Domestic Violence: Blaming the Victim

This is a brief clip on some of the key focuses of domestic violence treatment - recognizing the role played in abuse by focusing on the language used to describe it, which shapes how we think about it.

Questions and Flaws with Red-Flag Laws

(The following piece is written about the considerations and realities of the "gun violence debate" from the perspective of a mental health practitioner specializing in forensics, evaluations, criminal behaviors and abuse - what follows is not meant to be nor can it be considered comprehensive or exhaustive in scope, but is meant to simply illustrate some of the considerations that go into forensic evaluations, highlight that more questions need to be asked on addressing the issues of mental health, violence with guns, abuse in general, evaluations, legal processes, and how they affect all concerned)

There are a lot of very concerning flaws with the so-called "red-flag laws" beginning with the the unanswered question as to whether this is a legal issue or a mental health/behavioral health issue.

We need to beware of following in the footsteps of the witch-trial era where accusations are made, fear is the motivator, ignorance is the tool, and society pays the price on a number of fronts with due process and scientific processes / knowledge being ignored, while ignoring the core issues and creating others.  

A doctor, a lawyer, a judge, an attorney, a police officer, a detective, are not specifically trained and certified in clinically or forensically evaluating risk of violence as a part of their job description - they may be mandatory reporters or charged with addressing violence, but that is far different than evaluating and assessing risk of future violent behaviors.  Even being a clinician - psychologist, psychiatrist, counselor, social worker - does not automatically grant an acumen in dealing with criminal behaviors - which is it's own specialty.

We absolutely can handle this as a legal issue, a mental health/behavioral health issue, or a combination of both.  But if we were to consider this from a mental health / behavioral health issue:

For domestic violence there are tools/instruments such as the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment and the Spousal Abuse Risk Assessment which can include, but are not restricted to violence and abuse with guns.

What assessment tool would they propose we use to predict risk of violence with guns?  Is it valid, reliable - will it actually predict what we think it is going to predict, and is it broadly applicable to both males and females of all intelligence and cultures?  Or just use the existing tools with a focus on violence with guns?

What if we address one area of concern and ignore others?  For example, someone is reported that they are at risk of committing suicide with a gun - in which case we would be assessing for suicide risk rather than violence with a gun against others. In response, let's say their guns are taken.  Who is to say they will not be afraid of losing their freedom and decide to end their life with an overdose instead?  Or let's say the individual has been reported for being at risk for violent behavior, and they decide to retaliate and find a way to carry out a crime against the reporter / intended victim regardless before they can be stopped, using another method?

What steps will we take to address these hypothetical but very real scenarios or ones like them?

What process will there be for those reported?  Will they be allowed recourse? 

And what records would we obtain for the evaluation of risk?  

If they have no criminal record, what records would we want to use? 

Would we use juvenile records?  

Traffic records?  

Gun purchase records?  

Mental health records?  

Medical records?  

Employment records?  

Who decides what's relevant to ask and what is not? 

Would the evaluators have power to request and obtain those records?  

Or would they be required to be included and simply submitted upon the order for an evaluation?  

Would we require no records and use  interviews with no collateral evidence?  

What training would evaluators have in the overview of the records used?

Would we mandate that others participate as witnesses in the evaluation and they have to be interviewed as well?  

Do we interview children?  

Coworkers?  

Family?  

What risks does this pose for the one being evaluated?  

How about for the witnesses?  

Can they opt out?  

If they decline are they now a "co conspirator" with the "accused"?  

Would there be a "cross examination" of witnesses?

For many of the red-flag laws, someone is making a report to the authorities already - do they get to be interviewed?  

Do they have to be?  

Do they do so anonymously?  

Is everyone anonymous, or do the "witnesses" have rights to be anonymous, or do they count as "accusers" in a court of law, where what they say is now public record and testimony with the reported person having the right to confront them  - thereby putting some people at risk of retaliation, and in other instances due to external pressure refusing to participate accurately, thereby skewing the record?

Is the record private? 

Public?  

Who can access it?  

Is it sealed after it's used to determine risk?

How long is it considered valid for?  

Can those evaluated as being a high risk get a second evaluation?  

Who pays for it?  

Who does the evaluator work for?  

Are they like a public defender, or an independent contractor?

Do you get a "public defender" type evaluator if you can't afford a private evaluator?  

And in which case does the quality of your evaluation - the validity and reliability - go up or go down or is it guaranteed to stay the same?  What has to go into the report?  

Are we looking at sexual abuse history?

Substance use history?  

What happens if they don't wish to participate?

Is the fact that someone accused them or reported them an instant grounds for mandatory participation in an evaluation, and like a DUI if they refuse to participate, they are cited as being "guilty" and lose their rights?

What credentials and training do the evaluators have to have, or should they have?  

What degrees?  

Who determines the standards for evaluators?

Would it be on a state-by-state basis or a national standard?  

Would the credentials fall under an organization such as the American Counseling Association, American Psychological Association or other association?  

Who would determine whether or not the standards are in need of change if they are not working? 

