Untitled Document

The following was submitted by Steven S. Richmond, MSW, MA, author of Terms of Enforcement: Making Men Pay for What They’ve Done (Trafford, 2002).You may contact him at: ssr@metrocast.net. The views of the author do not necessarily reflect those of Florida Divorce Online Inc.

Zero Tolerance… Victim Advocacy?

Domestic abuse should never be tolerated. Who would disagree with such a statement? Few people, if any, I hope. Of course, this view is the reason America now embraces widespread zero-tolerance/pro-arrest/ no drop policies as the answer to domestic violence. Reasonable people believe these are good, defensible policies. They represent our desire to protect and provide active support to victims of abuse.

But, while zero-tolerance policies reflect a noble aim, they should never be the stage on which injustice parades as altruism. Could it be that our policies have opened the door to judicial abuse? Could they have made it too easy for false allegations of abuse to succeed in the courts? I believe they have. In my new book, I tell the story of my own encounter with the courts after my wife of thirty years decided to obtain a restraining order during our divorce.

Divorce. It is hard to imagine a more disruptive or more distressing human event. Two people must face the task of putting to an end some of the deepest aspirations for personal happiness they have ever had the courage to acknowledge. Unfulfilled yearnings for attachment and intimacy must be faced and grieved. The desire for social, emotional, and financial security will be stopped in its tracks.

And if there are children? Add to this picture, feelings of guilt and remorse for having failed to provide what parents everywhere strive to provide their children… the security of a home… the stability of a certain relationship… the model of a loving, reliable set of parents.

And if domestic abuse is the reason for divorce? It is doubtful anyone can understand completely the torment of an abused partner… the doubts… the fears… the courage… the uncertainty… the vulnerability… the mind-wracking, heart-breaking, soul-wrenching pain of such a betrayal.

And if a false accusation of abuse is made during the divorce? It is doubtful anyone can understand completely the torment of the falsely accused partner… the doubts… the fears… the courage… the uncertainty… the vulnerability… the mind-wracking, heart-breaking, soul-wrenching pain of such a betrayal.

The personal cost of these events is overwhelming.

In the past thirty years, America has attempted to deal effectively with domestic violence. In the early 1970’s when I first began my career, we called our state’s program, “Services to Battered Women.” It was a start. It was a “patch-something-together” program. The women who operated the program felt inadequate in their efforts to reach the state’s abused women. This was a cause of moral pain. There wasn’t much administrative or financial support for their services.

Thirty years later, much has changed. Across the country, every state now places the highest priority on services to abused women. Each state has come to regard domestic assault as a crime, and not simply a problem of the couple. Every state has instituted abuse prevention statutes calling for the issuance of protective, or restraining, orders as the tool of choice for local courts and police to protect a victim. In 1992, the federal government passed major legislation to provide funding and policy initiatives to combat domestic violence. Now, thousands of agencies and shelters offer help to abused women. Services to battered women don’t look at all they way they looked 30 years ago. Across America, states have run a zero tolerance flag up the flagpole. This has been to signal the country’s seriousness about combating domestic violence. On the surface, these have been important and noble reforms.

But…

Ask someone on the street what he knows about abused men in the United States, and you are likely to get a blank stare in return. Then ask this person if he thinks men who are accused of domestic violence should be offered legal protections, and you are likely to see an appalled expression on this person’s face. He is likely to say, “Why should I care about the rights of men, when we’re talking about domestic violence? After all, women are the victims of domestic violence, right? And, if I care about an accused man, wouldn’t that simply mean that I’m soft on fighting domestic violence?”

This is a common response. Few people realize that each year more than 800,000 men fit the criteria for domestic violence victim. Further, nobody wants to acknowledge publicly that each year almost 500,000 men are falsely accused of domestic abuse. And, because these numbers are not part of the public consciousness, it is little matter to us that women’s shelters don’t provide protection for abused men. Nor is it a concern that there are now, in the United States, only two shelters for battered men. It’s hard to imagine fitting 800,000 men into two little shelters.

Maybe it’s because the experience of abuse is so overwhelming, that we can’t take in a full understanding of the problem all at once. Maybe we should be content that we’ve made the progress we’ve made in the last 30 years. At least now we’re able to lend credibility to the women who report their abuse. Thirty years ago, we used to blame women for their abuse… we used to say they were masochistic… we behaved as if we believed women wanted to be abused.

“At least, we’re not doing that any more,” our man on the street might say. “That should count for something, shouldn’t it?”

“Yes, of course,” I would answer. “But we’ve made these gains at great expense. We’ve said, effectively, that in order to open our eyes to the rights of women, we need to close our eyes to the rights of men. What makes us behave as if social justice were a scarce commodity, and that men and women must be in competition for the little that is available? Why is it that one must win, while the other loses? Who set up this artificial contest?”

At this point, my brief exchange with the man on the street would likely end. He would go his way, and I would go mine. I would find myself reflecting that we’re not at the point yet when we can entertain a solution to the problem of abuse without insisting that for A to prevail, B must be defeated. I would find myself thinking that in America, someone must pay…

The above was submitted by Steven S. Richmond, MSW, MA, author of Terms of Enforcement: Making Men Pay for What They’ve Done (Trafford, 2002).You may contact him at: ssr@metrocast.net. The views of the author do not necessarily reflect those of Florida Divorce Online Inc.

EMAIL YOUR DIVORCE QUESTIONS (FREE)
www.floridadivorce.com