Ideology and Bias Breed Injustice
June 25, 2005
On November 1, 2001, the first issue of Criminology & Public Policy appeared. It was introduced as a direct result of scholars and researchers observing that contemporary criminal justice policy, far too often, did not reflect the insight and knowledge provided by contemporary scientific empirical studies.
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA – 2005) renews funding and training for the criminal justice system, victims services, health care and any number of other areas of assistance needed by “battered women” and to “reach the needs of America’s families.” VAWA – 2005 confirms the fears expressed by the editors of Criminology & Public Policy.
If Senator Joseph Biden, who introduced VAWA, or any federal legislators have read the report “Advancing the Federal Research Agenda on Violence Against Women”http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10849.html it appears their specific intent is to minimize, marginalize or ignore male victimization. If they have not read this report, the question becomes, why not?
VAWA-2005 Ignores Data on Page 48 & 49
| Nonfatal Intimate-Partner Violence Victims | Female | Male |
| 1985 National Survey of Family Violence | 11.3% overall 3.0% severe |
12.1% 4.4% severe |
| 1992 National Alcohol and Family Violence Survey | 9.1% overall 1.9% severe |
9.5% overall 4.5% severe |
2001 National Violence Against Women Survey |
1.3% | 0.9% |
| 2001 National Crime Victimization Survey | 0.43% | 0.08% |
1993-94 Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study |
40.9% | 47.4% |
| 1992 National Youth Survey | 20.2% overall |
34.1% overall 13.8% severe |
This data is from unbiased scholars and professionals who have no personal agenda and who demonstrate a concern for all domestic violence victims. This above data begs the question; why only a Violence Against Women Act. And why provide federal funds for nationally recognized domestic violence agencies that willfully and wantonly minimize, marginalize and omit data concerning male intimate partner victimization?
The report also documents that separating crimes against women from crime in general is divisive and counterproductive. While intimate-partner homicides are tragic, the fact is that two-thirds of female homicides are not intimate-partner related and are equally tragic. Women commit acts of domestic violence, both minor and serious, and many if not most are not for defensive purposes.
The origins and patterns of violence by men and women are similar. Mandatory arrest, prosecution and restraining orders may work in some jurisdictions while producing negative consequences in others. What constitutes a “domestic violence act” differs dramatically from state to state, advocate to advocate and person to person.
Inclusion not Exclusion
Reams of data documents that some of the violence against some heterosexual women, by some heterosexual men, has some social, cultural, and individual variables that can distinguish an individual act of domestic violence from violence in general. However, reams of data document that there are far more commonalities and similar characteristics than differences.
Most causes of physical assaults concerning child, sibling, spousal, intimate partner, and elder abuse regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation are similar. The issues of individual dominance, coercion, physical power, economic control, intimate jealousies, retribution, and venue are gender neutral and occur in domestic violence physical assaults.
Many domestic violence advocates pit the suffering of one group against another in a bid for public sympathy and funding. This divisive and distressing practice of half-truths is practiced by many advocates, including the National Domestic Violence Hotline (NDVH), and it is as old and odious as injustice itself.
The NDVH website “National Statistics” section lists female domestic violence homicide victims and omits men. The NDVH lists the number of women who are stalked and omits men. The NDVH lists girls who are victims of physical and sexual abuse and omits boys.
The NDVH ignores all of the above empirical studies and claims that 95% of victims of domestic violence are women. And despite this obvious ideological bias against men, VAWA – 2005 intends to award NDVH $5 million a year.
The 1994 National Conference on Family Violence: Health and Justice estimates that the annual incidence of abuse is 2 to 4 million children, nearly 4 million women and 1-2 million elders. No estimate for the victimization of men.
Few question that women are the victims of more domestic violence injuries and homicides than men. However, is that a reason to completely omit any mention of male victimization? Why omit half the population of this nation? Why not an act that recognizes all victims and abusers regardless of age, gender or sexual orientation? Why do our federal legislators and domestic violence agencies minimize, marginalize and omit male domestic violence victimization? Where’s the justice?
