Why we need to change the way we treat abusers

[sunshineandbooks]

Read this article in the Independent today.

19,000 women!

We need to radically overhaul the way we deal with abuse in this country.

Firstly we need to reinstate funding or we're sending a message that women's welfare only matters after everything else.

Secondly, we need to start dealing with perpetrators properly. Right now, they get away with it.

Thirdly, I'd like to see more perpetrators made to leave the family home and kept away. So many families don't need the added trauma of homelessness in addition to being abused by someone who is supposed to love and protect them.

Funding - you are more than right about that. Independent research shows that each pound spend on independent domestic violence advisors (IDVAs) resulted in an overall saving of several times that.

Dealing with perpetrators - difficult. There is, and needs to be, a criminal burden of proof. The victims of abuse are usually the only witnesses, and are often unwilling or unable to assist a prosecution. Without this, there is generally not enough evidence to secure a conviction at court. In my experience courts are very keen to convict domestic abusers if there is evidence that makes it to the court.

Perpetrators often can, within a legal framework, be made to leave the family home. However it is a big thing to tell someone they cannot live in the home they have paid for, so it is a long slow process. If the victim is supporting the legal process then it is highly likely that the abuse will escalate to the point where it is utterly unsafe for her to remain there. Emergency refuges are used in emergency, often life threatening situations.

Is there any information on how and why the law is not working to get the perpetrators removed from the home? It's my understanding that such a legal framework exists: a violent man can be excluded from the family home by means of an occupation order/non-molestation order. Is it that the amount of evidence needed to get one is massive ie an order can only be obtained after x amount of violent incidents have been reported to the police?

Property is more important that people, sadly.

Grey squirrels are vermin, you know. You can't move them somewhere else, you have to humanely dispose of them. That's according to the government and the law. They don't even do that much to us, save occasionally chewing through some wires (which is a problem, I admit). Just musing on present and previous problems...Hierarchy is a funny thing.

I think a big problem is the burden of proof and I accept there's never going to be an easy answer to that. However, it's worth bearing in mind that false accusations are no higher than for any other crime. Most women who claim they are abused are telling the truth.

But I think a lot more can be done with those who are convicted. Right now punishments are very light indeed. Loads are just let off with a caution or a conditional discharge (which means very little in reality) which just means the victim gives up expecting the system to help and the perpetrator puts more pressure on the victim not to involve any agencies. A few more examples beig made could do a lot, in much the same way as knife crime was tackled.

To some extent SS are already more involved as CP procedures are triggered if the police report a couple with children several times, regardless of whether those cases actually go to court. However, IME this often means a one-off visit involving a warning (usually to the mother) that she could lose the children if she fails to protect her children from being exposed to abuse. This simply reinforces the woman's understanding that she is responsible for the abuse and that it's her fault if her children suffer, so she becomes less inclined to use outside agencies. The very systems supposed to help her work against her. The message of unacceptability needs to be aimed at the abuser and we need to start seeing women imprisoned psychologically in the cycle of abuse being given more understanding and support.

In many cases I agree that it would be safer for a woman to leave rather than stay, even though it is unfair. But where do they go? With refuges shutting left, right and centre and the housing process working so slowly, many are left homeless for far too long. Forcing perpetrators to leave temporarily bassed on the balance of probability rather than beyond all reasonable doubt, would harm no unfairly accused person's long-term interests but would allow a victim a couple of days to pack up and find alternative accommodation. I agree with the article that housing administrative procedures need to be improved so that there is cooperation across jurisdictions.

Of course, I was being facetious before anyone starts.

Sunshine, I can't get my head around the fact that SS (via the courts, I assume) can remove children without the proof of a jury, but the courts, police and society still fall back on the no witnesses thing in protecting victims and children before it gets to that stage. When I win the lottery, I will set up a fund to pursue civil cases. I understand the difficulties, but when I hear of individual cases that are not pursued by the CPS I could scream.

I am beginning to think that tazers and vigilante action is the only way to get any real change. Domestic abusers are the lowest of the low and I am sure there is an island with their name one. A cold one, not a lovely one.

I don't have the energy to digest most of your post right now. However I would say that in my experience the arrest & conviction rates for supported DV prosecutions is far far higher than for practically every other type of crime, so it's not that anyone thinks victims are false reporting. Sentencing is a JOKE in this country, a disgraceful one, for nearly every crime type and DV is no exception. I will point out that a caution is not a conviction and ought only to be offered when appropriate, and are often offered when a victim would not be able to face court.

