Social Policy and Federal Representative - Essay Example

? SOCIAL Introduction and Theory Historically until the feminist movement came to the fore, women had little protection from their male cohabitating partners. Women had few rights and implicitly, if not explicitly, they were not regarded as equal to their male partners. In fact women were often treated as subservient male property and were expected to service their desires, whether they are sexual or otherwise, at their whim. Out of this grew the notion that if men became frustrated and lashed out at their female partners because they did not do his bidding to his satisfaction, any assault he may commit was excusable. Also while not excusing murder, some judges have allowed crime of passion defenses to reduce the crime to manslaughter on the theory that a husband who discovers his wife’s infidelity may be unable to control his reaction. Thus police were reluctant to get involved in domestic altercations and lay charges as they would in the case of public assaults. In fact until 10 years ago in some states they were forbidden to do so unless they actually witnessed the offence. Fortunately the feminist revolution has radically changed this mindset with many states requiring the arrest of one or both parties, although some allow no arrest if the officer files a report justifying his non arrest. Finally, our culture and laws are promoting more equal gender treatment. Definition While recognizing that verbal abuse, especially if it is repeated over a long period of time, cab cause severe lack of self esteem and other psychological damage to female partners, it is usually beyond the purview of the law because it is much more difficult to prove than physical injury.(Domestic) While psychologists and psychiatrists may offer their professional opinions, they may differ from each other. Also there are no scares or emergency room medical reports as there usually are for physical injuries. In such cases it may only be necessary to prove the injuries were inflicted by the cohabitating partner. Therefore, definitions in state or federal statutes usually don’t include mental abuse but confine themselves to actual or threatened physical injury, or terrorist threats or criminal sexual misconduct, although obviously the threat of physical violence may be more difficult to prove than actual. The parties involved need not be married or even be of the same gender for domestic violence legislation to be applicable. However they do have to be cohabitating in the same residence or did so in the past or have had a child together. State and Federal Legislation In the past state have had primary jurisdiction in the field of domestic abuse legislation. However, recently Congress has enacted legislation because of the increasing mobility of society and therefore the potential for perpetrators to cross state lines to commit their crimes against their partners. States vary somewhat in their legislation, although police officers in all states can now arrest someone they suspect has committed a domestic assault without having witnessed the event.(State) They do however vary in that 3 states require an arrest if they are called to investigate an incident whereas the others don’t if they file a report explaining why they did not arrest. Most states and the federal legislation have similar definitions of domestic violence as that noted above. At one time forced sex by a man on his female cohabitating partner was not considered criminal sexual conduct or rape because this was regarded as his prerogative, but fortunately this has changed. An arrest usually requires some or all of the following conditions, a probable cause, suspect and victim fit the definition of a domestic relationship (cohabitation), alleged act fits definition of domestic assault ( actual or threatened physical violence), reason to believe domestic abuse will continue if suspect not arrested or evidence of injury and incident reported within 28 days of occurrence. The 2 main acts of federal legislation are the Violence against Women Act (VAWA) originally enacted in 1994 largely because of the crossing of state lines by perpetrators for the for the purpose of attempting to commit violence on a current or ex cohabitating partner and the Family Violence Protection and Services Act dealing with funding programs.(Graham) The VAWA promotes the setting up of violence protections programs in communities, provides confidentiality of a new address, changes to immigration laws to allow a battered spouse to apply for permanent residency, protection for victims who are evicted from their homes because of events related to domestic violence or stalking, funding for victim services like rape crises centers, programs to meet the needs of different races or ethnicities, programs and services for victims with disabilities, legal aid for victims of violence and services for dependant children and teens, special domestic violence and sexual violence training for law enforcement officers and enabling tribal courts to try non Indian spouses or intimate partners of Indian women in domestic violence cases.. Under the VAWA the perpetrator can be a parent or guardian or even a female as well as male partner of the victim. Also under the act a convicted abuser may not follow the victim into another state or force a victim to move to another state Orders of Protection, unlike previously, are now recognized in all states although Alaska, Montana and Pennsylvania require that they be filed in state jurisdiction before they can be enforced. The title is a misnomer since women can be convicted for offences against their male partner or ex partner. This act is also designed to influence state legislatures to enact similar legislation since it denies funding if certain programs are not adopted such as mandatory arrest The Family Violence and Services Act Its’ primary concerns are providing shelter and related help violence volunteer prevention activities. It does this through formula grants largely based on population and the multi lingual national domestic violence hotline. Media Source (Goodman 2013) has written an article stating that the Republicans are holding up a bill to renew VAWA because the Democrats have added some unspecified immigration clauses, perhaps the one allowing victims to apply for permanent residency. I agree with the author that that at a minimum the bill should be passed by bipartisan support as there is nothing in it that should be construed as contentious. In fact as described in the following I feel it should be enhanced. Address to Congress Ladies and gentlemen I urge you to at least pass the renewal of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act as it has been a great tool in the ongoing battle against the scourge of domestic violence. However I feel Congress should go far beyond that. Right now we have both state and federal legislation in this field. I suggest this is wrong, and although it may well require a constitutional amendment, I believe the federal government through Congress should take over sole jurisdiction and financing of programs aimed at dealing with the issue of violence against women, although state and municipal authorities would remain empowered to administer programs and enforce legislation. At the moment we have a variety of state legislation albeit all with the goal of fighting violence against women, but with differing tools. For example, some states mandate that police make arrest(s) when summoned to a domestic violence incident whereas others do not. Most states automatically recognize another state’s protection order but 3 require that it first be registered before it can be enforced. Some states have more extensive victim assistance program and facilities than others do. First of all I think that legislation in the same field by 2 levels of government creates unnecessary, costly duplication and the potential for confusion. Secondly and I think even more importantly, one might ask why should a woman in one state be subject to differing legal protections and resources than in another state? I can see no rationale why this should be and I think it could be classified as discriminatory treatment. I feel the laws and conditions should be identical throughout the US. Of course I recognize the quantity of resources will have to vary depending on the state population and volume of domestic violence incidents, but I submit the quality of resources should be similar throughout the entire country. In other words, a female victim should be able to access the same services whether for example she is resident in Alaska or Florida. I realize Congress has tried to foster state uniformity to standards it deems appropriately withholding funding to states that do not comply for example to the mandatory arrest requirement. However, frankly I feel that this ad hoc approach is inappropriate and unethical, since you are in effect forcing states to change their legislation which currently they are entitled to enact because they desperately need the funding. I realize of course the country as well as the states have financial issues which I will address later, but I think violence against women, as all criminality for that matter, can and does occur anywhere in the country and therefore should be dealy with on a national basis with the same laws, enforcement and programs. I feel this can be done more efficiently and fairer under federal jurisdiction alone. I think the provisions of the VAWA of 1994 were good ones and have helped reduce the incidence of the crime. However, I think more can and should be done. First of all, regarding convicted offenders I feel they should be subject to mandatory prison sentences. While incarcerated I think they should be required to take an anger management course. Secondly, I don’t think they should be released into general society immediately after their incarceration period is over. I think they should be required to spend several months in a supervised halfway house. During this period their coping skills should be assessed and if found wanting they should be returned to prison if a judge concurs. This process of course would not guarantee the offender would not repeat and in particular seek out and cause further injury to his victim but hopefully it will reduce the chances.. Obviously the victim will need a great deal of help to recover from the trauma of her ordeal. Immediately she will need medical assistance and perhaps emergency shelter and these should be provided to her without cost unless she has insurance and/or other resources to cover them. Regarding emergency shelter I would suggest that the initial period of say 2 weeks should be free. Thereafter I would suggest a stay limit of 6 months with the women being required to contribute to the accommodation cost their income exceeds a stipulated threshold. Many of the victims are completely dependent on their partner’s income and don’t have any marketable occupational skills. If employable I would suggest they should be encouraged to take free training in fields in which the government knows there are labor shortages. If unemployable I would suggest that they be provided with a pension similar to the disability one. It may be difficult to keep the locations of emergency shelter secret so I think they should have adequate police protection in case of attack by disgruntled ex domestic partners. Also it might be a good idea to place a victim in a shelter further from her home to make it more difficult for her location to be discovered. During the 6 month toime limit I am suggesting for residency in an emergency shelter the victim should be assisted in preparing for safe relocation. Although protection orders give police an excuse arrest if the court stipulations are violated, I think they only provide limited protection since an ex partner who has been incarcerated may still be very angry and pose a threat. If he is determined he may be able to inflict injury or even death if police cannot respond in time. He will likely ignore the court order or even worse it may not be able to be enforced if it is from out of state and has to be registered first. Therefore I don’t feel court orders are sufficient to deter some very angry and determined ex partners and the victim should do her best to hide. I think the government should offer assistance in this regard by helping with relocation expenses, allowing her to change her name and identity and perhaps even help fund plastic surgery to change her appearance, something like what is done under the witness protection program. Of course I realize taking over full funding and providing expanded services is costly and could require additional taxation. I would respond to this by saying that first of all the US has some of the lowest tax rates in the world and contrary to Republican ideology I don’t feel a modest increase at least in the upper brackets would cause undue hardship to people or business in theses brackets or harm the US economy as a whole. However, perhaps increased tax rates could be avoided or at least minimized if mandatory spending was reduced by reviewing all government social programs and converting where possible universal programs to target only those who actually need financial assistance. Thank you for your time and attention and I hope you will give serious consideration to my proposals. References 1).Goodman, Alana “Topic Violence against Women Act Where Dishonest Obama Memes Collide” Commentary November 2013 retrieved from http://www.commentarymagazine.com/topic/violence-against-women-act/ 2).Graham, Margaret “The Federal Domestic Violence Laws and the Enforcement of these Laws” Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse retrieved from http://www.mincava.umn..edu/documents/ffc/chapter5/chapter4.html. 3) “Domestic Violence” The Free Dictionary by Fairlex retrieved from http://legaldictionary/the freedictionary.com/Family-Violence. 4) “State Legislation US Legal Inc.” retrieved from http://familylaws.uslegal.com/domestic-violence/state/legislation. Read More