA)
June 1, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Both the California Assembly's Judiciary Committee and Public Safety Committee have approved a misguided bill that puts ideology over evidence by reiterating the state's mulish definition of domestic violence as something only women suffer. Not only does Assemblywoman Rebecca Cohn's AB 2051 turn a blind eye to male DV victims and their children, it may also cost the state millions of dollars in federal grants.
California law defines domestic violence as "the infliction or threat of physical harm against ... female intimate partners," thus excluding male victims from receiving state-funded DV services. Yet according to the Centers for Disease Control, men comprise more than 35 percent of all DV victims.
The National Institute of Mental Health funded and oversaw two of the largest studies of domestic violence ever conducted, both of which found equal rates of abuse among husbands and wives. California State University, Long Beach professor Martin Fiebert maintains an online bibliography summarizing 174 scholarly investigations, with an aggregate sample size exceeding 160,000. The study concludes, "Women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners."
These cases sometimes turn tragic for fathers and their children. In the Socorro Caro murder case, Socorro often abused her husband, Xavier, a prominent Northridge rheumatologist. Because the domestic violence, criminal justice and family law systems are almost incapable of seeing a man as a DV victim, Xavier couldn't take his children and leave. Socorro later shot and killed three of their four children, for which she was convicted and sentenced to death.
California is currently the target of a controversial lawsuit filed on behalf of a young Sacramento-area woman who spent a nightmarish childhood trapped in a home with a violent, abusive mother. Maegan Black's father, David, was partially disabled, and thus financially dependent on his wife. His and Maegan's numerous attempts to get help from domestic violence service providers were consistently rebuffed -- David was excluded because he was the wrong gender for a victim. AB 2051 could weaken the state's legal position by reiterating this exclusion.
The federal Violence Against Women Act, which funds states' DV programs, was amended last year to include a requirement that DV programs be gender-neutral. It was also amended to state that VAWA's title should not "be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence from receiving benefits and services." AB 2051 again places California at odds with federal law, putting the state at risk of losing tens of millions of dollars in federal grant funds.
In testimony against AB 2051, family violence treatment provider John Hamel asserted: "There is an overwhelming, irrefutable body of research indicating that children are adversely affected by witnessing interparental violence regardless of the perpetrator's gender. Children who have seen their mother physically assault their father are just as likely as those who witnessed their father assault their mother to perpetrate dating violence and assault their intimate partners. ...
"Parents who assault one another are also likely to assault their children, and this correlation holds equally for mothers and fathers. By ignoring the problem of female-on-male violence, Cohn's bill inhibits our common efforts to effectively combat domestic violence."
Cohn introduced AB 2051 to address the problem of DV within the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities. This is commendable because research shows that domestic violence occurs as often in gay and lesbian couples as it does in heterosexual ones. The bill provided Cohn the opportunity to correct California's harmful (and potentially costly) error of ignoring male DV victims and their children. Rather than fixing this problem, Cohn has instead chosen to exacerbate it.
Mike McCormick is the executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (www.acfc.org). Glenn Sacks serves on the advisory board of Stop Abuse for Everyone, an international domestic violence organization. His Web site is www.GlennSacks.com.
Office on Violence Against Women
Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection and Extension of a Currently Approved Collection
Federal Register (USA)
June 22, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Certification of Compliance with the Statutory Eligibility Requirements of the Violence Against Women Act as Amended for Applicants to the STOP (Services* Training* Officers* Prosecutors) Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for "sixty days" until August 21, 2006. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-5806.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of This Information Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved collection and extension of a currently approved collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Certification of Compliance with the Statutory Eligibility Requirements of the Violence Against Women Act as Amended for Applicants to the STOP Formula Grant Program.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: 1122-0001. U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: The affected public includes STOP formula grantees (50 states, the District of Columbia and five territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands). The STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program was authorized through the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and reauthorized and amended by the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 and the Violence Against Women Act of 2005. The purpose of the STOP Formula Grant Program is to promote a coordinated, multi-disciplinary approach to improving the criminal justice system's response to violence against women. It envisions a partnership among law enforcement, prosecution, courts, and victim advocacy organizations to enhance victim safety and hold offenders accountable for their crimes of violence against women. The Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) administers the STOP Formula Grant Program funds which must be distributed by STOP state administrators according to statutory formula (as amended by VAWA 2000 and VAWA 2005).
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that it will take the approximately 56 respondents (state administrators from the STOP Formula Grant Program) less than one hour to complete a Certification of Compliance with the Statutory Eligibility Requirements of the Violence Against Women Act, as Amended.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual hour burden to complete the Certification is less than 56 hours.
If additional information is required contact: Lynn Bryant, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Suite 1600, Patrick Henry Building, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: June 16, 2006.
Lynn Bryant,
Department Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. E6-9839 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-FX-P
Vol. 71, No. 120
Notices
IPGV Takes Aim at Iowa Courts for Failing to Uphold Federal Law That Prohibits Domestic Abusers from Possessing Firearms
U.S. Newswire (USA)
June 28, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Iowa district courts are failing to enforce federal law that prohibits a person who is subject to a court restraining order for domestic violence from possessing firearms, according to a report released today by Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence (IPGV) - Arming Domestic Abusers: Failure of Iowa Courts to Uphold Federal Law That Prohibits Possession of Firearms to Domestic Abusers.
Of approximately 2,500 qualifying protective orders issued in 2005, an estimated 1,800 protective orders (72 percent) failed to prohibit the defendant from possessing firearms and require the defendant to surrender his/her firearms to a designated law enforcement agency. It is estimated that about 1,000 of the defendants named in these protective orders possessed firearms at the time the protective order was issued.
The Violence Against Women Act, enacted by Congress in 1994, amended The Gun Control Act of 1968 to prohibit persons who are subject to a court restraining order for domestic violence meeting certain conditions from possessing firearms or ammunition.
"Iowa district court judges are bound by their oath of office to 'administer justice according to law,'" said John Johnson, director of IPGV. "The federal law was enacted by Congress to promote public safety and prevent death and injury in domestic abuse cases. Removal of firearms from persons subject to a court restraining order for domestic violence is not discretionary. It's the law."
In its study, IPGV examined domestic abuse protective orders issued in 2005 in each of Iowa's eight judicial districts (a total of 10 counties). The sample included about one-half of all qualifying protective orders issued in 2005 and protective orders issued by about three-fourths of current district court judges.
The study revealed that only 28 percent of qualifying protective orders issued by Iowa district courts in 2005 prohibited the defendant from possessing firearms.
The report details results by judicial district and individual district court judge. The judicial districts with the lowest compliance were the Fourth (1 percent) and Seventh (8 percent). The judicial districts with the highest compliance were the Fifth (44 percent) and Second (43 percent).
Compliance with the federal law was strongly dependent on the individual district court judge that issued the order. Some judges routinely prohibited the defendant from possessing firearms on all or most of their orders. Other judges seldom or never prohibited the defendant from possessing firearms. The study found that about 25 percent of the judges were responsible for about 75 percent of the protective orders that prohibited the defendant from possessing firearms.
Leah Woodward, IPGV's assistant director said, "The United States is a nation of laws. The question is, is Iowa being governed by the 'rule of law' or the 'rule of individual judge?'"
Nationwide, there are approximately 1,600 intimate partner homicides each year. About 75 percent of the victims are women. A firearm is used in about two-thirds of intimate partner homicides.
Between January 1, 1995 through September 18, 2003, 108 Iowans were killed in domestic homicides, an average of about 12 a year. The victims included 68 women and 12 men who were killed by their current or former partners. In addition, 28 bystanders (12 adults and 16 children) were also killed in these domestic homicides. One hundred six children survived these murdered women and men.
A copy of the report may be downloaded from http://www.ipgv.org
"History's biggest tragedy is not the violent acts of bad people, but the appalling silence and indifference of good people." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
Guns slip through safety net
A study finds most of Iowa's district courts fail to enforce a federal law removing firearms from subjects of protection orders
Omaha World-Herald (NE)
June 29, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Iowa's district courts, especially the one in Pottawattamie County, are failing to enforce a federal law designed to protect victims of domestic violence, according to a report released Wednesday.
Pottawattamie County District Court had the state's worst score in a recent study of protection order requirements by an Iowa nonprofit group.
In 99 percent of cases examined, the county's district judges failed to require the subjects of protection orders to surrender their guns and failed to prohibit them from possessing guns, said John Johnson, director of Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence.
The nonprofit group based in Cedar Rapids works toward reducing firearm-related deaths and injuries in Iowa.
The group examined all the protection orders for domestic violence from one county in each of the state's eight judicial districts: a sample that encompassed about half of the estimated protection orders issued each year.
Of the 117 protection orders issued in Pottawattamie County District Court in 2005 for domestic violence, only one upheld the 1994 federal law, the Violence Against Women Act, Johnson said.
Though all of the protection orders met the law's criteria for gun restrictions, judges failed to mark a box on the standard form that would have enforced them, he said.
"I think we've discovered an iceberg: a deadly iceberg," Johnson said.
Kent Wirth, court administrator for the 4th Judicial District, which includes Pottawattamie County, said his office will review the court's procedures on protection orders in light of the report, which he had not seen before Wednesday.
The office does not have a policy of monitoring the court orders.
Of the 2,500 qualifying protection orders, 72 percent failed to prohibit the defendant from possessing a gun, the report said. That's about one in four that upheld the law.
"The federal law was enacted by Congress to promote public safety and prevent death and injury in domestic abuse cases. Removal of firearms from persons subject to a court restraining order for domestic violence is not discretionary. It's the law," Johnson said.
Nationwide, there are approximately 1,600 intimate partner homicides each year. A firearm is used in about two-thirds of intimate partner homicides.
In 1994, the Violence Against Women Act prohibited persons who are subject to a court restraining order for domestic violence and who meet certain conditions from possessing firearms or ammunition.
House Passes $25 Million Increase for VAWA Funding
Increase Will Fund Critically Needed New Programs to End Domestic Violence
U.S. Newswire (USA)
June 30, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) lauds the House of Representatives for approving measures to increase funding for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) by $25 million in the Science, State, Justice and Commerce (SSJC) Appropriations Bill. The increased funding will support new programs created by the 2005 reauthorization of VAWA. These increases are on top of a crucial $24.5 million increase for existing programs already included in the SSJC Appropriations Bill by Chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA), Ranking Member Alan Mollohan (D-WV) and other members of the Appropriations Committee.
"Amidst widespread budget cuts, the House continues to demonstrate its commitment to ending domestic violence. We thank Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Mollohan and the members of the Appropriations Committee for making VAWA funding a priority," said Sue Else, President of NNEDV. "Increased funding means better resources for our communities to respond to and end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking."
The House passed two separate amendments to increase funding by $10 million for programs serving children and youth who witness and experience domestic violence and/or sexual assault; critical resources and services for Tribal communities to address domestic and sexual violence; and to support the first federal funding stream for sexual assault programs. The House also passed an amendment to add an additional $5 million for VAWA programs, including Jessica Gonzales Victims Assistants, which help improve enforcement of protective orders.
"The amendments offered by Representatives Rosa DeLauro (D- CT), Jay Inslee (D-WA), Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) are critical to enhancing services for victims and creating prevention strategies to stop the violence," said Else. "The leadership of these Members of Congress will help save lives and prevent future violence."
NNEDV also commends Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Mark Green (R-WI), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Hilda Solis (D-CA), Ted Poe (R-TX), Katherine Harris (R-FL), Jim Costa (D-CA), Mel Watt (D-NC), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), and Mike Honda (D-CA) for their leadership advocating for increased VAWA funding.
The Senate is expected to set their recommendations for VAWA funding levels in the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill later this summer.
In December 2005, the House and Senate unanimously approved the reauthorization of VAWA. VAWA 2005 takes a more holistic approach to addressing violence against women. In addition to enhancing criminal and civil justice and community-based responses to these crimes, VAWA creates notable new focus areas such as:
-- developing prevention strategies to stop the violence before it starts,
-- protecting individuals from unfair eviction due to their status as victims of domestic violence or stalking,
-- creating the first federal funding stream to support rape crisis centers,
-- developing culturally- and linguistically-specific services for communities,
-- enhancing programs and services for victims with disabilities, and
-- broadening VAWA service provisions to include children and teens.
Initially passed in 1994, VAWA created the first federal legislation acknowledging domestic violence and sexual assaults as crimes, and provided federal resources to encourage community- coordinated responses to combating the violence. Its reauthorization in 2000 improved the foundation established by VAWA 1994 by creating a much-needed legal assistance program for victims and expanding the definition of crime to cover dating violence and stalking.
NNEDV has been a leading force in efforts to reauthorize VAWA and fund these critical federal programs. NNEDV and its member state domestic violence coalitions played a crucial role in the passage of VAWA in 1994 and its reauthorizations in 2000 and 2005. NNEDV's sister organization, the National Network to End Domestic Violence Fund (NNEDV Fund), has been instrumental in assisting state domestic violence coalitions and local communities in implementing current VAWA programs.
------
The National Network to End Domestic Violence, a social change organization representing state domestic violence coalitions, is dedicated to creating a social, political and economic environment in which violence against women no longer exists. For more information, please visit http://www.nnedv.org.
Cheryl L. ODonnell of the National Network to End Domestic Violence
DNA database policy is a threat to civil liberties
U-Wire (USA)
Author/Byline: LSU; Erik Browne
July 13, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
BATON ROUGE, La. -- Regardless of whether you were convicted, if you happen to be one of those people arrested this year and had a DNA mouth swab taken, you just might have your DNA sample included in the FBI's DNA database. And it's not just felonies. This could even happen - and may already have happened - with certain misdemeanors. That bar fight that your friend got into and you were mistakenly thought to be involved in could have some serious unforeseen consequences for both of you in the future.
When President George W. Bush reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act on January 5, he expanded the National DNA Indexing System (NDIS) by permitting the DNA samples from individuals arrested - but not convicted - for certain crimes to be included in this database used in criminal investigations. Prior to this legislation, only those actually convicted of a crime were subject to inclusion in the NDIS.
