Domestic violence

Domestic violence

Domestic Violence (sometimes referred to as domestic abuse) occurs when a family member, partner or ex-partner attempts to physically or psychologically dominate another. Domestic violence often refers to violence between spouses,or spousal abuse but can also include cohabitants and non-married intimate partners. Domestic violence occurs in all cultures; people of all races, ethnicities, religions, and classes can be perpetrators of domestic violence. Domestic violence is perpetrated by, and on, both men and women, and occurs in same-sex and opposite-sex relationships.

Domestic violence has many forms, including physical violence, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, intimidation, economic deprivation or threats of violence. There are a number of dimensions including mode - physical, psychological, sexual and/or social; frequency - on/off, occasional, chronic; and severity – in terms of both psychological or physical harm and the need for treatment – transitory or permanent injury – mild, moderate, severe up to homicide.

Recent attention to domestic violence began in the women's movement in the 1970s, as concern about wives being beaten by their husbands gained attention. It has remained a major focus of modern feminism, particularly in terms of "violence against women". [1] Popular emphasis has tended to be on women as the victims of domestic violence although with the rise of the men's movement, and particularly men's rights, there is now some advocacy for men as victims, although the statistics concerning the number of male victims given by them are strongly contested by many groups active in research on or working in the field of domestic violence and "violence against men".

Awareness and documentation of domestic violence differs from country to country. Estimates are that only about a third of cases of domestic violence are actually reported in the US and UK. In other places with less attention and less support, reported cases would be still lower. According to the Centers for Disease Control, domestic violence is a serious, preventable public health problem affecting more than 32 million Americans, or more than 10% of the U.S. population (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000).


Definitions

The term "intimate partner violence" (IPV) is often used synonymously. Family violence is a broader definition, often used to include child abuse, elder abuse, and other violent acts between family members.[2] Wife abuse, wife beating, and battering are terms sometimes used, though with acknowledgment that many are not actually married to the abuser, but rather co-habiting or other arrangements.[3] In more recent years, 'battering' or 'battered wife' has become less acceptable terminology, since abuse can take other forms than physical abuse. Other forms of abuse may be constantly occurring, while physical abuse happens occasionally. These other forms of abuse have potential to lead to mental illness, self-harm, and even attempts at suicide.[4][5]

The U.S. Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) defines domestic violence as a "pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner."[6] Domestic violence can take many forms, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional, economic, or and/or psychological abuse.[6]

The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service in the United Kingdom in its "Domestic Violence Policy" uses domestic violence to refer to a range of violent and abusive behaviours, defining it as:

Patterns of behaviour characterised by the misuse of power and control by one
person over another who are or have been in an intimate relationship. It can
occur in mixed gender relationships and same gender relationships and has
profound consequences for the lives of children, individuals, families and
communities. It may be physical, sexual, emotional and/or psychological. The
latter may include intimidation, harassment, damage to property, threats and
financial abuse.[7]

Types

Domestic violence can take the form of physical violence, including direct physical violence ranging from unwanted physical contact to rape and murder. Indirect physical violence may include destruction of objects, striking or throwing objects near the victim, or harm to pets. In addition to physical violence, spousal abuse often includes mental or emotional abuse, including verbal threats of physical violence to the victim, the self, or others including children, ranging from explicit, detailed and impending to implicit and vague as to both content and time frame, and verbal violence, including threats, insults, put-downs, and attacks. Nonverbal threats may include gestures, facial expressions, and body postures. Psychological abuse may also involve economic and/or social control, such as controlling victim's money and other economic resources, preventing victim from seeing friends and relatives, actively sabotaging victim's social relationships and isolating victim from social contacts. Spiritual abuse is another form of abuse that may occur.

The form and characteristics of domestic violence and abuse may vary in other ways. Michael P. Johnson (1995, 2006b) argues for three major types of intimate partner violence. The typology is supported by subsequent research and evaluation by Johnson and his colleagues,[8] as well as independent researchers.[9] Types identified by Johnson include:

• Intimate terrorism (or "patriarchal terrorism") where one partner uses violence along with emotional and psychological abuse to maintain control over the other. In heterosexual relationships, the perpetrator is most often the male partner. It is more likely than other types to be frequent and to escalate in seriousness. Intimate terrorism is much less common than situational couple violence, but probably dominates samples collected from agencies (police, courts, hospitals).
  

• Violent resistance is violence used in resistance to an intimate terrorist. Sometimes it is self-defensive, sometimes more like payback, sometimes the act of an entrapped victim who sees no other way to escape a violently abusive relationship.
  

• Situational couple violence arises out of conflicts that escalate to arguments and then to violence. It is not connected to a general pattern of control. Although it occurs less frequently in relationships and is less serious than intimate terrorism, in some cases it can be frequent and/or quite serious, even life-threatening. This is probably the most common type of intimate partner violence and dominates general surveys, student samples, and even marriage counseling samples.

The fourth type identified by Johnson is infrequent and some scholars question its existence:

• Mutual violent control is when both partners are violent and controlling and they possibly battle for control in the relationship. As with intimate terrorism, violence is one form of control used by each abuser.

Physical violence

Physical violence is the intentional use of physical force with the potential for causing injury, harm, disability, or death, for example, hitting, shoving, biting, restraint, kicking, or use of a weapon.


Profile of an abuser

Psychologists have studied certain personality characteristics of individuals who batter their partner. These include:

• Blames others for problems/feelings
  
• Closed-mindedness
  
• Cruelty to animals and/or children
  
• Hypersensitivity
  
• Isolation of victim
  
• Jealousy
  
• Manipulation through guilt
  
• Minimization of violence
  
• Objectification of men and women
  
• "Playful" use of force during sex
  
• Quick Involvement
  
• Rigid sex roles
  
• Threats of violence
  
• Tight control of finances
  
• Unrealistic expectations
  
• Verbal abuse

Sexual violence and incest

Sexual violence and incest are divided into three categories:

1. use of physical force to compel a person to engage in a sexual act against their will, whether or not the act is completed;
   
2. attempted or completed sex act involving a person who is unable to understand the nature or condition of the act, unable to decline participation, or unable to communicate unwillingness to engage in the sexual act, e.g., because of underage immaturity, illness, disability, or the influence of alcohol or other drugs, because of intimidation or pressure, or because of seduction and submission (as in female forms of sexual aggression); and
   
3. abusive sexual contact.

Psychological abuse

Psychological/emotional abuse can include, humiliating the victim, controlling what the victim can and cannot do, withholding information from the victim, deliberately doing something to make the victim feel diminished or embarrassed, isolating the victim from friends and family, and denying the victim access to money or other basic resources.


Economic abuse

Economic abuse is when the abuser has complete control over the victim's money and other economic resources. Usually, this involves putting the victim on a strict 'allowance', withholding money at will and forcing the victim to beg for the money until the abuser gives them some money. It is common for the victim to receive less money as the abuse continues. This also includes (but is not limited to) preventing the victim from finishing education or obtaining employment.


Stalking

In addition, stalking is often included among the types of Intimate Partner Violence. Stalking generally refers to repeated behaviour that causes victims to feel a high level of fear (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). However, psychiatrist William Glasser states that fear and all other emotions are self-caused as evidenced by the wide range of emotions two different subjects might have in response to the same incident.


Spiritual abuse

Spiritual abuse includes:

1. using the spouse’s or intimate partner’s religious or spiritual beliefs to manipulate them
   
2. preventing the partner from practicing their religious or spiritual beliefs
   
3. ridiculing the other person’s religious or spiritual beliefs

Victimization

Statistics

Domestic violence occurs across the world, in various cultures,[10] and affects people across society, irrespective of economic status.[3] In the United States, women are six times as likely as men to experience intimate partner violence.[11] Percent of women surveyed (national surveys) who were ever physically assaulted by an intimate partner: Barbados (30%), Canada (29%), Egypt (34%), New Zealand (35%), Switzerland (21%), United States (22%).[12] Some surveys in specific places report figures as high as 50-70% of women surveyed who were ever physically assaulted by an intimate partner.[12] Others, including surveys in the Philippines and Paraguay, report figures as low as 10%.[12] The rate of intimate partner violence in the U.S. has declined since 1993.[13] Almost always, surveys will undercount actual numbers. Results will also vary, depending on specific wording of survey questions, how the survey is conducted, the definition of abuse or domestic violence used, and other factors.


