VAWA Domestic Violence - Unconstitutional law?

Question

Why is the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) even on the books? Is it not a clear contradiction to the 14th Amendment, providing EQUAL protection under the law? It seems ridiculous to me that only women can be legally protected from domestic violence, when it's been shown that men and women commit acts of violence at similar rates. If a woman beats a man, throws something, threatens with a weapon, etc. is this not a crime?

If we are truly interested in equality, why not have laws that state NO gender biss? Do we not really care about any man if he is abused, beaten, threaten, assaulted, etc.?

Why is this law allowed to continue to be on the books?

County Mounty, here are SOME sites showing statistics:
http://www.mediaradar.org/media_fact_sheet.php
http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/kelly03.pdf
http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm
http://wadv.org/maleabuse.htm

Greencoke, no, it does not say that the same thing committed against a man is not a crime, but the law is titled "Violence Against Women Act" and basically assumes that only men perpetrate domestic violence. I know from personal experience that when a man tries to get a restraining order (my ex broke furniture, a lamp, threw a plate of food at the wall when didn't eat the food, threatened to cut my penis off, etc. etc. etc.) and basically was laughed at and told the threat was not imminent. (I guess my ex needed to bring the knife to the courtroom for it to be imminent)

Men don't report abuse for several reasons, one being that we are not taken seriously, we are ostricized, the situation gets turned around and we are thrown in jail for defending ourselves, the list goes on.

cantcu, yes, women get charged every day, but not nearly as often, regardless of who is at fault. Also, why shouldn't abused me be allowed into a shelter? Yet another bit of proof that men are treated differently. The act is called VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT. I believe the word WOMEN is gender specific. Correct me if I am wrong. Who cares how long the act goes back to? It's worded incorrectly (though I doubt they will correct it, Rinarot) and provides for unequal treatment. I am NOT stating by any means that women are NOT abused, but just that they are not the only ones, and this law gives special treatment to one part of the population while excluding another.

greencoke, women make up a majority of the REPORTED victims. Slight difference.

CountyMounty, another fact associated with VAWA is that women use it as a means to obtaining custody during a divorce. Since the man is thrown in jail immediately, regardless of evidence, and a temporary restraining order is issued, the man can no longer go near his children, sometimes on the street with just the clothes on his back, with NO shelter to go to, etc. Once the divorce comes to final hearing, the woman can win custody stating continuity, since the children were with her while the father (still never proven guilty) was in jail, or obeying the protective order. Some divorce attorneys actually instruct the women to do this, and are never prosecuted for the false report.

Answer 1

Oh, very good question indeed!

I agree with you totally. It should be common knowledge that men are abused by their spouses but most of the time are too embarrassed and fear ridicule which they usually do encounter when reported to authorities. But the truth is that there is a wide range of the population that is oblivious to the fact that exists. I think they have chosen to single out woman because of standards throughout history portraying the female sex as inferior and incapable of dealing with such things themselves, even wrongly so. The mere fact of it though is why the VAWA doesn't include the male sex is because the legislation was proposed by a woman who saw women as needing the imminent protection. We can only suppose it was a slight and things such as this will be corrected in the future.

Answer 2

The Violence Against Women's Act provides "$1.6 billion to enhance investigation and prosecution of the violent crime perpetrated against women, increased pre-trial detention of the accused, provided for automatic and mandatory restitution of those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted." Nowhere in there does it say that the same things committed against men aren't crimes. It just makes it easier for the police to investigate and prosecute in a domestic abuse situation where the woman is the victim. This is because, although some men are victims of domestic abuse, women make up the majority of victims.

Answer 3

Of course it's a crime. Women get charged everyday! They get arrested and removed from homes just as men do.

The new act also deals with immigrants who are victims.

All those you mentioned are crimes for women as well. The reality is that women are victimized, raped and murdered on a far larger scale than men! This doesn't preclude any protection for you except perhaps admission into a female and children DV center or safe house.

Quit whining! And I believe the act refers to "spouse"! The last time i looked that was gender neutral, and it passed with only 4 votes against it!

This act goes back to the late 1990's!

Answer 4

the article does not specify any area of VAWA as being unconstitutional. could you please specify? BTW a number of the article isn't real. as an occasion, a guy is rarely left and not using a criminal expert to look after him. Accused adult men are already certain a unfastened criminal expert if he can not have the money for one. This basically gives you the female an identical tips that he already has. confident it somewhat is a shame that some harmless adult men could desire to bypass for the time of the criminal technique. it is likewise a shame that some harmless women human beings could desire to get killed earlier her batterer is arrested. i think of the two facets deserve a criminal expert, so the situation could be regarded after out as somewhat as a risk. i'm not satisfied that VAWA exists, yet I do think of it is mandatory. Edit: Is that the concern? using the words "adult men" and "women human beings"? do not trouble, the regulation already forwards the protections to the two genders while one is pronounced. Did you ignore? while the form and the early regulations have been written, women human beings weren't risk-free. that they had an replace extra in that supplies gendered regulations a gender nutral result. So if it protects women human beings, then it additionally protects adult men, and vice versa, inspite of the language.

Answer 5

Where is it shown that men and women commit acts of violence at similar rates, I have never seen such results? That is certainly not the case in domestic violence. While it is true that men can and do get abused by their female partners (and male vs male, female vs female) the large majority of it is violence against women. So far in my 8 years in law enforcement I have seen maybe 5 cases of domestic violence when the male was a real victim and I wouldn't dare guess how many against women but easily 50 times that.
I treated the male victims and their cases the same and they were fully covered under the laws of my state.

There are laws that provide protections for all domestic relationships. Here our domestic violence laws cover any and all people who are "household members" and/or "related by blood or consanguinity". This covers a wide array of people including boyfriend/girlfriend, adult family members (brothers, sisters etc), children, separated biological parents of children etc. So the law DOES offer the same protection it is just that violence against women gets more attention because it is much more prevalent.