Washington, D.C.—It would be hard to imagine a more illustrious career in criminal defense law than that of 83 year old Plato Cacheris.  Cacheris, a son of Greek immigrants who originally hoped to be ambassador to Greece, has instead spent a lifetime representing clients ranging from Attorney General John Mitchell, accused in the Nixon-era Watergate corruption scandal, to notorious presidential intern and mistress Monica Lewinsky.  In between, he's been involved in defending figures accused of involvement in Iran-Contra and international espionage.

(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)

While his career was made in high-profile defense cases, after graduating from Georgetown University Law Center, Cacheris started at the other counsel table.  “I spent eight years working as a prosecutor,” he told laws.com in a recent interview.  “In 1965, I decided to pursue a career in private practice.”  

Cacheris says that anyone considering criminal defense as a career option should consider starting the same way he did: “The best advice I can give to a law student is to become a prosecutor.  The next big step would be to become a defense attorney, but be sure you know your stuff pretty well before making this step.”

Sentencing guidelines have been a consistent challenge for Cacheris, as well as other defenders who often represent clients in federal court cases.  In a 2000 interview with The Washington Lawyer, Cacheris called federal sentencing guidelines “an abomination.  They have taken advocacy out of the sentencing process in criminal cases and replaced it with a rigid grid.  The human element and discretion has been completely removed.  I think that's wrong, and it doesn't produce justice.”

For criminal defense attorneys in the legal world today, Cacheris told laws.com, “the biggest challenge we face are the sentencing guidelines, which is still a problem we face today,” decades after they were enacted.  In his interview with The Washington Lawyer, Cacheris said: “[The guidelines] have had a chilling impact.  Few clients want to risk going to trial anymore.  In drug cases the sentences are draconian.  There is also a big risk in white collar cases … that creates a heavy incentive to cut a deal, if you can do so.”

Today, with sentences so severe, he told laws.com, “a plea deal seems to be less of a risk.  Depending on the evidence determines whether I go to trial or not.”

While not all of Cacheris's clients have been famous, he has represented a number of people whose legal cases have been complicated by aggressive media coverage: “The biggest difference between high profile criminal defendants and those out of the limelight,” he says, “is that the press is hounding you constantly.  One has to be careful with what you say to the press.”

Today, Cacheris is a member of Trout Cacheris, PLLC, a major player in Washington D.C. in both criminal and civil litigation.  While retirement might be on the horizon for most octogenarian lawyers—or something they've been enjoying for years—Cacheris has told interviewers that he plans to continue working as an attorney for as long as the phone keeps ringing and clients keep coming through the door.

Arlington, VA—For David Oblon, named one of Washingtonian magazine's “Best Lawyers” a successful career in criminal law started with an economic choice—but his career soon blossomed into being something about much more than just making money.

(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)

“I'd love to say that criminal defense was my aspiration since watching Inherit the Wind, but unfortunately this is not true,” Oblon, who has now been a practicing lawyer in the Washington DC area for over 15 years, told laws.com in a recent interview.

Oblon began his career not as an attorney, but as a law clerk for a large antitrust law firm in Washington DC.  Going part time to law school in the evenings while holding down his full time firm job seemed like a great way to do what he was most passionate about: “I loved antitrust and trade regulation law.”

Just when it seemed like Oblon would work in antitrust for his whole career, a look at financial realities changed Oblon's path forever.  “I had been trained in law and economics.  While working on my monthly bills, it occurred to me that if I were in a law practice of my own and generated just a fraction of the work I was then doing, I could make a very good living.  This is economics 101!”

Instead of going to work for someone else's firm when he graduated law school, Oblon started his own practice with one partner.  At first, he wanted to practice antitrust law, but clients preferred to do business with attorneys at large firms who had handled a great deal of litigation.  “I began to get hungry, and, unwilling to admit defeat as always, I started seeking any legal work I could get.”

After signing up to be a court appointed attorney for indigent defendants, Oblon discovered he had a latent talent—criminal defense.  “I began getting very good results, and my appointed clients quickly began referring people they knew to me—people who could pay fees.” In addition to clients, other lawyers noticed Oblon.  He has been asked to teach law to other lawyers – and even judges – at continuing legal education programs multiple times a year for over a decade and a half.   

Today, Oblon's practice includes 13 total attorneys, and he now specializes in criminal defense.  Along the way, he's defended some major cases, including the first person to ever be charged with felony unlawful distribution of commercial e-mail.  “Since everyone hates spam—me included—the case made international news,” says Oblon.  “I learned to never give up, despite the courts, media, and e-mail users everywhere being critical.”

In Virginia, where Oblon practices, he says that sentencing guidelines have led to difficulties for clients who want to exercise their right to a jury trial.  “Judges in Virginia are required to consult sentencing guidelines—statistically average sentences—and if they decline to follow them, they have to give a written explanation.  Jurors are given no such guidance.  Therefore, the risk of a 'runaway' jury could result in considerably more incarceration for a defendant than if convicted by a judge alone through a plea.”

This, in turn, opens the door for abuse, according to Oblon.  “In the federal system, prosecutors can effectively leverage the sentencing guidelines to exact guilty pleas from people who otherwise want to go to trial.”  As an example, Oblon says to think about a defendant facing charges that would result in a long sentence if convicted, but then is offered a plea to a lesser crime.  “With the likelihood of much less or no incarceration, even the innocent person would rationally consider the plea bargain.”

To learn more about David Oblon please visit his official website https://www.albo-oblon.com.

Great progress has been made in the fight against domestic violence with the recent passage of  the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The reauthorization of this bill has been signed into law by President Obama earlier this month. It has also received bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

(More on  News at LAWS.com, contact Adam for interviews “adama@laws.com”)

Since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has provided a comprehensive approach to tackling the issues of sexual and domestic violence. It established the National Domestic Violence Hotline and improved the response of the criminal justice system to the problem of domestic violence.  

In Oregon, sexual and domestic violence programs answered more than 175,000 calls for help in 2011. That same year, more than 5,000 women, men and children were sheltered. In addition, more than 27,000 victims of domestic violence received community-based support from different programs across the state.

The Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence (OCADSV) was founded in 1978 to serve survivors of sexual and domestic violence. A non-profit, feminist organization, the OCADSV provides training, technical assistance and public education to crisis centers. It seeks to eliminate sexual and domestic violence through community engagement and survivor advocacy.  

The following is an interview with Debbie Fox, Development Director at the OCADSV, on the reauthorization of VAWA.

In your opinion, what does the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) mean for the women's rights movement?

I think the recent passage signifies the need for the current women's rights movement to continue educating our legislators and the public on how violence against women affects everyone. With 1 in 3 women affected by gendered violence, there should be no question that VAWA should be passed without controversy.

Do you think the new version of VAWA goes far enough to protect women against sexual and domestic violence?

I believe the new version of VAWA goes further to protect ALL women who experience domestic violence but there is still limited funding to cover preventative measures that will get at the root causes of domestic violence in our society.  We need more prevention initiatives to address the core reasons why violence against women exists, and that is the oppression and systemic issues that exists in our society.

The new version of VAWA includes historic provisions for members of the LGBT community and Native American Women. Do you think this is a step in the right direction for LGBT people and Native American Women?

Yes, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 is a step in the right direction for American Indian women and LGBT people in the United States. According to Jodi Gillette, Senior Policy Advisor for Native American Affairs, and Charles Galbraith, Associate Director in the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, “The new law…clarifies that tribal courts have full civil jurisdiction to provide Native American women the safety and security of protection orders. And the new law gives additional tools to federal prosecutors to combat severe cases of domestic violence.”[1]

Prior to passage of the law, the National Congress of American Indians reported on the proposed changes, “The constitutionally sound tribal jurisdiction provisions in VAWA authorize tribal governments to prosecute non-Indian defendants involved in intimate relationships with Native women and who assault these victims on tribal land.”[2]

On the other hand, Natalie Landreth, Staff Attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, argues that the law did not go far enough. She states,  “Nationwide, many celebrated the new provisions allowing tribal governments to prosecute non-Indian perpetrators of domestic violence and sexual assault. It was a long overdue fix for a jurisdictional loophole. However, VAWA contained a controversial provision that excluded Alaska Native tribes from the tribal jurisdiction provisions.”

For people who are LGBT, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund – with a broad-based coalition – worked for the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the law. Task Force Executive Director Rea Carey says:

“This is a historic moment for our country. For the first time, this lifesaving law contains explicit protections for LGBT people. To be the target of domestic and sexual assault is terrifying and traumatic, and LGBT people are not immune from this violence. This inclusive Violence Against Women Act is critical to ensuring that the distress experienced by survivors of sexual violence is not compounded by a lack of proper response from service providers or law enforcement. We applaud all those who worked so hard to make sure no one was left behind in this law. We are proud to be a partner in this victory. Thousands of survivors of domestic and sexual violence will get the care they need because so many stood firm for what is right. This is a great day for America.”[3]

[1] Retrieved from the website for The White House at https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/03/07/president-signs-2013-vawa-empowering-tribes-protect-native-women on March 31, 2013

[2] Retrieved from the website of the National Congress of American Indians at https://www.ncai.org/news/articles/2013/02/28/house-passes-violence-against-women-act on March 31, 2013

[3] Retrieved from the website of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force at https://thetaskforceblog.org/2013/03/07/president-obama-signs-lgbt-inclusive-violence-against-women-act/ on April 1, 2013

What has your organization been able to achieve in terms of advancing the cause of domestic violence victims in Oregon?

Oregon has achieved many strides over the years, to passing landmark legislation to criminalize rape in marriage at the beginning of the violence against women's movement, to addressing systemic barriers that communities of color experience in Oregon.  The Oregon Coalition are statewide leaders in advancing  social change as necessary to end violence against women and children, as well as to end oppression of all people. The Coalition promotes the belief that all women have the inherent right to make their own decisions concerning lifestyles, sexuality, sexual orientation, education, employment, reproductive matters and spirituality. We are committed to supporting and involving underserved communities as well as upholding standards for anti-racism work in Oregon.

Do you believe Oregon has come a long way since the initial passage of VAWA in 1994?

Yes, we have made huge strides in addressing this long hidden issues in all communities in Oregon, from rural to the urban centers.  We have a comprehensive networks of crisis and advocacy centers that help women and children heal from the abuse they have experienced.  We have a statewide safety net across the state that didn't exist with federal support before the passing of VAWA.

If you are in a domestic violence situation, please contact the OCADSV for help. For more information on domestic violence, please visit the Domestic Violence Page.

Interviewed with Debbie Fox of the Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, Portland, Oregon

The Violence Against Women Act has been reauthorized and signed into law, signifying a huge step forward for victims of sexual and domestic violence all over the United States. The Violence Against Women Act provides funding for the training of over 500,000 prosecutors, judges and law enforcement officers annually so that they are better able to respond to the victims of sexual and domestic violence.  In addition to re-establishing the older provisions pertaining to intimate partner violence, it provides newly established legal protections for Native American women.

(More on  News at LAWS.com, contact Adam for interviews “adama@laws.com”)

The importance of the new provisions for Native American women in the new VAWA cannot be overstated. Native American women suffer the highest rate of sexual and domestic violence of any racial group in the country. They are the victims of sexual assault or rape at a rate that is double that of any other group. It is estimated that Native American women suffer violent crime at a rate three and half times higher than the national average. This problem was compounded by the fact that, before the new provisions in VAWA, confusion about tribal and federal jurisdiction meant that the courts and police tended to ignore domestic violence cases that involved Native Americans, and what was worst, was the fact that when the perpetrator was not Native American yet committed the crime on a reservation, the tribal courts did not have the power to prosecute him. 80 percent of  violence experienced by Native American women was committed by a non-Native.

Mending the Sacred Hoop started with a Native American women’s support and advocacy group for the survivors of domestic violence founded in the 1980s in Duluth, Minnesota. It initially began as a Native program under the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, but became an independent Native owned and operated non-profit organization in 2006. It works both locally in Minnesota and provides valuable technical assistance and training to Native American communities nationally.

The following is an interview with Holly Oden of Mending the Sacred Hoop on her opinion regarding the recent reauthorization of VAWA and the historic provisions it includes for Native American women, and the work of her organization in the realm of domestic violence.

In your opinion, what does the recent passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) signify for the women's rights movement?

The recent passage of the VAWA can be viewed as a statement on the status of women in this country in that intimate partner violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are predominantly crimes against women. Nationally, over 85% of domestic assault victims are women (Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence: 1993); almost one-third of female homicide victims were killed by an intimate partner (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports: 2001) – for Native American/Alaska Native women this statistic is 31%; 1 in 6 women report that they have experienced sexual assault (for Native American/Alaska Native women the rate is 1 in 3), as opposed to 1 in 33 men nationwide. The recent passage of the VAWA recognizes the gendered nature of the violence – women in this country are victimized because they are women.

With the newly added provisions for Native American Women, do you believe VAWA goes far enough to protect Native American women against domestic violence?

Prior to the passage of the Act (through, primarily, Supreme Court decisions), tribes had no authority to criminally prosecute non-Native offenders who committed crimes within the tribe's jurisdiction. Essentially, if a non-Native man committed domestic assault against his Native wife, girlfriend, significant other, the tribe had no criminal authority to charge, prosecute (and in many cases even arrest and hold) the non-Native person committing the criminal act within the tribe's jurisdiction. Keep in mind that a high number of non-Native people live in tribal communities (upwards of 85% in some communities) and also, that for Native women nationally, the rates of assault are 3 times higher than for women of other races. Additionally, the majority of those committing crimes against Native women are of another race (over 80% of violence experienced by Native Americans is committed by persons not of the same race – American Indians and Crime Report & Homicide: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Crime Statistics: 1999). This year, in signing the VAWA reauthorization with the Tribal provisions intact, Congress has essentially "fixed" tribal jurisdiction over the crime of domestic assault. The VAWA still needs to be funded in order to implement certain of its provisions. This is of particular importance regarding tribal authority to criminally prosecute domestic assaults, as many tribes, particularly in Public Law 280 states, do not have tribal criminal courts. The VAWA will make funding available to develop tribal courts with the ability to prosecute these crimes.

What are some of the unique obstacles and challenges facing Native American domestic violence victims?

In common with non-Native victims of domestic violence, Native victims of such violence face obstacles and challenges to safety that are particular to the community in which they live and are victimized. For example, if the community is rural, isolated, small and strongly inter-connected, this can be a great barrier to the victim in seeking cessation of the violence and safety for herself and her children. If the community has no response or a poor response to domestic assault this directly impacts her ability to report. If there are no services in place (shelter, for instance) her safety is severely compromised. If she must seek safety by leaving her community, she is impacted on many levels: loss of supportive family members and friends, loss of housing, children uprooted from their friends, school, and activities, and she also faces economic impacts.

Some barriers specific to Native American/Alaska Native women who are being battered in Tribal communities may include: 1) Jurisdictional issues – where the crime takes place: is it reservation land, trust land, is the reservation a checkerboard reservation? Additionally, who responds to the crime is still based upon an assessment of the race of the victim and the race of the offender; 2) Lack of infrastructure: Tribal communities are the poorest communities in the U.S. – the lack of response is directly due to lack of resources for response; 3) Isolation – in some Native villages in Alaska (very remote, very isolated), state troopers can take up to three days to arrive.

In urban communities, racism is a factor both in the violence perpetrated against Native women as well as the criminal justice response to the victimization. For instance, if a Native woman calls to report a domestic assault, and is “known” to the responding officers, she is more likely to be seen as the offender (even if her husband, boyfriend, significant other has a history of domestic assault); Native women are more likely to be seen as violent. Additionally, Native women are the most victimized by sexual assault (and they also are more likely to report); however, the rate of prosecution of sexual assault of Native women is very low (non-existent in some urban communities) and can be traced back to stereotypes about Native women – that they are alcoholics, for example – and “victim-credibility” – because she is a Native woman, she is not a credible victim.

The history of colonization and the generational trauma experienced by many Native people (forced removal of both children and communities – boarding schools, removal to reservations, to name two), as well as multiple victimizations over a lifetime create great barriers to Native women seeking safety from intimate partner violence. This history also has created a well-placed distrust of systems and an unwillingness to report to systems (the removal of children, forced sterilization) – Native women currently have their children removed and placed in foster care at very high rates – repeating the historical trauma of their grandparents and parents being forced into boarding schools.

What has your organization been able to achieve in terms of advancing the cause of Native American domestic violence victims?

Mending the Sacred Hoop works to keep the voices of Native women survivors fully heard in the work to address violence against women. We began our criminal justice intervention efforts locally in 1993, working to change the way the criminal justice system and service providers in northern Minnesota responded to Native women experiencing domestic violence. We have worked nationally with tribes across the nation since 1995, when the newly created Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) approached us to provide training and technical assistance to Office on Violence tribal grantees working to address violence against women in their communities.  In 2006, MSH started a state-wide organizing effort through the Sacred Hoop Domestic Violence Coalition, keeping the voices of Native women at the forefront of the work to address domestic violence. We have also worked over the years to educate our own Duluth, MN community on violence against Native women issues, provide mentoring for batterer intervention program group facilitators, and have conducted Safety and Accountability Audits of the institutional response to Native women who have experienced domestic violence or sexual assault in order to change/enhance the response.

Mending the Sacred Hoop has worked to organize community responses to violence against women to ensure that Native women have equal access to safety and services. We work from a grass-roots level, utilizing the strengths of community in confronting and challenging myths and stereotypes that are a significant factor in the response of systems to violence against Native women.

The initial passage of VAWA did help many domestic violence victims, but it is safe to say that, for the most part, Native American domestic violence victims living on reservations have been left out of that progress because of legal loopholes. With the newly added provisions, are you optimistic about the future for Native American domestic violence victims?

I am optimistic about the future of our Nations to end violence against women and to restore the sacred status of women. Violence against women is not a part of our culture; this violence is a by-product of colonization efforts that diminished the status of Native women and children. The use of violence to maintain power while defining women and children as property created a framework for the domestic violence and sexual assault that occurs in our communities today. In other words, violence against women was a forced import; it came from outside the community, the tribe, and is directly antithetical to tribal life ways and values. The majority of tribes hold beliefs around the status of women: that women are sacred, and to harm a woman is to harm the community. In the context of this belief system, violence against women such as domestic and sexual assault are therefore particularly unthinkable acts. It is within our ability to reclaim these teachings, values and life ways and to end violence against Native women.

I am also optimistic because Native women were organizing to address violence against women for many years prior to the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994; organizing efforts by Native women spearheaded addressing domestic violence as a social issue, rather than just a relationship issue. The passage of the first VAWA provided funding that supported these efforts and allowed for tribal program capacity building in providing services; however, organizing efforts and services to victims in tribal communities preceded the passage of the Act, and the Tribal provisions in the current VAWA that restore Tribes’ ability to criminally prosecute the criminal act of domestic assault are in place because of the organizing efforts of Native women.

For more information on Mending the Sacred Hoop and violence against Native Women, please visit their page. You can learn more by visiting the Domestic Violence Page.

Interviewed with Holly Oden of Mending the Sacred Hoop, Duluth, Minnesota

On February 28, the House of Representative passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) by a vote of 286 to 136. VAWA was then signed into law on March 7, marking a huge step forward for victims of domestic violence all over the country. This new legislation, which was initially drafted by then Senator Joe Biden in 1994 and enacted the same year, is more powerful because it both expands and creates federal programs that help victims of domestic violence.

(More on  News at LAWS.com, contact Adam for interviews “adama@laws.com”)

Domestic violence is an issue among all racial and ethnic groups in the United States. Statistically, Asian and Pacific Islander women experience lower rates of sexual and domestic violence than women of other racial groups. However, this may not truly reflect reality, as this may actually be due to underreporting by Asian and Pacific Islander women experiencing domestic violence. One national study found  that 12.8 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander women experienced physical assault at least once in their lifetime. However, community-based studies of Asian women, estimate a lifetime prevalence rate of 41%-61%. The Project AWARE (Asian Women Advocating Respect and Empowerment)  study on types of domestic violence found that more than 81 percent of a representative sample of Asian women experienced some form of intimate partner violence in the past year, be that psychological or physical.

The Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence (API Institute) is a national resource center that deals with domestic violence within the Asian and Pacific Islander communities. It works to eliminate violence against women in these communities through research, policy advocacy and technical assistance and training.

The following is an interview with Chic Dabby, Director of the API Institute, in which she shares her views on the recent reauthorization of VAWA, and the work of the API Institute to combat domestic violence.

In your opinion, what does the recent passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) signify for the women's rights movement?

The women’s movement has successfully focused public and governmental attention on issues affecting and abrogating women’s rights – and, domestic violence is one of them.  The first bill to address domestic violence, the Family Violence Prevention Services Act (FVPSA) was authorized in 1984 and continues to be the federal government’s only funding source directly dedicated to domestic violence shelters and services.  A full decade later, the Violence Against Women Act was first passed in 1994; and both bills have been reauthorized subsequently.  Such landmark legislation translates into federal and state support to prevent violence against women and other victims, and provide services for them, and are having an impact.  As Vice President Biden (who, as Senator, authored VAWA in 1994) reminds us, domestic violence has gone down 60% between 1993 and 2010.  The recent passage of VAWA signifies eventual bipartisan support for the bill’s new and vital protections for immigrant women, tribal women and the LGBTQ community – crafted by advocates and championed by both parties.  The national mobilization this took reflects the strategic advantages of a unified women’s rights movement that represents the interests of multiple identity groups and communities.             

Do you believe the new version of VAWA goes far enough to protect women against domestic violence?

Legislative remedies generally develop in response to identified trends and issues.  For example, VAWA, expanded from protections for the crime of domestic violence to include sexual assault, stalking and dating violence because the data indicated that these were significant national trends.  In the new version of VAWA, among many important provisions, three were critical – jurisdictional issues for Native women, unequivocal inclusion for LGBTQ individuals, and expanded protections for immigrant women. At the end of the day, legislative protection can only go so far; changing cultures and communities that devalue and oppress women is what prevents domestic violence.

What are some of the unique obstacles and challenges facing Asian domestic violence victims in the United States?

Trends like transnational abandonment, threats of deportation, forced marriage, and custody battles that deny battered mothers custody and even access to their children pose unique obstacles/challenges to Asian women.  In addition, their immigration status is used by batterers as one of the tactics of domestic violence and coercive control – this includes documented women who fall out of status because their abusers do not take steps to regularize it; or the difficulty of implementing protections for Asian women with an H-4 dependent visa who become domestic violence victims. Inadequate language access, anti-immigrant  policies, gender bias in family court, and racism pose system barriers.

What has your organization been able to achieve in terms of advancing the cause of Asian domestic violence victims?

The achievements of the Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence include: [1] Increasing the provision of culturally relevant, trauma-informed services through training and technical assistance, in community-based-organizations and systems to address the unique dynamics and trends of domestic violence in Asian homes, through training and technical assistance. [2] Influencing systems change through research on critical issues such as domestic violence related homicides affecting Asian women and children to shape homicide prevention policies. [3] Addressing the unmet needs of sub-groups within a large, heterogeneous Asian population by working with national partners and community experts to develop materials such as the Islamic Marriage Contracts: A Resource Guide for Legal Professionals, Advocates, Imams & Communities. [4] Promoting language access for domestic and sexual violence victims with limited English proficiency.  [5] Collaborating with multiple federal agencies to address violence against Asian women and girls by recommending interventions and policies on unique trends and issues that affect Asian victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking and other forms of gender-based violence.

Do you believe the Asian American community has come a long way since the initial passage of VAWA in 1994?

Yes. In fact, a core group of mostly Asian advocates and attorneys in the San Francisco Bay Area crafted the immigrant battered women’s provisions in that first bill – evidence of Asian American leadership that has continued throughout subsequent reauthorizations.  Domestic violence continues to be a central focus of activism in Asian communities – women and men have organized to counter the extent and depth of the problem, evidenced by approximately 120 programs in the country designed by Asian advocates.  Cultural change in all communities will be a perpetual mission: Asian community-based-organizations are attempting to integrate the principles of gender equality into all types of projects, on the principle that domestic violence or gender parity is not just a women’s issue, only located in women’s programs.  The pathways to divesting from gender violence and investing in gender democracy are daunting but Asian victims/survivors, activists and advocates continue to build and strengthen them.

If you or someone you know is in a domestic violence situation, please contact the API Institute for help. To learn more about domestic violence, please visit the Domestic Violence Page.

Interviewed by Chic Dabby of the Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence, San Francisco, California

President Obama recently signed the reauthorization of the the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) into law. This is a huge step forward for all victims of sexual and domestic violence across the country. This new legislation is better than the 1994 version because it both expands and creates federal programs that help victims of sexual and domestic violence. It is important to note that although it is called the Violence Against Women Act, men are covered under this legislation.

(More on  News at LAWS.com, contact Adam for interviews “adama@laws.com”)

The Violence Against Women Act established a national hotline that anyone – women, men, gay or straight – can call if they find themselves in a domestic violence situation. The new version of VAWA goes even further by having historic provisions to protect members of the LGBT community and Native American women.

The murder trial of Jodi Arias serves as a reminder that men, just like women, can be and are also victims of domestic violence. One in fourteen has been assaulted by a partner, either current or former, at some point in their lives. Annually, more than 835,000 men are victims of domestic violence. In 2004, more than 5 percent of male homicide victims were killed by an intimate partner.

The Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women (DAHMW) is a national nonprofit domestic violence organization. It specializes in offering supportive services to men who are abused by their female partners. The DAHMW is working to eliminate domestic violence through education and community collaboration. Although the DAHMW specializes in supporting men who were victims of female abusers, women and members of the LGBT community are offered the same help and support if they seek the assistance of the DAHMW.

The following is an interview with Jan Brown, Founder and Executive Director of the DAHMW, on her views about the reauthorization of VAWA, and the work of the DAHMW to help end domestic violence.

In your opinion, what does the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) mean for victims of domestic violence?

The changes made to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which was signed into law in March 2013, signifies that, we as a country, are moving towards a more enlightened and realistic view of domestic violence. The nondiscrimination clause included in VAWA 2013 recognizes that anyone, whether male or female, heterosexual, gay or transgender, can be a victim/survivor of domestic violence in need of support and services. I am in hopes that, over time, this will mean an end to the discriminatory practices that have been used in the past, practices which have left underserved victims without the necessary tools to escape violent intimate relationships.

Do you believe the new version of VAWA goes far enough to protect men against domestic violence?

I believe that the new version goes far enough to protect gay and transgender (MTF/FMT) men in abusive relationships. It's widely accepted that domestic violence occurs in gay relationships as frequently as in heterosexual relationships.  

The new version of VAWA has the capacity to protect heterosexual men against domestic violence. However, it will take more than a nondiscrimination clause and opening up funding to under served populations to address the issue of female on male violence.  

For more than four decades battered women's advocates and the media (via battered women's advocates) has defined domestic violence as, violence against women…by men.  Our society has been led to believe that the most prevalent cause of domestic violence is men's patriarchal need to oppress, dominate and control women.  

This may have been the case decades ago, however, society has changed a great deal since the advent of the battered women's movement.  Women's roles have also changed tremendously due to the laudable and courageous efforts of women's rights activists.

However, as long as battered women's advocates continue to downplay and minimize male victimization and women's violence e.g. women use violence to defend themselves etc., society will continue to believe the, "women are victims-men are perpetrators" mantra and little will change.

The 2006 version of VAWA included a provision in Section 3 regarding nonexclusivity/nondiscrimination to wit;

"(8) NONEXCLUSIVITY.—Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from receiving benefits and services under this title." (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr3402enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr3402enr.pdf)  

Shortly after VAWA was reauthorized in 2006 The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women published a paper on, "Frequently Asked Questions About VAWA and Gender."  https://www.ncdsv.org/images/FAQ_VAWA%20and%20Gender.pdf  In that paper they stated that nothing in the Act (VAWA) denies services, programs, funding, or assistance to male victims of violence.  

However, my condensed version of what the paper is actually saying is that women suffer more negative consequences from domestic violence (no doubt), male victims of female violence are as rare as a sunflower in the desert and intimate partner violence against men is overwhelming committed by male perpetrators (they state this last one in the paper).   https://www.ncdsv.org/images/FAQ_VAWA%20and%20Gender.pdf

Since the passage of VAWA 2006, IMHO, little has changed with regards to supportive services for male victims. The nondiscrimination clause in VAWA 2013 is much more strongly worded than the nonexculsivity clause in VAWA 2006.  Hopefully the new provision will make a difference.  

Do you believe there are enough services available to cater to the specific needs of male victims of domestic violence?

Not at the present time.  Male victims need much the same services as their female counterparts, support, legal aid, safe housing, counseling etc. I have made hundreds of calls over the past twelve years to domestic violence shelter programs across the country on behalf of heterosexual and gay male victims who call our helpline seeking supportive services. Approximately 90% of the shelter programs I called advised me that they didn't help men.  Many told me that men rarely call their hotline (for women) or that when men did call they referred them out to the local homeless shelter or batterer's intervention program.

Most programs that do offer services to both female and male victims offer only limited services e.g. phone support, one on one counseling and assistance with filing restraining orders, to male victims.  

What has the DAHMW been able to achieve in terms of advancing the cause of male domestic violence victims?

Singularly and in collaboration with researchers and others who work in the domestic violence field DAHMW has been able to bring more awareness to the issues that male victims face. We have achieved this through studies focused on male victims and presentations at universities and domestic violence conferences.

Further, although we do not get any of the state and federal funding that traditional domestic violence victims’ service programs receive, we have been able to help some male victims with temporary shelter, food, clothing, bus tickets etc.  

As a society, do you think we have come far since the first passage of VAWA in 1994?

We have come a long way in stopping violence against women by men but there is so much more to do if we ever hope to end all domestic violence.

If you are a man or woman facing domestic violence, please contact DAHMW for help. For more information on domestic violence, please visit the Domestic Violence Page.

Interviewed with Jan Brown of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men & Women, Harmony, Maine

The re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has been signed into law, marking a huge step forward for victims of domestic violence all across the country. This new legislation is more powerful than the version passed in 1994, in that it both expands and creates federal programs that help victims of domestic violence. In addition to re-establishing provisions of the older law pertaining to domestic violence, it provides newly established legal protections for Native American women and LGBT victims of domestic violence.

(More on  News at LAWS.com, contact Adam for interviews “adama@laws.com”)

Since its inception in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has provided a holistic approach to tackling the issue of domestic violence. One of the ways it did this was by establishing a national hotline and improving the way the criminal justice system responded to domestic violence.

In New York City alone, there were more than 260,000 domestic violence incidents in 2012. In New York City, there were 69 family related homicides in 2012. However, matters are improving throughout the city. For example, in 2012 there were 2,724 domestic violence emergency beds in various shelters, which is a 35 percent increase from the 2002 figure. Crime is declining in New York City, and domestic violence crime, luckily, is no exception to this great trend.

The New York City based Center Against Domestic Violence was one of the first domestic violence organizations in the country, and is New York State’s first such organization. In 1977, it won the right for children to be sheltered with their mothers. In the 1990s, it launched the innovative PEER curriculum (Pride – Education – Equality – Respect) in order to reach high school and middle school students, today this program reaches some 30,000 students. Currently, its three shelters provide emergency accommodation to 1,000 women and children domestic violence victims annually.

The following is an interview with Rona Solomon of the Center Against Domestic Violence on her thoughts and feelings about the recent reauthorization of VAWA, and the work of her organization in the realm of domestic violence.

In your opinion, what does the recent passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) signify for the women's rights movement?

First – I think that the year and a half delay in passage for this act points up the great divide in our country.  Protection against injustice is not finite or limited. The extension of rights to formerly disenfranchised people does not take anything away from the people who historically enjoy those rights.  My right to safety is just as important as a man’s, but my having that right takes nothing away from his rights.

We need to work together – outside our usual cultural bounds – to ensure that women are not targeted just because of gender.  Last year when I was working on a paper about how the Center teen dating violence prevention programs also combat bullying in schools, I came across an interesting statistic: in New York City public schools, regardless of grade, the biggest group of bullying victims is girls.  Girls are more picked on than any racial or ethnic group – more picked on than LGBT kids – more picked on than disabled kids.  And – within those often targetd groups – more girls than boys are victims of bullying.

I’m grateful that Congress passed this law, but the time it took and the dialogue around its passage gives me pause.  Shouldn’t the safety of our wives, mothers and sisters be at the top of all legislators’ priorities?   

Do you believe the new version of VAWA goes far enough to protect women against domestic violence?

There needs to be more investment in prevention education, both in schools and in the community.  Violence against women is a learned act.  Attitudes about women “needing” to be hit, or “taught who’s boss” or “just asking for it” can be replaced with new ideas of equality.  Children can be taught to be assertive rather than aggressive and to be responsible bystanders who are empowered to speak up and say , “Hey, that’s not OK.” when they see bullying and relationship abuse.

Women in uniform are at tremendous risk and their plight is not addressed by the current legislation.  One third of the women in the armed forces report having been sexually assaulted and almost all report having been harassed because they were women. Last fiscal year alone, over 3,000 female service members reported having been raped – while the Department of Defense estimates that actually almost 20,000 rapes actually occurred in that year.  Is this the price women must pay to defend our freedom?

The new version of VAWA includes historic provisions for Native American Women and members of the LGBT community. Do you think the law as passed represents a step in the right direction for American Indian women and LGBT people in the United States?

The new VAWA is a great step forward.  Giving Native American women access to the same level of protection as people who live off the reservation is tremendous.  Violence against LGBT people is rooted in the belief that you are better than someone else just because of sexual identity.  Being targeted because of your sexual identity should not be tolerated and this Act opens up new protections under law.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but my dream is that – through education starting at the youngest levels – we can eliminate the kinds of prejudice, sexism, racism and homophobia that make it OK to target individuals because of their identity.  The kinds of believes about other people that make it OK to hurt them.

In which boroughs of New York City is there most demand for your services?

The Center is located Brooklyn, and so most of our non residential participants come from Brooklyn.  Brooklyn is also the borough with the highest incidence of domestic violence in New York City. Almost two thirds of the emergency domestic violence shelter the Center provides are located in Brooklyn, so most of our residential participants come from other boroughs – mostly from the Bronx.

Do you believe New York City has come a long way since the initial passage of VAWA in 1994?

In 1994 a domestic violence victim could call the New York City Hotline for emergency shelter and be put on a waiting list for as long as two weeks.  That was two weeks that she and her children remained in danger!  Since that time, the emergency shelter system has grown to meet demand and it is unusual of a victim who reaches out for help to have to wait more than a day to come to safe shelter.  

The Violence Against Women Act was directly responsible for the establishment of Family Justice Centers in Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan.  At these centers, victims have an array of community services – from social service to pastoral counseling to medical care – available in one spot.  The Center Against Domestic Violence has been a community partner at the Brooklyn Family Justice Center since it opened, offering counseling and case management for women whose main language is Spanish.  The centers are part of a “Policy to Increase Arrests, ” in that domestic violence victims are offered the kinds of support they need to continue their complaint through to trial – and not give up – and not have to go back to their batterers.

If you are a victim of domestic violence, please contact the Center Against Domestic Violence for help. For more information on domestic violence in general, please visit the Domestic Violence Page.

Washington, DC—One of the most well-known criminal defense attorneys in the Washington, DC area, Steven McCool has taken on just about every kind of case.  One of the biggest lessons he's learned is just how lucky he has been.

(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)

“I've learned that life truly is a lottery,” he says.  After working on a death penalty case in which he defended a gang leader, Rodney Moore, and successfully helped him to avoid lethal injection, McCool told laws.com in a recent interview: “I still believe, as I told the jury in my closing argument, that if my parents raised Rodney, he would not be sitting in a cell in a federal penitentiary.”

Recently named a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, McCoolsays that his interest in criminal law began when he read about the advocacy of Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird.  Today, he says that criminal defendants face immense challenges by the time he takes their cases.

“The biggest challenge facing individual defendants today is the capacity to fund a defense through trial,” McCool explains.  “The cases I deal with often present complicated legal issues and are also frequently difficult to investigate because, for example, much of the evidence is located in foreign jurisdictions or favorable material is buried in a large volume of material.”

Technology and a knack for effective legal research can mitigate some of these problems, he says.  “My use and understanding of data mining and other technologies allow me to make more efficient use of a client's limited resources.”  McCool also notes that because he's happiest when he's in a trial, the specifics of a case are more important to him than the effect it will ultimately have on his firm's bottom line.

When trying to decide whether to go to trial, McCool says that it's ultimately up to the client.  However, he stresses that it is important to “think through the legal and factual issues to see if there is a path to reasonable doubt.  If an acquittal is in the cards, I don't hesitate to recommend proceeding to trial.”

Anyone considering going into the field of criminal defense, according toMcCool, should get as much real world practice and experience as they can before they even graduate from law school, by taking advantage of clinical programs in school.  “Take as many clinical courses as you can,” he advises.  “I prosecuted and defended cases as a student attorney.  I was convinced after participating in these clinics during law school that I wanted to be a trial lawyer.”

Raouf Hannachi

Raouf Hannachi is a former Canadian citizen whose current whereabouts are unknown. Raouf Hannachi came to the attention of Canadian authorities as a potential terrorist who was monitored prior to the events of September 11, 2001 as an apparent recruiter for jihadist activities.

Raouf Hannachi was born in Tunisia who moved to Montreal. In 1986, he was made a citizen of Canada and became an active part of the jihadist Islamic community there. Raouf Hannachi commonly recruited young men for the jihadist cause by telling them about how he had trained in a camp run by terrorist Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan at an unspecified date. Raouf Hannachi described training that included instruction in the use of AK-47 firearms, as well as instruction in urban warfare and proper use of explosives. Raouf Hannachi would urge these young men to join the jihadist cause.

One of the young men whom Raouf Hannachi spoke with and influenced was Ahmed Ressam, who later attempted to detonate an explosive in the Los Angeles International Airport. Raouf Hannachi was named as a terrorist recruiter by jihadist Abu Zubaydah after he was captured and interrogated by American Authorities.

Following the events of September 11, 2001, Raouf Hannachi returned to Tunisia in October. Allegedly, he left Canada because he felt harassed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Upon his arrival, he entered the custody of Tunisian authorities, who questioned him about his role in jihadist activities. Afterwards, he was released from their custody. The current whereabouts of Raouf Hannachi are unknown. Canadian investigations of his activities concluded that he was probably responsible for the recruitment of some of the dozen or so Canadian citizens who trained in Afghanistan terrorist camps.