It appears that is correct based on what I could find as well.
To people not really paying attention or not really spending much time thinking about it, this may not seem like much of a big deal. The definition on the DOJ website may seem at first blush to be reasonable to some.
Seem.
What criminologists and anyone who has spent any amount of time dealing with victims of domestic violence have come to understand is that patterns can be recognized early on and with intervention, prevented from becoming worse or, in extreme cases, even fatal to the victim. Or lead to things like homicide committed by victims who finally had enough.
As much as I recognize that bringing psychology into criminal definitions is sticky, and as much as I believe that we have to be very careful when criminalizing behavior that doesn't directly injure someone (I should be able to call someone an a*****e even if it upsets him), abuse ABSOLUTELY includes non physical things. Intimidation itself is against the law in a lot cases...and when it's done systematically by a domestic partner to another, it's abusive.
The current definition is actually based on the definition provided by Obama's
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
Quote:
Domestic violence is a complex crime and is often labeled as family violence or intimate partner violence. Under VAWA, domestic violence is generally interpreted as intimate partner violence. Intimate partner violence includes felony or misdemeanor crimes committed by spouses or exspouses, boyfriends or girlfriends, and ex-boyfriends or ex-girlfriends. Crimes may include sexual assault, simple or aggravated assault, and homicide. As defined in statute for the purposes of VAWA grant programs, domestic violence includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction.22
The current DOJ definition (from the link in nooneinparticular's post) is:
Quote:
The term “domestic violence” includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction.
Look familiar? It's more or less a cut and paste direct from the Obama program.
Now...that being said...I am sure that some hard line conservatives will point to this and say that they are only using the exact language set forth by the previous administration.
As much as I wasn't a huge fan of Obama though, this argument fails when you consider that the definition provided in the VAWA that has now supplanted the DOJ definition was
strictly meant to be used in relation to the distribution of certain funds for grants to educate and to study domestic violence, and the actual DOJ definition under Obama was in fact much broader in application to the law itself. That's what the bit "As defined in statute for the purposes of VAWA grant programs" refers to in the VAWA.
I certainly can't and won't defend the change to the current definition. When there is clear causality from one type of abusive behavior that isn't physical leading to actual physical abuse, I don't see the merit in removing that from how we define it.
"911...you're being abused? Okay, but you better have a black eye when we get there or you'll have to call us back when you do."
I also find it unsettling that the DOJ isn't really explaining why they felt the need to change it. No one really knows and no one is really saying anything about why.
Mar 02, 2019 @ 02:11:43
Moderator
