The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 ( VAWA ) is the United States federal law (Title IV, sec 40001-40703 of Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Law, HR 3355) signed as Pub.L. 103-322 by President Bill Clinton on 13 September 1994 (partially codified on 42 U.S.C. sections 13701 to 14040). The law provides $ 1.6 billion for the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, subject to automatic and mandatory restitution to those convicted, and permitted civil redress in case the prosecutor chooses to leave un-prosecuted. The law also establishes the Office of Anti-Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice.
VAWA was designed by Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) office and co-authored by Democrat Louise Slaughter, Representative of New York, with support from a broad coalition of advocacy groups. The law passed Congress with bipartisan support in 1994, cleansing the United States House of Representatives in a voice of 235-195 and the Senate with 61-38 votes, although the following year the House of Representatives sought to cut the bill. In the case of the Supreme Court of 2000 United States v. Morrison , a Court divided sharply over VAWA's provisions allowing women the right to sue their attackers in federal courts. With 5-4 majority, the Court cancels such provision as exceeding the strength of the federal government under the Trade Clause.
VAWA was authorized by a bipartisan majority in Congress in 2000, and again in December 2005, and signed by President George W. Bush. The 2012 Law Renewal was opposed by conservative Republicans, who refused to extend the protection of the Act to same-sex couples and provisions that allowed illegal immigrants to be beaten to claim temporary visas. Finally, VAWA re-re-authorized in 2013, after a long legislative battle throughout 2012-2013.
Video Violence Against Women Act
​​â € <â €
The World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna, Austria, in 1993, and the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women in the same year, concluded that civil society and government have recognized that domestic violence is a policy of public health and human rights. attention. In the United States, according to the 2010 National Intimate Sexual Violence Survey, 1 in 6 women experience some type of sexual violence caused by their intimate partner during their lifetime.
The Violence Against Women Law was developed and enacted as a result of extensive grassroots efforts in the late 1980s and early 1990s, with supporters and professionals from the women's movement being beaten, sexual assault raiders, victim service areas, law enforcement agencies, offices prosecutors, courts, and private bars are urging Congress to adopt significant legislation to address domestic and sexual violence. One of VAWA's greatest successes is its emphasis on coordinated community responses to domestic violence, violence in sexual dating, sexual violence, and stalking; courts, law enforcement, prosecutors, victim services, and private bar are currently working together in an unprecedented coordinated effort at the state and local level. VAWA also supports the work of community-based organizations engaged in work to end domestic violence, violence in courtship, sexual assault, and stalking; especially groups that provide special services culturally and linguistically. In addition, VAWA provides special support for working with tribal and tribal organizations to end domestic violence, violence in courtship, sexual assault, and stalking of Native American women.
Many grant programs endorsed in VAWA have been funded by the US Congress. The following grant programs, which are managed mainly through the Office of Anti-Violence Against Women in the US Department of Justice have received allocations from Congress:
- STOP Grants (Grant Formula Negara)
- Transitional Housing Grant
- Grants to Encourage Arrest and Enforce Protection Orders
- Improved Court and Grant Training
- Research on Violence Against Native American Women
- National List of Sexual Sex Offenders
- Stalker Reduction Database
- Federal Victim Assistant
- Sexual Assault Service Program
- Services for Rural Victims
- Civil Law Assistance for Victims
- Elder Abuse Program
- Protection and Services for Disabled Victims
- Eradicate Abuse in Public Housing
- National Resource Center on Workplace Responses
- Violence on Grant Campus Campus
- Safe Havens Project
- Involve Men and Youth in Prevention
Maps Violence Against Women Act
Debate and legal position
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) initially expressed concern about the Act, said that the increasing penalty is a rash, that increasing pretrial detention is "repugnant" to the US Constitution, that mandatory HIV testing is for those who are charged but not punished. is a violation of citizens' right to privacy, and that the decree of full automatic refund restitution is unwise (see their paper: "Analysis of Civil Liberties Majority in the Report of the Crime Bill Conference as Rejected by the House and Senate", dated 29 September 1994). The ACLU, however, supports the re-authorization of VAWA provided that "unconstitutional DNA provisions" are removed.
ACLU, in its Letter on 27 July 2005 to the Senate Honorary Committee on Violence Against Women Act of 2005, S. 1197 'states that "VAWA is one of the most effective parts of legislation that is applied to end domestic violence, violence in courtship, assault sexual, and stalking. It has dramatically improved the law enforcement response to violence against women and has provided the essential services necessary to support women in their struggle to cope with the cruel situation ".
Some activists oppose the bill. Janice Shaw Course, a senior fellow at Concerned Women for the Beverly LaHaye Institute of America called the Act a "boondoggle" that "ultimately creates a climate of suspicion in which everyone is feared or viewed as violence and all women are seen as victims." He described the Act as creating "a climate of false accusations, rushing to assess and hidden agendas" and criticizing it for failing to address the factors identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as leading to violence, abusive behavior. Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly denounces VAWA as a tool to "fill feminist coffers" and argues that the Act promotes "divorce, marital decline and male hatred".
In 2000, the United States Supreme Court held part of the unconstitutional VAWA in the United States v. Morrison on the basis of federalism. In the ruling, only civil rights compensation for the hit VAWA. Provisions that provide program funding are not affected.
In 2005, the re-authorization of VAWA (as HR3402) defines what the population benefits from the term "Underprivileged Residents" described as "underserved populations due to geographical location, underserved racial and ethnic populations, underserved populations due to special needs ( such as language barriers, defects, alienage status, or age) and other populations determined not to be served by the Prosecutor General or by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as appropriate ". Reauthorization also "Changes Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968" to "prohibit officials who require sex-crime victims to submit to polygraph examination as a condition to continue the investigation or prosecution of sexual offenses."
In 2011, the law ended. In 2012 the law is for re-authorization in Congress. Different versions of the law have been passed along party lines in the Senate and House, with House-sponsored House versions supporting reduced services for illegal immigrants and LGBT individuals. Another area of ​​contention is the provision of a law that gives the Native American authorities jurisdiction over sex crimes involving non-Native Americans in tribal lands. This provision is deemed to have constitutional implications, since non-tribal people are under the jurisdiction of the federal government of the United States and are granted the protection of the US Constitution, a protection not often owned by tribal courts. Both bills are awaiting reconciliation, and the final bill does not reach the President's table before the end of the year, temporarily closing the scope of the Act after 18 years, when the 112th Congress was postponed.
The 2012 Legislation update is opposed by conservative Republicans, who refuse to extend the protection of the Act to same-sex couples and provisions that allow undocumented persons documented to claim temporary visas, also known as U visas. Restricted visa U for 10,000 applicants each year while the number of applicants far exceeds 10,000 for each fiscal year. To be considered for U visas, one of the requirements for illegal immigrant women is that they need to work together in the detention of perpetrators of violence. Studies show that 30 to 50% of immigrant women suffer physical violence and 62% experience physical or psychological violence, in contrast to only 21% of residents in the United States.
In April 2012, the Senate voted to re-legislate the Anti-Violence Against Women Act, and the House of Representatives later ratified its own move (eliminating the provisions of the Senate bill that would protect gays, Native Americans living on reservation, and illegal immigrants who were victims of violence in the household). The second reconciliation of the bill was hindered by procedural action, leaving the re-authorization in question. The 2012 Senate re-quota of VAWA was not raised for voting in the House.
In 2013, the issue of jurisdiction over violations in the Indian state continues to be a question of whether the defendants who are not members of the tribe will be treated fairly by tribal courts or given constitutional guarantees.
On February 12, 2013, the Senate passed an extension of the Violence Against Women Act with a vote of 78-22. The move goes to the House of Representatives where the jurisdiction of tribal courts and the inclusion of same-sex couples is expected to be a problem. The possibility of an advanced solution permits the removal or appeal to the federal court by a non-tribal defendant. The Senate has established a Trafficking Victim Protection Act which is another bone of contention because of a clause that requires the provision of reproductive health services for victims of the sex trade.
On 28 February 2013, in 286-138 votes, the House of Representatives endorsed all-inclusive versions of the Senate bill. The former House of Representatives had hoped to pass their own version of the measure - which substantially weakened the protection of the bill for certain categories. The stripped version, which only allows limited protection for LGBT and Native Americans, is denied 257 to 166. This updated act extends federal protection to gay, lesbian and transgender, Native Americans and immigrants.
On March 7, 2013, President Barack Obama signed the Violence Against Women Violence Act of 2013.
Catholic Bishops Conference
The Conference of the Catholic Bishops of the US opposes sections of the action aimed at the categories of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity", calling unnecessary parts to achieve equal protection for all.
After the
section138 The Republicans voted against the legislative version of the law. However, some, including Steve King (R-Iowa), Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), Tim Walberg (R-Michigan), Vicky Hartzler (R-Missouri), Keith Rothfus (R-Pennsylvania), and Tim Murphy (R ) -Philennalam), claimed to have voted in favor of the action. Some people call these claims dishonestly because the group simply voted for supporting an alternative version of the bill that does not contain provisions intended to protect gay, lesbian and transgender individuals, Native Americans and illegal immigrants.
On September 12, 2013, at an event marking the 19th anniversary of the bill, Vice President Joe Biden criticized the Republic for slowing the passage of reorganization of acts as "people like this Neanderthal".
Programs and services
The Anti-Violence Against Women Act provides programs and services, including:
- The federal rape shield law.
- Community violence prevention program
- Protection for victims who were expelled from their homes due to incidents related to domestic violence or staking
- Funding for victim assistance services, such as rape crisis centers and hotlines
- Program to meet the needs of immigrant women and women of various races or ethnicities
- Programs and services for disabled victims
- Legal assistance for victims of domestic violence
Order of detention
When a woman - Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence generally refers to female applicants as most women - are beneficiaries of a protection order, per VAWA can generally be implemented nationally under full faith and credit conditions. Although an order may be granted only under certain circumstances, full conviction and credit require that it be enacted in other countries as if the order were granted in their country.18 U.S.C.Ã, Ã,§ 2265
People covered under VAWA immigration provisions
VAWA allows the possibility that certain individuals who may not qualify for immigration benefits may apply for permanent residence in the US on the basis of close ties with US citizens or permanent residents who have abused it. The following persons are entitled to benefit from VAWA immigration rules:
- Wife or husband who has been abused by a US citizen or permanent resident (Green Cardholder). The petition will also cover the children of the applicant under 21 years of age.
- A child who is abused by a US citizen or a permanent resident parent. Petitions may be filed by a child who is abused or by his parents on behalf of a child.
- Parents who have been abused by US citizens who are at least 21 years of age.
Coverage of male victims
Although the title of the Act and its section title refer to victims of domestic violence as women, operative texts are gender-neutral, providing coverage for male victims as well. Individual organizations have not been successful in using VAWA to provide the same coverage for men. The law has been amended twice in an attempt to address this situation. The 2005 Reauthorization adds a non-exclusivity provision that explains that titles should not be interpreted to prohibit male victims from receiving services under the Act. 2013 Reauthorization adds a non-discriminatory provision that prohibits organizations that receive funds under the Ordinance from discrimination on the basis of sex, even though laws allow exclusion for "sex segregation or sex-specific programming" when deemed "necessary for important operations of a program. "Jan Brown, Founder and Executive Director of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women argues that the Act may not be sufficient to ensure equal access to services.
Related developments
The official federal government group that has been developed, founded by President Barack Obama, in relation to the Anti Violence Against Women Act includes the White House Council for Women and Girls and the White House Group to Protect Students from Sexual Assaults. The main objective of both groups is to help improve and/or protect the welfare and safety of women and girls in the United States.
See also
- International Violence Against Women Acting
- Outline of domestic violence
- Violence against men
- Female dwelling src: static.wixstatic.com
References
src: i.ytimg.com
External links
- Violence Against Women Acting (VAWA) Providing Protection for Immigrant Women and Victims of Crime
- Violence Against Women and the Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005
- Office on Violence Against Women
- Privacy of Violence Against Women Acting
- The World Health Organization's Multi-State Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence against Women 2005
- Fact Sheet VAWA 2005
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments