Policy Responses to Domestic Violence, the Criminalisation Thesis and ‘Learning from History’

Abstract

The ‘criminalisation thesis’ has proved a contentious but defining feature of modern social and legal responses to domestic violence since the 1970s. However, criminalisation has not always been the focus of legal attempts to tackle violence or offer recourse to victims. This article uses historical examples to explore the potential of legislative intervention outside of criminal law in tackling violence against women. While the Victorians introduced the first criminal legislation specifically developed to tackle domestic violence, the intervention remained singular. Those addressing violence against women soon shifted their focus towards achieving broader social and cultural change via civil law. Legislators sought to reduce the vulnerability of women to exploitation and violence at the hands of their husbands through reforms to child custody, divorce, and property law. The authors find there are relevant lessons to be learned from addressing domestic violence in this way, which might usefully inform current policy direction.

Upskirting: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Such framing draws on the power of the law in terms of the institutions (which can enforce significant sanctions which limit citizens’ freedom), in terms of academic disciplines (Law is usually the oldest discipline in a university and is invested with significant authority), and in terms of discourse (legal commentators, personnel and decisions in everyday life as well as in popular culture capture considerable public attention). The framing of violence against women and girls as primarily a criminal justice issue has been criticised for invoking and re-embedding the authority of the law above all other aspects of social life (Williams & Walklate, 2020). Our findings suggest that the burgeoning scholarship on upskirting risks rehearsing similar shortcomings in the theorising of other forms of gender-based violence, albeit that is increasingly being questioned (Table 2).…”

Parole decisions about perpetrators of domestic violence in England and Wales

“…Its intimate nature means that up until the end of the last century it was treated as private and outside the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system. Therefore, the use of the criminal justice system to tackle this type of offence is relatively recent historically (Williams & Walklate, 2020) and complicated by the nature of most domestic violence as an ongoing aspect of a couple's life together and the degree to which the perpetrator exerts control over their victim (Johnson, 2006) . This distinguishes it from the easily‐compartmentalised ‘incidents’ that are normally seen in criminal justice (Kelly & Westmarland, 2016).…”

“…Domestic violence is distinct from crimes in general in custodial considerations: it is overwhelmingly a male-on-female offence, and the role of control and intimidation frames the way in which we need to assess risk (Williams & Walklate, 2020). The increase in domestic violence during the coronavirus pandemic from 2020 (Piquero et al, 2021) increases the pressure to address this kind of offending.…”

Why Criminalise Coercive Control? The Complicity of the Criminal Law in Punishing Women Through Furthering the Power of the State

“…Indeed, when viewed historically, civil law has provided a significant and important avenue through which women living in violent relationships have been afforded legal support to improve their lives and secure their safety. This has also arguably been the case in England and Wales (Williams and Walklate 2020). The absence of any consideration of existing civil law options in this debate speaks volumes about the extent to which criminalisation has become a pre-eminent policy option for those seeking to redress the consequences of the violence(s) in women's lives.…”