That expansion coupled with a 2003 Louisiana law which requires DNA samples to be collected from individuals at the time of arrest, means that individuals arrested in Louisiana for felonies and certain misdemeanors can have their profiles uploaded to the FBI's national DNA database. These misdemeanors include such "heinous" crimes as prostitution, soliciting for prostitutes, unlawful use of a laser pointer on a police officer, simple battery and simple assault. That bar fight, which constitutes simple battery, will put you - or more specifically your criminal DNA profile - in a database of convicted rapists, murderers and other felons.
This past Tuesday, the Louisiana State Police uploaded the DNA profiles of 45,000 people to the NDIS. Law enforcement officials have hailed this move as a huge positive step in fighting and solving crime. However, this is not positive news - to say the least - for those who value their civil liberties.
The key aspect of this recent addition to the NDIS that should scare Louisianians is that not a single person on that list of 45,000 was convicted of the crimes for which they were arrested. In the eyes of the law they are innocent. Yet law enforcement officials feel that simply being arrested is enough "due process" to establish you as a permanent suspect in all future criminal investigations that utilize the NDIS.
If this fact alone isn't enough to scare you, it gets much worse.
In a telephone interview, Baton Rouge attorney Jill Craft highlighted some of the dangers that come from the use and existence of DNA databases permitted by federal and Louisiana law. Craft, who works on cases involving civil rights and employment discrimination, said that Louisiana policy regarding DNA samples and databases is "overly broad" and "unnecessarily intrudes on civil liberties."
"There is no way to be sure that DNA samples taken from individuals who are not convicted of their arresting charges can be gotten back," she said. "Individuals who do not want their DNA profiles in a criminal database have to go through the court system. This places an immense burden on innocent people to get their DNA samples back."
But why should you care about whether or not the government has your DNA sample? Certainly if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear, right? This line of thought certainly shows an incredible amount of trust in government - not to mention a complete disregard for the whole purpose of having due process in the first place - but there are several related issues that you should be concerned about.
According to Craft, another significant problem with the Louisiana law is that it is extremely vague and contains a clause that states DNA samples obtained from arrestees "can be used for any other law enforcement purposes." This clause and the law in general poses a substantial risk of intrusion on civil liberties. What constitutes legitimate "law enforcement purposes?" An open-ended statement like that comes uncomfortably close to a slippery slope as far as what government can and cannot do with your DNA samples. But what is so important about DNA?
Well, first of all, DNA samples have the potential to provide sensitive information about family relationships and health. Having your DNA sample in a government database is a potentially serious threat to people's privacy. It makes it significantly easier for the government - not to mention information pirates and hackers- to misuse or abuse the information. What is going to keep the government from using DNA information to identify individuals who have a predisposition to mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, and use this information to discriminate in employment? What could stop corrupt government officials from giving this sensitive information to medical insurance companies?
Furthermore, with DNA databases there also exists the potential for serious mistakes in criminal investigations. Although DNA testing is often portrayed in the media as being infallible, errors can be made and wrongful convictions can and have resulted. DNA samples can be contaminated, switched and misinterpreted. The results can be misreported. Wrongful convictions based on DNA evidence are harder to overturn. This fact is made worse with the addition of innocent people which will rapidly increase the size of the NDIS.
Although the expansion of the NDIS may be beneficial to law enforcement officials in the fight against crime, this is not a good enough reason to trample on civil liberties. Innocent people who happened to be arrested do not deserve to be included in a DNA database alongside convicted murderers, rapists and other criminals. This undermines the whole notion of "innocent until proven guilty," which is the foundation of our judicial system.
Civil liberties and due process are in place to protect us from unwarranted government intrusions. Including the DNA samples of unconvicted - therefore presumed innocent - arrestees in the NDIS is a serious threat to privacy and substantially increases the risk of governmental misuse and the possibility of error and wrongful conviction.
This DNA database policy poses a serious threat to civil liberties and goes directly against the most important principles of American justice.
Feminists to blame for unnecessary temporary restraining orders
Intelligencer, The (Doylestown, PA)
September 13, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
It brought to mind the title of the George Gershwin song "They All Laughed" when a Santa Fe, N.M., family court judge granted a temporary restraining order against "Late Show" host David Letterman to protect a woman he had never met, never heard of and lived 2,000 miles away from.
Colleen Nestler claimed that Letterman had caused her "mental cruelty" and "sleep deprivation" for over a decade by using code words and gestures during his network television broadcasts.
That ridiculous temporary restraining orders was dismissed in December, but according to a report released this week by Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting, or RADAR, the case was not a judicial anomaly but "the logical culmination of years of ever-expanding definitions of domestic violence." RADAR is a Maryland-based think tank that specializes in exposing the excesses of the domestic violence bureaucracy.
The New Mexico statute defines domestic violence as causing "severe emotional distress." That definition was met when Nestler claimed she suffered from exhaustion and had gone bankrupt because of Letterman's actions.
The New Mexico statute appears to limit domestic violence to "any incident by a household member," and Letterman, who lives in Connecticut and works in New York, had never been in Nestler's household. But New Mexico law defines household member to include "a person with whom the petitioner has had a continuing personal relationship," and Nestler's charge that Letterman's broadcast of television messages for 11 years qualified as a "continuing" relationship and thereby turned him into a household member.
The family court judge who issued the order, Daniel Sanchez, might have been predisposed to believe any allegation presented to him by a complaining woman even though she had no evidence. His own biography lists him as chairman of the Northern New Mexico Domestic Violence Task Force.
RADAR reports that only five states define domestic violence in terms of overt actions that can be objectively proven or refuted in a court of law. The rest of the states have broadened their definition to include fear, emotional distress and psychological feelings.
The use of the word "harassment" in domestic violence definitions is borrowed from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's definition, which is based on the "effect" of an action rather than the action itself. In Oklahoma, a man can be charged with harassment if he seriously "annoys" a woman.
The 1999 book by University of Massachusetts Professor Daphne Patai, "Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism" (Rowman & Littlefield; $17), powerfully indicts what she labels the "Sexual Harassment Industry." Feminists have created a judicial world in which accusation equals guilt, and the distinction between severe offenses and trivial annoyances is erased.
RADAR's report explains that the definition of domestic has also been expanded. Originally, domestic meant a household member, but now it means a person with whom the woman "has been involved in an intimate relationship" (Colorado), people who are in a "dating or engagement relationship" (Rhode Island), or "any other person ... as determined by the court" (North Dakota).
How did it happen that state laws against domestic violence are written so broadly as to produce such absurdities? Family court judges issue 2 million temporary restraining orders every year, half of which are routinely extended, 85 percent are against men, and half do not include any allegation of violence but rely on vague complaints made without evidence.
Follow the money, both at the supply and the demand ends of the economic trail. The supply of 1,500 new domestic violence laws enacted by states from 1997 to 2005 is largely the handiwork of targeted lobbying by feminists funded by the multimillion-dollar federal boondoggle called the Violence Against Women Act.
The act is blatantly gender discriminatory; as its title proclaims, it is designed to address only complaints by women. The Violence Against Women Act provides taxpayer funding to feminists to teach legislators, judges and prosecutors the stereotypes that men are batterers and women are victims.
The demand end of the economic chain is the fact that women know (and their lawyers advise them) that making allegations of domestic violence (even without proof or evidence) is the fastest and cheapest way to win child custody plus generous financial support. The financial incentives to lie or exaggerate are powerful.
