Why looking to the police to end gender-based violence won't work

The focus on increased criminalisation as a means to end ‘Violence against Women and Girls’ as laid out in Labour’s new Green Paper shows that they are not listening to the people who they claim they’re protecting.

This past year people have been taking to the streets to share their rage at the harm, violence and injustices caused by the criminal justice system. How then can this very same institution protect us?

Its ‘tough on crime’ approach will not work. Decades of evidence shows that longer sentences do not reduce reoffending. Their proposal for a new ‘whole-life tariff’ whereby people remain in custody of the state for their entire lives is draconian. By enveloping people into an endless cycle of incarceration and surveillance they are creating more trauma. And violence and abuse thrives on trauma.

The paper shows a lack of understanding of the conditions that gender-based violence predominantly occurs in. The fact that they focus on harsher punishments for kidnapping strangers once again promotes the narrative that male violence happens by strangers in alleyways. These crimes do account for 8% of total violence and should therefore not be ignored. But again, there is no evidence to suggest tougher sentencing will reduce this.

And 90% of sexual violence happens by the people that we know, have a reason to protect or sometimes love, within our own homes.

This reality means people are left with the choice to criminalise their partners, husbands, fathers or to say nothing. What’s more, they are unable to access support or mental health services to heal from their trauma unless they do so. They must risk security in order to receive support.

And to be clear, the support that is currently on offer looks like long waiting lists for mental health services, and being moved into accommodation that meets ‘minimum quality standards’.

What’s more the fact we still use ‘Violence Against Women and Girls’ erases the violence that trans, non-binary and other marginalised genders face (which is perhaps unsurprising considering the Counting Dead Women initiative that Jess Phillips backed excluded trans women). The language also obstructs that what we’re talking about is violence carried out by men. Which, whilst women and other marginalised genders overwhelmingly experience, men are also the victims of.

This also leads us to the reality of what people experience when they report these crimes. The paper claims to recognise that people face ‘barriers to reporting’ but what it actually means is state violence.

When people go to the police to report sexual violence, migrant women get deported, men are shamed and dismissed over claims of sexual assault, women’s children can taken into care if they lack appropriate accommodation, Black women are ignored and harassed, trans folk are ignored and harassed, queer communities are blamed, sex workers reports are rejected, people with disabilities face access issues or are infantilised, Muslim families receive justification for even more surveillance.

The criminal justice system does not protect these people, because they do not look like the agreed ‘victim’ that our society deems deserving of ‘justice’.

This is perhaps one reason why the tragic case of Sarah Everard’s death received so much attention. So much of the focus was on the randomness of it - there was no element of the story where society could place any sort of blame on her. Including the fact that she was white.

What difference will these new laws make to people like Blessing Olusegun? The police didn’t investigate her case and her family's concerns were ignored.

Ending gender-based violence will not happen from within the criminal justice system.

Mo Mansfield from the abolitionist organisation Incite wisely said “Prisons are made by people with power for people who have none”. Under the proposed laws most of the people in our institutions and government would face criminal charges. Would any of them end up in prison? We just have to look to our Prime Minister to receive our answer.

The people who are overwhelmingly more likely to end up in prisons are care leavers, members of the Black community and other minoritised groups. And when more of these groups of people are in prison, will I as a woman experience less misogyny, a reduced threat to my safety or likelihood of intimate partner violence? No.

Will the families of these people undergo more trauma, insecurity and harassment? Yes.

If we want real change and prevention we must look elsewhere as well as investing in services. The paper itself says “people must not have to choose between reporting and poverty". This is true. And the solution to split people’s Universal Credit payments for example, to reduce a survivors’ dependency on an abusive partner is logical. But people receiving Universal Credit still live in poverty. Imagine only receiving half of it.

The paper recognises that cuts to austerity are resulting in more violence. This is a direct admission that state violence leads to interpersonal violence. So why don’t we address the impact that state violence of low wages, unemployment, lack of services has on violence and abuse? Or seek to understand how racism, misogyny and rape culture ingrains a lack of accountability into our governance, institutions and society?

To be clear, I am not for a moment suggesting that survivors should not receive justice from the abuse they have suffered. Any changes that lessens the trauma of survivors and supports their healing is welcomed.

People carry these traumas for the rest of their lives. I would not judge any individual for whatever fate they wish upon the person that harmed them.

I welcome services that support people with disabilities and members of the LGBQTIA+ community through their trauma as these have been historically lacking. But again, this support seems to only come into action once you report or are in the throes of abuse.

My line of work is prevention. And I see no evidence to suggest that further criminalisation and surveillance will prevent anything - aside from governments taking responsibility.

What I do see, is the need to hold our media, institutions and government to account for how they perpetuate rape culture and interpersonal violence, so they can desist and facilitate change.

And I see the effectiveness of access to, and investment in: secure housing, services, education, safe environments and community care for all who need it.