Home > Commentary, Guest Contributions > Walsh on Domestic Violence Law Reform in France

Walsh on Domestic Violence Law Reform in France

We are pleased to welcome a second guest post from Kieran Walsh of UCC and Griffith College Cork. You can read more about Kieran on the guest contributors page.

France is currently updating its domestic abuse laws. The legislation has been passed by the lower house and now awaits senate approval. There has been unusual cross-party support for the new provisions which have provoked considerable derision in the Anglophone blogosphere. There are two key changes which have been made to the law: the criminalisation of psychological abuse in intimate relationships and the tagging of people barred from the family home.

 Taking the psychological abuse amendment first, the updated law provides a maximum prison sentence of three years and a fine of up to €75,000 for domestic abuse which is psychological in nature. The legislation has been accused of criminalising “nagging” but that is not the purpose of the law. Instead, the focus is on psychological violence of a severe nature. French politicians have taken a very realistic view of domestic abuse. Leonie Walker’s analysis of the abuse cycle works on what is called “symbiotic bonding” and occurs in three stages. The first stage is characterised by a rise in tension between the parties. During this time the victim attempts to explain this away by blaming extraneous factors, thereby exculpating the perpetrator. They also believe that they can control the perpetrator, thereby internalising the outbursts of abusive behaviour. They view it as their fault if they are unable to control the abuser. The second phase in the relationship is characterised by the attempts at controlling the perpetrator being unsuccessful, leading to actual abuse, which is often physical in nature. The final stage in the process is characterised by acts of contrition on the part of the abuser. They effectively “hook” the victim into the cycle by promising that they can and will change, will seek help, and promising to address the external factors on which abuse could be blamed. The new French law is designed on the basis that psychological violence always precedes physical violence and hence it too forms part of this cyclic abuse pattern. The damage done to a person’s sense of self worth is also an important aspect of this kind of abuse, so it is important that the law tackles psychological abuse in its own right and not merely for its potential to develop physical overtones.

Turning to the amendment on the tagging of barred partners, it is important to stress that this is an experiment being piloted in a number of areas. The debate about electronic tagging of barred partners can be seen as part of the debate on tagging more genereally. Usually, we tend to think of electronic monitoring of offenders as a means of controlling potentially dangerous persons in the community. Often it arises in response to prison overcrowding. It may also be the case that in any given situation, prison may not always be an appropriate sentencing mechanism, for example persons seen as causing significant civil disturbance. In these cases, curfews and exclusion orders are used to prevent people going to certain named establishments or districts at certain times. The use of these control measures is also common in the imposition of bail conditions.

 Barring an abuser from the home in which they previously lived is effectively a community sanction backed by criminal threat, similar to the measures outlined above, if they breach the terms of the order. Yet people often do breach barring orders. In these cases, the onus is placed on the victim to call the police and seek the removal of the person which can be a particularly distressing incident, especially if children are present. So this tagging experiment may provide a useful form of preventative protection and ensure that the burden of enforcing the law is not placed on the victim.

 Of course, there are significant concerns over tagging. In the current context, we should remember that domestic abuse is a widespread problem. In France, the government estimates that 8% of women suffer psychological abuse and 156 women in 2008 were killed by their partners. The psychological abuse changes are a response to a significant problem in French society and the tagging provision is an experiment undertaken to combat another facet of that problem.

 These problems are found in Ireland and some innovative measures could be used to address the prevalence of domestic abuse. A comprehensive statistical analysis of domestic abuse in this country was conducted in 2005 by the National Crime Council in association with the ESRI. Incidents of abuse were categorised by severity and frequency, ranging from regular physical violence to isolated incidents of milder emotional abuse. The results were shocking. 29% of women and 26% of men have suffered abuse of some form. 15% of women and 6% of men have experienced severely abusive behaviour – be it physical, sexual or emotional – at the hands of a partner at some time during their lives. Severe physical abuse has been suffered by one woman in 11, and one man in 25. One woman in 12 has suffered sexual abuse, while one man in 90 has suffered sexual abuse. Severe emotional abuse has been perpetrated upon one woman in 13, and one man in 37. In sum, approximately 213,000 women and 88,000 men have suffered severe abuse, a total of 301,000 people. In 2009 COSC reported that 67% of people believe that calling a partner hurtful names is domestic abuse and that 88% believe that domestic abuse is rightly regarded as a criminal matter. In light of these figures, perhaps it is worth considering if the new French reforms are suitable for tackling abuse in Ireland.

  1. March 2, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    The tagging proposal is particularly interesting in my view. I would think that the extent to which it is successful will depend on both the extent to which it is imposed as a sentence by the courts and the attitudes the police will take to monitoring and responding to irregular behaviours on the tag. Do you know whether there has been much debate on the resourcing of this? It may bring some quite severe obligations on the police and the state under the ECHR building on the Opuz v Turkey case, especially if it leads to certain ‘early warning’ signs of possible breach of the order?
    As for psychological abuse, is this already covered by Irish law? I imagine it comes under abuse in the NFOAPA once it reaches the threshold of severity. No?

  2. Kieran Walsh
    March 2, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    I’m not aware of a huge amount of debate on the tagging proposal – most of the reports I have seen focus on the psychological abuse issue. It has been stressed that it is an experiment. Of course it requires more than just putting a tag on a person and seeing where they go, but that’s the nature of tagging generally – it seems cheap but it really isn’t.

    As for whether Ireland provides for psychological abuse already, the sad fact is that anecdotal evidence (such as it is) indicates that many judges won’t grant barring orders or other orders unless there is physical violence. So criminalising psychological violence serves a useful purpose by making it clear to judges and police as much as anyone else that this is part of the abuse cycle and that it has serious consequences in and of itself. Prosecutions for psychological assault under s 2 or harrassment under s 10 of the NFOAPA 1997 appear comparatively rare as well. Essentially, it’s all about shaping norms and making people realise that this is a serious problem and not mere “nagging” as some reports of the law have indicated.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: