Younger Women at Great Risk of Intimate Partner Violence

Younger Women at Great Risk of Intimate Partner Violence

Intimate Partner Violence

Women age 16 to 24 are most vulnerable to intimate partner violence, according to a new report released by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Intimate Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-99 provides statistical information on the prevalence of domestic violence and the characteristics of victims of abuse. The report examines victims’ age and gender, finding that women are more likely to be victims of domestic violence than men, and women in their late teens and early twenties are more likely to experience abuse than women of other ages.
“The report confirms that domestic violence and domestic homicide are primarily crimes against women, and that young women are at great risk for domestic violence,” said Family Violence Prevention Fund Executive Director Esta Soler. “As a nation, we need to allocate resources to stop teen dating violence and ensure that comprehensive services are available to every woman – regardless of age – who is abused. We need a commitment to educate girls about how to protect themselves from relationship violence and to teach boys that violence against girls and women is always wrong.”

Intimate Partner Violence, written by Callie Marie Rennison, PhD, is based on the findings of the National Criminal Victimization Survey (NCVS) data collected by the BJS and homicide data collected by the FBI. The NCVS collects information about crimes that are both reported to the police and not reported, and provides information on the frequency, characteristics and consequences of criminal victimization.

Intimate Partner Violence

Intimate partner violence is widespread, and women are the victims of abuse more often than men are. In 1999, 671,110 women were the victims of domestic violence, according to Intimate Partner Violence. Eight-five percent of all victims of intimate partner violence were women, while 15 percent (120,100) were men. Intimate partner violence against women most often took the form of simple assault (66 percent), rape or sexual assault (14 percent), or aggravated assault (10 percent).

Intimate Partner Violence notes that between 1993 and 1999, there was a nationwide decrease in crime. The rate of intimate violence against women also declined, but to a lesser extent, during the period. From 1993 to 1999, intimate partner violence against women decreased by 41 percent, from 1.1 million women in 1993 to 671,110 in 1999.

Intimate Partner Violence and Age

The rates of intimate partner violence “differ greatly” depending on the age of the victim, according to the report. Women between the ages of 16 and 24 are nearly three times more vulnerable to intimate partner violence (excluding intimate partner homicide) than women in other age groups. In 1999, the overall rate of intimate partner violence against women was 5.8 victimizations per 1,000 women, but the rate was 15.6 per 1,000 women for those aged 16 to 24.

The higher rate of intimate partner violence exists regardless of young women’s marital status, notes Intimate Partner Violence. Women between the ages of 20 and 24 were victimized at a higher rate than older women, regardless of marital status. In general, the report adds, women who are separated experienced intimate partner violence at rates “significantly higher” than women in any other marital category. Separated women age 20 to 34 had the highest average rates of intimate partner violence of women in any age group.

The pattern of younger women being most vulnerable to victimization was consistent across racial lines as well, Intimate Partner Violence finds. The rate of intimate partner violence peaked for both white and African American women between the ages of 20 and 24. The rate of intimate partner violence for Hispanic women peaked between the ages of 16 and 34.

Intimate Partner Homicide

Male murder victims were “substantially less likely” than female victims to have been killed by an intimate partner, finds the report. Intimate partner homicide accounted for 32 percent of the murders of women in 1999 and approximately four percent of the murders of men. In 1999, 1,642 people were killed by intimates and three in four victims were women. Of the victims, 74 percent (1,218) were female and 26 percent (424) were male.

While women in their teens and early twenties have the highest rate of intimate partner violence, women between the ages of 35 and 49 are “the most vulnerable” to intimate partner homicide, according to the report. Between 1993 and 1999, intimate partner homicides made up 32 percent of the homicides of women between the ages of 20 and 24, compared with nearly 40 percent of the homicides of women between the ages of 35 and 49. In 1999, women in this age group were murdered by an intimate partner at rates greater than women in any other age group.

But the report notes that woman between the ages of 20 and 34 also had high rates of intimate partner homicide. Young women (age 12 to 15) and women over age 50 experienced the lowest homicide rates among females. However, in every age category, women are more likely than men to be murdered by an intimate partner.

Intimate Partner Violence is available on the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ web site. Copies of the report also can be ordered through the BJS clearinghouse number, 800/732-3277.

Source:
Intimate Partner Violence
http://www.endabuse.org

Understanding the Plight of Her Sexual Victimization

University Counseling Center
University of Notre Dame

"What happened to me? How did this happen to me? Why did this happen to me? Why did I act the way that I did while it was happening? What will I do the next time I'm in a similar situation?" These are the questions that many women who have experienced sexual victimization ask themselves. The process of answering these questions can be very painful. So painful that often times the woman chooses to sort through them with the help of a psychotherapist.
To understand the plight of a woman who has been sexually victimized one must first understand the different terms that describe the victimization. Sexual harassment refers to any unwelcomed sexual advance, verbal or non-verbal, of an offensive sexual nature. Sexual assault is a form of sexual harassment. It involves unwelcomed touching of another person. It can be defined as any unwanted physical activity forced by one person on another. Sexual battery is a form of sexual assault. It entails a particular type of touch, namely penetration. Sexual battery can be defined as forced anal, oral or vaginal penetration by any object, except when these acts are performed for bona fide medical purposes. Rape is a form of sexual battery because it entails sexual intercourse. Rape can either be at the hands of a stranger, an acquaintance, a date, or committed against the victim by more than one person (e.g., gang rape).

Sexual predators exist and they hunt for people who will make for easy prey. They hunt for women who appear to manifest certain characteristics. Namely, they look for those who seem to be (a) people pleasers (b) unassertive (c) naïve about the adversarial dynamics existing between men and women and (d) drug and/or alcohol abusers. It is not difficult for predators to find women matching these characteristics on a college campus. In fact, research consistently identifies freshmen women as the most likely victims of sexual crimes on campus. However, predators are not looking for freshmen per se, they are people who appear to them to be safe to victimize (e.g., the kind of person who will not put up too much resistance and/or will not give them trouble afterwards). This does not mean that the victim is to be "blamed" for having these characteristics. It only means that she may be more vulnerable to exploitation. She is not responsible for the assault, and she did not "ask" to be harmed. The predator is the one who is responsible for causing harm. Also, not all perpetrators have to fit the description of a predator. The young man who gets drunk to celebrate some successful experience and in a drunken stupor forces himself sexually on a woman also contributes to the rising number of victims.

What all forms of sexual victimization have in common is that they psychologically register as traumatic. A traumatic event is experienced as sudden, threatening and overwhelming. The reaction of people who are traumatized (due to a rape, a robbery, a car accident, or witnessing a tragedy) often reaches a threshold that warrants the clinical diagnosis of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Even if they have repressed the event (or parts of the event), the people who suffer from PTSD know something is wrong. The key elements of PTSD are: (a) intrusive thoughts and feelings (such as flashbacks and nightmares) making it seem as if she is reliving the event, (b) attempts to avoid experiences that are reminiscent of the event or elicit negative thoughts and feelings related to the event, and (c) hypervigillence, i.e., constant surveillance of the environment so that they are not suddenly threatened and/or overwhelmed again.

The treatment for PTSD primarily involves grieving and making sense of what happened. For many people the toughest hurdle to clear entails accepting that bad things happen to good people. The victim of a sexual crime typically attempts to sort through who is to blame for what happened. Often, the victim attempts to regain control by erroneously taking responsibility for events for which she had no control over at the time. This leads to shame and self-blame. It also means that she is less likely to confront the perpetrator or pursue a chance at justice via legal means.

The healing process is difficult but possible. Support from significant others is extremely important. The people the victim lives with are the people most capable to detect that something is wrong and to encourage her to get help. Moreover, they can challenge any self-blaming arguments. Sometimes the significant-other is so close to the victim that they can be considered a "secondary victim" and they too may need to get help. Help is available.

Source:
University Counseling Center, University of Notre Dame
http://www.nd.edu/~ucc/ucc_sexualvictimarticle.html

Critique of the "Battered Woman Syndrome" Model

Mary Ann Dutton, Ph.D.
The George Washington University

Introduction
Although widely misunderstood even among legal professionals, "battered woman syndrome" is not a legal defense. It is one approach to explaining battered women's experiences. Like other "social framework testimony," ( Vidmar & Schuller, in press ), expert testimony concerning battering and its effects is used in the legal system to help a judge or jury better understand a battered woman's experience ( Federal Rules of Evidence 702 ). The purpose of this paper is to offer a critique of the concept battered woman syndrome as a means of framing battered women's experiences ( Gordon & Dutton, 1996 ).
Review of the concept battered woman syndrome

The concept of battered woman syndrome has evolved from its inception in the late 1970's. Initially, it was conceptualized as "learned helplessness," a condition used to explain a victim's inability to protect herself against the batterer's violence that developed following repeated, but failed, efforts to do so ( Walker, 1977-78 ). Another early formulation of battered woman syndrome referred to the the cycle of violence ( Walker, 1984 ), a theory that describes the dynamics of the batterer's behavior. The cycle of violence theory can be used to explain how battered victims are drawn back into the relationship when the abuser is contrite and attentive following the violence. More recently, battered woman syndrome has been defined as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) ( Walker, 1992 ), a psychological condition that results from exposure to severe trauma. Among other things, PTSD can explain why a battered victim may react, because of flashbacks and other intrusive experiences resulting from prior victimization, to a new situation as dangerous, even when it is not.

In the courtroom, expert testimony concerning domestic violence can be offered for various purposes: (1) to show that a defendant is a battered woman, (2) to explain a battered woman's state of mind, (3) to generally support a claim (e.g., when a battered victim is suing a batterer for damages) or the validity of a particular defense (i.e., when a battered victim is the defendant), (4) to explain a battered woman's conduct, (5) to explain a battered woman's recantation or resistance to prosecution (i.e., when a battered victim is witness in prosecution case), (6) to bolster a battered woman's credibility, or (7) to explain the existence of mitigating factors (i.e., for purposes of sentencing when a battered woman has been found guilty in a criminal trial) ( Parish, 1996 ). Statutes and case law vary from state to state and across federal jurisdictions; in some, this testimony is referred to as "battered woman syndrome." The critique that follows derives from the view that syndrome language generally, and battered woman syndrome more specifically, is inadequate to the task of describing battered women's experience, whether for purposes of expert testimony, counseling, or advocacy.

Critique of the concept "battered woman syndrome"

There has been a great deal of progress in the admissibility of expert testimony in criminal cases involving battered victims under the rubric of "battered woman syndrome." However, in domestic violence cases the "courts have focused on a syndrome model to the exclusion of other research that, though less legally convenient, more accurately depicts the social and psychological consequences of domestic violence" ( Schuller & Hastings, in press ). There are a number of concerns that suggest the need for a reformulation of this model. Five such points are described below.

1. There is no single profile of a battered woman.
"Battered woman syndrome" signals a particular area of testimony or type of case. One advantage of a short-hand label is ease of communication. The disadvantage is related: "battered woman syndrome" has become a stereotype that often does not fit the current state of knowledge concerning battering and its effects. Further, the stereotypic image of "battered woman syndrome" is often clouded by other stereotypes such as those based on race, culture, social class, and sexual orientation, for example.

There is no single profile of the effects of battering although "battered woman syndrome" suggests that the psychological impact of battering is defined by a common set of symptoms. Nevertheless, battered women's reactions to violence and abuse vary; they include emotional reactions (e.g., fear, anger, sadness); changes in beliefs and attitudes about self, others, and the world (e.g., self-blame, distrust, generalized belief that the world is unsafe); and symptoms of psychological distress or dysfunction dysfunction (e.g., depression, flashbacks, anxiety, sleep problems, substance abuse). A particular battered woman's reactions may or may not meet criteria to warrant a clinical diagnosis. Variations in women's traumatic response to battering are based on characteristics of (1) the violence and abuse, (2) the battered victim, and (3) the context or environment in which battering occurs and in which the battered woman must respond to and heal from it, e.g., based on racial and cultural factors, social class, social support.

2. The term "battered woman syndrome" is vague.
There is no clearly defined set of criteria to define "battered woman syndrome." If the label "battered woman syndrome" is reserved only for battered women with specific types of reactions (e.g., posttraumatic stress disorder), then using it instead of the diagnosis term is confusing especially since battered woman syndrome is not a recognized diagnostic term in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) ( American Psychiatric Association, 1994 ). Further, other reactions to battering that are relevant to pending legal (or other) issues may be excluded from consideration. Alternatively, if the term is used more broadly to refer to a range of psychological reactions to battering, as it often is in actual testimony by experts, then its diagnostic utility is lost since there is no clearly defined criteria for inclusion. In this case, the question of whether a battered woman "suffers" from battered woman syndrome is not an appropriate question: its meaning is vague and can be misleading.

