Domestic Violence The Love Crime Essay, Research Paper
Domestic Violence
The Love Crime
Domestic violence is one of the most common and expensive crimes committed today. We all know of someone who has been a victim of domestic violence and we are almost always aware that the perpetrator loves the victim. Whether in the heat of passion or a drunken stupor the perpetrator only wants the victim to understand how much they love them. Sometimes they yell at their victim to try and get this point across. Sometimes they feel they have to beat this thought into their victims, and sometimes the only way a victim can understand how much the perpetrator loves them, is to give their life. This might sound like a cynical view of abusers but is it, let s take a look at a profile (Marvin). The Federal Bureau of Investigation has done on batterers:
· Low self-esteem. This often results from physical or sexual abuse and/or disapproval or neglect by a parent or authoritarian figure from the batterer’s childhood.
· Extreme insecurity and an inability to trust others. Batterers have difficulty establishing close
friendships. They tend to be critical or jealous of their partners.
· Denial of responsibility for their behavior. Batterers often deny that abuse has occurred. They
also minimize the impact of their assaultive behavior or blame their partners for causing an
incident.
· Need to control. Batterers choose to abuse their partners. Their purpose is to control them.
Batterers use violence or attempted or suggested violence to make their partners comply
with their wishes.
The last sentence in this profile is the key to understanding domestic violence. When a person hears that John Doe was convicted of a domestic violence charge they automatically think that someone has been physically battered. Most reported cases of domestic violence are of this variety. However the most under reported crime is when an abuser does not actually physically batter a victim but instead intimidates and threatens them into submission.
Now we must define what actually is Domestic Violence. According to
the State of Missouri, (Missouri Revised Statutes), Domestic Violence is defined as:
Attempting to cause or causing bodily injury to a family or household member,
or placing a family or household member by threat of force in fear of imminent
physical harm;
Fear, this is the power abusers have over their victims. Fear of losing their home, life, family, and most importantly fear of losing their children. Most abusers fall into one or more of these types (Marvin):
Types of Abuse
Officers investigating domestic violence should have an understanding of
the types of abuse they may encounter. Because domestic violence is a
pattern of coercive control founded on and supported by violence or the
threat of violence, this abuse may take the forms of physical violence,
sexual violence, emotional abuse, and/or psychological abuse.
Physical violence includes punching, choking, biting, hitting,
hair-pulling, stabbing, shooting, or threats of this type of violence.
Sexual violence is characterized by physical attacks of the breast
and or genital area, unwanted touching, rape with objects, and forced
sexual relations, including marital rape.
Emotional abuse takes the form of a systematic degrading of the victim’s
self-worth. This may be accomplished by calling the victim names, making
derogatory or demeaning comments, forcing the victim to perform
degrading or humiliating acts, threatening to kill the victim or the
victim’s family, controlling access to money, and acting in other ways
that imply that the victim is crazy.
Psychological battering involves all of these features of emotional
abuse, but also consists of at least one violent episode or attack on
the victim to maintain the impending threat of additional assaults.
Destruction of property is violence directed at the victim even though
no physical contact is made between the batterer and the victim. This
includes destroying personal belongings, family heirlooms, or even the
family pet. This destruction is purposeful and the psychological impact
on the victim may be as devastating as a physical attack.
Domestic violence is one of the most under reported crimes in America today. According to the (Family Violence Prevention Fund) while most reported crime rates have fallen domestic violence caseloads have risen drastically. The article said in part The most rapid growth in domestic relations caseloads is occurring in domestic violence filings. Between 1991-1993, of 24 states with three year filing figures, 18 reported an increase of 20 percent or more.
Does this mean that domestic violence is on the rise? No, overall crime rates in the United States are falling. There have been changes however in how crimes are reported especially in the domestic violence area of law enforcement. What event or series of events have led to the increase in the number of domestic violence cases reported in the last several years. Well two main events led to policy changes. First even though domestic violence has been an issue for years it has not been on the front burner of the American political scene. It has been just over the last thirty years that it has become a prominent issue in American society. It is mostly due to the women s movement of 60s and 70s that we have the legislation we have today to protect victims of domestic violence. The one key event that happened and will probably go down as the straw that broke the camel s back is the O.J Simpson verdict.
As an article in the (Women’s International Network News) put it With her bruises captured in photographs and her fear echoing on a 911 audiotape even after her death, Nicole Brown Simpson has unleashed a wave of support for battered women and firmly anchored domestic violence in the American psyche as a problem that must be dealt with. Sunday, June 12, 1994 is probably the most important day in the history of domestic violence prevention in this nations history. In one crazed and violent act O.J. Simpson took domestic violence off the back burner and made it one of the most talked about issues in the country. Three months to the day after the nation became aware of this gruesome crime of domestic violence the second event that will forever change how we see domestic violence occurred.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (Violence Against Women Act) as it is popularly called) was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton on September 13, 1994. The act authorized $1.6 billion to combat and study violence against women, stiffened laws against sex offenders, and created prevention and treatment programs. The question to be asked is would this bill have passed in its present form if not for the Simpson murders occurring just three months prior? We will never know the answer to that question. We can decide for ourselves whether or not a lesser bill would have passed at that point and time.
How did the Simpson verdict affected policy? Well according to the (Family Violence Prevention Fund) in a survey conducted prior to the Simpson verdict and one after the public attitude towards domestic violence changed drastically. Here is quote from summary of the first survey,
The vast majority (81 percent) of respondents agree that something can be done to reduce the amount of violence against women, but 26 percent say that they personally do not know what specific action to take. Americans have doubts about when a private fight becomes a matter of public policy. While people condemn such abusive behavior as shouting, threatening, grabbing and shoving, few believe that an arrest should be made until the likelihood of injury grows. Twenty-two percent recommend more counseling and 15 percent recommend teaching school children to avoid violence. Women are more likely than men to recommend action or intervention when abuse becomes physical.
Compare that with this excerpt from a summary of a survey taken after the Simpson
verdict,
“The media focus on domestic violence is changing public attitudes and spurring people to join the effort to prevent and reduce abuse,” said FUND Executive Director Esta Soler. “Increasingly, Americans recognize that domestic violence is pervasive in our society, and that it is tearing apart our families and communities. Perhaps more than ever before, there is a collective determination to address this costly and devastating epidemic. That’s long overdue.” Americans are becoming more aware and less tolerant of abuse, the survey found. More than 70 percent of respondents say they learned something — and 48 percent learned a lot or a fair amount — about domestic violence from media coverage of the Simpson case.
The next question to ask is, does a policy spurred on by public opinion (such as the Violence against Women Act) make good law? There are differing opinions on how the law is affecting the domestic violence problems in the United States. One of the new ideas is that doctors should not only treat the wounds but report abuse and assist the victim in obtaining help. This would mean that a doctor would be required to breach patient, doctor confidentiality. Research shows that a majority of domestic violence victims and advocates support laws requiring doctors report abuse. One such survey was taken in Miami two doctors, (Panagiota, Caralis V., MD, JD, and Musialowski,Regina) who found that victims overwhelmingly support just such a law. Here is one of the charts from their report it speaks for itself:
TABLE 4. Patients’ Expectations Regarding Physicians’
Reporting and Treatments of Abuse Victims
% of Total Patients
Who Strongly Agree(*)
Laws should require doctors to report abuse 79
Doctors should report abuse if children in the home 81
Doctors should not report abuse if:
Patient fears she will lose support 9
Patient fears she will lose children 10
Patient fears for her safety 11
Doctors should provide the following treatments:
Injuries only 5
Tranquilizers/ pain medicines 12
Psychiatric counseling 80
Information on community resources 88
Legal information 60
Help finding shelter 78
Help calling police 60
The problem is that grants are given in the (Violence Against Women Act) to both promote confidentiality and train people to report abuse.
Chapter two of the Act contains this language:
(b) PURPOSES FOR WHICH GRANTS MAY BE USED- Grants under this part shall provide personnel, training, technical assistance, data collection and other equipment for the more widespread apprehension, prosecution, and adjudication of persons committing violent crimes against women, and specifically, for the purposes of
This is the part of the Act where proponents find funding for programs like taking surveys of victims and also funding to train doctors on how to spot abuse.
Chapter five contains language that would provide grants to study how to protect the confidentiality of victims while trying to protect the Constitutional rights of the perpetrator. Overall the Act has a few of these two edged swords another is funding to promote mandatory arrest policies. Many States (including Missouri) have mandatory arrest on domestic violence calls. An article in the (ABA Journal) points out the problem with this policy. In part it states:
Mandatory waiver of spousal privilege, used against the Moons, goes too far. Advocates of mandatory waiver aren’t interested in victims’ rights; if they were, they would respect a woman’s right to invoke her privilege not to testify. The privilege, after all, applies only to married people, who make up a small fraction of abuse victims (most are women and children hurt by boyfriends and ex-husbands).
