Domestic Abuse or Domestic Violence - Does Terminology Matter?
The term 'domestic abuse' as opposed to 'domestic violence' is meant to encompass the wider forms of suffering over and above bodily injuries which women (and men) are exposed to from partners. Many habitancy are in 'unhealthy' relationships; that does not necessarily equate to being complicated in an abusive connection but obscuring may occur if the definition of this crime is broadened. Would 'domestic abuse' rather 'domestic violence' mean the criminalisation of bad relationships and take off focus from the true nature of this crime? Is it simple semantics or would broadening definitions from 'domestic violence' to 'domestic abuse' encourage changes in society's perception of domestic violence and who positively is likely to be involved?
According to the dictionary, abuse is "v. 1. Use to bad effect or for a bad purpose 2. Treat with cruelty or violence 3. Address in an insulting and nasty way" whilst violence is: "n. 1. Behaviour involving bodily force intended to hurt, damage or kill 2. compel of emotion or of a destructive natural force" Being nasty and cruel can, however, cause harm - particularly if there is a bodily element implied or if there is a history of bodily harm following on from, or alongside, verbal insults. There are involving subdivisions of both the terms 'abuse' and 'violence'. For example, in explore undertaken by the Home Office, definitions of domestic violence were dependent on victims' interpretations. If various agencies use distinct terms, how it is possible to specify what is, or is not, unacceptable behaviour and thus whether such behaviour constitutes a criminal offense.
So what is domestic violence? In essence, it is where a current or former partner causes bodily or emotional harm or injury to the other; where one partner is forced, whether physically or emotionally, to submit to the will of the other (whether the perpetrator is male and victim female, or vice versa, or both partners are of the same gender). Whilst many may reconsider domestic violence to consist of bodily assaults by a husband upon their wife, this is not an exclusive definition. Aside from bodily assaults, there are emotional, financial and public constraints settled by one partner upon the other and this can be a singular qoute if one partner is the only working adult or if he or she earns substantially more than their partner. Emotional abuse can be where one partner enduringly makes derogatory remarks, belittling achievements and bodily appearance; public constraints can comprise manipulation of one's movements with constant questions about where man is going. Verbal assaults can approximately cause as much fear as bodily assaults; this is especially so when assaults of any kind are directed not only towards the former victim (i.e. Partner/ex-partner) but also towards children, pets or other loved ones. Further, if verbal assaults or threats are often followed by bodily assaults, victimisation occurs on other level as the apprehension of a bodily strike can be as traumatic as the strike itself.
The Home Office itself defines domestic violence as: "Any violence between current or former partners in an intimate relationship, wherever and whenever the violence occurs...[it] may comprise physical, sexual, emotional or financial abuse". This may, however, be purely to collect definite information on victims rather than any legally or obligatory definition to be used in literal, interpretation by agencies (including criminal justice agencies). Given that it interchanges violence and abuse, obscuring may occur, and it broadens further its definition in a leaflet against domestic violence. The leaflet describes the more definite of 'punching' and 'kicking' to the more debatable 'telling you that you're ugly', 'telling you what to wear', 'calling you a failure' and 'shouting'. These latter phrases and definitions are so broad they may in fact undermine their purpose. Pragmatic interpretations may be definite to policymakers, academics and researchers and perhaps even the police (in that the derogatory comments and shouting are part of a pattern of abusive behaviour, rather than when used in an isolated incident) but leaflets and campaigns seen by the wider public may effect in the meaning being lost. This is because, during arguments and disagreements - in various relationships - shouting and manufacture derogatory remarks can be quite base and the intent behind the remarks may be less sinister than when used in conjunction with, or as a build up to, actual intended harm (whether bodily or not).
Definitions can be misunderstood in other contexts as well. What happens when bad relationships becomes verbally abusive; when a concentrate shout insults at each other - perhaps frequently and with both parties being culpable - is this domestic abuse? Could the possible for a bodily or verbal 'assault' on whether party mean that police (or other agency) intervention is required or necessary? Arguments, discussions (heated or otherwise) and even occasional 'outbursts' may help to determine issues; releasing tension and may make relationships healthier and stronger. What happens if neighbours perceive the police involved due to the volume of arguments: would domestic 'abuse', rather than domestic 'violence', mean that police attendance is mandatory for a simple argument? Are all relationships which encounter rough periods of time to be field to monitoring, intervention and even prosecution? This is obviously not what is improbable when domestic abuse was utilised as a term over and above domestic violence; nonetheless, definitions/terminology (and any interpretation thereof) remain subjective, even if guidelines are in place.
Perhaps one of the main problems with terminology is the recipe in which it creates confusion, misunderstanding and even apathy among agencies - and community as a whole - towards the crime of domestic violence itself. Is domestic violence a crime only if there is bodily violence? Is it a crime if a husband shouts so loud that neighbours can hear him make derogatory comments towards his wife - perhaps not hearing her response because of the lower volume; does this constitute domestic abuse even if no violence occurs? positively this seems to be the implication in an extract of the description of the opt Committee on Marital Violence (1975) from the Metropolitan Police: "...general principle of police...not to intervene in a situation...between husband and wife...in which the wife had suffered some personal attack, any strike upon a wife by her husband which number to bodily injury of a serious nature is a criminal offence...". Here, the emphasis is on the bodily injuries - though English law states that strike is the fear of bodily harm rather than actual bodily harm. This is known as a 'technical assault' whereby "the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend imminent force". Psychological trauma can be suffered by the constant threat of bodily harm as well as any bodily injuries however; for such suffering, the safety From Harassment Act 1997 may be utilised, though the conduct 'causing fear' must occur on at least two occasions (ss.1-3). Government publications use the term 'domestic violence' and 'domestic abuse' interchangeably - if the Government do not know the difference, how can whatever else?
One think for the change in term from violence to abuse is that it may avoid the implication that only bodily strike is criminal whereas 'abuse' suggests a range of conduct used by partners. A broader term may help victims understand their partners' actions are not acceptable. Problems may arise when boundaries of terminology and interpretation become blurred. Would a man be more likely to be targeted than his female partner if both technically committed the crime of 'domestic abuse' because of gender perception (i.e. That females in the connection are more likely to be the victim than perpetrator, or that females are less likely to cause bodily harm towards male partner)? Domestic violence may well be too narrow a term and restrict what habitancy perceive to be a criminal offence and worth reporting. The approaches of various agencies in various locations may also make a difference; if a police force responds positively towards victims, if they are proactive in their dealings of domestic incidents because of a broader term of 'abuse' then utilisation of such terms may be justified. A more reflective interpretation of domestic abuse may effect in police intervention earlier in situations which may otherwise be left until consequences are dire for both victims and their families.
The Scottish executive has settled on 'Domestic Abuse' when discussing domestic violence throughout its policies and campaigns. Though it is difficult to find the reasons behind the decision, it was agreed in September 1999 to create the definition. In 1998, the Scottish Partnership on Domestic Abuse was set up and a National Strategy created to ensure women have access to the essential agencies, assistance, etc.
In 2001, the safety from Abuse (Scotland) Act was introduced and the definition therein states: 'abuse' includes violence, harassment, threatening conduct and any other conduct giving rise, or likely to give rise, to bodily or mental injury, fear, alarm or distress'. A draft National Strategy was produced in October 2002: key elements included public awareness raising; education; training; services for women and children; work with men who use violence; legislation; and workplace strategies. The Strategy has produced various campaigns aimed at both perpetrators and victims but also indicates that neighbours, friends and others ought to be aware of domestic abuse and not to ignore the signs. The first of these campaigns began in 1995 and it was aimed at the perpetrators - shown specifically during programmes the majority of men would be likely to see (i.e. Rugby and football world cups). For some people, however, it is not just a matter of terminology and interpretation; victims' and perpetrators' culture may mean that they do not see their situation as being the business of any outside agents.
Even internationally, communities rarely intervene for a country's inadequate and antiquated domestic criminal justice policies and even then, it is commonly because the victim(s) originated from a western country (i.e. Britain/Usa) or because of pressure from media and/or celebrity sources. For some countries, crimes such as domestic violence may be interpreted as minor infractions, but in the Uk and other countries, such relationships may be abusive or implicitly violent. Each culture has definite interpretations of what is domestic violence; for example, Sokoloff and Dupont studied experiences of Japanese women's insight of domestic violence: overturning a dining table, or pouring liquid over a woman is more essential to them than slapping or pushing. Sokoloff and Dupont correctly believe that, over and above the public constraints in place for some women to description abuse or abusive relationships, there may well be cultural constraints which further detach women and heighten their victimisation. Further, should women from former insular communities reside in western society, they may be unwilling or unable to description domestic violence due to language barriers, fear of reprisals not only from their partners, but their own communities. This will be enhanced if the victim and/or her partner are illegal immigrants; not only would she bring authorities' attention to her own immigration status, she may also raise awareness of a community previously unknown to authorities.
For the Uk, the levels of operate over a spouse/partner by perpetrators within the immigrant community (whether legal or otherwise) may be even more acute due to language, cultural and community barriers and restricted access to sustain agencies. Home Office explore on the provision of 'advocacy services' to black and other ethnic minority women shows that problems can arise where and when women are uncertain as to their legal proprietary and what facilities are available to them and that multi-agency sustain and co-operation is essential in tackling domestic violence in such communities. In some cultures, victims and perpetrators may accept violence and/or abuse and may not believe such behaviour is wrong, let alone illegal. Even if the victim and/or perpetrator recognises that domestic violence/abuse is unacceptable, their country of origin may be unwilling to prosecute the perpetrator and safe the victim; what then for those who seek asylum? For those in England, the Law Lords have ruled that they may well be protected under the Geneva institution - and thus attain the proprietary as refugees and gain safety of the English legal theory and remain indefinitely.
Other problems prevail when using terminology or definitions which limit the ability of objective interpretation particularly by the police. As Edwards discusses in her book 'Policing Domestic Violence', the charity Violence Against Women puts transmit the view that: "...police response...judgemental attitudes to the behaviour of women victims which they may reconsider contributory...the woman is 'nagging', 'hysterical', or a 'sluttish housewife'." Edwards further refers to Stanko who found that: "Decisions to arrest....charge a think with 'disorderly conduct' rather than assault...all work on how men's threatening or violent behaviour comes to be defined as criminal or non-criminal". Edwards refers to explore by Chatterton who found one think for the lack of police intervention is down to "...[a police officer's] decision not to arrest by referring to the moral characteristics of the father...counterposed against the mum who kept a slovenly home and was difficult and 'mouthy' ". Thus, the drunken husband or partner who is abusive towards the police is more likely to be arrested and expensed as a domestic violent offender than the husband or partner who is calm, collected and uses manipulation more than violence to abuse his spouse, or who is determined to have been provoked by a horrid wife. condolement for the victim only occurs apparently when she fits the stereotype of weak and blameless wife or partner. other factor may also be the victim's appearance, i.e. Would the more involving woman be deemed helpless and thus gain higher levels of condolement and ultimately intervention by the police.
Terminology and definitions can cause problems in other legal settings as well. In court, lawyers and judges may refer to the legally defined terms whilst victims, witnesses and even jurors may have an alternative insight of the issues in contention. If the abusive behaviour in question is not physical, any reference to 'domestic violence' may be confusing as violence may be interpreted to mean bodily injuries sustained. If no bodily injuries were suffered, obscuring may exist and wrong interpretations may lead to a distinct verdict had solution been obtained. Alternatively, if 'domestic abuse' is referred to by lawyers, when there is definite bodily injury to the victim, there may be obscuring as to what other actions are implied but not specified. obscuring may be exacerbated when the terms are used interchangeably and clarity is most undoubtedly required when women defend themselves to the degree that their abuser dies and they are expensed with murder and their defence is based on a history of abusive behaviour from their [now dead] partner. In such cases of 'Battered Wife Syndrome' there may also be ambiguity in relation to the qoute of terminology: syndrome implies a medical nature behind a legal definition often used in defences against murder charges.
The term 'domestic abuse' over 'domestic violence' may broaden the scope and it may effect in police officers interpreting the offence on a wider scale so together with incidents which have not become physically violent, but are nonetheless harmful to the victim. With some incidents of domestic violence positively having itsybitsy bodily violence but with the victim feeling continually threatened, isolated and fearful that it could become violent, or that she (or he) is being manipulated in such a way that disables them from leaving, domestic abuse may help the police understand that intervention in such circumstances is not only suitable but necessary. The Scottish Executive's terminology and definition makes such an interpretation: "...can comprise bodily abuse (assault and bodily attack)...sexual abuse (acts which degrade and humiliate...perpetrated against their will...mental and emotional abuse (such as threats, verbal abuse, withholding money and other types of controlling behaviour such as isolation from house or friends)". This gives a clear indication of the types of unacceptable and thus criminal behaviour which would constitute an offence manufacture police intervention justified. Of course, others may need assistance in comprehending new terminology and definitions: neighbours, teachers (many children peruse domestic incidents) and urgency room staff, as well as employers, etc. When domestic violence is denied as being the cause of stress or bodily injuries, what should or could habitancy do? When should they intervene and where would they go? Is it not easier for habitancy to naturally ignore the definite as this constitutes a personal qoute and one requiring intervention?
Whilst it may be up to community as a whole to deal with domestic violence in order to sacrifice its frequency, there are problems in attempting to alter attitudes and insight of a situation so inexpressive or determined private. This is clearly evidenced by the Scottish Executive's own explore into the response by the public to their campaigns against domestic 'abuse'. Respondents in 2005 and 2005/2006 showed itsybitsy change in attitudes and insight of domestic violence or domestic abuse. Whilst the explore does make a caveat - that funding and availability of channels on which to show advertisements on domestic abuse were significantly distinct between the 2005 campaign and 2005/06 campaign, with the former having less available channels, the figures to appear to indicate that the public on the whole did not alter their perception of domestic abuse.
One recipe of dealing with the varying acts which constitute domestic violence could be to create a definite offence of 'domestic abuse' in statute; this offence should give definitions and meanings which have been widely consulted upon. As offenders are often expensed with minor offences together with 'Breach of Peace' or 'Affray' and/or the more serious offences such as 'Assault Occasioning Actual bodily Harm' and 'Wounding', it may well be that a definite offence of domestic abuse (or violence - depending on which is determined the best) would determine some of the confusion. There is no doubt that causing severe alarm or distress and/or bodily injury to a partner is unacceptable, but there are many varying degrees of abusive behaviour that, to have such behaviour subjected to various laws - some antiquated - obscuring is a constant problem. If a definite offence were introduced, then the offence can be dealt with similar to other definite offences (e.g. Arson, rape, criminal damage, etc.). Current offences can be incorporated in a list of actions which are deemed to fall within the remit of such an offence. definite deterrent sentences can be identified, together with rehabilitative and/or cognitive therapy programmes, as well as custodial methods; safety orders - with powers of arrest attached - could automatically be included. The police recognised in 1998 that the lack of a definite (and national) definition of 'Domestic Violence' was problematic: 'The lack of a nationally agreed definition of domestic violence is a major obstacle...Agreeing a national definition is essential..." Whilst this was in relation to effective policy monitoring and to enable greater comparative analysis, it can be seen as indicative of problems widely experienced by officers. In 2000, it was noted that 'standardised definitions of domestic violence and repeat victimisation between forces and other agencies' were essential to ensure that domestic violence could be effectively policed. If the police, prosecution services and other agencies could refer to definite legislation or a definite offence, rather than rely on a plethora of offences with which to fee offenders, executive and other bureaucratic problems may be reduced significantly.
One of the few (indeed probably the only) laws to positively specifically mention domestic violence is the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act 2004. However, the offence of 'domestic violence' is not positively specified, nor defined; it is naturally an amendment and solution of what may occur to those who breach 'non-molestation orders' and provides a retell for those deaths which occurred within a domestic setting (referring to these as domestic homicides: s.9). This legislation relates to evidence and procedures and allows the introduction for cohabiting couples to be of the same sex - i.e. Extending existing legislation to cover those in homosexual relationships. Other legislation deals by implication with domestic violence and the problems of witnesses who retract statements due to fear or for other reasons: prosecution authorities in England and Wales can utilise the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (s.23) where submission of written statements in the absence of oral evidence is allowed. However, authorities seem reluctant to utilise such laws as they rarely continue with cases when witnesses fail to attend. Indeed, the retraction of statements has long been a qoute in many prosecutions of domestic violence and cited as the reasons for low conviction rates; however, given the wider problems faced by victims of domestic violence, it is unlikely to be the sole think and, even if it were, should not dissuade authorities from prosecuting. Definitively categorising an abusive relationship, providing a definite term and defining the behaviour referred to as criminal (to comprise psychological, emotional, bodily and financial behaviour) may assist in raising levels of conviction rates within this area of criminal behaviour.
Other reasons for low conviction rates may be juries' lack of insight given the multitude of charges brought. Charges can comprise base law assault, breach of peace, harassment or sexual assault, etc. These charges may mean juries only choose the one with which they have any insight (however misconceived). Indeed, in Scots law, 'assault' seems even more abstract than English law; in Scotland, strike is "committed when one man makes an strike upon other with the intention of effecting the immediate bodily injury of that other man or producing fear of immediate bodily injury in his mind." In English law, strike is committed by man when he "causes other man to apprehend the immediate application...of unlawful force" or "Technical Assault. This offence is committed when the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend imminent force". In the safety From Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001, there is an interpretation of 'abuse' which: "...includes violence, harassment, threatening conduct and any other conduct giving rise, or likely to give rise to, bodily or mental injury, fear, alarm or distress". All these interpretations and definitions are positively causing obscuring for those complicated in the whole process.
The other side of the argument, however, is that bad relationships may be deemed criminal if definitions are too broad. As mentioned, relationships have good times as well as bad and argumentative couples are not unusual. Indeed, it can be seen as a good and healthy connection when couples publish tension straight through arguments, even if they are derogatory. Being insulted can be hurtful but the intent behind such behaviour is not always criminal. Whilst legislation such as the safety From Abuse (Scotland) Act is for the safety of those who suffer (or are likely to suffer) systematic abusive behaviour, specifying that "...any other conduct giving rise, or likely to give rise to...alarm or distress" is criminal, it can effect in confusion. Further, operate finance is commonly seen as one person's compel in a relationship; for various reasons - not all of them malicious. Partners have on opening pushed each other, held each other (or restrained due to alcohol, drug use, for safety against the partner harming themselves due to emotional turmoil or medical conditions, e.g. Epilepsy).
It is not necessarily being recommend here that a husband who protects his wife from her own self-harming actions could or would be subjected to police intervention under current definitions, but obscuring may arise. Where there are isolated incidents of 'hurting' or 'insulting' behaviour, this is not to be deemed criminal, not to be determined domestic violence. However, in the litigious community we now seem to be in, civil actions could draw in criminal codes and partners who seek revenge for various reasons could instigate domestic violence procedures under any broadened definitions. Most would accept that arguments cause alarm and/or distress in any form, particularly in marriages or partnerships given the nature of relationships but not all 'bad patches' should be field to criminalisation.
Failed marriages whereby insults are thrown, withholding money because of legitimate concerns as to the extreme destination by respective partners (e.g. A wife or husband who closes a bank list because they naturally wish to avoid paying maintenance) may fall within the remit of domestic abuse because they are controlling money and refusing access. There is positively an element of spitefulness from one or both partners; this may comprise shouting and insulting each other. Whilst pragmatic approaches are positively improbable from all agencies, complaints may arise if conduct is whether ignored when it is in fact symptomatic of domestic abuse, or if over-zealous policing or prosecution interference results in operation being taken where none is required. This is particularly likely to occur if distinct jurisdictions positively have distinct interpretations or definitions which deal with domestic violence. If officers in rural communities prefer to deal with domestic violence in a quiet, 'dignified' manner to keep families together and to safe reputations in small villages, whilst officers in the City centres are enduringly arresting on the spot partners who are abusive, where is the consistency of policing domestic violence given that there are no national definitions and no definite offence of domestic violence.
Terminology can cause confusion, even discrimination, though it is doubtful there is any intention to do so. By broadening terms from domestic violence to domestic abuse, inclusion of acts by perpetrators which, if taken as a pattern of behaviour, show that domestic violence (physical or otherwise) is a qoute within a singular household. Domestic abuse may well be preferred terminology for some agencies, together with the police and prosecution authorities, but until we have a specific, definitive and statutory explanation of what domestic violence means (by providing clarity as to the acts which can constitute such an act or acts), prosecutions and conviction rates may remain low. Further, such legislation may enable the engagement of the public at large as awareness of a definite criminal offence can be more positively identifiable. A definitive statute/law shows not only that the Government will not tolerate domestic violence because it has specifically legislated against such behaviour, it will also assist the authorities and public to determine what is - and importantly - what is not, a criminal offence.
Domestic violence or abuse - whatever term is used - needs to be defined specifically to ensure that ambiguity is lost, that clarity is gained and that victims of this often inexpressive crime can point to a definite offence; it can be referred to by police officers when arresting a perpetrator, by prosecutors when bringing charges in court, and by judges when manufacture summations to juries before they determine their verdicts. Juries may then make conclusions based on the evidence in sass to a definite offence when choosing upon guilt.
Policing this offence may not be easier, and prosecutions will still falter but by creating a definite offence and defining which actions are to be included, ambiguity is reduced and increased awareness occurs. Semantics is not the issue here; the issue is the need for effective policy, insight by the public and the agencies complicated in its dealings with such a wide (but hidden) problem. Altering perceptions, changing attitudes and providing assistance for domestic violence will all take time, money and interagency co-operation; offender programmes and study for young habitancy to alter their views (given that many children peruse violence in the home and their behavioural patterns, and insight of violence as a problem-solving device) all need to be implemented. Otherwise we will continue to have a world full of inexpressive violence leading to distorted views as to what is suitable behaviour towards others - particularly in the house home.