Violence against women

In the United States, 20 percent of all violent crime experienced by women are cases of intimate partner violence, compared to 3 percent of violent crime experienced by men.[14]


During pregnancy

Domestic violence during pregnancy is relatively common, and can be missed by medical professionals because it often presents in non-specific ways. A number of countries have been statistically analyzed to calculate the prevalence of this phenomenon:

• UK prevalence: 2.5-3.4%[15][16]
  
• USA prevalence: 3.2-33.7%[17][18]
  
• Ireland prevalence: 12.5%[19]
  
• Rates are higher in teenagers[20]
  
• Severity and frequency increase postpartum (10% antenatally vs. 19% postnatally[21]; 21% at 3 months post partum[22]

There are a number of presentations that can be related to domestic violence during pregnancy: delay in seeking care for injuries; late booking, non-attenders at appointments, self-discharge; frequent attendance, vague problems; aggressive or over-solicitous partner; burns, pain, tenderness, injuries; vaginal tears, bleeding, STDs; miscarriage

Domestic violence can also affect the fetus, the subsequent baby, and existing children:

• Pre-birth: prematurity, Premature rupture of membranes, IUD
  
• Psychosocial: interference in relationship, witnessing of violence, eating and sleeping disorders, emotional neediness, withdrawn, over-compliant, clingy, aggressive, problems at school, suicidal ideation
  
• Legal: child protection issues, overlap with child abuse
  
• Long-term chronic ill-health

Violence against men

Violence against men is the term known for violence that is committed against men by the man's intimate partner. The means used to measure domestic violence strongly influence the results found. For example, studies of reported domestic violence and extrapolations of those studies show women preponderantly as victims and men to be more violent, whereas the survey based Conflict Tactics Scale, tends to show men and women equally violent.[23]

Very little is known about the actual number of men who are in a domestic relationship in which they are abused or treated violently by their male or female partners. Few incidents are reported to police, and data is limited. [24] Dr. Richard J. Gelles contends that while "men's rights groups and some scholars" believe that "battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention" and that "there are as many male victims of violence as female", he states that such beliefs are "a significant distortion of well-grounded research data." [25] In addition, researchers Tjaden and Thoennes found that "men living with male intimate partners experience more intimate partner violence than do men who live with female intimate partners.

Approximately 23 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.4 percent of the men who had married or lived with a woman as a couple reported such violence by a wife or female cohabitant." [26]

The available data indicates that:

• 3.2 million men and nearly 5.3 million women experience mostly "minor" incidents of abuse (such as "pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting") per year.[24]
  
• In the United States, approximately 800,000 men per year (3.2%) are raped or physically assaulted by their partner.[24]
  
• At least 371,000 men are stalked annually.[24]
  3% of nonfatal violence against men stems from domestic violence.[24]
  
• In 2002, men comprised 24% of domestic violence homicide victims.[24]
  
• Over 20 years, the instances of homicide from domestic violence against men decreased by approximately 67%.[24]
  
• Approximately 22% of men have experienced physical, sexual, or psychological intimate partner violence during their life.[24]

There are many reasons why there isn't more information about domestic abuse and violence against men. A major reason is the reluctance of men to report incidents to the police, unless there are substantial injuries.

Violence against children

When it comes to domestic violence towards children involving physical abuse, research in the UK by the NSPCC indicated that "most violence occurred at home (78 per cent) 40- 60% of men and women who abuse other men or women also abuse their children.[27] Girls whose fathers batter their mothers are 6.5 times more likely to be sexually abused by their fathers than are girls from non-violent homes.[28]

Causes

There are many different theories as to the causes of domestic violence. These include psychological theories that consider personality traits and mental characteristics of the offender, as well as social theories which consider external factors in the offender's environment, such as family structure, stress, social learning. As with many phenomena regarding human experience, no single approach appears to cover all cases.

In some relationships, violence arises out of a perceived need for power and control, a form of bullying and social learning of abuse. Abusers' efforts to dominate their partners have been attributed to low self-esteem or feelings of inadequacy, unresolved childhood conflicts, the stress of poverty, hostility and resentment toward women (misogyny), hostility and resentment toward men (misandry), personality disorders, genetic tendencies and sociocultural influences, among other possible causative factors. Most authorities seem to agree that abusive personalities result from a combination of several factors, to varying degrees. Adam Dukes argues that all [domestic] abuse relates to men’s capacity for, and their need to, devalue women and view them in negative ways.[29]

Other factors associated with domestic violence include heavy alcohol consumption,[30] mental illness, classism, various political and legal characteristics such as authoritarianism and dehumanisation.

Research has shown that alcohol-related violence is related to higher levels of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testosterone (and therefore could theoretically benefit from treatment with anti-androgenic agents). On the other hand, non-alcohol related domestic violence is related to significantly reduced levels of spinal 5-HIAA - a serotonin metabolite,[31] suggesting that non-alcohol related domestic violence may benefit from treatment with medications like selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs)[32]

Classism

Lundy Bancroft and Dr. Susan Weitzman, psychotherapist and author of "Not to People Like Us: Hidden Abuse in Upscale Marriages," contend that abuse in poor families is more likely to be reported to ER staff, police and social services by victims and bystanders.

Power and control

A causalist view of domestic violence is that it is a strategy to gain or maintain power and control over the victim. This view is in alignment with Bancroft's "cost-benefit" theory that abuse rewards the perpetrator in ways other than, or in addition to, simply exercising power over his or her target(s). He cites evidence in support of his argument that, in most cases, abusers are quite capable of exercising control over themselves, but choose not to do so for various reasons.

An alternative view is that abuse arises from powerlessness and externalizing/projecting this and attempting to exercise control of the victim. It is an attempt to 'gain or maintain power and control over the victim' but even in achieving this it cannot resolve the powerlessness driving it. Such behaviours have addictive aspects leading to a cycle of abuse or violence. Mutual cycles develop when each party attempts to resolve their own powerlessness in attempting to assert control.

Questions of power and control are integral to the widely accepted Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. They developed "Power and Control Wheel" to illustrate this: it has power and control at the center, surrounded by spokes (techniques used), the titles of which include:

• Coercion and threats
  
• Intimidation
  
• Emotional abuse
  
• Isolation
  
• Minimizing, denying and blaming
  
• Using children
  
• Economic abuse
  
• Male privilege

The model attempts to address abuse by one-sidedly challenging the misuse of power by the 'perpetrator'.

Critics of this model suggest that the one-sided focus is problematic as resolution can only be achieved when all participants acknowledge their responsibilities, and identify and respect mutual purpose.[33]

The power wheel model is not intended to assign personal responsibility, enhance respect for mutual purpose or assist victims and perpetrators in resolving their differences. It is an informational tool designed to help individuals understand the dynamics of power operating in abusive situations and identify various methods of abuse.

Social stress

Stress may be increased when a person is living in a family situation, with increased pressures. Social stresses, due to inadequate finances or other such problems in a family may further increase tensions. Violence is not always caused by stress, but may be one way that some (but not all) people respond to stress.[34][35]

Dependency

Women are most dependent on the spouse for economic well being. Having children to take care of, should she leave the marriage, increases the financial burden and makes it all the more difficult for women to leave. Dependency means that women have fewer options and few resources to help them cope with or change their spouse's behavior.[36]

Sex and gender

Modes of abuse are thought by some to be gendered, females tending to use more psychological and men more physical forms. The visibility of these differs markedly.

However, experts who work with victims of domestic violence have noted that physical abuse is almost invariably preceded by psychological abuse. Police and hospital admission records indicate that a higher percentage of females than males seek treatment and report such crimes.

Unless or until more men identify themselves and go on record as having been abused by female partners, and in a manner whereby the nature and extent of their injuries can be clinically assessed, men will continue to be identified as the most frequent perpetrators of physical and emotional violence.

See also the section "Gender Differences" in this article, and some of the statistics in the subsection "U.S." in the "Statistics" section.

The cycle of violence

Frequently, domestic violence is used to describe specific violent and overtly abusive incidents, and legal definitions will tend to take this perspective. However, when violent and abusive behaviours happen within a relationship, the effects of those behaviours continue after these overt incidents are over. Advocates and counsellors will refer to domestic violence as a pattern of behaviours, including those listed above.

Lenore Walker presented the model of a Cycle of Violence which consists of three basic phases:

Honeymoon Phase

Characterized by affection, apology, and apparent end of violence. During this
stage the batterer feels overwhelming feelings of remorse and sadness. Some
batterers walk away from the situtation, while others shower their victims with
love and affection.

Tension Building Phase

Characterized by poor communication, tension, fear of causing outbursts. During
this stage the victims try to calm the batterer down, to avoid any major violent
confrontations.

Acting-out Phase

Characterized by outbursts of violent, abusive incidents. During this stage the
batterer attempts to dominate his/her partner(victim), with the use of domestic
violence.

Although it is easy to see the outbursts of the Acting-out Phase as abuse, even the more pleasant behaviours of the Honeymoon Phase serve to perpetuate the abuse. See also the cycle of abuse article.

Many domestic violence advocates believe that the cycle of violence is somewhat outdated and that it does not reflect the realities of many men and women experiencing domestic violence.


Gender differences

The role of gender is a controversial topic related to the discussion of domestic violence.
Erin Pizzey, the founder of an early women's shelter in Chiswick, London, has expressed her dismay at how she believes the issue has become a gender-political football, and expressed an unpopular view in her book Prone to Violence that some women in the refuge system had a predisposition to seek abusive relationships. She also expressed the view that domestic violence can occur against any vulnerable intimates, regardless of their gender.

A Freudian concept, repetition compulsion, has also come up in modern psychology as a possible cause of a woman who was abused in childhood seeking an abusive man (or vice versa), theoretically as a misguided way to "master" their traumatic experience.[37]


Gender aspects of abuse

There continues to be discussion about whether men are more abusive than women, whether men's abuse of women is worse than women's abuse of men, and whether abused men should be provided the same resources and shelters that years of advocacy, money-rasing, and funding has gained for women victims[38] sekä Carney (2007)[39].

Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach, provides an analysis of 195 scholarly investigations: 152 empirical studies and 43 analyses, which he believes demonstrate women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men. Fiebert also argues that women are more likely to be injured, but not a lot more.[40] Also Dutton, and Nicholls (2005)[38] state that Results show that the gender disparity in injuries from domestic violence is less than originally portrayed by feminist theory. Studies are also reviewed indicating high levels of unilateral intimate violence by females to both males and females. Males appear to report their own victimization less than females do and to not view female violence against them as a crime. Hence, they differentially under-report being victimized by partners on crime victim surveys. It is concluded that feminist theory is contradicted by these findings and that the call for bqualitativeQ studies by feminists is really a means of avoiding this conclusion. Archer's (2000, 2002) meta-analysis of 82 couple-conflict studies found that women were more likely to use physical aggression than men, and to resort to violence more often than men[41][42][43][44][45].In the most serious violence the men do dominate for example in 1999 in the US, 1,218 women and 424 men were killed by an intimate partner, regardless of which partner started the violence and of the gender of the partner.[46]

On the other hand, Michael Kimmel of the State University of New York at Stony Brook found that men are more violent inside and outside of the home than women.[47] Theories that women are as violent as men have been dubbed "Gender Symmetry" theories.

A problem in conducting studies that seek to describe violence in terms of gender is the amount of silence, fear and shame that results from abuse within families and relationships. Another is that abusive patterns can tend to seem normal to those who have lived in them for a length of time. Similarly, subtle forms of abuse can be quite transparent even as they set the stage for further abuse seeming normal. Finally, inconsistent definition of what domestic violence is makes definite conclusions difficult to reach when compiling the available studies.[48]

Both men and women have been arrested and convicted of assaulting their partners in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. The bulk of these arrests have been men being arrested for assaulting women. Determining how many instances of domestic violence actually involve male victims is difficult. Male domestic violence victims may be reluctant to get help for a number of reasons.[48]

The belief that men are less likely to report domestic violence to the police than women may be a common myth, as 75% of all incidents still go unreported in the UK.[49]
Another study has demonstrated a high degree of acceptance by women of aggression against men. Unfortunately, the researcher does not provide a sample of the test questions used to gather this evidence.[50] (POV-check)

(although I have argued elsewhere (Bell 1999) that practitioners should also
avoid assumptions about homogeneity of motive among male perpetrators). Male
victims are likely to face some verbal abuse and occasional, isolated incidents
of physical aggression but are rarely exposed to a fear-inducing regime
involving sustained emotional and physical abuse. After research into aggression
in 393 married couples, O’Leary and colleagues (1994) concluded that violence in
(heterosexual) marriage does not arise from the same causes for women as for
men.[51]

Murders of female intimate partners by men have dropped, but not nearly as dramatically.[52]

Men kill their female intimate partners at about four times the rate that women kill their male intimate partners. Research by Jacquelyn Campbell, PhD RN FAAN has found that at least two thirds of women killed by their intimate partners were battered by those men prior to the murder. She also found that when males are killed by female intimates, the women in those relationships had been abused by their male partner about 75% of the time (see battered person syndrome and battered woman defence).

Some researchers have found a relationship between the availability of domestic violence services, improved laws and enforcement regarding domestic violence and increased access to divorce, and higher earnings for women with declines in intimate partner homicide.[53]

Gender roles and expectations can and do play a role in abusive situations, and exploring these roles and expectations can be helpful in addressing abusive situations, as do factors like race, class, religion, sexuality and philosophy. None of these factors cause one to abuse or another to be abused.


Domestic violence in same-sex relationships

Domestic violence also occurs in same-sex relationships. In an effort to be more inclusive, many organizations have made an effort to use gender-neutral terms when referring to perpetratorship and victimhood.

Historically domestic violence has been seen as a family issue and little interest has been directed at violence in same-sex relationships. It has not been until recently, as the gay rights movement has brought the issues of gay and lesbian people into public attention, when research has been started to conduct on same-sex relationships. Several studies have indicated that partner abuse among same-sex couples (both female and male) is relatively similar in both prevalence and dynamics to that among opposite-sex couples.[54] Gays and lesbians, however, face special obstacles in dealing with the issues that some researchers have labeled "the double closet". A recent Canadian study by Mark W. Lehman [2] suggests similarities include frequency (approximately one in every four couples); manifestations (emotional, physical, financial, etc.); co-existent situations (unemployment, substance abuse, low self-esteem); victims' reactions (fear, feelings of helplessness, hypervigilance); and reasons for staying (love, can work it out, things will change, denial). At the same time, significant differences, unique issues and deceptive myths are typically present. Gays and lesbians can face discrimination and fear, dismissal by police and social services, and/or find a lack of support from their peers who would rather keep quiet about the problem in order not to attract negative attention toward the gay community. HIV status or AIDS can also play a role in keeping partners together, due to health care insurance/access, or guilt; outing can be used as a weapon; and supportive services are typically for the needs of heterosexual women and do not always meet the needs of other groups.

Response to domestic violence

The response to domestic violence is typically a combined effort between law enforcement agencies, the courts, social service agencies and corrections/probation agencies. The role of each has evolved as domestic violence has been brought more into public view.

Domestic violence historically has been viewed as a private family matter that need not involve government or criminal justice intervention.[55] Police officers were often reluctant to intervene by making an arrest, and often chose instead to simply counsel the couple and/or ask one of the parties to leave the residence for a period of time. The courts were reluctant to impose any significant sanctions on those convicted of domestic violence, largely because it was viewed as a misdemeanor offense.

Activism, initiated by victim advocacy groups and feminist groups, has led to a better understanding of the scope and effect of domestic violence on victims and families, and has brought about changes in the criminal justice system's response.

Trainer and municipal court judge Richard Russell quoted in New Jersey Law Journal. April 24, 1995: "when you say to me, am I doing something wrong telling these judges they have to ignore the constitutional protections most people have, I don't think so. The Legislature described the problem and how to address it, [and] I am doing my job properly by teaching other judges to follow the legislative mandate.....Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, 'See ya' around.' " Moreover, Russell says there is nothing wrong with the teaching approach. Abuse victims, he says, may apply and relinquish TROs repeatedly before they finally do something about breaking away. Once they do so, he says, the Legislature's prevention goal has been met. New Jersey Law Journal April 24, 1995

Several projects have aided in filling the voids in the justice system as it pertains to the protection of victims. One such initiative, The Hope Card Project, makes an attempt to remedy several problems through the issuance of an ID card to victims of abuse. The card is used to identify both parties in a domestic violence protection order and provides additional resources to the victim through a voucher program for services. "There is no photograph on a protection order, so a photograph is a bonus, not a necessity. There are several methods used to obtain the photograph. Some jurisdictions have a photograph taken of the offender during the first hearing while both parties are present. Another method is for officers to take a photograph in the field or retrieve a booking photograph from their local jail. In a lot of cases the victim brings a photograph and it is scanned. Lastly, the new online site has some state motor vehicle department photograph databases connected for that purpose. This is the ideal method." The Hope Card Project


Medical response

Many cases of spousal abuse are handled solely by medical professionals and do not involved the police. Sometimes cases of spousal abuse are brought into the emergency room,[56] while many other cases are handled by family physician or other primary care provider.[57] There has been some reluctance on part of physicians to discuss the issue and ask patients about possible battering.[58] As well, there is substantial reluctance for victims to come forward and broach the issue with their physicians. On average, women experience 35 incidents of domestic violence before seeking treatment.[59]


Treatment and support

Publicly available resources for dealing with domestic violence have tended to be almost exclusively geared towards supporting women and children who are in relationships with or who are leaving violent men, rather than for survivors of domestic violence per se. This has been due to the purported numeric preponderance of female victims and the perception that domestic violence only affected women. Resources to help men who have been using violence take responsibility for and stop their use of violence, such as Men's Behaviour Change Programs or anger management training, are available, though attendees are ordered to pay for their own course in order that they should remain accountable for their actions.

Men's organizations, such as ManKind in the UK, often see this approach as one-sided; as Report 191 by the British Home Office shows that men and women are equally culpable, they believe that there should be anger management courses for women also. They accuse organisations such as Women's Aid of bias in this respect saying that they spend millions of pounds on helping female victims of domestic violence and yet nothing on female perpetrators.

These same men's organisations claim that before such help is given to female perpetrators, Women's Aid would have to admit that women are violent in the home. This they seem reluctant to do.

One of the challenges for lay observers, victims, perpetrators and treatment providers is demonstrated by the tendency to describe perpetrator treatment as men's "anger management" groups.

Comprehensive and accountable behaviour change programs are seen as far more appropriate and effective interventions in male violence in the home than anger management groups.

Inherent in anger management only approaches is the assumption that the violence is a result of a loss of control over one's anger. While there is little doubt that some domestic violence is about the loss of control, the choice of the target of that violence may be of greater significance. Anger management might be appropriate for the individual who lashes out indiscriminately when angry towards co-workers, supervisors or family. In most cases, however, the domestic violence perpetrator lashes out only at their intimate partner or relatively defenseless child, which suggests an element of choice or selection that, in turn, suggests a different or additional motivation beyond simple anger. Most experienced treatment providers have probably observed that for various reasons, many of which may be cultural, the perpetrator has a sense of entitlement, sometimes conscious, sometimes not, that leads directly to their choice of target.

Men's behaviour change programs, although differing throughout the world, tend to focus on the prevention of further violence within the family and the safety of women and children. Often they abide by various standards of practise that includes 'partner contact' where the participants female partner is contacted by the program and informed about the course, checked about her level of safety and support and offered support services for herself if she requires them. Many of these programs have both a male and female facilitator and follow a program designed to highlight the impact of his behaviour, examine the attitudes, values and behaviours that lead to his choice to use violence and aim to support and challenge the man to take responsibility for his use of violence.


Medical Treatment for Offenders

A number of medications have been used for control of aggression. Good evidence exists on the efficacy of clozapine. Evidence also exists for SSRIs ( selective serotonin re-uptake ihibitors), like "Prozac", hormonal antiandrogenic agents, beta-blockers, quetiapine and ariipiprazole. Lithium and anticonvulsants are widely used but their efficacy is not strongly supported. [60]


Law enforcement

The London Metropolitan Police has compiled a list of the crimes [3] which typically can occur when domestic violence occurs. They are:

• Murder/attempted murder/murder in English law
  
• Manslaughter/manslaughter in English law
  
• Rape
  
• Indecent assault
  
• Grievous bodily harm/wounding
  
• Actual bodily harm
  
• Common assault
  
• Threats to kill
  
• Affray
  
• Threatening behaviour
  
• Harassment
  
• Blackmail
  
• False imprisonment
  
• Kidnapping
  
• Criminal damage
  
• Malicious communications
  
• Witness intimidation
  
• Obstruction of justice
  
• Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

Public opinion and perception

A survey [6] in July and August 2006 of 2500 adults, males and females, 18 years of age or older, in the continental United States produced finding as per below. This survey was conducted by Opinion Research Corporation and Ruder Finn and funded by Redbook Magazine and Liz Claiborne

"When asked to define what actions comprise domestic violence and abuse, 2 in 5
Americans (40%) did not even mention hitting, slapping and punching. Over 90% of
Americans failed to define repeated emotional, verbal, sexual abuse and
controlling behaviors as patterns of domestic violence and abuse. The survey
concluded: "When they can identify domestic abuse, Americans will act". [61]

Domestic violence in popular culture

The news media finds it difficult to maintain neutrality in reporting or editorialising on violence.

Indeed, since many are "for profit" organizations, the selection of material to report and the prominence accorded to the coverage frames the readership's response and is intended to increase sales or advertising revenues rather than perform an altruistic social education function (see Scheufele: 1999 and 2000). The central organizing idea or narrative of story lines provides meaning to the events described and clusters ideas that guide the individuals as they process the information. Murnen (2002) points to the patriarchal structure of the management of commercial publishing, both fiction and non-fiction, television and cinema production, and the music, games, and advertising industries, all of which are reinforced by the continuing male dominance of political, economic, and legal resources. Men control the content and masculine ideology infuses the communication process, pandering to the relevant market niches and their prejudices to maximise sales revenues. Thus, themes of violent behavior are often portrayed in an uncritical style which reinforces stereotypes and may appear to condone the use of violence in certain specific situations. Sexual relationships are characteristically depicted in terms of the power disparities arising from physical strength: disparities that contribute to women's vulnerability to male authority (Dixon-Mueller: 1993). Social scientists now argue that aggression in the real world is socially learned behavior and results from cultural influences. For example, Reiss (1986) found that in rape-prone societies there was more endorsement of a "macho personality" (e.g. acceptance of physical aggression and of high risk-taking, casual attitudes toward sex) and more agreement with belief in the inferiority of females.

Gerbner and Gross (1976) hypothesize that heavy viewers of media will begin to perceive the world as reflective of the worlds they view on television and in the media. Cultivation theory (see Gerbner et al: 1973) examines "the continual, dynamic, ongoing process of interaction among messages and contexts" and identifies the most recurrent, stable, and overarching patterns in media content. In repetitively viewing these recurrent patterns and images, the reader/viewer begins to accept the images as reality. Thus, media coverage frames the debate about the social acceptability of domestic violence in general and of the behavior of some individuals in particular, and may directly influence the real-world behavior in "ordinary" relationships.


See also

Abuse

Annulment

Child abuse

Dating violence

Divorce

Emotional abuse

Misandry

Misogyny

Parental alienation

Relational aggression

Violence against women

Violence against men

Islam and domestic violence

External links

Family Violence in America: The Truth about Domestic Violence and Child Abuse, 2006.

