The article on _Controversies Surrounding Mandatory Arrest Policies and the Police Response to Intimate Partner Violence_ by Amy Leisenring brings up a very interesting point on domestic violence among couples. Whether they are married or dating or if they are black or white. She makes a strong argument based on other research that has been done about how the Mandatory Arrest Policies (MAP) is necessary. Leisenring makes interesting point that the use of Mandatory Arrest Policies can be beneficial for women who are battered and those who are also in domestic violent relationship. She states that, “…intimate partner violence is a serious crime and is matter of public concern instead a private issue between the two people involved.” (PG276; Leisenring) Domestic Violence should no longer be an issue between two people but more a social issue. She makes arguments that domestic violence should be looked at more serious and taken to account that it’s a crime against women.
The state, the men in uniform should be able to know and fulfill their duties to insure that the woman is protected. People advocate for mandatory arrest policies because it not only will the police not treat the women like as a second wound (secondary victimization). This terminology I learn in my victimology class and its means that when a victims experience a crime whether its robbery, abuse or rape; they depend on police or first responders to provide comfort and assistance but instead they receive a negative treatment, which makes them feel worse. Leisenring clearly makes this point, which I just explained, “…law enforcement officials for intimate partner violence reported that police officers commonly minimized the seriousness of their situation…”(Pg276; Leisenring) She also mention that some women are not for the MAP, because they believe it wouldn’t benefit them and it makes them feel at a disadvantage based on race, class and culture.
In the second article, _Domestic Violence: The Intersection of Gender and Control_ by Michael P Johnson also make interesting points on domestic violence but only difference is he explain the violence isn’t based on gender unless it symmetric to one another. In the culture of masculinity and femininity men are the central aspect of abusing women. If looking from a sociological perspective, most perpetrators are men and the victim are women. He uses this concept of “coercive control as a context for violence” (PG278; Johnson) to explain power and control in the relationship. He goes explaining that the difference between Intimate Terrorism and Violent Resistance. Male are mostly the intimate terrorist who hover some sort of power and control over his significant other.
He uses threats or a form of scare tactics to show his wife or girlfriend that he has power because he is a man. A woman would be the violent resistance who response to the attacks or threats from the intimate terrorist. Which in some cases, if she can’t find a way to handle the situation, in most cases will end up killing the man. For example, the show Snapped basically depicts different types of women and the reasoning behind the killing of their husbands or boyfriends. Most men who tend to abuse women in anyway, shape or form; are oblivious to the fact that women are plotting to get revenge one way or another.
It’s a form that leads women to a breaking point to where she ends up either chopping him up in his sleep or the old fashion way; poisoning him. Women who have marched and protested in the feminist movement have spoken out to see a change. Johnson states, “The women’s movement has been extremely effective in educating both the public and the criminal justice system about the nature of intimate terrorism.” (PG285; Johnson) Women who are in those type of relationship needs more counseling in order to cope with the abuse.