Camilla Thompson

W0571188 TMA 04- D315

OPTION 2

Why are criminal justice systems as capable of delivering 'injustices' as they are 'justice'?

There is a greater fear of crime in the public sphere and the popular consensus is that the ' streets’ and ‘city’ are more dangerous places than the home.

This assumption has led to crimes that occur in the private sphere being dismissed, ignored and allowed to continue without intervention. It is only in recent years that new legislation has enforced laws to protect those subjected to domestic violence. Family violence is now being taken seriously and the public being made aware of what is going on behind certain closed doors.

The concept of crime occurring in the home attacks most people’s general assumption that the home is safe or a place of refuge. Family members are meant to protect each other not hurt one another. The idea that the private sphere may not be a safe one can be very damaging to how family life is viewed and perceived. The notion of the ‘normal’ family is challenged by the facts that domestic crime is prevalent in many different societies, cultures and family structures.

The Home Office statistics show that men and women feel much more unsafe on the streets rather than in their own home. The statistics on domestic violence show that 16% of crime is domestic. The victims are subjected to repeat assaults, on average it will take 35 assaults before a victim will call the police or for ask help. Two women die a week in relation to domestic crime. (Home Office, 2005). These results show that there is a serious need to start taking crime within the private sphere much more seriously. New legislation has helped to protect victims and encouraged more to come forward and report crimes. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004) is expected to be implemented this April, 2005. This act will increase protection and help to support victims and witnesses.

Women and children are mainly at risk of domestic violence but more increasingly so are men. A helpline has been set up for men who are subjected to abuse, alongside the child and women’s help line. The elderly are at risk too and ‘granny battering’ was coined in the 1960’s but only seen as a serious problem in the 1990’s.

The public’s concern for street crime is very high, sensationalized media reporting and the ever growing fascination of crime has led to fear. The development of moral panic has meant that the city streets are seen as potentially always a place of danger, with the home increasing as a place of apparent safety. There does not seem to be a mass public distress for some domestic crime, if the crime will not affect them directly then there appears to be a lack of concern. It is maybe hard for some people to understand or comprehend how crime could take place in the home and therefore it is dismissed and becomes invisible.

It is important to look at all the types of violence or abuse that occur in the private sphere, the oldest form of abuse was reasonable chastisement. This allowed parents to punish their children how they saw fit. This is now seen as abuse and is not acceptable. It also allowed husbands to chastise their wives as they saw fit, now known as conjugal violence. It was found that marital rape was the commonest form of rape and 14% of women had been raped by their husbands. (Painter, quoted in Saraga, 2001, p.210).

Feminist campaigns brought about new legislation in the 90’s and forced the issue of rape within marriage to be criminalized. These changing definitions on what constituted violence suddenly meant that people had to change their behaviours towards family members. The 1861 Offences Against the Person’s Act included some degree of protection towards wives but no specific law to protect them. The Matrimonial Causes Act in 1878 meant that women could get a separation order if they were in danger and their husband had been convicted. Again, this gave some protection but very little support.

Feminist campaigning led to further legislation ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Feminist campaigning led to further legislation and the rights of the women being much more protected and women’s confidence and rights began to grow. Domestic violence became a public concern in the 1970’s, even though women had been suffering for years; it was only then that action started to be taken. This was due to movements for human rights being taken seriously and governments addressing the social issue of domestic crime.

The ‘battered housewife’ was then accepted as a serious problem but still official criminalization needed to be clarified. The popular belief amongst most men was that women deserved to be hit or punished. The ‘rule of the thumb’ clearly demonstrates the acceptance of violence from a man to his wife/woman. Even judges had the belief that ‘bad’ women should be reprimanded for their behaviour (Conley, quoted in Saraga, 2001, p. 206). This is a victim blaming discourse, where the fault lies with the women and hot the perpetrator of the violence.

As an awareness of domestic crime developed within society, so people’s different discourses on how families were viewed had to change. The patriarchal family discourse saw the male as head of the family and in control of his family, using reasonable chastisement and this was viewed as ‘normal’ and acceptable.

The welfare discourse was about concern for the family and the ‘social problems’ they were experiencing. As domestic violence became more widely accepted as a crime, the welfare discourse was principal in child abuse cases.

