|
Accountability means taking responsibility for your actions, accepting the consequences and taking the steps needed to change in the future. It isn’t about saying you’re sorry or making promises not to do it again. And it isn’t about making excuses and shifting the blame to women. Men who do violence against women must be held accountable. And systems or programs within the community that have the power to hold them accountable must do it effectively if violence against women is to end. These systems or programs in turn must be held accountable if they do not.
In Ontario today, most violent men continue to abuse, sexually assault, stalk and terrorize women with relative impunity. When we think of holding men accountable for their violence and abuse, we often think of the consequences of criminal actions, but crime is only part of the violence women experience. Accountability goes beyond the criminal justice system to include other areas of the community as well. The criminal justice system is just the most visible. To begin with, most women still don’t call police to report male violence. Only about 27% of women in shelters call police. This mirrors research done by Statistics Canada on the population as a whole. Only about 10% of women ever report sexual assault. Women whose experiences of police response may include racism, ableism or homophobia have even less reason to call. And women who have not received appropriate responses from police and criminal courts in the past (e.g. women with disabilities and Deaf women, poor women, sex trade workers, young women, women who have been charged) may never call again. Many women don’t use the criminal justice system because they believe (too often rightly) that police and courts can’t, or won’t, help them. They are left to manage violent men as best they can. Criminal justice system accountability Women’s advocates and policy makers have been working on changing the criminal justice system for over 30 years. Unfortunately, there are still few meaningful consequences for most men who stalk, rape, harass, terrorize and victimize women, even in the criminal justice system.
Here are some common issues: - Batterers can still be charged and released on a police officer's undertaking or judicial order.
- Charges against abused women are rising now that police have been cautioned against and trained to reduce “dual charging.” This reinforces the abuser’s power rather than holding him accountable. Dual, counter or inappropriate charging in woman abuse cases usually results in police and courts being less likely to make the male perpetrator accountable, and often results in abused women becoming criminalized. (See Step 8 for more on criminalizing of women.)
- Bail is easy to get. Risk assessments are not consistently conducted, as recommended, for bail hearings. Conditions of release are poorly enforced and routinely violated. Women and/or children have been murdered by lethal abusers released on bail or under the ‘supervision’ or a surety who has no ability to control the abuser. Abusive men can still breach “no contact” conditions of release with few consequences if caught except another order for “no contact”.
- The ‘specialized’ Domestic Violence courts now operating across Ontario, at a cost of $22 million annually, are not operating as they are meant to, according to research conducted for the Ministry of the Attorney General. For example, delays are longer, not shorter. The courts are not considered appropriately accessible to Aboriginal women, ethnic and immigrant communities, women with disabilities or women in rural or remote communities. About half of cases are not prosecuted by the designated Domestic Violence Crowns, as originally planned. The Toronto Woman Abuse Council court watch study of the Toronto specialized Domestic Violence Courts—the first such courts in the province with 10 years experience—has reported that in most areas examined by the watch, the courts were less effective in 2006 than they were three years before. In other words, as they operate right now, these ‘special’ courts aren’t that special.
- Criminal courts still examine one incident of violence without considering the pattern or dynamics of violence against women. Judges resist education, maintaining that they must remain “impartial” and hear ‘both sides of the story.’ Women’s advocates say they often don’t hear, or don’t understand, the woman’s story.
- Partner Abuse Response Programs (PAR) for abusers operate for less than recommended time and have unreliable results. Programs often do not exist at all for marginalized communities of men (e.g. for men with disabilities or men whose first language is not English.) Men often don’t finish these programs or don’t show up to attend them in the first place. When programs are ordered by courts as a form of accountability, breaches of program attendance are often not taken seriously. Men with disabilities and Deaf men know they can escape even the few consequences other men face because counseling programs are not likely to be accessible for them.
- Mainstream restorative justice programs are also controversial and are generally considered by women’s advocates to be inappropriate for cases of violence against women. Within Aboriginal communities, where alternatives to the mainstream criminal justice system are preferred, there are differing views on the use of restorative justice in cases of violence against women and children.
- In sexual assault court cases, women are still subjected to suspicion and ‘put on trial,’ instead of the accused. Their lives are scrutinized and judged in every detail and only the “worthy” victims have much hope of meaningful justice. Rape myths are still used in court to excuse or justify sexual assailants’ actions. Some men escape all responsibility by using so-called “rape drugs” so that women won’t remember the assault clearly—or at all—and won’t make “credible” witnesses.
- Sex trade workers still confront attitudes that they “can’t be raped.” Women with disabilities and Deaf women face the attitude that they are lying to get attention; that they don’t experience sexual assault. Many police and court professionals also believe the myth that a man who has a disability or who is Deaf could not be abusive.
