Should the Violence Against Women Act be reauthorized?

  • The Violence Against Women Act Should be Reauthorized

    Domestic violence is one of the biggest issues in society today. Under the Violence against woman act, women are protected from these injustices, and that is something they deserve. The law will deter these incidents from happening, making society a safer place in general. Eliminating the law deprives women of the safest environment they could possibly have.

  • Yes, domestic violence should not be tolerated

    I believe that the Violence Against Women Act should be reauthorized because there are entirely too many incidents of domestic violence in the United States than there should be. Protecting and defending women in a society is one of the staples of a truly democratic and just nation, with equal rights and protection afforded to all.

  • Violence Against Women is Unacceptable in Contemporary America

    Violence against women is an unfortunate side effect of America's male-dominated society. Women should be protected, not because they are weaker, but because violence against them is so heinous. Laws should be as tough as possible for domestic violence, rape and sexual assaults against women and girls due the very nature of the crimes. Men don't have to worry about sexual assaults nearly as much. With so many single, and vulnerable, women in the United States, the Violence Against Women Act is a necessary measure to ensure more perpetrators are convicted and thrown behind bars.

  • Rape has nothing to do with gender.

    As someone who was raped by a stranger, I see that rape is now used as a product to promote a feminist agenda as well as other causes such as domestic violence with statements like "X women are killed by an intimate partner." Men are raped too, they just don't report it as often because everyone will just call them weak and if they do fight off a woman they will be arrested for "violence against women" because there is a strong condemnation of men using violence against a woman and men are told not to be violent. Then what are men supposed to do? Oh so a woman can use violence to fight off a man but a man is supposed to prevent the attack against him without violence?

  • No, VAWA is sexist and imbalanced.

    In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner - 35% of victims are male. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003). A lower-bound figure is provided by a recent DOJ study: Men constituted 27 percent of the victims of family violence between 1998 and 2002. By omitting male victims from their efforts, however, domestic violence activists create the impression of a national epidemic that uniquely victimizes women. Instead of VAWA, we need a gender-neutral bill that allocates the appropriate percentage of funds to the appropriate percentage of victims. Currently that majority is still women, but at least a gender-neutral bill would allow room for the treatment and acknowledgment of violence against men, which often goes unreported due to social stigma.

  • No

    and U.S. v. Morrison sums up perfectly why it shouldn't be. A. It's not a a part of the enumerated powers granted to Congress. (Nor does it meet powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause or the 14th Amendment) B. It is not a national issue, but a local issue, and thus the state's responsibility. C. It doesn't prevent violence, no law can prevent, it can only deter. But to create a law that benefits one gender is not only sexist, but intrudes "a truly democratic and just nation, with equal rights and protection afforded to all."

  • Good idea, bad implementation.

    Domestic violence is a terrible thing, and it should be eliminated. However, an overly intrusive law that infringes upon the civil liberties of citizens while providing loopholes for illegal immigrants to stay in the country is of benefit to nobody. There definitely should be legal protection against domestic violence, but not in a form that is unconstitutional.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.