3. Posttraumatic stress disorder, compared to other psychological reactions to battering, is not uniquely relevant for understanding legal (or other) domestic violence-related issues.
PSTD can result from exposure to domestic violence and it may be relevant for explaining a victim's fear or other behavior in a specific situation. However, there is no basis to suggest that PTSD has exclusive or even greater relevance, for either legal or clinical issues, than do other types of psychological reactions to battering. Importantly, the absence of PTSD does not signal the lack of other posttraumatic stress reactions nor does it negate the reasonableness of a battered woman's fear. To the contrary, posttraumatic reactions leading to diagnoses other than PTSD (e.g., Acute Stress Disorder, Dissociative Amnesia, Major Depressive Disorder), as well as those which do not constitute clinical diagnoses (e.g., fear, anger, transient dissociative reaction, shame, distrust), may in some cases be more salient for understanding pertinent legal or clinical issues. For example, understanding the battered woman's appraisal of specific batterer behavior as threatening is typically more relevant both for addressing specific legal issues and for victim advocacy than merely whether or not she meets diagnostic criteria for PTSD. As well, victim's depression or suicidal thoughts as a reaction to battering may be more salient for addressing victim's current safety or for understanding her previous actions.

4. The relevant information relied upon for expert testimony in legal cases, advocacy, and clinical interventions involving battered victims extends beyond the psychological effects of battering.
The various purposes of expert testimony (see "Review" above), advocacy, and clinincal intervention typically require information in addition to the battered victim's psychological reactions to battering. This information includes (1) an analysis of the dynamics of violence and abuse, (2) the battered victim's strategic responses to violence (i.e., what she did in attempting to resist, avoid, escape, or stop the violence), (3) the short- and long-term outcome of those efforts, and (4) the social and psychological context in which the battering occurred (e.g., cultural and ethnic factors, economic factors, social network, the battered victim's prior traumatic experiences, the response of the police and other institutions to the battering) ( Dutton, 1993 ; Gordon & Dutton, 1996 ). The body of knowledge that forms the foundation of expert testimony, advocacy, or clinical intervention cannot be adequately defined by a single construct or diagnosis, including battered woman syndrome.

5. The term "battered woman syndrome" creates an image of pathology.
Battered woman syndrome language creates a stereotyped image of pathology. A woman characterized as suffering from battered woman syndrome may be viewed as flawed, damaged, disordered, or abnormal in some way. Although it is true that many battered victims suffer negative effects of battering, syndrome language necessarily places the emphasis on pathology, not on the whole picture that also includes the battered woman's strengths and efforts, as well as other's responses to the situation. Notably, a battered victim's normal reaction of fear or anger can be the most important issue for explaining her state of mind at the time of an alleged crime or for understanding her motivation for other behavior. Further, it may be essential to explain the apparent absence of fear, for example, by considering how cultural factors influence the manner of emotional expression. An expert witnesses' attempt to refocus attention away from pathology after having invoked the concept "battered woman syndrome" can be confusing and appears contradictory. The term "battered woman syndrome" may inadvertently communicate to the jury or judge the misguided notion of an "abuse excuse." Use of the term battered woman syndrome perpetuates stereotypic images of battered women.

Conclusion

An extensive scientific and professional literature concerning traumatic experiences, including domestic violence and victims' reactions to it, provides a solid foundation for expert testimony in cases involving battered women. Expert testimony concerning battering and its effects cannot adequately rely on a single construct such as "battered woman syndrome": the comprehensive body of existing knowledge cannot be so condensed. Instead, focus should be on identifying the specific questions relevant to the issues at hand for which there is a body of knowledge to support a valid conclusion.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fourth Edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Dutton, M.A. (1993). Understanding women's responses to domestic violence: A redefinition of battered woman syndrome. Hofstra Law Review , 21(4), 1191-1242.

Federal Rules of Evidence 702.

Gordon, M. and Dutton, M.A. (1996). Validity of "battered woman syndrome" in criminal cases involving battered women. In U.S. Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services. The validity and use of evidence concerning battering and its effects in criminal trials: Report responding to section 40507 of the Violence Against Women Act . (NCJRS #160972).

Parish, J. (1996). Trend analysis: Expert testimony on battering and its effects in criminal cases. In U.S. Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services. The validity and use of evidence concerning battering and its effects in criminal trials: Report responding to section 40507 of the Violence Against Women Act . (NCJRS # 160972).

Schuller, R. and Hastings, P.A. (in press). Battered woman syndrome and other psychological effects of domestic violence against women. In D.L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, and J. Sanders (Eds.), The West companion to scientific evidence .

Vidmar, N. and Schuller, R.A. (1989). Juries and expert evidence. Social framework testimony. Law and Contemporary Problems , 133.

Walker, L.E. (1977-78). Battered women and learned helplessness. Victimology: an International Journal , 2(3/4), 525-534.

Walker, L.E. (1984). The battered woman syndrome . New York: Springer Publishing Co.

Walker, L.E. (1992). Battered women syndrome and self-defense. Symposium on Woman and the Law, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy , 6(2), 321-334.