Category: Domestic violence

Domestic violence affects thousands of families, and most cases are not reported. People who are exposed to domestic violence live in an environment full of fear and captivity, which stops them from reporting their abusers. Victims tend to not report their victimization because they do not want to be exposed or judged by society. Victims of domestic violence are exposed to different types of abuse, included but not limited to physical, verbal, psychological, emotional, financial, and/or sexual abuse. Because domestic violence can happen to everyone and anywhere, the justice system decided to treat this issue as a crime rather than a private family matter. Traditionally, domestic violence was not recognized as a crime neither by the criminal justice system nor by society, until 1994 when Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The VAWA enforced state and federal laws with the purpose of providing support and protection to the survivors of domestic violence.

It is believed that people are most likely to be abused by a loved one, rather than a stranger. Because some victims decide to accept and justify the abuse they suffer rather than seeking help, millions of abusers do not get the punishment they deserved. Existing research findings suggest that women are most likely to report abuse rather than men. Some male victims believe the authorities will question them more than women if they report their victimization. In other words, male victims believe women victims are most likely to receive help and not be judged as compared to them. Moreover, victims of domestic violence who decide to report their victimization tend to drop their case. Because domestic violence cases are often dropped by the victim and not by the prosecutor, the general population called for a change. Therefore, the no-drop policy arose with the intention to prosecute abusers even when the victim no longer wants to cooperate. Some people claim the no-drop policy increases the rates of convictions, but others argue it stops people from reporting their victimization. The purpose of this paper is to expose whether the no-drop policy places victims in greater danger, or whether it increases victim’s safety.

Literature Review

It is hard to believe that domestic violence affects people of all ages, race, ethnicities, sexes, and social class. Victims of domestic violence live under fear and isolation, and they feel blame themselves for their victimization. Some victims believe they deserve to live under those conditions. Others feel the need to leave their abuser, but many factors stop them from reporting their victimization. While others obtain strength to report their abusers; however, their guilt or fear is sometimes stronger and make them drop the case.

History of the No-Drop Policy. Over the decades, domestic violence did not exist, women did not have rights, and men were the only ones who were able to make decisions. Men had the power to control and punish women when they feel they were misbehaving. It was not until the early 1870s where the United States began to recognize domestic violence as a crime to be punished. Because domestic violence cases were often dropped, people demanded a change. The no-drop policy was created not only with the purpose of punishment but with the purpose of teaching others that their acts have serious consequences. According to the article, “No Drop Prosecution & Domestic Violence: Screening for Cooperation in the City That Never Speaks” by DeCarlo (2016), the no-drop policy in domestic abuse cases gives the prosecutor the power to become the affected party. In other words, the prosecutor has the capacity to control the prosecution, and the victim has no longer control over the case. If the victim decides to leave the case, the prosecutor has the power to continue with the case. The benefits from the no-drop policy are mostly for the prosecutor since it contributes to the conviction rates, but the victims are left behind.

Potential Causes of Dropping the Case. Women and men are equally likely to suffer domestic violence. However, men are most likely to not report the abuse, and women are most likely to drop the case. According to the article, “Stay With or Leave the Abuser? The Effects of Domestic Violence Victim’s Decision on Attributions Made by Young Adults” by Halket et al. (2014), studies do not often explore and analyze the negative attributions that influence victims to stay in an abusive relationship, leave an abuser, or drop the case. The article provides two studies were young adults explain their experiences and what influenced them to stay with their abuser. Other provide information they decided to leave and report their abuser, but later they decided to withdraw the case. Some of the reasons provided by the victims felt they were blamed for being abused, or they were scared of being placed in greater jeopardy. Others reported they dropped the case because their abusers promised them they were going to change, and others felt they could not leave without them.

The article “Perpetuating the cycle of violence in South African low-income communities: attraction to violence in young men exposed to continuous threat” by Hinsberger et al. (2016), states that the victims of domestic violence are prone to develop traumatic disorders. Victims’ emotional condition often influence their need to withdraw charges or refuse to testify against their abuser in court, as a consequence many abusers are set free and capable of re-offend. The cycle of violence theory influenced the victims’ determination to drop the case since the abusers make them believe that they are willing to change their violent behavior. Therefore, the no-drop policy makes offenders to pay for their crime even if their victims no longer want to collaborate.

Stakeholders. The no-drop policy has positive and negative impacts, but the party that obtains the most benefits is the prosecution. The no-drop policy often leaves the victims on the side meaning that they do not focus on victims’ needs and opinions, but they rather punish the abusers. The author Schafran (2015) affirmed in the article, “What Are They, and What Can They Tell the Courts?” that the victims’ testimony is important in a case. However, the prosecutors argue that they can still use testimonies from experts’ witnesses, physical, and circumstantial evidence to prosecute the abuser (Mourges et al., 2014). Domestic violence victims, prosecutors, and the community have a legitimate interest in the decisions, implementations, or changes that are made regarding the no-drop policy. Studies such as the case of a victim of sexual abuse where the absence of a support person influence their need to drop the case (McAuliff et al., 2015). Victims who feel the lack of governmental support, their likelihood to refuse to testify against their abuser is higher as compared to those who received support. The victims who receive support and received an explanation of the process were also most likely to continue with the case. The community has also interest in the no-drop policy implementation since the aggressors will receive the punishment they deserve, and this will also prevent future offenses.

Possibilities for Intervention. Violence is illegal and recognizing the victims and abusers can sometimes be complicated. Researches show that because many victims of domestic violence do not have the support and resources necessary to initiate a lawsuit, they rather not report the offense (Crocket et al., 2015). The no-drop policy prosecutes abusers of domestic violence even without the victims’ collaboration. Prosecutors provide conviction rates which they state that the no-drop policy is effective on punishing criminals; however, it puts pressure on victims. Even though the supporters of the no-drop policy state that this policy does not put pressure on victims, it is not completely true. Opponents argue that victims feel pressure and exposed since the prosecutors use medical reports, pictures, and videos in court (Mourges et al., 2014 & Antrobus et al., 2016). The presence of physical evidence is important in a case, but the victims’ testimony gives more detail and clear understanding of how the crime was committed.

In the eyes of the criminal justice system, the no-drop policy is believed to be effective. However, in the eyes of the victims and the general population, the no-drop policy is mostly beneficial for the prosecution. The victims feel exposed, judged, and sometimes they feel in greater jeopardy. The no-drop policy is in need of implementation where all the stakeholders’ opinions, needs, and propositions are heard.

Policy Analysis and Critique

Domestic violence is not just a woman’s issue, but rather a society’s issue that needs to be solved. Domestic violence is a form of abuse that places victims at a high risk of been killed; therefore, policies had been created with the purpose of protecting victims. According to the Criminal Justice System, the no-drop policy was created with the purpose of protecting victims by prosecuting the offenders even if the victims refuse to proceed with the case. The no-drop policy (also known as the evidence-based prosecution) was first used in the 1980s, but it was not widely practiced until 1990s; after prosecutors reported high dismissal rates of domestic violence cases (Champagne, 2015). Compared to stated that have not adopt the no-drop policy, the dismissal rates of domestic violence cases have decrease. However, opponents argue that it is possible that the dismissal rates are not accurate since the no-drop policy produces fear on victims. As a consequence of the fear, many victims choose not to press charges against their aggressors.

The no-drop policy is believed to be effective by the justice system and supporters because studies had proven that the domestic violence cases are not drop as they used to before. However, the no-drop policy is also believed to impede victims from reporting their abused because they realize that once the case is on file, they no longer have control over the case. In other words, the prosecutor becomes the affected party and the victim is just a witness to the case (DeCarlo, 2016). There are cases where the victims’ testimony if not needed to proceed and charge the aggressor. When the evidence presented by the prosecutor is not clear, needs more details, or explanations, the victims’ testimony becomes indispensable. Under those circumstances, the victims are obligated to cooperate, and they received subpoenas from the court judge. Opponents to the no-drop policy argue that this policy does not protect victims, instead it places them in more vulnerable conditions to be victimized. For example, DeCarlo (2016), victims are considered as the primarily witness; therefore, they are subpoenaed to testify in court. If the victims do not appear in court to testify against their aggressors, the judge might issue an arrest warrant against the victim. It is sad that the no-drop policy is mostly beneficial for the prosecution than for victims. Victims instead of receiving protection from the system, they are charged for choosing not to proceed with their own case.

Potential Causes of Dropping the Case. According to Halket et al. (2014), studies only focus on the numbers of domestic violence cases that were not drop when the prosecutor applies the no-drop policy. This proves that the statistics based on dismissal of domestic violence cases are not accurate since studies do not investigate and compare the rates between the victims who were informed of the consequences of leaving the case, and the victims who received no information or support from the system. It is important to look at the reasons that obligate victims to dismiss the case or to refuse to testify against their abuser in court. If a victim does not receive information about their rights, how the system will protect them from the abuser, and the consequences of leaving the case, the victim is at a high risk of dropping the case. Studies such as Halket et al. (2014), suggest that victims who were well informed about the negative effects of dropping the case, will most likely continue with the case. In fact, the victim’s testimony will provide specific details and clear explanation about the abuse they suffered, and they will help the prosecutor to proceed with the case faster. However, this is not always the case, and many victims choose to drop the case because they lack support from the system.

Victims argue that they decide to drop the case not only because they lose control over their own case, but because they feel fear for their safety and or their family and friends’ safety. According to the victim survivors of domestic violence, the no-drop policy does not provide them with support and the help they expect from the system (Halket et al., 2014). Because the prosecution becomes the affected party, the victims feel pressured, in greater jeopardy, ignored, and judged by society. As a result of the combination of those feeling, the victims are prone to develop traumatic stress disorders, but the prosecution does not care about their mental status. The prosecution only cares about making someone to pay for the crime being committed. They want to add another “successful” prosecution to the list and at the same time make people believe that the no-drop policy is the best solution to solve domestic violence cases. Halket et al. (2014) studies also expose the reasons that influence victims to drop their case. Some victims argue that society blame them for their victimization. In fact, the media plays an important role in victim-blaming and dismiss of domestic violence cases. The media holds victims responsible for their own victimization by stating that victims put themselves in those situations when they decide to engage in an abusive relationship. However, victims should never be blame for their victimization because instead of helping them get strength to testify against their aggressors in court, people will be influencing on the victims’ decision on leaving the case.

