DV & EA - what do the experts say about tackling the culprit?

[Kitttty]

I have been posting on a few threads - but wondered what the experts (womansaid/police etc) advise on dealing directly with the culprit?

Lots of advice on MN as to what the victim should do and how the friends and family of the victim should support him or her - until they see sense and have the strength to leave.

But is worries me that the culprit spends their time continually eroding the self esteem and confidence of the victim - so that the reality is that this is a loosing battle and almost impossible.

Does any agency recommend an intervention by an agency or friends and family to tackle the abuser directly. Either to warn them or support them to change their ways?

The only 'tackling' that has any impact really is usually police-driven. Because up to that point what you're often talking about is bullying behaviour that falls just shy of actually being criminal, even though it is deeply unpleasant for the victim. What usually stops family from intervening directly is the risk that a) that the victim leaps to the defence of the abuser, b) the victim isolates themselves from friends and family further and c) extra danger for the victim.

I'm not an expert. Lundy Bancroft mentions somewhere that what might change an abuser was if every single person around him were to show him that he was in the wrong. If you had a very, very strong consensus....maybe.

I don't think it's a good idea for just one or two people to tackle the culprit. I would imagine that they would (a) deny it and (b) punish their victim even more for daring to "tell" and for making the abuser look bad. I think this could really rebound on the victim.

Does this leave the victim a hostage then? I just wonder if we are not doing enough as friends and family to take control and "out" the abusers. Do we know that an intervention would be a greater risk to the victim, if we all stood up to these bullies?

That's the definition of 'risk' though isn't it? When something could go either way. I've personally intervened on one occasion. A good friend begged me to rescue her from a violent man and spirit her and DC 200 miles back to very supportive family. So far so good - score one for intervention. A few months later she decided she'd been too hasty, got back with him and cut me & the family out of her life. Abusive man wins on penalties..

Personally I would focus intervention on the victim because a) you have no idea what kind of revenge you may unleash, b) he's not likely to acknowledge it, c) she's more likely to be responsive.

Paradoxically, she's the one with the problem - by which I do not mean in the sense of blaming the victim - he's the abuser - but she is the one being damaged by this relationship. The abuser is not. Yes his behaviour is self-destructive and may yet lead him to break the law - but currently the downside for him of being in this relationship is nil. He may never change as long as his behaviour doesn't penalise him, whereas if she doesn't change she will suffer.

I know there were tales on here of a couple of blokes warned off on a dark night, but honestly, if that was the cure for abusive relationships, there would be no need for Women's Aid and restraining orders...

I would look at it as him being an addiction of hers - she needs to get to the bottom of her behaviour & break the pattern.