Tag Archives: Fake Charge

Why the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) should be rewritten

Phyllis Schlafly explains. (H/T Ruth Blog)

Excerpt:

Ignoring the mountain of evidence that women initiate physical violence nearly as often as men, VAWA has more than 60 passages in its lengthy text that exclude men from its benefits. For starters, the law’s title should be changed to Partner Violence Reduction Act, and the words “and men” should be added to those 60 sections.

The law should be rewritten to deal with the tremendous problem of false accusations so that its priority can be to help real victims. A Centers for Disease Control survey found that half of all partner violence was mutual, and 282 scholarly studies reported that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men.

Currently used definitions of domestic violence that are unacceptably trivial include calling your partner a naughty word, raising your voice, causing “annoyance” or “emotional distress,” or just not doing what your partner wants. The law’s revision should use an accurate definition of domestic violence that includes violence, such as: “any act or threatened act of violence, including any forceful detention of an individual, which results or threatens to result in physical injury.”

Women who make domestic violence accusations are not required to produce evidence and are never prosecuted for perjury if they lie. Accused men are not accorded fundamental protections of due process, not considered innocent until proven guilty, and in many cases, are not afforded the right to confront their accusers.

Legal assistance is customarily provided to women but not to men. Men ought to be entitled to equal protection of the law because many charges are felonies and could result in prison and loss of money, job, and reputation.

Feminist recipients of VAWA handouts lobby legislators, judges and prosecutors on the taxpayers’ dime (which is contrary toSection 1913 of Title 18, U.S. Code), and the results are generally harmful to all concerned. This lobbying has resulted in laws calling for mandatory arrest (i.e., the police must arrest someone; guess who), of the predominant aggressor (i.e., ignore the facts and assume the man is the aggressor), and no-drop prosecution (i.e., prosecute the man even if the woman has withdrawn her accusation or refuses to testify).

I think this is something that most people never even think about. But we could agree that violence against women is terrible, but still not endorse the feminist-inspired VAWA law as the solution to the problem.

Is lenience towards women increasing domestic violence against men?

First of all, let’s see what’s happening with domestic violence rates.

Excerpt:

Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09.

Similar or slightly larger numbers of men were subjected to severe force in an incident with their partner, according to the same documents. The figure stood at 48.6% in 2006-07, 48.3% the next year and 37.5% in 2008-09, Home Office statistics show.

The 2008-09 bulletin states: “More than one in four women (28%) and around one in six men (16%) had experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16. These figures are equivalent to an estimated 4.5 million female victims of domestic abuse and 2.6 million male victims.”

In addition, “6% of women and 4% of men reported having experienced domestic abuse in the past year, equivalent to an estimated one million female victims of domestic abuse and 600,000 male victims”.

Here’s a typical case: (from the same article)

Ian McNicholl, 47, has painful memories to remind him of the terror he endured when he found himself a male victim of domestic violence.

His then fiancee, Michelle Williamson, punched him in the face several times, stubbed out cigarettes on his body, lashed him with a vacuum cleaner tube, hit him with a metal bar and a hammer and even poured boiling water on to his lap. That at 6ft he was almost a foot taller than her made no difference. He still has burn marks on his left shoulder from when she used steam from an iron on him. Williamson, 35, is now serving a seven-year jail sentence for causing both actual and grievous bodily harm.

During the trial last year McNicholl told the court that, during more than a year of attacks and intimidation, he had lost his job, home and self-respect. He had been too scared to go to the police and had considered suicide. She was only arrested after two neighbours saw her punch him.

Sentencing her at Grimsby crown court last year, judge John Reddihough told Williamson: “Over the period of time you were with him you destroyed him mentally and seriously harmed him physically, leaving him with both physical and mental scars.”

Why is this happening? Well, even women who seem to be nice on the surface can turn violent when they placed under stress (like from work or pregnancy or their periods) that they are not prepared for, and when they perceive that there is no cost to becoming violent with a man. This is especially problematic when the man has no leverage in the relationship to negotiate with because of anti-male bias in social programs, police and courts. How is a man supposed to negotiate with someone who holds all the cards? She can just do whatever she wants, and the whole system is rigged against him.

Look at this news story.

Excerpt:

Judges have been told to treat female criminals more leniently than men when deciding sentences.

New guidelines declare that women suffer disadvantages and courts should ‘bear these matters in mind’.

The rules say women criminals often have poor mental health or are poorly educated, have not committed violence and have children to look after.

‘Women’s experiences as victims, witnesses and offenders are in many respects different to those of men,’ according to the Equal Treatment Bench Book.

‘These differences highlight the importance of the need for sentencers to bear these matters in mind when sentencing.’

The controversial advice comes from the Judicial Studies Board, which is responsible for training the judiciary.

[…]The Bench Book tells judges that the problem ‘consists mainly of violence by men against women’. It adds ‘the reality is that some of the most physically violent incidents are committed by men on female partners’.

The document also suggests that aggression against men by women is rare, saying that ‘men and partners in same-sex relationships might also be victims of domestic violence’.

[…]Updated guidance on how to sentence female criminals was distributed in April in a new section on ‘gender equality’.

It told judges: ‘Women remain disadvantaged in many public and private areas of their life; they are under-represented in the judiciary, Parliament and senior positions
across a range of jobs; and there is still a substantial pay gap between men and women.’

On women accused of crime, the guidance quoted Judge Baroness Hale, the only woman among the 11 at the Supreme Court, who describes herself as a ‘soft-line feminist’.

She said: ‘It is now well recognised that a misplaced conception of equality has resulted in some very unequal treatment for women and girls.’

The rules were prepared by a team headed by High Court judge Dame Laura Cox.

She wrote: ‘It is hardly revolutionary that judges should know of the matters central to the lives of those who attend courts and to aim to provide judges with that knowledge.’

And you can can easily see this in the divorce courts of Western nations where men are regularly taken to the cleaners. (Women get custody 90% of the time, 70% of all divorces are initiated by women, with 80% of them for no other reason than insufficient happiness – despite the fact that they made a vow to love that man forever). When you total up the costs of the marital home and property, alimony and child support, it really is prohibitive. The risks are too high!

And in more extreme cases you get things like this case.

Excerpt:

Three Missouri women convicted of murdering their husbands years ago learned today that they will be released from prison on parole because of claims of spousal abuse.

Vicky Williams, 55, and Roberta Carlene Borden, 65, will be released on Oct. 15, according to their lawyers and relatives. Ruby Jamerson, 57, will be released in 2013. All were serving life sentences from cases that date to the 1970s or 1980s.

[…]Borden was convicted in 1978 of conspiring with her lover to shoot her husband, Delbert, as he lounged in a chair in his Springfield, Mo., home. Jamerson was accused of hiring two teen boys in 1988 to stab her husband, Horace, to death in their north St. Louis County home. Williams was convicted of hiring someone to shoot her husband, Gilbert Lee, as he made his rounds as a security guard in a Chesterfield industrial park in 1979.

Lawyers for the three women later claimed that they had suffered years of mental and physical abuse, including vicious beatings. (See the attached link for more details on the cases.)

Many relatives of the slain spouses have disputed the claims of abuse and argued that the women were only conning their way to freedom.

The problem is that these charges of abuse are used regularly in divorce courts to tilt the table against the man – the charges of abuse are used to get custody of the children, but they never go to trial. The warrants for restraining orders are sworn out before the charges of abuse can be investigated, and custody rights are granted. Later on, the charges are dropped. But the damage has already been done – the woman has already been granted sole custody. Similarly, there is not history of abuse in many battered wife cases – the lawyers make them up after the fact to get their clients released. Sometimes, after only a few months in jail for murdering their husbands! And they get custody of their children after a few more months. Or sometimes women just take men to court to have their daughters groundings overturned. And the courts do it.

Men understand these things, and it causes them to stay clear of relationships with women that are regulated by the state. So, you may get a lot of men hooking up with women for sex, but men will not marry women and take the chance of coming under the authority of judges who think that women are always victims and should never be blamed or held accountable – even if they make false rape accusations or kill their husbands (that they freely chose to marry!). Some women believe that violence against men is justified because they have been indoctrinated to perceive themselves as victims. The victim attitude allows them to blame men for invented wrongs even when women themselves are the aggressors. And this is why men don’t commit to marriage anymore. It’s not cowardice. It’s that women have priced themselves out of the commitment market.

Related posts

Ex-member of Parliament calls for shared-parenting legislation in Canada

Good news for men who want to marry in Ontario.

Excerpt:

One man I spoke to, for instance, says his ex-wife falsely accused him of slamming a van door on her leg. And even though that assault charge was later withdrawn by the Crown attorney, the man says the allegations damaged his reputation during proceedings with a family court judge who restricted his access to his kids.

It’s those kinds of situations that the fledgling London Equal Parenting Committee will explore during “an evening of awareness in relation to domestic violence” Thursday at Crouch Library.

The evening’s main speaker is Roger Gallaway, the former Sarnia-Lambton MP who co-chaired a 1998 federal report called For The Sake Of The Children, which examined issues surrounding child custody.

“What I find distressing is the lack of objectivity around this whole subject,” says Gallaway, who represented his riding for the Liberal party from 1993 to 2006. “There has to be some type of balance put into the discussion. And it’s sadly lacking.”

Gallaway regrets that none of the 1998 report’s recommendations — including a call for stricter rules regarding the reporting of abuse — were ever adopted.

“An allegation of violence is a weapon,” he says. “And in Ontario we have a zero-tolerance policy, which generally speaking says that when allegations are made, it’s the male who’s removed (from the residence). And that then casts the die for what will occur in terms of child custody or access.”

Gallaway adds that more and more people are starting to realize that more and more deserving fathers are being shortchanged when it comes to contentious custody battles.

“There’s a growing constituency . . . that sees what’s occurring and knows these men aren’t bad people,” he says. “So the doubt about what is being said about (so-called) violent men is growing.”

What I’ve heard is that Ontario has the most unfair family court system in Canada, so this is welcome news. The more that courts discriminate against men and paint a portrait of men as unreliable and abusive, the less men will marry and stick around to be fathers. Men rise to the occasion in order to gain respect. No man wants to get involved with marriage and parenting when he is not going to be respected and valued by his wife and by society as a whole.

Men’s Rights activist Glenn Sacks comments on the article’s counterpoint against shared-parenting:

As a counterpoint, the article quotes DV advocate Peter Jaffe as saying that false accusations of DV are “rare.”  Actually, in the U.S. studies have shown that as much as 71% of DV restraining orders were either unnecessary or received under false pretenses.  Other studies show that over half involve not even the allegation of physical violence.  In Canada, reports of child maltreatment are deemed to be unsubstantiated or without evidence in 55% of cases according to the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect.  So what Jaffe said looks to be far from the truth.

Shared-parenting is one of the measures that Dr. J said would encourage people to get married and stay married, which benefits the children. Biological fathers are not really a threat to children – it’s the stepfathers and live-in boyfriends who pose a threat to children.

Related posts

MUST-READ: How divorce courts destroy the lives of fathers and children

Consider this story from the Herald Sun in Australia.

Excerpt:

A mother found by the Family Court to be violent, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for the psychological and emotional abuse of her children has been given custody of them.

The father, deemed “principled” and with “much to offer his children”, has been effectively banned from seeing his daughters.

[…]The father… is described by a Family Court judge as no threat to his daughters, a successful parent who is “courteous” and “intelligent”.

The same judge found the mother… abandoned her first daughter at two and spurned the child’s subsequent attempts at reconciliation, had displayed “dreadful”, “cruel” and “malicious” behaviour.

But the judge still ruled that because of time spent apart, the children had become estranged from their father and it was in their interests that “the children spend no time with the father”.

Time spent apart? Why would a loving father willingly spend time apart from his own children?

Bill has not seen his daughters since April and has not spent extended time with them since August 2005.

He says the estrangement was largely a result of false allegations of sexual abuse of the children made against him by his former wife.

The custody ruling in the Family Court last month came after a seven-year battle over access to the girls, now aged nine and 11.

It followed a criminal trial in 2007, when Bill, 55, was cleared of the sexual abuse allegations. The trial judge found them totally false and threw the case out.

The ordeal has cost Bill his home, his job and about $450,000 in lost income and legal costs. He has faced court 70 times to clear his name and try for some form of access to his children.

“It has been a nightmare. All I wanted was to be part of my children’s lives – to try to give them a good start in life,” Bill said.

“But I am denied that because of the malicious way in which my ex-wife has acted and because of the credence the legal system has given her lies and falsehoods.

“The family law system needs wholesale change. There appears to be no testing of evidence in court and it seems that often lies and fabrications are immediately accepted as fact.

“It’s a disgrace and, as far as I know, it doesn’t happen in any other legal sphere.”

Bill’s case follows the case of “Steve” last year, in which the court accepted his good character, but banned him from seeing his daughter for seven years because it was believed the mother would “shut down” emotionally if he were allowed to see her.

In another case last year, a father, “Mick”, was jailed for sending a birthday card to his daughter in breach of a court order and was locked up again for taking a walk in a park – near where, unknown to him, his daughter was playing.

False allegations of sexual abuse are standard operating procedure in divorce courts in order to get custody of the children, and the child support payments that go with the children. The legal stakeholders in the divorce racket have every reason to help to the woman to make these false charges, because the father usually fights for custody, which is what keeps them all employed.

Further study

To find out more about the horrors of feminism and unilateral divorce, consider reading something by Stephen Baskerville and something by Jennifer Roback Morse. This podcast by Jennifer Roback Morse explains some of the threats to traditional marriage – it’s my favorite podcast ever. Women need to do a better job of understanding men, and understanding what has to change to make marriage attractive and appealing to men. That may involve changing laws to make these unfair divorce courts stop doing what they are doing.

One last thing. Most of my readers know that I am chaste, and so I have never been married or divorced. My parents are have been married for 40+ years. None of my immediate family is divorced. And none of my Christian friends are divorced. In fact, I have never experienced a divorce even vicariously by being friends with someone who was going through a divorce. And the point of this is to show you how Christians can become sensitive to an issue just by studying it. And this is what marriage-minded Christians need to do.

Christians need to study to understand the many serious problems that divorce causes for men and children. We should understand how marriage acts as a buffer to state power, thus protecting religious liberty. We should know how feminist policies weaken marriage and parenting. And we should understand how a stable marriage benefits children, and ultimately, society. When Christians inform themselves about these issues, it becomes easier to put ourselves second and act to preserve the marriage. Knowledge binds the will.

UK woman makes EIGHT false rape accusations and gets no jail time

Story from the UK Daily Mail. (H/T Misandry Review)

Excerpt:

A woman who made eight separate false claims of rape or sexual assault has been spared jail.

Gemma Gregory, 28, accused seven different men over a six-year period.

Former boyfriends were subjected to police questioning and DNA testing to clear their names.

Her fantasy stories also wasted huge amounts of police time.

As long ago as 2002, she admitted in a statement to police that she was ‘ seeking attention’ from them. But it was not until last year, after recording several hundred calls either from her or about her, that they took action.

[…]Her latest offence was in May when she rang police to say she had been raped at her home. She stuck to her story in a video interview three days later despite being warned she would be prosecuted if it was another lie.A 34-year-old man was interviewed by police and for the next five months Gregory regularly contacted officers to ask how the case was progressing.

Yesterday, the victim spoke of his ordeal.

‘We were going out for five to six months. I ended the relationship with her, but she got back in touch with me a couple of months later.

‘We met up at a pub and saw each other for about two or three nights after that. I stayed at her flat one of those nights and we had sex just the once.’

He continued: ‘She then left a message on my phone saying come round tonight but I was doing other things.

‘The next thing I knew the police rang me up and asked me to come to see them. I was not arrested but attended the police station voluntarily. It wasn’t very nice to be accused of rape.

[…]Detective Constable Paul Weymouth, of Plymouth CID, said yesterday: ‘We conducted a thorough rape inquiry.

[…]She rang us every two or three days to keep it going and claimed that her exboyfriend had made silent calls.’She wanted him put in prison. She kept this going for a long time.’ He said that some of the earlier ‘suspects’ had been arrested and had intimate samples taken as part of the inquiries.

[…]’It was not thought appropriate to take action at an earlier stage.’

And here’s another story from the UK Daily Mail.

Excerpt:

A young woman cried rape after ‘fulfilling a fantasy’ of having sex with two strangers, a court heard yesterday.

Chloe Dolton, 22, was ‘bored’ with her life and willingly engaged in the threesome after an argument with her boyfriend, it was alleged.

A jury heard she had previously expressed her sexual fantasies in a diary, in which she wrote: ‘I am in crisis. I am so bored of my life and need a miracle.

‘I try to be nice and decent but I always end up one way or another trying to **** someone, a girl or a boy.’

The entry on a computer diary entitled The Life of Chloe Dolton continued: ‘I should be out having fun with every boy I meet, having sex with whoever I like.

‘I am such a hateful girl, such a selfish girl.’

The prosecution said she fulfilled her fantasy at the end of an evening spent drinking alcohol, and later accused the two men of rape because she was ashamed of what she had done.

[…]Dolton denies perverting the course of justice by making the false rape claims.

Miss Martin said of the defendant: ‘She deliberately lied to her boyfriend, her family and friends and to the police.

‘She clearly lied because probably of her shame and regret. She had in fact had consensual sex with two complete strangers.’

So in the first story, the woman made a false accusation to get attention. In the second story, the woman wanted to blame others for her own bad decision. And in the Lehigh University case I wrote about earlier, the woman needed an alibi after she was caught drunk in a public place after a long bout of underage drinking. She wanted the police to view her sympathetically, as a victim, so she lied and said that a police officer had raped her.

How often do women make false accusations of rape?

According to one study, false rape accusations are commonly used by women to provide an alibi for some other crime they are guilty of committing. The study lists this reason as one of the three reasons why women invent false rape accusations.

Excerpt:

A study of rape allegations in Indiana over a nine-year period revealed that over 40% were shown to be false — not merely unproven. According to the author, “These false allegations appear to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention. False rape allegations are not the consequence of a gender-linked aberration, as frequently claimed, but reflect impulsive and desperate efforts to cope with personal and social stress situations.” ( Kanin EJ. Arch Sex Behav. 1994 Feb;23(1):81-92 False rape allegations. )

In 1985, a study of 556 rape allegations found that 27% accusers recanted when faced with a polygraph (which can be ordered in the military), and independent evaluation showed a false accusation rate of 60%. (McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.)

It seems that these fake charges are being leveled all the time, not just in high profile case like the Duke University scandal or the Hofstra University scandal. Something is going on in the minds of young women that is making them invent stories about men with total disregard as to the consequences it causes on those men. And the police and the courts are quite unable to do anything about it because feminism is so entrenched in the justice system.

So why are women doing this? Well, it’s because they are unable to get attention, affection and approval from men without engaging in drunkenness and irresponsible sex. And why have relations between men and women degraded to this point? The answer is that women embraced third-wave feminism, which has as its goal the complete destruction of sex differences in the public square. Feminism is to blame for the decline of chastity, courtship, courtesy, manners, romance, love and especially chivalry.

It was feminism that broke up the traditional family, feminism that removed men from homes. Women need fathers in the home to know how to relate to men so that they don’t go too far, and then feel guilty. But since 77% of young unmarried women voted for Barack Obama, the feminist candidate, we must assume that women are happy with the status quo. Either that or they are incapable or unwilling to investigate what consequences follow from their own decisions.

Related posts

Here is my previous post on how women overwhelming believe that men are constantly drugging them with date-rape drugs, when in fact peer-reviewed medical studies and police reports show that this virtually never occurs.

And more:

My posts on chastity and chivalry: