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?
Well randyjet, maybe when so many women stop being severely beaten, raped and murdered, things will even out. Somehow getting screwed in your divorce just doesn’t quite measure up to getting thrown down a flight of stairs or being murdered. Three women every day in the U.S. killed by a domestic partner.
philat, Now you are changing the subject. There are plenty of laws against physical abuse and penalties, BUT this new law addresses NONE of that. As you correctly point out, the problem is not of laws, but of getting the abused to USE the plenty of resources that exist NOW with no further legislation needed. If you can show that such a law as nebulous as this one will enhance the survival rate, then it might be needed. It does NOT address physical abuse since there are plenty of laws and resources on hand now.
philat – how many of those are justifiable homicide?
both of us would have received life sentences…
randyjet,
There is no telling what effect the law may have. Somehow victims of abuse never got the message that they do not have to tolerate any abuse, psychological, mental, or physical. Perhaps the fact that society declares that you don’t have to wait until you are beaten to leave will send a better message. Perhaps not. While we, as outsiders, see the obvious fact that anyone is free to leave, too often THEY do not feel that way.
G.Mason
The CDC compares the study you cited with another that directly contradicts it, with no explanation for the difference: http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/
They do point out, however, that in terms of severe violent abuse, women are 2:1 more likely to be the victim.
And according to the justice department, three women are killed by their domestic partners every day, compared to one man killed per day.
There are almost no resources for male victims of abuse, and their reports are much less likely to be taken seriously. Important to remember that men tend to be more violent, are more likely to kill, but that they can be victims too.
Once again as YOU point out THEY do not FEEL that way. Passing another law is hardly going to CHANGE that at all. There are enough laws and forces available NOW, but the problem is that they are not used for many reasons. The problem with this law is that it is going to be abusive in its use, especially in divorce cases. Now women have a ready at hand law to not only get a great settlement, but can threaten the man with PRISON time if he does not give her all she wants.
The 12:08p comment about wives withholding sex is more than a bit intriguing. Just sayn’.
Evan, Here in the US, there are anti stalking laws that are solid defenses for any person being stalked.
DBQ, In my experience, stalking, which is horrible psychological abuse, can be documented and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As you know, stalking is a common controlling behavior.
Dear Ms. Meier, Would you like an opportunity to amend your remarks and insert a qualifying, “can be” in your unequivocal, “Controlling behavior is far worse than violence.” Having worked for a big city prosecutors office, the woman beaten to near death would disagree w/ you. Having worked homicide cases of abusive spouses, I think the family of the deceased would strongly disagree w/ your emphatic statement. As I said, controlling behavior is often the precursor to violence. As a PI, I have helped many women get restraining orders against controlling, stalking men. I do not diminish the terror, I empathize w/ it. However, I do not want to take that leap where physical abuse is considered lesser, or even equal, to psychological abuse. That is a giant leap in jurisprudence.
.”English Law Allows For Five Years In Prison For Spouses Who Engage In “Coercive and Controlling Behavior”” I think we’d all be in jail. Am I right? 🙂
Interestingly enough, though it will not be reported in the media, this law if actually enforced would imprison far more women than men.
Women commit more domestic violence than men do. Yes it is true in spite of what you have been lead to believe.
I will post more info later but here is one article
http://www.medicaldaily.com/domestic-violence-against-men-women-more-likely-be-intimate-terrorists-controlling-behavior-290662
I worked a suicide/crisis hotline for several years. Regularly got calls from women who had just been beaten, or whose boyfriends were outside banging on the door. Our job was to get them to take the step of letting the local women’s shelter call them back. And/or call the police. Very hard to get them to leave until many many rounds later.
This law does not sound very well crafted, but those Brits who advocate for the battered and abused are in favor of it. If it helps the abused find a quicker, safer way out, I’m in favor.
philly, As you noted it is hard to get the abused to even use the help that exists NOW. This law or any law cannot change that FACT. The only thing this law does is criminalize disagreements in any relationship and is an open invitation to abuse. Passing a law will not give a person more spine or motivate them to report such abuse or get a divorce. I fail to see how this will make it easier to get out of the relationship and make them “safer”. If there is no physical abuse, there is no need for any such law since they are free to leave.
Crawling out from my holiday resting place to comment. I can personally attest to the devastating effect of excessively controlling behavior by a control freak spouse on the “controlled” spouse. I see this situation repeatedly in tax cases involving “innocent spouse” claims. That being said, I fear that criminalizing excessively controlling behavior (without accompanying physical abuse or the threat of such abuse) in the manner done by this law is a “cure” that is worse than the disease.
Unlike Issac, I’m not willing to rely on the common sense of prosecutors to administer this law in a reasonable manner unless the law is tweaked.
How to tweak it? I don’t like including the 4(b) definition of “serious effect” in a criminal statute. As a prosecutor I could drive a fleet of tanks through that section, which should be a very narrow space.
More importantly, I think the law should provide for both criminal and civil sanctions against prosecutors who “abuse” this law. Crafting such sanctions should be done carefully, but it should be done.
Brits. Went in dumb. Come out dumb too. Hustling round Birmingham in their alligator shoes.
Folks want to know if this will be applied to Muslim men.
A more salient question is if it will be applied to any women, at all, ever, because women in marriages are never controlling, manipulative, “gaslighting”, or anything other than virtuous.
However, I am all for campaigns that make marriage illegal. Since fathers have few rights anyway, we may as well make that crystal clear, put laws behind it, and split couples up.
Nothing will make women more equal faster than making marriage illegal and having laws endorse that women have to raise their own brats and that men who enter relationships with them, do so on pain of jail.
In the future, once this law punishes, we really will have only a matriarchy, as no man over 18 in their right mind will dare ever get married, have a civil partnership, or even stick around to take care of their children.
So huzzah, huzzah, huzzah!
Dear Joan and others,
I was in an abusive relationship in my first marriage, which lasted some years. Not physical abuse but mental and psychological abuse so I feel that I can speak from experience.
I agree that there is a danger in a non physical abusive relationship and that the likelihood of such a relationship becoming physically abusive or worse is quite high and that people in this situation need to GET OUT. Either on their own or with help…..which IS available.
It is hard to make the break to flee to safety and to sanity, but it can be done. I am proof. I also agree that people who are abusive, and when it can be “proved” to factually be so, should be punished in some way. PROVED.
It is a slippery slope when the abuse starts. I suggest everyone read about Gaslighting and better yet….watch the movie. This is how mental abuse starts.
However, I can also see the flip side of how this vague law can be also abused by both women or men to their own financial advantages. I’ve known some very manipulative and evil women who have hurled those false charges to “get even” with their spouse for some reason. I have also known as well manipulative and abusive men. It goes both ways you know.
Proving psychological abuse is very very difficult especially in the beginning of the process. Gaslighting. Quite often one party will get angry, annoyed or just plain tired of being with the other and it is so very easy to hurl false accusations. Proving the charges should be held to a high standard to avoid maliciousness on the part of one or the other party who wishes to cause harm. In fact…..using this law to do such harm could also constitute mental abuse.
A very blurry line. A very slippery slope. Vague and slippery laws are ripe for abusers to use.
Most of these comments are nonsense. The new law is the first in Europe to recognize that most cases of partner abuse involve a combination of physical violence, sexual assault and coercion, stalking, isolation and violations of everyday liberties–yes, such as taking a partner’s money, not letting her contact family, or leave the house and so on. If this was happening to a stranger on a regular, reptetitive basis, we’d call in hostage taking or indentured servitude.
Evan, your comment is nonsense since to carry out such a thing requires that the abuser act as a jailer and be present 24/7 and never sleep or use a prison cell like room. If that happens there are current laws to cover that. This is an overreach on the part of the authorities to try and create a “crime” against which there is no possibility of defense. All that is required is the uncorroborated word of a complaining party to find guilt. There are laws in place to cover this situation. It is divorce. Simple.
Dear all,
Coercive control is far worse than violence – it is equivalent to living in the control of a terrorist. It includes gestures like handing a sweatshirt to his wife while she is pitching a softball game, looks loving, but is actually a signal that she will need to cover up her bruises later (because she is being too impressive in the game). The point of this law is to capture the crime of terrorizing and controlling another person – and it entails reasonable fear of violence, so it’s not just some funny “over the moon” jokes. By the way, the man who wrote the law, Evan Stark, is a leading social scientist, wrote the book on coercive control (literally), and enormous care and thought went into crafting the statute. It may need tweaking and it may get tweaked, but finally recognizing that it is terror, not violence per se, that is the crime, is a huge step forward.
Joan Meier, a colleague of Jonathan Turley’s.
Joan Meier – you did not mention the women who tear around the house picking a fight with their husband when they are PMSing. Or later, just going bonkers when they hit menopause. Or how about the women who make more money than their spouse and use that to belittle him.
And then my personal favorite: (And women you have all done it) drag something up from 20-25-30-35 years ago to belittle your partner.
KCFlemming…you’ll win that bet.
This seems very vague and subject to interpretation. There are, of course, abusive relationships that do not involve physical harm but rather emotional harm and controlling behavior. However, the line seems to be very hazy.
There is nothing vague about a black eye. Controlling the bank account and preventing a spendthrift spouse from putting you into financial harm, could be interpreted as an abusive action when it might be a prudent measure to stop someone.
Much to vague and too many ways to abuse this law. I agree with Karen. It is YOUR responsibility to get out of the abusive relationship. It isn’t as if there aren’t many many resources, charities and other organizations that can help.
Why would anyone (especially a man!) ever get married if your every action or thought of action can be subject to putting you in jail based on the interpretation of your disgruntled spouse or a judge who is only hearing the he said/she said part of the relationship.
“Ministry of Love” is evoked by this disturbing development: instead of love it ministers coercion. Juxtaposition of state-sponsored coercion to double-speak usage of “love” evokes the idea of rape — of many isolated individuals by well-organized groups cloaked with ideology.
But what would be a purpose of such a monstrous exercise of power? One possible answer to that question is found in recent article “Slavery’s ghost: Prison imperialism, Jamaica, and the UK” http://paper-bird.net/2015/10/02/prison-imperialism/
And such abusive laws can be applied to silence political opponents, if pretexts for arrest can be fabricated easily enough.
“They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.” (Winston Churchill’s Speech from 1945) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2364841/posts