The feminist discourses challenged the ideals of the ‘normal’ family and made violence noticeable to the public and viewed as a crime. The feminist movement revolutionized human rights and how people saw the family. Hidden crimes and truths came out and domestic violence was being taken more seriously. The feminist discourse discouraged ‘privacy’ to stop hiding domestic crimes. The intervention of the state was necessary in order to find out exactly what was going on in some households. Gordon (1989) believed that the outcry at the apparent attack on ‘privacy’ was actually a challenge to male authority. (Gordon, quoted in Saraga, 2001, 1989, p.215).

The children’s rights discourse developed and is still developing through the understanding that children needed to have basic human rights to stand up for themselves and seek protection. 1979 was the International Year of the Child which then proceeded with the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child ten years later. The 1989 Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act brought about more legislation and from this developed more organizations, police and authority intervention and help for children.

The topic of child abuse will now be discussed. The NSPCC Website has a facts and figures page where all the latest statistics can be seen. This is the list, some of the facts are very shocking, this essay will look at these figures and the domestic violence figures and try to assess why the dominant assumption is that ‘home’ is the place which is ‘safe’(Hamner , quoted in Saraga, 2002, p.192)

Facts and Figures about Child Abuse

• NSPCC research shows that a significant minority of children suffer serious abuse or neglect:

7% of children experienced serious physical abuse at the hands of their parents or carers during childhood.
1% of children experienced sexual abuse by a parent or carer and another 3% by another relative during childhood. 11% of children experienced sexual abuse by people known but unrelated to them. 5% of children experienced sexual abuse by an adult stranger or someone they had just met.
6% of children experienced serious absence of care at home during childhood.
6% of children experienced frequent and severe emotional maltreatment during childhood.i

• 16% of children experienced serious maltreatment by parents, of whom one third experienced more than one type of maltreatment.ii

• Latest available figures show that there are 32,700 children on child protection registers in the UK as at 31st March 2003.iii

• Nearly 79,000 children are currently looked after by local authorities in the UK.iv

• Every week in England and Wales one to two children will die following cruelty.v

• There are on average 80 child homicides recorded in England and Wales each year.vi

• On average one child is killed by their parent or carer every week in England and Wales.vii

• The people most likely to die a violent death are babies under 1 year old, who are four times more likely to be killed than the average person in England and Wales.viii

• Three-quarters of sexually abused children did not tell anyone about the abuse at the time, and around a third still had not told anyone about their experience(s) by early adulthood.ix

• Over a quarter of all rapes recorded by the police are committed against children under 16 years of age.x

• 31% of children experienced bullying during childhood, a further 7% were discriminated against and 14% were made to feel different/an outsider. 43% experienced at least one of these things during childhood.xi

• NSPCC teams and Helplines accepted over 24,000 requests for help in 2003-4.xii

(NSPCC, Quoted on Web Site, accessed 20/03/05)

These figures are gathered from reported crimes and therefore the actual figures are probably much higher, due to hidden crime and the high rate of unreported crime.

In recent years, the media has brought to our attention many more cases of child abuse, the topic once too taboo to speak about is now a more approachable and topic and one that needs to be discussed , so that it can be tackled properly. Now that there are laws in place to protect children and allow more intervention, the cases of child abuse are ever increasing. This is not a new crime; it has been going on for many years, throughout all societies and cultures. It is just that we are becoming more aware of what has been and is happening to some children. Child abuse can be physical, mental and sexual, as with all abuse.

Child abuse cases have happened in so many different situations that it is not something that happens just in ‘dysfunctional’ families. The dysfunctional family was viewed as the family setting most prone to neglect, lack of discipline and possible abuse. ‘No longer can child abuse be seen to be associated only with the marginalized and disreputable, it seemed to permeate ‘normal’ families’. (Parton, quoted in Saraga, 2001, p.219).

In Cleveland 1987, many children were taken from their homes, as it was believed that they were subject to abuse. Many of the families suspected were middle class and far from being dysfunctional. (Macleod and Saraga, quoted in Saraga, 2001, p.204). It is believed these reports and other cases that came up pressured the government to update and enforce The Children’s Act in 1989. The Act tried to encourage the authorities to work with the families and the professionals involved. This was to help convictions in court and enable the professionals to produce accountable evidence. (Parton, quoted in Saraga, 2001, p.203).

The leading standpoint on child abuse used to be that the authorities and the law were not suitable ways of dealing with child or domestic violence, as these were ‘private family matters’. The question of protection and detection confused the police and authorities. (Hall and Martin, as quoted in Saraga, 2001, p.201).

Criminalization of incest was official in 1908, before then it was accepted to have sexual relations with family members. It was not a crime, and it was also accepted for men to have sex with girls at the age of thirteen until the age was raised to sixteen in 1885. These two legislative acts brought about the revised 1956 Sexual Offences Act which to this day remains the foundation for sexual criminal prosecution. These changing definitions on what constituted abuse created confusion and social problems. The term physical abuse also change to sexual abuse in the 1980’s and was addressed as a ‘new’ problem. Welfare principles for children were established with emergence of The Children’s Act in 1989. The big problem posed with a child’s ‘welfare’ when intervening, was what was best for the child and its family. The child will always be the victim, if removed from its home, it must adjust to new surrounding’s and a new life. If a parent is removed then this can affect the family’s economic status and thus create further problems. A child’s welfare is of paramount importance, but they will always suffer emotional and socially when surviving abuse.

In conclusion, it is difficult to measure the true extent of domestic crime within the private sphere. So much of it goes unreported, for many reasons, fear being the main hurdle for an abuse victim to overcome. It is easier to define street crime as it is easier to comprehend and there is more statistical data available. The British Crime Survey does not report on sexual or all domestic abuse. Therefore the statistics are lower than that of street crime.

Family violence is a crime; it is the most frightening of all crimes. The perpetrator is someone you know, someone you love and someone you trust. The person who commits the abuse destroys all that is sacred to the victim and all that is safe. It is one thing being scared out on the street but to live your life in fear in your own home takes crime and dread to a new level.

Domestic violence is a private crime that was accepted as ‘normal’ and ‘reasonable’ behaviour. This is not the case anymore, but for many years domestic abuse has gone unreported and undetected. As studies by Dobash and Dobash in 1980 showed that women felt discouraged to report abusive behaviour as they were concerned if they would be taken seriously. It is only now, and after some serious feminist campaigning that it is being taken seriously and as a crime. People are being killed in their own homes by their family members, and this is a criminal act.

The only way family violence can be tackled is for legislation to become harder and convictions to be for longer sentences. If people felt safer to come forward and seek and help, then the authorities could execute strategies to target abusers in appropriate ways. The Full Stop Campaign in 1999 was set up to implement a no tolerance attitude towards cruelty to children. No cruelty full stop. This was meant to last for a year but it still going. It is an endless battle which realistically will never be won. Paedophile rings have been broken but they are many more still existing. Recent media reportage on events in Tsunami affected places have shown how sick some people are. As reported on Oprah, by Ricky Martin, who had spoken to a family who had been offered money by westerners to have sex with their seven month old baby, this is an indication of how perverse and disgusting some people are. These people could be parents and could have been abused themselves. This is the cycle of violence. This is what must be broken to lower the levels of violence within the private sphere.

References

Conley(1991), ‘Dangerous places: The Family as a Site of Crime’ in Muncie, J. and McLaughlin, E. The Problem of Crime, London, Sage/The Open University.

Dobash and Dobash (1980) ‘Dangerous places: The Family as a Site of Crime’ in Muncie, J. and McLaughlin, E. The Problem of Crime, London, Sage/The Open University.

Gordon(1989), ‘Dangerous places: The Family as a Site of Crime’ in Muncie, J. and McLaughlin, E. The Problem of Crime, London, Sage/The Open University.

Hall and Martin (1992), ‘Dangerous places: The Family as a Site of Crime’ in Muncie, J. and McLaughlin, E. The Problem of Crime, London, Sage/The Open University.

Hamner(1989), ‘Dangerous places: The Family as a Site of Crime’ in Muncie, J. and McLaughlin, E. The Problem of Crime, London, Sage/The Open University.

Macleod and Saraga(1991), ‘Dangerous places: The Family as a Site of Crime’ in Muncie, J. and McLaughlin, E. The Problem of Crime, London, Sage/The Open University.

Painter(1991), ‘Dangerous places: The Family as a Site of Crime’ in Muncie, J. and McLaughlin, E. The Problem of Crime, London, Sage/The Open University.

Parton(1985), ‘Dangerous places: The Family as a Site of Crime’ in Muncie, J. and McLaughlin, E. The Problem of Crime, London, Sage/The Open University.

Saraga, E (2001) ‘Dangerous places: The Family as a Site of Crime’ in Muncie, J. and McLaughlin, E. The Problem of Crime, London, Sage/The Open University.

Website

(NSPCC, Quoted on Web Site, accessed 20/03/05)