Annie Paul | Preventing domestic violence

It's a funny thing when people clamour for equal rights and justice, but then find that even among themselves, there is no agreement on what is being demanded. This lack of consensus became apparent in the aftermath of the recent press conference the Government held to roll out some of their plans to tackle the spiralling violence in Jamaica.

Appropriately, considering the alarming frequency of such incidents, the plans focused, among other things, on the curbing of domestic violence, sexual abuse, and the sexual grooming of minors. In fact, Prime Minister Holness said his Government would be taking a "zero-tolerance" approach. It was further announced that his Cabinet had given instructions for a revision of the Domestic Violence Act "to ensure that domestic-abuse crimes are treated as serious crimes and attract serious penalties".

These were welcome words. For currently, the police do not treat these crimes with the seriousness they deserve, more often than not refusing to get involved because such incidents are deemed a 'private' matter. This scrupulous refusal to intervene translates to the brutal battering and death of the woman involved.

PREVENTATIVE MEASURE

There have been too many cases where a woman has begged for police intervention in situations in which she was being severely abused, yet it would take nothing less than her murder to galvanise police action. Clearly, there's something drastically wrong with this scenario. To prevent the recurrence of such crimes, the prime minister announced that the police were going to focus on "removing an aggressor from the scene of a potential crime or abuse in an effort to de-escalate the situation and prevent the person from harming others".

Attorney General Marlene Malahoo Forte explained that such detention would require that the police have reasonable grounds for it and that there is fair procedure. It would allow the police to lawfully take someone into custody "whom they have reasonable grounds for believing is likely to commit an offence, in order to prevent that person from committing the offence," she said.

The naysayers, and there are many, immediately interpreted this to mean that the Government was giving police carte blanche to cart hapless and harmless

men to prison, completely overlooking the many safeguards mentioned such as 'reasonable grounds for detention' and 'fair procedure'. Not to mention the vigilant presence of INDECOM, which has severely dented the propensity of the police to take the law into their own hands.

The new dispensation, if it works, would mean that someone like a Steven Causwell, who killed his girlfriend Nadia Mitchell, flinging her body from her apartment after months of abuse and violence, could have been detained by the police BEFORE he killed his girlfriend, and not after. Clearly, we all know this is not a cut and dried matter, for as The Gleaner said in a 2011 editorial, that was essentially a call to action on domestic violence:

"Trying to prevent domestic violence is not easy, as the abuse is usually confined within the home. Indeed, it can be a very complicated issue, often ending with the battered partner backing down and refusing to take action. However, as the police come to investigate these murders, they are likely to find that there were telltale signs. Domestic murder rarely happens without warning. This suggests that reports of domestic violence ought to be meticulously investigated and the threats assessed and dealt with according to the potential risk to the complainant.

"It may be tough to prevent the abuse, but the abuser should be held accountable for his actions. And abusers should be sent a message that the society will not tolerate violence against women and children."

NO TOLERANCE

And that is the simple truth of it. Abusers need to be told in no uncertain terms that society does not condone their violence. That is how I interpret Holness' reference to adopting a 'zero-tolerance' approach to domestic violence, among other things. And those who think that women deserve the beatings, torture and deaths they suffer will also get the message that Jamaican society is not at one with such barbaric beliefs.

It takes a lot for a battered woman to come forward and make an official complaint against her aggressor because of the often onerous and insensitive procedures involved in providing proof that will stand up in court. To suggest that the proposed changes in police handling of domestic violence will bring women out of the woodwork levelling charges at innocent men left, right and centre is therefore highly exaggerated. And the idea that some women might punch themselves in the face to implicate their partners, as suggested by one columnist, is preposterous, to say the least. Why would she go to such lengths when she could just as easily walk out on him?

n Annie Paul is a writer and critic based at the University of the West Indies and author of the blog, Active Voice (anniepaul.net). Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com or tweet @anniepaul.