One of the striking features of public conversation about bad behaviour is the speed at which it moves. A recurring situation is noticed, it is highlighted; it unites persons who are affected by it; social media gets to work; responsibility is identified; perpetrators are named and blamed; new laws to criminalise the bad behaviour are demanded; failures to prevent it are publicised. Governments are then blamed for not having dealt with the problem and pilloried for holding seemingly tangential enquiries instead of acting decisively and forcibly. They then perhaps pass hurried laws. Another problem comes into view and the caravan of public conversation moves on.
Even to describe the intensity and speed of such conversation called for a single paragraph held together by semi-colons. The passion for reform and for action is admirable but the pressure for instant solutions risks missing the complexity of a situation and the depth of its roots. It is unlikely that laws imposed without deep understanding will be effective in altering behaviour. They may even be counterproductive.
These general reflections were sparked by a Victorian Government Inquiry into data collection on family violence perpetration. At a time of great concern about family violence an enquiry into collecting data on perpetrators could appear very marginal. Far from going to the heart of the matter it might seem barely to reach beyond the toenails. It does not focus on the horror of domestic violence, nor on the women, children and others suffering violence, but on the almost exclusively male perpetrators. Nor does it ask how to deal with them but only how to collect data on them. Even before the enquiry has concluded the caravan will have moved on. It will be seen as yet another example of government response that is too timid, too little, too wrongly targeted, and too late.
Yet, as an example of what is needed in approaching a complex reality the Government Enquiry is exactly right. It is one of many necessary enquiries into different aspects of family violence. The issues with which it deals are certainly not the most central, but they are essential to address if we are to respond effectively to family violence. To go to the heart of the matter we sometimes need to check also the veins, arteries and other parts of the body.
The central challenge posed by family violence is not that it is new. It has existed in our society and many others. The challenge arises from the fact that family violence has been excused, ignored, covered up, not policed, been wrapped in silence, and has been committed by the powerful against the weak. Its roots in society lie deep. This demands that, having recognised its extent and its seriousness, we need to understand all its aspects. These include its extent, the dynamic between its victims and perpetrators, the factors that lead to it, and the effectiveness of our current responses to protect victims and to counter the cultural forces that contribute to men acting violently.
The immediate emphasis must be to protect women and children from violence. Law and its enforcement will be important in that. But if the only response is harsher penalties in addressing any social problem, it is bound to be ineffective. Regulation depends also on understanding why people are drawn to behave badly and how the culture that supports it can be changed.
For that we need to find data about perpetrators in a form that makes it accessible and can relate it to other information about family violence. That was the subject of the Enquiry. The current situation is that a host of agencies, government departments and other organisations, large and small, hold information on some aspects of family violence and sexual abuse. What is collected and how it is stored and safely accessible differs greatly.
'Research will provide the evidence needed to make wise and effective laws. In this, and in other complex social issues, research is the horseshoe nail on which a kingdom may depend.'
Those seeking data about perpetrators face many difficulties. Most available data comes from police reports on people arrested for family violence. These form a very small proportion of perpetrators, and so may not be representative. The accuracy of this and other data may be distorted by people’s reluctance to admit to behaviour that has criminal and reputational consequences. If in response to these difficulties data is collected anonymously, it becomes difficult to ask the follow-up questions necessary for a fuller understanding of behaviour and of its social context.
Data collected from other sources, such as the victims of abuse, health providers and non-government organisations provides valuable information, but is often incomplete and poorly organised. Many organisations lack the resources necessary to record, store and make information accessible. Many data collecting companies, too, are reluctant to become involved in collecting data from surveys. They may fear the stigma involved in such involvement, the risk of harm to the participants, and the ambiguity about the legal duty to report criminal behaviour in different jurisdictions.
These difficulties can be resolved by guidance about research and clarity about legal and ethical requirements. This will depend on Governments encouraging and helping fund relevant research. That research will provide the evidence needed to make wise and effective laws. In this, and in other complex social issues, research is the horseshoe nail on which a kingdom may depend.
Andrew Hamilton is consulting editor of Eureka Street, and writer at Jesuit Social Services.