Domestic Violence and Criminal Justice

Nicola Groves, Terry Thomas

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781317950608
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

This book aims to provide an up-to-date and comprehensive introduction to the subject of domestic violence and its interaction with the criminal justice system- including agencies such as the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the probation service and Children's Services, the courts and the prison service, as well as voluntary agencies such as Women's Aid. The book also looks at how these various agencies work together at a local level and the coordinating role of the Home Office and the direction provided at a central level.

Domestic Violence and Criminal Justice examines the phenomenon of domestic violence, the various forms it takes and the theories that have been put forward to explain it. It takes an historical approach to examine policy and legislative developments over the last forty years and how those developments make themselves manifest today. The authors provide an authoritative and critical account of the different agencies and the work they carry out both independently and jointly; they also consider the limits of a crime centred response to domestic violence.

The book provides a conceptual framework in which domestic violence and criminal justice might be better understood. It covers all the current issues in this field and it will be a 'source book' in directing readers to further reading. It will be essential reading for both students and practitioners in the field.

1 Understanding domestic violence

DOI: 10.4324/9781315863078-1

Introduction

In this chapter we seek to respond to seemingly simple questions such as ‘Why is domestic violence so named? What is domestic violence? What is the nature and extent of domestic violence?’ These questions appear to invite a straightforward answer yet in reality such questions are often debated, controversial and call for a considered response.

These questions are by no means ‘new’. Radical feminist academics and activists, practitioners and policy makers have been researching and debating these questions since the late nineteenth/early twentieth century in the UK. It is against this wealth of knowledge that we seek to readdress these questions examining just how ‘adequate’ current definitions are and what challenges definitions, terminology and the nature and extent of domestic violence currently pose for the criminal justice system. We consider this in three sections:

1. Naming domestic violence
2. Defining domestic violence
3. Nature and extent of domestic violence.

Naming domestic violence

‘Naming’ historically and logically precedes ’defining’, as until something is named, it is impossible to speak about it. Early campaigns against sexual violence against women and girls, such as the campaigning by The Women’s Freedom League (established in 1907) referred to ’unspeakable outrages’ making the point that ’respectable’ women could not even talk about anything sexual.

Historically, where violence against women is named terms have been debated. Nineteenth-century accounts commonly refer to ‘wife beating’ and ‘wife kicking’ yet a feminist campaigner of the time Frances Power Cobb argued that the term ‘wife beating’ did not reflect the severity of domestic violence suggesting ‘wife beating is more the preliminary canter before the race’ and preferred to use the term ‘wife torture’: ‘Wife beating in process of time and in numberless cases, advances to wife torture and the Wife torture usually ends in Wife maiming, Wife blinding or Wife murder’ (Power Cobb, 1878 cited in Radford and Russell, 1992: 48).

In the UK, in the 1970s, the phrase ‘battered wife’ was popularly referred to but over time, with insight from the feminist movement, this term has fallen out of currency. Battering referred only to one form of violence — physical — and did not encompass sexual or psychological. Today, ‘battering’ is a term used in the United States; here in the UK ‘domestic violence’ is used, primarily for the pragmatic reason that it is understood in the public domain. Despite the widespread use of the term ‘domestic violence’, it has always been criticised and there are still a variety of terms currently in use.

These terms or ‘names’ include:

• domestic violence
• domestic abuse
• intimate partner violence (IPV)
• family violence
• forced marriage
• honour based violence
• gender violence
• coercive control.

At first glance, whether we refer to ‘domestic violence’ or ‘domestic abuse’ may seem irrelevant, and merely a matter of semantics and of little consequence compared to the reality of violence experienced by its victims. We argue that there are several areas in which ‘naming’ is significant and reflection on terminology and the politics of naming can prove useful both for the student and practitioner alike.

The Home Office definition has traditionally referred to ‘domestic violence’ only but following a recent consultation exercise the new Home Office definition refers to ‘domestic violence and abuse’ (Home Office, 2013). The inclusion of the term ‘abuse’ is not without meaning. It has been suggested by some scholars that ‘there is a move for all agencies to adopt the term “abuse” as it reflects a pattern of behaviour which is both criminal and non-criminal in nature and better reflects the true nature of this type of incident’ (Richards et al., 2008: 12).

Perhaps the most important aspect of considering ‘naming’ is in relation to victims experience of seeking support, as self-identifying behaviour as ‘violent’ can be important in the process of recognising that domestic violence is occurring. Walby and Allen (2004), for example, found that victims who named incidents as domestic violence were more likely to seek help than those who did not. Women were also more likely to name what happened to them as domestic violence if the violence was physical and if they were severely injured or frequently assaulted and older women were more likely than younger women (especially those 16–24 years) to name the event as domestic violence (Walby and Allen, 2004).

Such findings echo research conducted by Kelly and Radford (1990) in their memorably named article ‘Nothing Really Happened’. They highlight the confusion and minimisation faced by victims coming to terms with identifying their own experiences of both sexual and physical violence. They explore the meaning of the phrase ‘nothing really happened’ to the women themselves and analyse how the minimising and discounting of events that did happen were reflected in and reinforced by the criminal justice system. Underlying Kelly and Radford’s analysis is the recognition that ‘in order to speak about something one must first be able to name and define it’ (Kelly and Radford, 1990: 40). They argue that one of the key contributions of feminist scholarship and activism is to have found and redefined words to reflect Women’s experiences of violence. They point out that words such as ‘domestic violence’ prior to feminist recognition simply did not exist and that social definitions are required to enable women and others to identify, recognise and speak about their experience. In essence ‘names provide social definitions, make visible what is invisible, define as unaccepted what was accepted; make sayable what was unspeakable’ (ibid.).

Domestic Violence

The term ‘domestic violence’ is useful in that it highlights the intimate nature of violence that can occur in relationships. ‘Domestic violence’ is used to describe the relational context of the violence although it might be argued that ‘domestic’ has an overly ‘cosy’ connotation and feeds the idea that this violence is not as important as other violence (see below).

Critiques of the use of the name ‘domestic violence’ have been cited. First, ‘domestic’ may suggest the term refers to those who live together, whereas ‘domestic violence’ can be experienced at different stages of a relationship and is not limited to those who share a living space. Research exists that shows a quarter of women who had experienced domestic violence, had never lived with the partner who had committed the worst act of violence against them (Walby and Allen, 2004). Men’s violence towards women often continues after separation and Lees (2000) found that women are at greatest risk of homicide at the point of separation or after leaving a violent partner. Humphreys and Thiara (2002) in a study of 200 women who had experienced domestic violence found that 76 per cent suffered post separation violence. Saunders and Barron (2003) looked at the experience of abused women and children in family courts and found that 46 per cent of service provider respondents knew of cases where a violent partner had used contact proceedings to track down his partner.

Second, feminists have long been critical that the term ‘domestic’ masks the issue of gender. Although it is acknowledged that men can be victims of domestic violence, women are the more likely victims and research consistently demonstrates ‘the fact that perpetrators tend to be men and their victims usually women’ (Dobash and Dobash, 1980; Abrahams, 1994; Mooney, 1994 cited in Hester et al., 2000: 14). Prevalence studies indicate that 1 in 4 women experience domestic violence over their lifetimes (Council of Europe, 2002). In the UK, the Crime Survey for England and Wales (2011/12) demonstrates that ‘some 7 percent of women and 5 percent of men were likely to be victims of domestic abuse in the last year, equivalent to an estimated 1.2 million women’ (Office for National Statistics, 2013: 2). Similarly when looking at homicide, the relationship between victims and perpetrators differed by gender with ‘homicides against men most likely to be committed by a friend or acquaintance (39%) whereas homicides against women were most likely to be committed by a partner or ex-partner (51%)’ (Office for National Statistics, 2013: 2).

Third, although the relational aspect of violence is encapsulated in the term ‘domestic violence’ it fails to identify perpetrators as ‘known men’. Although the intimate nature of domestic violence is explicit, the naming of perpetrators as boyfriends, partners, brothers, uncles, fathers and grandfathers is not.

Fourth, debate exists around the use of the word ‘violence’. In considering the limitations of the term domestic ‘violence’ and citing Barron et al. (1992) and Hague and Malos (1993), Hester et al. (2000: 14) suggest ‘“violence” may indicate exclusively physical abuse, whereas individuals subject to domestic violence experience a range of different forms of abuse from their partners, not all of which are, in themselves, inherently “violent”’. Feminists have long acknowledged not only physical and sexual violence as part of domestic violence but also psychological ‘abuse’ and controlling behaviour. As such seemingly non-violent behaviours, i.e. name calling, controlling who the woman sees, who she speaks to, while not obviously violent in nature are accepted as behaviours pertaining to domestic violence. The gendered power dynamics of such behaviour highlights the significant role of men’s power and control and the resulting fear that women experience subject to men’s abusive or threatening behaviour. As such, women often say that it is not the actual physical violence that is their main concern, but the fear associated with violence or threatening behaviour (Humphreys and Thiara, 2003; Pain, 2012). In the politics of naming domestic violence it is important to recognise the gendered power dynamic involved in domestic violence that allows perpetrators to claim that they too are victimised by abuse i.e. ‘nagging’. This was keenly brought to the public attention some 20 years ago when in 1992 Joseph McGrail was given a suspended sentence having killed his wife that he accused of exactly such behaviour (see www.justiceforwomen.org.uk).

Although ‘domestic violence’ is commonly associated with the home and behaviour which happens in private — ‘behind closed doors’ — the extent of men’s violence towards women is not confined to the domestic sphere. There is growing awareness that it can oscillate between the private and public sphere and can include new patterns of controlling behaviour. Increasing technological advancement and the development of social network sites provide a prime example. Women can be threatened, controlled, monitored and manipulated via their mobile phone, computer history, Facebook page and email accounts. If domestic violence is a pattern of controlling behaviour, then the process of abuse and its impact is more accurately experienced in everyday spaces, both private and public. This pattern of coercive control (Stark, 2007) coupled with incidents of physical violence in public places i.e. contact centres, Courts, streets, supermarkets, restaurants, bars, schools and places of work, reflects the myriad of spaces in which violence can be used in intimate relationships. As such, ‘domestic’ violence is more accurately defined through relationships, not geographical location.

Domestic abuse

The increasing use of the term domestic ‘abuse’ by those in the criminal justice system is one which will be more familiar to our North American colleagues. The new Home Office (2013) definition refers to ‘domestic violence and abuse’ but the interchange of ‘violence’ with ‘abuse’ will not happen overnight or without debate.

The inclusion of the term ‘abuse’ in the Home Office’s (2013) definition appears to acknowledge the broader spectrum of domestic violence and the inclusion of coercive and controlling behaviours. On the other hand, this inclusion may implicitly suggest a minimisation or even a step towards decriminalising domestic violence. In the UK the term abuse is more closely associated with child abuse to refer to children’s experience of psychological, physical and sexual violence. Many find child abuse a more comfortable concept than, for example, child rape and it arguably justifies the longstanding failure to take sexual violence against children seriously.

Those referring to domestic ‘abuse’ often more readily subscribe to a health discourse and associated way of working, rather than a criminal discourse; domestic ‘abuse’ is the term adopted by the British Medical Association (2007). The use of the word ‘abuse’ in this context is perceived as either ‘passive’ or ‘active’ and is used as an alternative to ‘violence’ responding to the critique that ‘domestic violence implies the use of physical force and physical assault, not psychological, emotional, financial or sexual abuse’ (Sanderson, 2008: 21). Here the term abuse is underpinned by a broad medical model, advocating the benefits of a therapeutic approach in the support of those experiencing domestic violence while overlooking their role in respect of physical injuries.

Intimate partner violence (IPV)

The term ‘intimate partner violence’ (IPV) is preferred by some as an alternative to domestic violence. The phrase IPV indicates that violence is likely to be experienced and perpetrated by those in a relationship. The phrase itself is gender neutral which, while limiting in its recognition of the gendered nature of domestic violence, is implicitly inclusive of same-sex relationships. The term IPV is m...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half-Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 Understanding domestic violence
• 2 Explaining domestic violence
• 3 Law and policy
• 4 Policing
• 5 Prosecuting
• 6 The courts, sentencing and punishment When
• 7 Responding to domestic violence
• Conclusions
• Bibliography
• Index