Why are sisters uncut opposed to the new domestic abuse sentencing guidelines?

[PencilsInSpace]

Perpetrators of domestic abuse more likely to go to jail

This is what sisters uncut were recently protesting against on the red carpet at some tedious award ceremony I can't be arsed to google. I don't get it - well, I do get it if they are the bunch of handmaidens I believe them to be - but just in case I'm being unfair and they've spotted something I've missed, does anybody know what their argument is?

Here is their press release:

www.sistersuncut.org/2018/02/18/press-release-domestic-violence-protesters-crash-bafta-red-carpet-to-call-times-up-on-theresa-may-call-times-up-on-theresa-may/

I have read it, and still haven't idea

Nope - me either!

They don't like women?

Not really following it either (and what’s even the point of a press release that doesn’t get your message across?). Best I can work out it’s this:

• New guidelines would put more offenders in jail.
• Victims sometimes get mistaken for offenders.
• Therefore, new guidelines would put more victims in jail.

Not sure any of that follows tremendously well, and it may not be what they’re arguing anyway, but that’s my best guess.

Will the new rules bring in mandatory arrests when the police are called to a domestic violence incident? That seems to be what they're protesting.

Perhaps if you don a tinfoil feelz hat and read it again, it will suddenly make perfect sense.

Victims sometimes get mistaken for offenders.

Even Sisters Uncut are aware that TIMs are more, not less, likely to be abusers of women!

It's all that anti-carceral feminism business, isn't it?

The Prison Reform Trust report linked in the Sister’s Uncut statement is insightful into the level of DA which women in the prison system have experienced.

How and why tougher measures for perpetrators of that DA would be a problem is less clear. It is possible that reactive violence in a coercive control situation could lead to a woman being imprisoned without full understanding of the abuse she was subject to. But I am not sure of the other arguments.

It is possible that the protest is about the criminal justice system replacing the provision of refuges and non-judicial options. So if perpetrators are arrested, the victims then have to pursue matters through the family courts to retain the marital home or get divorced. Rather than being able to seek refuge and support to set up a new home without extensive legal proceedings. The longer the legal proceedings, the greater the platform for the abuse to continue. Furthermore, the police can continue to press charges even if the victim does not wish this.

I don’t know. I welcome the greater recognition of coercive control, but I do not think the family courts have caught up with the implications when children are involved. I am also not even sure the criminal justice system recognises it yet, although that is improving. But none of this is in the Sisters Uncut press release, nor does it seem a reason to protest the law.

Thanks ItsAll. Reading that press release and the associated links, there are obvious problems with the way the police, and immigration officials, deal with domestic abuse. There are also obvious problems with the underfunding of refuges. We knew all this already.

I still can't quite join the dots and work out why it is therefore wise to oppose these guidelines rather than campaign against the actual problems. They say the guidelines are 'a distraction'. It seems to me that their protest is a distraction. Nobody watching what they did on the red carpet would have come away thinking we need to update police training and guidance and fund refuges properly

EmyRoo thank you that's a really interesting post. I'll think on that and be back tomorrow.

I agree with what you say in the post before mine. I also agree with what you say about their protest being a distraction. I also think the governments in Westminster and in Scotland have made great progress in getting coercive control recognised in the legal system.

I am not sure how else one would get men to stop without criminalising the behaviour (although this does not work with rape, and there are similar issues around evidencing coercive control) and at present, the family law system does not prevent abuse being perpetuated after separation.

Maybe its an anarchist thing and they don't want greater police involvement in DV cases? Instead they think victims should be supported by refuges.
It seems like an odd thing to be protesting about on the surface.

They link to this www.incite-national.org/sites/default/files/incite_files/resource_docs/2883_toolkitrev-domesticviolence.pdf which I think says more clearly what they are talking about. I think it's that they don't trust the cops to understand the difference between domestic abuse and a normal fight where both parties are guilty. If they have to make an arrest and they are don't understand the nuances they could easily end up arresting both or even arresting the victim if the abuser is making it out to be the victim's fault. We all know how charming and bare-faced-lying abusers can be. An ex of mind once attacked me, I pushed him and he fell, made a huge racket and his housemate came in and immediately jumpted to the conclusion that I was the attacker. If she'd been a cop, I could have been handcuffed. It's really not difficult to imagine. And coupled with the extreme psychological harm that can be caused by re-traumatising a victim, I think they have a point.