In the last two decades there have been a number of social, medical and legal initiatives in the UK and elsewhere to provide assistance to women who suffer violence from their partner. The most recent innovations focus on responding to the men who perpetrate this violence. In this article we present the initial results of the first British study of programmes for violent men. The three-year study used a longitudinal method to compare the effects of two court mandated programmes with other, more orthodox, forms of criminal justice intervention (fines, admonishment, traditional probation, prison). Here we describe the men's programmes, locate the current study in the context of existing evaluations of similar programmes operating in North America, outline the methods employed, present the results of the post-hoc matching used to assess the probable effects of selection bias and using subsequent prosecutions and the accounts of women, compare the impact of different criminal justice interventions. The results indicate that twelve months after the criminal justice intervention a significant proportion of the Programme men had not subsequently been violent to their partner. This was in contrast to men sanctioned in other ways (the Other CJ group) who were much less likely to have changed their violent behaviour.

No abstract

This article addresses the neglected question of what women who experience 'domestic violence' want from the law and examines the ways in which women actively engage with the legal system. Viewing women as agents trying to survive abuse, we examine their interaction with both civil and criminal legal systems as part of their 'active negotiation and strategic resistance' to men's violence. This represents a break from the tradition which has tended to view women survivors as passive recipients of the law and has focused on outcomes oflegal intervention to the exclusion of process. Using data from a British evaluation of criminal justice responses to domestic violence, we analyse legal processes which support or fail to support women and argue that legal interventions can contribute to women's improved safety and quality of life.* The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Home Office and Scottish Office who funded the research project on which this paper is based. The authors also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers who made useful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

The Murder in Britain Study was designed to examine in detail different types of murder. Using a subset of case files from this study, men who murder other men (MM;n = 424) are compared with men who murder an intimate partner (IP;n = 106) to reflect on the relative conventionality of each group. In terms of many of the characteristics of childhood and adulthood, the IP murder group differs from theMMgroup and appears to be more “ordinary” or “conventional.” However, the IP group is less conventional in that they are more likely to have intimate relationships that had broken down, to have used violence against a previous woman partner as well as against the victim they killed, and to “ specialize” in violence against women.

Based on interviews with 122 men who had used violence against their partner, and employing Goffman's (1971) concept of `remedial work', this paper interrogates violent men's perceptions, constructions and understandings of domestic violence and their responses to its use. Accounts of women partners are also examined. `Remedial work' involves the perpetrator of an act of untoward behaviour in various forms of `damage limitation' intended to change the meaning of the offensive act into one that is deemed acceptable. Goffman's three related devices of remedial work - `accounts, apologies, and requests' - are used to explore men's narratives of violent events, their definitions of the event, rationales and perceptions of consequences. Revealed are the exculpatory and expiatory discourses which dominate men's narratives and which expose the purposeful yet paradoxical nature of their responses to violence, directed at mitigating and obfuscating culpability while at the same time seeking forgiveness and absolution. We suggest that through these devices men seek to impose their own definitions upon their woman partner and thereby neutralise or eradicate her experience of abuse and control the ways in which she interprets and responds to it. These findings strongly support Goffman's theoretical conception. In addition, they highlight the need for further investigation of how men's and women's accounts, definitions and responses to violence are interactionally connected through men's attempts to define the violence in exculpatory and expiatory terms and in women's resistance to such definitions and their implications.