What consequences exist for those who report someone but do so wrongfully?  

Are they considered to have made a good-faith report?  

Or are there criminal and civil liabilities if they are found to be not-at-risk?

What constitutes a valid threshold for making a report against someone?  

Is fear alone a justifiable basis?  

Do we have to quantify fear with a numerical or a descriptive basis?  

Does there have to be evidence, or just the belief that they are dangerous?  

How would we verify the claims?  

It would be easy to deny, and then would we turn to collateral information from other reports as mentioned above? 

Would there be a "no-risk" category?  

Or would there be a "low risk" category at the minimum?  

Does evaluating someone as "low risk" mean that there IS risk, and they receive the label simply because someone accused/reported them, and they can never receive a "no risk" label/assessment?

Will the government avoid a "no risk" category because of it's own liability if the assessment turns out wrong?  

What immunity / protections does the evaluator have?

Does the evaluator make recommendations for actions to be taken?  

Who makes the final decision about what response is to be taken and how are they supposed to use the evaluation?  

Who carries out the recommendations?  

Can the recommendations be completely disregarded?  

Would the recommendations be negotiable in  a court of law?

Who is ultimately responsible if the evaluation turns out to be faulty?  

Will the fact that someone received an evaluation / was reported ever be used in the future for other assessments should a crime occur?

If I actually believed that it was as simple as it is being presented in the media - see something, say something, the government does something, and we save something - I would be all in favor of it.

But, one of the mandates of the counseling profession is to "do no harm" and that includes to those being evaluated for risk, making sure evaluations are valid, reliable, protect their rights as well as everyone else related to the evaluations.

I'm not in favor of "doing nothing" nor am I in favor of "doing anything because we can't do nothing" - I prefer whatever is decided be done right, whatever it is. I think it needs to be handled the best way that's going to provide the least disruption that provides the most safety and privacy.   But I don't think we have figured out what that is yet.

Evaluations and government processes can be abused at the expense of the individual private citizen and we want to be aware and honest about this possibility with anything we do.  Mental and behavioral health evaluations have been rampantly abused in totalitarian states, and as mental health professionals, we have a responsibility to speak up about the processes being used and how we see them impacting the public as well as how well they do / don't protect the public.

This being said, I think the government and the public has a lot more homework to do on this subject before anything they produce is going to be able to be considered effective.  I think there are a lot more questions that need to be considered, asked and answered.

If there is anything I am in favor of it is beginning to inform the public about some of the realities we deal with in behavioral / mental health; so they can consider some of the points above as a matter of public policy, or be able to form additional relevant questions.

I also think we are ignoring the fact that in a volatile situation even if the guns are taken, that does not automatically remove the desire / ability to harm - in prison even a ball point pen is not allowed because it can be used as a lethal weapon...or anywhere else someone wants to use it as such.  Most abusers don't even need that. 

 This brings to light the issue of magazine restrictions, and firearms restrictions - banning certain capacity magazines and types of firearms.  Its worth pointing out wars were being fought and murders carried out with hundreds of millions killed over millennia without guns.  The firearms or their capacity aren't the issue - if they were, the most heavily armed country in the world would have been eliminated long before now for the massive amount of firearms in our country.  Remove a few major cities where the "gun violence" is heaviest and the firearms restrictions are also the heaviest in the country - and it becomes obvious the issue isn't the guns but a matter of local policy and conditions - most of which are claimed by their supporters to "solve" "gun violence."  And even then, again, prisons are some of the most controlled environments in the world, yet among the most dangerous because of the motives of those incarecerated there - with everyday objects being used as lethal weapons. But on the outside, we don't live in prisons, not should we make everyday life like a prison under the guise and false promise of "safety."

How we think about the problem is just as much an issue as the problem itself.  But we also need to look down the road to make sure our solutions to the problem aren't causing more problems, as well as making sure the solutions are going to do what we want them to do.  All of this requires us to be very honest with ourselves, look at the results, have more background information on the subject matter, and ask more questions.

 

What We Get Wrong About Domestic Violence: Abuse is a Pattern, Not an Incident

In preparation for a new shift to my career, I've decided to start putting down what I have learned so that others can learn from my time working with sex offenses and domestic violence - because what I'm about to share is not common knowledge, and it needs to be.  When these things become common knowledge, most of what we see will end when it comes to abuse.

The reality is, sexual abuse and domestic violence are both actual parts of our society.   They aren't some aberration that is "over there" or something that happens to "other people" that happens only sometimes and rarely.   We are literally around them every single day in one form or another.  Typically we don't even recognize when we are.  Because of this we have the opportunity to intervene much more than we think we do. 

I noticed that society and law enforcement both "get it wrong" about domestic violence - we focus on the violent act - or with sex offenses we focus on the sexual act - but we miss that the most damage actually occurs leading up to the offense.  We also tend to think as a society that "everything is fine" if justice has been served, or the abusive relationship has been left. 


Some of this is discussed in my first video here. 

I hope you will share this, feel free to comment and share, and I will be posting more of these in days and weeks to come.