Does the Federal Government Pay States to Prosecute Domestic Violence by Males

Unfortunately the federal government pays incentive to prosecute males for DV. If your BF pleads guilty it is a permanent mark on his record which can never be undone and will seriously effect his employment opportunities or even volunteering at a school event in the future. If it was a mutual "combat" situation where both parties were engaged I would suggest that your BF pleads not guilty and take it to a jury trial since the outcome of a guilty plea is a sure thing while a jury trial can be won (and frequently won) with the help of an attorney. Remember, even if your BF will pay a fine only it will stay on his record forever!
You probably need to talk to an experienced(!!!) attorney who evaluates the case. If there was a third party witness, and the witness cooperates, her testimony, your testimony and your BF's testimony will be the one the jury will decide guilt.

Quote:

---

Quoting Andrea80

---

Unfortunately the federal government pays incentive to prosecute males for DV.

---

Do they really? I've never heard of such a thing in all my years with the court.

I'd like to see your proof of this

Quote:

---

Quoting Andrea80

---

Unfortunately the federal government pays incentive to prosecute males for DV.

---

They do? can you provide a link to that revenue stream, my agency needs it! :rolleyes:

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/...ug/domviin.htm

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/09...l-protections/

http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-20.htm#industry

http://www.saveservices.org/download...t-Civil-Rights

... and there are endless number of studies how DV is misused in immigration proceedings, to obtain financial benefits, child custody during divorce and many more.

Quote:

---

Quoting Andrea80

---

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/...ug/domviin.htm

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/09...l-protections/

http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-20.htm#industry

http://www.saveservices.org/download...t-Civil-Rights

... and there are endless number of studies how DV is misused in immigration proceedings, to obtain financial benefits, child custody during divorce and many more.

---

Funny how NONE of those links is government related or an actual news organization.

First, your comment had nothing to do with the ABUSE of DV issues by some parties, you stated: "Unfortunately the federal government pays incentive to prosecute males for DV." And even none of the linked articles stated anything of the sort!

So, can you point me to the funding source that PAYS law enforcement and the courts to pursue MALE suspects. ... I'll wait ...

Now, there are programs that provide grant funding to pay for domestic violence education, vertical prosecution programs, victim advocacy, etc. because those are resources that are necessary. In m,y state many counties have run short on funds and restraining order violations, misdemeanor domestic battery and DV-related harassment charges are not being pursued as often or as diligently because of a lack of funding. In my county, restraining order prosecutions are now being referred to the Family Court - arguably a violation of the law, but, still happening. So, grants allow law enforcement, prosecutors, the courts, and victim advocates to provide the services they need to address this insidious crime.

So, once more, I ask: Where is the source of funding that pays anyone in the CJ system to prosecute male defendants?

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Funny how NONE of those links is government related or an actual news organization.

---

Also, while some recite that certain states and organizations get funding for domestic violence-related issues, such as funding for shelters for domestic violence victims, none suggests that the funding is either (a) tied to gender or (b) provides any direct incentive for prosecution, let alone (as you point out) an incentive based upon the suspect's gender.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

Also, while some recite that certain states and organizations get funding for domestic violence-related issues, such as funding for shelters for domestic violence victims, none suggests that the funding is either (a) tied to gender or (b) provides any direct incentive for prosecution, let alone (as you point out) an incentive based upon the suspect's gender.

---

So I take it we shouldn't hold our breath for a legitimate answer, right?

http://www.saveservices.org/pdf/SAVE...inst-Males.pdf

Quote:

---

Psychologist David Fontes noted that when he advised male victims to call local
domestic violence programs for help, his clients found that “either the shelters and
centers never returned their calls, or they were told by the workers that they really don’t
have the services for male victims of domestic violence.”
In those cases when men in
desperate straits showed up at their door for help, Fontes noted that “some of the men felt
they were treated at these shelters and centers more with suspect than respect.”31

Ironically, not only do shelters discriminate against male victims, they also treat female
batterers as victims. In one case a female abuser called wanted to get help with her anger
management problem, but the local domestic violence center “tried to convince her that
she was a victim and not a perpetrator.”32 In a more curious case:

A woman was arrested and ordered out of the house following her assault against
her husband. She was referred to a shelter. Her attorney provided the shelter
counselor with a detailed account of what had transpired: “Mrs. C. grabbed Mr. C.
by his necktie (and) he pushed her away. Mrs. C. then punched his face and her
fingernail cut his neck.” And how did the shelter workers assess the situation in
its records? “Physical abuse” of the woman by her husband.33

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Andrea80

---

http://www.saveservices.org/pdf/SAVE...inst-Males.pdf

---

You have yet to justify your statements with anything concrete. What is the funding source?

They provide grants that encourage the activity, just as they provide grants for other types of enforcement. For example, I was once pulled over by an officer working on Federal Grant money to target truck drivers. He sat at the end of a construction zone that had a left lane termination, ticketing truck drivers that were stuck in a legal truck lane. His theory was termination of the no trucks in left lane transferred over to the new lane, even though there was no signage re-designating the lane and rush hour traffic prevented trucks from changing lanes even if they wanted to at that time of day. He thought it looked great on his record that he was citing all these truck drivers for what is considered a reckless driving charge. It was kind of like fishing in a barrel.

http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/ovwgrantprograms.htm

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

You have yet to justify your statements with anything concrete. What is the funding source?

---

if you want to go the long route, of course there is funding that one might want to argue results in a de facto pay to prosecute situation. I mean, there is always federal money flowing to the states for a variety of issues and something in the neighborhood of dealing with issues surrounding DV would not be surprising in the least. As to an incentive based prosecution system; I'll not wait for the proof to show up.


Given the first post I would have put money on this being seed spam. Later posts suggest the OP is simply another pissed off person that feels they were wronged by the system.

Either that or somebody now looks something like a pretzel after following all the twists and turns to come to the conclusion that the feds pay for prosecution of DV directly. (although I think the twists are actually limited to their mind)

edit to add:

ya, what dis linked

The OP is simply mistaken. There is NO funding that pays a law enforcment agency OR a prosecutor's office a bounty for a DV arrest or conviction, of ANY person of ANY gender.

My significant other was the development director aka grant writer for the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and let me tell you, if there WERE such a system, advocates from one end of the country to the other would be falling all over themselves about it.) Go to grants.gov and put in keyword "domestic violence". What you'll find is that money is available for things like training, education, research, statistical analysis, outreach, services, etc. You won't find a SINGLE entry where public funding goes to states, prosecutors, or law enforcement as incentive to pursue cases.

(And I write that as someone who has RECEIVED grants from the feds to support domestic violence related activities in both public agencies and in non-profit settings, and who has aided dozens of public and private entities in applying for funding of their own.) I WISH something like that were available...but alas...it isn't.

The answer and link, Yes they do give grants to target men seemed clear to me. One could of course argue they would give these grants to those localities not showing a positive prosecution rate against men, however, you would not convince me of it.

Quote:

---

STOP (Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors) Violence Against Women Formula Grants to States
The STOP Program promotes a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to enhancing advocacy and improving the criminal justice system's response to violent crimes against women. It encourages the development and improvement of effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies to address violent crimes against women and the development and improvement of advocacy and services in cases involving violent crimes against women.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Andrea80

---

http://www.saveservices.org/pdf/SAVE...inst-Males.pdf

---

Funny, I still don't see a source of funding that pays anyone for arresting and prosecuting males for DV. What the piece you linked points out is that DV shelters are geared towards female victims - a fact of life given the overwhelming majority of reported victims are women and almost all of those that request services are women.

And the anecdotal notes of disparate treatment at shelters (which are usually NOT government operations, FYI) are not proof of government funding for arresting males for DV.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

The answer and link, Yes they do give grants to target men seemed clear to me. One could of course argue they would give these grants to those localities not showing a positive prosecution rate against men, however, you would not convince me of it.

---

There are grants that pay for prosecutors or law enforcement to pursue cases against offenders but they are NOT gender specific. I've written applications for a few of these over the years, and we've received a couple. NO GRANT pays anyone for the number of men they prosecute - nor for any specific number of prosecutions. None. Zero. Zilch.

If there were a program that incentivized prosecutions by connecting funding to the prosecution, the defense bar would be all over that one!

Since the percentage of woman married to woman is somewhat low and animals cannot marry humans, it is pretty safe to say the percentage of prosecutions against men under these grants would be pretty high.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

And the anecdotal notes of disparate treatment at shelters (which are usually NOT government operations, FYI) are not proof of government funding for arresting males for DV.

---

THIS is a really important point which is often missed by those who don't work in the field or understand the dynamics of victim service providers, especially related to domestic violence. Shelters are almost 100% operated by private aka non-profit organizations, NOT cities, counties, or other public entities...and there are very important reasons for this - not so much related to funding, but rather to issues of confidentiality. All 50 states have legislation that allows advocates certified in their prospective state very special powers and abilities that they are able to invoke on behalf of victims. Chief among these is the power of confidentiality. As an example: I work in a domestic violence shelter and a woman calls, meets criteria for services, and is brought into the shelter. She happens to have a warrant that is several years old, say, for shoplifting. Her ex, trying to both find her location and to get her in trouble for leaving him, tells police that she's on the run and probably staying at the local domestic violence shelter. Police call to find out if she's there. Specific entitlements in victim right's legislation allows the advocate to tell police "I'm not giving you any information, and will neither confirm or deny that the person in question is in our facility.". Now if that advocate were an employee of a public entity, their employer could compell them to answer. But as an non-government advocate, I can (and have) tell police to shove it. This does create problems when an advocate, for example, works for more than one employer, or, is employed by one and volunteers at another (a problem I've had to confront several times myself, as I am employed by a state law enforcement agency, but volunteer with non-profits/shelters).

And, it's also important to note that the provision of victim services by government agencies, such as a prosecutor's office, usually comes with a big string attached: the victim MUST cooperate with the prosecution of the offender in order to receive access to CERTAIN services and benefits, most noteably the crime victim compensation program (that's in all 50 states). In other words, the state isn't going to assist the victim with taxpayer dollars to cover things like medical expenses UNLESS the victim in turn helps protect society by cooperting in the prosecution of the violent offender. In contrast, there are not requirements for victims to seek any type of action regarding the offender in order to receive services from a private/non-profit organization (and again, reasons behind this as well).

In other words, what goes on in shelters, and what services are received by victims, has NOTHING to do with what goes on at the police department or the prosecutor's office. There are very well funded shelters in areas where they haven't gotten a domestic violence conviction in 5 months. There are also places where a prosecutor's office has a policy of throwing the proverbial book at every single domestic violence offender (of either gender) whose shelter has shut down due to lack of funding (Tampa immediately comes to mind). The two sides of the domestic violence coin are more polar opposites than they are sisters of similarity (and it's that way on purpose).

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

Since the percentage of woman married to woman is somewhat low and animals cannot marry humans, it is pretty safe to say the percentage of prosecutions against men under these grants would be pretty high.

---

The fact that men are most often the offender is NOT the same thing as is being alleged: That police, prosecutors and the courts are being paid to prosecute men. They get paid whether they prosecute or not, and no matter the gender of the offender. There is NO funding scheme that pays anyone in the CJ system by the number of people they prosecute - much less, the number of MEN they prosecute.

- - - Updated - - -

To emphasize Catherine's point, I work with our grant-funded DV advocates (who are also county employees through the state's Victim-Witness program) and there are times when they will politely decline to provide some of this information if we ask (though they never tell us to "shove it" ... that would cause all manner of problems and be counterproductive). But, if we need to get a hold of the victim for one reason or another, a meeting can be arranged, or we could always interview or arrest the person at the next court appearance. Though the need to an arrest a DV victim is so exceedingly rare that I can recall only a couple of instances in the past two decades where I have heard of this being an issue.

Now, I also work with our local shelter as a volunteer. I provide some training and information to assist in their programming, and I also manage their Facebook and web pages. I do not have a hand in their day-to-day operations and have no access to who is being served by the shelter and its programs. This is for reasons as mentioned by Catherine in that what *I* do - even off duty - might be considered public record, so to avoid that I do not gain any specific knowledge of the clients so I and my department cannot be compelled to release any information.

Sadly, shelters and advocacy programs cannot assist ALL victims and often lack the resources to provide the extent of services that might be needed by some of the victims. Unfortunately, many of these services last only as long as a grant might exist to pay for it and when the grant disappears, so do the services.

CdwJawa wrote to the OP:

"First, your comment had nothing to do with the ABUSE of DV issues by some parties, you stated: "Unfortunately the federal government pays incentive to prosecute males for DV." And even none of the linked articles stated anything of the sort!"



This is one of the links the OP put up:

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/...ug/domviin.htm


From the above link:

"Federally paid advocates in many if not all district and probate courts in the state [Massachusetts] are also trained to assist women in getting restraining orders."


So, one of the links clearly states that the federal government is paying advocates to train women to get restraining orders against men. So, the federal government is paying for the part of the prosecution that involves the restraining order.

Quote:

---

Quoting Tech42

---

CdwJawa wrote to the OP:

"First, your comment had nothing to do with the ABUSE of DV issues by some parties, you stated: "Unfortunately the federal government pays incentive to prosecute males for DV." And even none of the linked articles stated anything of the sort!"



This is one of the links the OP put up:

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/...ug/domviin.htm


From the above link:

"Federally paid advocates in many if not all district and probate courts in the state [Massachusetts] are also trained to assist women in getting restraining orders."


So, one of the links clearly states that the federal government is paying advocates to train women to get restraining orders against men. So, the federal government is paying for the part of the prosecution that involves the restraining order.

---

Once again, paying domestic violence advocates (most often NOT government employees) to provide services to VICTIMS (and women just happen to be victims in 85% or so of DV cases) is not the same as paying the state in some way to prosecute males. Not the same. And I am sorry if you do not understand that.

If you read the text of the law or the grant, dollars to donuts it does NOT say "women" it will say "victims." The fact that some author of a purported news piece uses the term "women" rather than "victim" does not mean anyone is paying for gender biased services. I also note that the source of this undated article appears to be a near-defunct political activist site and not any form of real "news" source - it is an opinion piece, not objective reporting. I can go out on the internet and find any number of reasonably well-written opinion pieces on any number of issues, but they are poor sources of objectivity.

As a note, the subject of the article, Chapter 209A, uses the word "women" once that I could find, and that was in referring to coordination between batterers programs and a "local battered women's shelter." Nowhere could I find anything in the law that excluded men as victims, or specifically said that men could not access services. It is simply a fact of life that very, very few men seek services or report any abuse to the authorities so there is nowhere near the applicable services. And then there is the socio-economic dynamic in play that further reduces the likelihood of male victims seeking many of the services regularly applied towards women.

But, I digress ... once again I ask, where is the funding source or program that pays the agents of the state to prosecute males. I'm still waiting.

I had absolutely no intention to start this debate!

http://nation.time.com/2013/02/27/wh...nst-women-act/

Quote:

---

Two months ago my husband and I (married 22 yrs) had an "animated argument". Im not proud of it, there was screaming and yelling, objects were thrown down stairs. Neither of us physically or verbally threatened each other. My 16 yr old son was upset. He never saw us behave this way. He called 911. I was ashamed and mortified having the police come to our house. I was crying, but I assured the police there was no abuse. The way this law works, It was assumed I was lying because I am afraid of my husband. My husband taken off to jail in handcuffs, I asked how I can bail him out, no I cant do anything. He gets his name in the local papers, Now we are paying thousands of dollars in legal fees. I can assure you, I am not a victim.

I take responsibility for our horrible behavior that made my son call 911. I am deeply ashamed of that, and we apologized to my son. I am a nurse, I understand the reason behind this law, but if this can happen to me, how many other innocent people are dragged into this net? What if my husband and I were going through an acrimonious split. His wrongful arrest would give ridiculous advantage to his partner.

Maybe my nightmare is just an isolated freak by product of this law. But my opinion has changed. I think there is huge business being generated by this law. Very disillusioned!

---

Based on arrest and conviction statistics (I do not have the specific link) males are getting arrested and convicted at a lot higher rate than females while independent studies show that males and females commit violence against each other at about the same rate (actually females a bit higher) and the most violent relationships are the female-same sex relationships. It is common practice at law enforcement to arrest the male when they cannot decide who was at fault or both parties were at fault as the result of mandatory arrest policies.

Quote:

---

Quoting Andrea80

---

I had absolutely no intention to start this debate!

---

When you ask a question like you asked, what did you expect?

Quote:

---

Quoting Andrea80

---

Based on arrest and conviction statistics (I do not have the specific link) males are getting arrested and convicted at a lot higher rate than females while independent studies show that males and females commit violence against each other at about the same rate (actually females a bit higher)

---

And it is FAR, FAR more common for females to report it. There is still a perceived (or real to some extent) stigma attached to a man reporting his partner for abuse. Police cannot arrest someone for something that is not reported by anyone.

Quote:

---

Quoting Andrea80

---

and the most violent relationships are the female-same sex relationships.

---

That's pretty offensive unless you can back it up with research and statistics.

Quote:

---

Quoting Andrea80

---

It is common practice at law enforcement to arrest the male when they cannot decide who was at fault or both parties were at fault as the result of mandatory arrest policies.

---

I highly doubt that. They are going to make arrests based on the evidence.

Quote:

---

Quoting Andrea80

---

Based on arrest and conviction statistics (I do not have the specific link) males are getting arrested and convicted at a lot higher rate than females while independent studies show that males and females commit violence against each other at about the same rate (actually females a bit higher) and the most violent relationships are the female-same sex relationships. It is common practice at law enforcement to arrest the male when they cannot decide who was at fault or both parties were at fault as the result of mandatory arrest policies.

---

While there is SOME data to show that women might assault men at a rate nearing that of men, such data can be speculative and inconclusive. However, the social and psychological dynamic at play is overwhelmingly one of male aggression against a female partner, and women are far more likely to be a reported victim (if not by their own admission, then by that of a friend, family member or neighbor).

As for what is "common practice" or not, I will say that most states - mine included - have a pro-arrest policy when it comes to DV. If we respond to a call and there is probable cause to believe that a physical attack occurred, we are encouraged (though not mandated by law) to make an arrest. We are mandated by law, however, to determine the primary aggressor as best we can and arrest THAT party. We are discouraged to make dual arrests.

From my experience and observations, I will say that more often than not when there is violence on both sides that it is the actions of the male that created the situation and the male will most often be arrested. It's not BECAUSE he is a male, it is because his ACTIONS led to that determination.

If you want the BJS stats, here is a link to stats from 2005 I found on a quick Google search. There are more, and I have a number of journal articles and research to back up these stats even today.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf

And for more comprehensive reports: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=78

It's really simple. Women REPORT domestic violence much more often, and women suffer INJURY much more often, which means that even those who are reluctant to report often find that OTHERS have reported the crime on their behalf.

Statiscally, 80% of reported incidents of domestic violence are with the male as the perpetrato. The overwhelming disparity is largely attributed to the male not reporting the incident. Refusing to allow for an arrest to be made(at least here in Chicago,) the male actually becoming the aggressor after initially being a victim. Domestic violence costs $5.8 billion a year in healthcare. Nobody pays for men to get locked. We men give them the arrest for free...

Quote:

---

Quoting viol8te

---

Statiscally, 80% of reported incidents of domestic violence are with the male as the perpetrato.

---

Generally closer to to 85%, but, close enough, and the stats do tend to vary a bit.

Quote:

---

The overwhelming disparity is largely attributed to the male not reporting the incident.

---

That, and the fact that women tend to wear the proof of their beatings more often than men ... injuries.

"Once again, paying domestic violence advocates (most often NOT government employees) to provide services to VICTIMS (and women just happen to be victims in 85% or so of DV cases) is not the same as paying the state in some way to prosecute males. Not the same. And I am sorry if you do not understand that."

If you're getting paid by the Feds, then you work for the Feds. So, these advocates are, indeed, government employees or contractors. Also, getting a restraining order is a part of the prosecution of the male, even if the prosecutor himself is not directly involved in getting that order.

So, these advocates work for the Federal government, and the Federal government is paying the advocates to obtain restraining orders, which are part of the prosecution of the alleged perpetrator.

The arguments I am listening to remind of a poster put out by a group of social service agencies in our county. One of the things it said was when leaving your abuser, one of the things to make sure to take was HIS social security number.

Quote:

---

If you're getting paid by the Feds, then you work for the Feds.

---

Okaaaay ... huh ... part of my salary comes from state and federal sources, I suppose, so does that mean that I work for the feds? AND, the state? Odd since no one outside of my city's department administration can tell me what to do.

Quote:

---

So, these advocates are, indeed, government employees or contractors.

---

Legally? No, they're not. Not unless the grant requires the agency receiving the grant to employ them as such.

Quote:

---

Also, getting a restraining order is a part of the prosecution of the male, even if the prosecutor himself is not directly involved in getting that order.

---

No, in CA a restraining order is a CIVIL process done in FAMILY court. Such as it is in most states. Yes, there is a process by which the DA or the court can initiate a protective order, but that is a result of a criminal prosecution or a conviction. A "restraining order" is a civil matter and can be sought even if no criminal charges are ever brought.

Quote:

---

So, these advocates work for the Federal government, and the Federal government is paying the advocates to obtain restraining orders, which are part of the prosecution of the alleged perpetrator.

---

Sorry, no.

You really should educate yourself on criminal justice, domestic violence, and the legal process because it seems clear that you have only a passing understanding of how this works.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

The arguments I am listening to remind of a poster put out by a group of social service agencies in our county. One of the things it said was when leaving your abuser, one of the things to make sure to take was HIS social security number.

---

I've never heard of that, but, I can imagine that there might be some reasons for that ... such as if there will be some civil suit and/or claims for compensation involved in the civil process.

"No, in CA a restraining order is a CIVIL process done in FAMILY court. Such as it is in most states."

Civil process, huh? And if you violate that "civil process", you get police officers up your ass with the handcuffs out.


"You really should educate yourself on criminal justice, domestic violence, and the legal process because it seems clear that you have only a passing understanding of how this works."

I am educated on the concept of splitting hairs, and that's what you are doing here.

I am sure that CA is like most states, in which a protective order can be granted through civil, family or criminal court. The order is granted by the court. Which means any breach of that order will " ...get police officers up your ass with the handcuffs out." The is no splitting hairs. We are 100% responsible for how we choose to handle a situation. The government is not paying anyone to prosecute men. What they are doing is providing money for much needed services.

Carl, let's get together and work on a grant to provide clues. Some are sorely needed.

Quote:

---

Quoting Tech42

---

Civil process, huh? And if you violate that "civil process", you get police officers up your ass with the handcuffs out.

---

Yes, if you violate a judge's order to stay away, you SHALL (as written in the law) be arrested. Easy to avoid ... don't violate a judge's order!

Quote:

---

I am educated on the concept of splitting hairs, and that's what you are doing here.

---

I answered the question that was written, some of you are the ones trying to extrapolate a statement that the state is somehow paid to prosecute males by referencing tangential ideas (largely referring to the operation of NGOs) through links to opinion websites.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting viol8te

---

I am sure that CA is like most states, in which a protective order can be granted through civil, family or criminal court. The order is granted by the court. Which means any breach of that order will " ...get police officers up your ass with the handcuffs out." The is no splitting hairs. We are 100% responsible for how we choose to handle a situation. The government is not paying anyone to prosecute men. What they are doing is providing money for much needed services.

---

Agreed.

And, as a means of clarification, for us in CA this is "splitting hairs" as a restraining order is something sought through Family Court and is a civil matter, and a protective order is something initiated by the DA or the court when a subject is charged or convicted.

What it was Carl was a group of agencies that decided males were the abuser and did not edit their posters before sending out. After I complained, the posters were updated. I do not understand why everyone is trying to pretend this is not one of our countries dirty little secrets.

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

What it was Carl was a group of agencies that decided males were the abuser and did not edit their posters before sending out. After I complained, the posters were updated. I do not understand why everyone is trying to pretend this is not one of our countries dirty little secrets.

---

Because no one pays us (the police, the prosecutors or the courts) to prosecute MALES. There are grants and funding available to aid the government in pursuing abusers and protecting the victims. The fact that the abusers are overwhelmingly men and the victims are overwhelmingly women naturally skews the perception that the system is geared to pursue men. The law is gender neutral on the subject. Private services - such as shelters and advocacy groups - tend to be private organizations and are often geared towards addressing the concerns of their primary constituency - women, and even women with children. It would be fiscally impractical to provide equal services to both men and women given the frequency of the need for certain services (such as housing) towards men.

Men are most often the abuser, and women most often the victim. It's a fact. Funding from the government pays for programs geared towards addressing the problem on a gender neutral basis. That, too, is a fact. As a result of the dynamic, most the services are focused towards women and most the prosecutions are focused on men. It's the nature of the beast. Time to acknowledge DV for what it is, for the most part, abuse by males against females.

Tech42, I already spoke to you today about shutting up on topics where you are not sufficiently endowed with clue.

Since you can't follow instructions, and I can't be bothered to babysit you, guess what?

Yeah.

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

What it was Carl was a group of agencies that decided males were the abuser and did not edit their posters before sending out. After I complained, the posters were updated. I do not understand why everyone is trying to pretend this is not one of our countries dirty little secrets.

---

I always find it interesting when people wish to argue that women are as violent as men. Women as a gender are not better than men, but statistically they are less violent. Crime statistics support that domestic violence perpetrators are primarily men. This should not come as a surprise (or evidence of a vast conspiracy) since similar statistics and percentages are found in all other forms of violent crime: homicide (90% male offenders), assault (around 80% male offenders), burglary (over 80% male offenders) and so on. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...abledatadecpdf

Given crime statistics by gender for other types of violent crimes show similar ratios of males versus female perpetrators, and this holds true whether the statistics are based on arrests, convictions, or victimization surveys (DOJ), it should bolster confidence that the statistics reported regarding domestic violence are trustworthy. It would actually be rather curious if women were perpetrators at equal numbers as men in only one area of violent crime, domestic violence, and behaved in a relatively non violent manners with all other persons. Gender equality in the US is amazing, but crime statistics still bear witness that the use of violent force to gain control or commit a crime is an action taken more frequently by men. The fact that men are more violent to each other, and toward women, does not mean that some women are not violent. Nor does it mean women do not commit crimes. Currently, women are found equally in offender populations for some non-violent crimes, for example embezzlement, and surpass men as offenders for prostitution.

And while we're on the topic of the existance of male victims of domestic violence, let's not forget that a person of any gender can be a victim at the hands of another person of any gender. Just as women can be victimized by both men and women, men can be victimized by both men and women. Such realizations are relatively new in the realm of victimology, but more and more, just as in other areas of law, equality is creeping into the mix.

As to the issue of male victims, some may find interesting perspectives on the problem here:

http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/malevictims.shtml



PS. Nice ta see ya, drt =)

Being male, I am confounded by the hypocrisy that we operate under. Most of society as a whole has operated under the prmeise that the man is the provider, protector and head of the household. It has been long established rhetoric that we are the rational ones and womes are (the operative word amongst my defendants nowdays) bi-polar. Yet when it comes to domestic battery, we say that the "woman kept pushing my buttons." "If anybody needs to be doing these classes, it should be her." "I was just defending myself!" "So what would you do? You woulda just kept lettin' her do that shit?!?"

For a gender that claims that we are so rational and in control of our behavior, we sure don't mind blaming her for our actions and beliefs.

Now, we are on this board trying to justify violence by, using tainted articles and fallacious allegations that is a federal conspiracy to saddle every man that it can scrounge up with a domestic battery conviction. Please, there is no conspiracy. But dammit if ain't a lot of denial!

I have also found that abusers (yes, most often men) are perfectly willing to let their victim lie (recant or claim to have lied to the police) and risk jail in order to protect him. The victims risks punishment to protect the abuser, but the abuser is rarely ever willing to jump on the grenade for the victim. It's all part of the dynamic involved.

Quote:

---

Quoting LawResearcherMissy

---

Tech42, I already spoke to you today about shutting up on topics where you are not sufficiently endowed with clue.

Since you can't follow instructions, and I can't be bothered to babysit you, guess what?

Yeah.

---

You're a pig, and I hope that you get cancer.

As for my knowledge of the law, I've won 7 legal battles in the last 15 years, and I needed an attorney for only 1 one of them . So, my knowledge of the law is just fine, thank you.