Personally i would like to see domestic violence remain a stand alone criminal offense, if they decide to add none violent behaviour to physical violence and call it domestic violence where does it end.
How do you prove controlling behaviour in any of its many forms?.
There is a distinction between coercive behaviour and criminal acts, if you lock your husband/wife in the house that is a criminal offence, its not coercive, its a crime.
Right now the way it stands people use non molest and occupation orders as weapons often with no proof, it has become a way of getting shot of an unwanted partner, and to block contact
How many men have come to wiki and said i had an argument with the missus she called the police later, no action taken, now i have a court summons what do i do, more often than not the advice is accept an undertaking not to molest the lady, so in effect the bloke did nothing wrong but promises to continue doing nothing wrong, but must move out and not contact the hubby/wife/partner.
It will be interesting to see how the judiciary and lawyers view this.
What''s the difference between co-ercive and controlling? Or just manipulative? Surely an attempt to define it is going to hand far too much discretion to judges, juries and magistrates. And despite Forseti''s mini rant I think co-ercive/controlling/manipulative behaviours apply as much to women as to men. Actually all the most manipulative people I''ve ever known were female.
No accurate figures exist for the prevalence of domestic abuse in all its forms, as it is known to be grossly under-reported so comparisons between men and women are pretty meaningless.
The term "domestic violence" is misleading. Organistions such as the BMA and the legislature here in Scotland use the term "domestic abuse" because it clearly encompasses both physical and psychological aspects. The definition already includes psychological abuse so there is no need to include "coercive control, " it just overcomplicates the definition.
I hate abuse and abusers both physical and emotional.
However I can see that without any outward signs of injury, it becomes difficult to prove and becomes one persons say-so against the other!
Another thing that makes me sad is the point Dukey raised that while these things are brought in to protect people - they can be used to wrongly accuse for different agendas
I''ve noticed people have different interpretations of abuse - as an example people say they were bullied by their STBXs and give an example, some would not bat an eyelid at this and it would terrify others.
While I applaud progress and detest DV, it will need to be very robust!