Russia Votes to Decriminalize Domestic Violence

[JumpyTheFrog]

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21715726-it-fits-traditional-values-lawmakers-say-why-russia-about-decriminalise-wife-beating

 

Disgusting.

[TeenagerMom]

I just can't even.

 

Hitting ANYONE is never ok. Wife, child, husband, relative, stranger......no one. 

[OneStepAtATime]

:ohmy:   :cursing:  :thumbdown:

[Guest]

Whoa

[SparklyUnicorn]

what the...

 

 

[Corraleno]

nm

Edited January 26, 2017 by Susan Wise Bauer
While I sympathize, this is partisan politics.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Damn.  If someone offers me a ride to another planet, I'm taking them up on it.

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

nm 

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by ChocolateReignRemix
Partisan politics.

[gardenmom5]

wow.  it's probably they don't want to deal with it becasue it's too common.  but still . . . this is a bad direction.

[emzhengjiu]

No partisan political discussion please.  See rules.

[Corraleno]

Are FACTS allowed?

 

FACT: The current administration intends to slash funding for domestic violence programs that were implemented as part of the 2003 Violence Against Women Act.

 

FACT: The VAWA has reduced domestic violence by 64%.

 

FACT: One-third of all female homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner.

 

FACT: Many programs, all across the country, that provide emergency shelter and legal assistance to victims of domestic violence will be forced to close.

 

FACT: This will make it much harder for women to leave abusive partners, and increase their risk of serious injury or death.

 

FACT: The Russian and US governments are passing laws and signing orders that strip victims of domestic abuse of the few protection they have, which will make it much more difficult for them to escape abusive relationships, leading to an increase in injuries and even death.

 

I'll refrain from adding any personal opinion regarding the motivations for these acts, so this list of FACTS won't be construed as "political."

[emzhengjiu]

The thread isn't locked.  There were a couple of posts that were political.  Domestic violence is a topic that I hope will  be discussed.

[SparklyUnicorn]

wow.  it's probably they don't want to deal with it becasue it's too common.  but still . . . this is a bad direction.

 

I try to understand the thinking or mindset that believes this is logical or okay or humane.  I just don't understand this thinking.

 

I suppose in some cases you could look a someone who is abusive as being mentally ill, but you still need to protect the victims.  That's not right.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Are FACTS allowed?

 

FACT: The current administration intends to slash funding for domestic violence programs that were implemented as part of the 2003 Violence Against Women Act.

 

FACT: The VAWA has reduced domestic violence by 64%.

 

FACT: One-third of all female homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner.

 

FACT: Many programs, all across the country, that provide emergency shelter and legal assistance to victims of domestic violence will be forced to close.

 

FACT: This will make it much harder for women to leave abusive partners, and increase their risk of serious injury or death.

 

FACT: The Russian and US governments are passing laws and signing orders that strip victims of domestic abuse of the few protection they have, which will make it much more difficult for them to escape abusive relationships, leading to an increase in injuries and even death.

 

I'll refrain from adding any personal opinion regarding the motivations for these acts, so this list of FACTS won't be construed as "political."

Facts don't matter anymore. And ignoring domestic violence is sending us back to the 1800s.

[rose]

Do you suppose that they're doing this to encourage the victims to seek help? Many woman love their abuser and don't want to see the hand of the law come down on them and so they clam up remain silent. I'm not convinced, but maybe, just maybe, this was the motivation. At least we can hope that there was some defensible purpose.

[Guest]

Culturally this goes along with a long standing trend in Russia with alcohol abuse, non-nuclear families, high abortion rates, poverty, etc. It just isn't surprising, but it's so wrong. The abuse is already happening, yes, but justice demands penalty for it. This will just make a bad situation worse.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Do you suppose that they're doing this to encourage the victims to seek help? Many woman love their abuser and don't want to see the hand of the law come down on them and so they clam up remain silent. I'm not convinced, but maybe, just maybe, this was the motivation. At least we can hope that there was some defensible purpose.

Take a close look at who is running Russia and his position on other domestic issues, and I believe you will find your answer.

Hint: no.

Edited January 26, 2017 by ChocolateReignRemix

[LucyStoner]

Do you suppose that they're doing this to encourage the victims to seek help? Many woman love their abuser and don't want to see the hand of the law come down on them and so they clam up remain silent. I'm not convinced, but maybe, just maybe, this was the motivation. At least we can hope that there was some defensible purpose.

Did you read the article?

 

"Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the Duma, says the bill would help build “strong familiesâ€. M

 

And

 

"Russia’s ultra-conservatives are not afraid to speak, either. Elena Mizulina, a senator known for promoting laws against “gay propagandaâ€, has pushed the latest changes, saying that “women are not offended when we see a man beating his wife.â€

 

This is absolutely not about supporting victims in coming forwards.

 

It was openly acknowledged by a proponent that it would return Russia to traditional values of the 19th century. This isn't a modern trend, it's one advocated at least in part by social conservatives who think violence in the family is acceptable.

Edited January 26, 2017 by LucyStoner

[gardenmom5]

I try to understand the thinking or mindset that believes this is logical or okay or humane.  I just don't understand this thinking.

 

I suppose in some cases you could look a someone who is abusive as being mentally ill, but you still need to protect the victims.  That's not right.

 

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at . .

DV is Russia is common - prosecuting it, legally going after, etc . . . get's overwhelming to the legal system where that becomes all they are doing.  there are some major social issues in Russia involving crime, organized crime, drugs, alcoholism, etc.  the society as a whole is dysfunctional.

 

I see this as a sign of giving up, not that they're endorsing dv - but they're giving up trying to deal with it.

 

eta: I am aware of the Russian orthodox church is doing more to take over social stuff.

Edited January 26, 2017 by gardenmom5

[rose]

Did you read the article?

 

"Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the Duma, says the bill would help build “strong familiesâ€. M

 

And

 

"Russia’s ultra-conservatives are not afraid to speak, either. Elena Mizulina, a senator known for promoting laws against “gay propagandaâ€, has pushed the latest changes, saying that “women are not offended when we see a man beating his wife.â€

 

This is absolutely not about supporting victims in coming forwards.

 

It was openly acknowledged by a proponent that it would return Russia to traditional values of the 19th century. This isn't a modern trend, it's one advocated by social conservatives who think violence in the family is acceptable.

:ohmy: I can not believe how terrible that is! Is child abuse legal there too?

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at . .

DV is Russia is common - prosecuting it, legally going after, etc . . . get's overwhelming to the legal system where that becomes all they are doing.  there are some major social issues in Russia involving crime, organized crime, drugs, alcoholism, etc.  the society as a whole is dysfunctional.

 

I see this as a sign of giving up, not that they're endorsing dv - but they're giving up trying to deal with it.

 

well no I really assume they are basically  just @$$ backwards in their thinking

 

Trying REALLY hard to understand why they have remained this way though.

 

Maybe I shouldn't have quoted you.  My response wasn't really meant to exactly debate what you said.

[LucyStoner]

:ohmy: I can not believe how terrible that is! Is child abuse legal there too?

For all practical intents and purposes most child abuse is legal HERE. Without enforcement laws are meaningless.

[TravelingChris]

Reading the article, one of the last comments was interesting to me.  The author recognized that there were many reasons for the bill.  One of them is a result of the prior Communism and the current corrupt police.  People are wary of government interference in their families.    

 

While I don't like it, I am heartened that serious abuse is still a crime  

[Wheres Toto]

Did you read the article?

 

"Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the Duma, says the bill would help build “strong familiesâ€. M

 

And

 

"Russia’s ultra-conservatives are not afraid to speak, either. Elena Mizulina, a senator known for promoting laws against “gay propagandaâ€, has pushed the latest changes, saying that “women are not offended when we see a man beating his wife.â€

 

This is absolutely not about supporting victims in coming forwards.

 

It was openly acknowledged by a proponent that it would return Russia to traditional values of the 19th century. This isn't a modern trend, it's one advocated at least in part by social conservatives who think violence in the family is acceptable.

 

Sounds like it's part of the idea that the strongest, ideal family is the two parent household with children.  Doesn't matter what else is happening in that household, as long as it has two parents of opposite genders it is the ideal, strong family.

 

Where have I heard that before?

[Lanny]

I saw that on TV last week. I cannot believe that. Not humane. Horrible...

[gardenmom5]

well no I really assume they are basically  just @$$ backwards in their thinking

 

Trying REALLY hard to understand why they have remained this way though.

 

Maybe I shouldn't have quoted you.  My response wasn't really meant to exactly debate what you said.

 

I remember watching a special on the last tzars . . . one who wanted to modernize things, more like western europe - he started with the aristocracy's clothes.  they were used to wearing long  furs, etc.  he literally ripped the bottoms of their draping furs to make them shorter and more . . .western.

part is their climate, part how spread out everything is, the backwards tech  . . part, the russian orthodox church wanting their power back.

one contributing fact to the fall of communism was the mafia bosses who wanted to flaunt their wealth.

[LucyStoner]

Reading the article, one of the last comments was interesting to me. The author recognized that there were many reasons for the bill. One of them is a result of the prior Communism and the current corrupt police. People are wary of government interference in their families.

 

While I don't like it, I am heartened that serious abuse is still a crime

From what I have read though it sounds like in many instances victims are responsible for prosecuting the crime, including collecting evidence.

[JoJosMom]

While I am most certainly not a fan of the Russian "justice" system, the title of this thread is seriously misleading.  Domestic violence was not decriminalized; rather, a first offense in which no serious injury was inflicted is to be handled as an administrative offense.  Honestly, the justification is fairly similar to that offered in support of "diversion programs" commonly offered in the US (and I'm not saying that I agree, just that there is an argument to be made for attempting to handle low-level first offenses outside of the formal system.) 

 

Oh, and I don't believe that the law has been formally adopted yet, it just passed the first step.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

 

 

Oh, and I don't believe that the law has been formally adopted yet, it just passed the first step.

 

From the article - it passed the second hearing: 385 for, 387 against. It is expected to easily sweep the third hearing, and be signed into law by Putin.

 

I don't think the thread title is misleading in the slightest.

[Artichoke]

Are FACTS allowed?

 

FACT: The current administration intends to slash funding for domestic violence programs that were implemented as part of the 2003 Violence Against Women Act.

 

 

 

I hate to see domestic violence programs being defunded.  They're valuable and serve a need for vulnerable people.  I  read where the budget was cut for  fiscal year 2017 which would have been under the last administration.   Is there more information about further cuts for 2018?   I'm sincerely asking because I believe these programs are needed.  

Edited January 26, 2017 by Artichoke

[LucyStoner]

It's not first offense "no serious injury". It's battery that doesn't clause serious medical injury or battery that does not do lasting harm. These are fairly vague and there are plenty of ways to miniseries severe assaults as not doing "lasting" harm. If one recovers and isn't disabled from it, that could be seen as "not lasting".

 

Also, making something an administrative infraction is the definition of "decriminalize" as it would not carry any criminal penaties but would be a civil infraction subject to a fine. Decriminalization does not mean legalization.

 

The repeat clock starts over each year two. So violence 366 days later...that's a first offense people.

 

What they are doing (and is sure to pass) makes women and children far more vulnerable where they already are exceedingly vulnerable.

 

Before someone accuses The Economist of a misleading headline, they best read the full article and other solid sources. The Economist is a high quality publication, not a generator of journalistic twaddle or click bait.

[LucyStoner]

I hate to see domestic violence programs being defunded. They're valuable and serve a need for vulnerable people. I read where the budget was cut for fiscal year 2017 which would have been under the last administration. Is there more information about further cuts for 2018? I'm sincerely asking because I believe these programs are needed.

Proposing to fully defund (ie: completely close) the Violence Against Women office is new and a product of the current administration copying the budget proposals of the a conservative think tank which has long opposed the office and the VAWA.

 

The renewal of the VAWA, including the funding for the Office of Violence Against Women was a top legislative priority of the prior administration and was hard fought in 2013. The person taking over the agency who oversees the office voted against renewing VAWA at all.

 

VAWA is most of the reason my SIL, neice and nephew didn't end up homeless after kicking out the batterer.

 

ETA- The office had a 413 million dollar budget in 2013 vs. 480 million now. They requested 493 million for 2017. Not getting all of that doesn't mean the prior administration cut their funding. Also 480 million is a heck of a lot better than potentially $0. A budget is a moral document. Eliminating this funding would be a moral failing on our part.

Edited January 26, 2017 by LucyStoner

[Corraleno]

I hate to see domestic violence programs being defunded.  They're valuable and serve a need for vulnerable people.  I  read where the budget was cut for  fiscal year 2017 which would have been under the last administration.   Is there more information about further cuts for 2018?   I'm sincerely asking because I believe these programs are needed.

 

From the San Antonio Express:

 

 

The Trump administration plans to slash federal funding to shelters for battered women and children, according to a Jan. 19 report by The Hill. In a misguided budget-cutting move, the administration is looking to eliminate all 25 grant programs that are managed by the Justice Department’s Office of Violence Against Women.

 

This grant money — established by the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and other legislation — offers help to organizations that provide transitional housing assistance and other services for victims of assault. The Bexar County Family Justice Center, which was created by the district attorney’s office in 2005 to provide legal and social services to domestic-violence victims, owes its very existence to a $1.367 million federal grant from the Office of Violence Against Women.

 

Trump’s strategy is based on a budgetary blueprint released last year by the conservative Heritage Foundation. The blueprint recommends a host of budget cuts designed to reduce federal spending by $10.5 trillion over the next 10 years. The Heritage Foundation justifies its recommended VAWA cuts this way: “VAWA grants should be terminated because these services should be funded and implemented locally.â€

 

It’s a classic shift-the-burden game, but there’s an obvious problem with it. Local governments don’t have enough money to adequately support these programs, and even with the current federal help, battered women’s shelters can’t keep up with the demand for services.

 

In September 2015, a study conducted by the National Network to End Domestic Violence found that in Texas there were 1,539 unmet requests for domestic-violence services in a single day, with 48 percent of those requests for housing. The study found many programs, in Texas and the rest of the country, dealing with a “critical shortage of funds and staff to assist victims.â€

 

Marta Peláez, the president and CEO of Family Violence Prevention Services in San Antonio, said the elimination of VAWA grants would be devastating for local women and children victimized by domestic assault. â€œEvery shelter that has certification to provide services receives some kind of federal money,†she said. “This is an issue that touches one out of every three women in our state. So I don’t think it would be a very intelligent strategy to move against that many families.â€

 

As Peláez points out, domestic violence also impacts many other social problems, with 80 percent of homelessness (and 90 percent of our incarcerated population) in this state being touched by it in some way. â€œWe’re making progress, but it’s very slow, and to go backwards at this time is not acceptable,†said Pat Smothers, a longtime advocate for victims of domestic violence.

 

The elimination of the VAWA grant program would save the federal government only $480 million a year (a little more than one-hundredth of 1 percent of the federal budget), but would put the lives of many battered women and children at risk. It’s callousness disguised as fiscal prudence, and it can’t be allowed to happen.

[redsquirrel]

the Russian establishment  has been trying to move the country closer and closer to a super patriarchal vision, often using christian religious words and ideas to provide cover.  Things like their persecution of and flat out murdering of gay men under the guise of preventing child abuse and stopping anti biblical behaviour are part of that. Making the physical abuse of women and children into a non-legal issue strengthens that vision.  They have made common cause with others around the world who agree with them on this larger vision.

 

 

And yes, VAWA is at dire risk of being totally unfunded.  If that happens, make no mistake about it, women and children in this country will die. It will have repercussions in every city and town where there are domestic violence and sexual assault services. It won't legalize physical abuse, that is something different. But, getting rid of VAWA will defund or cripple the not for profit agencies in every town. There will be no one to provide help to victims in the court system or train police on how to handle these situations.

 

It will be argued that parts of VAWA are specifically for providing assistance to immigrant women and undocumented women so the whole thing should be scrapped, rather than allow a gov't program to help a woman who doesn't have legal citizenship.  However, what that argument ignores is that there is a whole class of men who prey on women who are not citizens or who are immigrants.  I have personally worked with women who came here legally, yes, commonly referred to as 'mail order brides', only to have their American partner take their paperwork, refuse to file the paperwork that would allow them to stay legally etc. Once that happens she is totally at his mercy.  You can only imagine how that goes.

 

There are also immigrant and refugee women who want domestic violence or sexual assault services when they finally come to this country. However, if that means that they are no longer living with her partner, that has caused a change in their paperwork and can cause them to have to leave the country.

 

VAWA allowed for protections for those women. It allows them to get the help they need but not lose their status or in some cases not get put to the end of the line for legal status. They shouldn't be penalized for being an immigrant or trying to immigrate but then needing sexual assault or domestic violence services.

[redsquirrel]

VAWA also provides money for training law enforcement and medical staff on issues of domestic violence and sexual assault.  So, if a town decides that it wants to have several officers trained to specifically handle sexual assault or domestic violence, the money is available to them to spend a few days out of town getting trained. That is a pretty common thing for a town to do and is usually seen as a good thing. Same goes for a hospital and it's medical staff.  They also do the same thing for DA offices offices

 

These aren't rinky dink conferences, btw. They are taught by people in the field, so police officers training other police officers or doctors training other officers, lawyers training other lawyers. There are standards and protocols for these crimes and if the professionals don't know them...or think they kind of know them but not really....then the crimes don't hold up in court and abusers go free.  That is a big waste of money for a community and it makes people less safe

[Artichoke]

 

From the San Antonio Express:

 

 

 

 

Thanks for all of the above information.  I'm definitely adding this to my list of political activities and decisions to watch. 

[Anne in CA]

This is sickening to me. It seems that everything women in our past worked for is disintegrating. If we don't stick together we are sunk. Which is shocking to me that in the modern age we seem to be going backward at such an alarming rate.

 

[Amira]

The distinction between a public crime and a private crime is really important here. It's part of the old Soviet system and lots of FSRs still do this. Basically, a private crime is only prosecutable if the victim reports it and wants to get the police involved. The victim herself carries a lot of the burden of proof. The victim takes on a huge risk by getting the police involved (for a lot of reasons) so few private crimes are prosecuted. Public crimes are supposed to be investigated as soon as they are reported - no matter who reports them.

 

Saying this is about decriminalizing domestic violence isn't really a direct translation of the legal system there because it's based on different principles. Instead, some types of domestic violence are now private (like the article points out) and these are the ramifications of that move.

 

I don't know about Russia specifically, but the way you know what type of crime something is in Kyrgyzstan is based on the length of the possible prison sentence. Longer possible sentences are public, shorter are private. This causes another set of problems because some crimes may warrant shorter sentences, but then they would become private. Or lawmakers are hesitant to put a long-enough sentence on something they think isn't such a big deal to make it a public crime.

[zaichiki]

I just can't even.

 

Hitting ANYONE is never ok. Wife, child, husband, relative, stranger......no one. 

Just FYI according to my Russian dh, it is entrenched in the culture.

 

He was not surprised to see a move like this. Saddened, yes. Surprised, no.

[zaichiki]

the Russian establishment  has been trying to move the country closer and closer to a super patriarchal vision, ...

Making the physical abuse of women and children into a non-legal issue strengthens that vision.  

 

This is what my dh says. Exactly.

[zaichiki]

Sounds like it's part of the idea that the strongest, ideal family is the two parent household with children.  Doesn't matter what else is happening in that household, as long as it has two parents of opposite genders it is the ideal, strong family.

 

Where have I heard that before?

According to dh's interpretation (raised in Russia)...

The strong family is the one with the strong father who is in control of everything and if hitting the women/children is what is necessary for the man to be the one in control... weeeelll... it's been common in the culture for a very long time.

 

Adding: my dh does not share this belief, but was surrounded by it his whole childhood and among current extended family

[zaichiki]

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at . .

DV is Russia is common - prosecuting it, legally going after, etc . . . get's overwhelming to the legal system where that becomes all they are doing.  there are some major social issues in Russia involving crime, organized crime, drugs, alcoholism, etc.  the society as a whole is dysfunctional.

Yes. This.

[Lady Florida.]

Facts don't matter anymore. And ignoring domestic violence is sending us back to the 1800s.

 

Facts are unnecessary when you have alternative facts. 

[redsquirrel]

According to dh's interpretation (raised in Russia)...

The strong family is the one with the strong father who is in control of everything and if hitting the women/children is what is necessary for the man to be the one in control... weeeelll... it's been common in the culture for a very long time.

 

Adding: my dh does not share this belief, but was surrounded by it his whole childhood and among current extended family

 

That is common in every patriarchal culture and religion, it isn't specific to Russia, not by a long shot. Where ever women are seen as possessions, as being the person in a relationship who must obey, who is need of protection, who has a 'sphere' she belongs in....

[MedicMom]

For all practical intents and purposes most child abuse is legal HERE. Without enforcement laws are meaningless.

In all honesty, so is domestic violence. I can hotline(and do) the child abuse I see all day long. Very little is ever done. I go to the same houses day after day after a domestic violence incident. If the victims don't press charges it gets dropped. We have safe houses and all sorts of programs, but you can't make people seek help.

[Anne in CA]

Even when people do seek help here it seems common to give the benefit of the doubt to the abuser in court. Domestic violence is hard to prove, and most abusers are super liars. 

[redsquirrel]

Even when people do seek help here it seems common to give the benefit of the doubt to the abuser in court. Domestic violence is hard to prove, and most abusers are super liars. 

 

That is exactly why a community needs well trained law enforcement, DAs, judiciary and medical staff. It is also important to vote in law makers at the state and local level who understand the problem and want to be a part of the solution.

 

VAWA is part of that.

 

Through my advocacy and working with other area professionals I've worked on teams that helped put lots of abusers in jail.

[sewingmama]

:ohmy: I can not believe how terrible that is! Is child abuse legal there too?

The way they look after their children in orphanages makes you believe it is 😢

[zaichiki]

That is common in every patriarchal culture and religion, it isn't specific to Russia, not by a long shot. Where ever women are seen as possessions, as being the person in a relationship who must obey, who is need of protection, who has a 'sphere' she belongs in....

Yes: it occurs in other cultures.  However, we *are* talking about Russia, specifically, in this thread, so...

[redsquirrel]

Yes: it occurs in other cultures.  However, we *are* talking about Russia, specifically, in this thread, so...

 

Yes, and I think it's important to point out that their ingrained acceptance of abuse of women isn't specifically Russian. It is specifically patriarchal.