Domestic violence « Rogers Park Politics

Domestic violence

Domestic violence

Domestic Violence (sometimes referred to as domestic abuse) occurs when a family member, partner or ex-partner attempts to physically or psychologically dominate another. Domestic violence often refers to violence between spouses,or spousal abuse but can also include cohabitants and non-married intimate partners. Domestic violence occurs in all cultures; people of all races, ethnicities, religions, and classes can be perpetrators of domestic violence. Domestic violence is perpetrated by, and on, both men and women, and occurs in same-sex and opposite-sex relationships.

Domestic violence has many forms, including physical violence, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, intimidation, economic deprivation or threats of violence. There are a number of dimensions including mode – physical, psychological, sexual and/or social; frequency – on/off, occasional, chronic; and severity – in terms of both psychological or physical harm and the need for treatment – transitory or permanent injury – mild, moderate, severe up to homicide.

Recent attention to domestic violence began in the women’s movement in the 1970s, as concern about wives being beaten by their husbands gained attention. It has remained a major focus of modern feminism, particularly in terms of “violence against women”. [1] Popular emphasis has tended to be on women as the victims of domestic violence although with the rise of the men’s movement, and particularly men’s rights, there is now some advocacy for men as victims, although the statistics concerning the number of male victims given by them are strongly contested by many groups active in research on or working in the field of domestic violence and “violence against men”.

Awareness and documentation of domestic violence differs from country to country. Estimates are that only about a third of cases of domestic violence are actually reported in the US and UK. In other places with less attention and less support, reported cases would be still lower. According to the Centers for Disease Control, domestic violence is a serious, preventable public health problem affecting more than 32 million Americans, or more than 10% of the U.S. population (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000).

Definitions

The term “intimate partner violence” (IPV) is often used synonymously. Family violence is a broader definition, often used to include child abuse, elder abuse, and other violent acts between family members.[2] Wife abuse, wife beating, and battering are terms sometimes used, though with acknowledgment that many are not actually married to the abuser, but rather co-habiting or other arrangements.[3] In more recent years, ‘battering’ or ‘battered wife’ has become less acceptable terminology, since abuse can take other forms than physical abuse. Other forms of abuse may be constantly occurring, while physical abuse happens occasionally. These other forms of abuse have potential to lead to mental illness, self-harm, and even attempts at suicide.[4][5]

The U.S. Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) defines domestic violence as a “pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.”[6] Domestic violence can take many forms, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional, economic, or and/or psychological abuse.[6]

The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service in the United Kingdom in its “Domestic Violence Policy” uses domestic violence to refer to a range of violent and abusive behaviours, defining it as:

Patterns of behaviour characterised by the misuse of power and control by one
person over another who are or have been in an intimate relationship. It can
occur in mixed gender relationships and same gender relationships and has
profound consequences for the lives of children, individuals, families and
communities. It may be physical, sexual, emotional and/or psychological. The
latter may include intimidation, harassment, damage to property, threats and
financial abuse.[7]

Types

Domestic violence can take the form of physical violence, including direct physical violence ranging from unwanted physical contact to rape and murder. Indirect physical violence may include destruction of objects, striking or throwing objects near the victim, or harm to pets. In addition to physical violence, spousal abuse often includes mental or emotional abuse, including verbal threats of physical violence to the victim, the self, or others including children, ranging from explicit, detailed and impending to implicit and vague as to both content and time frame, and verbal violence, including threats, insults, put-downs, and attacks. Nonverbal threats may include gestures, facial expressions, and body postures. Psychological abuse may also involve economic and/or social control, such as controlling victim’s money and other economic resources, preventing victim from seeing friends and relatives, actively sabotaging victim’s social relationships and isolating victim from social contacts. Spiritual abuse is another form of abuse that may occur.

The form and characteristics of domestic violence and abuse may vary in other ways. Michael P. Johnson (1995, 2006b) argues for three major types of intimate partner violence. The typology is supported by subsequent research and evaluation by Johnson and his colleagues,[8] as well as independent researchers.[9] Types identified by Johnson include:

Intimate terrorism (or “patriarchal terrorism”) where one partner uses violence along with emotional and psychological abuse to maintain control over the other. In heterosexual relationships, the perpetrator is most often the male partner. It is more likely than other types to be frequent and to escalate in seriousness. Intimate terrorism is much less common than situational couple violence, but probably dominates samples collected from agencies (police, courts, hospitals).

Violent resistance is violence used in resistance to an intimate terrorist. Sometimes it is self-defensive, sometimes more like payback, sometimes the act of an entrapped victim who sees no other way to escape a violently abusive relationship.

Situational couple violence arises out of conflicts that escalate to arguments and then to violence. It is not connected to a general pattern of control. Although it occurs less frequently in relationships and is less serious than intimate terrorism, in some cases it can be frequent and/or quite serious, even life-threatening. This is probably the most common type of intimate partner violence and dominates general surveys, student samples, and even marriage counseling samples.

The fourth type identified by Johnson is infrequent and some scholars question its existence:

Mutual violent control is when both partners are violent and controlling and they possibly battle for control in the relationship. As with intimate terrorism, violence is one form of control used by each abuser.

Physical violence

Physical violence is the intentional use of physical force with the potential for causing injury, harm, disability, or death, for example, hitting, shoving, biting, restraint, kicking, or use of a weapon.

Profile of an abuser

Psychologists have studied certain personality characteristics of individuals who batter their partner. These include:

Blames others for problems/feelings
Closed-mindedness
Cruelty to animals and/or children
Hypersensitivity
Isolation of victim
Jealousy
Manipulation through guilt
Minimization of violence
Objectification of men and women
“Playful” use of force during sex
Quick Involvement
Rigid sex roles
Threats of violence
Tight control of finances
Unrealistic expectations
Verbal abuse

Sexual violence and incest

Sexual violence and incest are divided into three categories:

use of physical force to compel a person to engage in a sexual act against their will, whether or not the act is completed;
attempted or completed sex act involving a person who is unable to understand the nature or condition of the act, unable to decline participation, or unable to communicate unwillingness to engage in the sexual act, e.g., because of underage immaturity, illness, disability, or the influence of alcohol or other drugs, because of intimidation or pressure, or because of seduction and submission (as in female forms of sexual aggression); and
abusive sexual contact.

Psychological abuse

Psychological/emotional abuse can include, humiliating the victim, controlling what the victim can and cannot do, withholding information from the victim, deliberately doing something to make the victim feel diminished or embarrassed, isolating the victim from friends and family, and denying the victim access to money or other basic resources.

Economic abuse

Economic abuse is when the abuser has complete control over the victim’s money and other economic resources. Usually, this involves putting the victim on a strict ‘allowance’, withholding money at will and forcing the victim to beg for the money until the abuser gives them some money. It is common for the victim to receive less money as the abuse continues. This also includes (but is not limited to) preventing the victim from finishing education or obtaining employment.

Stalking

In addition, stalking is often included among the types of Intimate Partner Violence. Stalking generally refers to repeated behaviour that causes victims to feel a high level of fear (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). However, psychiatrist William Glasser states that fear and all other emotions are self-caused as evidenced by the wide range of emotions two different subjects might have in response to the same incident.

Spiritual abuse

Spiritual abuse includes:

using the spouse’s or intimate partner’s religious or spiritual beliefs to manipulate them
preventing the partner from practicing their religious or spiritual beliefs
ridiculing the other person’s religious or spiritual beliefs

Victimization

Statistics

Domestic violence occurs across the world, in various cultures,[10] and affects people across society, irrespective of economic status.[3] In the United States, women are six times as likely as men to experience intimate partner violence.[11] Percent of women surveyed (national surveys) who were ever physically assaulted by an intimate partner: Barbados (30%), Canada (29%), Egypt (34%), New Zealand (35%), Switzerland (21%), United States (22%).[12] Some surveys in specific places report figures as high as 50-70% of women surveyed who were ever physically assaulted by an intimate partner.[12] Others, including surveys in the Philippines and Paraguay, report figures as low as 10%.[12] The rate of intimate partner violence in the U.S. has declined since 1993.[13] Almost always, surveys will undercount actual numbers. Results will also vary, depending on specific wording of survey questions, how the survey is conducted, the definition of abuse or domestic violence used, and other factors.

