Factual Crime Data Ignored
By Richard Davis (01/17/07)
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. (John Adams - 1735-1826)
On December 28, 2006 the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in the United States announced that the IPV rate had declined between 1993 and 2004. Domestic violence advocates were quick to attribute that decrease to the 1994 Violence against Women Act (VAWA). They claimed VAWA funded training for law enforcement officers and increased prosecution is responsible for that decrease.
There is no data to support that claim. The author of the BJS-IPV report states there is no consensus why IPV victimization has declined. Perhaps because so many advocates want to believe that IPV is caused by sexist, assertive and aggressive males whose goal is to oppress passive and docile females, they have been rendered unable or unwilling to see, understand or acknowledge important empirical data as evidenced by this most recent BJS-IPV report.
What this BJS-IPV report, first and foremost documents, is that the obvious remains oblivious to many advocates, public policy makers and the electronic and print media. The story the media reported was that the IPV rate declined. What the media did not report is that the BJS website documents that the drop in the IPV rate simply mirrors the decades-long decrease of violent crime in general. While VAWA has spent billions primarily to “assist adult heterosexual women,” the nonfatal victimization rates for relatives, friends and acquaintances, and strangers decreased by approximately the same rates without billions from VAWA.
Nonfatal violent victimization rate
Rate per 1,000 females age 12 or older
Intimates Other Relatives Friends/acquaintances Stramgers
1993 9.8 3.3 15.8 15.4
2004 3.8 1.4 5.3 6.3
The BJS-IPV data clearly documents that reported nonfatal crime victimization, in all of the above categories, has dropped at approximate equal rates. The BJS website also documents that two-thirds of homicides and the majority of assaults against females are not perpetrated by a male intimate partner.
What the advocates and the media also did not report is that there has not been a statistically significant change in the homicide victimization of white females during that period and in 1995 the intimate partner homicide rate for all females began to rise again.
VAWA funding, perhaps for fiduciary reasons, may have caused many public and private agencies and many researchers to minimize or ignore where or why the majority of female assaults and homicides are committed.
The Decrease: Part II
BJS data documents that nonfatal victimization, in all of the above categories and homicides, declined before VAWA was passed in 1994. In fact, the National Academy of Sciencesreports that many of the contemporary IPV policies and procedures are not effective and many have been implemented because of ideology and stakeholder interests and not empirical science-based evidence.
This BJS-IPV report documents that abusive men are more “violent” than abusive women. However, this BJS data is clearly not representative of the population in general. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) documents that only ½ of 1% of households report at least one incident of what they believe is an IPV assault.
What the BJS crime data documents is that women report IPV more than men. The IPV report documents that women are more than three (3) times more likely than men to view an IPV incident as criminal behavior. Hence, this report documents the role perception plays concerning the percentage differential between crime reports and general population surveys.
BJS and other National Institute of Justice data documents that female and male fatal and nonfatal victimization, in all of the above categories, rises and falls in conjunction with the offenders and victims socioeconomic educational status, age, neighborhood, history of family abuse, unequal family power relationships, the abuse of drugs and alcohol, jealous rages, criminal history, and psychopathic behavior.
The National Violence Against Women Survey documents that VAWA has had an effect on law enforcement training and prosecution. Law enforcement is more than twice as likely to detain, arrest or take a report if the IPV victim is female rather than male.
Another effect of VAWA is demonstrated by the National Evaluation of the Legal Assistance for Victims Program report. The report is prepared by the Institute for Law and Justice (ILJ)and the National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC). One would expect that the goal of private and public agencies is to provide equal justice and an equal concern for all victims. However, above the acknowledgements section of their report is the following:
This report is dedicated to all the women who had the courage
and opportunity to leave an abusive relationship and seek legal help and
support; and to all the women who are still thinking about it [italics added].
Despite the fact that the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control documents that 5.3 million IPV incidents occur each year for women and 3.2 million for men, the ILJ and NCVC apparently believe it is not necessary to expend money or provide resources for men. Why do so many advocates, public policy makers, private and public agencies continue to believe that male victimization is so rare, they need not care? And why is it that the electronic and print media continue to miss …….… the rest of the story?
(Printer friendly version) Email: Richard Davis
