Categories of Domestic Violence - Essay Example

Domestic violence Insert of Introduction Domestic violence is one of the social factors which have received wide recognition and heated debates across the globe. Such debates are based on the manner in which the violence is undertaken and the circumstances surrounding them. The reasons behind the occurrences of domestic violence often vary from one family to another making their prevention and analysis quite difficult before the courts of law. Domestic violence as Abram, Templin, McClellant, & Dulcan, (2003) notes can be defined as a controversial misunderstanding between people of the same household which usually lead to a violent disagreement between the quarreling parties. Various cases have been reported for judgments before courts of law concerning domestic assaults and injuries between wives and husbands. Different people and organizations have come up with different typologies to help in categorizing such offenses based on the manner in which they are undertaken and the circumstances surrounding their undertakings. These categorizations have not achieved much recognition since the arguments raised therein are subject to question and debates. As a result, various people have argued otherwise concerning these typological categorizations. The great debate concerning this idea is concerned with the number of people an offender abuses or offend against placing them under serial domestic offenders or one time offenders (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). Domestic violence, according to Johnsson, (2004) refers to an act of aggression against a member of the same family by another member of the family. Different experts have come up with different typologies to derive theories to help them explain and understand the reasons behind the engagements in domestic violence among various people across the world. These factors range from social to genetic in nature and vary from one person to another. These factors range from psychological factors to the genetic characteristics of the offenders to social problems. The motives used in classification, however, differ greatly in each case. To this extent, therefore, a wide array of categories has been put forward to help group offenders into certain categories. In this paper, I will use different cases to illustrate these typologies based on the characteristic behaviors of the individuals involved in such affairs during and after the commission of the offenses. The intimate terrorism typology The intimate terrorism is the type of domestic violence typology which involves the intimate partner terrorizing his or her mate by using violence as a means to get over him or her. This type of violence typology is mainly common in the case of heterogeneous relationships. Intimate terrorism is quite common in many parts of the world today as it includes, besides violence the use of other common mechanisms such as taking complete control over the other partner, usually the weak partner. The weaker partner is made submissive in this case rendering hi or her helpless before the other powerful partner. As Holtzworth-Munroe, (2005) notes the intimate terror partner acts with power and authority over the other weak partner, often not considering the feelings of the weaker partner as long as their demands are met to their full satisfaction. According to Johnson, (2005b) the intimate terror partner is mostly men who try to dominate over women by using different sorts of antics to rise over their partners. The terror partners as Dutton & Goodman, (2005) notes often employ the acts of intimidation on the weaker partner in order for her to easily submit. Geographically, this typology is mainly common in the Arab world where women are expected to be submissive to their husbands as the husbands try the much their can to make sure that the women submit to them (Hunter, 2006). In trying to describe the factors surrounding the aspects of domestic violence with regard to the intimate terror partners, Michael & Janel, (2010) states; It is not surprising that the institution of gender, in which male domination is a central element, is implicated in the structure of intimate terrorism, which is about coercive control (pp. 10). Intimate terrorism describes the terror mates as ready to do a couple of other things such as evoking violence with the other partners to make sure that they are driven into submission. In many religious/ Christian families as Altobelli, (2009) notes, the intimate terror is often the man of the home. The bible is used as the most common antic to lure the weaker and unsuspecting partner into submissions. It is not common that the terror partner employs only the dangerous or threatening missions to make their partners submissive, a wide array of tools are often brought into play with the sole/ collective intention of making the other partner submissive in the long run. Religion as a tool of intimate terrorism has been employed by several other people to achieve this hideous mission over their partners. Moreover, economic control, the power to control all economic resources of the family is as well another mechanism employed by the terror partners to gain access to their weaker partner’s submission. This as Adshead, (2002) records is mainly common in cases where only one partner is economically empowered while the other is weak. In such cases, the empowered partner usually the employed in the family is often the resources controller in the home making it very difficult for the other partner to resist any of his or her demands. Moreover, other common antics employed by the intimate terror partners, according to Andrews & Bonta, (2003) include psychological abuse and torture, withdrawals and the assertion of male privileges on the female partners. It is often very hard for the weaker partner as Antle, Sullivan, Johnson, & Cunningham, (2007) notes to disentangle herself or himself to intense pressure put in by the other partner. In the case of women becoming the terrorizing partners Archer, (2000a), they mostly use the economic/resources control strategies to gain power over their economically weak husbands. As Archer, (2006) notes women as well employ certain measures such as withdrawal from certain family issues which makes their partners to submit and commit to their needs and demands. Psychological abuse is a situation where an individual, usually the terror partner makes sure that he or she manipulates the psychological faculties of the weaker unsuspecting partner in order to gain adequate access to their minds. Such advances may include the development of certain beliefs in the minds of the unsuspecting partners that ultimately make them submissive and ride over by their partners. The psychological abuse mechanism is mainly employed in situations where the partners are psychologically weaker than their intelligent partners. In such cases, therefore, the exercise of complete authority is quite evident. This fact may also occur where the weaker partner is younger than the terror partner or is less exposed to the current affairs of the world over which the strong partner takes advantage. The intimate terrorism typology is very common in various parts of the world today as power struggles rock most families. The powerful/ terror mates have taken advantage of the hard economic times prevalent in various corners of the worlds to lure their victims into submission. Statistics indicate that intimate terror partner related violence, although not very common, account for up to 2 million cases in the United States of America today. Violence resistance typology The typology of violent resistance is mainly employed by the weak partners in the case of terror victims described above. This typology as Babcock, Green, & Robie, (2004) notes is often developed over time and space as the weaker partner comes to terms with the reality and feels the need to be given his or her space in the family. This aspect is mainly common, where one entered a relationship when there are still naïve and not aware of their rights and privileges accorded to them by law and other legal affairs. These rights and privileges are often sitting on by their psychologically apt partners and they only come to realize them later in life. This typology is very common in the developing and the developed world where married couples have been accorded numerous but equally demanding privileges. These privileges are sometimes surprised by their partners to an extent that they remain submissive to them. In the less developed regions, this is mainly evident where the weaker partner is not well exposed to their rights which make them submit unknowingly to their partners. Upon the realization of abuse by their terror partners, the weaker partners begin to demand back their rights and privileges in the family. Letting go the kingship position in most cases is often the cause of troubles as the terror partners feel a reduction in the privileges they accorded to them. The reactions in response to such gains are often associated with much violence as the weaker partners discover the denial. Resisting abuse and domination is often the cause of such violence. The causes of violence in such cases, mainly originate from the weaker partners who try to resist their domination of their partners over them. According to Babcock, Millar, & Siard, (2003) violence resistant is like a tag of war whereby both partners are positioned on either end of the rope and try to resist the penetration of the other partner into their territories. Both parties are often engaged in the battle each trying to prevent the other from penetrating their territories. The resistance however is sometimes very intense that it leads to the occurrence of violence in such families. Violent resistance is today a common cause of violence in many families around the globe accounting for a lager percentage of the violent cases around the world. As Belfrage & Rying, (2004) record the introduction of many family rights and privileges accorded various individuals by the national and international laws are the prime cause of these violent resistances. Today, this is the main cause of violence in different families around the globe accounting for over 30% of all violence cases reported to the courts in the united states between 2008 and 2012 (Bishopp & Hare, 2008). Most of such resistances are commonly based on the demand for the accord to the rights and privileges accorded to various individuals by the laws of the countries and are often. In Africa and Asia, the rate stands at 57% and 41%, respectively Bonta & Andres, (2007). The reasons in most cases are based on the need to accord the rights accorded to the weaker partners by the laws of the countries involved. With the awareness created on human rights, female rights as well as other rights being advocated for in different parts of the world, the realization of some factors prevalent to the various gender types in the society is becoming one of the common causes of violence through resistance in various parts of the globe. The situational couple violence In contrast to the other typologies explaining the causes of violence in many families around the globe the situational couple violence’s main arguments concerning the various causes of violence are pegged to the fact that domestic violence tend to originate out of specific conflicts common in moat families. Such conflicts are not geared towards manipulating the other partner in any way. This typology is likely to be perpetrated by both partners in a relationship. Compared to the other cases discussed prior to this typology, the causes of violence in this case tend to originate from both parties as opposed to the other cases. Situational couple violence typology tries to explain the occurrence of violence in almost all families around the world. It is the most common form of violence prevalent in all corners of the globe. The causes of violence as explained in this typology are varied depending on the regional aspects as well as the cultural influences in different regions of the globe. Here the partners engaged in any violent reaction are not geared towards achieving any long term or long term dominance or gain over their partners, a fact which places the violence arising out of situational contexts unbiased. They involve situations where the partners lack a peaceful solution to their problems and resort to violence as the ultimate solution. In regard to this aspect Michael & Janel, (2010) states: Situational couple violence, which is the most common type of partner violence, does not involve an attempt on the part of one partner to gain general control over the other, and by at least one criterion it appears to be more gender-symmetric (pp. 10). As Babcock, Green, & Robie, (2004) notes, situational violence is caused purely out of emotive reactions towards a problem created by either one or both partners. The lack of a serious, peaceful solution to such problems, therefore, becomes the prime cause of violence in such homes. In his argument, Altobelli, (2009) claims that it is common to see couples fight over certain issues in life. This happen in everyday life and in the end they come together again, relating normally as before (Slep & O‟Leary, 2005). Based on Archer, (2006) arguments, situational violence are purely problems oriented rather than intentional driven. Since situational violence is not propagated by any ill intention, it is very hard to see such couples separating as in the other cases. The problem remains and form the prime cause of more violence in the same families but the solutions are often generated through such. Such families are often living under severe uncertainty only settling down at old age. In support of this idea, Michael & Janel, (2010) records; In situational couple violence the violence is situationally-provoked, as the tensions or the emotions of a particular encounter lead one or both of the partners to resort to violence. Intimate relationships inevitably involve conflict, and in some relationships, one or more of those conflicts turns into one or more arguments that escalate into violence. The violence may be minor and singular, with one encounter at some point in the relationship escalating to the level that someone physically assaults the other, is immediately remorseful, apologizes and never does it again. Or the violence could be a chronic problem, with one or both partners frequently resorting to violence, minor or severe, even homicidal (pp. 10). A survey conducted on the occurrences of violence among couples in Australia resulting from situational conflicts revealed that situational violence is mainly common among the young couples as compared to the elderly ones. The main causes of violence, according to this survey were the differing opinions on different aspects of life including control over resources, power struggles as well as psychological influences. While power struggles and resource control came out as the most common causes of violence in the survey, psychological factors as well played a key role in augmenting the situations in each case. Psychological inconveniences are a common occurrence in various people around the globe today and are a great danger to many relationships and marriages. Alcohol addiction as per the survey was the prime cause of the acute psychological incapacitations which often resulted in the said forms of violence. Conclusion In conclusion, I would like to note here that domestic violence is a common phenomenon in many families around the globe. Families inevitably live without cases of gender violence and this often escalates to greater and severe levels, putting these families to the brink of collapse should proper intervention mechanisms not be put in place. There are several typologies which have been developed by various scholars and institutions to try and categorize the various types of violence experience in many families around the globe. While some violence are triggered by well planned intentions such as those in the cases of intimate partner terrorism, and violent resistance, some such as those in situational violence are purely coincidental and situation driven. Such are inevitable beginning with mere quarrels which later on escalate to violence. References Abram, K., Templin, L., McClellant, G., & Dulcan, M. (2003). Comorbid psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry , 60, 1097-1108. Adshead, G. (2002). Three degrees of security: attachment and forensic institutions. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health , 12, 31-45. Altobelli, T. (2009). ‘Family violence and parenting: future directions in practice. Australian Journal of Family Law , 23 (3), 194-221. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2003). Psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Antle, B. F., Sullivan, D., Johnson, L., & Cunningham, M. (2007). The relationship between domestic violence and child neglect. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention , 7, 364-382. Archer, J. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: a social-role analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 10, 133-153. Archer, J. (2000a). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a met- analytic review. Psychological Bulletin , 126, 651-680. Babcock, J. C., Millar, S. A., & Siard, C. (2003). Toward a typology of abusive women: differences between partner-only and generally violence women in the use of violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 27, 153-161. Babcock, J., Green, C., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers‟ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review , 23, 1023-1053. Belfrage, H., & Rying, M. (2004). Characteristics of spousal homicide perpetrators: a study of all cases of spousal homicide in Sweden 1990-1999. Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health , 14, 121-133. Bishopp, D., & Hare, R. (2008). A multidimensional scaling analysis of the Hare PCL-R: unfolding the structure of psychopathy. Crime & Law , 14, 117-132. Bonta, J., & Andres, D. (2007). Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation. Retrieved June 2, 2010, from Public Safety Canada: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/risk_need_200706-eng.aspx Dutton, M. A., & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles , 52, 743 – 757. Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2005). Male versus female intimate partner violence: Putting controversial findings into context. Journal of Marriage and Family , 67 (5), 1120-1125. Hunter, R. (2006). ‘Narratives of domestic violence. Sydney Law Review , 28, 733-776. Johnson, M. P. (2004). Domestic violence The intersection of gender and control. In L. L. O’Toole, J. R. Schiffman, & M. K. Edwards, Gender violence: Interdisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: New York University Press. Johnson, M. P. (2005b). Domestic violence: Its not about gender--or is it? Journal of Marriage and Family , 67 (5), 1126-1130. Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 62 (4), 948-963. Michael, P. J., & Janel, M. L. (2010). Intimate partner violence, intimate terrorism, situational couple violence. Violence Against Women , 5- 27. Slep, A., & O‟Leary, S. (2005). Parent and partner violence in families with young children: rates, patterns and connections. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 73, 435-444. Read More