Handbook on Sexual Violence (66 page)

This
chapter starts by considering definitional issues, the nature and extent

of domestic violence, a description of how domestic violence fits within Kelly’s continuum of sexual violence, and an overview of domestic violence perpetrators. The policy context is then described, through an analysis of six

key shifts that have taken place in relation to domestic violence since the publication of Kelly’s 1988
Surviving Sexual Violence
. These key shifts are:

1. the shift to multi-agency working and information sharing from confidentiality and single-agency responses;
   

2. the recognition of the incidence, prevalence and costs of domestic violence;
   

3. the expansion of services and development of new interventions;
   

4. shifting priorities – started with repeat victimisation (volume) then risk (seriousness) – now both;
   

5. recognition of the importance of prevention work; and
   

6. the widening policy agenda.
   

Defining domestic violence

In
Surviving Sexual Violence
, Kelly (1988) takes a feminist approach to domestic violence, placing it within the context of a patriarchal society whereby men’s power over women leads them to assume a right of sexual access to women and justifies some level of force and coercion. She highlights that the term ‘domestic violence’ was not in use until the mid 1970s. Since then, the definition of domestic violence has changed, and the term now has a wider meaning than ever before. Changes over time have included: a widening of the boundaries used to classify behaviours as ‘domestic violence’; a recognition of violence within same-sex relationships; the inclusion of so-called ‘honour’- based violence; and the extending of the definition of relationships in which domestic violence can take place (predominantly an expansion from ex/partner to ex/partner and other family members). Some, predominantly local authorities, now prefer to use the term ‘domestic abuse’, in recognition that many of the behaviours listed within definitions do not involve physical violence.

In practice, the terms ‘domestic violence’ and ‘domestic abuse’ are generally used interchangeably to mean the same thing. In the early 2000s, most domestic violence definitions (including that of the Home Office) referred to violence within intimate relationships only (Hester and Westmarland 2005). However, most now include violence against other family members, including so-called ‘honour’ violence. For example, Women’s Aid defines domestic violence as:

... physical, sexual, psychological or financial violence that takes place within an intimate or family-type relationship and that forms a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. This can include forced marriage and so-called ‘honour crimes’. Domestic violence may include a range of abusive behaviours, not all of which are in themselves inherently ‘violent’.

(Women’s Aid 2010: website)

Within the criminal justice framework, there is no single crime termed ‘domestic violence’. Instead, perpetrators are arrested for a range of criminal

offences that can also be committed within a non domestic violence context. The most common offences that domestic violence perpetrators are arrested for include: criminal damage, common assault, actual bodily harm, harassment, threat to kill and theft (Westmarland and Hester 2006; Hester
et al
. 2008). In other words, a perpetrator might be arrested, charged and convicted for criminal damage within a domestic violence context, but it would be ‘criminal damage’ and not ‘domestic violence’ that they would have on their criminal record and for which they would be sentenced.

In 2003 the government considered but ultimately decided against introducing a specific offence of ‘domestic violence’, or to include it as an aggravating factor when sentencing. They argued that in order to ensure that violence and abuse within the home are treated as seriously as crimes outside of the home, both forms of offence should be treated the same within the criminal justice system:

The Government believes that a separate offence of domestic violence would not necessarily help victims. There is a full range of charging options already. To reduce that range – common assault through to grievous bodily harm, and rape – diminishes the offence.

(HM Government 2003: 29)

While this approach does make some theoretical sense, it encounters problems in practice. A range of studies have noted that perpetrators reported to the police for domestic violence are very unlikely to be convicted and punished for their offence. In a study in the Northumbria Police area, it was found that only four out of 869 domestic violence incidents resulted in the suspect being convicted and given a custodial sentence (this equates to 0.4 per cent of incidents – less than one in 200) (Hester
et al
. 2003; Hester 2006). In a study in Bristol, only seven out of 784 domestic violence incidents resulted in the suspect being convicted and given a custodial sentence (this equates to 0.9 per cent of incidents – less than one in a hundred) (Westmarland and Hester 2006). Critics of these figures point out that not all of these incidents are ‘crimes’, and therefore many could never result in a conviction regardless of the effectiveness of the investigation and prosecution (for example, the Crown Prosecution Service publish higher conviction rates based on recorded crimes, not incidents; see for example Crown Prosecution Service Management Information Branch 2007). However, herein lies one of two crucial problems which relate to definitional issues in this area: despite a range of campaigns proclaiming that ‘domestic violence is a crime’, this is not strictly true. Instead, it would be more accurate (though admittedly not as eye-catching) to say ‘only some forms of domestic violence are crimes’. When commonly used operational definitions of domestic violence are considered, such as those listed above, it is clear that there are behaviours covered by the definition that are not criminal offences. This is more the case for some forms of financial and psychological abuse than for physical and sexual violence. Behaviours such as ‘name calling’ and ‘continuously putting the victim down’ are common forms of domestic violence, covered within the Women’s Aid definition of domestic violence, but would be difficult if not impossible to fit within the criminal

justice framework. Kelly (1988) found that some of the women in her study did not define their experience as ‘domestic violence’, sometimes using alternative terms such as ‘fighting’.

The second key problem in relation to definitional issues is the cumulative

nature of domestic violence in contrast to the ‘single incident’ focus of the criminal justice framework:

Domestic violence involves patterns of violent and abusive behaviour over time rather than individual acts. However, the criminal justice system is primarily concerned with specific incidents and it can therefore be difficult to apply criminal justice approaches in relation to domestic violence.

(Hester and Westmarland 2006: 35)

The criminal justice framework therefore fails also to account for the ‘pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour’ that is contained within many definitions of domestic violence. Therefore, the lived experiences of domestic violence victim survivors are arguably close to definitions of domestic violence, but they continue to be some distance from how domestic violence is defined within the criminal justice framework.

