Considering
that the majority of those
victimized by violent crime
are men, why does National
Public Radio turn a
story about the Federal Crime
Victim's Fund into a story
about battered women?
(See
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4661887)
Men are 3.4
times as likely to be murdered
than women according to the
U.S. Dept. of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm).
And although rates for all
types of violent crime have
dropped significantly in the
last decade, men continue
to be 38.4% more likely to
be victims of violent crime
than are women (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/vsxtab.htm).
If NPR must
focus on victims of domestic
abuse, why do they focus exclusively
on female victims when the
U.S. Dept. of Justice reports
that 834,732 men are physically
assaulted by an intimate partner,
constituting 36% of those
so victimized? (http://ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf)
The article
claims, "Money goes to
states to help families make
up for lost wages or pay hospital
bills or funeral expenses."
But based on the organization
featured in the article, it
would appear that funding
is going instead to organizations
that blatantly discriminate
against males, both adult
and child. The featured organization
is the Family Crisis Center's
Prince Georges County "Safe
House", which is listed
on the DC Housing Network's
website (http://www.headinghome.org/table.html)
as accepting only women and
their children, and then only
if the children don't happen
to be boys over 12.
After discriminatory
organizations like that have
received their cut, is there
any money left to cover the
lost wages, hospital bills,
and funeral expenses that
the program was intended to
cover? Are the majority of
crime victims, who happen
to be male, left unserved
while the funding that was
intended to compensate them
is used by organizations that
vilify them? And why does
NPR choose to glorify such
organizations?
Contact National
Public Radio and tell them:
Here's the
contact information:
U.S.
mail:
Weekend Edition
National Public Radio
635 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20001-3753
Ombudsman:
FAX:
202-513-3329
When you
write, be sure to include
your name, address, and daytime
telephone number.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4661887
Bush Plan
to Divert Victim Fund Prompts
Debate
NPR News
Lisa Nurnberger
Weekend Edition - Sunday,
May 22, 2005
Top state
prosecutors are concerned
that the federal fund to help
crime victims is in jeopardy.
They're lobbying against a
White House proposal to divert
the fund's surplus to the
general fund where it would
help offset the budget deficit.
The administration says it's
still committed to helping
victims of crime. But states
worry that the fund for crime
victims would be empty in
two years. From member station
WAMU, Lisa Nurnberger reports:
Congress
created the federal crime
victim's fund in 1984. President
Ronald Reagan had set up a
task force that determined
that the government wasn't
doing enough to help victims.
Maryland Attorney General
Joseph Curran remembers it
this way, "Many times,
the victim was an afterthought.
It was the state versus the
bad guy. The prosecutors were
concerned with getting the
evidence to convict the defendant,
when in fact of course it
really was the victim who
the state was speaking for."
So Congress
created a fund paid for by
the criminals themselves in
the form of fines and forfeitures.
Money goes to states to help
families make up for lost
wages or pay hospital bills
or funeral expenses.
More than
4000 agencies get money for
programs such as rape counseling
centers and domestic violence
shelters. For example, the
non-profit Family Crisis Center
runs a shelter in Prince Georges
County, Maryland. It's called
"A Safe House".
Barbara Harvard is a counselor.
"We have had clients
to come in that have been
stabbed. I can remember a
couple of years ago we had
a female that had been stabbed
seven times. She came from
a hospital. We have had women
to come in that have had black
eyes, bruises. And then we
sometimes have women that
are emotionally abused."
On a recent
evening, more than two dozen
women are staying at the safe
house. The women sit around
the table for a support group
meeting. They're learning
how to recognize, and ultimately
avoid what's called the cycle
of abuse. It begins with tension,
leads to violence, and often
ends in a honeymoon phase.
"That's
when fighting is done. It's
blown up. It's blown over.
He says he's sorry. Bam! You're
having sex. The 'I'm sorry,
I'll never do it again.' Could
be candy, it could be anything.
But it's like the honeymoon
phase. It's usually something
like that. Luring you back."
Programs
such as this one are in danger
according to the attorneys
general in all 50 states.
That's because the president's
proposal would move money
now designated for the crime
victim's fund to the general
treasury. Leaving the $1.2
billion fund empty by 2007.
Then it would be replenished
slowly as criminal fines are
collected. States worry that
they'd be expected to carry
the load in the interim. They
wonder whether they'd have
to provide extra money during
downtime, when collections
from fines and forfeitures
are low. Acting U.S. Assistant
Attorney General Tracey Henke
says she can't answer that
question. "Well, it would
depend on what the president's
budget proposes for the next
fiscal year. You know, that
will have a bearing on what
happens. But understand that
the funding provided by the
Victims of Crime Act under
the Crime Victim's Fund supplement
state programs. It's not 100%
of their funding. It supplements
their funding."
But in Maryland,
the fund provides $7 million
a year. The state kicks in
a fraction of that. The White
House insists that it's firmly
committed to the fund and
will always find the money
from somewhere to pay for
the program.
Henke calls
the Bush program more honest
accounting because essentially
it stops Congress from saying
it's setting aside revenue
for the Crime Victim's Fund
while actually following the
common practice of spending
the money on other things
as it flows into the treasury.
"It makes it a more straightforward
approach to budgeting, quite
honestly. And it in no means
is a reflection or should
be a concern that individuals
have about the committment
of this administration as
to crime victims." But
what the Bush proposal would
do is remove the government's
promise to spend the fund's
surplus at some point on crime
victims.
Congressman
Ted Poe, a Republican from
Texas, calls the Bush plan
bureaucratic nonsense. "Many
of these agencies are working
on a shoestring budget anyway.
Most of them will close because
they need this money to stay
in business. Many of these
other funds go to children's
assessment centers. These
are organizations that help
sexually assaulted children
cope with the crime and prepare
them for trial. Many of them
will close their doors. They
have become dependent on these
funds."
Congressional
appropriators will decide
whether to accept the president's
proposal within the next couple
of months.
For NPR News,
I'm Lisa Nurnberger in Washington.
" Letter
from Jail- John Flaherty-
Transcribed by Bill leisk,
Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:45:50
EST
I'll just take a few moments
of your time:
I've talked to a lot of men
about their cases while in
Jail. Phony restraining order
cases are very common. Holding
these guys--without bail --for
a week or so and then plea
bargaining them out (ie. have
them admit guilt) to avoid
the worry of a trial and a
severe sentence is the procedure
that the State uses to "extort"
guilty admissions. By such
admissions the State is able
to justify further lobbying
and State or Federal funding
for the array of Domestic-Violence
agencies and it's ancillaries.
The Divorce industry by
creating a class of "non
custodials", predominately
out of Fathers unconstitutionally
deprived of their parental
rights, is similarly able
to extort larger fees, GAL
Fees, and "child support"
to fund and grow itself.
Clearly exposing the fundamental
rights (which includes parental
rights) which the Constitution
is suppose to secure for
us, And the manner in which
we are we are unconstitutionally
deprived of these rights,
is absolutlely necessary
to undermine and destroy
the tyranny we live under.
We must make our cases public
with all effort. The suppresion
of public awareness of the
persecution we face is the
single most significant
hurdle we face.
Secondly we must demand
full and equal parental
rights with no child support
-- just an equitable distribution
of assets. It is the transfer
of income that is the engine
of the Divorce industry.
To compromise-- as in smaller
child support-- not only
maintains but validates
the unequal treatment of
non-custodials and it's
attendant persecution.
I wish
you all a Merry Christmas,
Happy Hanukah, and a good
New Year
John Flaherty,
CPF Officer " |