Developing a National Plan of Action on Violence against Women and Gender Violence

International human rights treaties and monitoring bodies have repeatedly called upon governments to develop national plans of action to eliminate violence against women. Although the U.S. is a global leader in the violence against women arena, it has never developed a national plan of action. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), despite its substantial contributions, does not contain some of the core features of a national action plan—such as a strategic vision for ending violence against women, or a declaration that violence against women is a human rights violation and a form of sex discrimination, or a set of goals or benchmarks to measure progress. This chapter examines the key elements of national action plans on violence against women, and ultimately argues that in the Trump era, a national action plan can best be developed through coordinated action at the state and local levels.

Preventing Ordinary and Extraordinary Violence

The paradigm of the armed and dangerous mass killer in public opinion and legislation is a homicidal-suicidal stranger hunting in public. Yet half of all firearms-related homicides take place in the home, typically among intimates and people known to the slain. Drawing on data from the National Violent Death Reporting System, this chapter shows that even in the context of extraordinary violence by the homicidal-suicidal, the major early red flags and risk factors involve seemingly ordinary smaller-scale assaults and domestic disturbances. Firearms laws prevent individuals convicted of crimes of domestic violence or under court-issued restraining orders from possessing firearms. The problem is that many perpetrators never come to the attention of a court. Based on these findings regarding what current legal screens miss, this chapter discusses how police discretion and scene-of the-assault procedure for “ordinary” domestic violence can help prevent escalation to the feared extraordinary violence of homicidal-suicidal mass killings.

Politics, Safety, and Officer-Involved Intimate Partner Violence

The United States relies heavily on law enforcement to protect people subjected to intimate partner violence. The decision to prioritize law enforcement intervention may seem natural, but it is, in fact a political decision, with consequences along three dimensions. First, prioritizing the law enforcement response has precluded the development of other policies to address intimate partner violence. Second, channeling money into law enforcement helped to facilitate the growth of a hypermasculine, militarized environment where violence against women flourishes. Third, the decision to rely on law enforcement ignores research establishing that police officers are more likely than other groups to commit intimate partner violence. These political decisions have profound consequences for all people subjected to abuse, particularly the partners of police officers.

A Fraught Pairing

This chapter examines the tensions inherent in the U visa, a form of immigration relief that provides survivors of intimate partner violence a path to lawful status. Receipt of the U visa is contingent upon compulsory and continuing cooperation with law enforcement, which does not reflect the reality of the lives of many survivors of domestic violence, especially immigrant victims, who are uniquely unable, fearful or disinclined to engage with the state. As such, the vulnerabilities the U visa was intended to address are exacerbated and benefits to police and prosecutors are achieved at the expense of the victims Congress sought to protect.

Feminist Response to Campus Sexual Assault in the Republican Era

Feminists working to prevent and respond to campus sexual assault should encourage universities to adopt an intersectional public health approach that incorporates Restorative Justice. An intersectional framework responds to the ways that the general campus climate for students of color, LGBTQ students, foreign nationals, immigrants, and low-income students shapes experiences of sexual assault and help-seeking. An intersectional framework also addresses the risk that implicit bias will infect school investigations and hearings. Feminists should also encourage schools to reject “Crime Logic” thinking and the related belief that campus assaulters are irredeemable “predators.” The predator narrative is based in misapplied research and is contradicted by the results of more sophisticated longitudinal studies. Finally, feminists should encourage schools to adopt Restorative Justice (RJ) alternatives. An RJ approach supports victim healing and autonomy, encourages the student who caused harm to take responsibility for repairing the harm, and enables larger changes in campus culture.

Is Domestic Violence Politicized Too Narrowly?

This Chapter argues that the domestic violence movement is narrowly politicized around the internalities of domestic violence in ways that unintentionally restrain law reform efforts to end family violence. While this internalities frame achieved critical successes in bringing domestic violence into the public frame and shaping critical interventions to it, it also collaterally immunized the state from accountability by paradoxically positioning the crisis of domestic violence and accountability for effective interventions squarely on victims and victim support networks. Expanding the politicization of domestic violence to also include the externalities of domestic violence is a critical – albeit uncomfortable – shift to move from intervening in domestic violence on behalf of victims to ending domestic violence.

Parental Love and Purposeful Violence

The parental discipline privilege is a robust exception to the modern rule that punishes all violence, including intrafamilial violence. Every state allows parents to physically punish their children, often going well beyond ‘spanking’ to include hair-pulling, beatings with belts or sticks, even choking. The privilege is the only remaining status exception to criminal assault and battery; other once-permissible violence, such as abuse of wives and apprentices, has long been criminalized. Yet despite its anachronistic nature, parental corporal punishment remains surprisingly understudied. Accordingly, it is an important topic for inclusion in this volume on the Politicization of Safety. Experts unanimously agree that even mild corporal punishment carries significant developmental consequences. It can evolve into serious child abuse, and renders its victims more likely to hit their partners and children as adults, perpetuating the cycle of abuse. Particularly troubling is that corporal punishment plays out in highly gendered, racialized, and heteronormative ways. I argue that the underlying mens rea of the parental discipline privilege exception to assault both perpetuates this violence and warps the criminal law’s standard approach to punishment, which ordinarily matches culpability with control. In contrast, the parental privilege forgives purposeful beatings “intended to benefit a child.” After analyzing the implications of this paradox, this Chapter concludes by advocating the privilege’s abolition.

Playing Politics with Firearms and Family Violence

This chapter frames the discussion of the politics of firearms with an exploration of the gendered nature of domestic violence, firearm fatalities, and the firearms debate, including how women are portrayed and the gender identities of the most prominent voices for “gun rights” and gun control. Given the stark and brutal realities of firearms and family violence, politicians across the ideological spectrum should readily agree that people who violently attack or threaten family members should be subject to practical and measured restrictions on their access to firearms. Unfortunately, safety as related to firearms and family violence has become highly politicized. This chapter identifies measure that states can enact to address the loopholes that allow domestic abusers to acquire firearms even after they have been convicted of felony abuse, often to deadly effect.

Specializing Justice for Youth and Families

‘Specialized justice’ is deeply rooted in a movement toward socializing and humanizing crime and justice in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Structurally and ideologically, this movement influenced courts to maintain their law-upholding purpose while simultaneously operating as a public service to communities in need. Based on this ideological and structural shift, specialized justice via specialty courts is one mechanism through which citizens should be able to access justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, and restorative forms of justice. Given this reality, this chapter serves as an entry point for a critical assessment of alternative and specialized justice initiatives, their historical roots, and the potential collateral consequences of specializing justice for crossover youth and families in particular. This chapter posits some of the benefits, challenges, and potential drawbacks of alternative justice initiatives of this kind, especially in relation to the adversarial and punitive justice model from which they derive.

Introduction

The book, THE POLITICIZATION OF SAFETY, will critically explore political dimensions of interventions in or failures to intervene in domestic violence. The Introduction identifies how domestic violence is commonly assumed to be a bipartisan, nonpolitical issue, yet racial and gender politics, the move toward criminalization, reproductive justice concerns, gun control debates, and other factors and political interests significantly shape responses to domestic violence. The development of the anti-domestic violence movement and has a complex history, and the way forward during the Trump Era will certainly be fraught as protections and services for survivors of gender-based violence are under siege.