Violence against women

In the United States, 20 percent of all violent crime experienced by women are cases of intimate partner violence, compared to 3 percent of violent crime experienced by men.[14]

During pregnancy

Domestic violence during pregnancy is relatively common, and can be missed by medical professionals because it often presents in non-specific ways. A number of countries have been statistically analyzed to calculate the prevalence of this phenomenon:

UK prevalence: 2.5-3.4%[15][16]
USA prevalence: 3.2-33.7%[17][18]
Ireland prevalence: 12.5%[19]
Rates are higher in teenagers[20]
Severity and frequency increase postpartum (10% antenatally vs. 19% postnatally[21]; 21% at 3 months post partum[22]

There are a number of presentations that can be related to domestic violence during pregnancy: delay in seeking care for injuries; late booking, non-attenders at appointments, self-discharge; frequent attendance, vague problems; aggressive or over-solicitous partner; burns, pain, tenderness, injuries; vaginal tears, bleeding, STDs; miscarriage

Domestic violence can also affect the fetus, the subsequent baby, and existing children:

Pre-birth: prematurity, Premature rupture of membranes, IUD
Psychosocial: interference in relationship, witnessing of violence, eating and sleeping disorders, emotional neediness, withdrawn, over-compliant, clingy, aggressive, problems at school, suicidal ideation
Legal: child protection issues, overlap with child abuse
Long-term chronic ill-health

Violence against men

Violence against men is the term known for violence that is committed against men by the man’s intimate partner. The means used to measure domestic violence strongly influence the results found. For example, studies of reported domestic violence and extrapolations of those studies show women preponderantly as victims and men to be more violent, whereas the survey based Conflict Tactics Scale, tends to show men and women equally violent.[23]

Very little is known about the actual number of men who are in a domestic relationship in which they are abused or treated violently by their male or female partners. Few incidents are reported to police, and data is limited. [24] Dr. Richard J. Gelles contends that while “men’s rights groups and some scholars” believe that “battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention” and that “there are as many male victims of violence as female”, he states that such beliefs are “a significant distortion of well-grounded research data.” [25] In addition, researchers Tjaden and Thoennes found that “men living with male intimate partners experience more intimate partner violence than do men who live with female intimate partners.

Approximately 23 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.4 percent of the men who had married or lived with a woman as a couple reported such violence by a wife or female cohabitant.” [26]

The available data indicates that:

3.2 million men and nearly 5.3 million women experience mostly “minor” incidents of abuse (such as “pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting”) per year.[24]
In the United States, approximately 800,000 men per year (3.2%) are raped or physically assaulted by their partner.[24]
At least 371,000 men are stalked annually.[24]
3% of nonfatal violence against men stems from domestic violence.[24]
In 2002, men comprised 24% of domestic violence homicide victims.[24]
Over 20 years, the instances of homicide from domestic violence against men decreased by approximately 67%.[24]
Approximately 22% of men have experienced physical, sexual, or psychological intimate partner violence during their life.[24]

There are many reasons why there isn’t more information about domestic abuse and violence against men. A major reason is the reluctance of men to report incidents to the police, unless there are substantial injuries.

Violence against children

When it comes to domestic violence towards children involving physical abuse, research in the UK by the NSPCC indicated that “most violence occurred at home (78 per cent) 40- 60% of men and women who abuse other men or women also abuse their children.[27] Girls whose fathers batter their mothers are 6.5 times more likely to be sexually abused by their fathers than are girls from non-violent homes.[28]

Causes

There are many different theories as to the causes of domestic violence. These include psychological theories that consider personality traits and mental characteristics of the offender, as well as social theories which consider external factors in the offender’s environment, such as family structure, stress, social learning. As with many phenomena regarding human experience, no single approach appears to cover all cases.

In some relationships, violence arises out of a perceived need for power and control, a form of bullying and social learning of abuse. Abusers’ efforts to dominate their partners have been attributed to low self-esteem or feelings of inadequacy, unresolved childhood conflicts, the stress of poverty, hostility and resentment toward women (misogyny), hostility and resentment toward men (misandry), personality disorders, genetic tendencies and sociocultural influences, among other possible causative factors. Most authorities seem to agree that abusive personalities result from a combination of several factors, to varying degrees. Adam Dukes argues that all [domestic] abuse relates to men’s capacity for, and their need to, devalue women and view them in negative ways.[29]

Other factors associated with domestic violence include heavy alcohol consumption,[30] mental illness, classism, various political and legal characteristics such as authoritarianism and dehumanisation.

Research has shown that alcohol-related violence is related to higher levels of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testosterone (and therefore could theoretically benefit from treatment with anti-androgenic agents). On the other hand, non-alcohol related domestic violence is related to significantly reduced levels of spinal 5-HIAA – a serotonin metabolite,[31] suggesting that non-alcohol related domestic violence may benefit from treatment with medications like selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs)[32]

Classism

Lundy Bancroft and Dr. Susan Weitzman, psychotherapist and author of “Not to People Like Us: Hidden Abuse in Upscale Marriages,” contend that abuse in poor families is more likely to be reported to ER staff, police and social services by victims and bystanders.

Power and control

A causalist view of domestic violence is that it is a strategy to gain or maintain power and control over the victim. This view is in alignment with Bancroft’s “cost-benefit” theory that abuse rewards the perpetrator in ways other than, or in addition to, simply exercising power over his or her target(s). He cites evidence in support of his argument that, in most cases, abusers are quite capable of exercising control over themselves, but choose not to do so for various reasons.

An alternative view is that abuse arises from powerlessness and externalizing/projecting this and attempting to exercise control of the victim. It is an attempt to ‘gain or maintain power and control over the victim’ but even in achieving this it cannot resolve the powerlessness driving it. Such behaviours have addictive aspects leading to a cycle of abuse or violence. Mutual cycles develop when each party attempts to resolve their own powerlessness in attempting to assert control.

Questions of power and control are integral to the widely accepted Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. They developed “Power and Control Wheel” to illustrate this: it has power and control at the center, surrounded by spokes (techniques used), the titles of which include:

Coercion and threats
Intimidation
Emotional abuse
Isolation
Minimizing, denying and blaming
Using children
Economic abuse
Male privilege

The model attempts to address abuse by one-sidedly challenging the misuse of power by the ‘perpetrator’.

Critics of this model suggest that the one-sided focus is problematic as resolution can only be achieved when all participants acknowledge their responsibilities, and identify and respect mutual purpose.[33]

The power wheel model is not intended to assign personal responsibility, enhance respect for mutual purpose or assist victims and perpetrators in resolving their differences. It is an informational tool designed to help individuals understand the dynamics of power operating in abusive situations and identify various methods of abuse.

Social stress

Stress may be increased when a person is living in a family situation, with increased pressures. Social stresses, due to inadequate finances or other such problems in a family may further increase tensions. Violence is not always caused by stress, but may be one way that some (but not all) people respond to stress.[34][35]

Dependency

Women are most dependent on the spouse for economic well being. Having children to take care of, should she leave the marriage, increases the financial burden and makes it all the more difficult for women to leave. Dependency means that women have fewer options and few resources to help them cope with or change their spouse’s behavior.[36]

Sex and gender

Modes of abuse are thought by some to be gendered, females tending to use more psychological and men more physical forms. The visibility of these differs markedly.

However, experts who work with victims of domestic violence have noted that physical abuse is almost invariably preceded by psychological abuse. Police and hospital admission records indicate that a higher percentage of females than males seek treatment and report such crimes.

Unless or until more men identify themselves and go on record as having been abused by female partners, and in a manner whereby the nature and extent of their injuries can be clinically assessed, men will continue to be identified as the most frequent perpetrators of physical and emotional violence.

See also the section “Gender Differences” in this article, and some of the statistics in the subsection “U.S.” in the “Statistics” section.

The cycle of violence

Frequently, domestic violence is used to describe specific violent and overtly abusive incidents, and legal definitions will tend to take this perspective. However, when violent and abusive behaviours happen within a relationship, the effects of those behaviours continue after these overt incidents are over. Advocates and counsellors will refer to domestic violence as a pattern of behaviours, including those listed above.

Lenore Walker presented the model of a Cycle of Violence which consists of three basic phases:

Honeymoon Phase

Characterized by affection, apology, and apparent end of violence. During this
stage the batterer feels overwhelming feelings of remorse and sadness. Some
batterers walk away from the situtation, while others shower their victims with
love and affection.

Tension Building Phase

Characterized by poor communication, tension, fear of causing outbursts. During
this stage the victims try to calm the batterer down, to avoid any major violent
confrontations.

Acting-out Phase

Characterized by outbursts of violent, abusive incidents. During this stage the
batterer attempts to dominate his/her partner(victim), with the use of domestic
violence.

Although it is easy to see the outbursts of the Acting-out Phase as abuse, even the more pleasant behaviours of the Honeymoon Phase serve to perpetuate the abuse. See also the cycle of abuse article.

Many domestic violence advocates believe that the cycle of violence is somewhat outdated and that it does not reflect the realities of many men and women experiencing domestic violence.

Gender differences

The role of gender is a controversial topic related to the discussion of domestic violence.
Erin Pizzey, the founder of an early women’s shelter in Chiswick, London, has expressed her dismay at how she believes the issue has become a gender-political football, and expressed an unpopular view in her book Prone to Violence that some women in the refuge system had a predisposition to seek abusive relationships. She also expressed the view that domestic violence can occur against any vulnerable intimates, regardless of their gender.

A Freudian concept, repetition compulsion, has also come up in modern psychology as a possible cause of a woman who was abused in childhood seeking an abusive man (or vice versa), theoretically as a misguided way to “master” their traumatic experience.[37]

Gender aspects of abuse

There continues to be discussion about whether men are more abusive than women, whether men’s abuse of women is worse than women’s abuse of men, and whether abused men should be provided the same resources and shelters that years of advocacy, money-rasing, and funding has gained for women victims[38] sekä Carney (2007)[39].

Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach, provides an analysis of 195 scholarly investigations: 152 empirical studies and 43 analyses, which he believes demonstrate women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men. Fiebert also argues that women are more likely to be injured, but not a lot more.[40] Also Dutton, and Nicholls (2005)[38] state that Results show that the gender disparity in injuries from domestic violence is less than originally portrayed by feminist theory. Studies are also reviewed indicating high levels of unilateral intimate violence by females to both males and females. Males appear to report their own victimization less than females do and to not view female violence against them as a crime. Hence, they differentially under-report being victimized by partners on crime victim surveys. It is concluded that feminist theory is contradicted by these findings and that the call for bqualitativeQ studies by feminists is really a means of avoiding this conclusion. Archer’s (2000, 2002) meta-analysis of 82 couple-conflict studies found that women were more likely to use physical aggression than men, and to resort to violence more often than men[41][42][43][44][45].In the most serious violence the men do dominate for example in 1999 in the US, 1,218 women and 424 men were killed by an intimate partner, regardless of which partner started the violence and of the gender of the partner.[46]

On the other hand, Michael Kimmel of the State University of New York at Stony Brook found that men are more violent inside and outside of the home than women.[47] Theories that women are as violent as men have been dubbed “Gender Symmetry” theories.

A problem in conducting studies that seek to describe violence in terms of gender is the amount of silence, fear and shame that results from abuse within families and relationships. Another is that abusive patterns can tend to seem normal to those who have lived in them for a length of time. Similarly, subtle forms of abuse can be quite transparent even as they set the stage for further abuse seeming normal. Finally, inconsistent definition of what domestic violence is makes definite conclusions difficult to reach when compiling the available studies.[48]

Both men and women have been arrested and convicted of assaulting their partners in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. The bulk of these arrests have been men being arrested for assaulting women. Determining how many instances of domestic violence actually involve male victims is difficult. Male domestic violence victims may be reluctant to get help for a number of reasons.[48]

The belief that men are less likely to report domestic violence to the police than women may be a common myth, as 75% of all incidents still go unreported in the UK.[49]
Another study has demonstrated a high degree of acceptance by women of aggression against men. Unfortunately, the researcher does not provide a sample of the test questions used to gather this evidence.[50] (POV-check)

(although I have argued elsewhere (Bell 1999) that practitioners should also
avoid assumptions about homogeneity of motive among male perpetrators). Male
victims are likely to face some verbal abuse and occasional, isolated incidents
of physical aggression but are rarely exposed to a fear-inducing regime
involving sustained emotional and physical abuse. After research into aggression
in 393 married couples, O’Leary and colleagues (1994) concluded that violence in
(heterosexual) marriage does not arise from the same causes for women as for
men.[51]

Murders of female intimate partners by men have dropped, but not nearly as dramatically.[52]

Men kill their female intimate partners at about four times the rate that women kill their male intimate partners. Research by Jacquelyn Campbell, PhD RN FAAN has found that at least two thirds of women killed by their intimate partners were battered by those men prior to the murder. She also found that when males are killed by female intimates, the women in those relationships had been abused by their male partner about 75% of the time (see battered person syndrome and battered woman defence).

Some researchers have found a relationship between the availability of domestic violence services, improved laws and enforcement regarding domestic violence and increased access to divorce, and higher earnings for women with declines in intimate partner homicide.[53]

Gender roles and expectations can and do play a role in abusive situations, and exploring these roles and expectations can be helpful in addressing abusive situations, as do factors like race, class, religion, sexuality and philosophy. None of these factors cause one to abuse or another to be abused.

Domestic violence in same-sex relationships

Domestic violence also occurs in same-sex relationships. In an effort to be more inclusive, many organizations have made an effort to use gender-neutral terms when referring to perpetratorship and victimhood.

Historically domestic violence has been seen as a family issue and little interest has been directed at violence in same-sex relationships. It has not been until recently, as the gay rights movement has brought the issues of gay and lesbian people into public attention, when research has been started to conduct on same-sex relationships. Several studies have indicated that partner abuse among same-sex couples (both female and male) is relatively similar in both prevalence and dynamics to that among opposite-sex couples.[54] Gays and lesbians, however, face special obstacles in dealing with the issues that some researchers have labeled “the double closet”. A recent Canadian study by Mark W. Lehman [2] suggests similarities include frequency (approximately one in every four couples); manifestations (emotional, physical, financial, etc.); co-existent situations (unemployment, substance abuse, low self-esteem); victims’ reactions (fear, feelings of helplessness, hypervigilance); and reasons for staying (love, can work it out, things will change, denial). At the same time, significant differences, unique issues and deceptive myths are typically present. Gays and lesbians can face discrimination and fear, dismissal by police and social services, and/or find a lack of support from their peers who would rather keep quiet about the problem in order not to attract negative attention toward the gay community. HIV status or AIDS can also play a role in keeping partners together, due to health care insurance/access, or guilt; outing can be used as a weapon; and supportive services are typically for the needs of heterosexual women and do not always meet the needs of other groups.

Response to domestic violence

The response to domestic violence is typically a combined effort between law enforcement agencies, the courts, social service agencies and corrections/probation agencies. The role of each has evolved as domestic violence has been brought more into public view.

Domestic violence historically has been viewed as a private family matter that need not involve government or criminal justice intervention.[55] Police officers were often reluctant to intervene by making an arrest, and often chose instead to simply counsel the couple and/or ask one of the parties to leave the residence for a period of time. The courts were reluctant to impose any significant sanctions on those convicted of domestic violence, largely because it was viewed as a misdemeanor offense.

Activism, initiated by victim advocacy groups and feminist groups, has led to a better understanding of the scope and effect of domestic violence on victims and families, and has brought about changes in the criminal justice system’s response.

Trainer and municipal court judge Richard Russell quoted in New Jersey Law Journal. April 24, 1995: “when you say to me, am I doing something wrong telling these judges they have to ignore the constitutional protections most people have, I don’t think so. The Legislature described the problem and how to address it, [and] I am doing my job properly by teaching other judges to follow the legislative mandate…..Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.’ ” Moreover, Russell says there is nothing wrong with the teaching approach. Abuse victims, he says, may apply and relinquish TROs repeatedly before they finally do something about breaking away. Once they do so, he says, the Legislature’s prevention goal has been met. New Jersey Law Journal April 24, 1995

Several projects have aided in filling the voids in the justice system as it pertains to the protection of victims. One such initiative, The Hope Card Project, makes an attempt to remedy several problems through the issuance of an ID card to victims of abuse. The card is used to identify both parties in a domestic violence protection order and provides additional resources to the victim through a voucher program for services. “There is no photograph on a protection order, so a photograph is a bonus, not a necessity. There are several methods used to obtain the photograph. Some jurisdictions have a photograph taken of the offender during the first hearing while both parties are present. Another method is for officers to take a photograph in the field or retrieve a booking photograph from their local jail. In a lot of cases the victim brings a photograph and it is scanned. Lastly, the new online site has some state motor vehicle department photograph databases connected for that purpose. This is the ideal method.” The Hope Card Project

Medical response

Many cases of spousal abuse are handled solely by medical professionals and do not involved the police. Sometimes cases of spousal abuse are brought into the emergency room,[56] while many other cases are handled by family physician or other primary care provider.[57] There has been some reluctance on part of physicians to discuss the issue and ask patients about possible battering.[58] As well, there is substantial reluctance for victims to come forward and broach the issue with their physicians. On average, women experience 35 incidents of domestic violence before seeking treatment.[59]

Treatment and support

Publicly available resources for dealing with domestic violence have tended to be almost exclusively geared towards supporting women and children who are in relationships with or who are leaving violent men, rather than for survivors of domestic violence per se. This has been due to the purported numeric preponderance of female victims and the perception that domestic violence only affected women. Resources to help men who have been using violence take responsibility for and stop their use of violence, such as Men’s Behaviour Change Programs or anger management training, are available, though attendees are ordered to pay for their own course in order that they should remain accountable for their actions.

Men’s organizations, such as ManKind in the UK, often see this approach as one-sided; as Report 191 by the British Home Office shows that men and women are equally culpable, they believe that there should be anger management courses for women also. They accuse organisations such as Women’s Aid of bias in this respect saying that they spend millions of pounds on helping female victims of domestic violence and yet nothing on female perpetrators.

These same men’s organisations claim that before such help is given to female perpetrators, Women’s Aid would have to admit that women are violent in the home. This they seem reluctant to do.

One of the challenges for lay observers, victims, perpetrators and treatment providers is demonstrated by the tendency to describe perpetrator treatment as men’s “anger management” groups.

Comprehensive and accountable behaviour change programs are seen as far more appropriate and effective interventions in male violence in the home than anger management groups.

Inherent in anger management only approaches is the assumption that the violence is a result of a loss of control over one’s anger. While there is little doubt that some domestic violence is about the loss of control, the choice of the target of that violence may be of greater significance. Anger management might be appropriate for the individual who lashes out indiscriminately when angry towards co-workers, supervisors or family. In most cases, however, the domestic violence perpetrator lashes out only at their intimate partner or relatively defenseless child, which suggests an element of choice or selection that, in turn, suggests a different or additional motivation beyond simple anger. Most experienced treatment providers have probably observed that for various reasons, many of which may be cultural, the perpetrator has a sense of entitlement, sometimes conscious, sometimes not, that leads directly to their choice of target.

Men’s behaviour change programs, although differing throughout the world, tend to focus on the prevention of further violence within the family and the safety of women and children. Often they abide by various standards of practise that includes ‘partner contact’ where the participants female partner is contacted by the program and informed about the course, checked about her level of safety and support and offered support services for herself if she requires them. Many of these programs have both a male and female facilitator and follow a program designed to highlight the impact of his behaviour, examine the attitudes, values and behaviours that lead to his choice to use violence and aim to support and challenge the man to take responsibility for his use of violence.

Medical Treatment for Offenders

A number of medications have been used for control of aggression. Good evidence exists on the efficacy of clozapine. Evidence also exists for SSRIs ( selective serotonin re-uptake ihibitors), like “Prozac”, hormonal antiandrogenic agents, beta-blockers, quetiapine and ariipiprazole. Lithium and anticonvulsants are widely used but their efficacy is not strongly supported. [60]

Law enforcement

The London Metropolitan Police has compiled a list of the crimes [3] which typically can occur when domestic violence occurs. They are:

Murder/attempted murder/murder in English law
Manslaughter/manslaughter in English law
Rape
Indecent assault
Grievous bodily harm/wounding
Actual bodily harm
Common assault
Threats to kill
Affray
Threatening behaviour
Harassment
Blackmail
False imprisonment
Kidnapping
Criminal damage
Malicious communications
Witness intimidation
Obstruction of justice
Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

Public opinion and perception

A survey [6] in July and August 2006 of 2500 adults, males and females, 18 years of age or older, in the continental United States produced finding as per below. This survey was conducted by Opinion Research Corporation and Ruder Finn and funded by Redbook Magazine and Liz Claiborne

“When asked to define what actions comprise domestic violence and abuse, 2 in 5
Americans (40%) did not even mention hitting, slapping and punching. Over 90% of
Americans failed to define repeated emotional, verbal, sexual abuse and
controlling behaviors as patterns of domestic violence and abuse. The survey
concluded: “When they can identify domestic abuse, Americans will act”. [61]

Domestic violence in popular culture

The news media finds it difficult to maintain neutrality in reporting or editorialising on violence.

Indeed, since many are “for profit” organizations, the selection of material to report and the prominence accorded to the coverage frames the readership’s response and is intended to increase sales or advertising revenues rather than perform an altruistic social education function (see Scheufele: 1999 and 2000). The central organizing idea or narrative of story lines provides meaning to the events described and clusters ideas that guide the individuals as they process the information. Murnen (2002) points to the patriarchal structure of the management of commercial publishing, both fiction and non-fiction, television and cinema production, and the music, games, and advertising industries, all of which are reinforced by the continuing male dominance of political, economic, and legal resources. Men control the content and masculine ideology infuses the communication process, pandering to the relevant market niches and their prejudices to maximise sales revenues. Thus, themes of violent behavior are often portrayed in an uncritical style which reinforces stereotypes and may appear to condone the use of violence in certain specific situations. Sexual relationships are characteristically depicted in terms of the power disparities arising from physical strength: disparities that contribute to women’s vulnerability to male authority (Dixon-Mueller: 1993). Social scientists now argue that aggression in the real world is socially learned behavior and results from cultural influences. For example, Reiss (1986) found that in rape-prone societies there was more endorsement of a “macho personality” (e.g. acceptance of physical aggression and of high risk-taking, casual attitudes toward sex) and more agreement with belief in the inferiority of females.

Gerbner and Gross (1976) hypothesize that heavy viewers of media will begin to perceive the world as reflective of the worlds they view on television and in the media. Cultivation theory (see Gerbner et al: 1973) examines “the continual, dynamic, ongoing process of interaction among messages and contexts” and identifies the most recurrent, stable, and overarching patterns in media content. In repetitively viewing these recurrent patterns and images, the reader/viewer begins to accept the images as reality. Thus, media coverage frames the debate about the social acceptability of domestic violence in general and of the behavior of some individuals in particular, and may directly influence the real-world behavior in “ordinary” relationships.

See also

Abuse

Relational aggression

Violence against women

Violence against men