Victims need to be heard and their opinions should be taken into consideration regarding the case. Because victims are the ones who directly suffered the pain, the persecutor should not be the affected party. Victims often tend to drop the case not only because of fear or shame, but also because they become victims of the cycle of violence (Hinsberger et al., 2016). In other words, the victim’s abusers make them believe that they are very sorry for having an abusive behavior towards them, and they want to change because they love them. During the process of dropping the case, the abusers are loving and caring. However, once the case is dropped, the abusers tend to become more aggressive towards the victims. Supported of the no-drop policy argue that the dropping a domestic violence case can be more dangerous that continuing with the prosecution. In fact, Hinsberger et al. (2016), states that based on the data collected and analyzed for the study, fatal injury and homicide rates are higher in people from the ages of 15 to 29 years old. In some cases, it can be hard for the judge to decide whether to continue with the prosecution or whether to allow the case to be dropped by the victim. Even if the prosecution continues or drops, the victims are often place in greater jeopardy (Messing, (2014) The no-drop policy does not directly protect victims, instead it places them in a more vulnerable situation to be victimized and rejected by society. Opponents also argue that when the prosecution adopts the no-drop policy, the prosecutor does not care about punish the abuser. The only purpose of the prosecutor is to find someone to blame and pay for the crime even if the victims refuses to cooperate.

Stakeholders. The no-drop policy can be seen as a great policy, but it still needs implementations to reach the desire goals. The no-drop policy should be redesigned with the purpose of protecting victims, rather than only focusing on prosecuting the offender. Since the prosecutor is the affected party and the victims are witnesses, the prosecutor needs to also focus on the needs of the victims. Schafran (2015) argues in the article, “What Are They, and What Can They Tell the Courts?” that victims’ testimony is important to solve a domestic violence case; therefore, by not avoiding it the testimony negative consequences can result. For example, victims can explain the emotional, psychological, and physical pain the aggressors caused. They can also tell the judge and the jury how the violence started and what prohibited them from reporting the abuse the first time the aggressor injured them. Even if the prosecution provides real evidence, direct evidence, and/or circumstantial evidence, the jury still needs testimonial evidence to affirmed that the evidence presented to the court is relevant to the case (Mourges et al., 2014). Testimonial evidence is considered relevant and reliable; therefore, in some cases, it can only be clarified by the victims because they are the only ones who witnessed the events.

Domestic violence victims, prosecutors and the community are considered stakeholders in the no-drop policy since they are all affected when a change is made. They have an equal interest in the decisions, implementations, and changes make on the policy because some will be negatively affected while others receive the most benefits. In the no-drop policy, the party that received the most advantages, as exposed throughout the paper, is believed to be the prosecution. In the other hand, the victims and the community are often negatively affected (Jackson, 2015). For example, victims of domestic violence are blamed and punished when they refuse to testify against their aggressors, while the community members tried not to report their abuse because they do not want to go through the same process as the people who choose to report their abuse.

According to McAuliff et al. (2015), when a victim of domestic violence does not receive governmental support, they are more prone to drop or refuse to testify against the aggressor in court. As compared to victims who receive support and are informed of the consequences that they will face if they decide to drop the case, they are most likely to cooperate with the prosecution. For example, when children are the victims, their testimony can be easily excluded. The prosecutor will claim child victims are less accurate, trustworthy, and the admitting of their testimony can negatively affect the prosecution. They will also claim that children can confuse the jury since they are not able to clearly narrate the events, and this will make the aggressor to be seemed less guilty. However, if the victim receive support, or they feel someone is next to them to give them comfort, the victims tend to narrate the event more fluently. As a consequence, the need for a no-drop policy will not be demanded.

Possibilities for Intervention. Research such as the study performed by Crocket et al. (2015), show that the lack of support and resources provided to the victims of domestic violence forbid many victims from reporting their aggressor. This also influence their need to drop the case because they feel that the system does not care about their needs and feeling, but they only care about prosecuting someone for a crime. Because prosecutors inform conviction rates to the public, they want to make them believe that the no-drop policy is effective because it punishes criminals. They support their statement by showing statistical rates that show that domestic violence cases are not dropped because the prosecutors control the case, and not the victims. Unfortunately, the victims are pressured and exposed.

Mourges et al. (2014) and Antrobus et al. (2016) suggest that the exposure of videos, pictures, medical reports, and witnesses’ testimonies make the victims feel dehumanized. Even if the victims choose not to continue with the case, they are still exposed and judged. Some victims and opponents to the no-drop policy argue that the policy needs either be implemented or be dropped because it is not effective on providing support and justice for the victims. Instead of receiving support and help, the victims are brought to court for perjury charges. Victims are already going through very traumatic situations, and they do not need to be charged for their victimization. Therefore, the no-drop policy should not give the prosecutor the power to control the prosecution or to become the affected party. For example, if judge considers appropriate for the prosecutor to control the prosecution, then the victims should be able to decide what information would be presented in court. If the victims’ attorney considers the information essential to solve the case, the victims should receive a a therapy where a legal counselor explains the victims that the evidence she or he wants to disclose can help the abuser to be released.

Policy Alternatives and Recommendations

It is unhuman to charge a victim for their victimization regardless of the crime they were victimized. Domestic violence victims are often charged for not appearing to court to testify against their abuser, and they are sometime charged with perjury. In fact, victims of domestic violence should never be punished for not wanting to testify against their aggressors. Instead the prosecutor, the victims defense attorney, and the judge should come to an agreement where all the parties are somehow received a benefit. For example, if the victim decides to drop the case, she or he should be informed of the process that takes to drop it. In other words, the victims should be required to attempt to a meeting where a legal counselor and the defense attorney not only would explain the court process, but the victim would have to agree to sign a document regarding the no-drop policy. In other order words, there would be two options provided to the victims, where they would either agree to not drop the case under any circumstances or being aware that the only way to drop the case is by filing a case for dismissal of charges.

The victims who decide to drop their case should be informed that there is a process to it. They need to be aware that after filing a dismissal of charges, the judge will analyze the evidence and the reasons presented by the victim and under his discretion the case would either be dropped or upheld. If the judge considered dangerous for the victim and society to drop the case, then the prosecutor will become the affected party. Under those circumstances, the victim would eb obligated to provide his or her testimony in court. If the victim decided to leave the case or not present themselves in court, she will have to receive psychological therapy. Moreover, if the victim still does not show up to therapy or court, the victim would either pay a fine, do jail time up to 3 days, or do community service depending on the judge’s discretion. In cases where the judge agrees to dismiss the case, the abuser should still pay for their actions. The abuser should either pay a fine, a remedy to the victim, and under more serious circumstances do jail or prison time.

The no-drop policy might a great policy for making offenders pay for their abuse; however, in some cases, the victims are the most affected. Once the victims decide to report a crime, later they want to drop the case, they find themselves not responsible for controlling the case. Because domestic violence cases are often dropped by the victims, the no-drop policy gives prosecutors control over the case. In some cases, the victims’ testimony is presented as direct and/or circumstantial evidence, and the victim is not necessary to be present since the prosecutor has the power to provide medical reports, videotapes, photographs, and more evidence to prosecute the abuser. In some cases, the victims are charged for their victimization rather than receiving help and support. Therefore, the need for change regarding the no-drop policy is demanded.

References

1. Antrobus, E., McKimmie, B. M., & Newcombe, P. (2016). Mode of Children’s Testimony and the Effect of Assumptions about Credibility. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 23(6), 922–940. https://doi-org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1152927
2. Crockett, E., Keneski, E., Yeager, K., & Loving, T. (2015). Breaking the Mold: Evaluating a Non-Punitive Domestic Violence Intervention Program. Journal of Family Violence, 30(4), 489–499. https://doi-org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9706-x
3. DeCarlo, A. (2016). No Drop Prosecution & Domestic Violence: Screening for Cooperation in the City That Never Speaks. Journal of Law & Policy, 25(1), 357–397. Retrieved from http://libaccess.sjlibrary.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=123509366&site=ehost-live&scope=site
4. Halket, M., Gormley, K., Mello, N., Rosenthal, L., & Mirkin, M. (2014). Stay With or Leave the Abuser? The Effects of Domestic Violence Victim’s Decision on Attributions Made by Young Adults. Journal of Family Violence, 29(1), 35–49. https://doi-org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/10.1007/s10896-013-9555-4
5. Hinsberger, M., Sommer, J., Kaminer, D., Holtzhausen, L., Weierstall, R., Seedat, S., … Elbert, T. (2016). Perpetuating the cycle of violence in South African low-income communities: attraction to violence in young men exposed to continuous threat. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 7, 1–N.PAG. https://doi-org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/10.3402/ejpt.v7.29099
6. McAuliff, B. D., Lapin, J., & Michel, S. (2015). Support Person Presence and Child Victim Testimony: Believe it or Not. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 33(4), 508–527. https://doi-org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/10.1002/bsl.2190
7. Mourges, M., Bashford, M., & Moore, A. (2014). Going to Trial in a DV Case Without the Victim’s Testimony. Judges’ Journal, 53(2), 24–26. Retrieved from http://libaccess.sjlibrary.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=102725878&site=ehost-live&scope=site
8. Rouhanian, A. (2017). A Call for Change: The Detrimental Impacts of Crawford V. Washington on Domestic Violence and Rape Prosecutions. Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice, 37(1), 1–72. Retrieved from http://libaccess.sjlibrary.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=123102455&site=ehost-live&scope=site
9. Schafran, L. H. (2015). What Are They, and What Can They Tell the Courts? Judges’ Journal, 54(3), 16–43. Retrieved from http://libaccess.sjlibrary.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=109385020&site=ehost-live&scope=site
10. Bishop, C., & Bettinson, V. (2018). Evidencing domestic violencepass:[*], including behaviour that falls under the new offence of ‘controlling or coercive behaviour.’ International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 22(1), 3–29. https://doi-org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/10.1177/1365712717725535
11. Champagne, F. (2015). Prosecuting Domestic Violence Cases. Criminal Litigation, 16(1), 2–6. Retrieved from http://libaccess.sjlibrary.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=109886614&site=ehost-live&scope=site
12. Collins, E. R. (2015). The Evidentiary Rules of Engagement in the War against Domestic Violence. New York University Law Review, 90(2), 397–459. Retrieved from http://libaccess.sjlibrary.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=102973272&site=ehost-live&scope=site
13. Messing, J. T. (2014). Evidence-Based Prosecution of Intimate Partner Violence in the Post-Crawford Era: A Single-City Study of the Factors Leading to Prosecution. Crime & Delinquency, 60(2), 238–260. https://doi-org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/10.1177/0011128710362056
14. Nichols, A. J. (2014). No-Drop Prosecution in Domestic Violence Cases: Survivor-Defined and Social Change Approaches to Victim Advocacy. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(11), 2114–2142. https://doi-org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/10.1177/0886260513516385
15. Wilkins, A. (2014). Evidence-based Domestic Violence Awareness Training. New Male Studies, 3(3), 93–97. Retrieved from http://libaccess.sjlibrary.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=98994001&site=ehost-live&scope=site
16. Finn, M. A. (2013). Overview of: “Evidence-Based and Victim-Centered Prosecutorial Policies: Examination of Deterrent and Therapeutic Jurisprudence Effects on Domestic Violence.” Criminology & Public Policy, 12(3), 441–442. https://doi-org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12046
17. Jackson, B. L. (2015). No Ground on Which to Stand: Revise Stand Your Ground Laws So Survivors of Domestic Violence are No Longer Incarcerated for Defending Their Lives. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, 30(1), 154–181. Retrieved from http://libaccess.sjlibrary.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=102395572&site=ehost-live&scope=site
18. Cerulli, C., Kothari, C. L., Dichter, M., Marcus, S., Wiley, J., & Rhodes, K. V. (2014). Victim Participation in Intimate Partner Violence Prosecution: Implications for Safety. Violence Against Women, 20(5), 539–560. https://doi-org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/10.1177/1077801214535105

INTRODUCTION

Social justice in the catholic teachings are people of faith who are named upon to help those experiencing hardship in the world. The teachings guides matter of human dignity and universal good in society. Social justice is a distinctive attribute of a catholic education in school. The main focus isn’t only supplying a good education, although is it known for making the student a person of integrity and faith. The social justice values within a Catholic school community will mirror the school’s mission and practices that will enhance the identity of the catholic teachings to fit in with the religious life of the school. This task that has been explored in this assignment associates straight to the pillars of mission and education. Increasing awareness program about domestic violence against young people in their families. The work of this program will involve the consideration of caring for the grieving and vulnerable individuals that cannot get out of these corrupt situations.

Specifically, at St Mary’s College we have progressed an extensive Social Justice program in place that focuses to embrace the Gospel values and Mercy charism within our school community. This is a conception of fair and just rights between society and the individual. As these programs begin on a term to term timeline, their main focus is to perceive and raise awareness on these certain social issues that are being disregarded by the world. There are many ways in which people help out in these programs such as, fundraising money, donating good and visiting places that are in need. One of the College’s current Social Justice programs is the Rosie’s mission appeal. This appeal is continuing to endure those people in need that are abandoned and lonely within our community. Rosie’s give unconditional support and acceptance during these difficult times. St Mary’s College partakes in this program by volunteering to reach out to the homeless and people in need around Ipswich by giving out food and a drink to have. By students partaking in this creates a relational connection between each other, while imbedding qualities of Mercy into our curriculum. Them being able to share their experience and knowledge on this specific organisation marginalizes our community in a practical way. This is what we do to over look the everyday initiatives that are implied in the integral pillars of our Mercy tradition, Mercy pillars of Spirituality and mission.

A person who behaves a certain way, dominating to make someone feel unsafe, or being aggressive within a family home are examples of domestic violence. According to Fantuzzo, J (1999) “Children who were exposed to violence in the home are 15 times more likely to be physically and/or sexually assaulted than the national average”. Posters will be put around the school that will explain what is a safe and what isn’t a safe home, to reach out to someone for help councillors will be available within the school for girls to talk to. Another strategy that will be put in place will be having an organisation that will come into the school twice a year to engage and educate the girls on this major issue that they may be unaware of. Girls may find that it is a hard situation to get out of, although from the support of our school community, will help the girl speak up about there issues with in their families. This program will deliver foundational knowledge and approaches to deliver respectful relationships and domestic violence in schools

PARAGRAPH 3: The plan is to encourage the girls to become aware of their surroundings when dealing with this injustice in the world. Stand by our fellow females in the world and share with them that these resources do exist and that they can get help. These girls should not have to put up with inappropriate behaviour within their families. They have a right to feel safe in their homes without feeling like they’re in danger. When these young girl’s life’s are so sheltered they only get to see what the adults in their world expose them to. Although at school they have that opportunity to learn that there are resources available to help them. Our Mercy Tradition gives us a distinctive focus to our evangelising efforts so that St Mary’s College students are continuously challenged to live the ideal values of the Sisters of Mercy.

CONCLUSION

This Social Justice program of Domestic violence is intended to help our school community through their tough times while reassuring their personal commitment and reflection. This program will be put in place to utilised the dignity of a human person and help young women’s education in domestic violence that will strengthen community and family partnerships. This ingenuity aligns with the Gospel Mercy values and touches on the personal, relational and spiritual dimensions of social justice in the school community.

Bibliography

1. Fantuzzo, J. (1999). Prevalence and effects of child exposure to domestic violence. Retrieved from Domestic shelters: https://www.domesticshelters.org/

Defining Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is a problem that needs to be solved in the world today. It causes the suicide death rate increases because of domestic violence. In the USA, domestic violence is a huge issue. In The Georgia Domestic Violence Fatality Review Project said that the death rate because of domestic violence between 2004 – 2018 caused by firearms in Georgia is 59%. According to the Childhood Domestic Violence Association (also known as CDV) said: “Those who grow up with domestic violence are 6 times more likely to commit suicide and 50% more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol”. Compare to the USA, domestic violence in Asia is also a huge issue too. According to VNExpress International, said that: “58 percent of women who have ever been married experienced at least one of physical, mental or sexual violence at the hands of their husbands, reported the National Study on Domestic Violence Against Women by the Vietnamese government and the United Nations.”. But what is domestic violence? Why and how it can happen? And the main and most important thing I will discuss, is why does domestic violence affect children’s learning and psychology? Domestic violence is violent behavior toward the victim in a family.

Causes and Triggers of Abuse

Domestic violence can be physical, emotional, sexual, digital, and verbal. It happens only in a family (long-term relationship), so that’s why it is so confusing to many people because many people think that domestic violence is harmful, physical violence between men and women. Domestic violence can happen anywhere, at any time, and even at any age. The abuser can make the victim stressed, hopeless, depressed, and have a high chance of thinking about committing suicide. According to Roxanne Dryden-Edward, a former Chair of the Committee on Developmental Disabilities for the American Psychiatric Association, she said that: “About 25% of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals are victims of intimate partner abuse, just as often as are heterosexual women.” Most domestic violence victims are women because men have more power, uniqueness, and rights than women. This “Sexist” issue happens a lot in Vietnam. According to the Suffolk Voice News, said: “Vietnamese women, in general, are considered as less intelligent than men, so she is often looked down on, and must obey her husband no matter what he asks of her.” Domestic violence can happen depending on the environment. The abuser starts to abuse could because of a lack of financial resources, or the abuser could have a psychological issue, mental health, or even alcohol. The abuser could have stress and anxiety due to work, jealousy of someone, thinking he/she has a better, wonderful life, or even being sexist. According to Lisa Firestone, a clinical psychologist and a co-author of “Conquer Your Critical Inner Voice”, said: “There are two emotional dynamics that contribute greatly to domestic violence. One involves a destructive thought process (or ‘critical inner voice’) that abusers experience both toward themselves and their partners, thoughts like ‘You’re not a man if you don’t control her or ‘She is making a fool out of you.’

Patterns of Domestic Violence

The other factor involves a harmful illusion of a connection between a couple, what my father, psychologist Robert Firestone, has referred to as a *fantasy bond*.” Well, in my opinion, domestic violence can happen in 4 patterns. The first pattern is to charm the victim. This is when the victim knows that the abuser loves him/her so much, always be together for the rest of their lifetime. The second pattern is to isolate the victim, this is when everything goes insane. Of course, the victim didn’t tell that he/she going to another place and abusing their partner, obviously. Instead, the abuse will go slow and stealthy. The abuser will tell the victim that he/she will move to another place because there are better jobs, a better environment, or any other excuses. For the reason of the abuser moving to another place, the victim has to go with him/her because the victim wants to live with the abuser. Leslie Morgan Steiner, an author, and a domestic survivor said that in the second pattern the victim has fallen into the “Crazy Love” zone (which means that the victim is now “trapped in a cage”).

The third pattern is introducing the threat of violence, this is when the victim realizes that he/she is in danger every day, minute, and second of their life. In this pattern, the abuser now shows the threat and violence to the victim like showing weapons (mostly guns or knives), and verbal violence, making the victim suffer and have nowhere to run. Sadly, the last pattern is the abused have to torture, or even murder the victim. The abuser could get very mad or get drunk, can’t control him/herself victim, and then kill the victim. According to the Thanh Nien News, said: “Nearly 60 percent of married women in Vietnam have suffered physical or sexual abuse at least once in their life, according to figures released by a new campaign to stop violence against women.” The victim cannot even leave the abuser because once they leave, the abuser will be stalking the victim every day and weeks, even for years. The abuser knows where the victim is and kills or hired someone to kill the victim. In Vietnam (Asia in general), leaving a husband, known as divorce, is a very big issue because it could ruin a family’s reputation. According to the Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization from the United State, said: “61 percent of female victims and 44 percent of male victims were stalked by a current or former intimate partner”. Yes! Domestic violence can affect a lot on children’s learning and psychology.

Impact on Children’s Learning and Psychology

In the U.S, more than 3 million children had witnessed domestic violence at home every year, which is terrible. Children need to have love and care from someone to understand their feeling, like their loved ones. But because of domestic violence, children will find themselves hopeless, and anxious and they will get depression. They will also get anxiety, not just for one day or 5 days, but for a whole lifetime. According to the Women’s aid organization said: “Children can experience both short and long term cognitive, behavioral and emotional effects as a result of witnessing domestic abuse.” Domestic violence can give mental health issues in children. According to the National Child Traumatic Stress Network Organization (also known as NCTSN Organization), said: “Children may also experience longer-term problems with health, behavior, school, and emotions, especially when domestic violence goes on for a long time.” Domestic violence not just affects children’s psychology, but also affect children’s learning too. Because of domestic violence, children could have some problems at school like socializing or having a hard time asking the teacher, being an introvert, or even using drugs. They also can’t trust themself and others while learning, studying as a team, or alone. Although domestic violence may give a lot of impact on children’s psychology and learning, it could spread by generation, which means that children who experienced domestic violence in the past could possibly turn into an abuser in the future. According to the Women’s aid organization said that: “The cycle of violence otherwise known as the intergenerational theory is often referred to when considering the effects of domestic abuse on children; however, research findings are inconsistent, and there is no automatic cause and effect relationship.” But still, children who experienced domestic violence in the past don’t have to be an abuser in the future, as long as they have a good education, have friends and teachers to help with the problems, and always be positive.

Breaking the Cycle and Seeking Solutions

A lot of schools these days have applied education about mental health, bullying, online predator, domestic violence, and a lot more great psychology lessons. These lessons could impact a lot of children’s future, help them understand more about the impact of those issues, and help them how to handle (or stop) them. If domestic violence is so hard to deal with, we should end this domestic violence cycle. Well for a student like me, we should educate students, teachers, family, and others about how domestic violence is a big impact on the world. Also, I think the government needs to make strict laws about human rights, especially women’s rights. Victims always can contact the police or the local domestic violence agency if they got beaten or got abused by the abuser. We should support the victim of domestic violence, and let the victim make a decision so that the victim can be confident with his/her life. According to Lisa Firestone, said: “To break this cycle and to reduce the cases of domestic violence in the generations to come, we have to implement programs that are effective and help violent perpetrators get the knowledge and help they need to not create the next generation of violent individuals in their children.” In conclusion, domestic violence is a huge problem in our world. According to the Parliament of Australia, said: “Of those who were sexually assaulted in the 12 months prior to the survey, 21 percent of women (21 500) reported that the perpetrator was a previous partner; eight percent (7 800) reported that the perpetrator was a current partner. No males reported sexual assault by a current or previous partner”. For me, domestic violence has gone way too far, so I think we should act quickly. We should speak out, and tell everyone how bad is domestic violence in school, the workplace, or even with family, friends, and neighbors. And for the abusers, don’t just assume that words are not a bad, harmful thing, words can hurt the victim inside their souls. Domestic violence is also making divorces happen more quickly, which for me is not so great. Aisha Mirza once said: “It is not the bruises on the body that hurt. It is the wounds of the heart and the scars on the mind.”

We all love a good story. The juicier the better. Told through old media, new media, social media, the arts: we just can’t get enough. And when it comes to good old-fashioned gossip, we’re secretly in our element. We’re only human, after all. Spectators and tellers of titillating tales; passing performers in the bittersweet melodies of social exchange. As for music? Well, “Without a song or a dance, what are we?”, ABBA asks. Songs vocalize our human wants and woes – the good, the bad and yes, the ugly.

Relationship violence is often played out in songs, songs we know and love. A quick Internet search offers up hundreds of pieces devoted to it over the years. And of course, behind every musical masterpiece there is a story which invites academic debate. But we want to know what your average listener makes of it all. Should some subjects be off limits? Why do we sing our hearts out and sway joyfully to what is essentially singalong-a-violence?

Beloved by generations since 1968, a favorite at weddings and such like, and ‘recorded in the style of an old drinking song, Tom Jones’ ‘Delilah’ became the anthem of Stoke City Football Club and fans of Welsh rugby. The lyrics are not without criticism though: Dafydd Iwan (former president of Plaid Cymru), encouraging people to think about what they were singing, called in 2014 for Welsh rugby fans to cease belting out ‘Delilah’ at games because “it trivializes violence against women”. Hear, hear. After, in a BBC interview, Jones reportedly commented: “It’s not a political statement. This woman is unfaithful to him and the narrator just loses it … It’s something that happens in life: if it’s going to be taken literally, I think it takes the fun out of it.” Iwan leaves us with food for thought: next time you belt out this very singable song, you spare a thought for the poor woman who ‘laughs no more’, and avoid feeling any sympathy for the poor sod who killed her because he ‘just couldn’t take any more’.

Anyone can experience the devastation of relationship violence. Today, social media platforms help raise awareness of it and appropriate, professional support nationally waits patiently in the wings. Knowing the courage, it takes to speak out and the long-term trauma so many live with – trivializing domestic violence through any medium, in any generation, feels very uncomfortable. Thanks in part to celebrity performers (including Tina Turner, Christina Aguilera, and most recently Mel B) recounting their experiences of relationship violence, the way has been paved for others to come forward to share their stories.

After all, stories tell us what we all need to hear: you are not alone.

Introduction

1. Hook: According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors 2013 Status Report on Hunger & Homelessness, 16% of homeless persons are victims of domestic violence. Furthermore, approximately half of all homeless women reported that domestic violence was the primary cause of their homelessness (domesticshelters.org)
2. Relevance: Domestic violence puts women and children at a higher risk of homelessness as many are forced to flee an abusive relationship or situation. These women suffer from a lack of resources such as insufficient income and limited aid from friends, family, or community shelters. These challenges place women in vulnerable situations that lead many to return to their abuser or another abusive partner (NCJRS.gov)
3. Thesis: Domestic violence thus perpetuates the ongoing struggle of homelessness.
4. Preview: I will present multiple prominent factors as to why that is. First, I will discuss how children exposed to violence and abuse are at significantly higher risk of becoming involved in abusive relationships as adults. Secondly, I will explain how poverty and domestic violence are linked together which contribute to an ongoing cycle of homelessness.

Body

1. Childhood violence increases the risk of adult victimization.
   1. A. Violence experienced as a child contributes to several factors that increase the likelihood of homelessness.
      1. Journal of American Medical Women’s Association reports that 84% of homeless women have experienced severe physical or sexual abuse at some point in their lives (domesticshelters.org)
      2. Children associated with violence are more likely to suffer from depression, low self-esteem, experiment with drugs or alcohol, and be at higher risk of divorce or separation by the time they reach adulthood (NCJRS.gov)
      3. According to a study of 800 women experiencing homelessness in the state of Florida, it is not surprising that almost one third of women interviewed reported leaving a childhood home due to violence. These victimized children are much more likely to become involved with abusive partners as they seek shelter and safety (NCJRS.gov)
   2. B. Themes of domestic violence are often carried into adulthood.
      1. According to the Institute for Children, Poverty, and Homelessness, roughly 80% of homeless mothers with children have previously experienced domestic violence (ICPHUSA.org)
      2. Research from a 1997 study by Browne and Bassuk reports that “92% of homeless women have experienced severe physical or sexual abuse at some point in their lives”. Furthermore, it was also indicated that “63% of those homeless women have been victims of domestic violence as adults” (WSCADV.org)
      3. Unfortunately, these women often have an altered sense of what is normal and acceptable treatment in relationships. Their negative childhood experiences make them susceptible to psychological trauma and drug dependency later on in life.
      4. These women often become targets for abusive and manipulative partners, since they often have very little perception of what comprises a healthy relationship.
   3. C. Women are in danger of repeating the cycle of abuse.
      1. Abusers use manipulation tactics such as gaslighting, threats, and criticism that are meant to control and isolate the victim. This, unfortunately, creates self-doubt and an altered sense of reality
      2. As victimized women often become dependent on abusive men, they rarely have the resources to flee from violence and abuse. When they do seek help from outside sources, it is common for those women to eventually return to their abusive partners upon reconciliation (NCJRS.gov)
      3. Victimized women rarely report abuse to authorities and even when they do, legal action is rarely an outcome because violence is difficult to prove as it most often takes place within the home (NCJRS.gov)
   4. D. Transition: Not only does childhood trauma create risk factors for homelessness, but it puts women at greater risk of poverty as an adult.
2. Poverty limits women’s choices and makes it harder to escape an abusive relationship.
   1. A. Women of domestic violence are in a vulnerable position.
      1. Lack of affordable housing makes it difficult for women to flee from abuse. Many choose to stay in or return to violent relationships. An ACLU Women’s Rights Project found that in 2003, in Minnesota alone, it was reported that 44% of homeless women previously stayed in abusive relationships because they had nowhere else to go (ACLU.org)
      2. They also reported that women living in rental housing experience abuse at 3 times the rate of women who own homes (ACLU.org). This statistic is further intensified if those women are living in poor neighborhoods and are economically struggling (NCJRS.gov)
      3. Women who are victims of domestic violence often have trouble gaining access to money nor do they have family or friends present who could possibly assist them. This leads us into another aspect of domestic violence where abused women are forced from housing as a result of violence.
   2. B. Landlords fail to provide a safe and secure environment.
      1. Some landlords follow a strict zero-tolerance for violence policy. Landlords can evict both parties if violence is reported, creating further damage for the victim (ACLU.org)
      2. According to research by the U.S. Department of Justice, women who experienced domestic violence recently are significantly at risk of being evicted from their buildings (ACLU.org)
      3. A survey from the fair housing group in New York City reported that in 2005, “28 percent of housing providers refused to rent to a domestic violence victim” (ACLU.org)
      4. Not only does this perpetuate the cycle of abuse, but it further victimizes the woman potentially forcing her to move back in with her abuser.
   3. C. Homeless centers struggle to provide support for victims.
      1. Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence reports that federal funding of homeless shelters is limited due to lack of space and resources. Immediate victims of violence are given first priority as opposed to women who have been homeless for an extended period of time (WSCADV.org)
      2. According to the same website, survivors said that housing was one of the most beneficial resources for them in terms of escaping violence.

Conclusion

1. Overall, there are many factors as to why domestic violence continues to be an increasing cause of homelessness.
2. There is a strong connection between children who have been exposed to violence that has not fully been explored by researchers yet. The emotional impact it has on developing brains leads to many unhealthy situations and behaviors when those children reach adulthood, especially if there is no intervention. As you can conclude, it is very easy, and in some cases inevitable, for a person to get stuck in a cycle of abuse throughout their lifetime.
3. Outsiders can be quick to stereotype women who are engaged in abusive relationships, but the reality is it is extremely difficulty to escape from that lifestyle as there are many external factors playing a role.
4. It is important to note that domestic violence has many different forms and no community is immune to it, which highlights an even deeper message as to why it is important to not judge or make assumptions about the people you interact with, as you have no idea what personal struggles they might be facing.

Works Cited

1. ‘Domestic Violence and Homelessness.’ ACLU Women’s Rights Project, www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/dvhomelessness032106.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb. 2020.
2. ‘Homelessness and Domestic Violence.’ Domestic Shelters, Theresa’s Fund, 7 Jan. 2015, www.domesticshelters.org/resources/statistics/homelessness-and-domestic-violence. Accessed 20 Feb. 2020.
3. ‘Housing and Sexual Violence.’ National Sexual Violence Resource Center, Jan. 2010, www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Reports_Housing-and-sexual-violence-overview-of-national-survey.pdf.
4. ‘The Intimate Relationship between Domestic Violence and Homelessness.’ Institute for Children, Poverty & Homelessness, 27 Oct. 2018, www.icphusa.org/blog/the-intimate-relationship-between-domestic-violence-and-homelessness-2/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2020.
5. Jasinski, Jana L., et al. The Experience of Violence in the Lives of Homeless Women. Research report no. 211976. National Criminal Justice Reference Service, www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211976.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb. 2020.
6. Lawrence, Sharmila. Domestic Violence and Welfare Policy Research Findings That Can Inform Policies on Marriage and Child Well-Being. Mailman School of Public Health Columbia University, Dec. 2002. National Center for Children in Poverty, www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_604.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb. 2020.
7. Olsen, Linda, et al. The Intersection of Domestic Violence and Homelessness. Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, June 2013. WSCADV, wscadv.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IntersectionPaperDVHF.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb. 2020.
8. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. When Violence Hits Home: How Economics and Neighborhood Play a Role. Washington D.C, U.S. Department of Justice, Sept. 2004. National Criminal Justice Reference Service, www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/205004.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb. 2020.

One every two minutes…

264,000 counts of domestic violence matters are dealt with by police on average each year. However, these numbers only reflect the cases that have been reported. It is commonly accepted that domestic violence is seen as an act where someone, who has a personal relationship with another, makes that person feel afraid, powerless or unsafe. Generally accepted as a physical or verbal act, it can also include emotional and psychological abuse. Domestic violence is now recognised to be a serious and widespread problem in Australia, with enormous individual and social costs. It has become entrenched in the public arena, with regular accounts of cases of notoriety making the headlines of media outlets and social platforms. This is well illustrated with the recent murder of Hannah Clarke and her three young children by her estranged husband. While these acts can be horrendous, offenders often receive little to no consequence for their actions. When I was a toddler and I did something wrong, my mum would give me a slap on the wrist, nothing too hard, just a gentle slap and that was probably all I need to know what was right or wrong. A slap could be seen as violence in the eyes of some people, but my parents always made it clear that violence was not okay and ensured that I grew up in a safe environment. The general public is becoming more aware of domestic violence within the Australian society, yet the judicial system is too kind towards the perpetrators of such inhumane crimes. Australia needs to review the laws so that they reflect the severity of the criminal offence domestic violence is. (domestic violence warrants) Nonetheless, is a slap on the wrist appropriate for assaulting a loved one?

Fifty per cent of domestic homicides occur within three months of separation between partners and the time of greatest risk is when a partner is attempting to leave their relationship. This is a very volatile time for people involved in domestic violence and more immediate action needs to be taken. Statistics collected between 2014 and 2016 state that one woman was killed every nine days and one man every 29 days as a consequence of domestic violence. Why has there been minimal response from the judicial system that reflects the appropriateness of this offence? Professor Heather Douglas, an Australian Research Council Fellow based at the TC Beirne School of Law at the University of Queensland, has reported that victims often ask; “Why? If he punched his mate at the pub he would have been charged with assault and there would have been a much more serious penalty, in my case all the police do is get me a protection order, and even then that takes ages to serve and they are not very helpful.” When called to the scene of a domestic violence incident the Australian police often look for a swift and easy response to the situation, and in most cases this simple answer is a protection order. However, a protection or intervention order is a civil matter, but isn’t domestic violence a criminal matter? The legal authorities need to realise that a protection order can easily be breached and will not always stop a perpetrator from committing a crime.

Recent media headlines continue to describe and focus on how Hannah’s husband had missed his family and had promised not to do “anything stupid,” instead of focussing on the absolute cruelty of Hannah and her children’s murder. Society is no better than the media, people are suggesting that the responsibility of Hannah’s death was purely her own. One comment on social media read, “…take note ladies…you’ll burn for taking a man’s children away from him lol.” Is this the behaviour, by both Hannah’s estranged husband and society acceptable? This goes to prove that we believe that domestic violence is not a crime and isn’t as severe as it truly is. (Refer to article from email) Even in court, society is effectively hamstringing victims. Domestic violence is largely associated with the separation of family, yet victims have reported to have been advised by their lawyers not to discuss that abuse at all in court. (Refer to fact that they have to personally face them in court) We are telling victims, who are most at-risk and are trying to leave their relationship because of abuse, that they are ‘not allowed’ to raise the issue of domestic violence. If no one can speak up for what is happening, how can we prevent it from happening repeatedly? Does society accept these truths? For domestic violence offenders to get the punishment it needs, we need to stop treating domestic violence by turning a blind eye. (Need to stop turning a blind eye towards/when it comes to domestic violence)

(Ultimately sentencing people to their own deaths from domestic violence, whether it’s by the hands of their partner or their own escape)

Deterrence-based punishments is the theory that the threats of punishment or experiencing the punishment will reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Whether it’s prison itself or longer sentences, these recommended consequences stem from the notion that would-be offenders will be turned away from committing a crime. While contemporary research over several decades on the effects of deterrence-based reprimands, including mandatory sentencing, suggests that these deterrents fail to reduce crime. Case in point has been the introduction of unlawful striking causing death in Queensland, which has seen a spike in that particular crime. Opponents to deterrent-based punishments for domestic-related violence would cite these examples as a major aspect in their arguments. What they fail to disclose is that the majority of these studies have a selected focus on petty and juvenile crime. There’s no substantial evidence to suggest that this would not be the case for reducing domestic violence.

Australia has seen the introduction of an extensive variety of initiatives, implemented by both state and federal government agencies, along with several private companies and charities, to address and prevent domestic violence. To date, there is a significant lack of evidence to show that these strategies have worked. Campaigns have been driven for the past decade with substantial investments of time and money, yet vulnerable people are still facing deadly threats in their homes. Why hasn’t the government responded with a more efficient and effective strategy in response to domestic violence? Section 181 (5) Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) states that “the term of imprisonment that may be imposed on a summary conviction of an indictable offence is 3 years imprisonment.” Even when found guilty, the average length of incarceration for the most serious kinds of assault is 370 days. And only 1.5% of these perpetrators will complete the full sentence in custody. Until we start acting and changing the laws regarding domestic violence, these horrific crimes will continue to occur.

1. Introduction

Domestic violence is described as a crucial social and public health issue which happens in all the countries around the universe, it includes physical and sexual violence, controlling behavior and emotional abuse, (Matud, 2007: 298). The following essay is going to explore the nature of the problem identified in the case study which required intervention. The social arrangements that are causing the social problem found in the case study will be identified and discussed. The essay will also look into the definition of the client and the client system, thereafter it will identify them in the case study and get into detail on them. The intervention will be explained and a brief description of the proposed intervention will be explored and also the levels and the modes of intervention will be identified and explained. The terminology of evaluation will be given and the types of evaluation which are present in the study will be pointed out. Recommendations on how the negative outcomes identified in the study can be avoided in the future will be discussed. The definition of ethics will be explored and the essay will discuss the ethical issues that clinical sociologist should consider when implementing an intervention and also which ethical principles were used and which ones should be used in the future, lastly the essay will give a summary of important points this essay discussed.

2. Nature Of The Problem

The problem that is visible in the case study is domestic violence. It is the major problem that woman come across worldwide. In the case study we can see that there are social arrangements which are causing the social problem which is domestic violence. According to Bollen, Artz, Vetten and Louw ( 1999) the fact that woman are being abused is not acknowledged in South African criminal law and this may lead to some woman to be afraid to report the abuse they are facing , thinking that they are going to be judged and not taken seriously. In the case study, it is seen that some of the offenders consume alcohol and drugs then abuse the victims, reason being what they consume is controlling them. It is seen that domestic violence is not taken as a crime but it is considered as an assault. Also behavioral problems are an issue in most relationships because some man tend to abuse their partners and hurting them. The social arrangements that led to social problems was protection order. Some woman felt safe when they issued the protection order to their partners but others felt that it did not limit the assaults and threats that their partners made. Mediation also did not help other woman because when the case was dropped, the woman did not feel safe because they thought their partners were going to hurt them in future. According to Hooper and Busch (1996), the domestic violence relationships are based on power imbalances and the victims of the violence were not able to stand for themselves against the abusers. The victim offender conferencing (VOC) model was designed to help the victims of domestic violence and they were hoping for positive results. In most of the cases, the courts referred the matter to the VOC and most of the victims got help.

3. The Client And Client System

A client is a person or that receives a service from a professional or an organization then pay them in return, (Collins: ND). According to Reference (ND) a client system is a group of people that the sociologist or a practitioner is responsible for helping. In the case study, the client is the woman who was in a 45 minutes telephonic interview which was held between 6 months and 18 months after the completion of mediation process. The woman who was afraid that maybe her husband infected her with HIV/AIDS due to his infidelity is also considered as the client. The woman who was concerned about her safety, who her husband hit her with an iron on her head and reported him to the police is also the client because she was referred to VOC. The client system in the case study is the Victim Offender Conferencing (VOC). Also the Restorative Justice Initiative (RJI) is the client system, it provided the VOC in criminal cases refereed by the magistrate courts as well by the communities. Another client system is the Domestic Violence Act (DVA) which is aimed at woman protection from domestic violence by creating obligations on law enforcement bodies to protect woman which are the victims.

4. The Intervention

Intervention is a combination of program elements or strategies designed to change or improve health status among individuals or an entire population. In the case study, there are characteristics of intervention. The Domestic Violence Act is one of the characteristic. It protects woman from domestic violence and allows the complainants to apply for protection order from the court. The victim offender mediation is the second characteristic. The mediation presented an opportunity to look beyond the case. The interview is another characteristic, the victims were interviewed to get the information on how they were violated. In the intervention there are different levels that6 apply. The first one is macro. In this level you will find a large social unit which shares customs, laws, cultural values and beliefs. In the study there is were 384 conferences were held and 116 were held between intimate partners and the 7 were divorced or separated. The second level is meso. This level is amongst the schools, work, neighborhood and home. It contains the intergroup conflict and community organizations. In the study that is visible when the VOC received a case from the court and mediators would meet with the victim and the offender to establish willingness to participate in the mediation. The last level is micro. It is amongst the immediate family, school and neighborhood. The is behavior change and conflict resolution. In the study this is seen where the five cases resulted in the parties agreeing to separate. The mediation helped the parties to negotiate the terms of the separation. There are also modes of intervention. The first one is direct, dealing with the problem right away. In the study this is seen when one woman reported the case to the police and had been referred to court. The second mode is indirect, the problem is avoided and the client system is being used. This is seen when families are often dependent on the offender’s income, so they are most likely not to report the problem. The last mode is cooperation, when the victim participate in the change process. This is seen when a woman went into the VOC process being referred by her friend wishing to participate to help her marriage.

5. Evaluation Of The Intervention

According to Scriven (1991:53) “evaluation is the process of determining merit, worth, or significance, a product of that process”. Experts say that we evaluate to improve program design and implementation. It helps to identify areas for improvement and ultimately help you realize your goals more effectively another reason why we evaluate is to demonstrate program impact. The information collected allows you to better communicate your program’s impact to others which is critical for public relations, retaining support from current and potential funders, there are different types of evaluation in this study. There is formative evaluation. According to Guyot (1978) “formative evaluation is primarily a building process which accumulates a series of components of new material, skills and problems into an ultimate meaningful whole. In the study this evaluation is seen when a 45 minutes telephonic interview was held with the woman between 6 months and 18 months after the completion of the process. Another evaluation is summative evaluation. According to Scrive (1967) “summative evaluation is a method of judging the worth of the program at the end of the activities. In the study this is seen when the five cases resulted in the parties agreeing to separate. The process of mediation helped them to reach this agreement. The things that people want to achieve when they evaluate is to understand the concept they are evaluating. They want to gain knowledge and skills to deal with what they are evaluating. In the study there are positive outcomes which are seen at the end of the mediation, one woman reported that her husband got a job and on the other case the woman reported that her husband is contributing to the household tasks such as cleaning and cooking. More strategies to deal with domestic violence can be made besides mediation.

6. Ethical Issues

According to Epidemiology (2001) “ethics are the discipline of dealing with what is good and bad, with moral duty and obligation. There are ethical issues that the clinical sociologist should consider when implementing an intervention. The first one is informed consent. The consent process aims to ensure that research participants understand that their decision to participate is voluntarily. The other one is confidentiality, the participants have a right to have control over the extent, timing and circumstances of revealing personal aspects. The ethical principles were used in the study. The social responsibility, in the study the mediators explained the process of mediation to the participants and it helped them. The other principle is competence. The mediators in the study recognized their boundaries. They did not force every victim to participate in the mediation process. In the study it is seen that before cases were referred to mediation, victims were allowed to take their decision voluntarily. The other principle is respect for others. The professionals should not force participants to agree on what they don’t want. In the study it is seen that other couples decided to separate and others decided to fix their problems but the mediators did not influence their decision. The ethical principles that should be used in future are integrity and professional and scientific responsibility. The mediators did not use integrity. On some of the cases they were not fair with the mediation process. And on the professional and scientific responsibility, the mediators did not make the communities and some of the victims to trust the mediation process.

7. Conclusion

This essay discussed the matter of domestic violence as the nature of the problem. The social arrangements that were causing domestic violence were identified in the case study and explained. The definition of the client system was explained and also the definition of the client system was explained. The client and the client system were identified in the case study. The intervention terminology was explained and a brief description of the intervention proposed was explores. The levels and modes of intervention were discussed. The definition of evaluation was given and the types of evaluation were discussed. The meaning of ethics was explored and the ethical issues that the clinical sociologist should consider when implementing an intervention was were explained. The ethical principles that were used in the study were pointed out and the ones which should be used in future were explored.

8. Reference List

1. Bollen, S., Artz, L., Vetten, L., Louw, A. (1999). Violence Against Woman in Metropolitan South Africa: A study on impact and service delivering. Institution for Security Studies Monograph Series No 41, September 1999. Available at: https://www.;ss.co.za/Pubs/Monographs/N41/Contents.html.
2. Collins. Available at: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/client
3. Hooper, S. & Busch, R. (1996) Domestic Violence and Restorative Justice Initiatives: The Risk of New Panacea. Available at: https://www.waikato.ac.za/law/wlr/special1996/4/hooperbusch,html.
4. Matud, M.P., (2007). Department of Personality, Assessments and Psychological Treatment, LA Laguna University, Tenerife, Spain. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j,jadohealth.2007.02.001
5. Reference. What+Is+a+Client+System+in+Social+Work? Available at: https://www.reference.com/government-politics/client-system-social-work-9586d4d1e2dfc5d9
6. Vocabulary.com. Available at: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/intervention

Abstract:

The biggest problem that women face today is violence against them. Violence is broad of two kinds: one which occurred a public place and is punishable under sections 354, 509, 376, etc of the Indian Penal Code, and another one occurring with the family and is punishable under sections 304-B, 306, 498A of the IPC. In a male-dominated society, women have been victims of violence and exploitation. In India, women have been socially, economically, physically, psychologically, and sexually exploited. In India, domestic violence is widely prevalent but largely invisible. There is a plethora of loss on various aspects of the problem of women namely demand of dowry, sexual assault and female foeticide, trafficking, and sexual harassment, but the most vulnerable area is domestic violence. The concept of sex equality, women’s empowerment, etc granted by the constitution is a myth to millions of women, who are subject to various kinds of violence in their homes. In India, domestic violence is widely prevalent but largely invisible in the public domain. Ordinarily, laws of cruelty, assault, etc against women were inadequate to deal with violence against women within a domestic relationship. However, keeping in view the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, the legislation “ The Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005” was enacted to protect women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. The said act came into force on 26th October 2006. The act is enacted for eliminating all sorts of discrimination against women. It has been a unique combination of civil and criminal laws. The act is progressive not only because it recognizes women who are in live-in relationships but also extends protection to other women in the household including sisters and mothers. It is the bonafide legislation to enhance justice for women. This act supplements the existing laws governing marriage, divorce, custody of children, and property.

Domestic Violence Act 2005:

Historical Background:-

An average Indian woman is bound by all the social constraints that men are not bound by. She is brought up with the values to live a chaste, righteous, and moral life. She is the ijjat of the family and this ijjat is often related to her remaining virgin before getting married. With such an upbringing, it is not easy for a woman to disclose that she is a victim of rape. There is no guarantee that her family will support her and she will be accepted in society with dignity. Against the backdrop of such a situation, the parliament has now empowered Indian women with a law to protect themselves from violence of any kind occurring within the family. Therefore, there are reasons to cheer the enactment of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, of 2005. This path-breaking legislation seeks to protect women from all forms of domestic violence and to check their harassment and exploitation by family members or relatives. Women will now be able to take legal action against abusive husbands and other relatives who harass them.

Provisions Under the Indian Penal Code-

Until recently there was no definition of domestic violence in Indian law. This does not mean that acts of domestic violence were not recognized in India. Besides recognizing and punishing the acts of ‘cruelty’ under criminal law it is also considered a ground for divorce under all the personal laws and the Special Marriage Act. Domestic violence is often understood to constitute such “cruel” conduct towards the woman. The Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code of India (section 174), and Indian Evidence Act (Section 113A and 113B) contain specific provisions penalizing dowry demands, dowry deaths, and cruelty against women, all of which are forms of domestic violence against women. The introduction of Section 498-A in the IPC in 1983 was significant in bringing domestic violence to the fore. Section 498 reads as follows-

“Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation-

For the purpose of this section, ‘cruelty’ means-

• (a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health whether mental or physical of the woman; or
• (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

However, Section 498A was not enough to fight domestic violence. In 1986 Section 304-B pertaining to Dowry Deaths was introduced. However, this section relates only to dowry deaths and to no other form of violence. Other provisions of the Indian penal Code relating to offenses of assault, hurt, grievous hurt, dowry, death murder, rape etc, are also often used against the perpetrators of violence. The problem however is that such criminal law remedies do not succeed in providing immediate or emergency protection to the victims of domestic violence. Thus, a desperate need was felt for an Act which could specifically cater to this cause.

Definitions:-

‘Domestic violence refers to any act of violence against women by the husbands or in-laws. Physical violence is defined as any act intended to harm or injure or inflict pain on a woman. Sexual violence can also be termed physical violence. It refers to any act of non-consensual sexual activity. It can range from unwanted sexual attention to rape. Mental violence is any behavior or lack of it by the husband and in-laws intended to undermine the woman’s self-confidence or lead to a lowered or negative self-esteem.”

In all societies, where patriarchal family structure prevails, the patriarch from other men protects women, but they become victims of men in their own families.

‘Domestic Violence is violence between intimates living to gather or who have previously cohabited’.

Causes of Domestic Violence:-

A number of studies have been conducted to identify the precipitating factors leading to Domestic violence.

• Personal Factors:-Some scholars have attributed abuse to the personality factors of either the battered or the batterer or both. It is assumed that either one or both spouses possess certain characteristics that make them prone to wife battering. Men who assault their wives have low self-esteem and use violence to compensate the feelings of inadequacy. Wife-beaters have been described as sadistic, passive-aggressive, addiction-prone, jealous, and dependent. Women who as victims are described; as dependent, having low self-esteem, and feeling of inadequacy and helplessness. Some researchers, however, report, just opposite personality profiles of battered women. They report the picture of battered women as aggressive, masculine, frigid, and masochistic.
• Social learning:-Violence in the family of origin increases both a woman’s vulnerability and a man’s propensity to abuse his wife and/or children. Men who have experienced violent childhoods are more likely to grow up and assault their wives than individuals who have not experienced childhood violence. Researchers have found that both offenders & victims had violence-ridden childhoods. Although the chances of being an offender and victim are increased if one grows up in a violent home, there are many violent people who had limited exposure to violence as children, and some who experienced extremely violent childhoods and grew up to be non-violent.
• Economic Causes:-Women’s economic dependence on men is one of the major causes of domestic violence. Women have limited access to cash and credit. Further are denied equal access to education as men therefore majority of them are engaged in low-level occupations. There are discriminatory laws regarding inheritance, property rights, use of communal lands, and maintenance after divorce or widowhood. Such discriminatory practices make women dependent on men and thus lack of economic resources underpins women’s vulnerability to violence and there is continuous exploitation of women.
• Cultural Factors:-Cultural ideologies – both in industrialized and developing countries – provide ‘legitimacy’ for violence against women in certain circumstances. Religious and historical traditions in the past have sanctioned the chastising and beating of wives. The physical punishment of wives has been particularly sanctioned under the notion of entitlement and ownership of women. Male control of family wealth inevitably places decision-making authority in male hands, leading to male dominance and proprietary rights over women and girls. The concept of ownership, in turn, legitimizes control over women’s sexuality, which in many law codes has been deemed essential to ensure patrilineal inheritance. Women’s sexuality is also tied to the concept of family honor in many societies. Traditional norms in these societies allow the killing of ‘errant’ daughters, sisters, and wives suspected of defiling the honor of the family by indulging in forbidden sex or marrying and divorcing without the consent of the family. By the same logic, the honor of a rival ethnic group or society can be defiled by acts of sexual violence against its women.

Consequences:

Domestic violence is a pressing human rights issue that prevents women from fully realizing their rights to social equality, good health, and economic opportunities.

• Economic consequences:-There are two levels at which the economic cost of domestic violence can be estimated: the society-wide (macro) level, and the household/individual (micro) level. Studies in the United States have estimated the annual cost of domestic violence to be anywhere from US$5-10 billion (Meyer 1992) to $67 billion.
• Indirect costs: impact on child well-being, female and child mortality, inter-generational social and psychological costs. The impact of violence on the production and reproduction of the household economy is also important to understand and estimate. Violence affects not only the individual woman, but also the very survival of the household through loss of productivity, loss of income, and increased costs
• Direct costs: loss of income, productivity loss, health care costs, housing costs, and costs of social services. In a study, it was reported that
  • Loss of workdays (including housework) for the woman;
  • Loss of workdays for the husband;
  • Consequent fall in total income; and
  • Healthcare expenditure due to violence-related injuries and symptoms.
• Health consequences:-Domestic Violence not only poses a direct threat to women’s health but also has adverse consequences for other aspects of women’s health and well-being and for the survival and well-being of children. The experience of domestic violence can have both fatal and nonfatal outcomes for women and their children. Fatal outcomes related to domestic violence for women can result directly through homicide or indirectly through suicide and maternal or AIDS-related mortality. Nonfatal outcomes include manifestations of adverse mental, physical, and reproductive health outcomes and negative health behaviors. Included among the mental health problems found to occur more frequently among abused women than among those who are not abused are higher rates of depression, posttraumatic stress, and eating disorders. Poor physical health among abused women manifests as chronic conditions including chronic pain, injuries, gastrointestinal disorders, and generally poor health status among others. Abused women’s reproductive health is also compromised through much higher rates of gynecological problems, HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), miscarriages, abortions, unwanted pregnancies, and low birth weight (Campbell, 2002). Lack of sexual autonomy associated with the experience of domestic violence can have several different fertility-related outcomes, including a large number of births, births that are unwanted, short intervals between births, and low contraceptive use, especially in relation to the expressed need for fertility control. Negative health behaviors include overeating, alcohol and drug abuse, and sexual risk-taking.

Definition of domestic violence according to the Act -2005

The conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it –

• (a) Harms or injure or endangers the health, safety, life, limb, or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse, and economic abuse; or
• (b) Harasses, harms, injures, or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or
• (c) Has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or
• (d) Otherwise injures or causes harm; whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.

Manifestations of Domestic Violence

• Physical Abuse- hitting, slapping, kicking, punching, burning, choking, using physical objects to cause injury, control over reproductive rights and health.
• Mental Abuse- threats, dictating what a woman can and cannot do, verbally abusing, humiliating the woman or her parents, not allowing the woman to leave the house or visit her natal home.
• Sexual Abuse- rape, unwanted touching, forcing sexual acts, refusal to practice safe sex.
• Economic or Property abuse- stealing or destroying personal belongings, demanding money, withholding basic needs such as food and clothing, not allowing the woman to work.

Legal Rights Of Domestic Violence Victims

• Protection Orders:- The magistrate can pass orders to stop the offender from aiding or committing violence within and outside the home, and pass a protection order in favor of the aggrieved person.
• Residence Orders:- The woman can’t be evicted from the shared household or the respondent may have to provide a similar alternate accommodation.
• Monetary Relief And Maintenance:- The woman is entitled to monetary relief and maintenance including loss of earnings, medical expenses, damage to property, the maintenance for her children, etc. Such a payment can be a lump sum or monthly payment.
• Custody Orders:- The court can grant a woman temporary custody of her children.
• Compensation Orders:- In addition to other reliefs granted under this act, a woman on appeal can claim damages for mental torture and physical injuries.
• Interim order/ex parte orders:- The court can pass an interim order to prevent violence before the final order. In the absence of the respondent to the dispute, ex parte orders can be passed.
• Free Legal Service:- Women have the right to free legal services under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 for proceedings under this act as well.
• Free Copies Of The Orders:- The aggrieved person will be given a copy of the orders of the court free of cost.
• Counseling:- The magistrate may direct the respondent or the aggrieved person, either simply or jointly to undergo counseling.
• In–Camera Proceedings:- If the aggrieved woman so desires, the proceedings under the act may be held in-camera.

Where to file the case concerning domestic violence? :- The aggrieved woman or someone on behalf of her can file a Direct Information Report (DIR) with:-

• Protection Officer:- According to section 4, any person who has reason to believe that an act of domestic violence has been, or is being, or is likely to be committed, may give information about it to the concerned Protection Officer. The Protection Officer registers the DIR, presents it before the Magistrate, and ensures that the orders passed by the court are enforced.
• Service Provider:- Service Provider is a voluntary organization or a company registered with the state government with the objective of protecting the rights and interests of women. Service Providers assist in recording the incident of domestic violence with the Protection Officer or the Magistrate and provide the victim with legal aid, medical care counseling, or any other support.
• The Police:- The victim can file a criminal complaint under section 498A of the IPC with the police. The police will record a DIR under the PWDVA also and forward the same to the Magistrate for redressal of the grievance.
• The Magistrate:- An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this act, provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic violence incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.

Important Cases registered under DVPA 2005:-

Till now hundreds of cases have been registered under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act 2005(DVPA) throughout India. Here we are discussing the initial cases which have the greater important significance from the implementation point of view.

• Lalita Toppo Versus The State of Jharkhand.:-The appellant Lalita Toppo claimed maintenance under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2011 despite the fact that she was not a legally wedded wife and thus was not eligible to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Held that the maintenance can be claimed under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 even if the claimant is not a legally wedded wife. Such relief cannot be allowed under section 125 of Cr.P.C.

The bench expanded the definition of the term “domestic violence” contained in Section 3(a) of the DVC Act, 2015 to include economic abuse as domestic violence.

Further, the court held that the estranged wife or live-in-partner would be entitled to extra relief under the provisions in Section 3(a) of the DVC Act, 2015 than what is provided under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. i.e. to a shared household also.

• Santosh Bakshi v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2014 SC 2966:-“If the complaint of domestic violence made by women against a member of the family, the police without proper verification and investigation cannot submit a report that no case is made out. Investigating agency is required to make proper inquiries not only from the members of the family but also from neighbors, friends, and others. After such an inquiry, the investigating agency may form a definite opinion and file a report. It is for the Court to decide finally whether to take cognizance of the offense under any provisions of the D.V. Act.”
• Anil v. Sudesh, 2014 Cri. L.J. 2015. (Punjab & Haryana High Court):-“In the said case, the petitioner contended that the respondent was residing separately in either parental home since 1/1/1999 and D.V. Act came into force w.e.f. on 26/10/2006. He contended that Act is not retrospective, hence respondent is not entitled to any relief under the Act. It is held that petitioner seeking relief prospectively and not retrospectively, hence application by her is maintainable.”

Strategies to Achieve Social Justice

Violence against women in the United States of America

Violence against women is prevalent all across the U.S., in various strata of society. There are various forms of domestic violence, including but not limited to:

• Domestic violence – About a fourth of the total female population in the U.S. suffers from one or the other form of domestic violence from their partners. Older women, living in rural regions, incapacitated women, and immigrants are at a greater risk of being victims of domestic and sexual abuse.
• Rape – the rate of rape cases in the U.S. has been at an all-time high. A lot of cases remain underreported. The justice process also in these cases is extremely slow.
• Sexual assault – there is a stark difference between sexual assault and other crimes of assault. In cases of sexual assault, the brutality of the crime is typically determined by establishing the victim’s moral character, behavior, signs of confrontation, and verbal expressions of non-consensual acts. Another type of assault is battery, which is determined by the perpetrators’ actions and intent. The victim, in such cases, is not required to establish resistance, consent, or have a history of being physically assaulted.

A personal account of events

During the early days of college, I rented a small apartment located close to my college. The apartment owner, Ben, along with his wife, Rosa, was staying at the ground level while I had been renting the floor above them. Over time, I learned that Rosa was born in Germany, and was in the U.S. on her student visa when she met Ben. She was self-reliant and worked at a neighborhood deli to support herself and pay for her tuition. She was also taking an English-speaking course as English was not her native language. On the other hand, Ben had a full-time job with handsome pay. He had neither been married nor been in a long-term relationship. They soon started living together as a couple, and Rosa applied for a partner visa with Ben as her sponsor. They even registered their de facto relationship registered with the concerned authorities.

It was early days in the relationship and Ben was not too happy about Rosa’s work hours, which involved night shifts and even weekend shifts at times. He urged Rosa to look for another job that did not have such taxing work hours and would allow her to take care of their home, perform daily household chores and allow her to take short vacations with him. Rosa, however, liked her job and was happy to work hard for good remuneration.

Ben kept insisting until one day when Rosa was leaving for work, he hid her car keys. Eventually, he gave the keys back but told her it was he would ‘allow’ it. At his end, Ben also tried to find Rosa a full-time weekday job for better pay, but in vain. Finally, Rosa was forced to quit her job and become a ‘housewife’ to Ben. During the day, she would look for countless open job positions, though, without any success.

It was then that Ben started taking excessive control of their daily routines. He would schedule weekend getaways according to a strict timetable that was not convenient to Rosa; he took her on long drives that Rosa found unpleasant and would not even allow her to play the music of her choice; and he chose destinations that she did not enjoy. Rosa had had enough of being dictated and that led to frequent fights, arguments, and disagreements between them. Ben would often threaten her that he would write to the immigration authorities for withdrawing his sponsorship and have even kept all of Rosa’s immigration documents and details in his possession.

In the meantime, Rosa found herself another job and was reasonably content with it. Ben had issues with her new job too, as the pay was too less and her English was deteriorating day by day. He demanded that Rosa transfer her entire salary to him, and he would make weekly transfers to their joint account for her to pay for groceries and other household expenses. She tried to question him about this demand and tried to explain that she was rather content with her new job and that she was entitled to her own earnings. However, she had to eventually give in to Ben’s demands. Ben acted miserly in terms of depositing money and would spend his salary, as well as Rosa’s salary as he fancied.

Meanwhile, Rosa’s role in the relationship was reduced to cooking for him and performing household duties, while also working and studying. He would often criticize and belittle her efforts around the house. He would bring her clothes that were way too uncomfortable and inappropriate. They engaged in sexual intercourse only on Ben’s terms, without any regard for Rosa’s wishes. He would even force her to sleep with him, failing which, he would report her to the immigration authorities and withdraw his sponsorship.

The only family member allowed in their home was Ben’s mother. He had forced her to cut ties with all her friends in the city and would even refuse to meet Rosa’s relatives residing nearby. He started to monitor her phone and internet activity. He even objected to her speaking in her native language. One time when she was on the phone with a family member from Germany, Ben wielded a knife demanding that she end the conversation and cook dinner. He even kept a handgun at home.

Ben’s hostile behavior towards Rosa was starting to adversely impact her and she was becoming increasingly isolated, demeaned, and depressed. She started working long hours just to get away from him. The last straw was when Ben set up a whiteboard in the kitchen, marking her duty roaster; he would often call her at work and repeatedly text her in order to know her shift timings. During one of my conversations with her, Rosa confessed that she had started feeling like a slave, being constantly monitored, and relinquishing her salary. The situation became intolerable for Rosa and she left Ben’s house to stay with a friend.

My role in trying to achieve social change

On learning that Rosa had left Ben’s house, I tried and get in touch with her. I wanted to help her and started researching on ways and/ or legal recourse to get her out of this muddle. I got in touch with some support services in the area who advised me to approach the local Magistrates’ Court for help. I told Rosa this and she agreed to let me help her. I also put her in touch with the immigration services that helped her with her visa application and recommended she apply for a protection order. Seeing her physical and mental health, I recommended her to see a psychologist as her emotional health and confidence had deteriorated noticeably.

Soon after their separation, I learned that Ben visited Rosa’s workplace and spoke with her employer several times, ending up embarrassing Rosa. He even went to the extent of stalking her and breaking into her relatives’ home and stealing certain goods. Ben then went to Rosa’s home and took with him, photos of her and her car license plate. It was at that point that she called me over and we decided to get help from the local police department, and then obtain a protection order for her. The Police were rather helpful in the situation. On the date of the Court hearing, Ben’s lawyer tried to convince her to withdraw her demand for a protection order and take an undertaking from Ben for good behavior for the next two years. She accepted the undertaking, which Ben signed, and the case was dismissed, only after getting Rosa’s passport back from Ben’s possession. Soon after, Rosa and I went to the immigration office, where we initiated the process for her travel to her home country.

As per my recent conversation with her, Ben has made no contact with her since the court hearing. Rosa left for Germany with only some of her basic possessions. Even though she was entitled to her salary that Ben had confiscated, she chose to forgo the same and then have any further involvement with Ben. Rosa is currently on medication to cope with the depression she has suffered because of Ben’s abuse. She is trying hard to re-establish a bond with her family and friends and to complete her studies.

Status of domestic abuse in America

Domestic violence in the U.S. has been regarded as of the many reasons for the deteriorating public health. Violence (fatal or non-fatal) against women often leads to physical injuries and everlasting mental health imbalance. In addition to this, domestic violence can adversely impact life at work, home, and/ or school. In the more severe cases, domestic violence has also led to the death of the victim. Women are not the only victims of domestic abuse. Children can also be subject to extreme forms of domestic violence, directly or indirectly, leading to adverse physical and mental health.

There are plenty of organizations, and online forums, which take swift action by assisting potential domestic abuse victims with legal remedies. There are also 24-hour helpline numbers such as the National Domestic Violence Hotline etc., which immediately connects the caller/ potential victim with the service provider in his/ her area.

There are also designated buildings, apartments called Domestic violence shelters, where domestic violence victims can seek shelter from their abusers. These locations are usually kept confidential for the purpose of protecting the victim from the perpetrator.

Owing to the intensity and frequency of domestic abuse cases, President Bill Clinton even passed legislation – Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994. The Act granted funds to state authorities and specialized agencies to investigate violent crimes against women and prosecute the perpetrators. One of the noted accomplishments of VAWA is the development of the concept of a harmonized community response. VAWA-funded projects have an impact that goes well beyond the number of victims served, professionals trained, or arrests made. VAWA encourages jurisdictions to not only bring together stakeholders from diverse backgrounds but to also share information and to use their distinct roles to improve community responses to violence against women. This mechanism allows these programs to serve as models for other agencies in their jurisdictions. This not only improves the quality of victim services and the criminal and civil justice response, it often changes the attitudes of the community as a whole.

Conclusion

In a society with inequitable distribution of social and economic resources and power are unevenly distributed, working towards the elimination of domestic violence involves social change and strict political action. Elimination of domestic violence requires a robust criminal justice system in place. However, it also necessitates a variety of interventions that may differ from traditional approaches to crime and prosecution. For example, where domestic violence is concerned, it can be difficult for its victims to leave the relationship or charge the offender, as such interventions have the potential to cause an escalation in the violence. In addition, victims of violence often remain connected to the abuser, through children and other family members. For these reasons, a single response to the violence, such as arrest, the laying of criminal charges, or leaving the perpetrator, will not necessarily end the violence or intimidation. Victims of violence have the right to use the legal system in ways that they consider will best improve their safety.

References

1. Graham, J. R., West, L.M., Roemer, L. (2013). The experience of racism and anxiety symptoms in an African-American sample: Moderating effects of trait mindfulness. Mindfulness, 4(4), 332-341.
2. Pfeffer, F. T., Danziger, S., Schoeni, R. F. (2013). Wealth disparities before and after the Great Recession. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716213497452.
3. Hope, E. C., Skoog, A. B., Jagers, R. J. (2014). “It’ll never be the white kids, it’ll always be us”: Black high school students’ evolving critical analysis of racial discrimination and inequity in schools. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558414550688.
4. Mitchell, O., Caudy, M. S. (2015). Examining racial disparities in drug arrests. Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 288-313.
5. Rothstein, R. (2015). The racial achievement gap, segregated schools, and segregated neighborhoods: A constitutional insult. Race and Social Problems, 7(1), 21-30.
6. Clement, S. Schauman, O, Graham, T., Maggioni, F., Evans-Lacko, S., Bezborodovs, N., Morgan, C., Rusch, N. Brown, J.S.L., Thornicroft, G. (2015). What is the impact of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Psychological Medicine. 45(1), 11-27.
7. Hunter, M. (2016). Colorism in the classroom: How skin tone stratifies African-American and Latina/o students. Theory into Practice, 55(1), 54-61.

In the case of Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales in 2005, the human rights of Jessica Gonzales were fundamentally violated. Gonzales obtained a restraining order from the Colorado trial court on June 4th, 1999 that granted her property interest for it to be enforced by the police. Yet, 18 days later, on June 22nd, 1999, the Castle Rock Police Department continuously dismissed her calls and restraining order, ultimately leading to the death of her estranged husband and their three young daughters. The police officers deprived her of that by ignoring her request and failing to respond properly to the restraining order at the time of the event. Afterward, state officials rejected her “without observing fair procedures,” leading to a violation of procedural and adequate due process. As Stevens and Ginsburg wrote, “At the very least, due process requires that the relevant state decisionmaker listen to the claimant and then apply the relevant criteria in reaching his decision.” The Supreme Court of the United States based the entire case on “whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated.” The scale of this tragedy is too large for the whole case to be debated and formed on simple terminology of what counts as property rights or to what extent or degree this right pertains to an individual. There are simply too many elements to the whole case and sequence of events that occurred for the Supreme Court to overlook and instead focus on the language of such state-law restraining order. Seeing as the court has failed to grant Gonzales a full and fair due process, I also respectfully dissent.

First, the fact that Gonzales still, to this day, does not know who shot and killed her three daughters in the truck is an immediate red flag of suspicion for the authorities. The Colorado authorities conducted no further investigation to investigate the fatal incident. In fact, the truck was immediately destroyed after the event rather than preserving or understanding the truth. These facts about the truck and event should have been brought up in court because the true murderer of these children could very well dictate the result of this case as it builds to the relevant context of the situation. Her restraining order includes how it is crucial in “[using] every reasonable means to enforce the restraining order… when you have information… that the restrained person has violated [this order].” If the murderer was officially identified as the father, Gonzales could further establish her case by stating that the authorities ignored details from her restraining order when her initial plea revealed the abusive state of the father. With prior evidence that her husband is abusive, the police would be required to take mandatory action in arresting him rather than reject her myriad times throughout that fatal evening. This would ultimately reinforce her claim for immediate police protection and assistance as included under her restraining order when proven that her husband was homicidal.

The Colorado General Assembly passed legislation regarding domestic restraining orders in 1994 that clearly eliminates any room for police discretion as in Gonzales’ case. The omnibus legislation mandated the “enforcement of domestic restraining order upon probable cause of violation” and “directs that police officers shall, without undue delay, arrest a suspect upon cause to believe that a crime or offense of domestic violence has been committed.” This statute itself highlights the importance for police officers to intervene and arrest for domestic violence incidents when there is evident cause to believe. A 1984 Minneapolis domestic violence arrest study concluded that an “arrest had a significantly greater impact on reducing domestic violence recidivism” that eventually pushed multiple states to pass analogous statutes. Both this study and the addition of this mandate for multiple states push for the mandatory arrest of the domestic abuser under necessary circumstances. Yet, the Court still seemly neglected these precedent laws. Additionally, following the multiple domestic violence cases of Nearing v. Weaver, Matthews v. Pickett County, Campbell v. Campbell, and Donaldson v. Seattle, it seemed illogical and unjust for the majority of the Court to “repudiate this consistent line of persuasive authority from other States” and dispute these historical cases. There should be considerations of legal precedent of using the fair and just standards to determine the fate of similar cases as in these domestic violence cases relating to police interference for Castle Rock v. Gonzales. Rather, the Supreme Court overlooked such cases and failed to consider this tragedy in a consistent and holistic view.

“The Court fails to come to terms with the wave of domestic violence statutes that provides the crucial context for understanding Colorado’s law.” Yet, in the statute, the Court concedes that “mandatory-arrest statutes have been found in some States to be more mandatory than traditional mandatory statutes”; they fail to understand that “traditional” and “mandatory” are simply categorical names to understate making police enforcement “more mandatory,” when it was simply “mandatory.” The Supreme Court should have considered these precedent cases and the relevant context behind these mandates before coming to a conclusion for Gonzales. There is a reason that cases like these make it all the way up to the Supreme Court. It seemed rather thoughtless and indifferent for the Court to criticize the wording for “more mandatory” or “mandatory”. Simply put, the Court was looking for a technicality outlet. Stevens and Ginsburg highlighted these incidents to illustrate the severity and showcase what the law should dictate. To make matters worse, “the police were required to provide enforcement; they lacked the discretion to do nothing.” This is a clear violation of the statute’s term mandatory as it would obligate “not only the police to seek an arrest warrant, but also to execute it by making an arrest… by the time the police were informed of the husband’s whereabouts, an arrest was practical… and mandatory,” demonstrating a clear violation of the restraining order.

However, the Court argued the degree of probable cause could affect the obligation to provide enforcement. In this case, the estranged husband not only “violate the restraining order by coming within 100 yards,” but he also continued to abduct and hold his daughters. This clear act endangers the safety of children. As Jelena Gligorijevic stated about The Role of Parental Control and Consent, “a public place, anodyne activity,” such as playing in the yard in this case, “do not mean that there is no reason to protect privacy.” Right from the start, the interests and right to privacy of the children were endangered because the father intruded and brought potential harm upon the children when abducting them without parental consent. Article 14 and 6 of the Convention on the Rights of Children states that parental guardians can make decisions on behalf of the child, with the “best interests of the child [as] a primary consideration.” Upon noticing that her children were missing, Gonzalez suspected her ex-husband had taken them with no advance arrangements. It was natural for her to report this event to the police department to immediately get her children back in her safe protection as she was personally terrorized, mentally abused, and understood the danger and harmful nature of her ex-husband. Yet, the authority figures still repeatedly dismissed her and her children the necessary protection, confirming an infringement of rights.

Although it was never particularly mentioned, I do want to bring up the slight possibility of an unjust trial judgment based on gender or racial ethnicity. I can’t help but wonder what the outcome of this encounter with the police and court would be if the respondent was a white male with white children getting abducted. In the Interplay Between Cultural Rights and Women’s Rights, Kimberle Crenshaw challenges the belief of a single categorical axis for discrimination by explaining that “gender and racial discrimination mutually reinforce and intersect to shape structural and political oppression against women of color.” As a Latina and Native American Woman, Gonzales is not only a woman of color but also a minority group in the predominately white state of Colorado. If gender or racial ethnicity affected the police officers’ urgency to mediate this restraining order violation, then this is a clear violation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Articles 2 and 3 of ICERD underscore the importance of “preventing, prohibiting, and eradicating all practices of [racial discrimination] … under their jurisdiction.” Any discrimination towards gender or racial ethnicity would thereby be beneficial for Gonzales’s case as the authorities violated her rights to equality.

Our nation has repeatedly shown favor towards majority groups and discrimination against minority groups. The Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales was concluded based on an unfair due process with mistreatment towards Gonzales, a domestic violence victim. Rather than looking at all the details of the tragedy, the Supreme Court fixated on the property rights terminology of the restraining order thereby neglecting the evidence, previous cases, statutes, children’s rights, women’s rights, and minority rights. It is time for the United States government to fully conduct an investigation into the systematic failures of the police department and the death of the three daughters. The federal and state governments must adopt new reforms to shift America in the right direction; to protect women and children from domestic violence.