Does VAWA offer adequate legal protection against Domestic Violence in the US?

Question

Why or why not?

If you could modify it or improve it, what extra elements would you add?

Answer 1

VAWA has good intentions, so it shouldn't be eliminated.  However, I do think it could be refined.  First, it pretty much assumes that the man is the abuser.  While I do know that men abuse more than women-especially going by injury stats- I don't think you can justify letting people get abused or killed or whatever just because they're not the likely victims.  We would NOT put up with that if domestic violence really targeted men more and there was a violence against men act.  It's sexist.

Also, contrary to popular belief, it was NOT legal for men to beat their wives before VAWA, at least in most places (there were a few places which allowed minor restrictions on it, don't ask why).  Men could be, and were, arrested and punished for beating their wives.  The problem was that it wasn't enforced very often, unless the husband killed his wife or maimed her, or if it was seen in public.  That's because it was generally seen as a marital problem people didn't want to get involved in, including most authorities.  Of course, it was hard to cover up a death.  So, a lot of violence could've been prevented if the existing laws had actually been enforced right.

I think that perhaps we could find a happy medium between pre-VAWA laws (which are actually enforced this time) and VAWA laws and in particular, the social programs that go with them.  I also would like to see it become a more gender-neutral law.  Yes, technically it can be used to help men, but it wasn't written for that and it often isn't (another case of bad enforcement).  

VAWA isn't a bad thing, it's just not a great thing either, especially if you're a male victim or a male who's falsely accused.

Answer 2

what do you consider adequate? if a wife was abused verbally, would it be ADEQUATE to put a cop in the house to protect her?  there is no such animal as adequate.

Answer 3

VAWA=sexist.

Answer 4

No, because VAWA is a bias and sexist law that only favor one gender.   Violence toward anyone is bad, not just women.  A large number of domestic violence victims are male, but they are often being ignore and/or received little to no help.   I would try to get rid of that sexist law or make it a lot more gender neutral.

Answer 5

It sure does for women..

If I could change it I would make it inclusive for men.

Having an act which effectively reinforces the hijacking of victim status for 50% of the population is grossly unfair. We already know its unequal by definition but at least if it were truly fair I could swallow it.

Where there's a victim there's a perpetrator and if one gender is out then who is left to be labelled as a violent offender? CHILDREN =D jokes

Women should have protection from violence, but not when men are excluded as a result

Answer 6

I don't know how I'd modify it, but I do believe it affords a lot of protection to women.  However, education of the general population is a very important step that is being ignored, people need to be made aware of how to avoid abuse and what to do if abused or if a loved one is being abused.  

I also think too many men fail to see that this law protects them as well AND that women are murdered by "loved" ones every day while few men face the same fate.

Answer 7

Ummm... maybe we could just make being male illegal? It would cut out a lot of unnecessary paperwork.