|
` |
MY DAUGHTER'S STORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,POLICE AND PERPETRATORS COLLUDE AGAINST WOMENby her mother Caroline Ambrus
contentsMy daughter's story The police force in theory The police force in practice The researchers My recommendations If you wish to use any of this material the only requirement is that you acknowledge the source.
MY DAUGHTER'S STORY I am an 86 year old, a survivor of domestic violence in the 1960s and a relic from the second wave of feminism in the 1970s. Seeing my daughter going through the same domestic violence trauma six decades later brought back the abuse I suffered so long ago. Our experiences galvanised me into a search for the truth behind domestic violence. She was diagnosed about three years ago with terminal cancer. Her husband didn't want to look after a sick wife. With the onset of her disease their relationship also became terminal. His abuse escalated over eighteen months. Matters reached a crisis point when he burnt down her house and her storage sheds. The first thing she said to me on the afternoon after the fire was "I feel I have no identity." The police have charged him with arson and they don't do that on a whim. There is currently a warrant out for his arrest. Meanwhile he has absconded back to New Zealand. In her own words she said:" "On the 1st August 2023 I arrived to my home to find that everything that I possessed had been burnt to nothing. My house, all my clothing, kitchen, bathroom, photos of my children when they were younger, videos of family collected for years, horse riding gear, motor bike, riding gear, paintings, everything from inside my house gone. The sheds that stored machinery, farm tools, building material, all gone. A brand new 4 wheele, a vehicle, camping equipment…… all gone. My ex-husband had told a mutual friend that he planned to burn the house down." Insurers refused a fire policy as the house was on a bush block. Her husband knew this as it was also his property. Before he lit the fires, he had purchased a caravan and planned to go North. It was later found that he had put his valuables in the van and on the day of the fire he had parked his vehicle some distance away where he sat with his binoculars watching what was going on. When he burned down the house it unmasked him as the perpetrator of domestic violence. His rage at being rejected by his wife had more priority that his or her well-being. He destroyed everything because he felt he had nothing to lose and being a bullet proof narcissist he believed he would beat the rap. She became sick during 2022 and the abuse began then and continued up to 1 August 2023 which was the day her home was destroyed. The couple's first involvement with the police on 20 February 2022 was when her husband called them claiming that his wife was verbally abusing him and that she had cannabis on the property. She had a few grams for pain relief. She was charged with possession which was later dismissed by the Magistrate. His proclaimed intention was to break her financially and emotionally. If the possession charge had stuck she would have been branded a criminal. Her public service job would have been jeopardised and her reputation trashed. Later that year he called the police a second time on 28 November. He alleged that his wife had physically assaulted him and that she had smashed a window at their home. He had locked her out and denied her access to pick up essential items, including her medication. On this callout the police seized his firearms. His allegation that she physically assaulted him was a lie. She was having chemotherapy and was too weak and ill to pose a physical threat to him. This was in addition to her lack of muscular strength, height and weight compared to his. On Monday the 9 January 2023 she and her daughter attended the Police Station and tried to enlist help from the Domestic Violence Officer. She told him that her husband was verbally aggressive and blamed her for the police seizing his firearms. She reported that he had threatened her again with "watch your back' and that "your daughter is going to get it". The Officer was not interested and dismissed her without offering any help. Consequently the police issued her and her husband with a reciprocal Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVO) on the 14 January 2023. The order stated: POLICE FEARS Police strongly believe that the parties require intervention for their own protection through the implementation of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order that names them as defendants in addition to Persons In Need of Protection (PINOPS). The conflict between the parties is ongoing and incidents of verbal arguments is becoming more frequent. On police attendance there are conflicting versions given regarding actions of the parties and it is unclear how the incidents are escalating to a point that requires ongoing police intervention. Previous incidents reported to police have included damage to property and cannabis possession. Due to ongoing and building tensions between the parties, Police fear that without an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order, conflict will continue and may result in physical and /or psychological harm to one or both of the parties. He did not defend the Order. She defended hers which was withdrawn because he informed the court and the police that he was not in fear of her. On the 24 June 2023, after an argument with his wife he called the police. During the argument he breached his ADVO. When she tried to leave and sleep in her car he prevented her from going by hiding her bedding. It was during winter and she had covid and was being treated for cancer at the time. She was in danger of becoming more ill because of the cold. He took possession of her motor bike so she couldn't take it with her on the trailer when she left. He left it out in the weather and she was too weak to move it. He struck her and she responded by throwing a metal trailer tie down at his legs. Finally, he lied to the police that she had driven her car at him and that she threatened to commit suicide by taking tablets. It was later confirmed that none of the tablets she had would harm her. He was arrested. He was taken to the police station and was released to come back to an empty house because she had fled. The result of this incident was that they both were given a common assault charge and she received the second ADVO in five months. On the 31 July 2023 an eviction order was delivered to him. On the same day she told him that she was coming to the property with her son the next day to feed the horses and that she expected him to absent himself. The next day, 1 August 2023, he phoned and asked her to return and she refused. He said something like "well then that's a done deal". When she later arrived at the property with her son, they were both shocked to see that the house and two sheds containing personal effects and farm equipment had been destroyed by fire. There were police and firemen all over the place. She lost everything.
The day after the fire my daughter was being comforted by a friend. They can be seen on the upper left of this image. She was not insured as the house was on a bush block which was fire prone so insurers wouldn't touch it. He knew this as it was also his property. Before he lit the fires, he had purchased a caravan and planned to go North. It was later found that he had put his valuables in the van and on the day of the fire he had parked his vehicle some distance away where he sat with his binoculars watching what was going on at his former home. After a stint in a mental facility and an operation to insert a stent in his heart, the police turned him loose. During this period I was so afraid that he was going to kill her. She was living a caravan she had purchased on the remote property and she was a very vulnerable target. Every week she drove to the city for chemotherapy all of which exhausted her. But in spite of the stress and the money problems, she managed to orchestrate building an extension to a garage which had survived the fires. She and her son also did a lot of the work themselves. She now enjoys the pleasures of civilised living. We celebrated 2023 Christmas in her modest cottage. I am incredibly proud of my daughter's courage not only to survive but to thrive especially given her illness.. Some weeks after he burnt the house down, my daughter told me that he desperately wanted to go back to New Zealand and would I pay his fare as he was broke. I agreed. The price of the fare was the best investment I ever made. The next day he was on the plane out of Australia. The case for her ADVO and the common assault charges were heard in the Court late in 2023. The Magistrate confirmed the ADVO against her which he decided was to last for one week. So that went away and so did the common assault charge. The court cases she was dragged into by the police cost her some thousands of dollars and untold anxiety. The outcome of the three charges absolved her of any liability. The police did not have enough evidence to convict her of anything. It was an exercise in them showing their muscle to a woman they decided was not meek enough to meet the stereotype of the victim. I asked them after the fire and before the case was heard to withdraw the charges seeing that Craig's arson had exposed him as the perpetrator. But I didn't hear anything back. Analysis of the police policing my daughter The police behaviour in my daughter's case appeared to be a standard procedure for ensuring that the woman is criminalised along with the man, or instead of him. She was told "you are as bad as each other", ignoring the fact that he was clearly a narcissist and that she was a very sick woman. Who calls the police on their sick wife for taking medication which helped her? Why didn't the police take this into account? The answer is because they were not interested in working out the logistics of the case. The "one size fits all" was their standard operating procedure. This was carried out methodically and without any concern for the facts of the case. The police issued them both with joint ADVOs with poorly worded, ambiguous orders accompanied by an inappropriate, token justification. This had the potential to turn any innocent action into a breach and breaches can lead to jail. The joint ADVOs gave each of them power over the other. In theory this might appear to be equal treatment, but in practice, the real perpetrator, statistically most likely to be the man, will use the order to further terrorise his wife. In my daughter's case, she would only have to raise her voice and he would immediately be on the phone to the police complaining that she was breaching the order by abusing him. The police did not question his motivation for calling them multiple times. As the first to call the police, they defined him as the victim, which is what they usually do. At this point the police should have realised that he was attempting to weaponise them against her and that he was a manipulative and dangerous man. However, his actual character was irrelevant in the light of the procedure the police applied. He was also charming and a real "blokes bloke" which may have reassured an uneducated, prejudiced policeman that his wife was the one who was causing the trouble. In my daughter's case, the possession of a small amount of cannabis (395 grams of leaf and 10mls of oil) was a minor breach of the law. Her other two breaches of law and order were the broken window and the object she threw at her husband's legs. She freely admitted to both and provided adequate justification. But this did not stop the police for trying to criminalise her on these counts. They issued her and him with a common assault charges which is a criminal offense with jail time. She was within her rights to defend herself. She was entitled to enter the house she lived in and she was entitled to leave when it suited her. On both occasions her husband tried to impede her which was a worse crime than her defensive actions. But the police disregarded his constant threats and his aggressive behaviour and apparently decided she deserved punishment because she defended herself. The police ignored her debilitating illness. As stated, the first ADVO against my daughter was withdrawn as a result of her husband petitioning the court that he had nothing to fear from her. This should have alerted the police that he was the prime offender, not her. The attending police should have accessed this information before they issued her with a second ADVO. In the five months interim she was the same person. She had not suddenly become abusive or threatening. As for the common assault charge, she had the rights to defend herself against the threat to her privacy, against the threat of being held against her will and the right to defend her property against damage and theft. In spite of his breach of the ADVO on 24 June 2023, neither the police nor the courts have held him accountable, either then or now. The ADVO summons my daughter received revealed that the police had not done the background investigations necessary in identifying her as the victim. The summons stated that it was "unclear how the incidents are escalating to a point that requires ongoing police intervention." By taking an incident approach instead of a coercive control approach, the absence of a background to the dispute allowed her husband to avoid taking responsibility for his pattern of abusive behaviour. Even without investigating the dynamics between him and her, the police realised that the situation was getting progressively worse. With each argument, he was becoming more dangerous. She knew this was happening but the police did nothing in spite of her appealing for their help. They should have put him in Jail for breaching his ADVO. When he burnt the house down it unmasked him as the perpetrator. If the police had ordered counselling on the first occasion he called the police, they may have saved the couple's relationship and their home would be still standing. Whilst the police blamed both of them for the violence, they targeted her more intensely than him. There was no mention of his string of threats which would frighten anybody. His efforts to weaponise the police against her were obviously working. Any orders issued to him were just a mild inconvenience. His rage at being rejected by his wife had more priority that his or her well being. He destroyed everything because he felt he had nothing to lose and being a bullet proof narcissist he believed he would beat the rap. The police readiness to issue joint ADVOs to them in spite of departmental policy against this signified that they had an agenda which diverged from the aim of policing domestic violence which is to keep the victim safe and to curtail any further violence. None of this happened with them. They were virtually abandoned by police who evoked the standard justice system processes which relieved them of doing the hard work of working out the facts of the case. Having issued the ineffective ADVOs they just moved on. It was only until the situation escalated to a crisis that the police took matters seriously. But then this was too little, too late.
After the fire I wrote this book. It covers the history of misogynism in Australia. I was trying to account for the recent rise in misogynism. After finishing it, I drilled down deeper into the perplexing issue of escalating ddomestic violence. The more I contemplated my daughter's case and correlated this with what the researchers on domestic violence have said, I realised that we have exposed the truth.
THE POLICE FORCE IN THEORY The backlash If you are wondering why there's been an apparent increase in severity and frequency of domestic violence, the answer is that the forces of misogyny are attempting to forceably reassert the patriarchal structure of the family. In the years of revolution and counter revolution, misogyny has found new ways of subjugating women. We seem to be paralysed and unable to secure rights which were already won. We need to face our acceptance of the invisible, incidental, everyday patriarchal norms to locate the misogynist engine room which is driving inequality. Our failure to do this in combination with our preoccupation with piecemeal reforms instead of revolution is giving misogyny a space in which to operate. The police force, like most institutions which have failed to flush misogynism out of the body corporate, is integral to this backlash. There is an overwhelming amount of academic, government and feminist reports into the causes and the cures for domestic violence. This information has been accumulating for years, gathering dust in the archives of the powerful whilst very little has been done for women who are still trapped in their homes by violent men. I can hear the "not all men" cohort groaning in protest and they are right of course. Within the police force as in many other institutions, many employees try to do a good job in helping the vulnerable. But it is also a well documented that the police force is patriarchal and misogynism is the secretive ideology underpinning its operations. The question is how many activists are necessary to convert an organisation to their ideology? Research has demonstrated that it takes a committed twenty five percent. (1) There are no figures which informs us of the extent of misogyny in the police force. Its covert nature means that we can only address the symptoms to locate where this ideology is centred. The misogynist backlash has been stalking women now for decades. For as many women who have found success in careers and in their personal lives, there are large numbers who are still trapped in archaic submission. The intimate relationship between the genders is central to how society functions. Consequently, in addressing social justice, gender relationships has become a confrontation between misogynist and liberal ideologies. The domestic violence space is a social litmus test. What happens here has a flow on effect to the rest of society. In intimate relations women are forced by violence to comply with whatever the man wants. And if they don't then the punishment is a fist in the face or the iron grip of a chokehold or a bullet in the heart. And typical of the relationship between the genders, any perceived wrongdoing by women is met with an overkill of retaliation by men, and this includes the front line police. The pursuit of power The most important institution which keeps the prescribed social order is the justice system. At the top we have the politicians who define the status quo by legislation. Then we have the police chiefs who put that legislation into practice with the relevant orders, policies, procedures and practices. At the bottom of the hierarchy we have the front line police who are charged with executing these orders. They have total discretion to the point where they can ignore the formal rules in doing what they decide is appropriate at the time. This is a privileged position which attracts men with an agenda of accessing power and control. The entry qualifications for the police force are minimal, namely Year 10 Certificate and 2 years of work experience is all that's required. So theoretically we can have an eighteen year old rookie policeman replete with his lack of education and his gender bias being sent out to police domestic violence incidents. They sit in judgment on women who have been victimised which does not end well for them. The standard excuse senior police use when questioned on the unsuitability of front line police is staff shortages. One would think that scooping up teenagers from the streets would full that gap. Further in most institutions the least qualified and newest recruits end up doing counter work whilst the more experienced staff are enjoying their latest promotion. This is likely the case in the police force. The fixation on power is a particularly strong feature of the male gender stereotype. The police force would be seen as a draw card for men who are insecure about their masculinity. The police are seen by society as being the finest example of what a man should be. The visible front line police have been trusted with unfettered discretion to act in the public interest. So they have more power to influence the community than the heads of countries and the CEO's of corporations. If questioned about their behavior, they can rely on the excuse that conditions on the streets justify their decisions and nobody is going to question this. The end result is what we have today which is inconsistent policing, injustice, chaos and violence which affects the most vulnerable in society. The male propensity to cohere with other males has been co-opted by misogynists. They are good at making otherwise decent men feel shame for being outside the pack. Policing gives men the opportunity to stick together against target groups which are defined by society's rich and powerful. "I've got your back" is the police hidden agenda which has more power than any of the rules and regulations, laws etc. they are supposed to follow. Police cohesion underpins the complaints process. Without a fair, timely, accessible and transparent system, a runaway orgnisational culture can develop which derails the very purpose of its establishment in the first place. The Commissioner was informed of cases where reports of sexual harassment and sexist conduct were finalised by way of Local Management Resolution by the Queensland Police Service. The outcome was likely that no additional requirements for training, supervision or any remedial action would be imposed on the respondents. She commented that the Resolution service was only meant for minor infractions, rather than covering repeated wrongdoing and that using this service for more serous issues such as sexist and misogynist conduct would have the effect of down playing the seriousness of the offenses and discouraging aggrieved police from lodging complaints. She concluded that this created "the conditions in which sexism and misogyny can continue and flourish." Consequently Project Juniper was established to address protracted bullying and sexual harassment. Apparently this also did not meet the degree of improvements which was expected. (2) The flawed, in-house complaints system allows police to get away with slack and prejudiced policing and other varieties of bad behavior. This encourages more of the same. Unchecked bad behavior will usually escalate. The well known cohesion of the police force enables this to be covered up if it's extreme, or normalised if the erring police can get away with it. These bleak findings do little to inspire confidence in the policing system. Given that the police enjoy such immunity from the consequences of their negligence suggests that society does not question the integrity of the justice system. In reality it is riddled with maladministration and corruption perhaps to a greater degree than more accountable organisations. The police regulate the rest of society. As stated, power without commensurate responsibility is an egregious social wrong. It is also an aphrodisiac which attracts men with dark intentions. The legal argument the police use to dodge taking responsibility is that their duty of care is to society and not to individuals. This has worked for a long time because precedences were established long ago which put the police on a social pedestal. The judiciary has let the police force off in most cases. Nobody wants to upset the judicial apple cart. There needs to be a case taken to court which challenges this police immunity. So far there has been a bit of progress in this space. Perhaps the next case will see the judiciary strip police of their privileged position. Without a robust, independent transparent complaints system, and this includes the courts, the police can get away with anything and they often do.
THE POLICE FORCE IN PRACTICE Who is the perpetrator of domestic violence? Statistics demonstrate that men are in the majority as perpetrators of domestic violence. In spite of this, the police, the perpetrators and men's rights groups argue otherwise. Such arguments are driven by misogynism and are aimed at creating the impression in the public mind that women are equally guilty of domestic violence as are the men. Human beings have unique innate abilities to detect the emotional state of other people. However, when confronted by domestic violence, the attending male police are likely to ignore the emotional side of the crisis and focus on the factual. It is inevitable that as men they will be informed by their gender stereotype, so they are likely to believe the husband instead of the wife. He is calm, cool collected and in control. She has finally rebelled against his constant abuse, so she is frightened, noisy and aggressive. Many police have fixed beliefs about how the ideal victim should behave which is submissive and grateful. An angry hysterical woman shapes up as being the most obvious perpetrator, so she cops the blame. There are other reasons why the police are increasingly misidentifying women as the perpetrators. There is a common belief that the first person to call the police is the victim. Manipulative men have seized on this so that's what they will do. Police believe that women complain of domestic violence to get the man into trouble, or for revenge for a broken relationship. They believe that women lie and they either don't take their stories seriously, or don't interview them at all. Apart from that police have been heard making crude sexist comments to women and making them feel as though they are wasting police time. Then they ask questions that women find hard to answer such as "why didn't you leave?"and "why didn't you report this earlier? and "you are as bad as each other" and "why did you go back to him?" This is not supportive and doesn't make women feel safe. it puts the onus on them to explain instead of asking the perpetrator "why are you so violent?". If the police has doubts about their ability to read the room and gauge emotions, a few simple questions will determine who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. Who is the biggest and the strongest? Who earns the most money? Who does the most of the domestic duties? Who pays the bills? Who goes out alone? Who has to ask for permission to spend money? Who has to self censor their every word and deed? The answers will disclose the dynamics of the couple's relationship and who is frightening whom. But in spite of advice to the contrary, the police often do not ask questions and may not consult a counselor or the inhouse Domestic Violence Liaison Officer. There are manuals, guidelines, protocols and policies to tell front line police how to deal with domestic violence. But according to the various inquiries, the front line police disregard these and rely on their prejudice, or on a guess or on whatever inspires them at the time. Identifying a perpetrator of domestic violence should not be that difficult. The larger than life smooth operator in comparison to his diminutive, harried "other half" is red flag number one. But the police are blind to the fact that in most couple relationships the man has the emotional, physical and economic advantages over the woman. All the police see is a difficult woman so any action they take will favor the man. That's enough to pull an innocent women into the traumas of the legal process. In addition, all of the reports I have read have not mentioned the physical or social differences between men and women. There seems to be a collective myopia to the fact that women choose to mate with the biggest and strongest and the most resourced male she can find. Her hopes are that the genetics might work and if this fails the money will compensate. But often she is opening her door to a bully who will make her life hell. The activists and the academics all agreed with recommendations that the police force needs to be educated in policing domestic violence and correctly identifying the perpetrator. I believe that misogynists have infiltrated the police force and are having a significant effect on policing outcomes. After the current political agitation, the politicians and the police are anxious to present the image that the police are keeping women safe. Hopefully appropriate education of the front line police will make this a reality. I see that educating police as a step towards reprogramming misogynism out of the police force. There should be regular, face to face lectures which are delivered by a woman with the relevant training and experience. No misogynist cop is going to hang around for this humiliation, or they might learn how to be human. Examples of police non-compliance with codes and policies I observed in my daughter's case that the police did not follow Departmental documentation on how to do their jobs. The Code of Ethics states that "police will take a proactive approach in dealing with offenders and consider arrest as well as taking action to reduce repeated offender behavior." (3) The police did nothing to mitigate her husband's escalating abuse. When he breached his ADVO he should have been incarcerated so that he would become aware that his actions had consequences. The Code states that "Police will pursue all avenues of inquiry and investigation to identify the offender. Where a power of arrest exists and there is sufficient reason to use that power, police may arrest any identified offenders. The primary objective is to ensure the safety of victim/s and the placing of the offender before the court." (4) The police did little investigation in my daughter's case. Her safety was irrelevant. He was threatening her with violence and it was up to her family to make her safe. Had he been arrested and placed before a court for his breach of the ADVO, he might not have escalated to the tragic culmination of his abuse. Finally the Code on page 28 states: "Police will receive specialised training – ensuring that all front-line officers and specialist investigators have the best levels of appropriate knowledge, skills and abilities when responding to family violence." (5) The police's efforts in my daughter's case were prejudiced, minimal and futile. If they had been properly trained they would have understood that he was the perpetrator acting as the victim in disguise and they would have predicted his escalation and taken action to protect her. Then there is the Code of Practice for the NSW Police Force Response to Domestic and Family Violence which discourages them from "arresting and charging both parties arising out of a domestic or personal violence incident with limited exception". (6) This is an important policy because the front line police use reciprocal ADVOs to incriminate both parties instead of identifying the primary aggressor. The facts are that there is a perpetrator and a victim especially in domestic violence cases where there inherent inequality exists. When the police issues orders to both, they are victimising the innocent party. This is not justice and this prejudicial policing needs to be stamped out. Apart from the Code of Ethics, and the Code of Practice there is another police document titled Standards of Professional Conduct published by the NSW Police Force which states: An employee of the NSW Police Force must know and comply with all policies, procedures and guidelines that relate to their duties. If you are going to work lawfully and effectively you need to understand and act in accordance with the standards that govern your duties. The NSW Police Force has a responsibility to ensure all employees know and understand the requirements of their job by providing access to training and advice as well as documented policies, procedures and guidelines. Employees are also responsible for their own professional development and education. This includes maintaining an up to date knowledge of relevant policies, procedures and guidelines and applying them appropriately. (7) Every aspect of front line policing of domestic violence has been met with failure and this has been going on for decades. Whilst the politicians and well meaning police chiefs legislate and create policies to effectively deal with domestic violence, many of the front line police have been influenced by the misogynists' agenda. In addition the police force does not train recruits appropriately and the police chiefs are failing to ensure that the front line police are compliant with their codes, policies and instructions. Unless non compliance is rooted out and punished, the police maladministration of domestic violence will continue and women will end up dead or in jail in ever increasing numbers. Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVOs) They say that if the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. So it is with domestic violence orders. As the orders are presently worded and administered, they are of little help. Nothing replaces the personal touch of a caring person who observes the dynamics of a relationship and helps the couple get over the crisis. The police adopt an incident by incident approach which precludes taking a couple's history. Then they leave the grunt work of deciding who is the perpetrator to the courts. The orders are a well designed trap which is the starting point for women, or men, to be processed through the justice system until they end up in jail. The orders are generic and can be misinterpreted by the parties. Yet this is a legal situation with serious life-altering ramifications. The police who write up these documents are legal amateurs with the power to set in motion draconian laws which can destroy a person's life. Intrinsic to the orders system is the police readiness to issue joint ADVOs. This is used by the police to draw women into the justice system. The joint ADVO has each party being both the victim and the perpetrator simultaneously. The police issue these with the excuse that they couldn't identify the perpetrator because each person told a different story. In any quarrelsome event, diverging perceptions of what happened is highly likely. So the police have ample opportunity to game the system by blaming both parties equally. This tactic by the police has a long history born of dishonest interrogation methods. The police find inconsistency whenever it suits their policing process. And who is going to contradict them?
Pinning down the size of the problem is difficult, partly because data varies widely between states and services. But a series of recent reports suggests victims are being misidentified at staggering rates, particularly Aboriginal women and those from migrant communities... Support services have reported up to 50 per cent of female clients have been named as perpetrators have been misidentified. Aboriginal women are estimated at 90 per cent of intervention orders against them involved misidentification... There is definitely a lack of using interpreters when it should be evident to police that one is needed... But if you literally cannot understand both sides ... you shouldn't be making a decision about who the primary aggressor is... When police get it wrong domestic violence workers reported that engagement with them to tell them "You've got it wrong" is difficult because police can't be reached or are unwilling to negotiate. Domestic violence workers stated that "We have to do what police failed to do at the outset: we actually investigate." (8) Police frequently use reciprocal ADVOs to pull women into the frightening legalities of the domestic violence system. This is based on the myth that both men and women are equally responsible for the violence. The apparent equality of this treatment glosses over the fact that the police did not conduct a searching investigation to explain the couple's diverging accounts of what had happened. The concept of equivalency was debunked in 1992 by the book The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence, by Russell P. Debash who argued: "We shall see that claims of sexual symmetry in marital violence are exaggerated and that wives' and husbands' uses violence differ greatly, both quantitatively and qualitatively... If violence is gendered, and it assuredly is, explicit characterisations of gender's relevance to violence is essential. The alleged similarities of women and men in their use of violence in intimate relationships stands in marked contrast men's virtual monopoly of the use of violence in other social contexts and we challenge the proponents of the sexual symmetry thesis to develop coherent theoretical models that would account for a sexual monomorphism of violence one social context and not in others." (10) This should convince the men's rights movement and the police that their belief in the equivalency of domestic violence is based on false assumptions. However, it's almost excusing these men by calling their misogynsm a "belief". Misogynism is not a standalone belief. It's a systematic collection of anti women mantras which adds up to a integrated ideology. Yet the irrational belief in the equivalency of violence persists and is evidence by the increasing numbers of women who are criminalised unjustly. It seems that the front line police are unwilling to abandon such a useful tool for keeping women under the control of men.
THE RESEARCHERS What the researchers have said or failed to say While researching and writing this paper, I discovered that reports from some women's organisations did not account for the continuation of misogyny over the many decades which underpins society's present coercive control of women. Any analysis of a contemporary social issue without including its history, can weaken the arguments and jeopardises the resolutions. The truism that to ignore history is to repeat it resonates here. The Women's Legal Service Victoria, Policy Paper 1, July 2018, gave several reasons for police misidentifying women as perpetrators. It stated: "in the main police members lack familiarity with the fairly sensible guidance in the Code of Practice for the Investigation of Family Violence." (11) We are told that ignorance of the law is no excuse. My daughter's experience with the police demonstrated that they did not comply with their departmental documentation on how to do their jobs, negligence caused her much suffering. But this ignorance is apparently acceptable to the police chiefs as the front line police are not disciplined for their failure to comply with departmental instructions. Male perpetrators who gamed the system were singled out in the Policy Paper as the major factor in the misidentification of women as the abusers. It stated that identification was "complex, technical and nuanced work." The police are supposed to be trained in sussing out the truth where people are lying. It's their job. Yet they are suddenly inept at doing this when policing domestic violence. An example of misidentification was given by the Policy Paper which reported that "Often in cases where police fail to identify the genuine 'primary aggressor' of family violence, the male party has claimed 'she hit me first'". (12) Is that enough reason for police to charge her instead of him? And given that he's probably twice her size, the "she hit me first" is just plain laughable. The ANROWS research used academic language which disguised rather than revealed. For example, the words used in describing the causes of misidentification were due to "police organisational, procedural and cultural factors". (13) Here was a great opportunity to clarify this further. I would suggest a rewrite along the lines of "the male dominated police organisation results in a cultural bias against women which motivates attending police to disregard their codes of conduct by misidentifying women as the perpetrators". It's a bit longer but it's saying the same thing in plain speak. ANROWS stated: "Treating victims of violence as perpetrators... [the police] may inadvertently collude with perpetrators in exerting further control over their (ex-)partners through systems abuse" (14) The words "inadvertently collude" jumped out at me. Colluding is a deliberate and conscious act undertaken with other individuals for a specific purpose, whereas inadvertently is an action which is almost unplanned, unconscious and incidental. The collusion of the police with the perpetrator is conscious, not inadvertent. It's too widespread in the system to be an incidental occurrence. The words used by ANROWS tended to excuse the police for their prejudicial behavior. The recent report (23.08.2024) titled Prevention Potential: Accelerating action to end domestic, family and sexual violence. Report of the Rapid Review of Prevention Approaches stated: Far from an inadvertent outcome, "misidentification" may be the deliberate outcome of a man's weaponisation of the system against his female partner. Alternatively or additionally, it may be the direct result of profiling and racism [and I would have added sexism?] by statutory systems. (15) Again the use of the word "inadvertent" excuses the police and the perpetrator is blamed for the criminalisation of women. The "Statutory systems" don't generate racist and sexist profiling, people do. In respect to domestic violence, the system has published enough advice so that the front line police should know how to identify and protect the victim and if they don't understand the instructions, perhaps a little common sense would be appropriate. But the police are after their "deliberate outcome" which ignores departmental advice. They would rather listen to the male perpetrators. This "deliberate outcome" is one which has been initiated and enabled by the real perpetrator who is manipulating the police while hiding in plain sight. He cannot incriminate the woman without the police using their discretionary power to ram her through the criminal legal system. So ultimately the police are responsible for the misidentification of women as perpetrators. A call for change by Judge Deborah Richards The police maladministration of domestic violence incidents and the poorly administered, secretive police bureaucracy has been documented by "A call for change, Commission of inquiry Into Queensland Police Service responses to domestic and domestic and family violence". This was a pivotal report into Queensland policing of domestic violence and was conducted by Judge Deborah Richards in November 2022. The Commissioner related how inconsistent and inadequate responses from front line police officers stemmed from their negative attitudes towards women and from their belief in the various myths about domestic and family violence. They tended to distrust women and failed to conduct appropriate investigations and/or take protective action. Police informants told the Judge that some of the officers believed that false or frivolous complaints are made by female victims to gain advantage or for revenge for some slight. (17) Actually this speaks volumes as to the kind of men who are policing domestic violence call outs. Such a thought would typically occur to a man who was capable of this kind of behavior himself. The Commissioner commented on how many police officers were annoyed that the impact of domestic and family violence on women was being treated as if it was a big deal. She explained that police often did not understand the power dynamics in domestic violence which disadvantaged vulnerable women. I would interpret this as the police resenting the community's attention on domestic violence against women because their cloak of anonymity was being ripped away. Officers were observed to have a dismissive attitude towards women who do not fit how they believed the "ideal victim" should behave. She reported that police have an aversion to responding to domestic violence incidents which results in their shortcutting the process and responding with little interest in doing a good job. (18) This reflects a common police perception that "domestics" are not "real" police business. Given that policing domestic violence is up to 40% of the police work load, one wonders what else they have to do that's so important. However in the mind of a policeman, catching the crooks is far more glamorous than working out the nitty gritty of a disputing couple. A list of police wrongs from the research and from my experiences Police behavior covers:
The police force is mainly composed of men. The male gender stereotype is embedded in the structures than informs policing and is inherent in the body and behavior of every male employee. Given that male domination is the accepted norm for our society, the police force will also be male dominated. The ideology of male domination is misogynism which is carefully concealed by men's rights activists with faux concerns for men's health, men's preoccupation with masculine identity, men's rights in the Family Law Court, men's so called "loneliness epidemic", that women are as violent as men, the list goes on. It is not unreasonable to assume that the police force is tainted with all of this, even if some individual policemen are not. The comparative few women in the police force are inevitably compromised as they are compelled to adopt the formal and informal police force culture. If the policewomen fails to conform to male defined institutional norms or locker room misogyny, they are punished by their colleagues. It was a police woman who first issued an ADVO to my daughter who was then suffering cancer in addition to her husband's abuse. One would have hoped that a police woman would have some understanding of how domestic violence affects women. However, if she ambitious to get ahead, any kill for her is a notch in her belt. It is misleading for domestic violence researchers to try and account for misidentification without including the context of history and the way contemporary society is either unaware of this practice, or doesn't think it's important enough for attention, or remediation. Misidentification is the missing link between the misogynist backlash and the desire of these men to control women. The situation is this: the family is regarded as the most important institution in society. Men are, or were, the traditional heads, however, this is breaking down due to the expansion of women's rights into areas dominated by men. Policemen also have wives of their own so they have a vested interest in preserving patriarchal power. After the shocks of women gaining new rights, the misogynist backlash is trying to preserve the traditional family and the police are at the center of this push. When the basis of policing domestic violence became a highly ritualised legal process, police discovered misidentification as a handy tool for keeping women subjugated and at the beck and call of men who insist on believing they are still the heads of households. By controlling women trapped in domestic violence, police are contributing to the subjugation of all women by criminalising and jailing the ones who rebel against the man's rules. When a man sees he can get away with violence, he is likely to escalate. By misidentifying women as perpetrators and by letting men off lightly, the police are legitimising violence against all women. This has percolated through the community and has become the basis of a vicious campaign against women's rights. By giving men virtually free reign to use violence against their family, the police are responsible for the escalation and continuation of the backlash campaign of violence against women. When the police fail to hold domestic violence perpetrators responsible for their abuse, they are enabled to continue and escalate their behavior. The same thing happens to erring police when they are brought before the police internal complaints system. They're let off with a token rebuke. When either the police or the domestic violence perpetrator don't suffer the consequences of their bad behavior, a pattern of continuation and escalation develops. Both police and perpetrators are emboldened which accounts for what is happening to women today. The counter revolution is in full swing from the homes of the nation The police support of the male domestic violence perpetrator is hidden away from the public eye. Secrecy is maintained when police fail to document events and if they do, the weasel words hide what has really happened. The political will is to keep women safe. But in spite of all the efforts of activists, politicians and the courts, women are less safe today than they were in the 1950's. The police maladministration of policing domestic violence is unquestioned by the leaders of society. The result has been escalating violence between men and women which has been stoked by the widespread acceptance that this is inevitable. The prevailing belief which is imposed on women is that unless they comply with men's wishes, the violence is set to continue. Police procedures which ensure the criminalisation of women have been practiced and perfected over the centuries. It has reached the point where this system is operating on auto pilot. There is no present intervention strong enough to arrest this long standing misogynist paradigm. This process has been hardwired into the justice system. The judiciary cannot modify this. It is hamstrung by precedents which gives the police a free pass as they have no legal duty of care to individuals. The politicians occasionally make token attempts to regulate police behavior, but the policies and guidelines that are put in place are not mandatory so police breach them with impunity. Time and time again, inquiries, statistics and activism make it clear that the community wants the authorities to take the appropriate action. But this is not happening because the police, the judiciary and the politicians have laid down the rules of engagement, and the first rule is that the police are not accountable to anybody for anything. We need to ask: what is the cost of educating the police force in the dynamics of coercive control? Is this approach more economically justifiable than incidence based policing, given the documented flow on harmful effects of the latter? Education in coercive control may either flush out the misogynists from the police force or cure them of their prejudice. This cost should be compared with how much it costs the government to fund all the services made necessary to repair the damage done by misogynist policing. The politicians need to provide these answers as it is our money they are spending. Maybe questions in the Parliament will jog a few political consciences. Given that coercive control is being legislated around Australia there's hope yet. We need to step up to see that it's done right. The police are in a position of power and it's within their jurisdiction to comply with the social will to end domestic violence. All it takes is the courage to make the changes from the politicians down to the newest police recruits. Once perpetrators see that they cannot get away with domestic violence, they will have no choice but to cease and desist their brutality or spend time in jail. The various instruments of control over how police do their jobs whether this is through legislation, policies, codes of conduct, procedures etc. needs to be mandated with the threat of penalties for non-compliance. When police disrespect the governing principles of the police force they are bringing the whole justice system into disrepute. If the police force cannot clean up its act then the whole system is due for a revamp. The problem is that the politicians and the judiciary tend to go soft on the police force. Nothing of any significance has been mandated in the legislation and judicial decisions favor the police. Systemic discrepancies have not been addressed nor have the holes been patched up. This is the next step. Women's rights campaigners need to relate the continuation and escalation of domestic violence with flaws in the legislation, with manipulated legal processes and with the failure of the police bureaucracy to educate front line officers and hold them accountable. The infiltration of misogynists into policing with their agenda of manipulating every situation to the disadvantage of women needs to be flushed out of the body corporate. It is time for a change. But women can't do this without the help of men. And finally who can change this? I say we can! references 1. Want to Change Society's Views? Here's How Many People You'll Need on Your Side, We've honed in on the "tipping point" for social change. Updated 6.10.2018, https://futurism. com/social-change-tipping-point
MY RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Frontline police responding to domestic violence call out need to be accompanied by a trauma trained psychologist, preferably a woman. Police also should be appropriately educated to make informed decisions. |
