Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • SamsReturn
    • By SamsReturn 1st Feb 18, 4:09 PM
    • 2,321Posts
    • 4,225Thanks
    SamsReturn
    Domestic abuse law 'could change Scotland'
    • #1
    • 1st Feb 18, 4:09 PM
    Domestic abuse law 'could change Scotland' 1st Feb 18 at 4:09 PM
    A bill to criminalise psychological domestic abuse is expected to be passed later, with some campaigners saying it "could change Scotland forever".
    The Domestic Abuse bill, which has wide backing, creates a specific offence of "abusive behaviour in relation to a partner or ex-partner".
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42890990
    Not just women, there are abused men, but the numbers much smaller.
    When i did voluntary work for VS, i spent a couple of days training with Womens Aid. We were told there that abuse almost always started with men being over protective, so he could cut off his wifes family & friends from her life, so she didn't have anywhere to run to.
    If this Bill goes through, i'm sure there'll be a lot of happy women out there.
Page 3
    • SamsReturn
    • By SamsReturn 2nd Feb 18, 10:03 AM
    • 2,321 Posts
    • 4,225 Thanks
    SamsReturn
    somehow (but wouldn't ever say why until he decided to up the ante a few days later - normally something like not smiling broadly enough or smiling too much or standing wrongly/wearing a dress/wearing trousers/not having tiny feet/not walking on my tiptoes at all times/not being able to chat about having other friends or going out/having hobbies). Or not picking the phone up on the first ring. Or being out doing the shopping and talking to somebody...
    Originally posted by Jojo the Tightfisted
    Going back years and years ago now, the fella my Sister was with at the time use to lock her in the flat whenever he went out, and take her clothes & shoes out with him. So she couldn't escape.
    Even though that was perhaps 40yrs ago, i wonder is that what makes her such a b1tch today, who has to 'get her own back' on all men.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 2nd Feb 18, 12:10 PM
    • 2,393 Posts
    • 2,269 Thanks
    Comms69
    The problem ofcourse is in prosecution, many victims don't want it, and some even actively fight it.


    Punitive laws only work when there is education, support and cooperation.
    • Blackbeard of Perranporth
    • By Blackbeard of Perranporth 2nd Feb 18, 12:22 PM
    • 4,818 Posts
    • 29,255 Thanks
    Blackbeard of Perranporth
    I doubt this will solve the problems caused when two teams from Glasgow meet!
    Every fairy story always ends the same way
    Hope, then tragedy at the end of the world!
    • Mrs Arcanum
    • By Mrs Arcanum 2nd Feb 18, 2:07 PM
    • 16,481 Posts
    • 33,486 Thanks
    Mrs Arcanum
    The problem ofcourse is in prosecution, many victims don't want it, and some even actively fight it.


    Punitive laws only work when there is education, support and cooperation.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    Think the victim aspect is what the Scottish law is trying to address.
    “We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they’re elected. Don't you?" "Why?” “It saves time.” - Terry Pratchett, The Last Continent.
    • unforeseen
    • By unforeseen 2nd Feb 18, 2:30 PM
    • 2,353 Posts
    • 2,960 Thanks
    unforeseen
    I wonder if the author of this was also involved in drafting the DDA?

    Both mention thinking an action that might cause harm as sufficient grounds to push for a prosecution.


    Woolly legislation from a woolly mind. Trying to make legislation a total catch-all
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 2nd Feb 18, 2:31 PM
    • 2,393 Posts
    • 2,269 Thanks
    Comms69
    Think the victim aspect is what the Scottish law is trying to address.
    Originally posted by Mrs Arcanum
    Yes but the law cannot force one to give evidence, nor can it prevent the victim giving evidence on behalf of the defendant
    • Mrs Arcanum
    • By Mrs Arcanum 3rd Feb 18, 9:59 AM
    • 16,481 Posts
    • 33,486 Thanks
    Mrs Arcanum
    Yes but the law cannot force one to give evidence, nor can it prevent the victim giving evidence on behalf of the defendant
    Originally posted by Comms69
    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.
    “We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they’re elected. Don't you?" "Why?” “It saves time.” - Terry Pratchett, The Last Continent.
    • unforeseen
    • By unforeseen 3rd Feb 18, 10:34 AM
    • 2,353 Posts
    • 2,960 Thanks
    unforeseen
    So they will be basing their decision on third party evidence if the alleged victim's isn't prepared to give evidence?

    The third party of course will only have small snapshots of behaviour. Like negative reviews, these will stand out in the witnesses mind because people will tend to ignore the 95% positive and concentrate and extrapolate on the 5% negative.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 3rd Feb 18, 12:17 PM
    • 11,908 Posts
    • 9,178 Thanks
    unholyangel
    So they will be basing their decision on third party evidence if the alleged victim's isn't prepared to give evidence?

    The third party of course will only have small snapshots of behaviour. Like negative reviews, these will stand out in the witnesses mind because people will tend to ignore the 95% positive and concentrate and extrapolate on the 5% negative.
    Originally posted by unforeseen
    I might be misunderstanding but of course they're going to focus on the negative - the 95% positive might help get a more lenient sentence but it has no bearing on whether an offence is committed the other 5%.

    The same way if you shoplift once, they won't focus on all the times you paid, just the time you didn't.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • Pixie5740
    • By Pixie5740 3rd Feb 18, 1:03 PM
    • 11,683 Posts
    • 16,442 Thanks
    Pixie5740
    I doubt this will solve the problems caused when two teams from Glasgow meet!
    Originally posted by Blackbeard of Perranporth
    You're forgetting about the Jags.
    • unforeseen
    • By unforeseen 3rd Feb 18, 1:23 PM
    • 2,353 Posts
    • 2,960 Thanks
    unforeseen
    I might be misunderstanding but of course they're going to focus on the negative - the 95% positive might help get a more lenient sentence but it has no bearing on whether an offence is committed the other 5%.

    The same way if you shoplift once, they won't focus on all the times you paid, just the time you didn't.
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    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
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 5th Feb 18, 10:25 AM
    • 2,393 Posts
    • 2,269 Thanks
    Comms69
    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.
    Originally posted by Mrs Arcanum
    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
    • By unholyangel 6th Feb 18, 2:08 PM
    • 11,908 Posts
    • 9,178 Thanks
    unholyangel
    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
    Originally posted by unforeseen
    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.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 6th Feb 18, 2:35 PM
    • 2,393 Posts
    • 2,269 Thanks
    Comms69
    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.
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    indeed, and tackling the latter is certainly a good idea, but there's a fine line where private life and state should meet.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 6th Feb 18, 5:54 PM
    • 11,908 Posts
    • 9,178 Thanks
    unholyangel
    indeed, and tackling the latter is certainly a good idea, but there's a fine line where private life and state should meet.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    I know they can do this now (prosecute without cooperation of the victim) but 15-20 years ago it was a different matter unfortunately.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 7th Feb 18, 8:39 AM
    • 2,393 Posts
    • 2,269 Thanks
    Comms69
    I know they can do this now (prosecute without cooperation of the victim) but 15-20 years ago it was a different matter unfortunately.
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    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
    • By bap98189 7th Feb 18, 9:27 AM
    • 2,671 Posts
    • 4,459 Thanks
    bap98189
    You're forgetting about the Jags.
    Originally posted by Pixie5740
    And Queen's Park.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

194Posts Today

1,576Users online

Martin's Twitter