- Poor or homeless women, women with past criminal involvement, addiction or "mental health issues," women with disabilities and Deaf women may be less likely to get equal time and energy from police and courts. The men who abuse them are less likely to be punished. Women may also be subjected to biased opinions within the criminal justice system, for example, that some women ‘tolerate’ abuse in their ‘culture’ or that women with developmental disabilities are not reliable witnesses, so it’s a waste of time to lay a charge against the offender.
- Alternately, Aboriginal women, women of colour and immigrant women may not call police at all because they fear racist responses against their male partners. The end result is that the abusers are not held accountable for their actions.
- Women who are angry or assertive, or who fight back are often not seen as “victims” by criminal justice personnel and may not be taken seriously so that abusers are further reassured that they will not be held accountable.
Other community systems It is not only the criminal justice system that must hold violent men accountable. Lack of action to hold men accountable for their violence still permeates other community systems and services as well. Child welfare and other community services, family courts, hospitals, schools and workplaces must also hold abusive men to account for violence against women. Whether intentional or not, institutions with gender neutral policies or mandates that ignore the need for women’s equality and safety, too often reinforce men’s abusive behaviour.
Violent men have learned to use these systems as another weapon against women. - In family courts, it is unusual for a father to be denied access to children despite woman abuse and the increasing knowledge of negative impacts on children of exposure to violence against women. Women are accused of “alienating” children from the abuser by disclosing the violence. Some lawyers have even cautioned women not to mention abuse. Fathers’ and men’s ‘rights’ groups have successfully increased their lobbying to press for so-called “shared parenting,” regardless of abuse, and accuse women’s advocates of lying about violence. Fathers’ ‘rights’ often trump women and children’s right to safety and equality in family law courts.
- Child welfare authorities admit that they are unable to do much to hold accountable the men who expose their children to “domestic violence” although it is now reportable to child protection agencies. Women are often required, however, to leave the abuser or to enter a shelter or counseling program.
- Men succeed in disrupting their partners’ receipt of social assistance or in getting their partner charged with welfare fraud in an attempt to undermine her ability to rely on the criminal justice system or social services for assistance. The Walking of Eggshells study of abuse and welfare found that men are using the Ontario welfare ‘snitch’ line to falsely accuse their ex-partners of welfare fraud. One woman’s partner succeeded in getting her social assistance cut off four different times. These men suffer no serious consequences for this behaviour.[1]
- Women who experience sexual harassment at work or school often must leave their jobs or school as a result because either no action is taken, or they are more punished than supported during the investigation process. Most men suffer little to no consequences as a result of sexual or other forms of harassment against women at work.
- Workplace safety legislation still does not include harassment as an eligible reason to refuse work and there are no provisions in workplace legislation to support women who are harassed or abused at work by intimate partners or unable to go to work as a result of abuse, despite inquest recommendations on these issues.
Some facts: - According to records from 1997/98 to 2001/02, judges handed down prison terms in 19% of convicted cases of ‘domestic’ violence. In contrast, they jailed about 29% of offenders convicted of other violent offences. (Statistics Canada)
- Probation was by far the most common consequence in cases of ‘domestic’ violence, being order in 72% of cases. In comparison, probation was ordered for other violent offenders 53% of the time. (Statistics Canada)
- Victimization surveys suggest that as many as 90% of all sexual offences are not reported to the police. Once reported, sexual offences are also less likely than other violent offences to result in charges.
- In adult court, individuals charged with sexual offences are less likely to be found guilty than those charged with other violent offences. Once convicted, however, sexual offenders in adult court are more likely than other violent offenders to receive a prison sentence. The rate of conditional sentences for adults convicted of sexual assaults is rising, however. About 17% of convicted sex offenders received conditional sentences in 2001/02, compared with 9% in 1998/99.
- About half of men who enter a partner abuse program are likely to complete it and less than that are likely to become physically non-violent for a period of time (depending on the definitions of ‘abuse’ and ‘success’). There is an ongoing debate about the effectiveness of the programs given the small numbers of ‘success’ stories.
More resources: The Daily, Tuesday, July 6, 2004. Family Violence: Demonstration Study of Sentencing Outcomes. Statistics Canada. The Daily, Friday, July 25, 2003. Sexual Offences. Statistics Canada. Controversies and Recent Studies of Batterers’ Intervention Program Effectiveness. Larry Bennett and Oliver Williams. National Electronic Network on Violence Against Women. 2001. Restorative Justice in the Context of Domestic Violence: A literature review. Allan Edwards and Susan Sharpe. Mediation and Restorative Justice Centre. Edmonton. 2004. Workplace Harassment and Violence Report. Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children. London. 2004 |
