An extraordinary English law came into effect this week that allows for five years imprisonment for spouses who inflict psychological cruelty on their other partners. Domestic abuse will now extend to “coercive and controlling behaviour.” The definition of the offense however is quite vague and the potential scope of criminalization is considerable. Indeed, a single episode of the Honeymooners would rack up a major case under the new Section 76 law from limiting funds to threatening language to controlling aspects of spouse’s life. (Frankly, I never understood why Alice Kramden stayed with Ralph Kramden).
Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders captured just how broad this law may be applied: “Controlling or coercive behaviour can limit victims’ basic human rights, such as their freedom of movement and their independence. This behaviour can be incredibly harmful in an abusive relationship where one person holds more power than the other, even if on the face of it this behaviour might seem playful, innocuous or loving.”
It is a bit disconcerting if behavior that appears “playful, innocuous or loving” can land you in jail for five years.Some of the cited conduct included “preventing a partner from seeing family or friends, keeping them short of money, controlling their social media accounts, spying on their communications or determining aspects of their everyday life, such as when they eat, sleep or even go to the toilet.”
The proof can be circumstantial, including the use of emails and text messages, and bank statements that show an effort to control a victim financially.
A case will be actionable so long as the abusive spouse’s conduct had a “serious effort” on the victim, which is defined as causing “serious alarm or distress which has a substantial effect on their usual day-to-day activities.”
I do not question that there are form of non-physical abuse or that there are such marriages where spouses feel trapped or have been stripped of the ability financially to break away. However, the ambiguity of these terms allows for a disturbing level of discretion of prosecutors in picking marriages and relationships deemed coercive. Assuming that the victim was not physically prevented from leaving (since that is already a crime), the question is how to criminalize conduct that can be highly subjective or interpretive.
The law does require repetition but not much repetition to be chargeable. Controlling or coercive behaviour is defined under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 as causing someone to fear that violence will be used against them on at least two occasions, or generating serious alarm or distress that has a substantial effect on their usual day-to-day activities.
The question is how to draft such a law to get serious cases of psychological abuse while allowing sufficient flexibility for prosecutors.
Here is the full law:
Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards another person (B) that is controlling or coercive,
(b)at the time of the behaviour, A and B are personally connected,
(c)the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and
(d)A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will have a serious effect on B.
(2)A and B are “personally connected” if—
(a)A is in an intimate personal relationship with B, or
(b)A and B live together and—
(i)they are members of the same family, or
(ii)they have previously been in an intimate personal relationship with each other.
(3)But A does not commit an offence under this section if at the time of the behaviour in question—
(a)A has responsibility for B, for the purposes of Part 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (see section 17 of that Act), and
(b)B is under 16.
(4)A’s behaviour has a “serious effect” on B if—
(a)it causes B to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against B, or
(b)it causes B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on B’s usual day-to-day activities.
(5)For the purposes of subsection (1)(d) A “ought to know” that which a reasonable person in possession of the same information would know.
(6)For the purposes of subsection (2)(b)(i) A and B are members of the same family if—
(a)they are, or have been, married to each other;
(b)they are, or have been, civil partners of each other;
(c)they are relatives;
(d)they have agreed to marry one another (whether or not the agreement has been terminated);
(e)they have entered into a civil partnership agreement (whether or not the agreement has been terminated);
(f)they are both parents of the same child;
(g)they have, or have had, parental responsibility for the same child.
(7)In subsection (6)—
“civil partnership agreement” has the meaning given by section 73 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004;
“child” means a person under the age of 18 years;
“parental responsibility” has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989;
“relative” has the meaning given by section 63(1) of the Family Law Act 1996.
(8)In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for A to show that—(a)in engaging in the behaviour in question, A believed that he or she was acting in B’s best interests, and
(b)the behaviour was in all the circumstances reasonable.
(9)A is to be taken to have shown the facts mentioned in subsection (8) if—
(a)sufficient evidence of the facts is adduced to raise an issue with respect to them, and
(b)the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(10)The defence in subsection (8) is not available to A in relation to behaviour that causes B to fear that violence will be used against B.
(11)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both;
(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or a fine, or both.
What do you think?
Restraining order laws, cyberstalking prosecutions, Title IX inquisitions on campuses, and other laws here in the USA, all relatively new and inspired by femagoguery and the VAWA, are doing irreparable damage to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Other than an appellate ruling here or there, such as _USA v William Lawrence Cassidy_ or _Chan v Ellis_ or _People v Marquan M,_ the majority of judges are either sticking their heads in the sand or bashing men and carrying on with the pernicious unconstitutional rulings.
I lived through Jackie Gleason’s amusing but innocuous remarks and even heard men making the same mock-threats to their wives. I remember some men abusing women, but just as many women abusing men. The men get the punishment; women almost invariably do not. We have reached a crisis point where the woman runs to a judge or magistrate and swears lies and says she is frightened of her spouse or lover, or of a harmless neighbor. BOOM!, a LIFE-CHANGING restraining order issues against him. The pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction and is stuck there. And these things are hell to appeal, as Prof. Aaron Caplan shows so thoroughly in his white paper published here: http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Caplan-64.3.pdf
Five years seems to be a little harsh, don’t you think? And if you claim vagueness and overbreadth here in NC, our political gits who are appellate judges will depublish their ruling and fabricate some corrupt ruse and claim you have “waived” your Constitutional rights.
This said, I am thankful for this blog and the thoughtful comments here. I believe that a start in the right direction would be to require audio-video cameras in every courtroom everywhere. Even in the federal courthouses where the federal judges are scared shi*less of them.
fnn
Who knows, perhaps this is in direct response to the infestation of male dominated societies within societies that is taking place as Muslims thread their way into Western cultures. Then it could be an invaluable tool to stop the adherents of pedophilia, male supremacy, human ownership when it comes to children getting married without their consent, etc. It could be a good thing and should probably be considered where ever a religious group puts their laws or fairy tales above the secular laws of the land.
The Thought Police have arrived. Where is my titanium head shield?
“Will this be applied to fundamentalist Muslim men?”
I think we all know the answer to that question. To apply this law to Muslim men would be rayciss.
I agree with Richard. Women use the anti-abuse laws to abuse their husbands all the time. See video “Erasing Dad”. And all the time, it is the kids who get hurt through seeing their fathers abused, and then being deprived of having that father-child relationship. Ultimately, we need less laws to persecute parents and spouses, not more.
I like this law if it is used against fundamentalist Muslims and Christians, and maybe Scientologists perhaps if they qualify. Also it might not be too bad if it is used in equal rights against some women who refuse to have sex with their husband. Of course, we all know this will not happen, so it is a farce from the beginning.
And, like hate crime laws, it will be a one way street. Even if a woman engages in any behavior that this law outlaws, no charge will be brought.
“This criminalisation of psychologically abusive behaviour provides an important legal protection to domestic abuse victims, who have previously been left vulnerable when suffering from such non-physical abuse. The legislation is also undoubtedly an important step in ensuring that this particular form of abuse is more readily recognised and taken more seriously by criminal justice agencies such as the police, which have been reported to respond inadequately to non-violent abuse. There is also the hope that criminalising coercive control will ‘help victims identify the behaviour they are suffering as wrong and encourage them to report it, [as well as] cause perpetrators to rethink their controlling behaviour.’
See the government’s consultation on Strengthening the Law on Domestic Abuse. –
See more at: http://www.sanctuarycriminaljustice.com/blog/the-need-for-more-than-an-offence-of-coercive-control-to-combat-51203014544#sthash.awYFGSa2.dpuf”
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/344674/Strengthening_the_law_on_Domestic_Abuse_-_A_Consultation_WEB.PDF
I am always amazed that the proponents of these laws don’t see them as a vehicle for abuse. Often, an abused spouse can barely cut the strings of the relationship, and just wants to separate herself (or himself) from the abuser. We see victims who are willing to let go of property and even their children rather than continue to fight. The abuser, who has no desire to cut ties with the abused, can use this type of law to instigate proceedings which maintain a connection and perpetuate the abuse. We need supportive programs helping the abused leave abusive relationships, not additional tools for the abuser.
Will this be applied to fundamentalist Muslim men?
I’m betting zero cases will be brought against Muslim men.
This has been widely reported in the UK, where I live. In my opinion this aw is long overdue.
The Science Geek
http://www.thesciencegeek.org
Some controlling women come to mind: Jezebel, Delilah and Herodias
JT – The proof can be circumstantial, including the use of emails and text messages, and bank statements that show an effort to control a victim financially. Is that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton?
I think that we should copy this in the states.
Agree
Here again is the pot calling the kettle black. The laws, including the constitution, are often times vague and no longer pertain to the conditions wherein they were created. Laws reflect the society and the aspirations of that society. That’s where said society is dependent upon the interpretation of its laws and sacred texts by the spirit of the justice system of the moment.
One instance may be able to be illustrated using another as a precedent yet be in essence unique and often times peculiar to the political and societal leanings of the time and venue. The United States legal system is a graphic example of the aspirations, contradictions, hypocrisy, and achievements inherent in most Western cultures.
Turley continues to leave out the most important ingredient in any judicial experience, common sense and accountability. The law is ultimately only as good as how it is applied vis a vis common sense and if said common sense is not applied often enough, said law is usually changed, in most progressive and evolving societies.
Examples of what happens when laws fester and are no subject to change can be found in backward societies in the Middle East and elsewhere where religion dictates the morals and laws.
What do you think?
I think men thinking about divorce should press charges against their wives and we’ll see this repealed before the month is out. Much like mis-branded “Affirmative Consent” laws this empowers anyone willing to use the law to punish a partner for anything.
Not a can, but an entire barrel of worms has been opened. Someone define ‘Controlling and Coercive”. Their politicians are nearly as stupid as ours.
For folks who are not hip to the Honeymooners, Ralph Cramden, when frustrated by his wife Alice, would feign hitting her w/ the catch phrase, “To the moon, Alice.” In today’s world it is non PC. However, Alice was intelligent, confident, tough, and routinely busted Ralph’s balls. So, only Hillary Clinton flop feminists would have the vapors over this.
Controlling behavior by men is a big red flag. It is often a precursor to violence. That said, it does not warrant this draconian law. Education and support for women in controlling relationships is the proper course of action. Europe is fly over and flush territory, to quote our BarkinDog.
I disagree with the law. At some level, a human being has the responsibility to leave unsuitable relationships, as long as they are not physically prevented from leaving. That’s part of the learning experience of dating. Can a wife be jailed for 5 years if she spies on her husband’s phone, if he has a history of cheating? Can a husband be jailed if he tries to limit the spending of a wife who is addicted to shopping? What if you’re just married to someone overbearing? Do you want that person to go to jail because you didn’t have the spine to leave?
Psychological abuse needs to be very narrowly defined, such as in the case of that Ohio kidnapping of the three young ladies.
The law should be redefined to limit its scope to situations where psychological abuse was used in order to prevent a person from leaving – such as having “associates” tail a spouse’s every move to make her afraid to leave, threatening her, or keeping her penniless so she would have no place to go.
If you live in that territory do the following: 1. Get a divorce right away. 2. Never get married. 3. Push your dumb politicians to pass a written Constitution with a Bill of Rights. Copy America’s.
Over and out.