Every preventable death is a poignant tragedy. Every violent death within a family, every suicide, every casualty on the roads, and every death at a work place, ought not occur. Yet our community countenances such deaths, albeit some without fanfare, others belling the social consciousness.
Men are predominately perpetrators and victims of these preventable deaths. Males prey upon each other, and themselves, with chilling alacrity. However, for the year ending 2010 the murder rate was at an historic low. That year recorded 253 incidents, a few involving multiple deaths. Victoria has the lowest per capita murder rate of Australian states. ‘Domestic’ homicides, which definition includes killing of children, siblings and parents comprise 36% of the total.
“Of the 185 domestic homicides throughout the 2008–10 period, 122 (66%) were sub-classified as intimate partner homicides, 22 (12%) as filicides (7 of which involved an infanticide; that is, the death of a child under 1 year of age), 20 (11%) as parricides and four (2%) as siblicide. The remaining 17 (9%) were classified as ‘other’ family homicides.” (Homicide in Australia: 2008–09 to 2009–10 NHMP annual report)
In 2009-10, 106 men, and 5 women, died in the workplace. In 2007, 1880 people suicided, the vast majority being male. In 2013, 1193 people died on Australian roads; about 69% were male.
Little consolation to women, I know. But consider the mixed messages received by men, many of whom lack the sophistication and frontal lobe development to screen the contradictions. We are sold a consumer dream that it is ok to buy a powerful car, and to identify with James Bond as he ravishes a fawning female, but the reality is a wreck wrapped round a pole, and a damaged woman whose hesitation was ignored.
I wonder how much of male testosterone behaviour we really want to change. The politicians require fearless, reckless young men as cannon-fodder for foreign incursions, then, on their return, abandon them to suicide and mental disturbance. Women don’t seek a caring soul, rather an entrepreneur ready to rumble with James Packer.
The probable answer is: ‘a bit’. It is uncivilised to murder the weak and vulnerable. It is consistent with a patriarchal hegemony to characterise women as victims, and laudable to seek to diminish the casualties, whilst sticking with the fundamental message of (male) aggression and achievement.
Men and women must act to maintain interstellar relations between Mars and Venus. We must do better. Legislation can assist, as well as interventions by social services. However, there will still be deaths.
A very small minority of men are evil, and express themselves by violence against others, including women. For these few, we must rely on police to identify, arrest and charge them. If they are in gaol, their crimes and victims are limited. And, of course, the same applies to the even fewer women in this category. These are the people who say of Intervention Orders, ‘a piece of paper won’t stop a bullet’.
For the rest, Intervention Orders are of little help. Labelling men as perpetrators and women as victims is a simplification of the complexity of relationships. The legislation is poorly drafted, unwieldy, and seeks to cover too broad a range of human behaviour. Applicants for an order include a couple of teenage sisters arguing about who gets first use of the bathroom, and a woman murdered hours after the granting of an Order.
Its implementation is plainly biased towards Applicants, who are mostly women. The process leaves men confused and frustrated. For Respondents, ie males, support services are few, and difficult to access. There is little follow up encouraging behaviour changes.
Remember, the legislation was first introduced because police were often reluctant to charge perpetrators, and walked away muttering, ‘Just a domestic’.
Some suggestions.
Stop calling it “Domestic Violence”. It’s not domestic. Call it “Aggravated Violence”; it occurs in what ought to be a place of trust and sanctuary.
If a person commits an offence such as threat to kill, cause injury or assault, charge them under the criminal law. If the complainant tells the police, “I don’t want them charged,” charge them anyway; prosecution is a police discretion, not a matter for a complainant’s whim. The accused may or may not be granted bail, and in making that decision a Magistrate will consider the paramount objectives of protection of the public and prevention of further offending. Likely an accused who makes bail will be linked in with appropriate support services, and recognise the seriousness of his conduct.
If an IVO is sought, and no crime is alleged, then before a hearing occurs, or an order is made, obtain a report from an independent psychologist or the like as to the family dynamics. Involve both sexes in rehabilitation. The court and parties need to know if the incident is a ‘one-off’ at a crisis moment, or another ‘off’ in a pattern of behaviour. 75% of men never assault their partner, yet 100% of men are typecast as violent. Follow through after the report, and provide support for men and women struggling in the aftermath of a relationship breakdown.
Forensic services will need a massive funding boost, if society genuinely wishes to address male behaviour. We have $12 billion for warplanes, why not half that for social and psychological services to address violence and neglect in the community? Imagine.
Andrew Hale
0411 419 798
Andrew@EndFamilyViolence.com.
Accredited Specialist LIV Criminal Law
Formerly also accredited in Family Law.
Lawyer practising in Crime and Intervention Orders