One of the most frequent forms of violence in the present day society is domestic violence. Analyze and assess reasons why it ought to be tougher?
Introduction
Domestic violence has been on rise and this calls for tougher measures aimed at downscaling the vice. The rationale of punishing a criminal may either be for deterrent purposes, retribution or punitive. But regard must be had on the current practices when it comes to punishing the offenders and what the legal regime has realized. Regard must also be had on the overall effect of the punishment meted on the offenders and the greatest yardstick to measure this is on the rate of domestic violence cases in any given jurisdiction. Due to the fact that punishment is aversive, the likelihood is that it is likely to lead to avoidance (Church, 1993). Learning ways of avoiding punishment doesn’t necessarily mean learning ways of stop this unacceptable behavior, but also means coming up with ways of avoiding detection and apprehension, with no reduction or even an increase in the offending behavior. The outcome of any punishment is dependent partly on the offender’s perception of the fairness of the punishment (Sherman, 1993). But what ought to be borne in mind is that when authorities seek to increase deterrence by magnifying the severity of punishment, then there is a risk of having counterproductive effect, and this is due to the fact that any punishment which is viewed by the offender as excessive or unjust in the circumstances has the risk of provoking defiance, in the increased rate of severity of offending (Sherman, 1993). By increasing the severity of punishment, there is a likelihood of decreasing domestic violence and this is informed by the fact one fears being detected, while others may be motivated to protect the offender. In cases of domestic violence where the onus of reporting the crime lies on the victim, the possibility of severe punishment for the offender may result in the victim being under greater threat and less likely to report the offence.
Extensive psychological research has established the vital role played by cognitive factors in human behavior (Ashcroft, 1994). Offenders may either perceive punishment as being either unfair or fair. Where the punishment meted is fair the likelihood of compliance with the law is high and this is an indication of the legitimacy of the law enforcement agency, but if perceived otherwise, then it has the net effect of reducing compliance hence diluting its legitimacy (Tyler, 1990).the criminal justice in the USA has made enormous strides in meting punishments on those accused of domestic violence. One way of meting harsher punishments is by criminalizing domestic violence has it has been done is many federal states of the US. For instance The Violence Against women Act (VAWA) advocates for mandatory arrests and pro-prosecution policies, training of court personnel and judges and an increased commitment to victims’ services and rehabilitation. VAWA also makes certain domestic violence offences federal crimes and these do include interstate stalking and violation of a protection order. A major concern for the criminalization movement is that evidentiary standards for proving abuse are so relaxed that any mans who stands accused is deemed guilty. For instance, in Florida, Judge Margaret Waller and Carol Draper require treatment for domestic violence as a condition of bail for almost every one accused of crime.
The judiciary has been found wanting in domestic violence cases and the case in point is that of State v, Powell (696 So. 2d 789, 790-91 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.), whereby a judge was of the view that a suspended sentence of twelve years for a battery case to an ex-girlfriend was justified since the victim never wanted the girl’s father incarnated and that the defendant was amenable to treatment. In another case of state v. Hobbs, 801 P.2d 1028, 1029-31 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990), Huletz held that the trial where the added a sentence of 40 hours of community service, a fine of $250 and lack of contact with the victim for one year was found to be too lenient in view of the fact that the defendant had battered his girlfriend so badly that she required hospital treatment.
Strict penalties such as having the offenders engaging in hard work and reparation does help in equipping them with the skills they need to improve their prospects of paying their way, getting benefits and into a job. Having a job is a key ingredient in preventing future offending. In a r3ecent survey of prisoners almost half of them (47%) said they had no qualification compared with 15% among a similar age group in the general population, with 13% claiming that they never had a job. By imposing hard jobs on them when in correctional facilities they are bound to change when the complete their sentences and this is an integral tool in curbing the vice (ONS, 2003). Another incidence which is in support of harsher punishment is that of the department of work and pensions and the department of business, innovation and skills tasked with reviewing and reform employment and learning to offenders. One of the reforms is ensuring that once one has been punished he ought to show a willingness to reform so as to be in a position to access employment. This a stringent condition which if followed to the letter can go a long way in minimizing cases of domestic violence (great Britain: Ministry of justice, 2010). In widening the scope of the punishment meted on domestic violence offenders, is that the offenders should always be sanctioned the moment they happen to commit a crime. The rationale for doing is that those who have never been arrested as a result of domestic violence have a low perception of ever being arrested. With the threat of being arrested and prosecuted serves to heighten the offenders perceived risk of legal sanctions (Farrington, Hollin & McMurran, 2001, p.297).
It is worth noting that deterrent measures do come with their own risks. This may include retaliation, withdrawal by the offender or the society feeling that the penalty meted is out of place and hence minimize the levels of compliance with the laws or punishment in place. The sentence handed down to a victim should commensurate with the offence in question and any attempt of superseding these boundaries are bound to attract negative repercussions.
Correctional centers are remedial areas where an individual is made to realize his mistakes with an aim of reforming. The correctional centers prepare the offender on the way he will face life after the punishment and to prepare him so that he can be integrated in the society. This is a step in the right direction and ought to be encouraged. But regard must be had to the skyrocketing nature of offences even after penalties to those offences have been heightened. For instance battery cases are on the rise, child molestation has not gone down, and marital rape is on increase. Jurists will have a different approach to this phenomenon, and the overall idea is looking at what the contributing factors instead of rushing to punishment. Regard must be had to the contributive factors towards the domestic violence, where a times the victim of the violence induces the said violence. Economic realities may also impact negatively on an individual who might be on his own rage and empty his/her frustration on those immediately near him/ her. This requires the efforts of different players in the society to remedy the problem and this do entail jurists, societal leaders and the government in coming with ideal ways of addressing the menace. Increasing the penalties per se is not the cure of domestic violence.
Conclusion
It has to be noted that increasing penalty to those charged with a domestic violence is a step in the positive direction as it serves to reduce the chances of reoccurrence of crime. Many would shy away from committing a similar crime owing to the nature of punishment. But where the society feels that the punishment being meted is not commensurate with the offence in questioning they may disregard it altogether. The aftermath of a conviction should be alive to the person thinking of heightening the punishment, as issues related to retaliation might crop up or a sense of withdrawal from the society which is the purpose of justice system in any part of the world. To this end I would propose that the issue should be looked at in inclusion and all attendant factors married together so as to arrive at a just result.
References
Ashcraft, M.H. (1994) Human memory and Cognition (2nd ed.) New york: harper Collins
Church R.M. (1963) The varied effects of punishment on behavior, Psychological Review, 70, 369-402.
Sherman L.W. (1993) Defiance, deterrence and irrelevance: a theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 445-473.
Tyler T.R. (1990) Why People obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press
Great Britain; Ministry of justice (2010) Breaking the Cycle: effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders, The stationery Office, London
D.P, Farrington, C.R. Hollin & M. McMurran (2001) Sex and Violence: The Psychology of Crime and Risk Assessment, Routledge, London