Domestic violence and Kelly’s continuum of sexual violence

Kelly (1988) applies the notion of a continuum to domestic violence in terms of frequency, severity, and the form/s of violence and abuse experienced. In terms of frequency, she found that over half (53 per cent) of the women in her sample had experienced domestic violence. She acknowledges that this is higher than other studies had found, and explains that some of her participants had been interviewed specifically because they had disclosed that they were a survivor of domestic violence, thereby increasing the prevalence rate within her sample. She also notes that the frequency of domestic violence within a relationship varies, which can be viewed as another continuum. In terms of a continuum of severity, Kelly notes that murder lies at the most extreme end, along with attempted suicide. Indeed, a substantial proportion of the women she interviewed had either attempted or contemplated suicide. The form/s of violence and abuse experienced are described as being a variable combination of the threat of violence, emotional violence, forced sex and physical assault. Among the women in Kelly’s sample, the threat of violence was found to be the most common, with 100 per cent of those disclosing domestic violence being threatened with violence on at least one occasion.

The critique above of the ‘single incident’, and arguably narrow, definition of domestic violence within the criminal justice framework fits with the experiences described by the women in Kelly’s study. Kelly highlighted there were multiple experiences of a range of violent and abusive behaviours disclosed within her interviews. Ultimately, she argued, it is essential to hold on to the complexity of women’s experiences. This chimes closely with the Swedish Women’s Peace reforms in 1988, whereby a new offence of ‘gross

violation of a woman’s integrity’ was created. This new law enables more emphasis to be given to repeated incidents, and has been linked to higher reporting and conviction rates (Lindstro¨m 2005).

Nature and extent of domestic violence

It is very difficult to determine how much domestic violence occurs, as figures are dependent upon which definition is used and how the violence and abuse is measured. Official crime statistics (cases reported to the police) and self- report figures (through the British Crime Survey) are discussed below.

Official crime statistics

Official crime statistics are the most likely of the two aforementioned measures to underestimate domestic abuse. This is because the definition of domestic violence used is narrowed by the criminal justice framework (as discussed above) and because a large proportion of domestic violence incidents are not reported to the police (Gracia 2004; Hester and Westmarland 2005). Unlike many other forms of crime, official crime statistics for incidents of domestic violence reported to the police are difficult to find. This is because it is not a single crime, and is therefore reliant upon police officers ‘flagging’ a case as domestic violence. This, in turn, relies upon police officers recognising an incident as being within a domestic violence context. Even with this potential undercounting, it is clear that domestic violence constitutes a large volume of reported crimes. In 2007–08, in England and Wales, there were 686,000 domestic violence incidents reported to the police (Thompson 2010). A proportion of these incidents results in homicide. Official Home Office homicide statistics for England and Wales (taken from Coleman and Osborne 2010) show that in 2008–09, 53 per cent (n=102) of female homicide victims were killed by their partner or ex-partner. This compares with 7 per cent (n=32) of male homicide victims. This means that an average of two women per week are killed by a partner or ex-partner – a statistic that has remained stable over time. As a cumulative figure this makes for even more difficult reading – in the USA between 1976 and 1996 a total of 31,260 women were killed by an intimate partner (US Department of Justice 1998).

Self-report studies

Self-report studies ask men and women directly about their experiences of domestic violence rather than relying on police reports. Typically, such studies show much higher rates of domestic violence than are shown in official statistics. In England and Wales the governmental self-report crime study is the British Crime Survey. Domestic violence and other forms of interpersonal violence are measured through a special intimate partner violence module which is periodically added on to the main ‘sweep’ of the survey. The most recent sweep of the intimate partner violence module was conducted in 2008–

09 and covers emotional, financial and physical abuse by partners and/or family members. It also includes all sexual violence and stalking (not limited to

partners and/or family members). The questions are given as a ‘self- completion’ module, which means that the person answering the questions does not need to verbally disclose their answers to an interviewer (this method was introduced in 2001 following criticisms of early versions of the British Crime Survey). It asks adults aged between 16 and 59 (this limited age range remains a common criticism of the survey) about whether they have experienced certain violent and abusive behaviours either within the past 12 months or since the age of 16.

The findings show that more than one in four women (28 per cent) and around one in six men (16 per cent) disclose experiencing at least one form of domestic abuse since the age of 16 (Roe 2009). It is estimated that this equates to around 4.5 million female and 2.6 million male victims (Roe 2009). The data also show that women are more likely than men to be repeat victims, to have experienced injuries as a result of the abuse, to have experienced abuse more than 20 times in the past 12 months and to have experienced domestic abuse for six years or more (Roe 2009).

Domestic violence perpetrators

The term ‘domestic violence perpetrator’ can conjure up a picture of an outwardly aggressive, violent man who instils fear into those around him. In fact, the reality is often very different and many of the perpetrator’s friends, family and colleagues would never suspect that they use violence towards their partner. In 2004, Dobash
et al
. compared the backgrounds of 424 men who had murdered other men with 106 men who had murdered an intimate partner. They were particularly interested in the relative conventionality of each of the groups, and found that in many ways the men who had murdered an intimate partner were actually more ‘ordinary’ or ‘conventional’ than the men who had murdered other men (Dobash
et al
. 2004). Hester
et al
. (2006) developed a typology of domestic violence perpetrators who were reported to the police. One of the groups of perpetrators, the ‘dedicated repeat domestic violence’ group, was especially likely to appear non-violent or even ‘placid’ to their friends or to agencies they came into contact with. One of the men, for example, repeatedly punched and kicked his pregnant girlfriend and smashed a glass over her head. He explained in his research interview: