Although many battered women are waiting for the right time to leave. there are many who would like to keep the relationship if only the man would stop his battering.

They have many reasons for wanting to maintain the relationship—

preserve the family

save their role as wife and mother

follow religious belief

they believe that their love can change these men 

​

Whatever the reasons for wanting to keep the relationship

empowering these victims involves respecting the battered woman's desires

providing information about battering and resources to help her become saf

restore control of her life (figure F)

​

Because there is a chance that the victim may jeopardize her safety by returning to the batterer, it is important to warn her of the possible consequences without blaming her.

 

If children are involved, the victim should be warned of the lethal danger to her children and the legal consequences for child endangerment.

​

Empowerment and containment are potential team-builders, inviting a liaison among agencies and strengthening the community's sense that preventing violence in the family is possible.

​

Labeling Aggression

​

Our strategy for treating men who exhibit abusive, violent, and criminal behavior involves working with a complex treatment model whose approach rests on our understanding of aggression and how individuals and agencies view aggressive acts.

​

The debate on the causes of aggression is ongoing, as is the quest for an adequate definition of aggression. Actually, aggression cannot be defined in any textbook fashion because aggression it is a social phenomenon.

Aggression in one country may not be seen as aggression in another.

Individuals may also understand aggression differently.

The current functional definition of lay and professional people—therapists, lawmakers, criminal justice system representatives and even perpetrators—identifies criminal aggression as a culturally determined label that an observer applies to behavior and injury patterns.

​

The implication of treating aggression as socially determined suggests that each act of aggression is unique or situational.

 

Current legal practice permits a court to assume that aggressive behavior may be criminal in one case and not in another. The judicial system is allowed to consider

what preceded the act of aggression

the form and intensity of the aggressor's behavior

the extent of the victim's injuries

the role and status of the aggressor and his victim

the motivation of the aggressor—real or perceived

​

For example

If a body is lying on the floor with a bullet in the brain, what is the crime—

murder

suicide

accidental death

involuntary manslaughter

first degree or second degree murder

self defense

​

Just a body with a bullet in the brain does not tell us enough.

​

Suppose the body is Mrs. Smith's, and two weeks earlier Mr. Smith wrote a letter to her stating, “I am going to come to your house and kill you on our anniversary.” He then buys a gun and shoots her on that date. The charge is first degree murder determined by:

What preceded the event—planning for murder.

The form and intensity of behavior—uses gun with accuracy.

The extent of the victim's injuries—fatal wound.

The role and status of perpetrator and victim—husband and wife.

 

The perpetrator and the defense attorney may try to mitigate the law's response.

Intra-family violence is generally treated less severely by society than stranger to stranger violence.

​

Motivation—Revenge

​

This may seem very straightforward.

However, in reality many things affect the observer's view.

​

Let's change the scenario.

A man comes home and finds his wife with another man.

He reacts violently by pushing the man who falls, hits the floor on the floor, and he dies.

Preceding the event—spontaneous rage at discovering his wife's adulterous behavior.

Form and intensity of behavior—a shove that was too hard.

Role and status of perpetrator and victim—husband and interloper.

​

Motivation—expression of anger

​

The charge will likely be manslaughter.

The observer concludes that an act of aggression occurred which did not warrant first degree murder. I

f we change this scenario to one in which the man comes home and finds another man who attacks him, the law would probably allow a charge of self-defense.

​

Most people who perpetrate acts of violence try to influence observers' assessment of the abusive and violent act.

They will edit the story of their crime

minimize their behavior

minimize the seriousness of the victim's injuries

lie about their motivations

hide behind their families and social role

 

Most professionals are not trained to label people and hold them accountable.

However if the observer does not label, an assessment cannot be made.

The offender-specific therapist is a social observer of aggression who labels.

 

It's not often comfortable being in the role of observer who labels.

If the observer is unwilling to look the perpetrator in the face and tell him he is abusive and violent and he needs to stop the behavior, giant cracks in are created in the system allowing perpetrators to escape containment.

​

The observer must be willing to see the criminal aggression for what it is and name it.

 

Society's present method of assessing aggression influences the way society and institutions view the consequences for aggressive acts.

​

A potentially tragic side effect of these considerations is that they place the victim of violence in the family at risk. Those involved with her case are likely to forget the seriousness of the crime against her as they consider mitigating circumstances.

​

We should not employ situational ethics in considering the perpetrator's violent acts.

 

Work with abusive and violent men has shown us that aggression is learned and after having observed thousands of perpetrators, we have concluded that no external stimulus automatically elicits aggression.

 

Aggression is a behavioral response that is internally generated; hence, we taught the men in our program that aggressive behavior occurs by choice, not chance or reflex.

 

The enormous challenge to therapists is to help their abusive and violent clients develop non-abusive and non-violent ways of resolving conflicts.

 

Understanding how our view of aggression differs from the current relativistic view is an essential component in our treatment model.

 

Another element in our model is an analysis of opportunities for being effective in intervention.

​

Components of Aggression

​

Three components are necessary for an aggressive act to take place—impetus, disinhibition, and access.

 

Remove one of these components and a violent act will not occur.

It is possible to intervene and offset the elements of violence.

Successful intervention with perpetrators who are violent in their families involves reducing the impetus to aggress, increasing the inhibitions against aggression, and limiting opportunity for aggressive behavior.

 

Every intervention to prevent violence involves an effort to eliminate one or more of these components necessary for aggression.

​

Impetus

​

Conflict is not the source of humankind's violence.

 

The impetus to aggress arises from a dysfunctional pattern of thinking within the mind of the perpetrator that we'll discuss later.

These cognitive processes may or may not be related to the situation that stimulates his rage.

The stimulus for aggression may originate from the perpetrator's thought processes or from the external world.

In therapy, violent offenders must learn to understand that the sources of conflict and violence are not the same.

​

All relationships experience conflict.

Sometimes, the other person is the source of the conflict, and sometimes we are the source of the conflict.

 

Theoretically, we could say the conflict creates the impetus, not to be confused with provocation.

We may become angry over an other's actions or words but violence is not a result of these actions or words.

It is the perpetrator's choice to resolve the conflict with violence instead of walking away from the conflict or reconciling through compromise and negotiation.

​

Impetus can be created by real or perceived conflict or the offender's irrational thought patterns.

It does not matter what the potential victim does.

The message to the perpetrator must be, “You cannot touch her.”

 

Irrational thinking has been the reason for some men shooting complete strangers in a public setting where the attacker would gain nothing from his actions—not money or revenge.

There are men who constantly obsess, without any substantiation, about their spouse's activities.

By repeating statements to themselves such as “I know she is having an affair. I know she is having an affair. She is having an affair.”

A totally irrational internal process creates the impetus.

Proper use of “time outs” can help reduce the impetus.

​

Disinhibition

​

The most violent offenders are not walking around being violent all the time.

They are usually contained by their normal inhibitions.

Mostly, they are being contained.

However, when disinhibitors reduce normal inhibitions violence can occur.

​

Violence requires permission either from within ourselves or from society.

Our society gives soldiers and police permission to be violent in designated circumstances.

Certain religions give their agents permission to use violence against nonbelievers or those who break rules.

Some parents claim Biblical injunction or family tradition as permission to use violence against their children.

 

Similarly batterers feel entitled to use violence against their mates when they violate the batterers rules.

 

Social training plays a role is disinhibition.

Evidence for us to supports the pro-feminist position that violence toward women has its roots in the patriarchy and social permission.

Social permission for violent behavior of any type is an influential disinhibitor.

Social permission for violence against women is illustrated in the book, Against Our Will, by Susan Brownmiller that gives an analysis of rape.

Other forms of patriarchal violence against women include the genital mutilation called clitorictomy and the practice of “honor killing” of spouses and daughters for dishonoring the family.

​

Social permission for violent behavior is supported by many sports activities.

For example, in baseball the pitcher challenges a batter by throwing a brush back pitch toward the batter. If the batter does not move back, the next pitch is thrown even closer to him and may even hit him. Unofficially, the batter is expected to rush the pitcher and attack him, and this, in turn, is a signal that both teams must rush on to the field and begin fighting each other. Nothing less than a minor riot ensues. No one expects police involvement or that anyone will be arrested for assault. In fact, most fans are quite excited and thrilled when this occurs.

​

Another example of social permission in sports is the practice of fighting by ice hockey players. In fact, many ice hockey fans are disappointed if one or more players are not injured during a game.

​

The thought processes of some men give them social permission to act abusively and violently.

They may tell themselves

“I've taken enough of this crap and it is going to end now”

“She hurt me, so I am going to hurt her now.”

​

Other disinhibitors of violent behavior are alcohol and other mind-altering drugs.

​

Dehumanization also is a disinhibitor that allows one to aggress such as, objectifying others with

gender

racist

religious

sexist terms.

 

During WWII we killed Japs, Nips, and Krauts and in Vietnam we killed NVA, Gooks, and Charlie.

They had names for us—Yankees, Imperialist.

 

Perpetrators also refer to their mates with objectifying terms such as, bitch, whore, and slut.

​

Intervention with perpetrators requires strengthening inhibitors to violence through

arrest

criminal prosecution

conviction

probation

offender-specific therapy

 

 

Social inhibitors tell the violent offender that if he is abusive and violent there will be consequences.

When the perpetrator thinks about being aggressive and hitting, he also has consequences to consider. “I can't do that because I'll get arrested and lose my job and family.”

 

By taking an ethical and moral stand that violence is wrong and has social consequences, the therapist also acts as a social inhibitor

​

Access

​

For a violent act to occur 

opportunity must exist

the victim must be available

the perpetrator must be able to act

the environment must be conducive to a violent act.

 

The home is a perfect setting for violence.

Traditionally home is the woman's place and a man's castle.

Nuclear families are relatively isolated allowing the perpetrator privacy to commit violent acts, and family conflicts continually test his inhibitions.

​

In a crisis, the therapist may recommend that a legal process, such as a restraining order or imprisonment separate the perpetrator and his victim.

If a threatening perpetrator is at large, the therapist must advise the victim to move to a safe place such as a shelter.

 

In non-crisis situations teaching the use of Time Outs and helping the perpetrator reduce his isolation from the support of others are means of decreasing the chance of violence.

​

Safe shelters, no contact orders or restraining orders (plus or minus effectiveness), assisted hiding, police arresting and jailing the perpetrator, and time outs have an impact on access.

 

Although it is important and necessary at times, impacting on access is short-term and of limited value.

If a violent offender wants to hurt another person, he will wait until he eventually has access to the target.

He then stalks until access to the victim is clear and the opportunity is right.

​

Differential Intervention

​

Differential treatment is based on the offender's particular case and mental health.

Appropriate assessment must be made of each client in order to design a workable plan for differential treatment.

 

For instance, the offender with multiple problems, such as alcohol, drugs, depression, or bipolar must be treated for his violence concurrently with his other mental or behavioral problems.

 

If treatment providers or doctors do not attend to these other problems, his progress in a violence program will likely be hampered or non-existent.

​

Differential treatment should also be applied to clients depending on whether their assessment indicates a low, medium, or high-risk individual.

​

Containment with low-risk offenders appears to be effective.

When there is no history of abuse and violence, they discontinue using violence as a means of handling conflict because they understand they have a lot to lose.

Often, a short-term educational approach is sufficient with the low-risk client.

​

With medium and high-risk offenders, a pattern of abusive and battering behavior has evolved over time in their relationships.

A long-term, intensive approach is required for medium and high-risk clients.

Anything less does not benefit victims, the community, or offender clients.

Regretfully, it is necessary to recommend therapeutic jail time for a few of these clients.

 

The Colorado system was devised to do what we consider short-term intervention with low-risk offenders —twenty-four weeks.

​

All medium risk offenders begin with a minimum of thirty-six weeks that we still consider short-term.

 

High-risk offenders, come to treatment for the duration of their probation or until we release them.

The duration of probation could be as long as six years. If necessary, they will be in treatment for six years.

 

Low-risk offender: A case

​

Police are now intervening with first time offenders who exploded on a single occasion perhaps by shoving their spouse.

There is no on-going history of other abuses, such as name calling, threats, coercion, and intimidation.

Few of our clients are low-risk when compared to the number of medium and high-risk offenders.

​

Although a low risk client is not a batterer, usually he is a man who, because of male sex role training, has learned to use violence as an appropriate response when under extreme stress.

He explodes and acts out abusively and violently, but unlike a batterer, does not have a repetitive pattern of this behavior.

​

While one incident does not make a batterer, the low-risk client has used violence, and we want the police to intervene.

Arrest, prosecution, and sentencing, including jail time or offender- specific treatment with probation, are appropriate consequences.

The probable cause arrest has an immediate, positive affect on this kind of human being because of embarrassment and shame in front of their family, neighbors, friends, and co-workers.

Because these men have pro-social values, the social message of being arrested has an immediate and positive affect on their behavior.

​

After being convicted, a low-risk offender came to our program.

He was a business professional and had held his current job for ten years.

He had not been verbally abusive

Did not control the household money

Was not jealous

Did not have an alcohol problem

Had not abused his children

Did not come from a dysfunctional family

Had a normal childhood.

In addition, he was working three jobs to help pay for his wife's graduate program.

For a batterer, this is not common behavior.

​

His wife admitted that she had more control in the relationship than her husband.

Like most men in this society, he was trained to be aggressive, and on that day, he wanted to relax and watch television.

She wanted him to help more with the children.

Mixing physical exhaustion, add some alcohol, and stress to the conflict, and a violent act resulted.

An argument ensued; he shoved her and was arrested.

​

A careful and lengthy investigation by the therapist revealed that this was the first and only episode of abuse to occurred in that family.

The offender's penalty included nineteen therapy sessions and five meetings with his wife after which he was released from the program.

​

Generally, this would be a good example of an appropriate penalty for a low-risk offender.

The low-risk individual should be released at the end of the process not at the front.

​

Medium-risk offender: A case

​

The history of a mid-range offender reveals an evolving pattern of abusive and violent behavior.

His relationship is volatile often with multiple separations.

He tends to be controlling and blames the situation on the victim and her problems.

He may have previously been arrested for non-violent crimes but probably has no previous history of arrest for violent crime.

He is somewhat isolated and maintains a façade.

This man has gone beyond the shoving and pushing of a low- risk offender to slapping or hitting the victim.

Even if it is the first time, slaps or blows, especially to the head, warn that this is not a low-risk individual. Substance abuse may not be a factor.

 

In our study, 62 percent of the medium-risk offenders had no history of substance abuse and only 11 percent were multiple substance abusers.

​

A medium risk offender came to our program as part of his sentencing.

He was a professional businessman who lived with his family in an affluent neighborhood.

He had a history of controlling and verbally abusing his wife and occasionally, hitting her.

However, he had not abused his children.

His family of origin was dysfunctional, and he had been abused as a child.

He was insecurely attached in his relationships.

He did not have an alcohol problem.

 

During our telephone conversation with his wife, she said, “I've got to tell you something.

Sometimes at night he dresses up in his camouflage fatigues, grease paints his face, puts on his beanie, goes out, and wanders around in the neighborhood.

He said he is trying to protect the neighborhood from crime.”

In actuality, he was the crime in the neighborhood.

He was a peeping tom sneaking and peering into his neighbor's windows at night.

​

Because he was in compliance with the diversion program requirements, there were no new incidents of abuse reported, and his spouse was satisfied with his progress, he was released after thirty-six weeks although he had not resolved many issues that surfaced in treatment.

 

High-risk offender: Two cases

​

Our program has been modified over time because of our contact with the high-risk offender.

These clients maintain a destructive social façade.

They look good but may be concealing

homicidal and suicidal ideation

multiple arrests for violence in relationships (41 percent)

other criminal behaviors

a history of multiple relationships

stalking behaviors.

 

Usually they are clients with multiple problems representing personality disorders of every kind.

Substance abuse is also a factor.

In our study, 81 percent of the high-risk offenders had a history of substance abuse and over 54 percent were multiple substance abusers.

​

Our experience and research have led to several conclusions concerning high-risk offenders.

They have a limited ability to attach to others in healthy or meaningful ways.

When they do attach, it is insecurely to serve their own purpose.

Their families of origin were usually dysfunctional.

​

For example

One or both parents were

abusive or violent

neglectful of the children

frequently had alcohol or drug problems.

 

Over a-third of our high-risk clients came from broken families and were raised by a single parent (39 percent) and about 25 percent experienced multiple living arrangements as a children living with step-families (often blended families), aunts, uncles, grandparents, siblings, foster care or adoptive families.

​

It was determined that most high-risk offenders had been abused as children (87 percent).

Over 52 percent experienced physical abuses, 17 percent experienced sexual abuses, and over 47 percent experienced abandonment.

 

Their young lives were unpredictable, and as a result they are extremely empty people who have not developed pro-social behavior.

 

They believe the world is crazy, painful, unpredictable, and it makes no sense.

They block outside information, reject external feedback, and authority. They have decided to rebel and do what they want, when they want.

 

The high-risk client longest in treatment graduated after fourteen years. During that time, his personality was totally reorganized.

This client entered treatment with fantasies of hiding in a tower, as the University of Texas sniper had done many years ago, and shooting people at random.

Obviously, he was full of anger and rage.

He could barely contain himself most of the time.

In fact, several times during the fourteen years of therapy he was not able to control his rage.

At one point his father, who had been incredibly abusive to him, confronted his son with an in your face attitude, and he beat his father so severely that the father needed plastic surgery.

 

Case I

The wife of another client who had been in voluntary treatment for over a year called us. She told us, “I have to get away from this guy because he is trying to get me to help him to kidnap, rape, and murder women.” Subsequently, she was aided in getting away.

He came to a meeting with the therapist.

On being confronted, he admitted having these fantasies for as long as he could remember.

Occasionally he would see a woman walking alone, get behind her, follow her, and fantasize that she would be the first one.

He reported that he never actually acted on this fantasy.

He left therapy and we never heard from him again, and in parting he said, “If 300 women disappear each year, why can't I have three of them.”

 

Case II

A man court-mandated to treatment presented himself as a very religious man.

He owned a business that, reportedly, earned a couple million dollars a year, and he was also a lay minister in a local church.

Although he had not abused his wife, the charge that brought him to treatment was for hitting his teenage son and giving him a black eye.

​

After some time in treatment, his wife reported

he had raped a woman in college

he was a flasher

he forced her to engage in a ménage-a-trois by hitting and choking her.

he had also forced to her to strip at a local strip club on couples' night

he had multiple affairs with other women 

 

This man, who had the lay minister façade on the one hand and was a vile human being on the other, would require a lot of the therapist's patience and tenacious effort to break through this man's armor.

​

Saunders' Differential Description of Batterers

 

There is evidence from other researchers that men who abuse are not a homogeneous population.

Saunders (1992) reports findings that indicate that there are three types of abusers:

​

Generally Aggressive:

 

These men are the most violent acting aggressively both in and out of the home.

They were likely to have been severely abused as children.

These men abuse alcohol and drugs, hold rigid gender role attitudes, have high levels of anger and jealousy and are depressed.

They are described as having antisocial and narcissistic traits.

 

Family Only:

 

These batterers behave violently only within the home.

They tend to be authoritarian—compulsive and conforming—report little abuse as children and abuse alcohol only occasionally.

 

Emotionally Volatile:

 

This group reported the highest levels of emotional abuse as children.

They exhibit high levels of anger, depression, and jealousy.

They are likely to have attempted suicide.

 

Saunders uses these categories to suggest differential treatment approaches.

Generally, the aggressive client would require extensive treatment, including alcohol and drug intervention and treatment for the effect of childhood abuse.

 

The man whose violence is confined to his family could conceivably benefit from short-term intervention that would include assertiveness training, social skills training, empathy work and assistance with managing emotions in a constructive manner.

 

The clinician should screen emotionally volatile men for depression and borderline personality.

According to Saunders these men would benefit from cognitive therapy and relaxation training.

 

As a result of our experience in managing violent men, we believe that the critical issue for therapists is revealing and piercing their façade.

Men who abuse hide their core personalities, crimes, thoughts—they hide the truth and they evade the truth.

Personality disorders often remains hidden while court-mandated therapy continues only to emerge after years of intervention.

 

Minimizing the potential danger of the batterer in Saunders' “family only” and “emotionally volatile” categories is dangerous for the battered woman, the batterer, and the community because it trivializes the significance of violence in the family, leading to fewer consequences.

 

It also ignores the fact that battering escalates in frequency and intensity.

Therapeutic responsibility requires that the therapist view violence in the family as equally disrupting and dangerous as violence outside the family and not minimize potential risk to family members.

 

We believe that too many leaders in the community—judges, therapists, probation officers, police officers, and political leaders—fail to understand the need for criminalization of all violence in the family.

 

Resistance takes the form of inadequate sentencing, reluctance to hold the perpetrator accountable, opposition to mandatory therapy, and believing family violence is a system or communication problem within the family rather than a crime.

​

Men who are violent with their mates or perpetrate abuse or incest against their children have committed criminal acts.

​

Those who conclude that a victim elicited the assault, a child is seductive, or the wife is provocative misdirect responsibility for the crime.

 

Most perpetrators view themselves as victims and exploit any opportunity to escape accountability. Short-term psycho-educational or family systems therapy allows the perpetrator to deflect and diffuse responsibility.

​

Façade

​

Everyone has a façade that helps us to function smoothly within society.

However, the façade of a violent perpetrator is destructive and works to prevent change.

As a cautionary note, remember that the façade may not only cover up violence in the family but it may also cover up the fact they are pedophiles, rapists, or robbers.

Do not trust what you hear but only what you find to be true.

Especially, in a battering relationship assume the worst and make them prove differently.

 

These batterers often look like nice guys, but they can be some of the most lethal human beings you can imagine—lethal to you, to children, and to the women with whom they are involved.

 

When you form a therapeutic alliance with a perpetrator, you are initially making an alliance with a façade. Therapists often talk about establishing therapeutic contracts with their clients.

If the therapeutic contract is established in a naïve manner, it sets-up an environment for the offender to use and abuse the therapist and escape full accountability.

Many of these men are treatable but you must strive to penetrate their façades so they will have to deal with you honestly.

​

​

This discussion will continue in Part 2 of An Integrated System for Guiding Intervention, starting with Theories of Intervention.

​

​

​