Domestic abuse law 'could change Scotland'

Comms69 · 5 February 2018 at 11:25AM

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

True. What it does go is make the court look at what would be classed as reasonable behaviour, in an independent way, without the accused being able to blame the victim.

I think you've misunderstood me.

The law is fundamentally flawed in that regard.

How can you say one type of behaviour is reasonable and another isn't. I mean if we were to sit down and come up with a list, we would be broadly similar im sure. But some people live alternative lifestyles, some religions place pressure on domestic life (pressure or guidance or whatever). At the end of the day, with laws such as these the impact on the victim is the key issue.

If the victim gives evidence that there was no abuse, the case collapses.

That's why I think there needs to be much more external support, education and non-criminal intervention.

unholyangel · 6 February 2018 at 3:08PM

unforeseen wrote: »

You have misunderstood. The only evidence put forward will be the negative with probably no reference to the background etc.it could be a one from, the witness may have a grudge against the accused. Remember this could be a case that may not have been instigated by the alleged victim who also refuse to give evidence either way.

Your example fails because the court is not made aware of previous convictions UNTIL guilt or innocence has been declared

I never mentioned any scenario where previous convictions existed (I thought we were talking about someone who is otherwise law abiding). But as I said, when judging whether you have committed an offence they only look at the behaviour in question - not what happened before or afterwards. Having previous convictions or otherwise being an upstanding member of the community may affect your sentencing but doesn't influence whether you're guilty of an offence.

The scenario you describe is highly unlikely. Maybe if the third party was backed up by supporting evidence, but not just on their word alone. The purpose of allowing proceedings without the victims cooperation is because usually there have been repeated complaints made by them when they have been in fear of their partner and then later they are under heavy influence by their partner to drop it (either using intimidation or cajoling). Its to allow them to charge/prosecute when they have enough evidence, just not the cooperation.

The issue I see with the legislation is because of the above - that with physical they usually phone the police when in fear of their partner. Psychological abuse is unlikely to illicit the same result except in limited circumstances. I mean you're not going to call the police and tell them "my partner keeps telling me i'm stupid/ugly" or "my partner always starts an argument whenever i'm out with friends/at work/doing something they are trying to discourage me from doing". The abuse process is a complex tangled web and usually the victims of psychological abuse aren't really aware because they're too busy being on the defensive all the time and its a gradual chip away at their confidence/independence.

Comms69 · 6 February 2018 at 3:35PM

unholyangel wrote: »

I never mentioned any scenario where previous convictions existed (I thought we were talking about someone who is otherwise law abiding). But as I said, when judging whether you have committed an offence they only look at the behaviour in question - not what happened before or afterwards. Having previous convictions or otherwise being an upstanding member of the community may affect your sentencing but doesn't influence whether you're guilty of an offence.

The scenario you describe is highly unlikely. Maybe if the third party was backed up by supporting evidence, but not just on their word alone. The purpose of allowing proceedings without the victims cooperation is because usually there have been repeated complaints made by them when they have been in fear of their partner and then later they are under heavy influence by their partner to drop it - There is no restriction in law which requires a victim to cooperate for the state to attempt prosecution. (either using intimidation or cajoling). Its to allow them to charge/prosecute when they have enough evidence, just not the cooperation. - they can do this now.

The issue I see with the legislation is because of the above - that with physical they usually phone the police when in fear of their partner. Psychological abuse is unlikely to illicit the same result except in limited circumstances. I mean you're not going to call the police and tell them "my partner keeps telling me i'm stupid/ugly" or "my partner always starts an argument whenever i'm out with friends/at work/doing something they are trying to discourage me from doing". The abuse process is a complex tangled web and usually the victims of psychological abuse aren't really aware because they're too busy being on the defensive all the time and its a gradual chip away at their confidence/independence.

indeed, and tackling the latter is certainly a good idea, but there's a fine line where private life and state should meet.

unholyangel · 6 February 2018 at 6:54PM

Comms69 wrote: »

indeed, and tackling the latter is certainly a good idea, but there's a fine line where private life and state should meet.

I know they can do this now (prosecute without cooperation of the victim) but 15-20 years ago it was a different matter unfortunately.

Comms69 · 7 February 2018 at 9:39AM

unholyangel wrote: »

I know they can do this now (prosecute without cooperation of the victim) but 15-20 years ago it was a different matter unfortunately.

They may have been reluctant to do so, but criminal prosecutions have always been possible without victim support.

I understand what you’re saying, but it’s quite an important point.

bap98189 · 7 February 2018 at 10:27AM

Pixie5740 wrote: »

You're forgetting about the Jags.

And Queen's Park.

Domestic abuse law 'could change Scotland'

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free