Our papers and airwaves have been full of stories about this issue for years, but it seems nothing is ever really done about it. In the past three weeks 11 women have lost their lives due to violence. In some of these cases, the accused killers have had extensive rap sheets and patterns of violent behaviour, and have appeared before the courts several times, but have escaped prison time.
Deanna “Violet” Coco, a climate change activist who blocked traffic on Sydney Harbour earlier this year, recently was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment – with a non-parole period of eight months – for her ill-advised stunt. Whatever one thinks about this sentence, it follows that if blocking traffic lands you prison time, then violently assaulting women should as well, yet such men can be found at large in the community. Just how seriously do our courts take violence against women?
The public has a right to know just how many offences need to be committed, and just how many women need to be hurt, stalked and threatened, before dangerous men are put behind bars.
In our many discussions about violence against women, narratives about gender, power and “patriarchy” can obscure some plain facts. The first is that only a subset of men commit violent and sexual crimes against women, and it is a minority within this minority who commit the vast majority of the most serious crimes. Forensic psychologists call these men psychopaths.
The second key fact to acknowledge is that psychopathic offenders are often lifelong criminals and have little hope of rehabilitation. Studies show that attempts at rehabilitation can make their offending worse.
And the third fact that must be grappled with is that when rehabilitation is unlikely, the primary goal of the justice system must be to keep the community safe, which means incarcerating the worst offenders.
The empirical evidence bears this out. A longitudinal study of violent offending in Sweden studied more than two million Swedes across a 30-year period and found that just 1 per cent of the total population accounted for 63.2 per cent of all convictions. In other words, while the vast majority of Swedes never commit a single crime in their lifetimes, about 1 per cent commit to criminality as if it were a full-time profession.
The study’s authors concluded “the majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by a small number of persistent violent offenders, typically males, characterised by early onset of violent criminality, substance abuse, personality disorders and nonviolent criminality”.
A subset of dangerous criminals is unlikely ever to be rehabilitated. (This certainly does not apply to all offenders, just a small minority who would meet the most serious classification of psychopathy, which is a discrete category of its own.) Psychopaths are known for their callous and unemotional traits, their impulsivity and their glib charm. And often because they have a superficial charm, they can be adept at gaming the system.
A 2016 study conducted found that psychopaths who were “well behaved” in their treatment programs while in prison, for example, were the most likely to reoffend on release.
Another study conducted in 1998 found that sex offenders who received treatment in prison were more likely to reoffend than those who did not. (One theory is that empathy-training enabled the psychopaths among this population to manipulate their targets more effectively.)
When an offender presents in front of a court with a rap sheet that includes five AVOs, serious sexual and violent offences against numerous women, in a relatively compressed time frame, it should not be difficult to weigh the needs of the community above the needs of the criminal – whatever they may be.
We live in a tolerant, liberal society that does not engage in punitive sentencing or harsh retributive justice. But too often we travel too far in the other direction towards excessive leniency, especially when it comes to crimes against women. If we want to get serious about preventing violence against women, we need to reconsider our current approach to sentencing.
Perhaps Australian jurisdictions need a “three strikes” law for habitual sexual and violent offenders. Repeat offences could attract mandatory prison time, not community corrections orders. A three-strikes law would act as a deterrent for the worst offenders. After three-strikes laws for violent offences were implemented in California, recidivism rates declined between 17 and 20 per cent.
Across the past 12 months, 49 women have been violently killed in Australia, an increase on the year before. To meaningfully reduce this statistic we need to consider tougher sentencing.
Subsidise parents, not childcare centres
Coming up with a better system of childcare should be a no-brainer for an opposition led by a former childcare minister. Certainly, a real policy on a vital topic would be much better than gimmicks such as quotas for female candidates.
Uncle Sam wants an independent ally, not a servile friend
Australia’s national debate tends to oscillate between fear of abandonment by the US and panic over being too closely aligned. We experienced a similar response with Britain in the past century.
It’s time Australia had a serious discussion about the sentencing of men who commit crimes against women.