Page 929 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 30 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The third objective is:
To achieve more just and equitable responses by the criminal justice system, which highlight the seriousness of the offences, and to strengthen the authority of the law and its effective and important role of influencing community attitudes and supporting social change.
This is linked with the former objective in recognition of the judicial system as the authority on the severity of offences. The fact that States and Territories in the past decade have passed domestic violence legislation has not changed the practices of the legal system enough to give a clear message that violence against women is not acceptable under any circumstances.
Indeed, much to every woman's horror, in January we discovered that a South Australian judge had, last August, indicated to a jury in a rape in marriage case that it was excusable for a man to use force against his wife if she did not agree to having sex. It is ludicrous enough that in the 1990s we still differentiate between rape by a spouse or partner and rape by a stranger or mere acquaintance. Women have struggled for too long against this element of possession in their relationships. We should not expect our judiciary to carry such biases so far as to comment, whilst summing up for a jury, that violence is acceptable in the domestic context. There has also been a lag: Court sentences and the number of cases prosecuted have been a major disincentive for women to come forward. They have had to rely on the de facto arrangements that give them access to domestic violence orders. These are a good tool in dealing with part of the problem but are no substitute for offenders being treated as they would be for a serious assault against any other person.
It is all good and well to quote legislation that states that domestic violence constitutes a crime under the Crimes Act 1900. As I stated in my earlier remarks, many domestic violence survivors still feel under pressure to charge their attacker and fear reprisal because the current system does not make them feel safe from violence. The police and court system need the direction and support of all concerned groups, including the legislature, to encourage them to prosecute cases of domestic violence and give offenders the strong message that this really is a crime and that it is to be taken seriously. There is still much research being conducted into attitudes towards violence against women; but, while that is the case, it is no support for inaction. A variety of approaches are going to be needed to change long-held prejudices in society. The legal system is one important part of that. The fact is that violence against women is no different from any other act of violence and should not be treated any differently.
This brings me to the fourth objective: Building on existing reforms, policy and program work to improve the status of women. I have identified the change of the status of women in society as being one of the causes of what some see as an increase in violence against women. While it sounds plausible, it does not give an excuse for men to take out personal aggressions against women. As the strategy states, violence against women can never be justified. If some of the people who argue that women can be violent feel that this is pressing the point too far, I would add that violence against any person who is in a weaker position cannot be justified.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .