Thread by @CCCBuryStEd

Understanding Coercive Control
Part 17: The Domestic Homicide Timeline by @JMoncktonSmith

This thread is dedicated to research by Dr Monckton Smith, which looks at an 8 stage relationship progression.

THREAD

#UnderstandingCoerciveControl
#coercivecontrol #coercionandcontrol

The link to the full research is here:
eprints.glos.ac.uk/6896/1/6896%20…

Please read and share to understand about #coercivecontrol and escalation.

Women account for around 82% of victims in Intimate Partner Homicide ( mostly being heterosexual relationships involving a male perpetrator) whereas global homicide statistics show that men dominate as both perpetrators AND victims of homicide (95% and 80%).

Dr Monckton Smith’s research highlighted the significant pressures in the UK on public services to reduce the number of deaths, and a need for more information to aid in assessing risk of homicide in intimate relationships

The research looks at 2 discursive positions that appear to dominate the way risk is perceived:
(nb: IPF = Intimate Partner Femicide)

1. Coercive control discourse- represents IPF
as part of a predictable process involving domestic abuse.

2. Crime of passion discourse- represents IPF as a spontaneous incident occurring in response to a proximal provocation and which may or may not involve domestic violence.

DOMESTIC ABUSE AND IPF

A history of domestic abuse is a key risk marker in IPF killers.

A history of domestic abuse is also anecdotally increasingly linked to other homicide categories, notably mass homicides and its association to criminal activity is being recognised.

Research suggests that domestic abuse characterised by patterns of coercive control and/or stalking is more likely to end in homicide.

Recent legislation in UK/ Ireland reflect the importance & value of control/ stalking in predicting serious harm and homicide.

- Serious Crimes Act 2015, s 76 (UK)
- Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018
- Domestic Violence Act 2018 (Ireland)
- Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (UK)

RISK ASSESSMENT AND IPF

Predicting if, and when, homicide may occur dominates UK police and professional responses to disclosures of domestic abuse and stalking.
Two key risk approaches are taken, especially in triage: an actuarial and a clinical approach.

The history of assessing risk of violence specifically, suggests that it is not a precise science.
Police assess the imminence of homicide using a quasi-actuarial approach which identifies/ measures presence of domestic abuse or stalking using Risk Identification Checklists.

The number of markers identified on the list will influence whether the victim is considered high, medium or standard risk for homicide. This risk level will then determine the type of resources allocated to that victim.

The presence of some high-risk markers like violence, fear and control may identify domestic abuse, but markers like separation and escalation in control, better identify the potential for imminent homicide

A clinical approach to risk assessment is also argued to be problematic. Domestic abuse, coercive control and stalking are not clinical conditions, but patterns of behaviour.

The introduction of Domestic Homicide Reviews in England and Wales (DHRs) in 2011 as part of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004) was another move towards identifying opportunities to prevent future homicide.

The model used in the DHR focuses on tracking the antecedent histories in cases of IPF (and other categories of domestic homicide) to produce a chronology which may go back many years. Opportunities for intervention are then identified.

Research has revealed that there are many consistent themes in the chronologies of IPF cases in the DHRs.

Chronologies and temporal sequences are potentially useful in understanding the dynamic nature of risk, and how and when it can escalate.

Eight-stages was identified and developed:

Stage One: pre-relationship:

-Information available about perpetrator’s histories before pre-relationship.

-Previous history of abuse is acknowledged in research to predict future abuse.

-A history of controlling patterns, domestic abuse, or stalking present in every case where pre-relationship history was recorded.

This was either:
criminal record/ arrest record for domestic abuse related offending
informal and formal reports from previous partners.

Victims had often been aware that the perpetrator had a history of abuse on entering a relationship, but did not always believe reports from former partners.

Dominant discourses construct domestic abuse as a ‘couples’ problem generated through the particular dynamics in any relationship between the two people.

This position, considered a domestic abuse myth, suggests that domestic abuse is situational and provoked.

Both victims, professionals & others based decisions on this discourse.

There was resistance to ‘labelling’ men as abusive because of their histories.

Discourses of coercive control situate problems/ abuse within the perpetrator- will continue same pattern in all relationships

The Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS) aka Clare’s Law, which allows police to disclose past histories of abuse to new partners is official recognition and acceptance of the risk of history, and is evidence of the increasing reach of the coercive control discourse.

The DVDS does not seem to yet, have widespread support in practice.

A DVDS disclosure in one case in the sample led to victim being given responsibility for leaving ‘now she had the facts’. There is an expectation that women who are suffering control should just leave.

Stage Two - Early Relationship:

The data suggested that the way a relationship started, was different to what it would become.

The relationships often started with the perpetrator being attentive, and progressed to possessiveness and control in most cases.

This stage which is not characterised by abuse, but more about seeking commitment from the victim.

It appeared that normal romantic expectations and activities were present, but speeded up.

A tendency for perpetrators to use possessive language and early declarations of love.

Families and friends often felt concern at the speed of the commitment.

Common for family to note an early change in the routines and behaviours of the victim.

‘she started spending all her time with him, we hardly ever saw her....’

This stage appears dominated by attempts to seek early and firm commitment.

Once commitment is secured, this seems to convey certain gendered rights and responsibilities, and once commitment is given by the female, it cannot be withdrawn.

Stage Three - Relationship:

When the relationship was confirmed and committed, at least some of the high risk behavioural markers were noted in all cases.

The giving of commitment seemed to coincide with rights to control.

There were controlling patterns in every case study.

Stalking and monitoring patterns were significantly present, sometimes accompanied by paranoia that the woman was being unfaithful.

Constant demonstrations of devotion and loyalty characterised the dynamics of most of the relationships.

Following routines was a way of keeping calm in the household, and demonstrating commitment.

A common phrase spoken by victims, ‘it’s not worth the trouble,

Coercive control discourse constructs these routines as the abuse, whereas dominant discourses construct the routines as abusive only if they have violent or abusive elements and this has effect in terms of risk assessment.

Consequences of upsetting a perpetrator were not necessarily always violent, HOWEVER, the potential for violence seemed to be ever-present.

Sexual violence was spoken of in some cases, but because victims often considered they acquiesced to pressure or force, patterns were not always defined as abuse.

In one case for example, the perpetrator would sit and expose himself in the living room and say nothing. The victim would not challenge him and an atmosphere of menace was created.

Sex is one of the most controlled and heavily policed female behaviours.

‘(she) used to have sex with him to buy (herself) some peace. (she) knew (she) had three weeks’ peace if (she) let him rape (her)’

This stage was found to have the most diversity in length of time. Some cases saw this stage last as little as 3 – 6 weeks, in others it was as long as 50 years. Where control was maintained, or the man did not want to end the relationship, it could potentially last a lifetime.

Stage Four - Trigger/s:

The reasons given for men killing their partners overwhelmingly revolved around withdrawal of commitment, or separation.

This separation could be real or imagined, or just threatened.

Attempts to separate were in all research cases which progressed to this stage, met with significant resistance.

Dominant discourses construct female rejection, infidelity or disloyalty as provocation.

‘ If I can’t have you, no-one can’

Historically women have been legally unable to ask for a divorce, and subsumed into the legal persona of their husbands through the concept of ‘femme covert.

The residue of these practices and beliefs are still evident, and reveal them as more than a mere ‘cultural residue’.

Stage Five - Escalation:

Escalation is an increase in frequency, severity or variety of abuse, control or stalking.

Escalation appeared to be an attempt to re-establish control or status.

This could involve a variety of behaviours with perpetrators using a number of tactics.

*begging
*crying
*threats of violence
*violence
*stalking
*suicide threats.

Stalking was widespread, especially monitoring and tracking. The stalking focused on intelligence gathering, and in some cases, on instilling fear and anxiety.

In some cases, perpetrators told friends of their stalking.

The friends didn’t call the police, or tell the victim.

The fact that perpetrators disclosed a criminal behaviour indicates that they expected some kind of passive solidarity and understanding that they were justified.

In one case the perpetrator called his friend when he broke into his former partner’s home and told him about going through her things searching for ‘evidence’ of a new man.

This was not a cry for the friend to stop him, but for support and solidarity.

🔴Progression to stage six is not inevitable. Interventions at this stage may be particularly effective to reduce feelings of entitlement to act, and build feelings of status.🔴

Stage Six – A change in thinking/decision:

This stage seems to occur in or at the end of a period of escalation, and may be a response to perceived irretrievable loss of control and/or status.

The idea that homicide may be a possibility, may occur at this time.

It is difficult to establish the timing of a change in thinking, but there was evidence in some cases, which suggest this as an
identifiable stage. Stalking risk establishes that ‘last chance thinking’ may characterise this stage where homicide risk escalates.

Stage Seven - Planning:

Indicators or evidence of planning were often discovered after the homicide.
Some indicators showed written plans around how the killing would happen, and some were evidence of creating opportunities for the killing to happen.

Stage Eight - Homicide:

The final stage is the homicide itself and this may involve extreme levels of violence (even in previously non-violent people) where the level of violence used appears to have no direct relation to the level of violence evidenced in the relationship.

🔴However, lack of violence in the relationship can become a soft, but effective, defence to murder (Monckton Smith, 2012).🔴

Please click on this link for the full research: eprints.glos.ac.uk/6896/1/6896%20…

and give @JMoncktonSmith a follow.
More info can also be found on:

janems.blog

Books written by @JMoncktonSmith:

For the other threads, please see @UnderstandingCC

@threadreaderapp unroll