Using criminal histories to empower victim–survivors of domestic abuse

Abstract

The Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS) was first introduced in England and Wales in 2014 and has since been reproduced across the world. Its aim is to empower victim–survivors by giving them access to a partner’s criminal history and thereby helping them make informed decisions about their relationship. Yet the relationship between information and empowerment in this context remains contested and unexplored both theoretically and empirically. This paper draws on findings from the largest qualitative study of the DVDS to date as well as coercive control, to show that police are using disclosures to undermine perpetrators’ ‘monopolies on perception’ and in doing so aiming to empower victim–survivors to redefine their own realities. The implications for practice-oriented models of empowerment and evaluation methodologies are explored.

An international review and normative examination of the collateral consequences of criminal record disclosures for domestic abuse

“…Research for the pilot of the South Australian DADS found that the scheme was prompting victims of abuse to come forward to report their crimes and seek support for the first time: 61% of applicants were previously unknown to services (Marshall, 2020). More importantly, findings from three recent qualitative studies in the United Kingdom and Australia show how disclosures can correct false and victim-blaming narratives about past incidents of abuse and validate and confirm recipients' concerns about their partner's behaviour (Barlow et al, 2021;Hadjimatheou, 2022;Urbis, 2020). Specifically, by revealing 'patterns' in abusive behaviour over multiple victims, disclosures can expose a partner as having a propensity to abuse (rather than being misunderstood or justified) which in turn can reduce a victim's self-blame.…”

“…using psychological manipulation to confuse and distort someone’s reality such that they must accept the perpetrator’s imposed reality in place of their own). The first DADS aimed explicitly to counteract this form of abuse, by providing those vulnerable to abuse with reliable information about the nature and severity of the risk they face, and thereby empowering them to make more informed decisions about their relationship and their safety (Hadjimatheou, 2022).…”

“…Taken together, this body of research suggests that DADS do yield benefits in terms of victim safeguarding. Indeed, most existing criticisms of DADS focus on concerns that police may not be disclosing as readily or in as much detail as they should (Barlow et al, 2021; Hadjimatheou, 2022) or that victims might be held responsible for their own protection following a disclosure (Fitz-Gibbon and Walklate, 2017; Wangmann, 2016). Yet this debate conspicuously excludes consideration of the potential impact of disclosures on those whose histories they reveal, thus overlooking the fact that they impose collateral consequences (deprivations or sanctions beyond formal punishment) on those with police records of abuse.…”

“…However, the fact that DADS appear currently to be used to safeguard and empower victims (Hadjimatheou, 2022) does not mean they could not also or in the future be used punitively, to sanction and control people with histories of abuse. 7 The Right to Know in particular has the potential to become a measure of penal control, especially if police begin to proactively warn people of a new partner’s dark history as a matter of routine practice, rather than in response to clear evidence of ongoing risk.…”

“…But disproportionality would still be difficult to demonstrate even if it were being used as punishment. As outlined in the first section of this article, most subjects of disclosures have substantial histories of abuse, but have never had to ‘pay their debt to society’ at all (see also Hadjimatheou, 2022). So, if anything, the ‘punishment’ involved in a disclosure is more likely to be disproportionately light.…”