Legal Advocacy Efforts to Affect Intimate Partner Violence Essay ⋆ Criminal Justice Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

Although intimate partner violence was once considered a private issue, in recent decades advocacy groups shifted the issue out of the home and into the public arena. As public awareness grew, so did the perception of domestic violence as an unacceptable problem requiring societal reform for resolution. Partnerships between governments and organizations substantially increased the resources for battered women. However, the governmental–nongovernmental partnerships also resulted in unforeseen consequences. This essay discusses the historical perspective of domestic violence advocacy efforts, the benefits and drawbacks of both the criminal justice system and the civil justice system in addressing intimate partner violence, and federal funding for domestic violence advocacy efforts.

Historical Perspective

For much of history, the United States has refrained from interfering in domestic violence situations. During the colonial period, intimate partner violence was justified by the belief that women were property for men to discipline and control. In the late 19th century, states were no longer explicitly condoning violence. In fact, the first state laws specifically making wife beating illegal were passed in 1871, though proliferation of laws to all states and enforcement of those laws lagged very far behind. The courts instead adopted the philosophy that domestic violence was a private issue to be dealt with in the household, and the court’s inactivity allowed husbands to continue beating their wives with little to no retribution.

The feminist movement gave women the opportunity to share their experiences freely. Through these interactions, it became clear that domestic violence was far more pervasive than initially believed, that resources for battered women were severely inadequate, and that the American public was largely unaware of the issue.

By sharing their collective stories, women began viewing partner violence as more than just a personal issue and as both social and political issues as well. The philosophy emerged that domestic violence was in large part a consequence of society’s systematic subordination of women. Lack of economic and social opportunities made women vulnerable to abuse. Advocates tied domestic violence prevention directly to the eradication of women’s subordination and the increase of women’s social and economic empowerment.

Now that domestic violence was no longer dismissed as a private matter but instead commanded attention as an issue requiring significant societal reform, advocates created an action plan focusing on three urgent tasks: securing resources and shelters for battered women, raising public awareness of the issue, and creating legal protections for protecting women’s safety. As a result, the next few decades brought about an explosion of resources and awareness surrounding domestic violence.

A systematic response to eradicating domestic violence did not emerge until the late 1960s and early 1970s. The first battered women’s shelter opened in St. Paul, Minnesota, in 1973. Service organizations dedicated to aiding battered women were characterized by a desire to empower staff members. Organizations tended to emphasize egalitarian and participatory organizational models, encouraging equal involvement in decision-making processes and equal salary distribution. Today, more than 2,000 shelters providing services to battered women are in operation across the United States.

The Criminal Justice System

The pervasive scope of domestic violence prevented grassroots organizations from eradicating domestic violence without the aid of the state. By pushing domestic violence into the public domain and demanding that it be treated as other violent crimes, advocates called upon the justice system to address the issue as part of the criminal system. In redefining domestic violence from a private matter to an offense against the state, the public began to take the issue more seriously, but other problems arose.

The criminal justice approach has had drawbacks. Domestic violence is a pattern of behavior that takes place within an intimate relationship. The pattern often includes repeated physical violence, intimidation, threats, economic abuse, emotional abuse, controlling behavior, irrational jealousy, stalking, harassment at work or at school, and threats to harm the victims’ children, family members, friends, or pets. The American criminal justice system, on the other hand, is designed to address single incidents of criminal behavior. In fact, principles of criminal justice demand that such incidents be considered in a vacuum, independent of past behavior of the defendant and independent of the prior relationship between the defendant and victim. Such a system makes responding to the pattern of behavior typical of domestic violence difficult. Moreover, the criminal justice approach often leads to victim blaming. A system that thinks in terms of a single criminal act has difficulty comprehending a victim who does not immediately remove her or himself from a situation where she or he is likely to be victimized again. A system that is designed to deal with street violence among strangers is not adequately structured to respond to violence in families and intimate relationships.

The criminal justice approach has also resulted in dual arrests—police arresting both parties when called on a domestic dispute. The concept of dual arrest was fueled by an unwillingness of police officers to view domestic violence as a crime as well as poor legal definitions of domestic violence. Once the criminal and civil laws on domestic violence were created, years of struggle began to try to force the system to work, including mandatory arrest laws, mandatory police and judicial training, and definitions and redefinitions of primary or predominant aggressor.

The Civil Justice System

One major drawback of the criminal justice system is the disempowering effect that it can have on survivors of domestic violence. In the criminal system, the parties to the case are the government and the defendant. The victim of the crime is relegated to the role of witness. The decisions to arrest, charge, prosecute, dismiss, divert, or punish the case (and the batterer) are all within the purview of state actors. Although the victim may be consulted about her or his preferences, the choice is ultimately out of the hands of the victim. Combined with the historical resistance of the police and courts to treat domestic violence as a serious crime, the state’s sole control often meant that the state response was negligible or nonexistent.

To empower the survivor of domestic violence and provide her or him with control over the justice process, civil remedies were created. The civil protective order provided an opportunity for a survivor to file a case and retain control over much of the advancement of the case. The civil system moves at a faster pace than the criminal system, thus allowing a more immediate response. It allows a survivor to speak to a judge, tell the story, and have a judge determine whether the violence occurred. It also provides the remedy of a written court order issued by a judge that restricts the ability of the abuser to continue the abuse. The issuance of the order may in itself be empowering for the survivor. However, it serves the additional purpose of encouraging police, prosecutors, and judges to take the case more seriously if violence recurs. It also puts the survivor in a position to bring a contempt case against the abuser if the order is violated, regardless of whether the police or prosecutors file charges.

The process by which civil protective orders came to be the remedy they are today was a gradual process of statutory and systemic changes advocated by nongovernmental organizations. This advocacy expanded the remedies available in protective orders to include a range of essential provisions critical to reducing opportunities for continued violence, including child custody provisions and ordering an abuser to move out of a joint home. Systems were put in place to ensure immediate access to a judge on a pro se basis to obtain emergency protection orders in place until a hearing could be scheduled. Increasingly, nongovernmental organizations train court-based lay advocates who assist victims in explaining rights and options to survivors and help guide them through the process. Advocacy has also ensured that filing for a protective order is free and that judges often receive training on domestic violence.

Federal Funding

Despite the good intentions of grassroots advocates, financial limits to their reach seemed insurmountable. The government, however, could provide a financial investment in addressing domestic violence. The first major step toward government involvement occurred in 1984 with the passage of the federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act. This legislation earmarked federal funding for domestic violence programs and served as a precursor to the farther-reaching Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA). VAWA was reauthorized and expanded in 2000 and reauthorized and expanded once again in 2005, reflecting the evolution of the movement from a grassroots feminist campaign to a mainstream political movement. Today, funding of domestic violence services and systems commonly comes from local and state governments, as well as the federal government. Moreover, the support of the government has encouraged corporate support of services as well.

Although governmental involvement allowed for an increase in funding and resources, some believe it also diluted the feminist orientation originally associated with the movement, which centered primarily on empowering individuals and ensuring equality of power within organizations. To accommodate the growth of domestic violence programs, domestic violence resource centers faced growing pressure to develop more hierarchical organizational structures. Changes in hiring standards brought more social workers and lawyers into the fold, rather than the grassroots, community organizers who had traditionally been chosen. This change in hiring led to a growth in psychotherapy, legal services, and employment counseling, while political activism moved toward the periphery.

Bibliography:

Fulcher, J. (2002). Domestic violence and the rights of women in Japan and the United States. Human Rights, 29(3), 16–17.
Goodman, L., & Epstein, D. (2007). New strategies for empowering battered women: A survivor-centered approach to the advocacy, mental health and justice systems. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.

This example Legal Advocacy Efforts to Affect Intimate Partner Violence Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.