Joe Biden

Joe Biden Should Stop Bragging About the Violence Against Women Act

The Democratic nominee championed the law as a way to protect women. Instead, it hurt them.


When city police in Castle Rock, Washington, arrested Joel Darvell in April 2013, he stood accused of choking his wife, smacking his son in the face with a handgun, and firing the gun to the side of them during a drunken domestic rampage. After his arrest, he was charged with first- and second-degree assault with a firearm and fourth-degree assault. Darvell posted bail, meaning he spent that evening free.

His family—a 13-year-old daughter, a 17-year-old son he'd allegedly smacked with a gun, and their mother, the woman Darvell has been accused of drunkenly choking—spent the night in jail.

Their offense? Refusing to testify against the family's husband and father. He went free. His victims paid the price.

Arresting perpetrators of domestic violence against their victims' wishes is another lingering effect of 1990s crime measures. A handful of states started "mandatory arrest" policies earlier, but they really spread across the U.S. after the passage of the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), part of the infamous 1994 crime bill. The man behind this piece of legislation was then-senator and current Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden.

The parent bill, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994—signed into law by President Bill Clinton with enthusiastic backing from both parties in Congress—has since been disavowed by Democrats and Republicans, including both Biden and President Donald Trump. But Biden and the broader Democratic Party are still boasting in 2020 about VAWA. They shouldn't be.

VAWA was the product of activist agendas and political convenience, written and sold on ideas and evidence that were either dubious or outright debunked. Rather than providing concrete aid to those harmed by domestic violence, Biden's law funneled billions to police and prosecutors to enact policies that put women in greater danger—and said victims' wishes didn't matter when they conflicted with what the state thought best.

From Women Helping Women to Women Helping the State

In August, a Democratic National Convention press release declared that America has come far "in its attitudes and efforts to protect women against domestic violence, thanks to then-Senator Joe Biden's leadership on the Violence Against Women Act." The statement asserted that 30 years ago, "domestic violence was treated as a private matter, not a heinous crime," but "Biden believed it was time to do the right thing."

The idea that the U.S. ignored domestic violence until Biden and boomer feminists came along has become a popular one. But it doesn't square with the historical record, which shows not only that feminists have long prioritized stopping domestic abuse, but that there has long been a divide between those who believe that mandating aggressive police intervention helps women, and those who see law enforcement as doing more harm than good. Understanding that divide is necessary for understanding not only how VAWA came to pass, but why it has failed to accomplish its stated goals.

"Assaults and threats of physical violence against intimate partners have been illegal for centuries," noted lawyer Leigh Goodmark in The New York Times last year. "The Massachusetts Bay Colony outlawed wife abuse in 1641; by the late 1800s, a number of states had criminalized violence against a spouse." In the 19th and 20th century, "first wave" feminists were often motivated by concerns about women trapped in abusive marriages. These activists pushed for everything from women's suffrage and property rights to liberalized divorce laws to Prohibition, since it was commonly believed then that drunkenness was the main cause of abuse.

In the '70s, feminists again took up the cause of domestic violence. Initially, their activism was centered on measures like launching emergency shelters and mutual aid networks—solutions that didn't invoke the state. As Aya Gruber, a law professor at the University of Colorado Law School and former public defender, writes in her new book The Feminist War on Crime, "The nascent battered women's movement was radical and antiauthoritarian at its core." But fairly quickly, it "transformed from a radical antiauthoritarian movement into a propolicing, proprosecution lobby."

Some feminists objected to this approach, particularly women of color and others from groups who associated police more with perpetuating violence than providing protection. But their concerns were crowded out by the largely white feminist mainstream, who tended to treat domestic violence as almost solely an expression of patriarchal attitudes and misogyny. While the former argued that addressing things like housing, poverty, unemployment, bigotry, and mental health issues would help curb domestic violence, the mainstream coalesced around the idea that domestic violence happened because abusers were sexist, and the criminal justice system simply wasn't tough enough on them.

This was the backdrop for the development of the mandatory arrest policies and no-drop prosecution policies that would eventually ensnare Joel Darvell's family.

Historically, police didn't make warrantless arrests for misdemeanor crimes that did not occur in their presence. In the '70s, feminists started pushing to change this, with some early success. The first statewide mandatory arrest policy was passed in '77 in Oregon. (Washington, D.C., and 49 states now exempt domestic violence from this rule.)

Mandatory arrest policies say that when cops respond to domestic violence—spousal abuse, intimate partner violence, family violence—they must make an arrest if there's at all probable cause to do so. No-drop policies say prosecutors will take domestic violence cases as far as they can regardless of whether a victim wants their assailant criminally punished.

The idea was that removing victim discretion would benefit battered partners too afraid to cooperate with police, and removing police discretion would stop sexist cops from taking domestic violence lightly. But the story of why police officers didn't always make domestic violence arrests is more complex than this suggests. Some law enforcement officers may well have been the kind of chauvinist do-nothings the feminist narrative invokes. But police testimony repeatedly cited victims' wishes as the top reason for low arrest rates, a situation which left cops feeling frustrated and powerless to help.

Three trends around this time helped cement left- and right-wing support for addressing domestic violence as primarily a criminal justice matter.

First was the crime wave of the '80s and early '90s, and the preference for tough-on-crime policies that followed in politics. Second was a lawsuit against Torrington, Connecticut, brought by a woman who was partially paralized by abuse from her husband after repeated calls to local cops, who did nothing. The suit forced the city to pay out millions of dollars; fearing the same, some authorities saw mandatory arrest laws as a way to stave off legal liability.

Finally, feminist activists like Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin argued that violence against individual women wasn't just violence against individual women but a form of terorrism or hate that men perpetuated based on gender, and that the state not stopping this was a violation of women's civil rights. As Gruber wrote in The Feminist War on Crime, feminist lawyers convinced courts "that battered women had a right to state action. But it was one kind of state action—arrest. Within short order, this right became compulsory, and a battered woman could not waive the 'right' to her husband's arrest."

Further support for these schemes came courtesy of a research project, the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment. In 1981 and 1982, officers in the Minneapolis Police Department made mandatory arrests during some domestic violence calls and not others. In April 1984, researchers Lawrence W. Sherman and Richard A. Berk published a paper in American Sociological Review indicating that mandatory arrests helped decrease repeat domestic violence. Their results were widely publicized in mainstream media and cited by political figures. Police departments started allowing and encouraging domestic violence arrests, sometimes mandating them.

After the Minneapolis experiment, Sherman and his team conducted five similar but larger research projects, finding that—contra the first study—arrests often escalated violence over time, especially in districts with large black populations. Mandatory punishment schemes "make as much sense as fighting fire with gasoline," Sherman and two co-authors wrote in the 1992 book Policing Domestic Violence: Experiments and Dilemmas. At that point, the District of Columbia and 15 states mandated arrest in misdemeanor domestic battery cases.

Perhaps these policies would have just been a quick fad, as more and more research accumulated challenging their wisdom and suggesting they actually put women in more danger. But then came Joe Biden.

Joe Biden, Crime Panic, and Liberals for Mass Incarceration 

The phrase "violence against women" first appears in the congressional record in 1982, when a Republican representative blamed both it and AIDS on pornography. That was the same year the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reported to senators on the federal response to it and two years before President Ronald Reagan's administration put out a major task force report on family violence.

Tales of battered wives, real and fictionalized, filled popular media, while activists encouraged the view that the average case involved extreme violence followed by extreme law enforcement neglect. By the end of the '80s, American lawmakers commonly touted dubious data about domestic violence as fact. "Violence against women will occur at least once in two-thirds of all marriages," claimed Rep. Bob Carr (D–Mich.) in an October 1987 floor speech. "In this country, a woman is beaten every 18 seconds."

It was against this backdrop that Biden introduced his first version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1990. Biden had already latched onto criminal justice as a signature issue in the '80s, pushing harsher sentences, more police, and more prisons as a response to rising crime. This wasn't just a policy response; it was a political strategy designed to respond to Republican attacks positioning Democrats as soft on crime. By 1994, Biden could be found bragging that "the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is now for 60 new death penalties," and "the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is for 125,000 new state prison cells."

Like so much of the era's tough-on-crime rhetoric, Biden's case for VAWA was littered with panicky pronouncements unrooted in fact. "During her lifetime, one in five women will be raped," Biden told Senate colleagues in January 1991, previewing a junk statistic that he would rebrand during his vice presidency as one in four women. "Last year, more women were battered by their spouses than were married," he said (again without citation or evidence), adding that "authorities are more likely to arrest a man for parking tickets than for beating his wife."

Research showing that aggressive arrest and prosecution policies actually increased violence against some women, particularly black women, was well-publicized by this point. Nevertheless, Biden's first two drafts of VAWA encouraged states to adopt both no-drop prosecution and mandatory arrest in domestic violence cases.

The version that eventually passed did not include the words no-drop. But it still encouraged aggressive action by providing state, local, and tribal governments with money to "implement mandatory arrest or proarrest programs," to "strengthen…prosecution strategies," and to ensure "more widespread…prosecution." It also conditioned many of VAWA's grants on government's certifying "that their laws or official policies encourage or mandate arrests of domestic violence offenders" and of people "who violate the terms of a valid and outstanding protection order" and stipulated that priority would be given to entities that "demonstrate a commitment to strong…prosecution of cases."

The Violence Against Women Act was signed by Bill Clinton in September 1994. By 1996, an American Prosecutors Research Institute survey found that large jurisdictions showed "a pronounced willingness of prosecutors to move forward in cases in which victims do not participate as witnesses and to rely on non-traditional methods to ameliorate the litigation dilemmas presented by victim absence." Prosecutors also "reported a high percentage of cases in which the victim would not serve as a witness."

This is how we wind up with cases like the Darvells, through policies that were either built into VAWA or encouraged by its language. After more than 24 hours in jail, Darvell's wife and son each agreed to testify against him and were set free. But his 13-year-old daughter wouldn't give in and remained locked up another night. Finally, after two nights in jail, she appeared in court, shackled at the wrists and ankles. She told the judge she would testify against her dad if she could go home.

After his family got out of jail, Joel Darvell was offered a plea deal. Later that year, the case's lead police officer was awarded for his work at the city's Justice and Hope Conference.

The kids' involvement in this story makes it stand out. But there are myriad stories of women being arrested or jailed for refusing to testify in domestic violence cases against their partners, and surely countless more cases where the threat of this very real possibility has been used to coerce victim testimony. By 2009, "every state ha[d] some form of pro-arrest policy and, as of 2004, at least twenty states and the District of Columbia mandated arrest in cases involving domestic violence," notes Goodmark in her paper Autonomy Feminism.

A critic of mandatory arrest and no-drop prosecution from a feminist perspective, Goodmark—author of the 2018 book Decriminalizing Domestic Violence—suggests that "at their core, these policies reflect a struggle over who will control the woman who has been battered—if the state does not exercise its control over her by compelling her testimony, the batterer will, by preventing her from testifying. Hard no-drop policies express the state's belief that it has a superior right to intervene on behalf of the woman who has been battered in service of both the woman's needs and the state's objectives."

Big Government vs. Domestic Abuse 

VAWA was, at its core, a funding bill, designed to dole out grants to a variety of programs. Specifically, it authorized $1.62 billion in federal funding for related programs over six years. "The majority of these funds will assist police and prosecutors at the state and local levels," Rep. Anna Eshoo (D–Calif.) explained in October '94.

In the original and subsequent extensions, VAWA funding for shelters and non-law enforcement support for victims was miniscule compared to amounts going toward supporting police, prosecutors, and courts, or to general "awareness" raising. "More than 50% of the current VAWA allocation is directed to training and support of police and prosecutors," University of Miami law professor Donna Coke noted in 2014.

The largest portion gets dished out as Stop Violence Against Women grants, which cannot go to nonprofits or religious groups providing services, only to states and territories. Governments who get these grants must agree to use 30 percent for services for victims of abuse, while 55 percent must go to prosecutors, law enforcement, and courts. Another 15 percent is discretionary.

Much of the money continues to go toward training cops and other authorities on how to handle domestic violence cases despite the fact that research has found little evidence that it makes a difference. For instance, a federally funded study of VAWA training, published in 2000, found "training produced no change in attitudes toward [domestic violence], had no effect on an officer's opinion toward mandatory arrest, and that the training did not make it easier for an officer to identify the perpetrator or to determine whether victims wanted to cooperate with officials to end the violence. Additionally, the DV training did not change the length of time the police officers spent at the scene, acceptance of cases for prosecution, or the number of resulting convictions."

The Government Accountability Office and other official watchdogs have repeatedly warned of problems in VAWA grant program overlap, data collection, oversight, expenditures, and effectiveness. The grant programs have also been plagued with waste, fraud, and embezzlement, with a number of recipients criminally charged in recent years.

But perhaps the biggest flaw with the grant programs is that they make it nearly impossible for victims of abuse to get services without the state getting involved. For undocumented immigrants, sex workers, drug users, people worried about Child Protective Services involvement, or anyone with reason to be distrustful of cops or other authorities, this can serve as a serious deterrent to getting help. VAWA was sold as a package of victim support. Yet support funneled through the offices of state attorneys general and an alphabet soup of government agencies is support that many victims cannot or will not access.

Not all of VAWA was counterproductive. For instance, several provisions addressed legal barriers for immigrants stuck in abusive marriages. But the legislation's benefits have been outweighed by policies that have proven destructive—or unconstitutional.

A central part of VAWA was creating a special civil right of action for female victims of violence to sue their assailants in federal court. The rhetoric justifying this was heavily influenced by feminists who asserted that many if not most cases of rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, and other violence against women were hate crimes that men perpetrated against women based on their sex. Congress invoked the Commerce Clause, which gives it jurisdiction to regulate matters of interstate commerce, in explaining why it had the power to pass this law change.

Biden said in a June 1994 Senate floor speech that his "hope" here was "not only will the man go to jail if the woman can prove she was a victim of violence because of her sex, she can take his car, his house, his savings account. She can be empowered not to have to wait for the state to proceed."

The action was rarely used, however, and in 2000, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. If VAWA logic was allowed to stand, Congress could "use the Commerce Clause to completely obliterate the Constitution's distinction between national and local authority," justices wrote in a 5-4 decision.

That wasn't the only part of VAWA that attempted to make domestic violence a federal criminal matter, instead of one best handled by state and local law enforcement and social services. VAWA created three new federal criminal offenses: interstate domestic violence, interstate violation of a protective order, and a federal stalking charge. (A later extension would also add federal cyberstalking.)

Unlike other VAWA policies, these don't seem to have significantly contributed to driving up incarceration. Their flaw falls in the other direction: so little use—and use in cases that would clearly be illegal under state laws already—suggests they were utterly unnecessary.

Data collected by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University shows that since 2000, federal authorities have never convicted more than 18 people in one year on interstate domestic violence charges, with most years seeing under 10 convictions. There were three in 2015, for instance, and four in 2010. For interstate violation of a protective order, none of the past 20 years have seen more than five convictions (a high point that came in 2000). Six years saw just one conviction, and four years saw none at all. Half of the time, two or fewer prosecutions were even opened annually. The most active charge has been stalking, with 18 convictions last year and 14 so far this year. In total, 161 people were convicted on federal stalking charges between January 2000 and August 2020.

Meanwhile, evidence suggesting VAWA actually decreased violence against women is, at best, murky. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate of intimate partner violence dropped from 15.5 victims per 1,000 women and 2.8 victims per 1000 men in 1995 to 5.4 women and 0.5 men per 1,000 in 2015. That's a decrease of about 65 percent for women and 82 percent for men.

However, this occurred during a period where crime in general, including violent crime and sexual assault, had been drastically falling. Between 1993 and 2019, for instance, national crime data show a 64 percent decrease in violent crimes across the board and a 30.4 percent decrease in sexual assaults and rape. By 2019, this had ticked up slightly, but was still down 59 percent for violent crime and 26 percent for sexual assaults.

What's more clear is that mandatory arrest and prosecution policies haven't helped.

One statistic stands out: "Mandatory arrest laws are responsible for an additional 0.8 murders per 100,000 people. This corresponds to a 54 percent increase in intimate partner homicides." That's from a 2008 paper by Radha Iyengar Plumb, now a research director at Google and a health research fellow at Harvard University when she conducted the domestic violence research. In the paper, published in the Journal of Public Economics, Iyengar found that in states with mandatory arrest policies, "homicides of males by their female partners are not significantly affected" but "intimate partner homicides of females increase about 50 percent"—a rise she attributes to mandatory arrest policies.

Even when disaster doesn't strike, the outcomes aren't great. In Milwaukee, doubling the number of domestic violence prosecutions meant "the time to disposition doubled, conviction rates decreased, the level of pre-trial crime increased, and victim satisfaction decreased," according to a 2006 study published in Criminology & Public Policy. Authors Robert C. Davis, Barabara E. Smith, and Bruce Taylor concluded that "the good intentions of policymakers needs to be coupled with a realistic expectation of what can be accomplished by the criminal justice system."

More recent research, published in 2015, found evidence that mandatory arrest laws may depress abuse victims' calls to the police for help in the first place.

That same year, Sherman—the man behind the Minneapolis mandatory arrest study so touted in the '90s—published the results of a followup look at 1,125 cases first studied in 1998. Victim whose partners were arrested and jailed were 64 percent more likely to have died (of any cause) in the intervening years, with the effect size much stronger for black women than white women (98 percent higher versus 9 percent). "The magnitude of the disparity strongly indicates that mandatory arrest laws, however well-intentioned, can create a racially discriminatory impact on victims," wrote Sherman in the March 2015 Journal of Experimental Criminology.

There's also evidence that mandatory arrest policies have led to more victims being arrested. If they respond to the abuse by fighting back physically, or even if their partners just say that they did, police often feel obligated to arrest both parties.

In Washington state—one of the first to enact a mandatory arrest law, in 1984—women were soon arrested in 50 percent of all domestic violence cases in which an arrest was made.

Nationally, the dual arrest rate in domestic violence cases is about 7 percent, though in some states, such as Connecticut, it's still as high as 20 percent. In California, women accounted for 5 percent of all felony domestic violence arrests in 1987—just before the state's mandatory arrest law passed—but, by 2000, this had risen to 18 percent, DOJ-funded researchers found.

"The existence of mandatory arrest laws (but not preferred arrest laws) significantly increased the likelihood of dual arrest," a 2007 report to the DOJ determined. "Dual arrest was significantly more likely to occur in cases involving same sex couples as opposed to heterosexual couples." However, cases in mandatory arrest states were "more likely not to end up in conviction than cases that take place in states with discretionary arrest laws."

Still, lawmakers have walked back their positions on these policies only slightly. For instance, they changed language from requiring grant recipients to mandate arrest to encourage or mandate arrest, and eventually to just encourage. But it's not clear this made much difference. As of 2020, 25 states had mandatory arrest policies, according to Alayna Bridgett writing in Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine.

VAWA's Legacy: Bad Statistics, Bad Policies, and Little Help for Victims 

Biden's role in all of this may indeed reflect a genuine desire to help women. But it also reflects his longtime role as Democrats' for-better-or-worse standard-bearer—the party operator willing to go all-in on whatever centrist ideas have captured the zeitgeist and to give a folksy, do-gooder veneer to all sorts of ultimately ugly policies. In the years since, he has moved seamlessly from mischaracterizing fears about domestic violence to backing counterproductive and ineffective responses to more modern moral panics, like campus sexual assault. And he has continued to display a tendency for elevating faddish interpretations of progressive feminist advocacy that turn out to infantilize women, driving up their arrest rates and placing them in greater danger—all while portraying himself and the state as their saviors.

During his tenure as Barack Obama's vice president, Biden showed no signs of having learned from his days exploiting fears of crime. From his perch in the administration, Biden helped expand a federal war on "sex trafficking" that largely arrested consenting sex workers and their clients. An even bigger focus—for Biden in particular—was on campus sexual assault.

Obama and Biden ostensibly set out to improve the way campuses responded to sex crimes and sex-based harassment by making changes to the enforcement of Title IX, the law governing sex discrimination in education, along with public awareness initiatives.

But the result was to create campus kangaroo courts that ignored the rights of the accused, crackdowns on professors' speech, and policies that encouraged administrators to pursue Title IX violation charges against students even when alleged victims said they didn't want it or that nothing had happened—much like VAWA. Meanwhile, there's no evidence that students were made safer or that campus victims feel they've started being treated more fairly.

In these efforts, dubious statistics continue to prop up dubious policies. As with the war on domestic violence, "the campus rape crisis was based not on changed circumstances but on increased preoccupation with an existing problem," notes Gruber in her book. And like that earlier episode, this one was frequently justified with bad research. In this case, the now-debunked work of psychologist David Lisak, which said most sexual consent violations on campus were committed by serial predators, was used to justify things like dismissing due process and instituting what are essentially no-drop Title IX inquiries.

In one particularly tone-deaf effort, Biden spearheaded the "It's On Us" initiative which told college men it was their duty to protect women who were drinking from sexual advances. "In a surprising twist," writes Gruber, "the feminist mantra that rapists cause rapes morphed into a decidedly less feminist notion that boys must protect girls from drunk or unwise sex."

Today, Biden's continued embrace of VAWA and an enhanced Title IX suggest he's learned very little about either criminal justice or feminism since the '90s.

His 2020 campaign website draws a direct throughline from VAWA to the Title IX initiatives to his future work, promising that, as president, Biden would once again bring renewed focus to enforcing and strengthening Title IX and laws against online harassment, sexual assault, domestic violence, and "dating violence."

"Dating violence" has become the latest frontier for VAWA expansion. Every few years since its original passage, VAWA has been expanded via "reauthorizations" that continue to make the law more powerful and far-reaching. "VAWA's power is that it gets stronger with each reauthorization," Biden tweeted in February 2019.

On the 26th anniversary of VAWA's passing, Democratic leaders again praised the bill and called for its expansion. They're currently seeking to apply VAWA's ban on gun ownership by people found guilty of certain crimes against spouses or domestic partners to those found guilty of offenses against any dating or sexual partner, too. They're also pushing the International Violence Against Women Act, which Biden has embraced.

But it's not just Democrats who are devoted to this law. In September 2020, the U.S. attorney's office said it would be "making the investigation and prosecution of federal domestic violence crimes a priority." VAWA isn't going away in 2021, no matter who becomes president.

VAWA's reauthorization is one of the American Bar Association's (ABA) "legislative priorities," the group wrote in August 2020, endorsing increased efforts to "restrict adjudicated abusers' access to firearms, closing "the 'boyfriend loophole' that allows abusers not married to their victims a functional free pass from surrender provisions," and creating "victim-defined innovations to serve as alternatives to criminal justice penalties."

The ABA's simultaneous focus on fixing flaws in past versions of the law while inserting new ways to expand (and misfire on) federal crime control is a common theme.

In recent years, Democrats have come to disavow much of the 1994 crime bill, and Obama and Biden even dismantled a few of its worst components. But VAWA has been almost wholly exempt from this reconsideration and reform.

It's time for this to change. As the COVID-19 pandemic brings renewed focus to the needs of people in abusive or volatile domestic situations, it's imperative that we don't repeat these same mistakes, forcing victims to bear the consequences of domestic abuse in the name of political gain. Joel Darvell's family didn't deserve to be punished for his actions, but as long as the ideas that drove VAWA remain law, it's victims who will continue to pay the price.

Any reauthorization of VAWA will further bind support for survivors of abuse, rape, and other forms of violence to federal whims, as well as to police, district attorneys, and judges. It's time we chucked this bad law and actually listened to victims about what they want and need.

CORRECTION: This original version of this piece contained a quote about a woman who would not testify against her abuser. The quote, from a Senate floor exchange between Biden and Sen. Arlen Specter, was misattributed to Biden and has been removed.

NEXT: The U.S. Economy Grew by an Astonishing 33% in the Third Quarter. That's Still Not Enough To Reverse COVID-19's Damage.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

179 responses to “Joe Biden Should Stop Bragging About the Violence Against Women Act

  1. Liz got demoted.

    1. There's been a modest change in tone around here. I almost wonder if, between the writing and the socks, somebody didn't diversify their holdings in a bid to profit should a Democrat *or* a Republican win the big chair.

      I mean, the only other alternative is that all these people who've been suffering TDS for four solid years suddenly realized that libertarianism transcends political parties.

      1. Oh, come on! Reason is only saying unflattering things about Biden because it's so close to the election that most people have already voted! Every person on the staff is voting for Biden! Every! Single! Person! If Reason was really critical of the man then these pieces would have been published months ago!

        At least that's the current bitchy moany reaction I get when I make fun of you and the others who claim that Reason is always critical of Trump and never critical of Democrats.

        1. you really are broken

          1. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me,TRg so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink…

            ================► Home Profit System

            1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra Job cash online by follow instruction on the given website.....

              For more detail visit the given link............ Visit Here

              1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. ADF I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do..... Visit Here

                1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. AGH I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do..... Visit Here

          1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra Job cash online by follow instruction on the given website…..

            For more detail visit the given link....Click here

        2. I mean, you aren't wrong that it would have made sense to bring up this sort of thing when Biden became the nominee.

          1. My point is that the conservatards keep moving the goalposts. First Reason hates Trump and is never critical of Biden, but then when they are they didn't do it soon enough so they still hate Trump and aren't critical of Biden. The tears shed by conservatards over this magazine not reporting on what they want when they want could fill a swimming pool.

            1. The tears shed

              Ok. I see now what it's supposed to look like.

              1. Sarcasmic is a big cry baby. He probably has wet brain.

                1. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out qwm problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink…

                  ================►HOME WORK PROFFIT

              2. Hey cuz, I almost bought tickets to your show so I could see Garbage, but it wasn't worth it. So I didn't.

                1. I would have gone for the Garbage set. Shirley.

                  1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do..... Visit Here

            2. Sarc- I mean, you are generally right. But your need to bring this up in every single thread is bordering on the obsession you accuse them of. You are much better when you don't give a shit.

              1. How are unreason staffers going to challenge the commentariat tearing them a new ass every day, if certain "people" dont protect unreason?

                1. You precious little dear, they honestly don't give a fuck. If they ever did, the shitty attitude that sarc points out has long since ended such a thing.

                  And if you think anyone other than the regulars here are even reading these comments, you are deluded. These comment sections are ZeroHedge-levels of toxic. Unlike Sarc, I don't hold that solely on people like you- even I have lost my temper before. But I don't for a second believe that anything being said here is for anyone's benefit except for maybe the 50 or 60 people who regularly visit this site.

                  1. You precious little dear, they honestly don’t give a fuck"

                    They bitch in comments all the time guy.

                    "These comment sections are ZeroHedge-levels of toxic."

                    Get this "man" a fainting couch!

                    1. Yeah, they've had a few tweet cry fests about comments, so we know they read them.

                    2. The more the socks said they "don't give a fuck", you know unreason staff monitors things.

                      I have clearly pissed off most unreason hacks that write the nonsense that they do.

                    3. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my now first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

                      what I do.........Click here

                  2. pretty much

                  3. Pretty good summation, I think. I don't remember the last time a staffer waded into the cesspool that is the comments section (granted, I don't view every post, or even visit the site every day).

                    Still, I like it here. Kind of a Mos Eisley vibe.

                  4. ENB said it...its about clicks.

                    Clicks have gone down. So much so that unreason sent more bots and socks to say ridiculous things and promote more clicks.

                    You can't bullshit a bullshitter. unreason and its sympathy bots are full of shit.

              2. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out qas problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink…

                ===============►Hone Work Profit

            3. But you seem to rear your sarcastic head when someone criticizes a Reason article/writer. So, why do you care so much? Are you on the staff? It does appear that as soon as the election became well in hand for Biden, this magazine began running more anti-Biden stories. Before that, criticisms of Biden policies were here and there. You can easily tell that the tone has changed.

              1. I rear my sarcastic head when Reason actually does criticize Biden or whatever, and the peanut gallery refuses to admit that it happened. "Unreason hates Trump! They're all voting for Biden!" is the common refrain, as if articles like this one don't exist. And when they do exist they're dismissed because they missed a point or weren't soon enough or whatever. I'm just sick of dishonest assholes being dishonest assholes.

                1. "“Unreason hates Trump! They’re all voting for Biden!” is the common refrain,"

                  So common you can quote it repeatedly?

                2. Oh, that's why I consistently see you calling out Tony, White Knight, JFree and other obviously dishonest leftists here. They, like you, pretend to be libertarian. Unlike you liars, I freely admit that I am a conservative. I am here because I like libertarian philosophy and the thoughtful and well reasoned comments of certain commenters. If you stupid leftists would just be honest, I would have some respect for you. Unfortunately, I don't think that it is possible to be a leftist and embrace truth.

        3. Your sarcasm would work if anyone had said that the entire staff was voting Biden. Nobody that I’ve seen has made that claim.

          What they have pointed out (repeatedly) is that there were at least two or three who outright said they are voting for him and about a handful more that said if they were in a swing state they would be as well.

          I don’t care if you think the Trump administration is a dumpster fire with R Kelly pissing on it, there’s not a goddamn thing that’s libertarian about voting for Biden.

        4. Well I for one hope this bit of group therapy really helps sarc on the road to recovery.

        5. Bullshit, they will praise him for what they agree with and tear him down for what they don't agree with. Reason is so much better than rags like Breitbard and the Federalist, and they are -consistent- unlike most other websites. Stop projecting your fantasies on the Reason literati.

    2. ENB had to take time off Roundup for this garbage article?

      Notice 'ol Joe Biden with Janet Reno in the background? Janet Reno literally sent in federal agents to murder kids and women with fire, gas, and tanks.

      1. They're never going to be abused again!

      2. Magazine article probably written two months ago. Duh

    3. Joe Biden killed the #MeToo movement

      Say her name!

      1. So he’s done at least one good thing.

        Fair enough.

    4. That's BS President Trump didn't tell his supporters to Target and Run Bidens bus and those following it off the Road! That's just Plain Ridiculous. He would not endanger his campaign like that or risk being arrested for doing such a thing. The ones who did it were being A-holes on their own. Either way, that was Wrong to Do That......Click For Full Detail.

  2. well come to the online job my classmate friend makes at nine hours works and makes 5000$-7000$ for one month just hit working on the computer for a few hours.why not check here…USA PART TIME JOB.

  3. The Violence Against Bitches Act was the only reason I considered voting for Biden.

  4. Punishment... The one MOST favored tool of Government Almighty! You won't help us punish your "domestic violence" offender(s)? Well, then, CLEARLY we must punish YOU!

    You are a draft-dodger who evades our shooting wars, and you willfully REFUSE to punish un-American nations, with our endless shooting wars? Clearly, we must punish YOU!

    You are a tax (tariff) evader, who evades our trade-wars-taxes, and you willfully REFUSE to pay protectionism-racket taxes, resulting from our endless trade wars? You do NOT want to punish China?
    Clearly, we must punish YOU!

    I could go on... WHEN are we gonna punish these State criminals, with their endless and senseless punishment boners, and punish THEM at the ballot box? Vote libertarian!

    1. aren't you the shit eating racist?

      1. I think you're confusing him with your mom.

        1. so broken

          1. so clever

      2. I dunno about the shit eating (although I have seen the claim before) but I don't think I've seen Sqrlsy say anything obviously racist. But I also try to avoid spending all day here now.

        1. He says things in jest and then the dishonest conservatards cherry pick his words and claim that he meant it.

          1. Which is also what he does.

          2. Why is everything you, him, and chipper say that is dumb claimed to be sarcasm later?

        2. >>I dunno about the shit eating

          I've seen the quotes

          1. Morons who don't have the brains to discuss politics, or the ethics or morality to discuss ethics, literally talk shit instead! What a surprise! (Also they defend Tulpa, the MOST vile troll to be found on these pages! Turds of a feather, flock together!)

            Also, they LIE!

            Liar! Liars are like sand fleas around here… Just covering the place!

            SQRLSY One
            September.15.2019 at 4:21 pm
            Right along with my urges to eat shit and then barf. Fortunately, I strangle these thoughts in their crib. Too bad that no one thought of doing that with Tulpa… But that would be “pre-crime” punishment, which I generally do NOT subscribe to!

            End original quote.

            An attempt at humor. I don’t REALLY have urges to eat poop. And having an URGE to eat poop is NOT the same thing as eating poop, except in the eyes of total liars!
            Ever have an urge to kill some asshole? Then you are a MURDERER, according to your type of lying!

            1. >>Right along with my urges to eat shit

              so you are the shit eating racist

              1. Did you ever graduate the 1st grade?

                1. oh shit you're you're a diddler too

                  1. Does your mommy know that you're interrupting the adult conversations?

                    1. your mom knows my dick interrupted her adult conversation

                    2. Well, my mom has been moldering in her grave for roughly a decade now, but it is no surprise to me, that DiIlinger would get it on with a moldering corpse! DiIlinger hasn't the social skills required to get anywhere near living "heart throbs", so DiIlinger is a necrophiliac!

                      But then again, so is Der TrumpfenFuhrer! He wrote a "mash letter" to Leona, who has been dead for quite some time now! Here it is!

                      Mash Letter from The Donald to Leona Helmsley

                      Roses are red,
                      Violets are blue,
                      Won’t you come here,
                      And join My Crew?
                      Won’t you please join My Quest?
                      The honest taxpayers, to molest?
                      I like to collect babes, as if they were Cocker Spaniels,
                      You’d look quite nice, right next to Stormy Daniels!
                      You’d be quite sexy, in My YUUGE harem,
                      With My BIGLY contributors, I like to share ‘em!
                      “Taxes are for the little people”
                      For a campaign slogan, it sounds GREAT!
                      Won’t you help Me fool the greedy sheeple?
                      To their suffering, you and I, we could masturbate!
                      Brad Parscale, My old campaign pal,
                      Wants to kill himself, what killer style!
                      Won’t you stay with Me a while,
                      And be My campaign gal?

                    3. Hi sarc!

    2. The playful alternating use of ALL CAPS is the best part of your comments.

    3. The only people who get punished at the ballot box are the voters, which is why I didn't register the last time I moved.

      1. 0/10

        1. The Judge is back! This place missed ya!

    4. Oh, hey, I forgot a CLASSIC example of this whole bag of Government Almighty nasty shit! It is called "misprision", the crime of NOT being a voluntary, unpaid rat-fink for Government Almighty! The crime of NOT ratting someone out! The crime of NOT helping Government Almighty PUNISH the law-breakers!

      My uncle, for example, knew DAMNED well, that my aunt was blowing on a cheap plastic flute without the permission of a Government-Almighty-blessed physician! And my uncle did NOT turn this heinous law-breaking wife of his in to Government Almighty, for said dastardly crime! Now my uncle is serving 10 to 20 for his "misprision" crime!

      In these days of terror, stay ye SAFE from the flute police, and be SURE to speak up, if you hear of such law-breaking! "See something, say something"! It is your DUTY!

      HERE are instructions to help you stay safe from the flute police!

      1. What was this article about again? I seem to remember there were a lot of words.

        1. You're correct, the modern educational system is utterly broken! Reading, writing, and arithmetic... Especially READING... Have been replaced by Profound Theories of Wokeness!

  5. Ironic that Janet Reno, Clinton's fall gal in the Waco massacre, would be in the background....not to mention Biden's subsequent comments on the "incident."

  6. The big fallout from this act was that it caused states to mandate anyone who committed violence to be arrested. Low and behold, it turned out women were arrested just as often as men. Contrary to feminist bullshit, women are just likely to be the perpetrators of domestic violence as men. They were just not being arrested for it because those "sexist cops" Elizabeth references in this article did not take domestic violence committed by women seriously until the law forced them to arrest anyone guilty of it.

    The truth is the exact opposite of what this article is claiming. Police were taking domestic violence seriously before this act. They just didn't take it seriously when it was committed by women. So the result of this act much to the shock of feminists was to see a whole bunch of women get arrested for domestic violence who were not being arrested before.

    1. Actually men are four or five times more likely to be arrested for domestic, but in general I think your point stands, even if you got the numbers wrong.

      1. Your citation fell off...again.

          1. "Published: April 2004"

            1. Good point. I mean, women have like gotten so much more violent in the last decade. Like, totally and stuff.

              1. There are more of them in marriages because of...something that happened...what was it...

                But hey why use your mind when you can just fail to realize that the citations that your article is based on are 2 decades old (at least) and gay marriage was legalized in the interim.

                1. You mean homosexuals were exempt from the law and weren't living together at the time?

                  1. You mean you don't understand my very easy to understand point?

                    1. I understand your point, but your point is pointless. The law at the time applied to all domestic partnerships. Not just heterosexual ones. Gays were still living together, getting into fights, and getting arrested. Also, your claim that gay marriage, lesbian to be specific, would result in enough domestic violence to radically change the statistics is, well, kinda dumb.

                    2. "is, well, kinda dumb."

                      Soundly argued guy who uses 20 year old citations.

                      Here let me help.


                      "43.8% of lesbian women and 61.1% of bisexual women have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime, as opposed to 35% of heterosexual women."

                    3. And your other claim?


                      "ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Five years after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages around the U.S., more than a half million households are made up of married same-sex couples, according to figures the U.S. Census Bureau released Thursday.

                      Since 2014, the year before the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same sex marriages, the number of married same-sex households has increased by almost 70%, rising to 568,110 couples in 2019, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey."

                      Amazing! You managed to be competely wrong about everything you said!

                    4. Now take your numbers and compare them to total marriages and opposite sex households. You'll find that as a percentage of the whole the numbers don't mean dick.

                    5. ". You’ll find that as a percentage of the whole the numbers don’t mean dick."

                      So you've done the math?

                      Show it.

                    6. Same sex marriages increasing to a half a million in a country with over three hundred million people is statistically meaningless in this context.

                    7. Still don't see your math.

                    8. As of 2019 there were around sixty million married couples, a half a million or so were same sex. I don't need to do the math to show how insignificant that is.

                    9. "I don’t need to do the math "

                      So you know you're wrong.

                    10. Alright, fine. 500,000 / 60,000,000 = 0.008

                      Statistically meaningless.

                    11. I'm shocked that you are so inept at math that that wasn't obvious. That's ok though. I don't make fun of retarded people or people who still use AOL.

                    12. "Alright, fine. 500,000 / 60,000,000 = 0.008"

                      Hi we're talking about domestic violence not marriahes try to keep up.

                    13. I'm shocked that you're so inept that you think we can't see through your desperste attempt to sneak by irrelevancies.

                    14. You're the one claiming that an uptick of less than one percent in total marriages would have a significant effect on domestic violence statistics.

                      Try to keep up.

                    15. So you're saying you STILL don't understand my point.

                    16. "43.8% of lesbian women reported experiencing physical violence, stalking, or rape by their partners."

                      .44x 250,000 = 110000

                      But please, keep posting total number of marriages because you don't understand anything. While also ignoring 110k domestic violence crimes.

                    17. I thought your point was that since marriage was redefined to include same-sex couples, that there was a dramatic change in the numbers regarding how many men vs women were arrested for domestic violence.

                      I am saying that that point is patently dumb because a massive increase in a single digit percentage point of a statistic is so insignificant as to be meaningless.

                      So enlighten me. And show the math while you're at it.


                    18. A hundred thousand compared to millions is insignificant mathematically. I'm not saying it doesn't suck, but as far as the total numbers go it's a drop in the bucket.

                    19. "show the math"

                      Says the idiot troll after I already have.

                    20. Sarcasmic cited an old citation and got called out on it.

                      His wet brain cannot handle that.

                    21. Says the moron who doesn't understand that pages don't refresh while you're typing, or does and is trying to score points for dishonesty. I'm leaning towards the latter. Have fun. Just don't try to teach anyone math. Please.

                    22. "Between 960,000 and 3,000,000 incidents of domestic violence are reported each year"

                      110 k is between 3 and 10 percent of that.

                      Only a moron can call that insiginifcant, specifically when the increase is all female.

                    23. "sarcasmic
                      October.29.2020 at 11:48 am
                      Says the moron who doesn’t understand that pages don’t refresh while you’re typing, "

                      Says the moron who thinks 10 percent is insignificant and lied about having done math.

                    24. "Sarcasmic cited an old citation and got called out on it."

                      I'm enjoying watching him get his head kicked in.

                    25. Dude, ten percent when we're talking about a 5-1 ratio is indeed insignificant. That might take it up to what? 4-1? 3-1 maybe? Does that at all refute my point that women aren't arrested as often as men? Nope. Not at all.

                      But if it makes you feel smug to think so, smug away.

                    26. **specifically when the increase is all female.**

                      This is an excellent point, especially since the discussion is total number of female offenders. I don't think sarcasmic understands this.

                    27. I wasn't trying to refute you dumbass I pointed out that you used old sources that skip a significant change in demographics.

                      Then you lost your mind because saving face here matters to you way too much.

                      And then you appointed yourself arbiter of significance dsspite not even understanding the math.

                    28. I think 10 percent is significant.

                    29. Oh, I get it now. I used old data to make a point, and your point is that while my data was out dated, my point was still correct. What a fucking waste of time.

                    30. "Oh, I get it now."

                      FINALLY JFC.

                      "What a fucking waste of time."

                      Now you see what your sarcastic nonsense gets you. Try actual discourse for a better outcome.

                    31. He's still going to blame you for it.

                    32. "Try actual discourse for a better outcome."

                      Like harping on old data when the current data doesn't refute the point? All you're doing is trying to score points, not have actual discourse. And you blame me?


                    33. "Like harping on old data when the current data doesn’t refute the point?"

                      No, I meant what I did, which is the opposite of that.

                      But hey an you're idiot who used 20 year old data and then lost his mind when it was rebuked.

                    34. D-PizzIe
                      October.29.2020 at 12:08 pm
                      He’s still going to blame you for it.

                      October.29.2020 at 12:11 pm
                      “Try actual discourse for a better outcome.”

                      Like harping on old data when the current data doesn’t refute the point? All you’re doing is trying to score points

                      God sarcsmic is dumb.

                    35. All you’re doing is trying to score points,

                      October.29.2020 at 11:10 am
                      Good point. I mean, women have like gotten so much more violent in the last decade. Like, totally and stuff.

                      Lol you stupid motherfucker.

                    36. Know what, I guess y'all are right. You got me. I don't get it. I just don't get how my point is refuted by newer data, while disagreeing with the thing I clicked on after a google search, still proves my point. I must be stupid in my failure to understand how data that agrees with my point invalidates my point. Yep, sarc is a maroon.

                    37. "sarcasmic
                      October.29.2020 at 12:36 pm
                      Know what, I guess y’all are right. You got me. I don’t get it."

                      I know, but you said that already.

                      October.29.2020 at 12:00 pm
                      Oh, I get it now."

                      Need a snickers?

                    38. I must be stupid

                      I can't argue with that.

                    39. I'm sure you guys will be bookmarking this page so you can paste it into every trolling comment along with something original like "you're broken." Right?

                      Seriously though, saying I'm wrong because I used outdated numbers, when the current numbers still agree with my point, is... well it's not clever. That's for sure.







                    41. I seriously wonder how many of you guys are law students or something. Only someone that dishonest would argue "The information that he used was out of date, which make his conclusion wrong. Even though the current data supports his claim, his use of old data makes his claim wrong."

                    42. AHAHAHAAHAHHA


                    43. AHAHAHAHAJHAHAHA






                    44. Is that where he's getting 5 to 1 from?

                      Dear Lord it is!

                    45. Hey Sarcasmic... all you've done so far is prove you don't understand why we normalize data with disparate populations of different sizes. Or is this another one of your jokes?

                    46. Nope, still broken.


                  2. I am shocked that sarcasmic is this blindingly dumb.

                    1. For all of dads and moms that love to stay home to take care of their loved ones, or rest of people on the search for an opportunity to pull in some extra income for their family month after month let me share a remarkable opportunity to explore.directions to get started website on line ...........►►Click here.

                    2. "I am shocked that sarcasmic is this blindingly dumb."

                      Wow, what wit and erudition! Illuminating and informative! Did your Mommy help you write that?

                    3. No yours did.




                    1. “Dear Abby” is a personal friend of mine. She gets some VERY strange letters! For my amusement, she forwards some of them to me from time to time. Here is a relevant one:

                      Dear Abby, Dear Abby,
                      My life is a mess,
                      Even Bill Clinton won’t stain my dress,
                      I whinny seductively for the horses,
                      They tell me my picnic is short a few courses,
                      My real name is Mary Stack,
                      NO ONE wants my hairy crack!
                      On disability, I live all alone,
                      Spend desperate nights by the phone,
                      I found a man named Richard Decker,
                      But he won’t give me his hairy pecker!
                      Decker’s pecker is reserved for farm beasts,
                      I am beastly, yes! But my crack’s full of yeasts!

                      So Dear Abby, that’s just a poetic summary… You can read about the Love of my Life, Richard Decker, here:
                      Farmers kept refusing to let him have sex with their animals. So he sought revenge, authorities say.
                      Decker the hairy pecker told me a summary of his story as below:
                      Decker: “Can I have sex with your horse?”
                      Farmer: “Lemme go ask the horse.”
                      Farmer: “My horse says ‘neigh’!”
                      And THAT was straight from the horse’s mouth! I’m not horsin’ around, here, no mare!

                      So Decker the hairy pecker told me that, apparently never even realizing just HOW DEEPLY it hurt me, that he was all interested in farm beasts, while totally ignoring MEEE!!

                      So I thought maybe I could at least liven up my lonely-heart social life, by refining my common interests that I share with Richard Decker… I, too, like to have sex with horses!

                      But Dear Abby, the horses ALL keep on saying “neigh” to my whinnying sexual advances!
                      Some tell me that my whinnying is too whiny… Abby, I don’t know how to fix it!

                      Dear Abby, please don’t tell me “get therapy”… I can’t afford it on my disability check!

                      Now, along with my crack full of yeasts… I am developing anorexia! Some are calling me a “quarter pounder with cheese”, but they are NOT interested at ALL, in eating me!!! They will NOT snack on my crack!

                      What will I DO, Dear Abby?!?!?

                      -Desperately Seeking Horses, Men, or ANYTHING, in Fort Worth,
                      Yours Truly,
                      Mary Stack / Tulpa / Mary’s Period / “.” / Satan

                    2. Hi sarc!

      2. Overall, yes they are. But, the act showed that a whole lot of women were also guilty of it.

        The arrest numbers are still skewed towards men. But, a lot of that is because men are much less likely to report it than women.

        The reality is that a lot of domestic violence is both parties. It is not always the man beating the crap out of the woman. It is often both of them going after each other. The truth is as it usually is a lot more complex than the fairy tails political activists like to tell.

        1. I'm not disagreeing with you.

          What is so horrible about this is that whenever the cops are called over a lovers' spat, someone goes to jail. So someone now has a record, will probably lose their job, and in come cases loses the right to bear arms as well.

          All so some asshole can claim he is "tough on crime" or whatever.

          1. I know. And I agree with you about the lack of discretion. These were actually one of the times that cops often did some good and got people to calm down and to defuse the situation. Often the threat of "hey, if I have to come back here tonight, someone is going to jail" got people to calm down and get along with each other. Thanks to this law, every single instance ended in someone being arrested and things getting worse.

            That is the case to be made against this law. It is too bad ENB doesn't make it here.

            1. I thought she did, but whatever. You're on a REASON SUCKS tirade so I won't interfere.

              1. unreason does suck. It has lost its way.

                The comments are the only reason for coming here.

                1. For the most part, I agree, LC.

      3. "Actually men are four or five times more likely to be arrested for domestic..."

        That's because women like to talk and will call 9-1-1 first.
        First caller gets the edge on not being the one getting arrested and receiving the protection order.
        Make 9-1-1 #1 on your speed dialer.

        1. No, it’s because they’re physically smaller that they’re the ones calling.

          They start shit, but lack the size to end it without being pummeled. So they call the cops to end it for them.

    2. That and arresting everyone for everything has led to America's mass incarceration problem.

      We have all heard of the horror cases of domestic violence where a husband murders his wife or the wife murders the husband. Those are rare compared to the simple assault or non-violent domestic disputes.

      Most cases of domestic calls are fights where cops can mediate and deescalate the tension and one spouse stays overnight somewhere else. No further law enforcement attention needed.

      1. Office of violence against women

        Notice its an "office of violence against women". Nothing about men.

        1. Men can’t be victims because we hold all the power. Do you even Critical Theory bro?

  7. Yeah there was some fallout when a person could be accused without proof and sent to jail. Spouses sometimes used this to accuse the other of violence against them or children during divorces. The cops of course aren't going to try to figure out who is lying.

  8. I work in Affordable Housing and we are required to distribute the VAWA document HUD-5380 to all new residents. On the first page in a footnote it says:

    "Despite the name of this law, VAWA protection is available regardless of sex, gender identity, or
    sexual orientation"

    1. Just not in practice...

    2. Might wanna change the acronym then......

      Acronyms are powerful!

      1. Changing the acronym would remove the moralistic framing of the issue, and that framing is the point. Progressives rarely want to address real issues practically. They want to use the issues to target groups they hate.

  9. the "Tough on Crime" crowd only thought about themselves.

  10. Look, I'm as patriarchal and misogynist as anyone, but I was surprised to see there's a book called Decriminalizing Domestic Violence.

    I suppose I shouldn't judge a book by its cover, so I'll check Amazon...

    "Envisioned for both courses and research topics in domestic violence, family violence, gender and law, and sociology of law, the book challenges readers to understand intimate partner violence not solely, or even primarily, as a criminal law concern but as an economic, public health, community, and human rights problem. It also argues that only by viewing intimate partner violence through these lenses can we develop a balanced policy agenda for addressing it. At a moment when we are examining our national addiction to punishment, Decriminalizing Domestic Violence offers a thoughtful, pragmatic roadmap to real reform."

    Not solely or even *primarily*?

    I can see not prosecuting when the victim doesn't want it, or where the evidence is inadequate, but the SJW word salad seems to indicate that prosecuting abusers is non-preferred even when the victim is credible and willing to testify.

    Not having waded through the book, I can't say if the summary fully captures all the nuances, but that title is interesting.

    1. Uh..........racist!

    2. “Look, I’m as patriarchal and misogynist as anyone....”

      We’re all in this together.

  11. Janet Reno. The state AG that makes Kamala's record look good.

    1. Elian *wanted* to go home to Cuba

      1. That was when she was U.S. AG. When she was Florida AG, she conspired to falsely convict men for sex crimes against children (over 90% of her prosecutions were eventually overturned).

  12. thanks to then-Senator Joe Biden's leadership on the Violence Against Women Act." The statement asserted that 30 years ago, "domestic violence was treated as a private matter, not a heinous crime," but "Biden believed it was time to do the right thing."

    Biden has a long and distinguished history of acting as if his fantasy life were real. We should make him President, what could go wrong?

  13. I thought Biden denied his acts of violence against women.

  14. This is the first anti-Biden article that I have read on Reason.
    I am amazed to see it.

    1. Gillespie wrote one yesterday.
      They have to burnish their libertarian cred, and prepare for a year or two of dissing Biden's big government ways before Harris takes over.

  15. Prior to viewing the image for this article, I would have had a difficult time picturing Joe Biden with a '90's skater cut. Now, I can't un-see it.

    So, thanks for that.

  16. Earl Silverman is the true hero.

    1. I wish Wendy McElroy had write this article, not enb... :-/

    2. I think I will say something that enb herself wrote: "Some of these policies, like women not beating up their husbands without breaking the law, are just fine as is." -

      Why So Many Women Who Hate Men Love Limited Government? (I am looking at you enb.)

    3. -> This article is a way better criticism of VAWA than enb's article.

  17. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. A Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions..Visit here for full details

  18. Such a long piece.

    I almost feel bad typing "tl; dr"


  19. Joe Biden is a nice man than violent Trump stop protecting Trump's shit OGWhatsApp

  20. The Wood Duck is probably the most amazingly colorful waterfowl in the world. The Wood Duck male bird has a metallic, purple-green head and ridge. His abdomen is white and his chest is dark red. Along the neck, they have attractive, narrow white stripes. Their wings are colored in blue and black.

    Female ducks are not as colorful as males. They have a gray-brown head, white belly, and a white chest. The male bird uses its colorful plumage to attract females during the breeding season.

    These ducks live in swamps, wooded swamps, and streams throughout North America. With unique colors and shapes, these ducks are also one of the most easily recognizable birds in North America. Unlike other poultry, they nest in tree holes and form groups.
    The Wood Duck is probably the most amazingly colorful waterfowl in the world.

    1. Heyyyynow, I'll take more spam like this please. Idk if you take requests, but do the next one on Hooded Mergansers.

    2. Wood ducks are cool, but I think the Mandarin duck gives it a run for its money.

      1. Oh for sure, that's all I could think about when I read the spambot post. They're in the same genus tho, which is why they look so similar. Aix sponsa and Aix something, idk the Mandarin's BN.

  21. Start now earning extra $16,750 to $19,000 per month by doing an easy home based job in part time only. Last month i have got my 3rd paycheck of $17652 by giving this job only 3 hrs a day online on my Mobile. Every person can now get this today and makes extra cash by follow details her==► Read More  

  22. ★I'am made $84, 8254 so far this year working on the web and I'm a full time understudy. Im utilizing an online business opportunity I caught wind of and I'AM profited. It's truly easy to understand and I'm simply so cheerful that I got some answers concerning it. Here what I do,.for more data essentially open this connection thank you..... Read More  

  23. Single Mom With 4 Kids Lost Her Job and...READ MORE

  24. RE: "Rep. Bob Carr (D–Mich.) in an October 1987 floor speech [said:] "In this country, a woman is beaten every 18 seconds."

    When does she sleep?

  25. What was his record on Porn, I think he supported the Oxley Bill. It would be a lot of fun rubbing that story in the faces of coomers and Porn Stars who voted for him.

Comments are closed.