Is It the Case that Violent Crimes against Women Do Not Warrant Consideration as Gender Crimes - Essay Example

RUNNING HEAD: CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY Crime and Criminology [The Writer’s name] [The name of the Institution] Crime and Criminology Introduction In Australia, the incidence of violent crimes against women is high. The National Strategy on Violence Against Women released in October 1992 acknowledged that there are barriers to the comprehensive collection of data because much violence against women goes unreported; many women who are the victims of violence feel isolated and unable to make choices, and when women do seek help useful assistance is not always forthcoming (NCVW 1992, 1-2). The data that the report were able to uncover revealed that, in New South Wales during 1987, 30,000 assaults against women came to the attention of the authorities; that in Victoria during 1990-91, 590 rapes were reported to police; and that, each year in the Australian Capital Territory, about 3000 women, accounting for about 3% of the adult female population, contact the Domestic Violence Crisis Service for the first time (NCVW 1992, 2). In a submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission's inquiry into Equality Before the Law, the Centre Against Sexual Assault in Melbourne argued that 'the inalienable truth is that violence against women and children is pervasive in Australian society, afflicting women from all ages, cultures, classes and background' (ALRC 1994, 26). According to the Law Reform Commission's report, more than one in five women presenting to the Accident and Emergency Department at the Royal Brisbane Hospital during 1992 had been subjected to violence by their partner at some stage of their adult lives (1994, 27) However, establishing that violent crimes against women are common in Australia is not the same as establishing that these are 'gender crimes'. Indeed, the proposition that gender should be incorporated within an understanding of gender crimes is contested. Is It The Case That Violent Crimes Against Women Do Not Warrant Consideration As Gender crimes? According to the logic of the argument presented thus far, a normative claim for the inclusion of gender as a gender crime category is unlikely to rest on a delineation of the type of criminal act. This is in part because a crossover of categories may occur (for example, sexual assault or homicide in the context of a situation of domestic violence). Furthermore, as discussed below, women's experience of violent crime is diverse and complex. It appears more likely that a claim for the inclusion of gender can be examined against the two criteria identified above: on the one hand, the motivation and targeting that characterise gender crimes and, on the other hand, the demonstration of a unique and attendant harm in the form of 'normalisation' of the violence. In relation to the first criterion, it is necessary to examine whether or not some violent crimes against women are perpetrated because they are women. More specifically, in the terms of Mason's definition as cited earlier (Mason 1993, 1), are women targeted for these crimes because the crimes are 'motivated by prejudice, bias or hatred' towards women? There is a long-standing theoretical argument within feminism that violence against women, especially sexual violence, operates to sustain the systemic subordination of women within society. Brownmiller (1975), for example, argued that the fear of rape operated to maintain the oppression of all women. Rich (1981) argued that compulsory heterosexuality was enforced in part by the creation of the fear of violence experienced by all women. These analyses rested on an argument that the targeting of women for violent crimes was anything but random. Women were selected as victims, not because they individually found themselves experiencing a coincidental set of conditions in which it was possible to become victimised, but because as women they were identified with a group whose subordinate role was defined and perpetuated by that very process of selection. Australian Policy on Crime Prevention Crime prevention and community safety is the responsibility of all levels of government in Australia. The Australian Government has responsibility for criminal justice issues, the Family Law Act (which includes marriage and divorce and child custody issues), income support policy, and national policies concerning the provision of health, education, welfare and housing. The States and Territories have primary responsibilities for the criminal justice system and police, and the delivery of public housing, health, education and community services. Local government plays the main role in planning safer communities and responding to the everyday issues identified by its constituents. While state and federal governments are funded by income taxes that are progressive in nature (the higher your household's income, the higher your level of taxation), local government is dependent on property taxes, which are regressive (generally, lower income households pay a higher proportion of their income on taxes). Furthermore, due to socio-spatial disparities, lower income communities often are in greater need of local government services such as community centres and public health nurses. This means that local government is highly dependent on state and federal government for grants to support everyday needs identified by their residents. In Australia, while there has been rhetoric agreeing with the international discourse on crime and violence, the last 35 years have seen piecemeal federal government responses and strategies, with a continual separation between violence against women and crime and violence (Egger 1997; Phillips 2006). Gendered Crime from The Feminist Lens From the early 1970s onwards, Australian feminists were instrumental in getting domestic violence, as it was then known, onto the policy agenda of governments. In Australia, as in many western countries, the response by the feminist movement initially happened at a very local level (Ramsay 2006; Weeks 1994). A dominant feminist discourse argued that women's right to safety required housing options so that they could leave violent relationships (Spinney 2007; McFerran 2007). This discourse fed a funding and service system supporting the link between domestic violence and housing. Other services developed such as domestic violence crisis services, rape crisis centres, counselling, women's health centres and community based child care (PADV 1999). Despite these positive developments, this discourse solidified the position of domestic violence as a 'women's issue' best addressed through funding for service provision rather than primary prevention measures (Laing 2001; Spinney 2007). The feminist movement also worked on criminal justice and police response issues, with incremental success over time. This well-organized and independent feminist movement worked well with the federal Labor government of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating (1983-1996), leading to the employment of 'democrats' to carry out a range of policies supporting women, and the establishment of democracies' such as the Office for the Status of Women. However, the Australian government continued to address violence against women and violence and crime issues independently. Furthermore, there was by no means a unified feminist stance on violence issues. Some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were uncomfortable with the term violence against women, preferring family violence, since the latter was felt to encompass more extended relationships. While recognizing that the majority of victims are women and children and the men who use violence are responsible for their actions, indigenous and other feminists did not wish to preclude the restoration of relationships between these men and those family members they have hurt. Gendered Crime from The Marxist Lens The production of capitalism could perhaps be less complex if class had comprised the only foundation of the uneven distribution of power. It occurs that societies are alienated also with the appearance of gender, race, tongue, belief, population, and ethnicity, to name only a few historical differences. According to the theory by karl Marx, modern socialist criminologists focus their study of crime on construction relations, neglecting the co-determination of production and thus the function gender performs in crimes by men and women. (Foreman, 1977) Marxism, in this particular case, suggests a wide criminal explanation, suggesting crime ought not to be any pleasure that proof social damage or a breach of essential human rights. Suggestions contain important changes to the present criminal justice organization and furthermore to society as a whole. Marxists involve that to believe the world as some societal actors’ represent it is frequently to recognize that truth that the ruling class achieves to guarantee their supremacy. It seems in an ideal circumstance the criminal justice system and its root for rulings and choice should be recognized and uphold through a full community responsibility choice that is democratic and with open prospect. This mentions to the concept that when the criminal justice system and those concerned within it contract with women in a variety of capacities, this is prepared on the source of definite gender related standard. (Foreman, 1977) Additionally, the top shape of crime escaping is recommended as the lessening of money and power in a few hands and organizations and a more even allocation of power to both the authority and working classes, handing over even demonstration in choice and exercising positions. Conclusion The gender crime category has been used to justify and advocate reforms in criminal law, yet a concrete discussion of how this may be done raises the potential of inappropriate, inconsistent, inadvisable or ineffective applications of criminal law. Those provisions which do not rely on penalty enhancement, but rather focus on monitoring of gender crimes, provision of services to its victims and community education to raise awareness of the nature and extent of the problem, may be more coherent and effective. The extension of the gender crime category to crimes against women, while a logical and coherent application of the generic crimes argument, raises significant challenges for public policy. Either the gender crime definition is too broad to have useful application; or the debate around gender crime legislation would benefit from becoming more clearly focused on provisions other than penalty enhancement. If the former is the case, perhaps there is no role for the enactment of gender crimes legislation in Australia. Even the potential symbolic value of such a law is undermined by the fact that the activities under question are already subject to criminal law, and that a range of other statutes already exist which deem discrimination intolerable. If the latter is the case, a range of options have been canvassed which suggest more useful approaches to legislative reform. References Brownmiller, S. 1975. Against Our Will. New York: Simon & Schuster. Egger S (1997) Women and crime prevention, in O'Malley P and Sutton A (Eds) Crime Prevention in Australia: Issues in Policy and Research, pp 84-104. Federation Press, Sydney NSW. Foreman, A. (1977) Femininity as Alienation: Women and the Family in Marxism and Psychoanalysis. London: Pluto Press Homel P (2005) A short history of crime prevention in Australia. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice M (T): 355-368. Jukes, A. 1993. Why Men Hate Women. London: Free Association Books. Laing L (2000) Progress, Trends and Challenges in Australian Responses to Domestic Violence: A Background Paper, Issues Paper 1. Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, Sydney NSW. McFerran L (2007) Taking Back the Castle: How Australia is Making the Home Safer for Women and Children, Issues Paper 14. Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, Sydney NSW. Nancarrow H (2006) In search of justice for domestic and family violence: Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian women's perspectives. Theoretical Criminology 10(1): 87-106. NCVW [National Committee on Violence Against Women]. 1992. The National Strategy on Violence Against Women. October. Canberra: AGPS Office of Women's Policy (OWP) (2002) Women's Safety Strategy Policy Framework: A Co-ordinated Approach to Reducing Violence Against Women. State Government of Victoria, Melbourne. Ramsay JK (2006) The Making of Domestic Violence Policy by the Australian Commonwealth Government and the Government of the State of New South Wales between 1970 and 1985: An Analytical Narrative of Feminist Policy Activism. Doctoral Thesis, Sydney University, accessed at http://hdl .handle.net/2123/724 on 3 March 2008. Rich, A. 1981. Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. London: Only women Press. Spinney A (2007) The effect on policy responses of differing constructions of homelessness attributed to domestic violence. Paper: International Conference, June 2007. Sustainable Urban Areas, Rotterdam. Spinney A (2007) The effect on policy responses of differing constructions of homelessness attributed to domestic violence. Paper: International Conference, June 2007. Sustainable Urban Areas, Rotterdam. Read More