Proving non-fatal strangulation in family violence cases: A case study on the criminalisation of family violence

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI:10.1177/13657127211036175
H. Douglas, Robin Fitzgerald
{"title":"Proving non-fatal strangulation in family violence cases: A case study on the criminalisation of family violence","authors":"H. Douglas, Robin Fitzgerald","doi":"10.1177/13657127211036175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Non-fatal strangulation is recognised as a common form of coercive control in violent relationships. Overwhelmingly it is perpetrated by men against women. It is dangerous both because of the immediate and serious injuries it can cause, and the risk of future violence associated with it. A discrete offence of non-fatal strangulation has been introduced in many countries. Queensland, Australia introduced a discrete non-fatal strangulation offence in 2016. While the offence is charged often, around half the non-fatal strangulation charges laid by police do not proceed. We spoke to prosecution and defence lawyers to better understand the evidential obstacles to successful prosecution. We found that the prosecution of the offence faces challenges common to family violence offences more broadly, despite it being a discrete physical act. Specifically, we found that the willingness of the victim to testify and the perception of the victim's credibility were key to successful prosecution.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"25 1","pages":"350 - 370"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211036175","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Non-fatal strangulation is recognised as a common form of coercive control in violent relationships. Overwhelmingly it is perpetrated by men against women. It is dangerous both because of the immediate and serious injuries it can cause, and the risk of future violence associated with it. A discrete offence of non-fatal strangulation has been introduced in many countries. Queensland, Australia introduced a discrete non-fatal strangulation offence in 2016. While the offence is charged often, around half the non-fatal strangulation charges laid by police do not proceed. We spoke to prosecution and defence lawyers to better understand the evidential obstacles to successful prosecution. We found that the prosecution of the offence faces challenges common to family violence offences more broadly, despite it being a discrete physical act. Specifically, we found that the willingness of the victim to testify and the perception of the victim's credibility were key to successful prosecution.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
证明家庭暴力案件中的非致命勒死:家庭暴力定罪个案研究
非致命的勒死被认为是暴力关系中一种常见的强制控制形式。绝大多数都是男性对女性犯下的罪行。它是危险的,因为它可以造成直接和严重的伤害,以及与之相关的未来暴力的风险。许多国家都引入了一种单独的非致命绞杀罪。2016年,澳大利亚昆士兰州引入了一项非致命的绞杀罪。虽然这种罪行经常被指控,但警方提出的非致命勒死指控中,约有一半没有被起诉。我们与控方和辩方律师进行了交谈,以更好地了解成功起诉的证据障碍。我们发现,尽管这是一种离散的身体行为,但对这种罪行的起诉面临着与家庭暴力罪行更广泛的共同挑战。具体来说,我们发现受害者作证的意愿和对受害者可信度的看法是成功起诉的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Preponderance, proportionality, stepwise liability Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability The skewing effect of outcome evidence The economic case for conviction multiplicity What matters for assessing insider witnesses? Results of an experimental vignette study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1