000			02960nab a22002777a 4500
999			_c5001 _d5001
005			20250625151411.0
008			160505s2012 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aAFVC
100			_aStark, Evan _92146
245			_aRe-presenting battered women : _bcoercive control and the defense of liberty _cEvan Stark.
260			_c2012
300			_aelectronic document (20 pages); PDF file: 11.88 KB
500			_aUnpublished paper prepared for Violence Against Women : Complex Realities and New Issues in a Changing World, Les Presses de l’Université du Québec, 2012.
500			_aRecommended reading
520			_a Throughout the world, with a few exceptions, the legal and policy responses to domestic violence are typically built on a violence model that equates partner abuse with discrete assaults or threats. Implicit in this response is the assumption that the severity of domestic violence can be assessed by applying a calculus of physical and psychological harms to particular assaults. Based on this model, programs focus only on victims’ immediate safety. Laws target violent acts; batterer intervention programs (BIPs) seek to “end the violence;” public education campaigns highlight dramatic injuries or fatalities; and child welfare agencies emphasise how children are harmed by “exposure to violence.” Assessment instruments designed to predict “dangerousness” consider few abusive tactics other than physical and sexual violence. This paper argues that reliance on the violence model limits the efficacy of current interventions because it masks the scope of most partner abuse and minimises the harms it causes. Adopting the coercive control model would broaden our understanding of partner abuse to more closely resemble what most victims are experiencing and so greatly improve intervention. The discussion is divided into three parts. Part I identifies the shortcomings of the violence model as the exclusive framework for responding to partner abuse. Part II outlines the alternative model of coercive control, cites evidence from the US and England to document the relative prevalence of its various components and shows that the presence of control’ tactics predicts a range of harms, including sexual, physical and fatal violence, far better than prior assault. Part III addresses some implications of adapting a coercive control for improved intervention. The priority on ‘safety’ is complemented with an emphasis on liberty, autonomy, dignity and equality. (From the abstract). Record #5001
650		0	_aRECOMMENDED READING _96431
650		0	_aCOERCIVE CONTROL _95771
650			_aDOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9203
650			_aEMOTIONAL ABUSE _9222
650			_aHUMAN RIGHTS _9303
650			_aINTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE _9431
650			_aJUSTICE _9333
651		4	_aUNITED STATES _92646
856			_uhttp://www.stopvaw.org/uploads/evan_stark_article_final_100812.pdf
942			_2ddc _cBRIEFING