A married woman who wants to stay married might have many good reasons not to want to testify against her husband. The law no longer prevents her (as it once may have) from testifying. She is free to change her mind about bringing charges or testifying if abuse continues.
If a wife knows she may be compelled to testify–the ultimate provocation–against a husband she genuinely fears, she is unlikely to seek help from the police and the courts. Welcome back to the bad old days, when victims had to fear both their abusers and the system.
Problems that have come out the research done from this funding are that it puts interest groups at odds with each other. The most prominent fight right now is between advocates of domestic violence and advocates for police across the country. In an article from by Suzanne (Morgan) from Journal of Women & Social Work the new law passed making it a crime for a person convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense could not own or possess a firearm. In detailing the new law the article stated:
On September 30, 1996, the bill, included with the Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations Law of 1997, was signed into law as EL. 104-208, an
Amendment to Title 18 of the U.S. Code, sections 922 (d)(9) and (g)(9)
of the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968. The law prohibits persons whom
Have been convicted of misdemeanors involving domestic violence from
owning or possessing firearms. According to EL. 104-208, 1996, p. Stat.
3009-371
As for the conflict the article went on to state:
Law enforcement organizations and Second Amendment advocates
have formed a powerful alliance to oppose the law. They have criticized
the firearms policy as unfair and too broad and have called for the
removal of the law’s retroactive feature. If they succeed in having the
retroactive application nullified, the previous status quo or “equilibrium” will
be restored, and efforts to have domestic violence become a major
policy issue will suffer a setback. However, feminist groups should not
lessen their efforts to end domestic violence and to affect necessary
changes in policy. No compromise on this policy should be acceptable,
because the intent is to protect human rights at the most basic level.
There are conflicts between interest groups all the time. Mostly, however these conflicts are between opposing groups and not those on the same side of an issue as in this case. The new awareness of domestic violence is for the most part helping as an article in (St. Louis Post Dispatch) stated:
That changed in the first year of Gov. Mel Carnahan’s first term. Missouri now spends $ 2.3 million on fighting domestic abuse. Missouri also gets about $ 3.4 million in federal funds, and some counties attach fees to marriage and divorce decrees to provide such services. More education, especially of professionals, is essential. That’s the only way to end the inconsistencies in the enforcement of domestic violence laws from county to county and courtroom to courtroom – and to guarantee that police and judges uphold the law equally.
Yes, Missouri has come a ways since 1980. But this month, and every time a woman or a child is the victim of family violence, we should remind ourselves that coming part of the way to safety is not far enough.
Another use of the funds from the (Violence Against Women Act) is in Clay County, Missouri. Where Federal grant money is being put to good use and is being matched by local dollars. A recent article in the Kansas City, Star gave a detailed description of the new program called DART for Domestic Abuse Response Team. The reporter, Shawna (Hamel) went into great detail with Sheriff Bob Boydston about the domestic violence problem in Clay County:
The unit is needed in Clay County, said Sheriff Bob Boydston.
“We started looking at the number of temporary restraining orders, or expartes, we issued in 1997, and the numbers had progressively increased in the last three years,” he said. “We really noticed a significant increase in child abuse cases that were very severe, along with cases of abuse to the elderly.”
More than 1,900 such orders were served in 1997, Boydston said. “We’re impacting this problem in a very positive fashion, and as far as we know, we re the only law enforcement agency in the state that has a specialized unit for domestic abuse,” he said.
“We have a unit whose main responsibility is dealing with the whole dynamic of domestic abuse, and it’s a unit, that when a woman has been abused, – mentally, verbally, physically – her safety and getting out of this situation is the most important thing in her life. We’re focused on the victim, and her children, if she has any, from resources to law enforcement assistance.”
If all the programs were dedicated to and focused on the victims and not on the survival of the program no one could or would dispute their effectiveness. Programs such as DART are only funded for three years at a time because they exist at the pleasure of bureaucrats and are not judged by what they do but how well they fill out their paper work. Such is the animal of our democracy repetitive and full of people in government with to much time on their hands. The problem of domestic violence will be with us always so why do we try to deal with it using temporary programs. Programs like DART should be not only mandatory because they are good for the community but because they save the citizenry tax dollars, insurance dollars and medical dollars. No one likes to end a paper with a great deal on extra added information but this problem is so serious that to cheat the reader out of the cost of domestic violence would be completely unfair. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research published an article by Diana (Zuckerman) and Stacey Friedman is the most comprehensive article I have yet on the actual cost of domestic violence. Most of the article is reprinted here: