The statistics for domestic violence are staggering. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey created by the Center for Disease Control, “1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men in the United States have experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner.” Compare this to the statistics for breast cancer offered by BreastCancer.org: About 1 in 8 U.S. women (about 12%) will develop invasive breast cancer over the course of her lifetime. If I am reading this right,

there are twice as many women who are likely to be physically abused as there are women who are likely to get breast cancer. Tweet This

How much money do you think is spent on breast cancer awareness versus the amount of money spent preventing domestic violence? I won’t climb up on my soap box, I will leave that for another day. My intention today is to discuss how we can prevent domestic violence. I recently read a blog written for the Stop Abuse Campaign by attorney Barry Goldstein that gives an answer to this question, which I summarize below. Note: This blog focuses on physical abuse, and on male perpetrators. The same principles apply to emotional abuse, and to female perpetrators.

Courts Must Learn Basics about Domestic Violence

Four decades after domestic violence first became a public issue our courts still don’t understand the causes and effective responses to domestic violence. Attempting to resolve DV cases without fundamental DV knowledge is like sending children to unregulated daycare; we keep seeing avoidable tragedies in which children are abused and some die.

When domestic violence (DV) first became a public issue there was no research available. Courts developed their initial responses based on popular assumptions that DV was caused by substance abuse, mental illness and the actions of the victims. This led courts to turn to mental health professionals for advice as if they were the experts about domestic violence. In fairness, this mistake was made in good faith, but was never corrected after research demonstrated the initial assumptions were wrong.

Myths about the Cause of Domestic Violence Still Prevalent

Domestic violence is not caused by mental illness, being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or by anger management problems. It is caused by someone who feels they are entitled to control their intimate partners and children. 

People do not engage in behavior that they would not consider when sober even if they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. This is why non-abusive men do not assault their partners even if they had too much to drink. The men who assault their partners while under the influence engage in a pattern of coercive and controlling behavior while sober and believe they have a right to control their partners. In other words, substance abuse just makes their abuse worse.

I often illustrate the issue of anger management with the following example: Imagine if an abuser meets his partner at a party. When she does something he defines as improper he doesn’t assault her at the party where there would be witnesses and consequences. Instead he assaults her in the privacy of their home because he has good reason to believe there will be no consequences to him. The abuser was fully capable of controlling his anger if it was to his advantage.

The criminal justice system often uses leniency as a response to first time offenders. This can work well in other types of crimes but is completely misdirected in DV cases. Domestic violence is the most underreported crime so the first time an abuser comes to the attention of the criminal justice system is unlikely to be the first time he committed a crime, much less engaged in other domestic violence tactics. This may be the only chance the court system has to change the dynamics.

Most abusers tell their victims that if they report his crimes no one will believe them, or they have some way to avoid punishment. When the court system fails to take any effective action, it confirms everything he said. She took a risk in reporting his crime and may be punished for doing so. The court failure to create meaningful consequences tells her that they won’t help her. She will never make the mistake of seeking help again.

But the criminal justice system measures its “success” by repeat arrests. So, the court believes they did the right thing while the victim suffers in silence and he can tell custody courts and criminal courts he never abused anyone.

The Only Proven Response to Domestic Violence

Literally billions of dollars have been spent trying to prove batterer programs are effective in preventing domestic violence. The best result has been inconclusive. The important findings are that

only accountability and monitoring are useful in changing abusers’ behavior. Tweet This

This finding is supported by real life examples where communities that used practices based on accountability and monitoring saw a dramatic reduction in domestic violence crime and especially murders.

Ignorance of DV 101 Has Consequences

The research is clear. Anyone can benefit from therapy or from stopping their substance abuse. People who truly cannot control their anger can benefit from anger management programs. Batterer programs can provide courts with an additional consequence to use for domestic violence offenders.

Courts need to understand, however that just completing any of these programs does not make an abuser safe. Treating these programs as if it cures the abuser endangers his partner and the community. Mental illness, substance abuse and anger are issues separate from domestic violence. Nevertheless, many courts routinely treat these separate issues as if they solve the domestic violence problem.

Batterer programs were created, not based on scientific research, but simply because it seemed like society needed some response to domestic violence. The problem is that it is a simple solution to a complex problem. In the Duluth Model, their batterer program was supposed to be a small part of a much wider community response. Communities will have to change fundamental beliefs, practices and values in order to prevent domestic violence.

Cities like Quincy, Nashville and San Diego used a group of best practices that included strict enforcement of criminal laws, protective orders and probation rules; practices designed to make it easier for victims to leave; and a coordinated community response. These best practices led to a dramatic reduction in domestic violence crime and especially murder.

Until now, our country has been reluctant to make the changes needed to prevent domestic violence. In other words they were unwilling to take domestic violence seriously. Perhaps the “Me Too” movement; publicity around our lax enforcement of rape and domestic violence; and frequency that domestic violence offenders commit mass murders will encourage needed reforms.

Criminal courts need to impose meaningful sanctions for domestic violence and create findings so that the abusers cannot later deny their crimes. When courts allow men to engage in therapy, anger management or substance abuse treatment as a substitute for accountability the courts throw away their one chance to break the cycle of abuse.

Undeserved leniency is similarly ineffective and supports the message that society does not take domestic violence seriously. These dangerous decisions also show that the judges and professionals they rely on are unfamiliar with research every judge should have. It makes no sense to rely on ineffective responses when only accountability and monitoring have been proven to change abusers’ behavior.

Effect of Domestic Violence on Children

Court officials who are responsible for the health and safety of children must understand that domestic violence is not caused by mental illness, substance abuse, anger issues or the actions of the victim. It is possible for an abuser to change, but it rarely happens out of the blue. It usually requires accountability and monitoring. At a minimum, an abuser who is changing his behavior would recognize he is solely responsible for the harm he has caused; he will be committed to never abuse anyone again; and will understand that if he ever abuses someone he will lose the relationship with his children.

Children do benefit when they can have both parents in their lives. They will be harmed if they lose their relationship with their father. The problem is that the harm of having a relationship with an abuser is far greater than the harm of having no relationship. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) survey tells us that living with the fear and stress abusers cause significantly shortens children’s lives and leads to a lifetime of health and social problems. It is a choice no judge with knowledge of the ACE Research would make. The only good solution is for the abuser to sincerely change his behavior. Pretending to change is just a continuation of his manipulation.

In Summary

Most abusers come before the courts only once. If they are not given strict, swift punishment, their victims will often not seek help ever again. In order to prevent domestic violence, offenders must be given strict consequences on their first offense. Communities would also be wise to institute other measures, such as helping DV victims leave safely (with financial support) and family courts not giving offenders custody of their children. A small slap on the wrist will do nothing to prevent an offender from continuing their abuse. Proverbs 24:23-25 agrees:

These also are sayings of the wise: