Victims of Domestic Violence - Coursework Example

Conceptually, a policy is the most tangible representation of the government’s effort to put its society under control1. Policies become the skeletonby which the social condition is formed. Government policies should cover everything that could potentially affect peace and order, economy and security of its citizens. This includes domestic issues such as domestic violence. The constitution provides a blanket protection on all its citizen but the justice system and its implementation are unwieldy and complicated. Arrest policies go through changes and its execution are affected by logistic including training of police officers, new legislations and amendments, errors or shortcomings in documentation. These things affect cases that might be filed. McIntosh was able to prove that government policies actually encourage the dependence of women towards men2. For example, men are required to provide for their children and wives. This financial reliance of wives towards their husbands sets a framework where women are conditioned to be dependent on men. Kelly went deeper as to include mainstream cultural practices such as insinuating jokes in the creation of a strong support towards the marginalization of women3. The patronization of mainstream culture towards the dominance of men over women support the cycle of violence towards women. These two literatures support major points that Hoyle made on how police response may not be as valuable as society perceive it to be when it comes to curbing violence against women. These three papers emphasize the need to look at the psychology of the women who get into and choose to stay in an abusive relationship. Hoyle emphasized the need to understand that domestic violence cannot be viewed in the same light as other criminal cases because the aggressor in a domestic violence have a strong bond with the victim. Victims love their attacker and sometimes, children are involved. This provides them with a reason and motivation to go past the crime. Such a connection and with so much at stake, legalities are often ignored. Policies become useless. In some way, the policies actually become a deterrent in the willingness of women to seek outside help. This paper intends to critically examine the major domestic violence policies discussed by Hoyle and how considerate these policies are on the psychological framework of the different parties involved in an abusive relationship. It’s a Psychological Warfare Hoyle pointed out several important facts that are often overlooked by policymakers. One of this is that even if domestic violence is supposedly no different from other violent acts committed on the streets, there should be a lot of consideration given to the fact that there is a strong relationship between the aggressor and the victim. In many cases, these two are bonded by children, history and marriage. This relationship influences how a victim would want to deal with the situation. When harmed by a stranger, the concern is to catch the perpetrator and put him in jail but when there are children involved, there will be some second thoughts on putting the father behind bars4. Many studies have women with children are more likely to stay in a relationship even if it is abusive5. There is also little recognition that the victims are also psychologically sick. Policies don’t take into consideration the long process that a relationship goes through before it reaches an abusive stage. There is seduction, manipulation, dominance and others. These stages are also recognizable but the mere fact that women proceed with the relationship even when there are clear signs on where it is going is a sign that they are not in their proper mental state. These two major factors affect the way a victim will react towards the policies in place to stop domestic violence. Since the policy considers domestic violence a criminal act, it subjects the plaintiff to criminal proceedings with the danger of receiving sanctions afforded to criminals. Often, this is not what the victim wants. What victims desire is for the abuse to stop but for the relationship to continue. There are three major policies that are in place intended to deal with domestic violence but all these fail to address the problem cohesively because none of it understands the disposition of the victim. Protection Orders Hoyle enumerated several processes and policies put in place that is made available to victims of domestic violence. Protection Order (PO) is one of them. A protection order is a civil in nature. This means that only the individual has the right to make use of them. It is the state that implements it. The intention is for to prevent an individual from committing an act or doing an activity because of its harmful consequence. This may include preventing an abuser from living in the same house as his wife or living in the same state as his family. Regardless of the particulars, the general goal is to keep an abuser form doing anything that may eventually lead to physical abuse. When a PO is violated, that’s when it becomes a criminal offense. As such, a crime is committed against the people of Britain and not just against the individual. For a PO to be issued, the court must be convinced that if the action being requested is not stopped an abuse will happen6. This is when the contradiction happens and when women are disempowered. While the objective of P.O. is prevention, the court will not issue a P.O. unless there are undisputable proof a woman has already been abused. POs don’t do anything in making domestic violence any more illegal than it already is. It is important to note, though, that the civil court does not need physical proof of abuse to issue a P.O., it only needs to be convinced of the probability. This may already be a reason for the civil court to issue a P.O. On the other hand, a criminal law will require that the crime be proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, what makes it even more difficult to obtain a P.O. is the fact that both parties must agree to the terms. This requirement becomes the number deterrent in obtaining a P.O. Physical abuse rarely happen in the early stages of the relationship. Usually, there is an escalation. It starts with verbal abuse which is when the abuser brainwashes the victim into thinking she is powerless. Only when the victim has lost self-confidence will an abuser physically abuse the victim. As such, the act of facing someone whom a victim believes to have power over her is emotionally difficult. The alternative is to get an Emergency Protection Order or (EPO) but it only lasts for a limited time. This does not require that both parties agree to the terms but it can expire in 24 hours. This opens the victim to greater danger. There have been some attempts in measuring the effects of POs in deterring domestic violence but none have been successful7. In fact, different studies have shown different results. For example, Harrell & Smith determined that abuse is less likely to happen again after a PO but Klein determined the exact opposite8. These results largely put PO in a questionable status as a deterrent in domestic violence. The contradiction between the objective and the process by which it can be obtained already shows that there is a disconnect and lack of understanding on how abuse happen. Abuse is not just about inflicting pain but about control which is psychological. As such, requiring a victim to face its abuser serves as a major hurdle in making PO a significant tool to prevent domestic violence. Mandatory Arrest The term domestic violence is not intended to put it in an inferior level. It is called domestic violence because it occurs in a home. Again, the very nature of the crime and the policy work on opposite direction9. For one, police is not allowed to enter a home uninvited. In fact, police is not allowed to meddle in domestic affairs10. This means that for the police to have the right to make an arrest, the victims must initiate the request. The police has requested that domestic violence issues be a mandatory part of their routine response11. However, this has brought forth a new set of complications. Police officers are often left with the lone responsibility on whether they will make an arrest when they are faced with a domestic violence case12. The aggravated consequence of making an arrest pushes more officers to not make an arrest13. Officers are found to be influenced by the cultural dictates that domestic conflicts are not a part of the jurisdiction of anyone else but those that are in the relationship14. When the officer makes the decision not to make an arrest, the responsibility is shifted back to the victim. It is important to understand that women who were hit, even if it is their first time, have been in an abusive relationship for a long time because physical abuse does not happen overnight15. Hoyle pointed out this fact. Women attested that men work their way up towards physical abuse. It begins mild suggestions on how they should do things and what decisions to make16. Eventually, they get used to relying on their partner. Men will eventually escalate to mental, verbal and emotional abuse17. When they get to a point when they are completely powerless, that’s when physical abuse begins18. When a woman gets to that point, they are already psychologically damaged19. Shifting the decision back to someone who is already psychologically damaged is not only risky, it is downright unreasonable20. Buzawa and Austin found out that when the victim expresses intentions have her aggressor arrested, officers do as expected21. This again puts the whole policy in question. There seem a lack of recognition between policy implementation and cultural constructs by which police officers and other involved in the implementation of the policy live22. Officers are no less human when they are in human as they are out of it. As such, they bring with them principles and beliefs which have been honed from the day they were born. Such principles influence how they perform their job. This principle and culture constructs involves the belief that domestic matters are domestic concerns23. Officers must recognize that the women the victims cannot be counted on to make the right decisions because they are not in the proper psychological disposition. Psychotherapy As early as the 80s, psychotherapy has been studied