Victims' rights are legal rights afforded to victims of crime. These may include the right to restitution, the right to a victims' advocate, the right not to be excluded from criminal justice proceedings, and the right to speak at criminal justice proceedings.
United States
The Crime Victims' Rights Movement in the United States is founded on the idea that, during the late modern period (1800-1970), the American justice system strayed too far from its victim-centric origins.
Since the 1970s, the movement has worked to give victims a more
meaningful role in criminal proceedings, aiming at the inclusion of "the
individual victim as a legally recognized participant with rights,
interests, and voice."
History
During the colonial and revolutionary periods, the United States criminal justice system was "victim-centric," in that crimes were often investigated and prosecuted
by individual victims. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, however,
the focus shifted so that crime was seen primarily as a "social harm."
The criminal justice system came to be seen as a tool for remedying
this social harm, rather than an avenue for redress of personal harm,
and the role of the victim in criminal proceedings was drastically
reduced.
The modern Crime Victims' Rights Movement began in the 1970s. It
began, in part, as a response to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Decision
in Linda R.S. v. Richard D. (410 U.S. 614). In Linda R.S., the Court ruled that the complainant did not have the legal standing to keep the prosecutors' office from discriminately applying a statute criminalizing non-payment of child support. In dicta,
the court articulated the then-prevailing view that a crime victim
cannot compel a criminal prosecution because "a private citizen lacks a
judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of
another." This ruling served as a high-water mark in the shift away from the victim-centric approach to criminal justice, making it clear that victims in the 1970s had "no formal legal status beyond that of a witness or piece of evidence."
If the Linda R.S. Ruling was a clear representation of the
problem of victim exclusion, it also hinted at a solution to the
problem. The Court stated that Congress could "enact statutes creating
victims' rights, the invasion of which creates standing, even though no
injury would exist without the statute." With this statement, the Court provided a legal foundation for victims' rights legislation.
Along with these legal developments, there was a concurrent
growth in social consciousness about victims' rights. This was due, in
part, to the fact that concern for the fair treatment of victims
provided a nexus between disparate, but powerful, social movements. The
law and order Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, and the feminist movement
all challenged the criminal justice system to think more carefully
about the role of the victim in criminal proceedings. Supporters of
these causes helped form the grassroots foundation of the modern
Victims' Rights Movement, providing educational resources and legal
assistance, and establishing the country's first hotlines and shelters
for victims of crime.
In 1982, President Ronald Reagan's
Task Force on Victims of Crime released its final report which detailed
the concerns of victims' rights advocates, claiming that "the innocent
victims of crime have been overlooked, their pleas for justice have gone
unheeded, and their wounds - personal, emotional, financial - have gone
unattended."
The report contained 68 recommendations for service providers and
government officials, many of which are mandated through victims' rights
legislation today. The report included a recommendation for a victims' rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In the decades that followed, proponents of victims' rights experienced substantial legislative success.
Today, the Victims' Rights Movement continues to promote legislation
that guarantees substantive rights for victims, and provides the
procedural mechanisms to effectively enforce those rights. Victims'
rights organizations also do ground-level advocacy, providing individual
victims with legal guidance and support, and educate future legal
professionals on issues related to victims' rights.
Victims' rights legislation
Since
1982, thirty-three states have amended their constitutions to address
victims' rights, and all states have passed victims' rights legislation.
That same year, Congress passed the first piece of federal crime
victims' rights legislation, the Victim and Witness Protection Act. In 1984, the Victims of Crime Act was passed. A decade later, in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act became law. In 2004, the landmark Crime Victims' Rights Act was passed, granting crime victims eight specific rights, and providing standing for individual victims to assert those rights in court.
Federal law
Victims of Crime Act (VOCA)
VOCA established the Crime Victims Fund, which awards grants to crime victim compensation programs, victim notification systems, and victim assistance programs. The Fund is financed by offender fees.
Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004
The Crime Victims' Rights Act,
part of the Justice for All Act of 2004, enumerates the rights afforded
to victims in federal criminal cases. The Act grants victims the
following rights:
The right to protection from the accused,
The right to notification,
The right not to be excluded from proceedings,
The right to speak at criminal justice proceedings,
The right to consult with the prosecuting attorney,
The right to be treated with fairness, and respect for the victims' dignity and privacy
The Crime Victims' Rights Act was named for Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper,
Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn, murder victims whose
families were denied some or all of the rights granted by the Act in the
course of their cases.
State law
All states have passed legislation that protects the rights of victims of crime, and most have passed constitutional amendments that afford protection to crime victims. Some state laws apply to only victims of felony offenses, while other states also extend rights to victims of less serious misdemeanor offenses. When a victim is a minor, disabled, or deceased, some states permit family members to exercise rights on behalf of the victim.
Common state law protections include:
The right to be treated with dignity and respect,
The right to be informed about the prosecution, plea offers, court proceedings, and sentencing,
The right to make a statement in court at the time of sentencing,
The right to protection,
The right to seek compensation from a state victim's rights fund,
The right to restitution from the offender,
The right to return of personal property, and
The right to be informed of parole proceedings or release from
incarceration, and the right to make a statement to the parole board,
The right to enforcement of victim's rights.
Many prosecuting attorneys' offices have a victim's rights officer or
multiple employees who assist victims of crime during and after a
prosecution. A crime victim who is seeking compensation or restitution
should submit a timely claim for compensation to the probation
department or prosecuting attorney, along with documentation in support
of the claim, in order to ensure that the amounts are included in a
restitution order when the defendant is sentenced.
U.S. victims' rights organizations
National Crime Victim Law Institute
National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI) is a national non-profit legal advocacy organization based at the Lewis & Clark Law School
in Portland, Oregon. The organization was founded in 1997 by Professor
Doug Beloof. It seeks to enhance victims' rights through a combination
of legal advocacy, training and education, and public policy work.
NCVLI also hosts an annual 2-day Crime Victim Law conference, and
maintains a Victim Law Library, which contains laws and educational
resources related to victims rights.
National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys (NAVRA)
NAVRA
is a membership alliance of attorneys and advocates dedicated to the
promotion of crime victims' rights. It is a project of the National
Crime Victim Law Institute. Membership in NAVRA provides access to
expert services for crime victims, including a searchable database of
case summaries, amicus briefs, and sample pleadings, as well as a
directory of victims' rights professionals.
National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA)
NOVA
is a private non-profit organization dedicated to promoting rights and
services for victims of crime. Founded in 1975, NOVA is the oldest
national victims rights organization. The organization is focused both
on national advocacy and on providing direct services to victims.
Rise is an NGO working to implement a bill of rights for sexual assault victims.
International victims' rights
Outside the United States, victims' rights have been acknowledged as a basic human right. In 1985, the U.N. adopted the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power,
which outlines international best practices for treatment of crime
victims. The report recognizes an offender's obligation to make fair
restitution to his or her victim, acknowledges that victims are entitled
to fair treatment and access to the mechanisms of justice, and
generally draws attention to the need for victims' rights in the
criminal justice process. Other United Nations provisions that touch on victims' rights include (1) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); (2) the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination of Women (CEDAW); and (3) the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The ICCPR has been ratified by 172 nations, including the United States, Canada, Russia, and France. It includes the following provisions related to victims' rights:
Rights to be protected from harm, which impose obligations on
governments to have effective criminal justice systems (Article 6.1,
Article 7, and Article 17)
Rights to be recognized by and treated equally before the law (Articles 2, 3, 16, and 26)
A right of non-discrimination (Article 2)
Rights to a remedy and to access to justice (Articles 2 and 14)
Due process rights (Articles 9, 10, 14, and 15)
In 2008, Human Rights Watch published an analysis comparing United
States victims' rights laws to international Human Rights Standards.
This report, titled "Mixed Results: U.S. Policy and International
Standards on the Rights and Interests of Crime," found that "while U.S.
Jurisdictions, both federal and state, have made significant progress in
recent decades, much more can be done to ensure that victims' rights
and legitimate interests are upheld." The report states that the U.S. should use the UN's Basic Principles
as a guide to inform their laws and policies. In addition, it
recommends that the U.S. adopt policies that: (1) Remove arbitrary
limits on the definition of "victim" in state and federal laws; (2)
Expand access to victim services and compensation; and (3) "Maintain and
enforce standards for the collection and preservation of evidence,
particularly rape kit evidence." The report also recommends U.S. ratification of the CEDAW and CRC.
Criticisms of the victim-inclusion approach
There
are three major criticisms of the Victims' Rights Movement, and the
accompanying victim-inclusion approach to criminal justice.
Some claim that proposed incorporation of victims' rights will directly undermine defendant's rights.
Some argue that victim participation will inappropriately focus criminal proceedings on vengeance and personal emotion.
In connection with the last of these criticisms, it has been noted
that victims seeking "closure" may promote outcomes as diverse as
retribution, on one hand, and forgiveness on the other, and the legal
system is inadequate to providing therapeutic satisfaction in either
case.
Proponents of victims' rights respond by noting that victims'
rights of privacy, protection and participation are civil rights that
ensure that individual harm is among the harms recognized by the system,
and that such rights afford a voice in the process, not a veto of
enforcement discretion. Proponents also cite the criminal courts'
well-established capacity to afford rights to participants other than
the defendants (such as the media), suggesting that accommodation of
victims' interests is both possible and desirable.
Surviving a rape is a traumatic experience that impacts its victims
in a physical, psychological, and sociological way. Even though the effects and aftermath of rape
differentiate among survivors, individuals tend to suffer from similar
issues found within these three categories. Long term reactions may
involve the development of coping mechanisms that will either benefit the survivor, such as social support, or inhibit their recovery. Seeking support and professional resources may assist the survivor in numerous ways.
Physical impact
Gynecological
Common effects experienced by rape survivors include:
Pregnancy may result from rape. The rate varies between settings and depends particularly on the extent to which non-barrier contraceptives are being used.
A 1996 longitudinal study in the United States
of over 4000 women followed for three years found that the national
rape related pregnancy rate was 5.0% per rape among survivors aged 12–45
years, producing over 32,000 pregnancies nationally among women from
rape each year.
In 1991, a study in a maternity hospital in Lima
found that 90% of new mothers aged 12–16 had become pregnant from being
raped, the majority by their father, stepfather or other close
relative. An organization for teenage mothers in Costa Rica reported that 95% of its clients under the age of 15 had been victims of incest.
A study of adolescents in Ethiopia found that among those who reported being raped, 17% became pregnant after the rape, a figure which is similar to the 15–18% reported by rape crisis centers in Mexico.
Experience of coerced sex at an early age reduces a woman's ability
to see her sexuality as something over which she has control. As a
result, it is less likely that an adolescent girl who has been forced
into sex will use condoms or other forms of contraception, decreasing the likelihood of her not becoming pregnant.
A study of factors associated with teenage pregnancy in Cape Town, South Africa,
found that forced sexual initiation was the third most strongly related
factor, after frequency of intercourse and use of modern
contraceptives.
Forced sex can also result in unintended pregnancy among adult women.
In India, a study of married men revealed that men who admitted forcing
sex on their wives were 2.6 times more likely to have caused an
unintended pregnancy than those who did not admit to such behavior.
Any pregnancy resulting from an encounter with a stranger carries a higher risk of pre-eclampsia, the condition in which hypertension arises in pregnancy in association with significant amounts of protein in the urine. Conversely, repeated exposure to the same partner's semen reduces the risk, through induction of paternal tolerance.
Sexually transmitted diseases
Research on women in shelters has shown that women who experience
both sexual and physical abuse from intimate partners are significantly
more likely to have had sexually transmitted diseases.
Psychological impact
Most
rape survivors experience a stronger psychological impact in the
initial period after their assault; however, many survivors may
experience long-lasting psychological harm.
Immediate Effects
Survivors of rape may often have anxiety and fear directly following their attack.
According to a study on the reactions after rape by the American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 96 percent of women said they were scared,
shaking, or trembling a few hours after their attack.
After even more time passed, the previous symptoms decreased while the
levels of depression, exhaustion, and restlessness increased.
Anxiety
After
an attack, rape survivors experience heightened anxiety and fear.
According to Dean G. Kilpatrick, a distinguished psychologist, survivors
of rape have high levels of anxiety and phobia-related anxiety. This includes and is not limited to the following:
Many
survivors of rape have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The National
Victim Center and the Crime Victim's Research and Treatment Center
released a report that found 31% of women who were raped develop PTSD at
some point in their lives following their attack. The same study estimated 3.8 million American women would have rape-related PTSD, and 1.3 million women have rape-induced PTSD.
Depression
A
study found that women who were raped were more depressed than women
who were not. The study measured the level of depression using the Beck Depression Inventory test, and concluded that forty-five percent of the women assessed in the study were moderately or severely depressed.
There are two main types of self-blame: behavioral self-blame
(undeserved blame based on actions) and characterological self-blame
(undeserved blame based on character). Survivors who experience
behavioral self-blame feel that they should have done something
differently, and therefore feel at fault. Survivors who experience
characterological self-blame feel there is something inherently wrong
with them which has caused them to deserve to be assaulted.
A leading researcher on the psychological causes and effects of shame, June Tangney, lists five ways shame can be destructive:
Tangney notes the link of shame and anger. "In day-to-day life, when
people are shamed and angry they tend to be motivated to get back at a
person and get revenge."
In addition, shame is connected to psychological problems – such
as eating disorders, substance abuse, anxiety, depression, and other
mental disorders as well as problematic moral behavior. In one study
over several years, shame-prone children were also prone to substance
abuse, earlier sexual activity, less safe sexual activity, and
involvement with the criminal justice system.
Behavioral self-blame is associated with feelings of guilt
within the survivor. While the belief that one had control during the
assault (past control) is associated with greater psychological
distress, the belief that one has more control during the recovery
process (present control) is associated with less distress, less
withdrawal, and more cognitive reprocessing.
This need for control stems from the just-world belief, which implies
that people get what they deserve and the world has a certain order of
things that individuals are able to control. This control reassures them
that this event will not happen again.
Counseling responses found helpful in reducing self-blame are
supportive responses, psychoeducational responses (learning about rape
trauma syndrome) and those responses addressing the issue of blame.
A helpful type of therapy for self-blame is cognitive restructuring or
cognitive-behavioral therapy. Cognitive reprocessing is the process of
taking the facts and forming a logical conclusion from them that is less
influenced by shame or guilt.
Most rape survivors cannot be reassured enough that what happened to
them is "not their fault." This helps them fight through shame and feel
safe, secure, and grieve in a healthy way. In most cases, a length of
time, and often therapy, is necessary to allow the survivor and people
close to the survivor to process and heal.
Psychological Impact on Men
In
a study about the impacts of male rape, distinguished scholars Jayne
Walker,John Archer, and Michelle Davies found that after their attack,
male victims had long-term depression, anxiety, anger, confusion about
their masculinity, confusion about their sexuality, and grief.
Ninety-seven percent of men reported being depressed after their attack. As well as this, approximately ninety-three percent of men report feelings of anxiety.
Along with depression, the most commonly reported reaction is anger.
Ninety-five percent of male victims reported having fantasies of revenge
or retaliation.
Male victims reported buying weapons to kill their assailants. Men also
reported experiencing long-term crises with their sexual orientation
and their masculinity.
The male survivors of rape felt powerless because they believed they
lost their male pride and dignity. Many men reported grieving the loss
of self-respect and self-worth. Ninety percent of male survivors lost
respect for themselves because of their assault.
Suicide
Victims of rape are more likely to attempt or commit suicide.
The association remains, even after controlling for sex, age,
education, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and the presence
of psychiatric disorders.
The experience of being raped can lead to suicidal behavior as early as
adolescence. In Ethiopia, 6% of raped schoolgirls reported having
attempted suicide. They also feel embarrassed to talk about what had
happened to them. A study of adolescents in Brazil found prior sexual abuse to be a leading factor predicting several health risk behaviours, including suicidal thoughts and attempts.
Sociological impact and mistreatment of victims
After a sexual assault, victims are subjected to investigations and,
in some cases, mistreatment. Victims undergo medical examinations and
are interviewed by police. During the criminal trial, victims suffer a
loss of privacy and their credibility may be challenged. Sexual assault victims may also experience secondary victimization and victim blaming including, slut-shaming and cyberbullying. During criminal proceedings, publication bans and rape shield laws operate to protect victims from excessive public scrutiny.
Secondary victimization
Rape is especially stigmatizing in cultures with strong customs and taboos regarding sex and sexuality. For example, a rape victim (especially one who was previously a virgin) may be viewed by society as being "damaged." Victims in these cultures may suffer isolation,
be disowned by friends and family, be prohibited from marrying, be
divorced if already married, or even killed. This phenomenon is known as
secondary victimization.
Secondary Victimization is a product of the pressure women feel in
some cultures to be married at a young age, and save themselves for
marriage. This Isolation suggests that a woman's whole life should be
aimed at marriage, and if they are not married, that they have failed as
a woman. While society targets secondary victimization mainly towards
women, male victims can also feel shameful, or experience a loss of
purity.
Secondary victimization is the re-traumatization of the sexual
assault, abuse, or rape victim through the responses of individuals and
institutions. Types of secondary victimization include victim blaming
and inappropriate post-assault behavior or language by medical personnel
or other organizations with which the victim has contact. Secondary victimization is especially common in cases of drug-facilitated, acquaintance, and statutory rape.
Victim blaming
The term victim blaming refers to holding the victim of a
crime to be responsible for that crime, either in whole or in part. In
the context of rape, it refers to the attitude that certain victim
behaviors (such as flirting
or wearing sexually provocative clothing) may have encouraged the
assault. This can cause the victim to believe the crime was indeed their
fault. Rapists are known to use victim blaming as their primary
psychological disconnect from their crime(s) and in some cases it has
led to their conviction.
Female rape victims receive more blame when they exhibit behavior which
breaks the gender roles of society. Society uses this behavior as a
justification for the rape. Similarly, blame placed on female rape
victims often depends on the victim's attractiveness and respectability.
While such behavior has no justified correlation to an attack, it can
be used in victim blaming. A “rape supportive” society refers to when
perpetrators are perceived as justified for raping.
Male victims are more often blamed by society for their rape due to
weakness or emasculation. The lack of support and community for male
rape victims is furthered by the lack of attention given to sexual
assaults of males by society.
It has been proposed that one cause of victim blaming is the just world hypothesis.
People who believe that the world is intrinsically fair may find it
difficult or impossible to accept a situation in which a person is badly
hurt for no reason. This leads to a sense that victims must have done
something to deserve their fate. Another theory entails the
psychological need to protect one's own sense of invulnerability, which
can inspire people to believe that rape only happens to those who
provoke the assault. Believers use this as a way to feel safer: If one
avoids the behaviours of the past victims, one will be less vulnerable. A
global survey of attitudes toward sexual violence by the Global Forum for Health Research shows that victim-blaming concepts are at least partially accepted in many countries.
Victim blame can also be a result of popular media's use of
sexual objectification. Sexual objectification is reducing an
individual's existence to that of a sexual object. This involves
dehumanization.
A study conducted in Britain found that women who are objectified based
on the clothes that they wear and what the media says about them, the
more likely they would be to experience victim-blame after a sexual
assault.
Another study that investigated a large group of college students to
see medias contribution to sexual objectification and its effects on
victim-blaming, found that the more a person is exposed to media content
that sexualizes women's bodies the more likely they are to participate
in rape blame.
It has also been proposed by Roxane Agnew-Davies, a clinical
psychologist and an expert on the effects of sexual violence, that
victim-blaming correlates with fear. "It is not surprising when so many
rape victims blame themselves. Female jurors can look at the woman in
the witness stand and decide she has done something 'wrong' such as
flirting or having a drink with the defendant. She can therefore
reassure herself that rape won't happen to her as long as she does
nothing similar."
According to a multitude of studies, heterosexual men are the most likely to participate in victim-blaming.
Men tend to blame other men for their own sexual assaults. They also
tend to blame individuals who do not adhere to gender norms, such as
crossdressers, transgender men, and homosexual men.
Many of the countries in which victim blaming is more common are those in which there is a significant social divide between the freedoms and status afforded to men and women.
Reporting a rape
Informing
law enforcement about a rape is a decision determined solely by the
survivor. Some individuals have found that reporting their assault
assisted them in their recovery process. Contacting their local police department, visiting a medical center, and/or calling the National Sexual Assault Hotline are several options that survivors may consider while seeking justice.
Even so, only a small percentage of survivors decide to report their rape.
Rape victims are less likely to report their sexual assault than simple
assault victims. Between 2006 and 2010, it is estimated that 211,200
rapes or sexual assaults were unreported to police each year. Factors that may influence a rape reporting decision include gender, age, minority status, perceived outcomes, and social expectations.
Furthermore, a rape in which the survivor knows the perpetrator is less
likely to be reported than one committed by a stranger. The absence of
physical injuries and involvement of drugs and/or alcohol also
contributes to the decrease in reports.
Specifically, female rape victims are more likely to report their
cases when they feel more victimized due to serious bodily injuries.
Female rape victims are less likely to report cases in which the
perpetrator is a relative or acquaintance. Male rape victims may be
hesitant to report rapes due to the stigma surrounding male rape, which
can cause humiliation or fear of emasculation.
Survivors who do not decide to report their rape to law
enforcement are still eligible to receive a sexual assault forensic
exam, also known as a rape kit. They are also still encouraged to seek support from their loved ones and/or a professional psychologist.
Recovering from a rape
The
process of recovering from a rape differentiates among survivors for
their own individual reasons. The nature of the attack, how survivors
choose to cope with their trauma, and social influences are a few of the
many variables that impact the healing process.
Even so, recovery generally consists of three main themes: reaching
out, reframing the rape, and redefining the self. Professional treatment
may be needed to help assist with properly accomplishing these three
factors.Cognitive Processing Therapy
has been found to result in a decrease or remission of post trauma
symptoms in survivors and to help them regain a sense of control.
Due to its complexity, advancing through the healing process requires
patience and persistence. In addition, meditation, yoga, exercise,
rhythmic movement, and socialization may also provide elements of relief
for survivors.
Furthermore, support groups provide individuals with an opportunity to
connect with other survivors and serve as a constant reminder that they
are not alone.
The fathers' rights movement is a movement whose members are primarily interested in issues related to family law, including child custody and child support, that affect fathers and their children.
Many of its members are fathers who desire to share the parenting of
their children equally with their children's mothers—either after divorce
or as unwed fathers—and the children of the terminated marriage. The
movement includes men as well as women, often the second wives of
divorced fathers or other family members of men who have had some
engagement with family law.
Many members did not have experience in law or politics. However,
as their goal of having equally-shared parenting time, was being
negated, unjustly by family courts, they took it upon themselves to
become educated in all areas of family law, including child custody and
child support.
Though it has been described as a social movement, members of the movement believe their actions are better described as part of a civil rights movement.
The movement has received international press coverage as a result of high-profile activism of their members. It has become increasingly vocal, visible and organised, and has played a powerful role in family law debates.
Demographics
The fathers' rights movement exists almost exclusively in industrialized countries, where divorce has become more common. It emerged in the West from the 1960s onwards as part of the men's movement with organizations such as Families Need Fathers, which originated in the 1970s.
In the late twentieth century, the growth of the internet permitted
wider discussion, publicity and activism about issues of interest to
fathers' rights activists. Factors thought to contribute to the development of the fathers' rights movement include shifting household demographics
brought about by rising divorce and falling marriage rates, changes in
the understanding and expectations of fatherhood, motherhood and
childhood as well as shifts in how legal systems impact families.
Fathers' rights groups in the West are primarily composed of white, middle or working class, heterosexual men. Members tend to be politically conservative but do not share a single set of political or social views and are highly diverse in their goals and methods. Members of the fathers' rights movement advocate for strong relationships with their children and focus on a narrowly defined set of issues based on the concerns of divorced or divorcing men. Women, often new partners including second wives or other family members of men who have had some engagement with family law and mothers without custody, are also members of the fathers' rights movement, and fathers' rights activists emphasize this. Two studies of fathers' rights groups in North America found that fifteen percent of their members were women.
The fathers' rights movement organizations Families Need Fathers and the Lone Fathers Association have campaigned for fathers' rights over many decades. Longer lasting organizations appear to result from the longterm dedication and commitment of key individuals. Other fathers' rights groups have tended to form and dissolve quickly. Internal disagreements over ideology and tactics are common, and members tend not to remain with the groups after they have been helped.
Political and social views
The
fathers' rights movement has both liberal and conservative branches,
with different viewpoints about how men and women compare. Although both
groups agree on the victimization and discrimination against men, they
disagree on why men and women differ (nature versus nurture) and traditional gender roles.
The liberal version believes the differences between the sexes are due
to culture and supports equality between men and women; in contrast, the
conservative branch believes in traditional patriarchal/complementary families and that the differences between genders are due to biology. Ross Parke and Armin Brott view the fathers' rights movement as one of three strands within the men's movement
that deal almost exclusively with fatherhood, the other two being the
good fathers' movement and groups forming the Christian Men's movement –
the Promise Keepers being the largest.
Warren Farrell,
a veteran of the women's, men's and fathers' movement since the 1970s,
describes the fathers' rights movement as part of a larger "gender
transition movement" and thinks that, similar to women in the 1960s,
fathers are transitioning from gender-based to more flexible family
roles. Farrell also believes the movement helps children by increasing
the number who are raised equally by both parents, which in turn
increases the children's social, academic, psychological, and physical
benefits—in his opinion it becomes a children's rights issue with fathers acting as advocates.
Movement
Members of the fathers' rights movement assert that fathers are discriminated against as a result of gender bias in family law; that custody decisions have been a denial of equal rights; and that the influence of money has corrupted family law.
The movement's primary focus has been to campaign (including lobbying
and research) for formal legal rights for fathers, and sometimes for
children, and to campaign for changes to family law related to child
custody, support and maintenance, domestic violence and the family court
system itself. Fathers' rights groups also provide emotional and
practical support for members during separation and divorce.
Some fathers' rights groups have become frustrated with the slow
pace of traditional campaigning for law reform; groups such as the
originally UK-based Fathers 4 Justice
have become increasingly vocal and visible, undertaking public
demonstrations that have attracted public attention and influenced the
politics of family justice. Following protests, some fathers' rights activists have been convicted of offenses such as harassment and assault. Fathers' rights groups have condemned threats and violent acts, with Matt O'Connor
of Fathers 4 Justice asserting that his organisation was committed to
"peaceful, non-violent direct action" and that members caught engaging
in intimidation would be expelled. An example of this was in January 2006, when Matt temporarily disbanded the group after it was revealed that a fringe subsection of members were plotting to kidnap Leo Blair, the young son of Tony Blair, the former UK Prime Minister. According to the police, the plot never progressed beyond the "chattering stage". Four months later the group was refounded.
Some desperate members of the fathers' rights movement, most notably Thomas Ball have advocated violent action to get the message across, just before he self-immolated himself on the steps of a courthouse in Keene, New Hampshire, he wrote in his 15-page "Last Statement" that fathers should burn down courthouses and police stations.
Main issues
Family court system
According to the BBC, "Custody law is perhaps the best-known area of men's rights activism". Members of the fathers' rights movement state that family courts are biased against fathers and shared custody.
Stephen Baskerville is an associate professor of political science, president of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children
and fathers' rights advocate and defines court-determined custody as
not a right to parent one's children but as the power to prevent the
other partner from parenting.
He states that the outcome of divorce is overly one-sided and is
initiated by mothers in more than two-thirds of cases – especially when
children are involved. He also states that divorce provides advantages
for women such as automatic custody of the children and financial
benefits in the form of child support payments. Members of the FR movement also state that family courts are slow to help fathers enforce their parental rights, and are expensive and time-consuming.
Baskerville has also stated that family courts are secretive, censoring and punitive towards fathers who criticize them.
He also claims that employees and activists within the courts support
and benefit from the separation of children from their parents and that family law today represents civil rights abuses and intrusive perversion of government power.
Others contest these conclusions, stating that family courts are biased in favor of fathers
and that the lower percentage of separated fathers as custodial parents
is a result of choices made by fathers rather than bias of family
courts. According to sociologist Michael Flood,
father's rights activists have exaggerated the disparity in custody
awards between mothers and fathers, and ignored the fact that in the
vast majority of cases, fathers voluntarily relinquish custody of their
children through private arrangements; either because they are willing
to do so, or because they do not expect a favorable court ruling.
Shared parenting
Stating that "children need two parents" and that "children have a
fundamental human right to an opportunity and relationship with both
their mother and father", members of the fathers' rights movement call
for greater equality in parental responsibility following separation and
divorce. They call for laws creating a rebuttable presumption
of 50/50 shared custody after divorce or separation, so that children
would spend equal time with each parent unless there were reasons
against it.
They point to studies showing that children in shared custody settings
are better adjusted and have fewer social problems such as low academic
achievement, crime, substance abuse, depression and suicide, and state that shared parenting is in fact in the best interests of the child.
Warren Farrell states that for children, equally shared parenting with
three conditions (the child has about equal time with mom and dad, the
parents live close enough to each other that the child does not need to
forfeit friends or activities when visiting the other parent, and there
is no bad-mouthing) is the second best family arrangement to the intact
two-parent family, followed by primary father custody and then primary
mother custody, and he adds that if shared parenting cannot be agreed
upon, children on average are better off psychologically, socially,
academically, and physically, have higher levels of empathy and
assertiveness, and lower levels of ADHD, if their father is their
primary custodial parent rather than their mother.
Members of the fathers' rights movement and their critics
disagree about the correlation of negative developmental outcomes for
children to sole custody situations. Social scientist V. C. McLoyd
states that father absence covaries with other relevant family
characteristics such as the lack of an income from a male adult, the
absence of a second adult, and the lack of support from a second
extended family system and conclude that it is the negative effects of
poverty, and not the absence of a father, that result in negative
developmental outcomes.
On the other hand, Professor Craig Hart states that although the
consequences of poverty and having a single parent are interrelated,
each is a risk factor with independent effects on children,
and Silverstein and Auerbach state that the negative outcomes for
children in sole custody situations correlate more strongly to
"fatherlessness" than to any other variable including poverty.
Members of the fathers' rights movement criticize the best interests
of the child standard currently used in many countries for making
custody decisions, which they describe as highly subjective and based on
the personal prejudices of family court judges and court-appointed
child custody evaluators, and that courts are abusive when more than half custody is taken away from a willing, competent parent.
Members of the fathers' rights movement including Ned Holstein state
that a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting is supported by a
majority of citizens.
Baskerville writes that proposals to enact shared parenting laws are
opposed by divorce lawyers, and he says that "radical feminist" groups
oppose shared parenting because of the possibility of domestic violence
and child abuse.
Mo Yee Lee states that joint custody arrangements are good for children only if there is no conflict between the parents.
Some feminist groups have stated that if shared parenting were ordered,
fathers would not provide their share of the daily care for the
children. The National Organization For Women
also questions the motives of those promoting shared parenting, noting
that it would result in substantial decreases in or termination of child
support payments.
Stephen Baskerville states that shared parenting has been
demonstrated to reduce parental conflict by requiring parents to
cooperate and compromise, and that it is the lack of constraint by one
parent resulting from the ability of that parent to exclude the other,
that results in increased parental conflict.
He further states that only when child support guidelines exceed true
costs do parents ask for or seek to prevent changes in parenting time
for financial reasons, adding that any argument that a parent is asking
for increased parenting time to reduce child support is at the same time
an argument that the other parent is making a profit from child
support.
Stephen Baskerville describes no-fault or unilateral divorce
based on no fault as a power grab by the parent that initiates the
divorce and he also states that fathers have a constitutional right to
shared control of their children and through political action they
intend to establish parental authority for both parents and for the
well-being of their children.
Members of the fathers' rights movement state that a rebuttable
presumption for shared parenting preserves a child's protection against
unfit or violent parents.
Pro-feminist sociologist Michael Flood
states that supporters of shared parenting use it only as a symbolic
issue related to "rights", "equality", and "fairness" and that the
father's rights movement is not actually interested in the shared care
of their children or the children's wishes, adding that fathers' rights
groups have advocated policies and strategies that are harmful to
mothers and children and also harmful to the fathers themselves. In contrast, social scientist Sanford Braver states that the bad divorced dad image is a myth that has led to harmful and dangerous social policies.
Child support
Members of the fathers' rights movement campaign for the reform of
child support guidelines, which in most Western countries are based on
maintaining the children's standard of living after separation, and on
the assumption that the children live with one parent and never with the
other.
Activists state that the current guidelines are arbitrary, provide
mothers with financial incentives to divorce, and leave fathers with
little discretionary income to enjoy with the children during their
parenting time.
In the US, fathers' rights activists propose guidelines based on a Cost
Shares model, in which child support would be based on the average
income of the parents and the estimated child costs incurred by both
parents.
Laura W. Morgan has stated that it focuses on the relative living
standards of divorcing parents rather than the best interests of the
children and financially supporting them at the same level after
divorce.
Solangel Maldonado states that the law should value a broader
definition of fathering for poor fathers by reducing the focus on
collecting child support and encouraging the informal contributions
(such as groceries, clothes, toys, time with the children) of these
fathers by counting these contributions as child support.
Members of the fathers' rights movement state that child support
should be terminated under certain conditions, such as if the custodial
parent limits access to the children by moving away against the wishes
of the other parent, gives fraudulent testimony, or if paternity fraud
is discovered, adding that two men should not have to pay child support for the same child.
Stephen Baskerville states that it is often difficult for fathers
in financial hardship or who take on a larger caregiving role with
their children to have their child support payments lowered. He also
states that unemployment is the primary cause of child support arrears,
and further states that these arrearages make the father subject to
arrest and imprisonment without due process.
Stephen Baskerville states that the purpose of child support
should be publicly determined, and enforcement programs must be designed
to serve that purpose, observing the due process of law.
Supporters of the fathers' rights movement assert that some women
make false claims of domestic violence, sexual or child abuse in order
to gain an upper hand in divorce, custody disputes and/or prevent
fathers from seeing their children, and they state that lawyers advise
women to make such claims.
They state that false claims of domestic violence and child abuse are
encouraged by the inflammatory "win or lose" nature of child custody
hearings, that men are presumed to be guilty rather than innocent by
police and by the courts,
Lawyers and advocates for abused women assert that family court
proceedings are commonly accompanied with allegations of domestic
violence because of the prevalence of domestic violence in society
rather than as a result of false allegations of domestic violence. They
also assert that domestic violence often begins or increases around the
time of divorce or separation.
Academic critic, Michael Flood, argues that fathers' rights groups have
had a damaging impact on the field of domestic violence programming and
policy by attempting to discredit female victims of violence, to wind
back the legal protections available to victims and the sanctions
imposed on perpetrators, and to undermine services for the victims of
men's violence.
Stephen Baskerville asserts that when child abuse occurs the
perpetrator is not likely to be the father, and that child abuse most
often occurs after the father has been separated from his children.
Baskerville proposes that domestic violence and child abuse must be
adjudicated as criminal assault, observing due process protections, and
that government funding for programs addressing these issues must be
made contingent on such protections.
Parenting time interference
Glenn Sacks states that some mothers interfere with the father's parenting time and that such interference should be stopped. Sacks and Jeffery M. Leving
state that parenting time interference can result from the custodial
parent's relocation beyond a practical distance from the noncustodial
parent and they campaign for a rebuttable presumption prohibiting such
relocations.
Fathers' rights activists have also advocated for the inclusion
of parental alienation syndrome, a proposed syndrome developed by Richard A. Gardner that alleges unjustified disruption of the relationship between a parent and a child is caused by the other parent. Neither PAS nor PAD are accepted by any legal or mental health organization. Despite lobbying, parental alienation syndrome was not included in the draft of the DSM manual that was released in 2010, though parental alienation disorder does appear as a "Condition Proposed by Outside Sources" to be reviewed by a working group.
No-fault divorce
Stephen Baskerville
states that laws establishing no-fault divorce did not stop at removing
the requirement that grounds be cited for a divorce, so as to allow for
divorce by "mutual consent"; it also allows either spouse to end the
marriage without any agreement or fault by the other. Phyllis Schlafly states that no-fault divorce should be referred to as unilateral divorce.
Stephen Baskerville states that laws establishing no-fault
divorce can be seen as one of the boldest social experiments in modern
history that have effectively ended marriage as a legal contract.
He states that it is not possible to form a binding agreement to create
a family, adding that government officials can, at the request of one
spouse, end a marriage over the objection of the other.
He states that no-fault divorce has left fathers with no protection
against what he describes as the confiscation of their children.
Baskerville states that fault has entered through the back door
in the form of child custody hearings, and that the forcibly divorced
spouse ("defendant") is presumed guilty.
Similarly, other members of the fathers' rights movement believe that
men fail to get appropriate recognition of their innocence as a result
of no-fault divorce. Baskerville describes a proposed amendment of no-fault divorce laws that would create a rebuttable presumption
that custody of any minor children be awarded to the respondent [who is
innocent or does not wish to divorce] regardless of gender. He also
notes the predictions of Tim O'Brien, the author of the proposed
amendment, who states that the proposed amendment would result in a
plummeting divorce rate and reduced negative consequences for children.
Stephen Baskerville proposes "reasonable limits" on no-fault divorce when children are involved. Some members of the FRM support the end of the no-fault principle in child custody and divorce decisions. Some members of the fathers' rights movement state that the availability of divorce should also be limited.
Government involvement
Stephen
Baskerville states that governments throughout the United States and
other democracies are engaged, by accident or design, in a campaign
against fathers and fatherhood, which in his view, lies at the root of a
larger problem that threatens marriage, destroys families, devastates
the lives of many children, and undermines parents, democracy and accountability.
Baskerville also states that it is the removal of the father from the
family through divorce that initiates problems for which the government
is perceived as the solution rather than the problem, and that these
problems are then used to justify the continued existence and expansion
of the government.
Members of the fathers' rights movement state that modern divorce
involves government officials invading parents' private lives, evicting
people from their homes, seizing their property, and taking away their
children.
Parental and reproductive rights
Fathers' rights advocates have worked for the right of unwed,
otherwise fit, fathers to get custody if the mother tries to have their
child adopted by a third party or if child welfare authorities place the child in foster care.
Fathers' rights activists seek a gender-neutral approach in which unwed
men and women would have equal rights in adoption issues, an approach
that critics state does not sufficiently acknowledge the different
biological roles in procreation and pregnancy, and the disparity in
society's social and economic structures.
In the US, some states have passed laws to protect the rights of unwed
fathers to custody. Courts have increasingly supported these rights,
though judges often require evidence that the father has shown interest
in, and given financial and emotional support to, the mother during
pregnancy.
Some fathers' rights advocates have sought the right to prevent women from having an abortion
without the father's consent, on the basis that it is discriminatory
for men not to have the ability to participate in a decision to
terminate a pregnancy. This option is not supported by any laws in the United States. Fathers' rights advocates Jeffrey M. Leving and Glenn Sacks have stated that "choice for men is a flawed solution." Advocates have also expressed the desire to have a "financial abortion"
in which the option exists to sever all responsibility for child
support for an unwanted child. Commenting on this, legal scholar Kim
Buchanan states, "The only way men's lack of a pregnancy opt-out can be
framed as a gender injustice is to accept that men have a right to visit
the consequences of unprotected sex (or contraceptive failure)
exclusively on their female partners." However, some feminists, such as former president of the feminist organization National Organization for Women, attorney Karen DeCrow, have supported the "financial abortion" concept.
Parental leave
Pressure from father's rights groups, among others, have in several
countries resulted in gender-neutral program(s) eligible for parental
leave. While historically, maternity benefits were given to mothers
based on the physical biology of childbirth, including the need to
protect the health and financial well-being of the woman and child,
parental leave benefits emphasize gender-neutral child-rearing, the
benefits of the participation of fathers in children's care, and redress
discrimination against men who wish to be involved with their infants.
Terminology
Some
fathers' rights activists object to the term "visitation", which they
see as denigrating to their level of authority as parents, and instead
prefer the use of "parenting time".
Criticism
Some
legal scholars and feminist writers have accused the fathers' rights
movement of putting the interests of fathers above the interests of
children, for example, by suggesting that it is acceptable for fathers
to withdraw child support if they are not given access to their
children, or by lobbying for changes in family law that would allegedly
heighten children's exposure to abusive fathers, and would allegedly
further endanger mothers who are victims of domestic violence.
Another criticism is that father's rights activists allegedly
incorrectly maintain that the courts are biased against fathers while in
reality the vast majority of cases are settled by private agreement and
fathers voluntarily relinquish primary custody of their children, which
explains the lower percentage of custodial fathers; and that the "bias"
of courts is in favour of the primary caregiver, not mothers per se.
Researchers Martha Fineman, Michael Flood,
and others have criticized the movement for allegedly perpetuating
negative stereotypes of women as deceptive, vindictive, and
irresponsible as well as the stereotype that women are out to take
advantage of men financially.
The consciousness and philosophy of men's liberation is
critical of the restraints which society imposes on men. Men's
liberation activists are generally sympathetic to feminist standpoints
and have been greatly concerned with deconstructing negative aspects of
male identity and portions of masculinity which do not serve to promote
the stories and lives of all men.
Men's liberation is not to be confused with different movements such as the men's rights movement, in which some argue that modern feminism
has gone too far and additional attention should be placed on men's
rights. The men's liberation movement stresses the costs of some
negative portions of "traditional" masculinity,
whereas the men's rights movement is largely about unequal or unfair
treatment of men by modern institutions because of, or in spite of those
traits ubiquitous to traditional masculinity.
History
Men
in the early portions of the 20th century started to use the battle for
worker's rights as a way of examining their own lives as men in a
capitalist society. This can be observed as writers like Upton Sinclair
exposed the horrendous conditions men worked under in meat packing
plants. Unskilled immigrant men did the backbreaking and often dangerous
work, laboring in dark and unventilated rooms, hot in summer and
unheated in winter. Many stood all day on floors covered with blood,
meat scraps, and foul water, wielding sledge-hammers and knives. The
extent to which the growth of capital outpaces wages can and does force
men to work in dangerous conditions and for others' betterment is often
viewed through the lens of Marxism. Thus, it is somewhat difficult to
differentiate between men's liberation, men's rights, and labor rights.
The rights of labor are often synonymous with the rights of men. This
can also be examined politically in the 1791 treatise, The Rights of Man
by Thomas Paine. In this work Paine suggests "The mutual dependence and
reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of
civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of
connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the
manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation,
prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the
whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law;
and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than
the laws of government. In fine society performs for itself almost
everything which is ascribed to government." In as much as Sinclair and
Marx were attempting to empower working men from their capital holding
brethren—Paine is shown to be examining the rights of man to be a worker
of his own sort, free from a government which doesn't exist to his
betterment.
The men's liberation movement, as recognized by feminists and
today's gender scholars who are often ignorant and even hostile towards
Marxist critique, developed mostly among heterosexual, middle-class men
in Britain and North America as a response to the cultural changes of
the 1960s and 1970s, including the growth of the feminist movement, counterculture, women's and gay liberation movements, and the sexual revolution. Jack Sawyer published an article titled "On Male Liberation" in Liberation
journal in the autumn of 1970, in which he discussed the negative
effects of stereotypes of male sex roles. 1971 saw the birth of men's
discussion groups across the United States, as well as the formation by Warren Farrell of the National Task Force on the Masculine Mystique within the National Organization for Women.
Robert Lewis and Joseph Pleck sourced the birth of the movement to the
publication of five books on the subject in late 1974 and early 1975,
which was followed by a surge of publications targeted to both lay and
more academic audiences.
The movement led to the formation of conferences, consciousness raising groups, men's centers, and other resources across the United States.
The male liberation movement as a single self-conscious liberal
feminist movement dissolved during the late 1970s. By the early 1980s,
members of the male liberation movement had fully split into two
entities. The members who had placed greater emphasis on the 'cost of
male gender roles to men' than the 'cost of male gender roles to women'
had formed the men's rights movement
focusing on issues faced by men. The members who saw sexism
exclusively as a system of men oppressing women rejected the language of
sex roles and created pro-feminist men's organizations focused
primarily on addressing sexual violence against women.
Race
Racial
differences have historically stratified the men’s liberation movement
and such divisions still remain problematic today. Some profeminist
scholars argue
that racism within American society has emasculated non-white men. For
example, black men are perceived to lack control over their innate
sexual aggression.
Within this ideological framework black men are presented as
hyper-sexual to an animalistic degree; they therefore represent beasts,
not men. East Asian Americans, however, have been portrayed as unattractive and less masculine.
Gay liberation
Second-wavepro-feminism paid increased attention to issues of sexuality, particularly the relationship between homosexual men and hegemonic masculinity. This shift led to more cooperation between the men's liberation and gay liberation movements. In part this cooperation arose because masculinity was then understood to be a social construction, and as a response to the universalization of "men" seen in previous men's movements.
Organizations
Radical Faeries
The Radical Faeries were organized in California in 1979 by gay
activists wanting to create an alternative to being assimilated into
mainstream men's culture.
California Men's Gathering
The California Men's Gathering was created in 1978
by men in the anti-sexist men's movement. Author Margo Adair who
attended the twelfth gathering in 1987, wrote that she found the
atmosphere strangely different than anything she had previously
experienced. After thinking about it, she realized it was the first
time she had ever felt completely safe among a large group of men, with
few other women. She also noticed that everyone was accepted, and
affection among participants was displayed openly.
The California Men's Gathering organizes biannual retreats focused on men's issues. Currently, most of the men attending The California Men's Gathering are gay or bisexual.
National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS)
NOMAS is a pro-feminist, gay affirmative men's organization, which
also enhances men's lives. The 1991 NOMAS national conference was about
building multicultural communities.
