Putting Coercive Control into Practice: Problems and Possibilities

Abstract

There is growing international interest in translating Stark’s concept of coercive control into criminal justice policy and practice. In December 2015 an offence of coercive control was introduced in England and Wales. This paper offers an empirical investigation of the problems and possibilities associated with the translation of this offence into practice in one police force area in England. The findings offer some scope for optimism in response to patterns of abuse, but they also support the view that the current gender-neutral version of the legislation requires revision; there is a need for greater resourcing and training to improve understandings of the nature and impact of coercive control at all points of contact within the criminal justice process and finally, it remains the case that effective responses to domestic abuse need to be genuinely holistic.

Prosecuting controlling or coercive behaviour in England and Wales: Media reports of a novel offence

“…How to move forward? The next step in researching this phenomenon is the investigation of primary data (see, for example, Barlow et al, 2019). Only this level of analysis will give greater confidence in the conclusions offered herein and address some of the more uncertain aspects of the current study.…”

“…The near-exclusive prosecution of men for this offence is likely at least partly attributable to police and prosecutors having been sensitised by statutory guidance issued by the Home Office (2015), which draws attention to the gendered nature of intimate partner abuse. Data from both the Ministry of Justice (ONS, 2018) and Barlow et al's (2019) recent analysis of coercive control offences recorded by Merseyside Police support these results (respectively finding that 97% and 95% of recorded perpetrators were male) and further confirm that these results cannot be explained as a distortion resulting from female victims tending to be over-represented in media reports (Dowler et al, 2006). Instead, the existence of a male victim of this offence was sufficiently contrary to expectations that it garnered intense media interest (see Naylor, 2001: 182, Case 102).…”

“…A number of family violence and criminal law researchers have now begun evaluating the desirability and utility of these offences (Douglas, 2015(Douglas, , 2018aMcMahon and McGorrery, 2016a;Padfield, 2016;Tolmie, 2018;Walklate et al, 2018). To date, the arguments for and against introducing an offence of coercive control (or something similar) have occurred almost exclusively at an abstract level, devoid of any empirical data (contra Barlow et al, 2019). Researchers advocating for a new offence suggest that there is a gap in the law with a consequent failure to criminalise a significant harm, and that the traditional approach of only prosecuting non-physical abuse when it occurs in contravention of a court order not only misidentifies the real harm but also attracts inappropriately low penalties and leaves victims unprotected (Douglas, 2007(Douglas, , 2015.…”

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

“…Both reports point to the ongoing gaps in policing responses to domestic violence alongside evidence indicating the patchy implementation of the offence of coercive control introduced in the Serious Crimes Act 2015 (see, for example, Barlow et al . 2020; Bishop 2016). Of course, difficulties in implementing legislation do not pertain only to the police but also take their toll as cases progress (or not) through the criminal justice process.…”

Women exiting prostitution: Reports of coercive control in intimate relationships

“…Crossman et al (2016, p. 457) argued that the coercive control empirical literature includes "definitional and measurement dilemmas, with similar behaviors overlapping with a myriad of different constructs, including emotional abuse, psychological abuse, psychological maltreatment, emotional blackmail, psychological aggression, coercion, and verbal abuse." Several researchers have further argued that while a coercive control framework concerning IPV in the general population of women has directed research, policy development, and clinical practice for several decades, there is significant inconsistency in the empirical literature regarding approaches to defining and assessing coercive control (Barlow et al, 2019;Crossman et al, 2016;Hardesty et al, 2015;Walby & Towers, 2018). Thus, while controlling constructs identified in some studies may be similar, clarity and consistent coercive control conceptualization distinct from other forms of abuse is needed.…”