as a part of the domestic violence prevention24. This policy has different programs included anger management, barterer intervention, domestic abuse intervention projects, and other. Some cases require both the victim and the aggressor to go through therapy while others only require the aggressor. Hoyle (2000) determined that many of the victims of domestic abuse believe that their aggressors are sick but are not really violent by nature. They often blame drugs or alcohol or psychological disorders. This prompts the warm response to Psychotherapy25. There is, however, one major pitfall in this program. It validates that an aggressor’s act of hitting a woman is not a matter of choice but a matter of need because they are sick. It puts them in a positive light and even builds empathy. This motivates many of the women who have been abused to wait for their partners to become better26. It also gives the message that the aggressor is more important than the victim. While the psychological disorder of the aggressor is being dealt with, there is no assistance in rehabilitating the victim who is most likely just as sick as the aggressor. Conclusion It cannot be asked of the government to change its policies. It is its natural social and moral obligation to treat domestic abusers as criminals and it is necessary for the act of domestic battery as a criminal act. However, it must now re-examine the whole framework of domestic violence. It needs to consider and understand the aggressor is not the only one that needs assistance and rehabilitation, but also the victim. There is also an apparent need for the police to be required to take a more vigilant approach in making arrests, investigating and identifying domestic abusers. They should be held responsible for the actions they don’t take as much as they are held responsible for the actions they take. References Bachman, R., & Coker, A.L., 1995. Police Involvement in Domestic Violence: The Interactive Effects of Victim Inury, Offenders History of Violence, and Race. Violence & Victims, 10, 91-106 Brown, S.E., 1984. Police Responses to Wife Beating: Neglect of a Crime of Violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 13, 277-288. Buzawa, E.S. & Austin, T., 1993. Determining Police Response to Domestic Violence Victims: The Role of Victim preference. American Behavioral Scientist, 36, 610-623 Carlson, M.J., Harris, S.D., & Holden, G.W., 1999. Protective Orders and Domestic Violence:Risk Factors for re-abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 205-226 Dolon, R., Hendricks, J., & Meagher, M.S., 1986. Police Practices and Attitudes towar Domestic Violence, Journal of Police Science & Administration, 14, 187. Feraro, K.J., 1989. The Legal Response to Woman Battering in the United States. in J. Hammer, J. Radford, & E.A. Standko *eds.), Women, Policing, and Male Violence: International Perspectives, pp.49-69. London:Routledge. Finn, P., & Colson, S., 1990. Civil Protection Orders: Legislations, Current Court Practice, and Enforcement. Washington, DC: Department of Justice Harrell, A., & Smith, B., 1996. Effects of Restraining Orders on Domestic Violence Victims. In E.S. Buzawa & C.G. Buzawa (Eds.), Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work?, pp.214-242. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage. Harrell, A., Smith, B., & Newmark, L., 1993. Court Processing and the Effects of Restraining Orders for Domestic-Violence Victims. Denver, Co.: The Urban Institute Homan, R.J. & Kennedy, D.B., 1985. Police Perceptions of Spouse Abuse: A Comparison of Male and Female Officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 13, 29-47. Kelly, L., 1988. Surviving Sexual violence, London: Polity Press Klein, A.R., 1996. Labours Social Policy 1974-79. Critical Social Policy, 1,5-17. Klinger, D.A., 1995. Policing Spousal Assault. Journal of Research in Crime & Deliquency, 32, 308-324. MacPherson, W., 1999. Stephen Lawrence Inquire. London: Stationary Office. McIntosh, M., 1981. Feminism and Social Policy, Critical Social Policy, 1, 32-42. Oppenlander, N., 1982. Coping or Copping Out. Criminology, 20, 449 OConnor, P.L., 2002. From Arrest to Trial: The Experience of Being a Family Member of an Accused Felony Offender: Dissertation Abstracts International. 62 (8-A). Perna, D.A., 1996. The Incarcerated Adolescent Male Criminals Experience of the Circumstances that Led to his Most Recent Arrest: A Phenomenological Study. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences & Engineering. 7(1-B). Purdy, F. & Nickle, N., 1981. Practice Principle for Working with Men who Batter. Social Work with Groups, 4, 111-112/ Stanko, E.A., 1985. Intimate Intrusions: Womens Experiences of Male Violence. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Woolredge, J., & Thistlewaite, A., 2002. Reconsidering Domestic Violence Recidivism: Conditional Effects of Legal Control by Individual and Aggregate Levels of Stake in Conformity. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 45-70. Zoomer, O.J., 1989. Policing Woman Beating in the Netherlands. In J. Hammer, J. Radford, & E.A. Standko (Eds.), Women, Policing, and Male Violence: International Perspectives, pp.49-69. London:Routledge. Read More