Criminal Justice System Interventions: Family Violence - Coursework Example

Criminal Justice System Interventions: Hegemonic Masculinity in the Context of Family Violence I. Introduction In a sociological perspective, the concept of ‘masculinity’ is applied in such a manner that its definition and significance is absolute and stable in an attempt to codify, enclose and provide a broad spectrum of the constantly evolving attitudes and behaviour of ‘real men.’ In principle, masculinity is problematically unstable. This view of masculinity is advocated by R.W. Connell (2005), who formulated the concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity.’ The definition of hegemonic masculinity, according to Connell, is: the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women (Connell 2005: 77). Consequently, among the numerous discourses on masculinity available within a particular culture at a specific instance, “There are differences and tension between hegemonic and complicit masculinities, oppositions between hegemonic masculinity and subordinated and marginalised masculinities” (Connell 2005: 242). Hence, while there are a variety of masculinities present for boys and men to take on such as being macho, straight, and perceptive just one of these patterns can take up the hegemonic space (Gardiner 2002). The concept of hegemonic masculinity had influence in the criminal justice system. A great deal of criminal data shows that men and boys commit more of the usual crimes as well as the more severe of these criminal acts than do girls and women. The notion of hegemonic masculinity contributed in understanding the association among masculinities and among a range of criminal acts and also applied in investigations on particular crimes committed by boys and men, such as sexual violence in Switzerland, homicide in Australia and domestic violence in the United States (Hoyle 1998). However, in this paper hegemonic masculinity in the context of family violence as well as the response of the criminal justice system to this phenomenon will be discussed. II. Hegemonic Masculinity in the Context of Family Violence Sandra Ball-Rokeach, centring on the concept of machismo, suggested that violence can be applied as an indication or significant attribute of manliness and that men who recognise themselves with masculine ideals are quick to turn to physical aggression as a show of boldness or as a justification of their status or pride (Adler & Denmark 1995). She afterwards identifies seven ideals as possible machismo markers: an exciting life, freedom, pleasure, social recognition, being courageous, independent, and giving low importance to being forgiving (Adler & Denmark 1995: 12). Family violence committed by the male member/s is a severe problem in every society that is only recently been completely documented. This sort of violence has been attributed to a number of factors such as economic, social, psychological and familial. What has commonly been unidentified, though, is the role of hegemonic masculinity in perpetuating and encouraging family violence committed by men (Buzawa & Buzawa 1992). Since these hegemonic masculine traits are believed to form the basic character of masculinity, men feel pressured to espouse these traits. They feel they should exhibit the qualities desirable and expected of their sex so as to have a correct gender identity (Gardiner 2002). In the process of meeting these gender norms and expectations, both men and women usually become unaware that they are as well sustaining traditional gender relationships, which recognises the power of men over women. The explanation why they are unaware of this relationship is because the attributes that are gender stereotyped are normally perceived in isolation from their perspective. They are gradually detached from their roots to dissociate themselves from the roles in which they come from (Gardiner 2002). When we describe the basic nature of masculinity as action and the basic nature of femininity as empathy, we are unaware that we are completely endorsing traditional gender relationships. We do not understand that the roles linked to such conventional relationships are manifested and rooted in the individual attributes we expect both genders to manifest. In traditional gender relationships, men wield more power and authority than women, normally through persuasion and manipulation. Here, the ability of the man to wield power and authority is reliant on the mutual sensitivity of both genders. Nonetheless, men can as well wield power through aggression or violence, which is exercised through intimidation and control (Summers & Hoffman 2002). A serious problem occurs when the man is unable to exercise his power because of lack of access to external resources. If he has a low-income occupation, he possibly will be unable to satisfactorily provide for his family. He then would be incapable to show that he has a genuine right to wield power and authority over his family on grounds of his capability and accomplishment. The only way the man could feel he is capable to wield power and authority would be to resort to violence. Given that he is physically violent toward his wife and children, he would be seen as demonstrating negative agency attributes and being controlling and tyrannical. Yet, he would as well be seen as possessing positive agency attributes and being self-confident and influential (Summers & Hoffman 2002). The wife and children, who are the marks of violence, would be seen as possessing shared attributes linked to femininity, weakness and dependency. However, they would as well have the positive shared attributes of concern and empathy even for her assailant. Clinical examinations and research on violent families verify this assumption. Men are frequently hostile when they do not succeed in acquiring the external status and abilities expected of their role and responsibility in the family. Violence in the family is most likely to take place when the husband/father has scarce outside resources that would provide him a justifiable right to wield power and authority, so that the highest incidences of violence take place at the meagre income status and low occupational position (Hoyle 1998). As a result, violent husbands frequently have profound sentiments of insufficiency. Their aggression can occasionally be a response to a real or imagined rejection by the wife. It is an effort to reclaim the power and authority that is expected of them. If such a husband/father has deep-seated concerns about his insufficiency as a man, he becomes incapable to show any sympathy or kindness for his wife and children since this would be seen as an indication of weakness and an affirmation of his inadequacy as a man (Hoyle 1998). Wives in violent families often justify the violence of their husbands toward them and their children and view it as necessary. Women who are the common victims of domestic violence frequently admit that they understand the aggression of their husbands toward them and, moreover, that they think it is not appropriate for a woman to retaliate. In several instances, wives have been witnessed to incite the husband’s aggression in order to goad him to prove his masculinity (Summers & Hoffman 2002). These wives are trapped in a network of social expectations, several of which include their essence as women. Included in their resorts is retaliation, yet this would raise issues regarding their vital femininity. By justifying the violence of their husbands and showing empathy for him, they could demonstrate the positive shared attributes that are expected of their gender. III. The Response of the Criminal Justice System to Domestic Violence Australia has contributed greatly to the academic and research field in investigations about the degree, nature and effect of family violence. The existing national Partnership Against Domestic Violence program has strengthened and expanded this involvement through, for instance, statements on desirable techniques in addressing the needs and demand of children exposed to family violence and probe into important dimensions such as help-seeking. On the other hand, there has been scarce Australian investigation into several of the major concerns before policymakers of the criminal justice system and advocates of family violence. These involve concerns such as the safety of women when a prosecution that is unfavourable for them ensues, the circumstantial factors that affect the decision-making process of the police at the crime scene, and the welfare of women in a highly patriarchal society (Summers & Hoffman 2002). It is argued that the bases of a just criminal justice system in Australia are ingenuousness and answerability at every stage, equality and balance, mission, competence and cost-effectiveness. Several Australian scholars attempted to identify particular objectives so far as the criminal justice system deals with family violence: the eradication of violence, the approval and contentment of the victims, and the safeguard of the public interest (Summers & Hoffman 2002). The criminal justice system of Australia is expected to fulfil these patronising objectives as they face economic realities known to other sectors of public service. Primary resources and political demands confronting decision-makers and bureaucrats include competence, punctuality, handling the number of cases, expenditures of justice, lawful assistance cuts, helpfulness, accountability, addressing community demands, optional conflict resolution and technical progress (Summer & Hoffman 2002). Changes in the family violence arena should recognise and occur in this broader framework. Those supporting changes in the response of the criminal justice system to family violence also have to recognise at times conflicting expectations and demands on, and perspectives and experiences of the criminal justice system itself. Several social justice critiques, for instance, have stated concern regarding responses that successfully classify social and behavioural disorders such as juvenile delinquency, substance abuse and others as criminal acts. Others have argued that the uneven effect of criminal justice responses on parts of the population such as destitute individuals and the experience by aboriginal peoples of law enforcement as driving forces of prejudice and colonization. In this similar framework, feminists have occasionally been involved into doubtful and awkward partnerships with supporters of law and order for more law enforcement, more rigid and firm judges and heavier penalties and punishments (Buzawa & Buzawa 1992). Criminal justice system is a weak device in intricate social issues. Its burdensome mechanism is reactive and imprudent. It is masculine, hierarchical, incident-based, and defendant-oriented and usually not research motivated in its responses. Reformers have occasionally poured out a lot of time, energy and belief on unconventional strategies or quick fixes. Heated discussions about whether the presence of the criminal justice system is for prevention, rehabilitation, reprisal, or restoration, or perhaps all of these round the borders of family violence reforms (Buzawa & Buzawa 1992). The involvement of women in the criminal justice system as primary victims of family violence transpires with or without options. Similar to other individuals, victims of criminal acts are not essentially aware of the different roles and responsibilities of its agencies, its processes and criteria of evidence, and the role of the victim and the witness within it. Other people could argue that it is paradoxical that feminists draw out state intervention in the interests of women from organisations that stand for the summit of patriarchal authority (Adler & Denmark 1995). But the fear that haunts numerous women repeatedly exposed to family violence implies that the protection apparently provided by law enforcement is significantly necessary, if frequently defective in implementation. When a battered woman calls the police she enters into a composite system, which normally resolves these kinds of incidences based on legal necessities rather than on placing the safety of the victim on top priority. Still for almost three decades the criminal justice system has used up a great deal of energy of the different developments against family violence: The judicial system was criticized for failure to act independently of the victim against the use of violence and for its inability to protect the victim during the court process. Insistence by the police and prosecutors that women initiate and pursue legal action against abusers ignored the realities of battering and rendered the courts useless to most victims of battering (Pence 1989: 9). IV. Conclusion The topic of this paper is, will these reforms in the criminal justice system be successful? Will they be effectively executed? Will they lessen the incidences of battering? These are apparently questions that are difficult to answer. Numerous things are needed for effective criminal justice response on behalf of the victims of family violence. In this paper I argue that, together with anything else required to put into effect a successful intervention to family violence, the criminal justice system has to espouse reforms that integrate a feminist framework on family violence. A feminist perspective of family violence is one founded on an understanding of family violence as an institutional problem within which it is women, mostly, who are victimised by men. I strongly believe that this feminist perspective should be espoused in the criminal justice system so as to provoke successful responses. I claim that currently the criminal justice system fails to recognise a feminist perspective of family violence, but rather functions with a perspective that I refer to as a ‘family violence’ context References Adler, L. L. & Denmark, F.L. (1995), Violence and the Prevention of Violence, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Buzawa, C. G. & Buzawa, E.S. (1992), Domestic Violence: The Changing Criminal Justice, Westport, CT: Auburn House. Connell, R. (2005), Masculinities, Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Gardiner, J. K. (2002), Masculinity Studies & Feminist Theory: New Directions, New York: Columbia University Press. Hoyle, C. (1998), Negotiating Domestic Violence: Police, Criminal Justice and Victims, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pence, E. (1989), The Justice Systems Response to Domestic Assault Cases: A Guide for Policy Development, Minnesota Program Development Inc., USA . Summers, R. W. & Hoffman, A.M. (2002), Domestic Violence: A Global View, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. . Read More