Introduction
One major theme from the book the textbook is gender because it focuses specifically on the encasement of gender roles and the dominant posture of patriarchy in society. A high level of domestic violence, in particular against women, is the current criminal justice dilemma in Australia that is locked to this theme. This problem is being investigated in New South Wales (NSW) between 2020 and 2023; the organization will mainly involve the NSW local jurisdiction. Because the number of domestic violence victims of this age group is relatively big, women aged 18-45 years are the target group of this study. This issue is even, to some extent, culturally based or vested in the traditional structure of our rich society and has manifested through the roles and power dynamics between men and women in society. The family and society carry the entrenched stereotypes related to gender roles and have ideas about how men and women should behave. This affects violence against women positively, and because of that, it is a major part of the criminal justice problem. The domestic violence issue remains persistent in Australia, causing various problems, such as intimate situations, usually for women aged 18 to 45. This essay delves into who has the greater power among the state, civilians, and other stakeholders like advocates, NGOs, and lobby groups. These opposing forces work to ensure that domestic violence is brought to the attention of all the stakeholders. It critically analyses the inter-players and their stakes, applying pertinent theories to grasp their positions and the obstacles to developing efficient solutions.
State Response and Power Dynamics
The state, as its Criminal Justice System represents it, has assumed a crucial role as regards the elaboration and execution of domestic violence policies. It performs law enforcement functions, protecting the victims through its services and making the offenders think twice before committing an offence (McKinnon, 2019). At the same time, the effectiveness of state action regarding the issue can be impeded by institutional restrictions and continuous reconsideration of priorities. The state’s strategy imposes its retributive approach, relying on legal punishments for those involved. While this measure may tackle the visible parts of the domestic violence issue, likely, it likely does not go deep enough to the real causes of the problem, which are based on the societal status quo and gender role stereotypes. The state power dynamics and the general public are extremely complicated (Harris, 2020). The country is graced with potent power but is becoming allergic to forgetting about respect for the autonomy and rights of individuals. The criminal justice system’s treatment of punishment as a deterrent is based on the rational assumption of people who understand and feel that they should avoid behaviours that could lead to negative consequences. It is also possibly that this point of view is looking at some of the social and psychological factors related to domestic abuse but relaying them in a way that is more possible to understand.
NGOs and Advocacy Groups
The involvement of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and advocacy groups is very material in this context through providing victim support, alerting the society, and promoting policy changes (Smyth et al., 2021). Many organizations prefer to take a whole approach to it, hence taking into consideration the social, economic as well as psychological aspects of domestic violence. They fight to introduce measures rather than punitive responses, among which education, support services and prevention are demonstrated. When engaging with state actors, it may be that these stakeholders find themselves at odds. NGOs and lobbying organizations can contradict the Governmental approaches and point to the more victim-oriented and omnificent measures (Fitzgerald & Douglas, 2020). One essential role they play is pointing out someone’s insufficient treatment and moving from being a victim to an agent of change. Despite that, it is usually the case that their impact is limited by human finances and the constraints imposed by the politics and institutions in a given society. They work within the context in which global economic corridors intersect with the potential to redefine human rights and social norms and values that giant multinational corporations set. Most times, their efforts tend to be overshadowed by these past actors (Larance et al., 2022). The task is more complicated because most companies pursue solely the profit motive. Thus, it’s not easy to blame them when their operations may direct or indirectly lead to the perpetuation of injustice or the culture of domestic violence, respectively.
Vested Interests and Differing Perspectives
In addition to the domestic violence situation within NSW, which is further compounded by the existence of political interests and varied positions concerning who is accountable, it is witnessed in most countries around the globe to a similar extent (McPhee et al., 2022). The political system is sometimes not free of interest-group lobbying. Therefore, minorities such as homeless people and victims of domestic violence may feel left out of the entire process. It is because many people who experience negative consequences from social problems do not directly vote or take part in the system of justice/political justice, either because they are deprived of their citizenship rights, or they are not recognized as victims of the system (Weeks & Gilmore, 2020). NGOs and advocacy groups fill this void by speaking on behalf of the objectives of these groups, but their cards are restricted, as has been disclosed (Seuffert & Mundy, 2020). The state as an institution might be a party to the equation with the possibility of having conflicting interests. These interests are between the desire to enforce laws and maintain law and order while solving domestic violence, which for a long time have been perpetuated by society.
Theoretical Perspectives on Power Dynamics
The global politics and power relation in increasing the effectiveness of domestic violence can be seen through the “two faces of power” theory. According to this principle, power is used not only by specific actions or informed decisions but also by how the agenda manipulated for certain issues will be excluded (Meyer & Williamson, 2020). In the context of domestic violence, it may occur, for instance, when minor criminal justice matters are more highlighted than others or when a case is presented as a private issue, which is contrary to what it may be meant to be. The state and interest groups with more power would continuously contribute by restricting the discussion, or as the case may be, by advocating for certain solutions rather than others, and so on, to the overall domestic violence issue (Reeves, 2020).
Conclusion
NSW and Australian domestic violence is firmly rooted in cultural standards, gender roles, and power relations between the state, civilians, and other parties. The criminal justice system helps the state handle this problem, but punitive measures’ limits and high costs restrict its capabilities. Punishment ignores the complex socio-economic and psychological elements that cause domestic violence. This strategy may not address the fundamental causes of the problem and may tax non-criminals, such as the accused’s families and the community, who pay the criminal justice system’s costs. Power relations between NGOs, advocacy organizations, and victims also affect the state’s reaction. These organizations tend to favour prevention, assistance, and rehabilitation above punishment for domestic abuse. Resource restrictions and political and institutional hurdles limit their impact. This is compounded by the fact that domestic abuse victims, especially women, have traditionally been disregarded in justice.
References
Fitzgerald, R., & Douglas, H. (2020). The whole story: The dilemma of the domestic violence protection order narrative. The British Journal of Criminology, 60(1), 180-197.
Harris, B. A. (2020). Visualizing violence? Capturing and critiquing body-worn video camera evidence of domestic and family violence. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 32(4), 382-402.
Larance, L. Y., Kertesz, M., Humphreys, C., Goodmark, L., & Douglas, H. (2022). Beyond the victim-offender binary: Legal and anti-violence intervention considerations with women who have used force in the US and Australia. Affilia, 37(3), 466-486.
McKinnon, C. (Ed.). (2019). Issues in political theory. Oxford University Press, USA.
McPhee, D., Hester, M., Bates, L., Lilley-Walker, S. J., & Patsios, D. (2022). Criminal justice responses to domestic violence and abuse in England: An analysis of case attrition and inequalities using police data. Policing and Society, 32(8), 963-980.
Meyer, S., & Williamson, H. (2020). General and specific perceptions of procedural justice: Factors associated with perceptions of police and court responses to domestic and family violence. Australian & New Zealand journal of criminology, 53(3), 333-351.
Reeves, E. (2020). Family violence, protection orders and systems abuse: views of legal practitioners. Current issues in criminal justice, 32(1), 91-110.
Seuffert, N., & Mundy, T. (2020). Law, society and domestic violence: best-practice methodologies for evaluating integrated domestic violence services. In Research Handbook on gender, sexuality and the law (pp. 301-316). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Smyth, C., Cullen, P., Breckenridge, J., Cortis, N., & Valentine, K. (2021). COVID‐19 lockdowns, intimate partner violence and coercive control. Australian journal of social issues, 56(3), 359-373.
Weeks, W., & Gilmore, K. (2020). How violence against women became an issue on the national policy agenda. In Making Social Policy in Australia (pp. 141-153). Routledge.
write