Saturday, 8 June 2013
Violent crime reflects powerful relationships within society: I have again shared my work in order to promote my...
Violent crime reflects powerful relationships within society: I have again shared my work in order to promote my...: I have again shared my work in order to promote my ink business. Please visit Viva Ink & Toner for the best deals on ink and toner by ...
Domestic violence
I have again shared my work in order to promote my ink business. Please visit Viva Ink & Toner for the best deals on ink and toner by far!
For the purpose of this assignment, I will consider “Violent Crime” from the perspective of gender.
In doing so I will consider the impact of Domestic Violence (DV) on victims, perpetrators and society as a whole. I will attempt to show that DV is extensively researched and is recognised internationally as a serious social problem. However it frequently remains under reported, and fails to be represented or categorised within official crime statistics in this country. I will attempt to highlight the feminist view that the underlying cause of DV is inextricably linked and historically entrenched within the power imbalance between males and females (Pence & Paymar 1993). For the purpose of this paper my research has focused ostensibly on female victims of DV. However, in doing so I have made brief references to male victims and the effect DV has on same sex couples. DV is still clearly relevant here, however due to the low levels of reported instances of DV by theses groups and within the confines of a 2,500 word essay it has not been possible to offer an in-depth analysis of the cause of DV within these areas. The main sources of statistical data used will be the 2001 British Crime Survey (BCS) First results England & Wales, the Home Office Official Statistics (OS) for England and Wales 2001 and the Home Office Research studies (HORS) 191 & 193.
I am aware that the term Domestic Violence in itself can be the focus of debate in that it can be used to describe a variety of offences within a domestic setting. However for the purpose of this narrative I will adopt the definition that is used by HM inspectorate of constabulary 2000/1:
“The term domestic violence shall be understood to mean any violence between current or former partners in an intimate relationship, wherever and whenever it occurs. The violence may include physical, sexual, emotional or financial abuse”.
(HOC 19/2000 PG 4)
“The term domestic violence shall be understood to mean any violence between current or former partners in an intimate relationship, wherever and whenever it occurs. The violence may include physical, sexual, emotional or financial abuse”.
(HOC 19/2000 PG 4)
Domestic violence is not recognised as a statutory offence and is not counted separately (i.e. not notifiable); as a consequence Police recording of DV incidents have to encompass a range of criminal acts, which are recorded individually i.e. assault, threatening behaviour and public order offences etc. However if the police are unable to identify evidence that a crime has been committed during a domestic incident, they are not always in a position to intervene. This could relate to instances of
emotional, verbal and financial abuse for example.
emotional, verbal and financial abuse for example.
So what do the official statistics tell us? The police recorded 5.2 million offences in the 12 months to March 2001, a fall of 2.5% over the previous year. The BCS estimate is in excess of 12 million offences, 20% of these account for violent crime of which DV is a predominant part. Although it is difficult to extrapolate the exact figure for DV, both report a reduction in crime over the previous year (1999/2000). The current Government could then (and have previously) argue that these findings are encouraging on the basis of the statistical reduction in crime. However it should be noted that the police have a large amount of discretionary power when recording crime. Maguire (2002) comments that the discrepant police policies are a major influence on criminal statistics. Indeed he argues that it is only when one probes deeply into the recorded crime figures, that it is possible to gain valuable insights into the way that the police collect, collate and publicise the statistical data. For example the police may attend a
“domestic”
and capriciously decide that no crime has been committed even if it is apparent that a common assault has occurred
.
“Reports from the public-which are the source of over 80% of all recorded crimes, may be disbelieved, or considered to be too trivial, or deemed not to constitute a criminal offence, with the result that they are either not recorded at all, or are not “crime’d” later.”
(Maguire, 2002 pg335) This would bring into question the matter of the police discretionary powers to determine what does and does not constitute a crime. Further it highlights and questions the validity of the government’s assertion that crime is under control. In 1995 the Home Secretary (The Rt Hon. Michael Howard MP) stated that:
“I believe these figures mark a real turning of the tide against crime”
. Roy Jenkins in response criticised this statement by announcing that the published crime statistics and the Home Secretary’s comments were
“pure hot air”
,
“they merely represent: the capacity of intelligent people in Whitehall to concoct any old rubbish when required by the black art of politics. A fourth category has been added to the notorious scale of mendacity: lies, damned lies, statistics and “ police recorded crime figures”
(cited in Elsmore 2002 pg14)
“domestic”
and capriciously decide that no crime has been committed even if it is apparent that a common assault has occurred
.
“Reports from the public-which are the source of over 80% of all recorded crimes, may be disbelieved, or considered to be too trivial, or deemed not to constitute a criminal offence, with the result that they are either not recorded at all, or are not “crime’d” later.”