The fact that it's safer for a victim to leave than stay being unfair - well, they're victims of domestic abuse. The whole situation is utterly unfair. As I said funding levels are pathetic, increased fundings for refuges are essential. From a purely practical point, if an abuser is arrested then he is often remanded (certainly by police) for a few days, how long would you suggest keeping them out of the house for? Also in a practical sense it is in many cases safer for the victim to move to a new address unknown to the abuser, as much as they may be attached to the family home.

I see what you say about victims being made to feel they are to blame for the abuse. I have read on various boards here though that people who grew up with an abusive parent do blame the victim-parent for not protecting them; how can we encourage people to protect their children instead of just feeling that the system is 'out to get them'? Do we think that children should be left in a dangerous and damaging home to spare the feelings of the victim?

I hope this doesn't come across as me "blaming the victim". I am absolutely not doing this. People who subject the person they are meant to love and care for to abuse, be it physical, sexual, emotional, financial, are the lowest scum of the low. But the legal, emotional, practical & psychological factors are so complicated that it will never just be an issue of Abuser Abuses, Victim asks for help, Abuser is taken out of the house and never comes back. The evidential considerations, the fact that the victim often doesn't want the abuser removed until it's literally a matter of life and death then has to run... Very difficult indeed.

There's a petition running, asking the government to refrain from making further cuts to DV resources here. Just yesterday, Haven Wolverhampton announced that it had closed it's counselling service, which aimed to help women who were survivors of domestic violence.

SGB, I suspect part of the problem with trying to remove the perp from the home is the fear that the perp may return. I mean, that way, they know where the victim is. It's why I felt safer in a refuge. I'd already had the ex kick the door in and threaten to kill me if I let him back in (only reason he couldn't get back in the flat was because he couldn't undo the chains from the other side of the door). Half an hour later, he phoned me from the train station, telling me he'd throw himself onto platform nine; the platform the train to my home town left from. By the time I was in the refuge, I had people telling him I was 200 miles in the other direction.

Personally, I'd rather see perps locked up for good, or until they could prove, beyond all possible doubt they'd changed. But I doubt either scenario would ever happen

Winkly, thank you for pointing that out about IDVA's. The whole selection of cuts made to the area of DV relief resources makes as much sense as putting a band aid over a severed limb. It's going to put more strain on the police, nHS, social services, and I'm sure it costs the CPS more to take someone to court for murder than it does for domestic violence. But if we keep trapping women in abusive relationships with no means of escape, we are going to see more women killed. And that bloody well scares me.

We need to overhaul the legal system. I know the only reason my case got to court was because the ex pleaded guilty, on the belief it'd win me back. We need the default position to be "We believe you, and the only person to blame is the abuser; the only factor to blame is his desire for power and control". It's 2012, and we're still struggling with that.

fwiw, there is a pilot running in 6 police areas applying a Domestic Violence Prevention Order, which starts off with a DV Notice, banning the perpetrator for 28 days from going near the home. The person can then appeal against this in a magistrates court within 2 days to say why it is unjust.
One operates in my area G/T M/c, and whilst it's a bit early to indicate how effective they are, the prob. has been actually getting the police to know they have this power. When the DV Unit is closed, or knowlegable staff aren't around, it doesn't happen. I've been involved in 3 cases. In two of them I have had to explain over the phone. So what chance the PC on the night beat actually cottoning on?

Pan, do you know of the success rate of this scheme? Is it working in terms of getting abusers to stay away? Or are they typically returning? In terms of appeals, what's the success rate (sorry if you don't have the answer; just curious)

No I don't have the answer, but it's been running for a few months. This does prompt me to check when in work again next week. IN each of the 3 cases the full order was applied.
Having said this, I am sceptical of what the govt would call 'successful' and so have it rolled out. No doubt it will come down to money.

Winkly - what do you mean by 'supported prosecution'? Do you mean cases where the victim wants the perpetrator to be prosecuted?

When my X had me up against the wall by the throat and threatened to kill me when I told him I was leaving him, the police were brilliant. I felt believed and also felt that they took it seriously. He still got let off with a caution though, and I was prepared to pursue it and said so, though I also said I would leave it to them to decide on the most appropriate course of action. He was also home less than 16 hours later. I've seen that happen far more times that I care to think about, so they certainly aren't remanded for days or even 24 hours in many cases.

I don't actually think the problem lies with the police though. Training on DV has changed beyond all recognition in the police, for the better. The police can only work within the framework of the law though, and that's what needs to change. Sentencing guidelines would be a start, and while I agree with you than sentencing generally needs to change in the UK, that's not what I am discussing here. I could also argue that the way we need to treat thieves should change also, but that would derail the thread. Although murders happen far too frequently in the UK, it is a relatively rare crime. That is in part because most people fear the consequences. Harsher sentences for DV would have a similar effect though it wouldn't eradicate it.

No, I don't think children should remain in abusive families so that we don't run the risk of blaming the victim. How on earth did you draw that conclusion? I'm saying we should remove the abuser, and help the victim get free. I am not naive. I am well aware that many victims do not want the abuser removed and will let him back as soon as backs are turned. If the system rather than the victim assumes responsibility for preventing that from happening, children are safe - albeit temporarily. Most women see abusive relationships very differently once they are free from their abusers for a little time; giving them that time can make all the difference. Yes it will be expensive, but so is removing children and putting them into care. There will always be women who for whatever reason cannot protect their children even after time apart and in those cases children will have to be removed anyway, but I think the incidence of these cases would fall.

Pan, that sounds really interesting. I'd love to know more about it as it progresses. Please keep us posted.

And it would be quite easy to keep perpetrators away by use of electronic tagging.

Why do I always forget electronic tagging exists?

This is exactly the thing; although I felt leaving was the only sensible option for me, I resented the fact I had to move back to a town I hated, leave the friends I had behind, any career prospects behind, and completely changed my life. In fact, I've said several times since I left the ex that I feel I got a bigger punishment for him putting me through four years of hell than he did.

Pan, please do keep us updated. It sounds like an excellent scheme in theory. Would be interesting to see how it works in practise.

I also wonder if maybe we should change the law so that the burden of proof required is less for the victim to access help. So keep 'beyond all reasonable doubt' for conviction and sentencing, but use 'balance of probabilities' when deciding if a victim is a victim and introducing protective measures.

Right, off to bed now. Night all.

Sorry, just meant to add that I know that already happens to some extent, but I want to see it extended to the sorts of measures I mentioned earlier.

tagging - not really. I think you may be confusing it with surveillance. gps thing? On tag you know whether someone is where when they ought to be, not where the yshouldn't be. Surveillance is when you know where they are all of the time. That was piloted a few years ago but not taken up.
bed.

Thank you for clearing that up, Pan. :)
Night

Having said this, I am sceptical of what the govt would call 'successful' and so have it rolled out. No doubt it will come down to money.

I share your cynicism with regard to Government definitions of 'success' but a feminist with impeccable credentials has been appointed to do the evaluation of the DVPO scheme. In the past she has resisted Government pressure to rewrite research findings to make them more palatable to Ministers so I have faith that we will at least get an honest assessment of how DVPOs work.

I think one of the biggest problems is the ridiculous sentencing and early releases that violent people get even when convicted. A neighbour of mine was done for gbh on his wife, sentenced to four months and back here by the end of the week. There is no justice from the law. A law which always favours the criminal will always fail to protect the victims. Violent offenders need to be taken very seriously, whether their victims are their own spouses or strangers.

Shane Jenkin awaits sentencing for his reported 12 hour attack on Tina Nash which left her blind.

I wonder what his sentence will be.

Shocking. So poigniant when she says she likes to fall asleep because there she can see again.
Depending on the existence of previous violent convictions, he will get an Indeterminate sentence, prob. with a 12 year tariff? Hope the judges adds on a couple of years in his/her deliberation so he doesn't benefit from a guilty plea discount and get less.

We don't have enough prison places (or money, it seems) to protect current and future victims from violence. If all victims reported the crimes against them, the system would implode. If sentencing really reflected the need to protect current and future victims, we would need a new Australia to send them to.

That said, I would legalise and tax drugs, to free up prison places and raise money for early intervention schemes and proper support for victims to live without the threat of violence. To solve this requires radical solutions. Yeah, drug addiction is shit and all that, but I guess we all have different priorities.