Due process violations in the issuing of temporary restraining orders include lack of notice, no presumption of innocence, denial of poor defendants to free counsel while women are given taxpayer-funded support, denial of the right to take depositions, lack of evidentiary hearings, improper standard of proof, no need to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, denial of the right to confront accusers, and denial of trial by jury.
Assault and battery are already crimes in every state without any need of the Violence Against Women Act. Temporary restraining orders empower activist family court judges to criminalize a vast range of otherwise legal behavior (usually a father's contact with his own children and entry into his own home), which are crimes only for the recipient of the order, who can then be arrested and jailed without trial for doing what no statute prohibits and what anyone else may lawfully do.
Phyllis Schlafly is a columnist for Copley News Service.
Sen. Biden here Saturday
Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier (IA)
September 21, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WATERLOO - U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., a contender for the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination, will appear at a fundraiser for Iowa House candidate Doris Kelley at 7 p.m. Saturday at Sunnyside Country Club.
Biden is the longest serving senator in Delaware history, first elected in 1972. He is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chaired from 1987-95, he is credited with authoring a landmark 1994 crime bill, the 2000 Violence Against Women Act and a bill creating a national "drug czar" to fight drug trafficking.
He chaired the Judiciary Committee during the contentious Supreme Court confirmation proceedings for Robert Bork in 1987 and Clarence Thomas in 1991.
A frequent guest on television political talk shows, Biden sought the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination but withdrew after incurring controversy following a candidate forum at the 1987 Iowa State Fair, in which he was accused of plagiarizing a comment made by then-British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock. He had included the attribution to Kinnock on other occasions. He is generally seen as a centrist in Democrat politics.
CUBAN NATIONAL'S WIDOW IS GRANTED U.S. RESIDENCY
Miami Herald, The (FL)
September 29, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The widow of a Cuban man who had a heart attack during an interview with a Miami immigration officer was granted U.S. residency on Thursday, based on a broad interpretation of new legislation that may affect hundreds of spouses of Cuban nationals in the future.
``I'm happy in one way because I have my residency, but at the same time I'm sad for the death of my husband,'' said Maritza Hernández, 53, the widow of Juan Hernández, who had a heart attack during an Aug. 10 immigration interview. ``That's always there.''
In that interview, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials were trying to determine whether the marriage between Maritza, from the Dominican Republic, and Juan, a Cuban immigrant with a green card, was legitimate.
Juan, 50, suffered a heart attack when the immigration officer asked him when he proposed to Maritza, but he couldn't remember. He lost consciousness and was pronounced dead later at a hospital.
Because Juan had obtained his green card under the Cuban Adjustment Act, Maritza would be eligible for a green card, too, if the marriage were deemed legitimate.
Thursday's ruling on Maritza's case was based on a recently modified section of the Cuban Adjustment Act, a change that came from the Violence Against Women Act.
In the decision, immigration officials cited a passage that states the spouse of a deceased Cuban resident retains spousal rights for two years after the person dies. Until Thursday's decision, it was unclear whether that section applied only to the spouses of Cuban nationals who had suffered domestic abuse in their marriage, said Maritza's lawyer, Jorge Rivera.
``After Maritza's case, many widows of Cuban nationals will be able to request residency,'' Rivera said. ``This is a precedent-setting case.''
Rivera had requested Maritza's residency on other grounds. He argued that immigration officials were poised to give her a green card that would say she was admitted for residence in 2001, when she arrived as a tourist and overstayed her visa - so her husband's death shouldn't matter for her green card.
Rivera said he had been planning to use the new provision about the spouses of Cuban nationals if his initial argument was denied by immigration officials.
Ira Kurzban, an authority on immigration law, had previously told The Miami Herald that he believed Maritza could obtain residence because of that provision.
``This is a significant decision that is one of the first interpretations of a very new law,'' Kurzban said.
Maritza came to the United States from the Dominican Republic in 2001 on a tourist visa, but she overstayed and became undocumented. She married Juan in 2004.
His body will be sent to Cuba for burial on Wednesday.
``I miss him so much, but I know he is happy, because this is what he wanted,'' Maritza said.
Statistics show Native women most abused group in U.S.
Arizona Daily Sun, The (Flagstaff, AZ)
September 30, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
MISSOULA, Mont. -- The report, when it was released in 1999, could have been a call to action:
Native women are raped, abused, stalked and murdered more than any other group in the country.
It wasn't.
"When those statistics came out, there was no cry. There was no outrage," said Karen Artichoker, director of Sacred Circle, a crisis center in Rapid City, S.D.
But in the years since the Bureau of Justice report was released, longtime activists like Artichoker redirected their efforts and took their cause to the nation's leaders. And they've successfully blazed a trail on behalf of Native women.
Tribal leaders, through the National Congress of American Indians, have since joined with more than 30 tribal domestic violence coalitions across Indian Country.
Together, they spurred Congress to action. The result: In January, President Bush reauthorized the 2005 Violence Against Women Act, which contained an important and unprecedented provision specifically aimed at making life safer for indigenous women.
The Violence Against Women Act's Safety for Indian Women provision could dramatically improve the way the Justice Department's Office on Violence Against Women provides services to tribes around the country.
Justice Department officials met Sept. 19 with tribal leaders and anti-domestic violence coalitions in Minnesota for a first-ever government-to-government consultation to discuss safety for Native women.
"The turnout from Indian Country was so incredible," said Jacquelyn Johnson, NCAI executive director. "Every seat was filled. Every region was represented."
And all voices were heard.
"It was so powerful," said Juana Majel, a Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians tribal leader from California and chair of the NCAI domestic violence task force.
"There are moments in time in Indian history and you're glad you were a witness. It was DOJ's first time out the door and it seemed like it was going to be more a 'talking-to,' but DOJ said, 'No, this is your time.'"
As the first year of the new Safety for Indian Women program begins, discussion centered on some of the act's most profound provisions, including federal imprisonment for habitual offenders, increased funding for tribes and organizations battling domestic violence, a revamped grant application process, domestic violence research and creation of an Indian Country sex-offender registry.
The registry will make it easier to track habitual offenders, who will now be subject to stiffer penalties.
For example, a person of any race who commits a third offense against a Native woman within tribal jurisdiction -- including crimes of domestic and dating violence, stalking and sexual assault -- will be tried in federal court.
Previously, a tribe could only give a one-year sentence. A third-time crime is now punishable with between five and 10 years in prison.
"The third offense becomes a federal offense," said Majel. "That's huge. That's the law now."
In the past, tribes did what they could with little money to bring protection and healing to women in their communities.
"Many tribes are so impoverished that it's nearly impossible to develop this full-spectrum response without the resources," said Sarah Deer, a Tribal Law and Policy Institute attorney in Minneapolis.
But Title IX of the Violence Against Women Act promises to infuse millions of dollars into organizations, including tribal programs providing domestic violence services for Native women.
Majel is encouraged by the financial support provision in the act.
"What's so powerful about it, for the first time in legislative history, when we went to speak to our counterparts, our non-Native sisterhood out there ... they realized our journey was such that we weren't getting fair representation in the programs," Majel said.
"They actually set aside money in their grants, 10 percent across the board, in support of us in adding the Indian title."
The act also provided an additional $2.5 million -- funding for research, a baseline study, and criminal tracking and registry systems.
It's still unclear how the registry will work, but one goal is to track serial offenders who travel between tribal nations.
"We are not required to have a government relationship with each other, but it would be wise of us to do so," said Majel.
The House of Representatives has so far failed to include the needed $2.5 million allocation in the 2007 appropriations bill. The Senate is still debating the president's budget as well.
"I'm dedicated and our office is dedicated and so is our attorney general," said Diane Stuart, director of the Justice Department's Office of Violence Against Women. "Specifically, he and I have spoken about violence against Indian women and we'll do all we can to further their safety."
Since Stuart announced she will retire in October, tribal leaders have voiced their concern about moving forward.
"The message overall was that tribes are engaged and this is an important issue to our communities," Johnson said. "We believe there needs to be ongoing dialogue. This can't be a one-time consultation."
It's hoped another touted section of Title IX -- the creation of a deputy director of tribal affairs in the Office of Violence Against Women -- will allow for a seamless transition. The job is yet unfilled but is being advertised.
"Right now there's not a consistent person in the office that deals solely with tribal governments," Deer said.
Prior to the new provision, tribes often avoided the Violence Against Women Office's complicated grant process. Now, four staff members will work specifically with tribes requesting grants.
Artichoker, who also served on the National Congress of American Indians domestic violence task force, looks forward to the coming changes.
And she's ready to embrace the day when Native communities restore relationship balance in the home. The traditional knowledge of family relationships can be recovered, she said.
Said Deer: "People in Indian Country who work on these issues really talk about making social change."
"And not just responding to each case of violence, but rather working on a large scale to change public opinion and women's opinions about what abuse is and how it's infiltrated into our culture."
Fact Sheet: Highlights of Office on Violence Against Women Achievements From 2001-2006
Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs
U.S. Newswire (USA)
October 20, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Since 2001, the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) has successfully worked to provide federal leadership to reduce violence against women and to administer justice and strengthen services for all victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. OVW accomplishes its mission by developing and supporting the capacity of state, local, tribal and non-profit entities involved in responding to violence against women.
October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, during which time the department renews its commitment to educating all members of our communities about this serious crime and the frightening toll that it takes on American citizens. OVW has commemorated this month by opening Family Justice Centers in several communities around the nation as part of the President's Family Justice Center Initiative.
The President's Family Justice Center Initiative:
-- In October 2003, President George W. Bush announced the President's Family Justice Center Initiative (PFJCI), which is administered by OVW. The PFJCI is a pilot program that has awarded more than $20 million to 15 communities across the country for the planning, development and establishment of comprehensive domestic violence victim service and support centers. The goal of the PFJCI is to make a victim's search for help and justice more efficient and effective by bringing professionals who provide an array of services together under one roof. The 15 PFJCI sites bring together advocates from non-profit groups, victim services organizations, law enforcement officers, probation officers, governmental victim assistants, forensic medical professionals, attorneys, chaplains and representatives from community-based organizations into one centralized location. To date, PFJCI sites have opened in Brooklyn, N.Y.; San Antonio, Texas; Alameda County, Calif.; Oauchita Parish, La.; Nampa, Idaho; St. Louis, Mo.; Tulsa, Okla.; Buffalo, N.Y.; Knoxville, Tenn.; Boston, Mass.; Sitka, Alaska.; Tampa, Fla. and Defiance, Ohio. Two additional centers in Las Vegas, N.M. and South Bend, Ind., will be opening in the coming months. OVW, the attorney general and the administration support this most critical initiative and continue to work toward the goal of eradicating violence against women.
The Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act:
-- The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005) enacted on Jan. 5, improves and expands legal tools and grant programs addressing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. VAWA 2005 reauthorizes critical grant programs created by the original Violence Against Women Act and subsequent legislation, establishes new programs and strengthens federal laws.
Tribal Consultation:
-- VAWA 2005 includes many significant changes that are designed to strengthen the response to violence against women in communities throughout the country. Title IX of VAWA 2005 specifically addresses violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women. Title IX provides a tremendous array of new tools and resources that will improve the federal response to crimes of violence against Indian women and increase the level of federal grant funding available to tribal governments to combat violence against Indian women. One of the most important changes in Title IX of VAWA 2005 is the requirement for the U. S. Attorney General to host an annual consultation with tribal governments.
Section 903 of VAWA 2005 directs the Attorney General and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to use the consultation as an opportunity to solicit recommendations from tribal governments on three topics:
-- Administering grant funds appropriated for tribal governments and programs created to benefit tribal governments by the original VAWA and subsequent legislation;
-- Enhancing the safety of Indian women from domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking and
-- Strengthening the federal response to crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.
The Office of Violence Women led the Department of Justice's effort to plan and organize this momentous event, which occurred in Prior Lake, Minn. on Sept. 19. Approximately 60 tribal leaders representing roughly 50 different tribes were in attendance. A report on the consultation will be developed and released before the end of the year.
The Greenbook Initiative:
-- In 1999, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) developed a comprehensive set of guidelines designed to help caseworkers, advocates and judges establish collaborative structures and develop policies and procedures that would enhance the safety and well-being of domestic violence victims and their children. Since the release, The Greenbook, which was formally titled "Effective Intervention in Domestic Violence & Child Maltreatment Cases: Guidelines for Policy and Practice," has assisted numerous domestic violence advocates, child welfare workers and family court judges in building a collaborative approach to working with families experiencing domestic violence and child maltreatment.
-- In December 2000, OVW entered into a partnership with other agencies of the U.S. Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to fund six communities under an inter-departmental demonstration initiative, which required the communities to implement the guidelines published in The Greenbook. The six sites that were selected under this demonstration initiative are El Paso County, Colo.; Grafton County, N.H.; Lane County, Ore.; San Francisco, Calif.; Santa Clara County, Calif. and St. Louis County, Miss.
Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs
Domestic violence victims offered way to stay in U.S.
An innovative work permit program allows immigrants to feel safe cooperating with police and prosecutors
Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, CA)
November 16, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
He hit her, sexually assaulted her and vowed to kill her.
One time he slugged her so hard a bone now juts out one side of her face.
She ended the relationship, but he continued it, hunting her down as she fled from job to job, apartment to apartment, East Bay city to East Bay city.
Vanessa Estrada lived in constant fear for seven years. The charming guy she met in an East Bay restaurant when she was 18 had vanished, replaced by an abusive boyfriend who threatened to tell the INS that she was in the country illegally.
When she filed the first of at least 11 police reports against him, she worried she would be sent back to Mexico City, cut off forever from their daughter. That never happened.
Through the District Attorney's Office, Estrada learned about U visa, a federal program that grants undocumented domestic violence victims temporary work permits and permission to stay in the United States for at least three years.
Federal regulations that would fully implement the program are being developed, and they could pave the way for someone like Estrada to gain permanent legal status. In the interim, victims can renew their temporary status. Thousands of applications have been filed, and the numbers are rising each year, said Sharon Rummery of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
With the aid of the immigrant advocate group the International Institute of the East Bay, Estrada gathered all the documentation required and sent it to the INS Vermont Service Center. She started her paperwork in May and recently was approved.
Estrada now lives in a "tranquil" place, but she wants other undocumented battered victims to realize they can seek justice without fear of deportation. She is telling her story because she wants her daughter to read it one day and know she does not have to tolerate abuse.
"What encourages me now is to be able to say if other people are suffering that they should speak up," she said through a translator.
The stated goal of the U visa program is to strengthen legal efforts to "detect, investigate and prosecute cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking and other crimes — committed against aliens." Additionally, it strives to uphold U.S. humanitarian efforts. Crime witnesses who are illegally in the country also can apply for it.
Language barriers, perceptions about law enforcement and the legal system, the fear of deportation, and cultural and religious issues are the most common obstacles to seeking help, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence says.
In the absence of U visa regulations, cases deemed acceptable have resulted in work permits and the ability to stay in the country without fear of deportation, Jayashri Srikantiah, a Stanford academic familiar with the program, said.
"We're hopeful that people getting the relief will be able to get a U visa and get even more protective status," said Srikantiah, an associate law professor.
Rummery, the spokeswoman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, attributes the delay due to the complexity of the situation. "We're working on it," she said.
The U visa program is attached to the Violence Against Women Act, and it has largely flown under the public's radar. That appears to be changing as police departments, foreign-language media outlets and advocacy groups such as Catholic Charities of the East Bay and the International Institute of the East Bay inform undocumented women about it.
For example, just this month two domestic violence victims contacted Raquel Aguirre at the Oakland office of Catholic Charities. They learned about U visa via Telemundo, a Spanish-language TV station.
The East Bay numbers appear to reflect a growing awareness. In 2005, the Oakland-based International Institute of the East Bay had 40 U visa cases. So far this year, it has represented 49 cases, managing attorney Susan Bowyer said.
From 2002 to 2005, three U visa cases went through the Concord immigration office at Catholic Charities of the East Bay. This year, legal counselor Carla Cordova has seen four. At the Alameda office of Catholic Charities, Aguirre saw the U visa caseload double, leaping from 11 to 22 from last year to now. In 2004, she filed for 19 U visas.
Cordova attends workshops and community groups to spread the word. She frequently teams up with Lynn Rios, the family violence victim advocate for the Concord Police Department. Concord is one of a few California cities to have such a position. Cordova also partners with the Contra Costa District Attorney's Office and the county's Child Protective Services.
Rios steers undocumented domestic violence victims Cordova's way. Rios says she is noticing a trend in the cases, with women standing up to their abusers and not being crippled by threats.
They are discovering that even if they are undocumented and battered, the police will come and arrest their abusers, she said.
"If you are being bullied or abused, we don't care where you're from — we want it to stop," Rios said.
The violence that dominated Estrada's life has stopped, but the wounds remain raw. The 25-year-old doubts she will date anytime soon. She does not mind, because her greatest strength and comfort comes from knowing now that "God hasn't left me."
U VISA AND VAWA
What is a U visa? This visa is intended for undocumented immigrants who have suffered physical or mental abuse in a crime. The case must be documented, and the victim must cooperate with authorities. The maximum annual number of U visas is set at 10,000. However, no federal regulations exist to issue the visas, so temporary work permits are being given. Victims can renew their temporary status after three years. When the U visa guidelines come out, an immigrant in the U visa program will then be eligible to apply for a green card.
What is VAWA?: The Violence Against Women Act allows a battered, undocumented immigrant to petition for permanent residency without the involvement of a spouse or parent. In 2000, it was amended to allow a divorced women to file if the marriage had been dissolved within two years and domestic violence was a reason. The abuser must be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
Source: Legal Momentum and Carla Cordova of Catholic Charities of the East Bay
'Justice' can be elusive
Victim advocates decry deal-making, while others say the criminal codes are draconian
Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, IA)
December 11, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Darron Dean doesn't much care for Iowa's domestic violence laws, a system he says forgets that it hurts families as it punishes offenders.
In a letter to the Telegraph Herald, Dean describes the code as too broad and "poorly interpreted by the courts." He asserts, in many cases, officers of the court overreact, and stick their noses into family affairs that are nothing more than disagreements.
"By just putting people in prison and not thinking about the suffering of the family, both mentally and financially, is not the answer," Dean wrote in a letter to the Telegraph Herald's editor.
Dean has learned a lot about the court system and its domestic violence law. He's serving a six-year sentence at the Mount Pleasant Correctional Facility on domestic abuse and conspiracy convictions. He's got a lengthy rap sheet, including multiple domestic abuse charges.
Dean began his sentence in January, but he could earn his paroled freedom at any time before the prison term is served, said Fred Scaletta, spokesman for the Iowa Department of Corrections.
That's the kind of possibility that infuriates people like Sue Bausch, of Dubuque. Her sister, Amy Fecht, was murdered after suffering what the family says was a long history of domestic abuse.
"We need stricter laws," Bausch said.
And so the debate over domestic violence laws rages on. Victims-rights advocates decry a system that is too weak on offenders and often serves to further punish the abused through plea bargains. The accused and the convicted rail against punishments they believe have nothing to do with justice - and they have some powerful national allies.
The legal landscape on domestic violence changed dramatically in 1994, with the passage of the much-heralded, and much-lambasted, Violence Against Women Act.
The federal legislation provided critical funding for coordinated investigation and prosecution of violent crime committed against women. The act increased pre-trial detention of the accused, provided for automatic and mandatory restitution of those convicted and allowed civil redress for victims, according to Wikipedia.
While the National Organization of Women lauded its passage as the "greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades," the American Civil Liberties Union chastised the act as "troubling," that some elements were "rash," even "repugnant."
One of its more contentious provisions was its uniform ability to take firearms away from those convicted of domestic abuse. There remain ways to get around the lingering black mark, however.
Tony Pozorski, Grant County assistant district attorney, said that many times, prosecutors and defenders work out plea agreements that remove the domestic abuse tag from charges. In Wisconsin, Pozorski said, the fear of losing gun ownership is a frightening prospect for domestic abuse suspects.
"In Wisconsin, we put 700,000 hunters in the woods over our nine-day gun-deer season every year," he said. "If we prevented them from owning a firearm, they couldn't go hunting for the rest of their lives."
Pozorski said plea bargains are critical in winning convictions, and the firearms factor is a big motivator. Without that leverage, he said many more cases would go to trial and the results there are anything but certain.
Deal-making isn't the sole domain of domestic abuse cases. Scaletta said about 82 percent of all criminal cases in Iowa are pled out before they get to a trial.
Dubuque defense attorney Phil Parsons said a majority of his cases don't make it to trial. Without the power of the plea, Parsons said more defendants who want to avoid the high cost of batterer-education programs and jail time would take their chances in court.
He said each case is different, but many times victims intervene on behalf of suspects.
"It could be a case where all parties involved don't want criminal proceedings to continue, but it's hard to stop that train once it starts," he said.
Laurie Schipper says the existing laws, in many cases, already are too lenient, and all the wheeling and dealing sends the wrong message.
"When the punishment is two days in jail and time served, when the benefit outweighs the consequences for battering, that's a very strong social message," said Schipper, executive director of the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
In Iowa, a first offense for domestic abuse is a simple misdemeanor, punishable by a minimum of two days and a maximum of 30 days in jail. On many occasions, the offender receives a deferred judgment, however. The severity of punishment increases with the severity of the crime.
Dubuque police, like other departments, have streamlined the process of arresting domestic abuse suspects.
"When it comes to domestic violence cases, if we can develop probable cause that there's an injury involved or threat or display of a weapon, it's mandatory arrest," said Police Capt. Scott Crabill.
Dean says the courts don't often take into account extenuating circumstances surrounding the arrests, and what the legal system can do to families.
"I'm not saying that 'all' domestic violence cases needs to be thrown out of court, but they do need to be distinguished from a simp(le) family disagreement," he wrote.
Sister Charla Bulko, director of the Dubuque Community Y's domestic violence program, said the problem is that society as a whole has yet to take seriously the crime that is domestic abuse.
"I don't believe the mentality of the abuser is challenged by society," she said. "To a large extent, I still believe it's promoted in the media."
Domestic abuse: Does money fuel false allegations?
Times-Herald (Vallejo, CA)
December 17, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
For the first time in his life, Joe found himself in the slammer.
His estranged wife, under court order to vacate their home, accused him of pushing her on the day she and her mother were supposed to move out. Instead, Joe (not his real name) says, he spent a night in jail and was forced to leave his home while authorities investigated his wife's allegations.
Proclaiming his innocence, the 41-year-old Vallejo man racked up thousands of dollars in legal bills before a judge dismissed the charges a month later, saying there was insufficient evidence of domestic violence.
"Even the cop was apologetic," said Joe, who asked that his identity be disguised because his divorce proceedings are ongoing. "She told me she didn't believe (my wife), but that she had to arrest me because the accusation had been made."
Critics of California's broad domestic violence laws and federal funding sources say false allegations have stripped resources from real victims and turned domestic violence into a cash cow for agencies that investigate cases.
"False allegations of domestic violence allow states' social welfare agencies to tap into federal funding sources," said Terri Lynn Tersak, spokeswoman for Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR). The group lists California among the worst states for accurate reporting.
Though no one argues that domestic violence isn't a serious ongoing problem, Tersak said, "The winners become the states with the most intrusive laws, and the losers are the real victims of abuse this money was supposed to serve."
As evidenced by increases in the number of restraining orders issued by family courts, critics say domestic violence allegations are also being used to gain an advantage in divorce proceedings, especially during child custody battles.
"It's just horrible, what's happened to me," Joe said. "A woman says you hit her, and you're in jail, period."
Local authorities, however, say false allegations are rare, if not nonexistent, except in family court. The officials, including police and prosecutors who don't receive any federal funding to fight domestic violence, railed against RADAR's claims, saying they thoroughly investigate every abuse allegation.
"In 20 years, I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen anybody make a false allegation (of domestic abuse)," said Supervising Deputy District Attorney Patty Strickland. "We always have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. We're always looking for what is getting us past how she said it happened and how he said it happened."
That includes statements by witnesses or physical evidence of violence, she said.
"The standard is always the same," Strickland said. "Is there an independent witness? A child who sees this? Is her shirt ripped? Is there blood on the shirt, evidence of a fight in the home?"
* * * *
'Silver bullet'
In 2005, Congress renewed the 1998 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which sets aside millions in grants to help local social service agencies combat domestic violence through increased reporting and arrests.
Because actual physical violence does not have to be alleged in domestic abuse cases, RADAR and other critics say the law and VAWA grant system it supports needs overhauling. RADAR says the grants are based on demonstrated need, so agencies don't have any incentive to fully investigate abuse claims.
"It's a giant bureaucracy funded with billions that goes to programs catering to abuse victims," said RADAR member Michael Geanoulis, a Maryland resident. "A large number of such calls helps to justify the need for the money. It's not in their best interest to investigate which of the reports are fake or verifiable."
Geanoulis said he was a victim of abuse as a child at the hands of his mother, which was why he felt compelled to seek equity in how the issue is seen and addressed.
"An Epidemic of Civil Right Abuses: Ranking of States' Domestic Violence Laws," a RADAR study, ranked California among the top seven states for false accusations and restraining orders issued. It names Alaska, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Virginia as the other "worst" offenders.
The study ranked states on the broadness of their domestic violence definition, the financial incentives for filing allegations, mandatory arrest laws, primary aggressor laws and how judges weigh domestic violence allegations in child custody determinations.
RADAR reports that more than 2 million domestic restraining orders are issued annually nationwide. In half of them, physical violence isn't even alleged, the group claims.
"(A domestic violence accusation) is the silver bullet," Geanoulis said. "It can control child support, divorce proceedings, child custody."
Carolyn Thomas-Wold, who runs the Solano County Office of Family Violence Prevention, said RADAR is wrong.
Her agency - which intervenes in domestic violence cases for the sheriff's office, courts and other jurisdictions - has received $400,000 in VAWA funding. The amount is based on the county's size, "not the number of victims," Thomas-Wold said.
"Our primary goals are victim safety and offender accountability," she said. "To make a statement that it is not in our best interest to investigate cases 'too carefully' is irresponsible. It isn't in our best interest not to investigate cases carefully."
Created by the Solano County Board of Supervisors eight years ago, the Office of Family Violence Prevention uses the money to investigate claims and run several victim-assistance programs. Staff members are well trained to investigate allegations and don't just take a complainant's word for it, Thomas-Wold said.
"We investigate every case we receive and have not had much, if any, experience with false allegations," she said. "We rely heavily on victim statements, witness statements, history of violence, and physical evidence, among other things."
Authorities concede that an accusation of actual physical violence is not necessary for someone to be arrested on charges of domestic abuse or for the alleged victim to request a restraining order. A threat - or even just a perceived threat - of abuse or harassment is all that is required.
Still, California's do-mestic violence laws are clearer now than they used to be, said Vallejo police Lt. Reggie Garcia.
Garcia rewrote the department's policy on when to arrest someone for domestic violence after the state law was amended in 1986 to expand the definition beyond the allegation of physical assault. The policy redefined "victims" to include people, regardless of gender, who have a romantic relationship or share children.
Although allegations do not have to include actual injuries, police still must determine probable cause that violence or threats occurred before officers will make an arrest, Garcia said. Even if police decline to arrest someone, victims can make citizens' arrests, but they will be required to prove their allegations in court.
* * * *
Family court
Where false allegations might occur is at the family court level, Thomas-Wold said. She said she's heard of cases when a woman was found to have exaggerated the extent of her domestic violence problem. However, she said, judges are trained to spot this and are not easily fooled.
But a Solano County Family Court official, who requested anonymity, said the court issues more than 1,000 temporary domestic violence-related restraining orders annually without any investigation. "The restraining orders are issued based on a party's declaration," the official said.
The top family law judge in Solano County, Michael Mattice, did not return a call seeking comment.
Thomas-Wold said there's been a significant increase in restraining order applications in the past five years because more people know help is available. That's not evidence of attempts to manipulate the system, she added.
In previous years, her agency fielded about 77 domestic violence calls annually, and there's been 70 calls in just the just the past six months, she said.
