(Course/Major)
Independent Variables.7
Research Questions..8
Hypothesis....8
Conclusion..11
Introduction: Domestic violence: profile of an offender
In the past, an act of domestic violence was not considered as a matter that merits the engagement of the law. Though men have pummeled, maltreated, and molested their intimate partners for years, the common comprehension of society was that abuse and maltreatment of women was as a part of the marriage. It was only to the end of the 1970s that domestic violence was understood as a criminal offense that warranted the involvement of the criminal justice system. However, there has been much contention as to the establishment of a general, universally accepted definition for “domestic violence.”
Typically, men are the aggressors and in a large portion of the cases reported to the police, women are the victims. Research shows that the largest share of cases involving domestic violence involved violence between “intimate partners” which can be construed as violent acts between spouses, former partners, or between boyfriends and girlfriends. What is noteworthy in this regard is that though many cases proffer the generally held depiction of men as the offender and women as the victim, studies also show that women are also engaged in violent acts against the men. However, feminist commentators have soundly rejected the conceptualization of this activity as “family violence” and terming this action as “mutual combat,” as proffered by Strauss (1993).
These parties contend that the phrase “family or domestic violence” is deceptive as it assumes that women are the accepted victims of violence and buttressing the belligerent behavior in this aspect is the need of the male to be the dominant party in the relationship. Lastly, these scholars believe that the phrase “domestic violence” be replaced with “woman battering,” holding that this term is a better framework that depicts the situation. Moreover, studies have also depicted incidents of particularly brutal violence within this unit must be seen as women defending themselves against their more powerful attackers.
In this case, the understanding must be the women suffered extended periods and severity of abuse from their intimate partners, or in one particularly brutal moment, responded with force to defend themselves from the abuses of their partners. These cases, in the work of Brown (1987) and Walker (1979), include instances wherein the women foiled the attacks of their partners or responded in a hostile manner owing to a disturbed mental frame of mind as a result of prolonged abuse by their partners.
In addition, studies also proffer that there are instances when women were the aggressors and the men were the victims, the instance of men being the victims in domestic violence cases are innately distinct from the “traditional” scenario. Among the differences that set the two apart are both qualitative and quantitative in nature such as intensity and brutality of the abuse, the cause and the effects of the abuse to the victim, and the capacity of the victim to thwart and to remove the threat of the batterer from their environs. However, it is stated that hostility and violent behavior are characteristic of many marriages and other romantic relationships, studies show that severe damage from incidents of brutality are generally discovered in cases wherein the man is the offender and the woman is the victim (Erez).
Simply put, “abuse” is understood as deliberately inflicting harm on a person; in addition, it can also be construed as the denial of items critical to the welfare of the other. In this regard, the term “abuse” is traditionally associated with acts done to children, whether it is physical, verbal, emotional, or sexual in nature. Domestic violence, on the other hand, refers to acts of violence between two adults in a relationship or two juveniles of the same age in a “romantic relationship.” Often times, abuse takes on numerous forms within a family unit. The other types of violence that are generally seen in cases of domestic violence cannot be accomplished without the attendant psychological violence (Stop Abuse Campaign).
Much of the data points to the position that women are the more likely victims in domestic violence cases, the literature also evinced that exploitation occurs not only between “traditional” couples, but also between lesbian partners in common law and in civilly recognized couples. There are reports that men comprise a significant portion of the victims in domestic violence cases.
Though there are advances in establishing equality between the men and women, overall, the construction of the society is founded on a patriarchal system. Assumptions that men must evoke a sense of strength, powerful, and superior to women can be extremely devastating to men who have tendencies at becoming domestic violence offenders. Should a man be pictured as weak or emasculated, these events can motivate these individuals to respond in a violent manner or even vent out their rage against their partners. Being provoked by their relationship partners can be extremely stressing, giving rise to incidents of rage and even violence in a number of people.
Whether the incidents involved an insult being hurled, acting to quell an anticipated threat, or an outright provocation, men and women offenders will often state that these are acting on a “critical inner voice,” a belligerent thought system that inculcates into the person negative traits about their conduct, behavior, or even physical stature and that of their partners. The more the offender listens to that “voice,” the higher the intensity of the false perceptions of being persecuted or abused, the higher the belief that there is a need to exact retribution to the point that it will spill over into the commission of violent acts.
Furthermore, aside from giving vent to this “inner voice,” partners in this type of relationship have, ironically, come to a point of agreeing to develop a “partnership of violence,” a mirage that these two must depend on each other. There is a sense of a “merged identity” between the two ‘combatants’ where the two feel a sense of vulnerability without the other. This is termed as a “fantasy bond;” this poisonous feeling of amalgamation makes it extremely hard for both parties in the relationship to extricate from each other, even though continuing on in the relationship is a dangerous and often risky proposition. In the opposite vein, this type of connection also facilitates the commission of abuse as the two begin to comprehend the other as “extensions” of themselves rather than separate entities who these are inflicting abuse on.
In this light, with the formation of the “fantasy bond” between the two ‘willing combatants,” this motivates the concept that there is a sense of entitlement being given to the abuser, that the abuse has been given a right to attack and hurt the other. This also supports the position in that one of the parties in the relationship is looking to mold or victimize the other in a way that seems suitable to him/her. In venting their frustrations and anger, the parties will feel increased senses of entitlement, abuse and self-righteousness in their abuse to the other.
The partners will respond to perceptions of possible rejection or abandonment as life-threatening, increasing the feelings of hostility and belligerence towards the other. With the abusive partner feeling that if the victim/partner leaves them, this will threaten his/her life and will further abuse or victimize the other to “get the other back in line.” In this light, the absence of a clear and strong sense of accountability, individuality, and responsibility owing to the development of the “fantasy bond” can give the abusive partner an avenue to vent out their abusive tendencies against their partners (Firestone).
Nonetheless, evidence that shows that women have a higher likelihood of using force as a means of self-defense against abuse or out of revenge does not find universal research support. To cite an example, a number of research initiatives have evinced that women commences violence against their spouses in almost the same frequency as the men against the women; in addition, there are cases wherein the violence started by the woman against the male spouse was not completely out of retribution, especially in cases for less severe attacks (Gabora, Stewart, Allegeri, and Lilley 2).
Goal Statement: Determine the factors, if any, that contribute to the development of a domestic violence offender
Independent Variables
There are no specific factors that can accurately determine whether a person will become a domestic offender. Age, socio-economic status, and race factors are not viable factors in assessing whether a person will become an offender. However, though there are no specific components that can be examined, and the statistics for abusers and the abused is almost the same. However, there are a number of generalizations that can be used in a simple determination of possible factors that contribute to the development of an abuser.
General characteristics
One, that majority of the sexual attackers and domestic offenders are male and heterosexual, and many have relations with adults as well as children. Domestic violence and sexual attacks are strongly connected to poverty; many of these offenders who abuse and abandon children witnessed abuse or were abandoned in their childhood. Withal, it cannot be definitively stated that the individuals who experienced abuse or neglect will repeat the offense to others-it is only stated that this is an element that heightens the risk that the individual will repeat.
There are several reasons why people abuse others. Abusers often have deficient or are bereft of adequate parenting skills, stress, and an inability to engage themselves in the lives of their children. Abandonment can stem from factors such as narcotic addiction and mental instability. Domestic hostility, on the other hand, is drawn from a sense of immunity; here, the abuser believes that these are given the privilege to exercise whatever means possible for these to “get their way.” This sense of immunity is also seen in the exercise of child exploitation (Stop Abuse Campaign).
Research Questions
Are there specific characteristics, if any, which can be used to indicate the possibility of individuals to become domestic violence offenders?
Are there factors, if any, that exacerbate the “drift?”
Is domestic violence exclusive to heterogeneous relationships?
Are prevailing interventions sufficient to address the problem?
II. Hypothesis/Research Questions
H1: In control and under control: deliberate nature of domestic violence
T1: Intimate partner violence offenders are in full control of their faculties when these commit the acts
Domestic violence is not done under compulsion; it is accomplished in a deliberate and calculating manner. Domestic offenders can be completely conciliatory and amenable to co-workers, neighbors, and friends and even to police officers. These individuals, however, though having the skill sets necessary for a harmonious family scenario opt not to engage these skills with their spouses and families.
The simple reason here can be summarized in these terms: manipulation and control. Furthermore, it must not be held that batterers are primarily without restraint; the abuser is working to achieve a singular agenda and that is to mold the victim into whatever the abuser wants to be. However, this objective is defeated by the actuations of the abuser; the goal of the abuser in changing the character of the victim is constantly changing; the batterer carefully chooses the best strategy suited to the achievement of the goal, with the demeanor and conduct of the abuser directed at manipulating and controlling the victim’s life (Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Abuse 13-14).
Offenders do not evince any significant mental illnesses; nonetheless, these do fit the qualifications of a number of personality abnormalities, particularly, those that proffer borderline, asocial, prone to episodes of depression, and at times extremely self-centered. On the whole, intimate partner violence offenders have a higher inclination to display emotional and schizophrenic disorders than nonviolent individuals. There are studies that have assessed the differences between the various categories of domestic violence perpetrators; however, as also noted earlier, there is no body of literature that plainly distinguishes between offenders who saw violence in their family as children and from the offenders who experienced being abused as children. In the literature of the “social learning theory”, it also appears that research in the area of intimate partner violence that though the two possess digressions with each other, the scope which that vulnerability is connected to the development of violent behaviors in the adult is vague at best (Murrell 525).
H2: Women are also domestic violence offenders
T1: Individuals that commit intimate partner violence are not limited to men, as is the current holding; women also batter the men in the relationship
Much of the literature in the subject of domestic violence has been conducted along the lines of the life history and the mental and psychological traits of men as the offenders; these literatures have guided and directed the construction of the models and intervention policies and programs in use today. Research on female batterers, on the other hand, has just begun to gain interest. There is a significant body of data that avers that male and female domestic violence offenders share basically the same destructive childhood experiences.
In the same manner as male offender, it is proffered that the female offender saw their parents inflict violence on each other, physically assaulted by a guardian, or their parents physically punished them. Stressors with regards to relationships were also seen to be nearly the same for female offenders. However, compared to the conduct of male batterers, women were seen to have a higher propensity to leave their partners (Gabora, Stewart, Allegeri, and Lilley 3).
H3: Intimate partner violence offenders “learn” from their parents
T3: The offenders absorb the abusive operations of their parents with the violence ‘spilling’ over into their adult lives
A number of commentators have proffered a connection between traumatic childhood experiences, including seeing violence between the partners or being attacked or abused, and brutal offenses committed later on in adulthood. This principle is called as “intergenerational transmission of violence or aggression.” Here, one of the being attributed to the transfer of the violence is “observational learning;” the practice is being modeled in front of the person and thus will be absorbed by the child growing up. In the operation of the “social learning theory,” a child is ‘trained’ not only to commit brutality against another, but is taught that when the brutality is rewarded, then the brutality will be seen as a positive action. Bandura’s (1977) postulate avers that the witness and the victim will be impacted, with the children coming from more violent settings having a higher likelihood of acquiring violent behaviors (Murrell 524).
Conclusion
There is a debate as to the proper treatment for people who commits intimate partner violence. One of the earliest intervention methods in attempting to address intimate partner violence was ‘anger management’ programs; however, this would the correct treatment regimen if the person was suffering from incessant road rage tendencies but is inappropriate in terms of treating individuals given over to abusing their partners or family members. The rationale behind this treatment regimen is for the abuser to recognize instances when he/she is about to get angry, use interventions to rein in the anger, thus controlling the anger outbursts. However, after two decades of engaging this regimen, there is extensive research that doubts the efficacy of the regimen, the reason being the subject of road rage is on venting anger; domestic violence is mainly centered on manipulation and control. Intimate partner violence engages that the abuser will harm or beat the victim even if the abuser is not angry (Boss).
Incarceration and detention as an intervention method for interdicting intimate partner violence has shown a level of success as posited by a number of duplicate studies; however, the position is not supported in other areas on the subject. In this light, it can be stated that the efficacy factor of arrest in impacting domestic violence cases is highly speculative. Nonetheless, there is substantive evidence that abusers stop from repeat offending after arrest. Analysts continue to support “pro-arrest policies” proffering that incarceration conveys a strong message to the batterer that the conduct is unacceptable and abhorrent to society and ensures the protection of the rights and welfare of women is properly implemented.
If there are no injuries sustained, there are other alternative intervention methods that can be engaged. Crisis intervention approaches offers workable approaches in addressing intimate partner violence situations. Social scientists aver that stringent implementation of arrest modes for addressing domestic violence decreases the role of the community in the determination and magnitude of the problem. However, what is being seen as a more acceptable is the adoption of a host of strategies than the adoption of a single scheme to address the issue. Criminal law efforts at addressing can have a twin edged sword effect that it can be harmful or beneficial to the parties involved. Stakeholders must improve the literature on the problem and build on it in the future (Erez).
Works Cited
Boss, Angie “Recent trends in treating domestic violence offenders” <http://psychologydegreeguide.org/treating-domestic-violence/
Erez, Edna “Domestic violence and the criminal justice system: an overview” Online Journal of Issues in Nursing 7 (1), 2002
Firestone, Lisa “Why domestic violence occurs and how to stop it” <https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/compassion-matters/201210/why-domestic-violence-occurs-and-how-stop-it (2012)
Gabora, Natalie, Stewart, Lynn, Lilley, Kelly, and Allegeri, Nicole “A profile of female perpetrators of intimate partner violence: implications for treatment” <http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/092/r175-eng.pdf (2007)
Missouri Coalition against domestic and sexual abuse “Understanding the nature and dynamics of domestic violence” <http://www.ncdsv.org/images/MoCADSV_UnderstandingNatureDynamicsOfDV_revised5-2012.pdf (2012)
Murrell, Amy R. “Characteristics of domestic violence offenders: associations with childhood exposure to violence” Journal of Family Violence 22, pp. 523-532 (2007)
Stop Abuse Campaign “Why do people abuse” <https://stopabusecampaign.com/why-do-people-abuse-psychology-of-the-abuser/ (2013)
