... and ain't I a woman?: The police and domestic violence
Workers in domestic violence services in NSW are appalled by a proposal for the police to fund and pilot a project that would respond to incidents of domestic violence by holding conferences with "repeat offenders" and "repeat victims".
A women's domestic violence court assistance scheme has responded by pointing out three major problems with the proposal.
First, the term "repeat victim" implies that women (who are by far the majority of victims) are responsible for violence and for ending it.
Secondly, the appropriate police response is to treat domestic violence as a crime, and to deal with the perpetrator in line with the laws relating to domestic violence.
Finally, they point out the nature of the offender-victim relationship, saying that, regardless of whether conferencing is proposed, women experiencing domestic violence are in powerless, dangerous situations.
The assumption of conferencing is that each person has their say in a democratic way. However, domestic violence is based on unequal power and control, and a victim cannot participate on an equal basis.
Women (and men) have worked very hard for decades for domestic violence to be taken seriously as a crime. For too long, it was seen (along with rape in marriage) as a husband's prerogative. Some (including South Australian Supreme Court Justice Derek Bollen) still believe that a man has the right to indulge in a bit of "rougher than usual handling" in order to force his "conjugal rights" on his wife.
Another factor is that dealing with domestic violence by conferencing has the convenient effect of lowering crime statistics.
The NSW police commissioner, Peter Ryan, is mindful of the government's agenda to reduce crime statistics. He said in the September 1998 issue of For the Record, the newsletter of the police service, "[Police] commanders have to stand in front of the executive and account for what their command is doing to drive down crime". This is certainly one way of achieving that aim, but the consequent endangering of women and their children which could result is not acceptable.
Women often do need counselling after experiencing domestic violence, but this is not a role for the police. The police role is to act on the criminal nature of the assault.
Many people have not had good experiences with the police, and therefore do not see them as the neighbourly and amiable just-round-the-corner kinds of guys. Many of these are the victims of a sexist and racist "justice" system.
Aboriginal people in particular have every reason to be wary of police intervention. Given the appalling rates of assaults and deaths of Aboriginal people in custody, police intervention by conferencing is extremely inappropriate.
While more training might be useful for police responding to domestic violence, the answer is not to keep increasing police numbers and powers. We need to ensure that women have the means to free themselves from this situation without extra hardship. This means changing the system of economic dependence that forces them to stay with a violent partner.
In the short term, more funding for women's services, including shelters, is essential, so that women can make a decision to leave if they want to. This funding has been cut by both Labor and Coalition governments, as have many other services for women.
Domestic violence is a part of capitalism, a symptom of a sick society in which relationships are distorted, and men who are powerless in almost every other situation may seek to claim the only power that they may have — over the dependents within their family.
At the very heart of it is the question of economic dependence. A decent standard of living for all, so that men and women can form relationships that are not based on economic imperatives, is a precondition to ending domestic violence.
By Margaret Allum