Understanding | The Third Path

Where We Have Been and

Where We Need to Go

As with other areas of endeavor, over time with experience treating men who have abusive, violent, and criminal behavior, we have gleaned information that can improve the treatment process and the effort to eliminate abusive and violent behavior in families and intimate relationships.

We need new ways of looking at and treating the abusive and violent offender if we are to eliminate violence.

We are suggesting that most men with abusive, violent, and criminal behavior are not just ordinary men from the population of men but a special population.

The purpose here is to provide an understanding of this population of men and how and why they are different. Later we will present a study of 394 men in treatment for abusive and violent behavior in the family and makes a case for psychopathology in this population.

We discuss an integrated system to guide the intervention and containment of men who have abusive, violent, and criminal behavior.

We will discuss concepts of attachment, self, and personality issues.

We will also discuss common characteristic of these men that have developed from a combined experience of a traumatic childhood and male sex role training.

Philosophy

Originally the domestic violence movement arose from a pro-feminist perspective and awareness by women of the violence perpetrated against them. It was a political movement as well as a social one.

Ideas regarding male violence toward women were developed by feminists who believed the patriarchy and male sex role training were the only sources of male violence.

Correctly, the movement recognized violence as a learned behavior used to control rather than an irresistible response to a provocation. It is true male violence is a choice.

The movement rightfully believed that traditional therapy had failed battered women and, in many cases, put them in jeopardy. Traditional therapy continued to look at the violence in families and intimate relationships as a relationship problem calling for marriage counseling.

With this approach the violence became the responsibility of both partners, and there was little, if any, accountability assigned to the perpetrator alone. Much of the therapy available for these men was non-directive and non-confrontational and did little to help protect battered women.

Intervention focused on a psycho-educational model that aims at consciousness raising—looking at their sexist attitudes toward women, anger management skills, time outs, identification of feelings, assertiveness training, and communication skills—as a remedy for the violence.

Educational in nature, many of these programs are not only short-term but also have short-term effects on the perpetrators of violence. Treatment of violent offenders requires a minimum of a year to reach an adequate level of awareness and recovery.

Many positive steps have been taken by various segments in our society—heightened public awareness of the problem, safe havens for women became more common, more effective responses from the judicial system and law enforcement agencies.

Before the movement began, many believed abuse in the family was a private matter for that family even though women and children were often in danger. The term domestic violence was used to described this violence.

The term "domestic violence" minimized the seriousness of violence in the family.

Violence in the family has many similarities with stranger-to-stranger violence—control and entitlement to get what you want, and belief that there will be few or no consequences.

More severe penalties are usually assigned to a perpetrator who assaults a neighbor or stranger rather than a family member.

In 1989, Michael Lindsey had 127 abusive men he was treating answer a comprehensive questionnaire in an effort to gather data quantifying observations of illegal activities. Only 8% did not report any illegal behavior except for their violence against a woman. In addition to perpetrating violence in the family, the men who reported other criminal behavior reported being out of control in a wide range of situations. When we observed substance abuse, employment problems, criminal behavior, and volatility in relationship, also observed was many of these men had characteristics suggesting mild to severe personality constraints. One might conclude on the face of this small survey 92% of these men with criminal behavior could have antisocial personalities. However, it became apparent over time that men with personality patterns other than antisocial personality exhibit antisocial behaviors.

An earlier study by Stacey and Shupe (1983) reported similar results. They found that almost nine out of ten men who were abusive and violent toward their spouse behaved violently toward children, animals, and property at home. Over 80% of the perpetrators surveyed had arrest records for crimes other than violence in the family. 42% of these men had arrest records for criminal behavior other than violence.

Men who committed violent and criminal behaviors in their families often committed violent crimes outside of the home. The severity of their violent and criminal behavior may vary however perpetrators are essentially criminals whether they wear a suit and tie or live in the back of a pickup truck.

Structure of Containment

Not including war, violence is the largest, most costly, and most serious issue we are facing today—rape, incest, child abuse, stranger to stranger assault, violence in the family, elder abuse, murders, crimes against people or their property, harassment on the job or street—directly or indirectly impacting all of us every month, every week, or every day.

The thought of ending violence on our planet is overwhelming because it is so pervasive in our societies. This task requires will and determination. We see no evidence that we have the will to stop the violence in this country.

We can systematically eliminate violence from our own personal lives, homes, neighborhoods, communities, and possibly, at some point, from our state and nation.

It may not be accomplished in our lifetime but it is possible to leave the philosophy, methodology, and institutions behind to do so and to leave a better world.

Whether it is stranger to stranger violence, violence in our families, or the workplace, a community response is required to stop the violence.

Containment requires three elements of intervention— a social action response, a criminal justice response, and the offender-specific therapeutic response---to placed perpetrators in a circle of containment, when working together, they cannot escape.

Social Action Response

Criminal Justice Response

Offender-specific Therapeutic Response

Social Action Response

Violent offenders do not want to be held accountable for their acts or to change their behavior—their lives are working just fine. They want to defeat the system and the therapist and resume life as usual. It takes the community working together to contain perpetrators.

Gang violence is a good example of how communities can become polarized. Some may push for a criminal justice response alone. “Put a hundred thousand new cops on the street.” “Lock them all up.” Others push for a social action response such as creating midnight basketball leagues and reducing poverty by creating more jobs. Some people abhor police action and other people make fun of social action and each waste time fighting the other rather than working together to solve the problem.

It is not possible to lock-up every violent offender there are too many. Community groups must cooperate in a comprehensive social action—schools, religious groups, business community, sports community, social clubs, medical and mental health professionals.

The dual community goal is to protect victims while identifying and managing violent offenders in the short-term and long-term.

Community groups should have an awareness of what other groups can do to contain and assist in holding violent offenders accountable and how they can work together. A shared understanding of violence in the family is a good foundation for the various community groups involved.

The community members can provide and support shelters for battered women and their children. It can furnish legal, financial, medical, and other resources for victims.

Policies, statutes and laws to contain and hold the perpetrator accountable can be established. Community educational, anti-violence programs and media campaigns which promote alternatives help to inform the public at large.

The process must evolve beyond protecting the victims of violence. Ultimately, mandated consequences forcing perpetrators to alter behavior or be removed from society will work toward making families and societies safer.

Criminal Justice Response

The criminal justice response involves lawfully containing the perpetrator including probable cause arrests, no drop prosecution policies, victim advocacy, appropriate sentencing by courts, and collaboration between probation officers and offender-specific therapists on issues of revocation, additional police involvement, extended therapy.

Probable cause arrest occurs when a police officer arrives on the scene and determines it is probable that a crime has been committed under such conditions an arrest will be made—no question.

Prosecution must take an aggressive approach against abusive and violent offenders, especially stalkers, the or offenders has won.

No-drop policies are successful when discretion is removed from the process and prosecution must proceed so that plea-bargaining does not trivialize the crime. Even if the victim wants the charges dropped, prosecution proceeds.

The criminal justice system charged with stopping and punishing antisocial behavior often systematically reinforces it.

Violent behavior is reinforced by clearing cases with plea bargains. When a case is plea-bargained, the consequences are lessened—sometimes shamefully.

The perpetrator's irrational thought process tells him he has talked his way out of the problem and the consequences.

The antisocial thought process is reinforced each time he goes through the loop.

The stalker's omnipotent thinking is especially reinforced when the system fails to give the perpetrator appropriate sentencing.

This also increases the lethality to his victim.

Victim advocacy is often overlooked as part of the containment process. Community support and resources for those wanting it—shelter, food, clothing, and legal, medical, and psychological aid—allow the victim to be less vulnerable to the perpetrator's control. Victim advocacy supports the victim in pursuing charges against her perpetrator.

Nationally, the most troublesome elements of the containment process are judges who do not sentence and therapists who lack the skills to deal with this problem.

In some areas, the judiciary is limited in its discretion, as are the police and prosecutors.

If the verdict against the perpetrator is guilty, judges must sentence.

Judges must sentence perpetrators to offender-specific treatment and/or jail when appropriate.

Judges must not be allowed to send perpetrators to any treatment they want, and perpetrators must not choose their own therapist.

Perpetrators must attend regulated, offender-specific treatment mandated to perform at a minimum level of service.

Sometimes it may be necessary have daily telephone contact with probation officers.

To discuss clients who are not complying

To devised pre-revocation meetings with the therapist, probation officer, and client in which the client discusses reasons he should not be revoked

There must be intense and continuous communication between offender-specific provider and probation department regarding high-risk cases.

The criminal justice response must be quite clear—arrest, prosecute, and sentence. Goodwill and persuasion are weak tools to use with violent offenders.

It is difficult and sometimes dangerous to intervene in any violent situation—child abuse, violence in the family, or gang violence—without clear guidelines of power and control that sanction the process.

If intervention needs to be strengthened, it merely requires administrative and political intervention processes take action. This calls for building community alliances among the institutions and groups dealing with violence as has been accomplished.

Offender-specific Therapeutic Response

The notion that a therapist providing offender-specific treatment must provide public accountability is important.

Persons who do offender-specific therapy should not be free agents entitled to do whatever they want.

If a therapist disengages from the role of accountability he has become the perpetrator's advocate.

Therapists doing offender specific work have an obligation beyond their personal and professional interests. Therapists have a duty to the system to follow the guidelines that have been set-up for treating court ordered clients.

The therapist's duty to the victim is to make her aware of the rules of the treatment program, maintain communication with the victim, warn the victim of danger, and advise the victim if asked for assistance.

While the therapist has responsibilities to the victim, the victim should not be allowed to interfere with the therapeutic process.

The therapist has a duty to notify the criminal justice system of a re-offense or a possible risk of an assault or potential homicide by the client.

Therapists have a duty and obligation to violent offenders to provide a clear and meaningful process. Because each case is different the lines of obligation may not always be clear but helping men get on the road to recovery and return to their community as responsible citizens must be part of the work.

Therapists working with violent offenders run the risk of physical injury, emotional abuse by continual verbal attacks, and professional damage by attempts of the offender and sometime the victim to discredit.

Therapists who are willing to take on these obligations must have the support of the community in order to be a positive force.

The following illustrates the problem.

A man who was abusive and violent to his spouse entered court-ordered treatment. After a couple of weeks in treatment, he began to harass the therapist with repeated pages, telephone calls, and certified letters making multiple demands. He wanted weekly written notes and reports regarding group sessions and his progress. He wanted access to the victim out-reach information. He challenged the therapist's direct and confrontive process as abusive. The therapist made attempts to work with the man in a direct and reasonable manner. The client complained to the probation department of the sentencing municipality. He claimed he was being abused and was fearful of his well being. Without further investigation the probation officer allowed the offender to change therapists.

Had the probation the probation officer taken the time to read the incident report, she would have learned that the offender had also claimed abuse by the arresting police. He harassed the police for unsafe driving on the way to jail and said he would report them. The probation officer also made no attempt to speak with the therapist about the accusation. With total disregard for finding the truth, the probation officer acted independently of all the facts.

When we have a chance to intervene and make a change in the life of a perpetrator, we must not allow him to slide through the system without treating any other serious problems he may have—

substance abuse, depression, bi-polar disorder,

dissociative disorder, personality disorder, and

obsessive compulsive behaviors such as gambling and sexual addictions.

The majority of our clients had multiple problems which is another reason for long-term treatment programs.

Our practice experienced a large number of high-risk offenders. We evaluated all clients for differential intervention.

Probation departments and diversion units must evaluate for low, medium, and high-risk offenders.

There must be a standard that outlines the minimum of what must be accomplished by intervention in a minimum of thirty-six weeks.

When differential intervention is necessary the police, prosecution, or judges do not do it.

The clinician can evaluate clients, build programs, and place people according to the need for intervention.

A well-trained probation department can evaluate the intervention, but the final determination of whether the offender is low or high risk occurs in therapy.

When working with violent offenders, always assume you have a high-risk offender no matter how good they look.

It may not be fair but when working with violent offenders, the therapist must maintain a healthy skepticism until the worst case is proven wrong.

Determining differential intervention is the task of the trained treatment provider. Others do not have the time and expertise to break through offenders' facades to determine the needed intervention.

Our next presentation involves a study regarding abuse men that suggest there is 'A Case For Psychopathology."

Home