DVstats.com -- Search engine of academic research on domestic violence against males

Fiebert, Martin S. in an annotated bibliography of 174 scholarly studies that found significant incidence of female-on-male domestic violenceDepartment of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach]

Links to selected works on Domestic Violence - Dr. Michael P. Johnson, Penn State

Violence by Intimates report - U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics

Schafly, P. (2006). Laughing at Restraining Orders

Young, C. (2005) Domestic Violence: An In-Depth Analysis. Independent Women’s Forum

U.S. Violence against women: Home Page

World Health Organisation Multi-country Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence against Women 2005

Stop Violence Against Women, Amnesty International



Organizations:

Center Against Domestic Violence

Services for Domestic Violence Victims and Their Families

Research on Domestic Violence Against Males

Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR)

National Network to End Domestic Violence

National Coalition to End Domestic Violence

Family Violence Prevention Fund

University of Minnesota Center Against Violence And Abuse

DeafHope - Deaf Survivors of Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault

National Domestic Violence Hotline (US)

Resources on Children Exposed to Domestic Violence

Domestic Violence laws and expungement

Gay Men's Domestic Violence Project

Jennifer Ann's Group, Jennifer Ann's Group (focus on violence specifically in teenage relationships)

Website with further information about Domestic Violence Against Men

Men as Victims Website about Male Victims of Domestic Abuse

The Marjaree Mason Center Shelter-based Domestic Violence Program

WomensLaw.org US based legal resources for survivors

A list of organizations for women whose lives have been affected by abuse



Articles and information:

Helpguide: Domestic Violence and Abuse

No Safe Haven, a special report on domestic violence by Mother Jones magazine

Domestic violence online articles

Assault

Assault

Assault is a crime of violence against another person. In some jurisdictions, including Australia and New Zealand assault refer to an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, while in other jurisdictions, such as the United States, assault refers only to the threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force. Simple assaults that do not involve any aggravation such as use of a deadly weapon are distinguished from aggravated assaults in some jurisdictions.

Assault is often defined to include not only violence, but any physical contact with another person without their consent. In common law jurisdictions, including England and Wales and the USA, battery is the crime that represents the unlawful physical contact, though this distinction does not exist in all jurisdictions. Exceptions exist to cover unsolicited physical contact which amount to normal social behavior (for example, patting someone on the back): see (in England and Wales) Collins v. Wilcox [1984] 3 All ER 374.

In most jurisdictions, the intention to cause grievous bodily harm (or its equivalent) may amount to the mental requirement to prefer a charge of murder in circumstances where the harm inflicted upon the victim proves fatal. In England and Wales, this fact was criticised by Lord Edmund-Davies in Cunningham [1982] AC 566.


Assault in the United States

American common law has traditionally defined assault as an attempt to commit a battery.

Assault is typically treated as a misdemeanor and not as a felony (unless it involves a law enforcement officer). The more serious crime of aggravated assault is treated as a felony.

Four elements were required at common law:

1. The apparent, present ability to carry out;
   
2. An unlawful attempt;
   
3. To commit a violent injury;
   
4. Upon another.

Simple assault can be distinguished without the intent of injury upon another person. Simple assault can consist simply of the violation of ones personal space or touching in a way the victim deemed inappropriate. (i.e. ones personal space consists of arms reach.)

As the criminal law evolved, element one was weakened in most jurisdictions so that a reasonable fear of bodily injury would suffice. These four elements were eventually codified in most states.

Modern American statutes define assault as:

1. an attempt to cause or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to another; or,
   
2. negligently causing bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon.

Some states also define assault as an attempt to menace (or actual menacing) by placing another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
States vary whether it is possible to commit an "attempted assault" since it can be considered a double inchoate offense.

In some states, consent is a complete defense to assault. In other jurisdictions, mutual consent is an incomplete defense, with the result that the misdemeanor is treated as a petty misdemeanor.

Furthermore, the crime of assault generally requires that both the perpetrator and the victim of an assault are human. Thus, there is no assault if an ox gores a man. However, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 treats the fetus as a separate person for the purposes of assault and other violent crimes, under certain limited circumstances. See H.R. 1997 / P.L. 108-212

Some possible examples of defenses, mitigating circumstances, or failures of proof are:

• A defendant could argue that since he was drunk, he could not form the specific intent to commit assault. This defense would most likely fail since only involuntary intoxication is accepted as a defense in most American jurisdictions.
  
• A defendant could also argue that he was engaged in mutually consensual behavior.

Aggravated assault

Aggravated assault is, in some jurisdictions, a stronger form of assault, usually using a deadly weapon. A person has committed an aggravated assault when that person:

• attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another person; or
  

• causes such injury purposely, knowingly, or recklessly in circumstances where the person

• has exhibited indifference to human life; or
  

• attempts or causes bodily injury to another person with a deadly weapon.

Aggravated assault is usually differentiated from simple assault by the offender's intent (i.e., to murder, to rape etc.), the extent of the injury to the victim, or the use of a deadly weapon, although legal definitions vary between jurisdictions. Sentences for aggravated assault are generally more severe, reflecting the greater degree of harm or malice intended by the perpetrator.


General defenses to assaults

Although the range and precise application of defenses varies between jurisdictions, the following represents a list of the defenses that may apply to all levels of assault:


Consent

Consent may be a complete or partial defense to assault. In some jurisdictions, most notably England, it is not a defense where the degree of injury is severe, as long as there is no legally recognised good reason for the assault.[1]. This can have important consequences when dealing with issues such as consensual sadomasochistic sexual activity, the most notable case being the Operation Spanner case. Legally recognised good reasons for consent include; surgery, activities within the rules of a game (Burnes), bodily adornment (R v Wilson), or horseplay (Jones and others). However, any activity outside the rules of the game is not legally recognised as a defence of consent.


Arrest and other official acts

Police officers and court officials have a general power to use force for the purpose of effecting an arrest or generally carrying out their official duties. Thus, a court officer taking possession of goods under a court order may use force if reasonably necessary. However in Scottish Law, consent is not a defense for assault.


Punishment

In some jurisdictions, caning and other forms of corporal punishment are a part of the culture. Evidently, if it is a state-administered punishment, e.g. as in Singapore, the officers who physically administer the punishment have immunity. Some states also permit the use of less severe punishment for children in school and at home by parents. In English law, s58 Children Act 2004, limits the availability of the lawful correction defense to common assault under s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988.


Self-defense

Self defense and defense of others may be defenses to liability. They usually require that force was necessary and the degree of force was reasonable.


Prevention of crime

This may or may not involve self defense in that, using a reasonable degree of force to prevent another from committing a crime could involve preventing an assault, but it could be preventing a crime not involving the use of personal violence.


Defense of property

Some states allow force to be used in defense of property, to prevent damage either in its own right, or under one or both of the preceding classes of defense in that a threat or attempt to damage property might be considered a crime (in English law, under s5 Criminal Damage Act 1971 it may be argued that the defendant has a lawful excuse to damaging property during the defense and a defense under s3 Criminal Law Act 1967) subject to the need to deter vigilantes and excessive self-help.


See also

Affray

Battery (crime)

Assault (tort)

Street fighting

Domestic violence

Gay-bashing

Hate crime

Mayhem

Misdemeanor

Offences Against The Person Act 1861

Terrorist threats



External links

Crime prevention: theory & practice

Gun violence

Gun violence

Gun violence is the broadly defined category of violence and crime committed with the use of a firearm; it does not include the safe lawful use of firearms for sport, hunting, target practice, law enforcement, or self-defense.[1] Gun violence encompasses intentional crime characterized as homicide (although not all homicide is automatically a crime) and assault with a deadly weapon, as well as unintentional injury and death resulting from the misuse of firearms, particularly by children and adolescents.[2]

The United States has the highest rates among developed countries, often accounted to the loose firearm laws in the U.S. compared to other developed countries[4].


See also

Castle Doctrine

Duty to retreat

Shall Issue Concealed Carry

Gun violence in the United States

Stand-your-ground law

Crime

Crime

Crime is any activity prohibited or not authorized by law that may be punishable by the governing authority. The word originates from the Latin crimen (genitive criminis), from the Latin root cernō and Greek κρινω = "I judge". Originally it meant "charge (in law), guilt, accusation."

Informal relationships and sanctions have been deemed insufficient to create and maintain a desired social order, resulting in formalized systems of social control by the government, or more broadly, the State. With the institutional and legal machinery at their disposal, agents of the State are able to compel individuals to conform to behavioural norms and punish those that do not. Various mechanisms are employed to regulate behaviour, including rules codified into laws, policing people to ensure they comply with those laws, and other policies and practices designed to prevent crime. In addition are remedies and sanctions, and collectively these constitute a criminal justice system. Not all breaches of the law, however, are considered crimes, for example, breaches of contract and other civil law offenses. The label of "crime" and the accompanying social stigma are normally reserved for those activities that are injurious to the general population or the State, including some that cause serious loss or damage to individuals.

The label is intended to assert an hegemony of a dominant population, or to reflect a consensus of condemnation for the identified behavior and to justify a punishment imposed by the State, in the event that an accused person is tried and convicted of a crime. The term "crime" can also technically refer to the use of criminal law to regulate minor infractions, such as traffic violations. Usually, the perpetrator of the crime is a natural person, but in some jurisdictions and in some moral environments, legal persons are also considered to have the capability of committing crimes. The State can also technically commit crimes, although this is only rarely reflected in the justice system.


Definition

A normative definition views crime as deviant behaviour that violates prevailing norms, specifically, cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave. This approach considers the complex realities surrounding the concept of crime and seeks to understand how changing social, political, psychological, and economic conditions may affect the current definitions of crime and the form of the legal, law enforcement, and penal responses made by the State. These structural realities are fluid and often contentious. For example, as cultures change and the political environment shifts, behaviour may be criminalised or decriminalised, which will directly affect the statistical crime rates, determine the allocation of resources for the enforcement of such laws, and influence the general public opinion. Similarly, changes in the way that crime data are collected and/or calculated may affect the public perceptions of the extent of any given "crime problem". All such adjustments to crime statistics, allied with the experience of people in their everyday lives, shape attitudes on the extent to which law should be used to enforce any particular social norm. There are so many ways in which behaviour can be controlled without having to resort to the criminal justice system. Indeed, in those cases where there is no clear consensus on the given norm, the use of criminal law by the group in power to prohibit the behaviour of another group may be considered an improper limitation of the second group's freedom, and the ordinary members of society may lose some of their respect for the law in general whether the disputed law is actively enforced or not.

Laws that define crimes which violate social norms are set by legislatures, and are called mala prohibita. These laws vary from time to time and place to place, such as gambling laws. Other crimes, called mala in se, are nearly universally outlawed, such as murder, theft and rape.


Criminalization

Criminalization might be intended as a pre-emptive, harm-reduction device, using the threat of punishment as a deterrent to those proposing to engage in the behavior causing harm. The State becomes involved because they usually believe costs of not criminalizing (i.e. allowing the harms to continue unabated) outweigh the costs of criminalizing it (i.e. restricting individual liberty in order to minimize harm to others).

Criminalization may provide future harm reduction even after a crime, assuming those incarcerated for committing crimes are more likely to cause harm in the future.[clarify]

Criminalization might be intended as a way to make potential criminals pay for their crimes. In this case, criminalization is a way to set the price that one must pay (to society) for certain actions that are considered detrimental to society as a whole. In this sense criminalization can be viewed as nothing more than State-sanctioned revenge.

The process of criminalization is controlled by the State because:

• Even if the victims recognize that they are victims, they may not have the resources to investigate and seek legal redress for the injuries suffered: the enforcers formally appointed by the State have the expertise and the resources.
  
• The victims may only want compensation for the injuries suffered, while being indifferent to a possible desire for deterrence: see Polinsky & Shavell (1997) on the fundamental divergence between the private and the social motivation for using the legal system.
  
• Victims or witnesses of crimes might be deterred from taking any action if they fear retaliation. Even in policed societies, fear may inhibit reporting or co-operation in a trial.
  
• Victims do not have economies of scale to administer a penal system, let alone collect any fines levied by a court (see Polinsky (1980) on the enforcement of fines). Garoupa & Klerman (2002) warn that a rent-seeking government's primary motivation is to maximize revenue and so, if offenders have sufficient wealth, a rent-seeking government is more aggressive than a social-welfare-maximizing government in enforcing laws against minor crimes (usually with a fixed penalty such as parking and routine traffic violations), but more lax in enforcing laws against major crimes.
  
• The victims may be incapacitated or dead as a result of the crime.

History

The first civilizations had codes of law, containing both civil and penal rules mixed together, though these codes were not always recorded. The first known written codes were produced by the Sumerians,[1] and it is known that Urukagina had an early code that does not survive. A later king, Ur-Nammu left the earliest code that has been discovered, creating a formal system of prescribed penalties for specific cases in 57 articles, the Code of Ur-Nammu. The Sumerians later issued other codes including the "code of Lipit-Ishtar" (last king of Isin - 20th century BCE). This code contains some fifty articles and has been reconstructed by the comparison among several sources.

Successive legal codes in Babylon, including the code of Hammurabi, reflected Mesopotamian society's belief that law was derived from the will of the gods (see Babylonian law).[3] Many states at this time were theocratic, and their codes of conduct were religious in origin or reference.

Sir Henry Maine (1861) studied the ancient codes available in his day and failed to find any criminal law in the 'modern' sense of the word. While modern systems distinguish between offences against the "State" or "Community", and offences against the "Individual", what was termed the penal law of ancient communities was not the law of "Crimes" (crimina); it was the law of "Wrongs" (delicta). Thus, the Hellenic laws[4] treated all forms of theft, assault, rape, and murder as private wrongs, and action for enforcement was up to the victim or their survivors (which was a challenge in that although there was law, there were no formalized courts in the earliest system). It was the Romans who systemized law and exported it to their Empire. Again, the initial rules of Roman Law were that assaults were a matter of private compensation. The significant Roman Law concept was of dominion.[5] The pater familias was in possession of all the family and its property (including slaves). Hence, interference with any property was enforced by the pater. The Commentaries of Gaius on the Twelve Tables treated furtum (modern theft) as a tort. Similarly, assault and violent robbery were allied with trespass as to the pater's property (so, for example, the rape of a slave would be the subject of compensation to the pater as having trespassed on his "property") and breach of such laws created a vinculum juris (an obligation of law) that could only be discharged by the payment of monetary compensation (modern damages). Similarly, in the consolidated Teutonic Laws of the Germanic tribes,[6] there was a complex system of money compensations for what would now be considered the complete range of criminal offences against the person from murder down.

Even though Rome abandoned England sometime around 400 AD, the Germanic mercenaries who had largely been enforcing the Roman occupation, stayed on and continued to use a mixture of Roman and Teutonic Law, with much written down by the early Anglo-Saxon Kings.[7] But, it was not until a more unified Kingdom emerged following the Norman invasion and the King was attempting to assert power over the land and its peoples, that the modern concept emerged, namely that a crime is not only an offence against the "individual", it is also a wrong against the "State".[8] This is a common law idea and the earliest conception of a criminal act involved events of such major significance that the "State" had to usurp the usual functions of the civil tribunals and direct a special law or privilegium against the perpetrator. All the earliest criminal trials were wholly extraordinary and arbitrary without any settled law to apply, whereas the civil delictual law was highly developed and consistent in its operation (except where the King wanted to raise money by selling a new form of Writ). The development of the idea that it is the "State" dispensing justice in a court only emerges in parallel with or after the emergence of the concept of sovereignty.

In continental Europe, Roman Law persisted, but with a stronger influence from the Church.[9] Coupled with the more diffuse political structure based on smaller State units, rather different legal traditions emerged, remaining more strongly rooted in Roman jurisprudence modified to meet the prevailing political climate. In Scandinavia, the effect of Roman law was not felt until the 17th century, and the courts grew out of the things, which were the assemblies of the people. The cases were decided by the people (usually largest freeholders dominating) which later gradually transformed into a system of a royal judge nominating a number of most esteemed men of the parish as his board, fulfilling the function of "the people" of yore.

From the Hellenic system onwards, the policy rationale for requiring the payment of monetary compensation for wrongs committed has been to avoid feuding between clans and families.[10] If families' feelings could be mollified by compensation, this would help to keep the peace. On the other hand, the threat of feudal warfare was played down also by the institution of oaths. Both in archaic Greece and in medieval Scandinavia, the accused was released if he could get a sufficient number of male relatives to swear him unguilty. This may be compared with the United Nations Security Council where the veto power of the permanent members ensures that the organization is not drawn into crises where it could not enforce its decisions. These means of restraining private feuds did not always work or prevented the fulfillment of justice but, in the earliest times, the "States" were not prepared to provide an independent police force. Thus, criminal law grew out of what is now tort and, in real terms, many acts and omissions that are classified as crimes overlap civil law concepts.


Natural law theory

The consistent theoretical problem has been to justify the State's use of force to coerce compliance with its laws. One of the earliest justifications was the theory of natural law. This posits that the standards of morality are derived from or constructed by the nature of the world or of human beings. Thomas Aquinas said: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I), i.e. since people are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, to be valid, any law must conform to natural law and coercing people to conform to that law is morally acceptable. William Blackstone (1979: 41) describes the thesis:

"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is
of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe,
in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if
contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all
their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."

But John Austin, an early positivist, applied utilitarianism in accepting the calculating nature of human beings and the existence of an objective morality, but denied that the legal validity of a norm depends on whether its content conforms to morality, i.e. a moral code can objectively determine what people ought to do, the law can embody whatever norms the legislature decrees to achieve social utility, but every individual is free to choose what he or she will do. Similarly, Hart (1961) saw the law as an aspect of sovereignty with lawmakers able to adopt any law as a means to a moral end. Thus, the necessary and sufficient conditions for the truth of a proposition of law were simply that the law was internally logical and consistent, and that State power was being used with responsibility. Dworkin (2005) rejects Hart's theory and argues that fundamental among political rights is the right of each individual to the equal respect and concern of those who govern him. He offers a theory of compliance overlaid by a theory of deference (the citizen's duty to obey the law) and a theory of enforcement, which identifies the legitimate goals of enforcement and punishment. Legislation must conform to a theory of legitimacy, which describes the circumstances under which a particular person or group is entitled to make law, and a theory of legislative justice, which describes the law they are entitled or obliged to make.

Indeed, despite everything, the majority of natural law theorists have accepted that a primary function of the law is to enforce the prevailing morality. The problem with this view is that it makes any moral criticism of the law impossible in that, if conformity with natural law is a necessary condition for legal validity, all valid law must, by definition, be morally just. Thus, on this line of reasoning, the legal validity of a norm necessarily entails its moral justice. The solution to this problem is to admit some degree of moral relativism and to accept that norms may evolve over time and, therefore, the continued enforcement of old laws may be criticized in the light of the current norms. The law may be acceptable but the use of State power to coerce citizens to comply with that law is not morally justified. In more modern conceptions of the theory, crime is characterized as the violation of individual rights. Since so many rights are considered as natural, hence the term "right", rather than man-made, what constitutes a crime is also natural, in contrast to laws, which are man-made. Adam Smith illustrates this view, saying that a smuggler would be an excellent citizen, "...had not the laws of his country made that a crime which nature never meant to be so."

Natural law theory therefore distinguishes between "criminality" which is derived from human nature, and "illegality" which is derived from the interests of those in power. The two concepts are sometimes expressed with the phrases malum in se and malum prohibitum. A crime malum in se is argued to be inherently criminal; whereas a crime malum prohibitum is argued to be criminal only because the law has decreed it so. This view leads to a seeming paradox, that an act can be illegal that is no crime, while a criminal act could be perfectly legal. Many Enlightenment thinkers such as Adam Smith and the American Founding Fathers subscribed to this view to some extent, and it remains influential among so-called classical liberals and libertarians.


Reasons

Antisocial behaviour is criminalised and treated as offences against society which justifies punishment by the government. A series of distinctions are made depending on the passive subject of the crime (the victim), or on the offended interest(s), in crimes against:

• Personality of the State
  

• Rights of the citizen
  

• Public administration
  

• Administration of justice
  

• Religious sentiment and faith
  

• Public order
  

• Public economy, industry, and commerce
  

• Public morality
  

• Person and honour
  

• Patrimony

Or they can be distinguished depending on the related punishment with sentencing tariffs prescribed in line with the perceived seriousness of the offence with fines and noncustodial sentences for the least serious, and in some States, capital punishment for the most serious.


Types

Crime is generally classified into categories, including violent crime, property crime, and public order crime.


U.S. classification

In the United States since 1930, Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) have been tabulated annually by the FBI from crime data submitted by law enforcement agencies across the United States[11]. This data is compiled at the city, county, and State levels into the Uniform crime reports (UCR). Violations of laws, which are derived from common law, are classified as Part I (index) crimes in UCR data, and further categorised as violent and property crimes. Part I violent crimes include murder and criminal homicide (voluntary manslaughter), forcible rape, aggravated assault, and robbery, while Part I property crimes include burglary, arson, larceny/theft, and motor vehicle theft. All other crimes are classified as Part II crimes.

Crimes are also grouped by severity, some common categorical terms being: felonies (US and previously UK), indictable offences (UK), misdemeanors (US and previously UK), and summary offences (UK). For convenience, infractions are also usually included in such lists although, in the U.S., they may not be the subject of the criminal law, but rather of the civil law.


Spheres

Under international law, certain acts are defined as criminal and may be persecuted by extraodinary procedures, such as:

• Crime against humanity
  

• War crime
  

• Hate Crimes

The relationship between religion and crime notions is a complex one. Not only have many secular jurisdictions been influenced by the (socially accepted or from the top imposed) religious morality, while the actual corrolary in that sphere is answerable only to one's conscience and divinity, often in the aftermath), in various historical and/or present societies or institutionalized religions, systems of earthly justice have been established which punish crimes against the divine will and/or specific religious (devotional, organisational and other) rules under a specific code, such as Islamic sharia or canon law (notably within the Roman Catholic church).

In the (para)military sphere, both 'regular' crimes and specific ones, such as mutiny, can be persecuted by special procedures and/or codes.


See also

Actus reus

Capital punishment

Case law

Civil law

Corrections

Crime Library

Crime mapping

Crime in the United States

Criminal justice

Criminal record

Detective

Drug-related crime

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Fear of crime

Gangs

Gun violence

Hate crime

Insanity defense

International crime

Law and order

Mala in se

Mala prohibita

Mens rea

Neighborhood watch

Organized Crime

Outlaw

Penal colony

Prison

Proportionality (law)

Racial profiling

Sex crime

Social policy

Strict liability crimes

Underground economy

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

Victimology

Victimless crime (political philosophy)

War on drugs



Statistics

Crime index

Crime rate

List of countries by murder rate

United States cities by crime rate



External links

Crime Magazine

Internet Crime Archive

POSTACRIME - Online Crime Prevention Network

Prostitution

Prostitution

Prostitution is sexual activity in exchange for remuneration. The legal status of prostitution varies in different countries, from punishable by death to complete legality.

The term is also used more loosely to indicate someone who engages in sexual acts that are disapproved of[1], such as sexual promiscuity or sex outside of marriage. Cultural usage varies widely, and the use of the term as a pejorative indicates acts that are not formally considered prostitution in a cultural context.

Pornographic actors and actresses get paid for having sex, but are not generally regarded as prostitutes. A woman who is supported by only one man with whom she has sexual intercourse with but does not live with is a mistress, and is not normally considered a prostitute.


Terminology

There are a variety of terms used for those who engage in prostitution, some of which distinguish between different kinds, or imply a value judgment about them. Prostitute is generally accepted as the least value-laden term; common alternatives with varying implications include escort and whore. (Not all professional escorts are prostitutes, however.) Prostitution is sometimes nicknamed the "world's oldest profession".


Definition

In street prostitution the prostitute solicits customers while waiting at street corners or "walking the street".

Brothels are establishments specifically dedicated to prostitution, often confined to special red-light districts in big cities. Other names for brothels include bordello, whorehouse, cathouse, and general houses. Prostitution also occurs in some massage parlours, and in Asian countries in some barber shops where sexual services may be offered as a secondary function of the premises.

In escort prostitution, the act takes place at the customer's place of residence or more commonly at his or her hotel room (referred to as out-call), or at the escort's place of residence or in a hotel room rented for the occasion by the escort (called in-call). This form of prostitution often shelters under the umbrella of escort agencies, who ostensibly supply attractive escorts for social occasions. While escort agencies claim never to provide sexual services, very few successful escorts are available exclusively for social companionship. Even where this type of prostitution is legal, the ambiguous term escort service is commonly used. (See call girl). In the US, escort agencies advertise frequently on the internet and example advertisements can be readily found on any major search engine and on open forum sites such as Craigslist. In the case of prostitutes using the internet to place ads, or prospective customers advertising for a prostitute, a long list of abbreviations and "code words" are used to describe how much a service may cost, or what specific act is being requested (see List of prostitution-related jargon terms).

In street prostitution, the prostitute solicits customers while waiting at street corners (sometimes called "the track" by pimps and prostitutes alike), usually dressed in skimpy clothing. Street prostitutes are often called "street walkers" while their customers are referred to as "tricks". The sex is performed in the customer's car, in a nearby alley, or in a rented room (motels that service prostitutes commonly rent rooms by the half or full hour). Street prostitutes are often motivated by drug addiction (though the statistics are disputed),[2] and are sometimes referred to by slang terms such as "crack whores".


Violence against prostitutes

Prostitutes are at risk of violent crime,[13] as well as possibly at higher risk of occupational mortality than any other group of women ever studied. For example, the homicide rate for female prostitutes was estimated to be 204 per 100,000 (Potterat et al, 2004), which is sometimes higher than that for the next riskiest occupations in the United States during a similar period (4 per 100,000 for female liquor store workers and 29 per 100,000 for male taxicab drivers) (Castillo et al., 1994). However, there are substantial differences in rates of victimization between street prostitutes and indoor prostitutes who work as escorts, call girls, or in brothels and massage parlors (Weitzer 2000, 2005). Perpetrators include violent clients, pimps, and corrupt law-enforcement officers. Prostitutes (particularly those engaging in street prostitution) are also sometimes the targets of serial killers, who may consider them easy targets, or use the religious and social stigma associated with prostitutes as justification for their murder. Being criminals in most jurisdictions, prostitutes are less likely than the law-abiding to be looked for by police if they disappear, making them favored targets of predators. The unidentified serial killer (or killers) known as Jack the Ripper is said to have killed at least five prostitutes in London in 1888. More recently, Robert Pickton, a Canadian who lived near Vancouver, made headlines after the remains of several missing prostitutes were found buried on his farm. He now stands charged with the murder of 26 Vancouver area women, and is suspected by police of killing at least four more (though no charges have been laid). Gary Ridgway (aka the Green River Killer), confessed to killing 48 prostitutes from 1982 to 1998, making him one of the most prolific serial killers in American history.[14] As of December 2006, a serial killer of prostitutes appears to be active in Ipswich, England (see 2006 Ipswich murder investigation).


Human trafficking and sexual slavery

During World War II, women and girls were kidnapped and enslaved by the Imperial Japanese military and forced to work as unpaid prostitutes (see Comfort women).
Human trafficking is the fastest growing form of modern day slavery[15] and is the third largest and fastest growing criminal industry in the world.[16]

Poverty, social exclusion and war are at the heart of human trafficking. Many women are hoodwinked into believing promises of a better life, sometimes by people who are known and trusted to them. Traffickers may own legitimate travel agencies, modeling agencies and employment offices in order to gain women's trust. Others are simply kidnapped. Once overseas it is common for their passport to be confiscated by the trafficker and to be warned of the consequences should they attempt to escape, including beatings, rape, threats of violence against their family and death threats. It is common, particularly in Eastern Europe, that should they manage to return to their families they will only be trafficked once again.

Due to the illegal and underground nature of sex trafficking, the exact extent of women and children forced into prostitution is unknown. The International Labour Organization in 2005 estimated at least 2.4 million people have been trafficked.[15]

Thousands of children are sold into the global sex trade every year. Often they are kidnapped or orphaned, and sometimes they are actually sold by their own families. According to the International Labour Organization, the problem is especially alarming in Thailand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Cambodia, Nepal and India.[17]

In May 2005 the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings opened for signature. Since then over 30 countries have signed the Convention and four countries have ratified it. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has produced a Toolkit to Combat Trafficking in Persons.[18]

Globally, forced labour generates $31bn, half of it in the industrialised world, a tenth in transition countries, the International Labour Organization says in a report on forced labour ("A global alliance against forced labour", ILO, 11 May 2005). Trafficking in people has been facilitated by porous borders and advanced communication technologies, it has become increasingly transnational in scope and highly lucrative within its barbarity.
In some countries counselling, accommodation, specialist care exists for trafficked people to help them escape, whilst in other countries, this support is lacking.


Medical situation

Prostitution has often been associated with the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as HIV. Although people working as prostitutes are not regularly studied as a group by the CDC or other recognized institutions, what little has been done on the subject suggests that women in prostitution have either HIV rates similar to the population or lower.

Nevertheless, needle-sharing injection drug users in prostitution or not carry very high rates of hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HIV compared to the general population. Studies in the USA on non-intravenous drug using prostitutes are few, although studies in urban settings of prostitution in developing countries have shown a striking burden of STD's, which acts as a reservoir of STD's within the general population.[19]

Typical responses to the problem are:

• banning prostitution completely
  
• introducing a system of registration for prostitutes that mandates health checks and other public health measures
  
• educating prostitutes and their clients to encourage the use of barrier contraception and greater interaction with health care

Some think that the first two measures are counter-productive. Banning prostitution tends to drive it underground, making treatment and monitoring more difficult. Registering prostitutes makes the state complicit in prostitution and does not address the health risks of unregistered prostitutes. Both of the last two measures can be viewed as harm reduction policies.

In Australia where sex-work is largely legal, and registration of sex-work is not practiced, education campaigns have been extremely successful and the non-intravenous drug user (non-IDU) sex workers are among the lower HIV-risk communities in the nation. In part, this is probably due both to the legality of sex-work, and to the heavy general emphasis on education in regard to Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs). Safer sex is heavily promoted as the major means of STI reduction in Australia, and sex education generally is at a high level. Sex-worker organisations regularly visit brothels and home workers, providing free condoms and lubricant, health information, and other forms of support.

The encouragement of safer sex practices, combined with regular testing for sexually transmitted diseases, has been very successful when applied consistently. Prostitution appears to have little effect as a vector of STDs when safer sex practices are applied consistently. However, in countries and areas where safer sex precautions are either unavailable or not practiced for cultural reasons, prostitution appears to be a very active disease vector for all STDs, including HIV/AIDS.



Criminal behavior

In areas where prostitution is illegal, sex workers are commonly charged with crimes ranging from pandering to tax evasion. Their clients can be charged with solicitation of prostitution. Prosecution for various other sex crimes can be sought against the client and pimps depending on such things as the age of the prostitute and the nature of the act performed.


See also

Brothel

Sex, Sexual intercourse, Human sexual behavior, Sexually transmitted disease

Red-light district, Street prostitution,

Sexual slavery

Prostitution (criminology)

Debt bondage

Sex crime

Male prostitution

Drugs and prostitution

Prostitution in the United States



Information sites


"Street prostitution" by Michael S. Scott, US DOJ Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series, No. 2


Organizations

The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women