(Maguire, 2002 pg335) This would bring into question the matter of the police discretionary powers to determine what does and does not constitute a crime. Further it highlights and questions the validity of the government’s assertion that crime is under control. In 1995 the Home Secretary (The Rt Hon. Michael Howard MP) stated that:
“I believe these figures mark a real turning of the tide against crime”
. Roy Jenkins in response criticised this statement by announcing that the published crime statistics and the Home Secretary’s comments were
“pure hot air”
,
“they merely represent: the capacity of intelligent people in Whitehall to concoct any old rubbish when required by the black art of politics. A fourth category has been added to the notorious scale of mendacity: lies, damned lies, statistics and “ police recorded crime figures”
(cited in Elsmore 2002 pg14)
Calculations taken from the BCS (2001) suggest that approximately 40% of crimes known to victims and reported to the police fail to be recorded in official statistics, why? HORS 193 (pg 70) would suggest that officers justify
not
using law enforcement responses in DV cases by referring to incidents as
“a one off”
and that violence is unlikely to re-occur. Evidence contained within the report would disagree; it has been shown that a victim of DV will have been assaulted many times before the police are initially contacted. This finding has been further identified and supported by Dobash & Dobash (2000 pg 67) who comment that:
“Many men who use violence against a women partner become habituated to it’s use and have committed numerous acts of violence by the time of the first contact with the police”
. Invariably the abuse will then continue after the police have left, the police often deciding not to take matters further. The victim is thereby left powerless and unlikely to contact the police again, the perpetrator then has a limited fear of arrest in the future.
not
using law enforcement responses in DV cases by referring to incidents as
“a one off”
and that violence is unlikely to re-occur. Evidence contained within the report would disagree; it has been shown that a victim of DV will have been assaulted many times before the police are initially contacted. This finding has been further identified and supported by Dobash & Dobash (2000 pg 67) who comment that:
“Many men who use violence against a women partner become habituated to it’s use and have committed numerous acts of violence by the time of the first contact with the police”
. Invariably the abuse will then continue after the police have left, the police often deciding not to take matters further. The victim is thereby left powerless and unlikely to contact the police again, the perpetrator then has a limited fear of arrest in the future.
Police policies on DV are premised upon the belief that laws, and an efficient use of police resources, can protect women from future violence. They emerged from feminist criticism of the police failure to protect women. Stanko (1995) argues that this perspective is naïve and is based on the false assumption of what policing is actually about.
The BCS acknowledges its own limitations in that it clearly has a role to play in gathering crime statistics, but leaves the reader in no doubt that many of its findings are fraught with inaccuracy.
“The BCS will undercount crimes where victim and offender know each other. Respondents may not think of these as real crimes and may in any case be reticent with interviewers. This will affect counts of domestic violence and acquaintance violence in particular. Police figures, though will undercount these sorts of crime even more, since relatively fewer are reported to the police”
.
(The BCS 2001 pg 90). In order to close this obvious gap in reporting/recording, the BCS has included a special self completion module dedicated to DV, interpersonal violence, sexual assault and stalking for the 2001 survey.
“The BCS will undercount crimes where victim and offender know each other. Respondents may not think of these as real crimes and may in any case be reticent with interviewers. This will affect counts of domestic violence and acquaintance violence in particular. Police figures, though will undercount these sorts of crime even more, since relatively fewer are reported to the police”
.
(The BCS 2001 pg 90). In order to close this obvious gap in reporting/recording, the BCS has included a special self completion module dedicated to DV, interpersonal violence, sexual assault and stalking for the 2001 survey.
It could be argued that the BCS is now attempting to offer the victims of DV and other forms of violent crime a platform to report and record their experiences separately. However
how
many
male victims of DV would acknowledge, identify or report that a female partner was assaulting them? The following discussion on the patriarchal society, which in part criticises cultural values and historical precedent for the continued oppression of women’s rights, could also explain why men find it so difficult to acknowledge that they too can become victims of DV.
how
many
male victims of DV would acknowledge, identify or report that a female partner was assaulting them? The following discussion on the patriarchal society, which in part criticises cultural values and historical precedent for the continued oppression of women’s rights, could also explain why men find it so difficult to acknowledge that they too can become victims of DV.
Social and cultural expectations would dictate that men should remain stronger than women. As a result
men
will often fear the stigma that is attached to the disclosure that a woman has assaulted them. This lack of social acceptance would also alienate same sex couples for similar reasons. Gay couples who are often faced with discrimination on a daily basis allied to an acceptance that they are not in many respects recognised by the state would bring in to question their perception of the judicial system. Research is inconclusive, however it could be argued that groups who feel socially isolated and perhaps require the defence of their rights more than most. Will invariably avoid turning to the state for protection especially when
many
(Police, Government organisations, officials and institutions etc) regard their attitudes and lifestyles to be deviant in themselves.
men
will often fear the stigma that is attached to the disclosure that a woman has assaulted them. This lack of social acceptance would also alienate same sex couples for similar reasons. Gay couples who are often faced with discrimination on a daily basis allied to an acceptance that they are not in many respects recognised by the state would bring in to question their perception of the judicial system. Research is inconclusive, however it could be argued that groups who feel socially isolated and perhaps require the defence of their rights more than most. Will invariably avoid turning to the state for protection especially when
many
(Police, Government organisations, officials and institutions etc) regard their attitudes and lifestyles to be deviant in themselves.
“Although we need better information about the level and extent of violence against women, there are sufficient data to establish that such violence is a serious public policy problem in all stable democracies”
(Weldon 2002. pg 9)
(Weldon 2002. pg 9)
Even though it is difficult to identify the true extent of DV in this country, it is however clear that many instances undoubtedly fall into the dark figure of crime described by Coleman & Moynihan (1996) (crime that remains largely undetected, un-reported and more importantly unrecorded). The cause however has been researched and debated extensively since its emergence as a social problem in the early sixties (see Muncie & Mclaughlin pg 202). Many theoretical explanations of this phenomenon have been put forward by academics since the early seventies.
“More recently, feminist writers have drawn attention to issues about women and crime, there has been a new focus on victims, and more attention has been given to offences, as opposed to the traditional focus on offenders”.
(Coleman & Moynihan 1996 pg 21).
“More recently, feminist writers have drawn attention to issues about women and crime, there has been a new focus on victims, and more attention has been given to offences, as opposed to the traditional focus on offenders”.
(Coleman & Moynihan 1996 pg 21).
Fook (1993) identifies that patriarchal societies can disadvantage and disempower women through sex role stereotyping and the devaluing of women’s experiences.
“As feminists we argue that sexual violence is used by men as a way of securing and maintaining the relations of male dominance, which are central to the patriarchal social order”.
(Radford & Stanko.1996). It may be worth noting at this point, that the author of this paper views and describes the contents from a male perspective.
“As feminists we argue that sexual violence is used by men as a way of securing and maintaining the relations of male dominance, which are central to the patriarchal social order”.
(Radford & Stanko.1996). It may be worth noting at this point, that the author of this paper views and describes the contents from a male perspective.
The feminist viewpoint argues that males are socialised into a belief system that perpetuates their right to suppress and dominate women. The patriarchal system to which we subscribe does little to acknowledge this fact, moreover early attempts at addressing DV in the home witnessed the formation of treatment programs and groups that were specifically designed in order to help males with anger management.
“Anger management techniques include teaching men to recognise and manage their anger by recognising cues and then using a technique to control anger”
(Gelles 1997 pg163). This form of treatment has done little to establish the rights of woman nor does it investigate the underlying causes of the problem. These programmes do not challenge the male ideology and predisposition to control or dominate their partner; they are based on the premise that men need to
control
their anger. It merely re-enforces the notion of male power by inferring that women are weaker, the male partner being encouraged to show more restraint and compassion for these lesser mortals.
(Gelles 1997 pg163). This form of treatment has done little to establish the rights of woman nor does it investigate the underlying causes of the problem. These programmes do not challenge the male ideology and predisposition to control or dominate their partner; they are based on the premise that men need to
control
their anger. It merely re-enforces the notion of male power by inferring that women are weaker, the male partner being encouraged to show more restraint and compassion for these lesser mortals.
It is argued by some critics (Gelles, Stanko, Pence & Paymar, Dobash & Dobash) that men inevitably use violence as part of a range of tactics for controlling their partners and that it is just part of the way men keep power in society. But the issue is more complex. In some cases stress and other forms of emotional trauma will create tension, this will invariably manifest itself into violent outbursts. Anger and violence are often the only
“legitimate”
emotion that a man feels he can display. This perverse manifestation of deep-rooted feelings being an indication that the perpetrator is in fact displaying signs of his own vulnerability and low self esteem. The result being the imposition of his will onto his partner in order to bolster his own self worth. In other words society constantly reinforces the notion that
“big boys don’t cry”
.
“legitimate”
emotion that a man feels he can display. This perverse manifestation of deep-rooted feelings being an indication that the perpetrator is in fact displaying signs of his own vulnerability and low self esteem. The result being the imposition of his will onto his partner in order to bolster his own self worth. In other words society constantly reinforces the notion that
“big boys don’t cry”
.
Social learning theory has been extensively used to explain DV. Here it is argued that people learn to be violent when they grow up in violent homes. Children identify specific roles within the home, in doing so they mimic and learn the dynamics of family life based on their own eyewitness accounts and personal experiences. It should be noted however that children who observe or suffer as a result of DV do not always grow up to be abusers. But a history of violence and abuse does increase the risk that an individual will be violent as an adult. (Gelles 1997 pg129)
Historically the rule of law has supported the oppression and violation of women. When you consider that in 1877 it was perfectly legitimate to beat your wife (providing the stick used was no thicker than your thumb) for failing to cook a meal, was drunk or did not keep a tidy house etc. Women were seen to be the property of men:
“A respectable woman belonged to one man, going from her fathers possession to that of her husband”
(Conley, 1991 pg.77) Scarcely four generations have passed since this was viewed as normative behaviour. It can be argued that the government along with legislation becomes the driving force behind the social construct of family life and its associated values. This is highlighted by the establishment’s lack of acceptance (until recently) of unmarried couples, granting enhanced rights and recognising the validity of
“normal”
(the states view of) married heterosexual couples.
“A respectable woman belonged to one man, going from her fathers possession to that of her husband”
(Conley, 1991 pg.77) Scarcely four generations have passed since this was viewed as normative behaviour. It can be argued that the government along with legislation becomes the driving force behind the social construct of family life and its associated values. This is highlighted by the establishment’s lack of acceptance (until recently) of unmarried couples, granting enhanced rights and recognising the validity of
“normal”
(the states view of) married heterosexual couples.
If we assume that the establishment will introduce new legislation to protect the vulnerable, that they can gauge and monitor the quality of its electorate’s lives through research, statistics and debate. Then, why did marital rape only become illegal in this country in 1991? For 255 years married men have been granted immunity from the charge of rape against their spouse. This delay and protracted argument that has led to a basic change in legislation simply adds more weight to the feminist view that our own patriarchy is responsible for the continued suppression of women and their supposed rights and equal status. Many prior to 1991 would take cues from this change in the law. That is to say if it was legal to rape your wife then, a few slaps along with verbal abuse should be more than acceptable now? But male perpetrators of DV would further argue that behind closed doors, hidden within
his
own domain,
he
is still lord and master. His wife, partner and children should be subservient to him because that is the way it has always been. Legislators and policy makers (usually male) often defend and cry out for the return of
“traditional family values”
in doing so they unwittingly collude with this ethos.
his
own domain,
he
is still lord and master. His wife, partner and children should be subservient to him because that is the way it has always been. Legislators and policy makers (usually male) often defend and cry out for the return of
“traditional family values”
in doing so they unwittingly collude with this ethos.
“The Home Secretary who takes on violent criminals is seen as a hard-man. Dealing in understanding or empathy is seen as weak. Yet the overall effect is to reinforce, and in effect, condone male violence.”
(Lashmar 2003 pg 2). Here it is argued that sending violent men to prison may send out a strong warning that this form of behaviour will not be accepted. However in practical terms, all the evidence would suggest that the prison system remains one of the most violent and brutalising environments that can only serve to reinforce aggressive behaviour.
(Lashmar 2003 pg 2). Here it is argued that sending violent men to prison may send out a strong warning that this form of behaviour will not be accepted. However in practical terms, all the evidence would suggest that the prison system remains one of the most violent and brutalising environments that can only serve to reinforce aggressive behaviour.
I acknowledge that during the course of this paper and within the confines of 2,500 words it has not been possible to explore in detail the impact class, religion and cultural association have on DV. However they are by implication very relevant to this argument when attempting to define and explain the underlying causes of DV. For example, Social and religious institutions (Bible, Koran etc) may reinforce belief systems that condone and reinforce
“the man’s”
right to act as the head of a family. In doing so, DV clearly cuts across all class and cultural structures. Being a member of a wealthy
“God fearing”
family offers no protection from an assault by the head of that family. Especially when it is believed that the man is God’s representative on earth and
he
retains the right to legitimately
“chastise”
his partner.
“the man’s”
right to act as the head of a family. In doing so, DV clearly cuts across all class and cultural structures. Being a member of a wealthy
“God fearing”
family offers no protection from an assault by the head of that family. Especially when it is believed that the man is God’s representative on earth and
he
retains the right to legitimately
“chastise”
his partner.
Pence & Paymar (1993) in describing the DULUTH program argue that batterers like those who intervene to help them, have been immersed in a culture that supports relationships of dominance. This cultural acceptance of dominance is rooted in the assumption that based on difference; some people have the legitimate right to master others.
“The long patriarchal tradition is explicitly established in the institutional practices of both the church and the state and supported by some of the most prominent political, legal, religious, philosophical and literary figures in Western Europe”
(Pence & Paymar 1993)
“The long patriarchal tradition is explicitly established in the institutional practices of both the church and the state and supported by some of the most prominent political, legal, religious, philosophical and literary figures in Western Europe”
(Pence & Paymar 1993)
Domestic violence is a social problem that cannot be defined or explained by any one cause or factor. Violent and abusive behaviour in relationships results from a complex mix of learned behaviour, cultural values and historical precedent.
Reference:
Bandura, A (1973). Aggression: A social Learning Analysis. Prentice Hall. London
Bandura, A (1973). Aggression: A social Learning Analysis. Prentice Hall. London
Bottomley, K & Coleman, C (1981). Understanding Crime rates. Gower publishing Westmead.
Burrrel, I & Leppard, D (1994). Fall in crime a myth as police chiefs massage the figures. The Sunday Times 16 October 1994 pp. 1,5 Cited in Muncie, J & McLaughlin, E. (1996). The problem of Crime. (page 33). Sage publications. London.
Conley (1991). Cited in Muncie, J & McLaughlin, E. (1996). The problem of Crime. (page 198). Sage publications. London.
Coleman, C & Moynihan, J (1996). Understanding Crime Data. Open University press. Buckingham.
Dobash, R. E. & Dobash, R. P. (1998). Rethinking Violence Against Women. Sage publications. London
Dobash, R. E. & Dobash, R. P. (2000). Changing violent men. Sage publications. London
Domestic Violence: Break the chain.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/cpd/cpsu/domestic.htm
Accessed 03/04/03
Accessed 03/04/03
Elsmore, M. (2002). An Analysis of official crime statistics.
http://www.solent.ac.uk/law/crime.html
Accessed 03/04/03
http://www.solent.ac.uk/law/crime.html
Accessed 03/04/03
Fook, J. (1993). cited in Trotter, C. (1999). Working with involuntary clients. A guide to practice. (Page 43) Sage publications. London.
Gelles, R. J. (1997). Intimate violence in families. Third edition. Sage publications. London
HOC 19/2000. Domestic violence: Revised circular to the police.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/circulars/2000/hoc1900.htm
Accessed 03/04/02
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/circulars/2000/hoc1900.htm
Accessed 03/04/02
Home Office Research Study 191 (1999)Domestic Violence: Findings from a new British Crime survey self-completion questionnaire. London, Home Office.
Home Office Research Study 193 (1999)Domestic Violence Matters:
An evaluation of a development project. London, Home Office.
Lashmar, P (2003). Violent men. The implications of male violence in Britain and why we are failing to deal with it.
http://www.king.ac.uk/cusp/publications/CuspReview/Lashmar.htm
Accessed 05/04/03
http://www.king.ac.uk/cusp/publications/CuspReview/Lashmar.htm
Accessed 05/04/03
Maguire, M. (2002). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Third Edition. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Maung, N. A. (1995). Cited in Walker MA (eds) (1995). Interpreting Crime Statistics. (Page 217) Oxford University press. Oxford.
Muncie, J. & McLaughlin, E. (1996). The problem of Crime. Sage publications. London.
O’Doherty, S. (1999). Statistics and the criminal Justice system. Article 3 April 1999, cited in the Justice of the peace Journal Volume 163 page 267.
Pence, E. & Paymar, M. (1993). (W.I.S.E). Women’s issues and social empowerment. The DULUTH domestic abuse intervention project.
http://www.infoxchange.net.au/DVIM/DAIP.htm
Accessed 03/04/03
http://www.infoxchange.net.au/DVIM/DAIP.htm
Accessed 03/04/03
Radford, J. & Stanko, E. A. (1996). Cited in Hester, M. Kelly, L. & Radford, J. (eds) page 65. (1996) Women, Violence and Male Power. Open university press Buckingham.
Stanko, E. A. (1995). Policing Domestic Violence. Australian and New Zealand journal of criminology. Cited in: Hoyle, C. (2000). Page 15. Negotiating Domestic Violence. Oxford university press. Oxford.
The British Crime Survey (2001). First results England & Wales. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/01. London. Home Office.
Walker, M. A. (1995). Interpreting crime statistics. Clarendon press. Oxford.
Weldon, S. L. (2002). Protest, policy and the problem of violence against women: A cross-National comparison. University of Pittsburgh press. Pittsburgh.
Yllo, K. & Bograd, M. (eds). (1988) Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)