GOP's version of the violence against women act

Like Joe said, Why? What is the difference between a woman beating up a man and a man beating up a woman? What is the difference between a man raping a woman and a woman raping a man? How about a gay beating up a straight and a straight beating up a gay?

I'll tell you what the difference is.....Perception. People percieve one as being more heinous than the other but in truth they are equally heinous and should be treated as such.

There is absolutely ZERO need for any "special" laws for certain groups other than politics...period.

Why in the living heck is it any different whether I beat up a 25 year old man, a 75 year old man, a woman, or a homosexual? It is already an assault in every case, and against the law. To have "speeshul" laws for "speeshul" groups is nothing more than petty politics, and at the very least is discrimination.

Once again, I will state...homosexuals, minorities, and women all scream about wanting to be "equal", but they don't want to be treated equal - they want to be treated "speeshul". Here's a newsflash..."equal" encompasses both good and bad.

Honestly, the whole concept of special laws for certain groups is a waste of our legislators' time, and taxpayer money - to say nothing of the idiocy of it all, simply for political reasons to "keep the homosexuals happy" or "keep the women happy" or "keep the blacks happy" or whatever group is involved. We should be striving for equal treatment under the law - not speeshul treatment. This kind of crap does nothing more than continue to divide people by gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual preference. While I realize that is a liberal political strategy, is that honestly what we want and what we need?

I have to laugh any time I hear the term "war against women"...there is a "war FOR women" to buy votes, but the concept of a "war against women" is really about the stupidest thing I have ever heard of - particularly when it is directed at men. For every woman-hating man I know, I probably know 20 man-hating women. That is not to say sometimes they aren't justified - I'm just saying. The implication or outright statement that white males want to in some way oppress women is stupid...

And what 'previous laws' are you referring to that excluded them? I'm not aware of any so you'll have to enlighten me…

I'm not sure any of you "naysayers" even know what VAWA is all about. Some things VAWA does;

It sets up a 24 hour hotline for people seeking help. How is this bad?

New protections were given to victims of domestic abuse, such as confidentiality of new addresses. How is this bad?

It modified immigration laws that allow a battered spouse to apply for permanent residency. This helps empower the abused so that they can report and escape abusive situations.

Another area this act addresses is interstate traveling for the purposes of committing an act of domestic violence or violating an order of protection. A convicted abuser may not follow the victim into another state, nor may a convicted abuser force a victim to move to another state. Previously, orders of protection issued in one jurisdiction were not always recognized in another jurisdiction. Some states STILL don't recognize DVPO's filed in other states! How is this bad?

Another goal of the VAWA was to influence state legislators, particularly in regard to arrest policy for domestic situations. In order to receive Federal funding, states must adopt certain responses. The Act reads: VAWA 1994: (1) To implement mandatory arrest or pro-arrest programs and policies in police departments, including mandatory arrest programs and policies for protection order violations (Part you, SEC. 2101). This act has had a profound effect on state laws governing domestic abuse.

As a cop who responds to domestic violence on every shift, these laws have been EXTREMELY important. They protect both men AND women. Our criteria is that any physical sign of violence (any injury) results in a mandatory arrest. If a man has those injuries, the woman is arrested. All authorized by VAWA. How is that bad?

BTW, the provisions do cross gender lines, for those of you who are whining about gender equality. The power given under VAWA has had some impact on both genders. There are several landmark cases that have been decided under these new interstate provisions. For example, in United States v. Rita Gluzman (NY), the defendant traveled from New Jersey to New York with the intention of killing her estranged husband. The weapons she took with her were used in the murder. Gluzman was convicted for this crime. In United States v. Mark A. Sterkel (1997), the defendant was convicted of interstate stalking after traveling from Utah to Arizona to threaten his former boss.



So, before you naysayers attack VAWA, learn a little about it. It does not only protect women. It protects the VICTIMS of violence who are, more tradtitionally, women.

Hate Crimes legislation in the past and in some places still do not cover crimes against a person committed because they are gay or lesbian.
Let us not forget that during the 60's when all white juries refused to convict men that murdered civil rights workers, Emmit Till, Medgar Evans they were later convicted of violating the civil rights and other crimes.
Assualt is still assualt and if you attack me because I am Jewish then not only will you be charged with assault but with a hate crime also.
This is a tool law enforcement and prosecutors use to ensure lengthy sentences and justice.
If you are targeted because of your age, race, religion, or sexual orientation does that not need to be addressed when prosecuting and individual?
The message is clear .... We will not tolerate such acts.
Matthew Shepard was targeted , beaten , hung on a fence and left to die for nearly 24 hours because he was gay.
James Beard was roped and dragged for over a mile until he was decapitated because he was black. What is so political about addressing the "special" differences between those crimes and a drive by shooting?
Acknowledging the intolerance and hatred that caused these crimes is both justified and moral IMO. Shalom

DB, it is only "special" if you are not a member of these protected groups, evidently.

BTW, I forgot another provision mandated by VAWA that I use every day. If a violator (either male of female) is arrested, their bond must be set by a district court judge. They cannot have a bond set by anyone else. That means the offender will stay in jail no more than 48 hours, but at least until a judge can be contacted. This gives a safety margin where that person can seek safety without, 1 hour later, having the abuser show up on the doorstep again. How is this bad?

Allison I have counseled many women and men that were victims of domestic abuse. The time spent in jail was minimal and the victim was often attacked again within hours. That is why I applaud this legislation.
Anything law enforcement can do to reduce domestic violence and rape should not be labeled controversial. Shalom

Yes, sadly the requirement to get a district court judge to set bond CAN happen faster than anyone would want IF that judge was in a position to be contacted without dely. Sometimes that can be good, though.

I had to arrest a man, once, that I didn't think was the right thing. His ex came all the way from another town to confront him. She was throwing potted plants at him (heavy!) and he pushed her away from himself. She stumbled into a bush that scratched her up. The law mandated HIS arrest, even when she was the probable aggressor. When I took him before the magistrate, I expressed my dismay, in this particular situation. He and I got on the phone and called the district court judges until we found one available. We explained the circumstances and the judge set a reasonable bond. I gave the man a ride home.

Sometimes, going the extra mile is the right thing to do. Even laws meant to protect can, sometimes, be too rigid. I would take the rigid protection over what we had BEFORE VAWA (often the good 'ole boys winking at a male abuser) any day.

I doubt any reasonable person would disagree with that. However, that is no justification for "separate" crimes with "separate" sentences. Murder is murder - it makes absolutely no difference if the person murdered is a woman, a man, or a homosexual.

......................................

AF, there is nothing wrong with a hotline or other form of assistance. Neither I, nor the Republicans, nor anyone else (that I am aware of) opposes every single aspect of the act. The Republicans have their own version, after all - or have you forgotten that? But your intimations that white Republican males oppose the act in its entirety or that they (we) are waging a "war against women" and don't want to protect them from rape and other crimes is absolutely unwarranted, absolutely ridiculous, has no basis in fact, and serves no purpose that I can ascertain other than just a desire to be nasty, rude, and hateful...it is no different than if I were to say you and your fellow liberals are waging a war against men - how absurd...

I didn't say they dislike it "in its entirety", just talking about what they want OUT of the original act as being bad.