آیا او ایمن است؟ تجزیه و تحلیل انتقادی از ارزیابی ریسک در مورد خشونت خانگی

This article describes the emergence of risk assessment and management tools in the UK police response to domestic violence over the past few years and considers the potential and pitfalls of a risk management approach to domestic violence. The development of risk assessment and risk management, and the targeting of resources on high risk domestic violence cases, require a more strategic approach to domestic violence than was previously typical. The main purpose of risk assessment and management is to improve the protection of and interventions for families who are experiencing domestic violence, and to target interventions on those who present the highest risk. As risk is necessarily an unknown, risk assessments are social constructs, and yet they have significant practical and emotional implications for those deemed to be both at risk of being harmed and at risk of harming others. Therefore, the efficacy of risk assessment and management tools deserves critical attention. With risk and crime prevention there is always a balance amongst various interrelated factors, such as: deprivation of liberty; safety of all parties; availability of resources; and reduction of quality of life for perpetrators and their children. This article is based on analysis of policy documents, arrest statistics, a sample of 35 domestic violence victim safety plans, and interviews with senior police officers. It will draw on these resources to consider the extent to which police risk assessment and management in cases of domestic violence gets the balance right.

Across the world, partner violence accounts for a significant proportion of female murder victims (between 40 and 70% in Australia, Canada, Israel, South Africa and America) (Krug et al., 2002, p. 93). Women are most likely to be raped by men they know: 54% of rapes are committed by intimates, and 29% by other known individuals, with 50% of cases involving repeat offences by the same person (Walby & Allen, 2004). In the United Kingdom, intimate violence accounts for approximately one-fifth of violent crime, claiming the lives of two women every week (Simmons & Dodd, 2003), while domestic homicide accounts for approximately 35% of all homicides in England and Wales (Richards, 2003a). Data gathered by the British Crime Survey shows that 45% of women experience intimate violence at least once in their lifetime, with 13% of women being victimised in the twelve months prior to interview. Whilst some experience of intimate violence is quite widespread, a minority of people is subject to extreme levels of violence and coercive control, with frequent attacks resulting in serious injuries (Walby & Allen, 2004).

In most areas of social life those tasked with intervening in people's lives in ways which might cause harm need to conduct a cost–benefit analysis. This is true of those who work in the medical services, in recognition of the iatrogenic potential of many medicines and therapies, and it is certainly true of those who work in the domain of criminal justice. The costs of risk assessment and management in tackling offences in general is well established in the criminological literature but it has not received full consideration in the area of domestic violence. One recently published article entitled ‘Some Questions Regarding Spousal Assault Risk Assessment’ deals thoroughly with the technical and some ethical difficulties in this area and yet mentions none of the pitfalls discussed above (Kropp, 2004). The balance of costs and benefits is justifiably different where the purported benefits relate to serious physical or psychological harm. It might therefore be the case that the pitfalls and unintended consequences I have mentioned are considered by many to be an acceptable price for the potential of reducing episodes of severe violence and even homicide. This refers to the ‘precautionary principle’, developed in the field of environmental law, where if the risk is very grave it might be legitimate to act in absence of full scientific evidence. This would certainly be true for the threat of environmental disasters but may not be considered so for the threat of crime.3 Clearly, the criminal justice system needs to be alive to the costs and put in place measures to minimise them.