“Refusing bail and holding in a prison those alleged to have been violent to their partner, children or other family members is a flimsy BandAid on a non-healing sore. Being held in a remand jail doesn’t change behaviour because there are few, if any, behaviour-changing services offered there,” writes legal columnist HUGH SELBY.

Is there anyone who wouldn’t like to see positive outcomes from the recent, tragic deaths of women killed by their partners?

Is there anyone who, given a few moments of quiet reflection, can’t put themselves in the place of a deceased’s close family and friends and grasp their grief and their anger?

Is there anyone who, watching the politicians revelling in the opportunity to jump on the careening bandwagon of, “Lock ’em up, do it now, they’re all scumbags”, doesn’t feel a sense of shame that this is the best “they” can offer in 2024? 

First, gather the evidence

Today the rapid gathering of targeted data from large numbers of people, over large geographical areas is easier than it has ever been. We can use that ability to collect information that is critical for policy making and actions in, for example, public health, mental health, housing, education and training priorities.

Every year there are keen, motivated young adults studying political science, statistics, information technology, psychology, epidemiology, sociology and criminology. We have graduates who could be on the front line gathering and analysing data about how we respond to the realities of our daily lives (including domestic violence). 

From that data they could contribute to evidence-based policies that might make a difference. That talent is not being used. 

Bogeymen and demonisation

Instead, too often, shameless politicians and media fall back on “bogeymen” – shadowy movements and figures that reflect our insecurities. Raw fears substitute for facts. Those that I recall – no doubt you can add more – include: the religious bogeymen that range across anti-Catholic, anti-Jew and anti-Muslim; the political bogeymen, such as “reds under our beds” (used to great effect in Australia and the US during the late 1940s and the 1950s), and now the “radical far left”; the racist as seen in anti-Chinese/China sentiment from the gold rushes in the mid 19th century to today, and the gleeful demonisation of refugees by both major political parties. 

One sided, over simplistic, “demonisation” is likewise all too common in political and special interest responses to what is deplorable physical and/or psychological violence within a family. 

Criminalisation is a crude, revenge-driven response to a complex problem. It is not preventive. Domestic violence is always bad, but those who commit it should not be so simply labelled. Many, but not all people, can learn to change how they behave if they are well taught.

Domestic violent conduct reflects a lack of capacity by all those involved. Those who perpetrate such violence and those who put up with it have problems. It takes at least two, by acts of commission or omission, to create and sustain the domestic violence environment. 

Causes and responses

To have any chance of success a community response to the problem requires reliable data, lots of it, to identify the prevalent underlying causes of domestic violence in 2024. 

What are the income, housing, job-expectations, educational background, future prospects, community activities, alcohol and drug use, mental health, childhood environment, friendship ties of those who are caught up in domestic violence? This will help to identify those most at risk.

But that’s not enough. Most of us experience anger and there are triggers to that behaviour. What are the triggers in relationships that lead to physical harm, to coercive control, to murderous acts?

Let’s put in the effort to gather the evidence, to analyse it, to decide upon service priorities and then to implement those services. 

Refusing bail and holding in a prison (called remand) those alleged to have been violent to their partner, children or other family members is a flimsy BandAid on a non-healing sore. Being held in a remand jail doesn’t change behaviour because there are few, if any, behaviour-changing services offered there. 

Despite the politician and shock-jock assertions, punishment by way of jail time is not a lasting deterrent. If it was then there should have been a marked decrease in family violence over the last two decades.

Frustration, resentment, loss of dignity, feelings of little self-worth and failure, lack of success – so common when there are too few jobs, poor pay, hurdles to retraining, inadequate housing, no public dental health system, long waiting lists for elective surgery, no reasons to think the future will be better, substance abuse – boil over into violence.

What interventions to contain the problem and then reduce it might work: when, where and by whom?

Evidence can show if there is value in the following:

• A much publicised, violence prevention line, mirroring LifeLine’s work to stop suicide;

• School-age programs that develop a healthy sense of self and resilience;

• Proven programs that give those who have been or soon might be offenders the skills to manage life’s crises without violence. These should be available in the community, and in all places of detention; and,

• A bipartisan commitment to job skill programs that give people a sense of worth and a real future because they proudly have what others need.

For those recent deaths to bring better lives we must first ask the right questions and seek the answers.

Former barrister Hugh Selby’s free podcasts on “Witness Essentials” and “Advocacy in court: preparation and performance” can be heard on the best known podcast sites.

‘No easy answer’ as ministers meet on gendered violence