"Benicia has added a social worker to their team and Fairfield has a new team, and both have experienced a huge increase in the number of restraining order applications filed," Thomas-Wold said.
Still, false domestic violence accusations are being used as weapons in court, said Teri Stoddard, an Antioch day care provider and RADAR affiliate who founded the Shared Parenting Works Web site.
"I've run into hundreds of fathers who've been falsely accused of domestic violence and can't see their children because of it," Stoddard said. "The laws are written so poorly. All a California person has to do is to 'annoy' their spouse to be guilty of domestic violence here."
RADAR director Lisa Scott, a Seattle area family lawyer, said "domestic violence is the new child abuse."
Noting a period in the 1980s when many estranged spouses charged child abuse to gain leverage in child custody cases, Scott said divorcing couples are now falsely alleging spousal abuse for the same reason.
She blames what she calls "a very squishy area" of California law for the problem.
"It depends on how mean and nasty individuals want to get. Too many people use protection orders to cut a better deal in court," she said. "Once the marriage breaks up, suddenly there are accusations of child abuse or domestic violence when there never was before, and the rules governing this are often subjective."
Unfortunately, Scott said, "the courts are too willing to grant these orders to cover their butts in case it's real. But one danger in overusing restraining orders is that it "squeezes out" real abuse victims, she said.
"I see the courts so befuddled they put protection orders on everyone who asks," she said. "It's a one-size-fits-all, and police can't tell which people are really dangerous. It's just a mess."
A lot of the domestic violence laws were enacted in the mid '80s, for good reason, Scott said. "But now, since the 1990s, they're being exploited by crafty people, including unscrupulous attorneys, who prompt clients with stuff like, 'Are you fearful of anything?' "
Grace Andres, programs manager for Solano County Superior Court's family law, probate, adoption and juvenile divisions, explained that "the law changed recently on child custody, and now if there's been a finding of domestic violence, the party found to have been violent, can't get custody."
Garcia, the Vallejo police lieutenant, said he too has heard of an increase in false allegations to gain an advantage in divorce or child custody proceedings.
"It's a real injustice," he said, because it takes away officer time, court time and other resources from real victims. "It undermines the credibility of all domestic violence victims then."
Garcia and other officials say real victims have often suffered a great deal of abuse before they get help.
"Most people, in fact, are conflicted about reporting and following through," said Christina Stimman, an investigator with the Office of Family Violence Prevention. "They have a relationship with the perpetrator, sometimes they hope for a reconciliation, or they fear reprisals."
* * * *
Still a problem
Despite the criticism over investigations, the numbers of abuse cases in Vallejo and Solano County still clearly show abuse is a steady problem.
In September, the Solano County Sheriff's office issued a statement from the U.S. Department of Justice saying around 1,900 county residents are victims of domestic violence each year. In Vallejo, that number is around 700, which has remained constant in recent years, authorities said.
Strickland, the Solano prosecutor, said domestic violence cases have increased, "but it isn't astronomical."
Garcia said police could make more domestic violence arrests if they could get federal funding to assign a detective to investigate claims and follow up with victims, which could lead to increased prosecution.
"With more people and more resources, we could hunt these people down," Garcia said of domestic violence suspects.
Garcia said police agencies lack enough money to devote to the special reporting and other forms of special attention to better address domestic violence. For instance, police must report domestic violence statistics to the state monthly, but there is no extra money to hire a clerk to collect the data.
"We're mandated to make sure all these things (demands) happen with no money," he said.
Study shows domestic violence rates down
Bismarck Tribune, The (ND)
December 28, 2006
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON - Domestic violence rates fell sharply between 1993 and 2004, the Justice Department said Thursday, noting that American Indian women and native Alaskan women are far more likely to be victimized than whites and other minorities .
The Bureau of Justice Statistics said that "intimate partner violence" rates fell by more than 50 percent. The decline mirrored a decade-long trend in other violent crimes, and the department did not suggest a cause.
"There's still generally no consensus about why any crime in general has dropped," said Shannan Catalano, the study's author. "It's safe to say it's more than one factor that went into it."
Some experts attribute the decline to better training for police and more funding for prosecution, two key elements of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. Investigators increasingly are better trained to handle abuse cases and bring them to court.
"For the first time, there are entire domestic violence units in law enforcement," said Lonna Stevens, director of the Sheila Wellstone Institute, a Minnesota-based domestic violence organization. "We've had protocols and policies developed for responding to this."
In 1993, there were about 5.8 incidents of nonfatal violence for every 1,000 U.S. residents above the age of 12. By 2004, that number had fallen to 2.6, the agency said. Homicides fell by about 30 percent, from 2,269 in 1993 to 1,544 in 2004.
The Justice Department defines intimate partner violence as violence by a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend or a same-sex partner.
Stevens said police have been less successful responding to and deterring abusive behavior in some minority communities, where racism and cultural differences can keep reporting rates low.
Over the 12-year reporting period, about 18 out of every 1,000 American Indian and native Alaskan women were victimized - a violence rate three times higher than among white women.
Black women were more likely than white women to be abused but the study also found that they were more likely to report their abuse to the police than white women.
Women in their early 20s and women who were divorced or separated had the greatest risk of being abused, the study found. Violence was also more common in low-income households.
Asian males, white males and the elderly reported the lowest rates of partner violence.
Drop in Family Violence Unrelated to VAWA, Govt. Report Shows
PR Newswire (USA)
January 3, 2007
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
A recent Department of Justice report on Intimate Partner Violence shows that such crime has been falling in the United States for many years, but the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) does not appear to have contributed to the drop.
According to the DoJ report, Intimate Partner Violence in the United States, partner crime began to fall long before VAWA programs were started in 1995.
In 1976, 1,348 men were killed by their wives and girlfriends. By 1994, that number had fallen to 684. Likewise, the number of women killed by intimate partners dropped 12% over the same time period.
Even for non-fatal intimate partner victimization, the Department of Justice report shows that rates began to fall before the Violence Against Women Act was enacted. From 1993 to 2004, intimate partner abuse of women fell 61%. But abuse rates of women fell across the board: 59% when the abuse was perpetrated by a stranger, and 66% when by a friend or acquaintance.
"There's still no generally accepted consensus about why any crime in general has dropped," explains Shannan Catalano, the DoJ statistician who authored the report. Possible reasons for the decline include increased policing, neighborhood-watch programs, and an overall aging of the general population.
The Justice Department report is based on data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is believed to underreport partner abuse, especially victimization of men. The Department of Justice report can be seen at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/intimate/ipv.htm.
One reason for VAWA's lack of impact, researchers say, is its limited focus. "For years, researchers have been saying that half of all domestic violence is instigated by women, but most VAWA-funded programs don't accept that," notes family violence researcher Donald Dutton, PhD, a professor at the University of British Columbia.
"Now we see the result of not providing anger management and counseling services to female batterers."
A 2005 report by the Independent Women's Forum, "Domestic Violence: An In- depth Analysis," concluded that many VAWA-funded law enforcement strategies have been found to be ineffective.
R.A.D.A.R. -- Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting -- is a non- profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to assure that the problem of domestic violence is treated in a balanced and effective manner. http://www.mediaradar.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment