|
By Lynn
Levey
The Defense Domestic
Violence Task Force was established by The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (P.L. 106-65). The Task
Force, comprised of twelve civilians and twelve military members,
addresses the Armed Forces’ response to partner abuse between
married people. The Task Force crafted a series of
recommendations to improve victim services and batterer
accountability. Their third and final report, including its
200 recommendations, has just been published (www.dtic.mil/domesticviolence).
In particular, the report demands a culture shift that:
On May 8, Lynn Levey
of the National Center for State Courts interviewed Debby Tucker,
Co-Chair of the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence. The
following excerpt summarizes the accomplishments of the task force
and the role of civilian state courts.
LL: What are the key
accomplishments of the Domestic Violence Task Force?
DT: When we began there was a lot of
fear and trepidation on both sides about working together
effectively. But over time, our admiration and understanding
of one another grew. In addition to the Core principles and
recommendations listed in the full report, one particular
achievement was to build respect and trust between the military and
civilian populations. Remember, when the military established
its Family Advocacy Programs (FAPs) twenty years ago (still in
existence today), its elements were very progressive. Over
time however, this program did not adjust according to the changing
needs and issues of the population it serves. So while the
civilian battered women’s movement expanded and gained more partners
and different perspectives, its vision of what needed to happen
changed too. Without the influx of newer ideas, the FAP
program stayed the same while the rest of the civilian world changed
its response to intimate partner violence. By the same token,
we don’t expect or want these new recommendations to be adopted and
remain frozen in place. Rather, there needs to be an ongoing,
evolutionary process. This is why the core principles are so
important. Core Principles that military installations need to
incorporate in their response to violence between married people
include:
-
Respond to the needs of
victims and provide for their safety
-
Hold offenders
accountable
-
Consider multi-cultural
and cross-cultural factors
-
Consider the context of
the violence and provide a measured response
-
Coordinate military and
civilian response
-
Involve victims in
monitoring domestic violence services
-
Provide early
intervention
LL: What kind of information did
you learn that is particularly relevant and useful to state
courts?
DT: Historically, when a military member
appeared in state court on abuse charges that occurred off base, his
Commander would appear and assure the Court that the Command would
take care of things at the military level. We don’t recommend
turning over a criminal defendant to his supervisor because there is
the sense that to do this is to desert the victim. The
civilian side has seldom learned of any sanctions imposed against
the military member. Today, if the civilian courts turn over
someone to the military they need to know what is likely to occur at
that level instead of just handing it back to the Command to reduce
their own docket. If an offense occurs in a local community
that involves local law enforcement and courts, these cases should
be treated like other civilian cases. Or alternatively, the
civilian courts should not turn military cases over to the Command
without knowing what kind of disposition awaits the defendant.
Reports would be sent to both civilian and military
populations. For example, if local law enforcement is called
to the house again, there would be a record in local courts of terms
of an order of protection.
Studies show that 70
percent of military families reside off base; therefore, a high
percentage of domestic violence crimes committed by military
personnel will come to the attention of civilian authorities.
This underscores the need for better communication between civilian
and military entities so that batterers are not able to exploit gaps
for their own gain. There is a need for better
coordination. In communities where the civilian response is
swift and appropriate, we would like to see the military adopt those
standards too.
Suppose there is a town
where the military dominates the local economy. The local
community might think it wise not to rock the boat and allow the
military to handle its family violence matters on its own. Yet
by insisting on thoughtful Command decisions, there will be a
concomitant improvement in how both communities respond (thereby
improving batterer accountability and victim safety).
LL: There has been a lot of
attention in the civilian court community these last few years on
Full Faith and Credit as it relates to the Violence Against Women
Act. On December 2, 2002 the Armed Forces Domestic Security
Act became law (P.L. 107-311). In summary, this Act declares
that a civilian order of protection shall have the same force and
effect on a military installation as such an order has within the
jurisdiction of the court that issued the order. The Secretary
of Defense must now establish protocols to implement this
statute. Any idea when this is slated to happen?
DT: Although we are still waiting for
the Secretary of Defense to issue implementation protocols, it isn’t
necessary to wait until that time for state courts and military
installations to begin discussions around how they intend to
collaborate. Dialogues between state and local court
administrators can begin the process. Some states may not even
be aware that this law exists. It is an opportunity to improve
the collaboration process.
LL: Does one particular branch seem to
be in a better position to implement practices that you
recommend? If so, what makes that the case?
DT: First it’s important to
realize that there are a total of 300 installations worldwide.
The style and organizational culture of the branches (Air Force,
Army, Navy, Marines) differ greatly. The smallest and it would
seem the easiest in which to make systematic changes is the Marine
Corps because they have just nineteen bases. This gives them
greater potential to adopt a universal culture change throughout the
ranks more easily. From this vantage point, the Army might be
the most challenged as they have the largest number of installations
worldwide.
LL: Are there plans to utilize a
data system to track incidents of domestic violence between married
people? Orders of protection? Other items?
DT: There are plans to establish a
searchable database for personnel working with either the victim or
perpetrator. For example if law enforcement responds to an
incident of domestic violence, professionals who interact with
involved parties will record their information in one place that is
accessible to all professionals. Plans are underway to adopt
the Domestic Incident Based Reporting System (DIBRS) soon; however,
this has been impeded by out of date computer systems.
LL: What didn’t I ask you that you
want to tell me about? DT: Well, first I’d
like to invite folks to review the report and the companion
CD. We are expecting a great deal of leadership from the state
courts in working with the bases. Mutual respect has to be
built. It is very important that local service providers are
brought to the table early on to assist with the development of
protocols. It is also important to recognize that many people
in both the civilian and military world are not going to access
services through the justice system. That should not, however,
preclude them from receiving services more generally. It’s
vital to have the domestic violence programs input because court
administrators and base commanders might unknowingly adopt protocols
that jeopardize victim safety. We need to respond better to
sexual violence and how it and partner violence effect
children. Overall, I see this as a chance to inspire another
big step forward for the whole movement. | 
