Victimological Counseling as a Tool for the Prevention of Intra-Family Victimization

Victimological prevention is an urgent problem because, unfortunately, in Russia there is no clear system of prevention of intra-family victimization. Victimization processes affect both the family in which they take place and the society. This phenomenon has an impact on the socio-economic, cultural and spiritual spheres of public life.

In our opinion, approaches to domestic violence cases in the judicial practice and the practice of sentencing are extremely inconsistent. Often, victims of domestic violence may be subject to criminal prosecution them- selves 1. Nevertheless, this does not negate the possibility of recognizing their victim status by the state, which can be established in their criminal case [5, p.113]. The categories of “the victim” and “the offender” in cases of victims-turned-offenders can easily replace each other

[6]. There are processes of mutual victimization within the family, working with which we could prevent such crimes beforehand.

Very often domestic violence situations do not lead to the initiation of administrative proceedings, let alone to criminal liability [8], preventive work is carried out neither with the abuser nor with the victim, therefore the level of domestic violence is increasing, and the patterns of abusive behavior are only becoming much stronger. As intimidation, threats and fear become part of women’s everyday lives, some women try to manage abuse by attempting to “do everything right” [12]. The destructive intra-family patterns also affect the most vulnerable — children and the elderly.

Considering the above, it is necessary to elaborate more effective mechanisms to prevent the commission of several crimes in cases of victims-turned-offenders within one family. A strategy of unresponsiveness can lead to a repeated cycle of violence. Often “offenders do not recognize themselves either as abusers or victims, considering that such acts, as family conflicts, have “slightly” gotten out of control” [4, p. 261]. Moreover, unfortunately, there are no statistics of such crimes; therefore we can rely only on indirect signs when assessing the urgency of the issue.

Material and methods

The research is based on general scientific and specific scientific methods of scientific cognition, on the analysis of theoretical and regulatory legal sources, as well as on statistical, documentary, historical and legal, analytical, systemic, and logical research methods.

Results and discussion of the results

To understand the prevalence of family violence against children and adolescents, we can refer to the study conducted by E. N. Volkova, I. V. Volkova, O. M. Isaeva, that the most common type of violence is physical violence: 71.9% of “post-Soviet children”, 53.2% of “children of the 1990s” and 66.8% of “children of the 21st century” report facts of physical violence against them. Emotional violence is a little less widespread than physical violence but its percentage is significant in all three groups. Two-thirds of “post-Soviet children” (66.0%), 45.3% of “children of the 1990s” and 66.3% of “children of the 21st century” note that they have experienced various forms of emotional violence. In the authors’ opinion, the high level of physical and emotional violence against a child is associated with a certain type of upbringing in Russia, which allows and even permits the widespread use of physical punishment and threats, and with a high level of violence in society, in the family, and at school [14, p. 178]. Another study conducted by a consortium of women’s non-governmental organizations claims that in two pandemic years, the number of women killed in an argument by their husbands or partners accounted for 70% of all female deaths 1.

First, let us pay attention to cases in which intra-family victimization is associated with a “misconception of what would lead to a perfect result in upbringing”. Thus, let us take a look at criminal case No 1-11/2020: “…On April 12, 2019, at about 4:00 p. m., M. V. Popov, at his residence, acting deliberately and misunderstanding what would lead to a positive result in the upbringing of his minor son, would systematically punish him by constantly beating him. Insulting his son for insignificant reasons such as bad behavior, disobedience, late return home, humiliating the human dignity of the minor, demonstrating physical superiority, M. V. Popov inflicted at least 7 blows on his son’s buttocks with his hand. It caused pain and mental suffering to the victim, because the victim, perceiving him as a father and defender, was worried that M. V. Popov showed dislike, aggression and anger towards him” 2. Another criminal case is when “train- ing”through violence is “normal” for the aggressor: “Name1, the father of a juvenile daughter, … being intoxicated and dissatisfied with his daughter’s refusal to warm up his dinner, intentionally inflicted physical and mental sufferings to his daughter forcefully striking her twice on her head with his palm. After that he took a computer chair and threw it at his daughter, hitting her in the stomach. As a result, he caused his daughter physical pain, physical and mental sufferings, because she was worried about what had happened. Thus, he inflicted her physical suffering and committed other violent acts that did not entail the consequences specified in Article 115 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation” 1. Moreover, in the latter case, such acts were systematically committed by the offender.

In all the cases above, there are intrafamily problems of the psychological and victi-mological nature. In crisis periods of the “self” formation, systemic violations of emotional communication, like deprivation or excessive corporal punishment, create a distorted situation for the child’s personality development and self-consciousness. In case of a violence situation, a person goes through a psychological crisis, the consequences of which the person can experience for many years. Unfavorable family relationships form aggressive and hostile behavioral strategies of children [5]. These problems “…need close attention of psychologists and criminologists at the present stage, on a par with practicing lawyers and criminalists” [4, p. 261]. Children who have experienced abuse are more likely to become a victim and/or a perpetrator of other forms of violence in adolescence and adulthood [1].

The formed sadistic-masochistic complexes sometimes can manifest themselves in the number of victims of crimes, who can be counted as repeat victims.

Thus, let us take a look at the following case: “I. V. Arkhipova, under alcoholic intox- ication during a hostile quarrel with Name5, acting deliberately with the intention to inflict serious harm to the victim’s health, took a knife from the veranda and stabbed it at least once in the chest of Name5… Her behavior was caused by the immoral behavior of the victim and was based on their hostile relationships… Moreover, the conflict situation was not sudden and unexpected for I. V. Arkhipova, because the same day they had a quarrel based on alcohol consumption. Therefore I. V. Arkhipova had no obstacles to leave the scene of the incident after the initial conflict. In addition, Arkhipova explained that they had quarreled and fought before, but she did not leave herself and did not kick out Name5, as she felt sorry for him. Thus, the court concludes that such relationship was normal for the life of this family, and nothing happening on that day could speak about some unusual situation for them” 2.

In all these cases victims could not rely on even any minimal help and protection. It is hardly possible to expect adolescents and children to take legally competent actions and ask law enforcement agencies for help, especially if violence is committed for the first time. It is hardly possible to expect that the woman from the above example could ‘correctly’ respond to the first case of domestic violence, taking into account the lack of information about how to react and where to ask for help, what is violence, and about abnormality of such a model of family relationships. In the last case, even the court concluded that “such relationships were normal for the life of this family, and nothing happening on that day could indicate some unusual situation for them”. In Russia, there is neither comprehensive prevention system nor psychological and victimological counseling. Law enforcement officers do not have any special training and qualifications to provide assistance and help to victims.

Moreover, “to the law enforcement officer the situation when the crime is committed in a conflict due to hostile relationships does not differ from a domestic violence crime. And …the court does not take into account the motives of actions (and, consequently, the personal characteristics of the offender, a possible danger degree of the individual), since they have no effect on the differentiation of punishment or the specifics of preventive measures” [3, p. 109].

Often a criminal case is initiated not against the aggressor, but against the victim, when the roles of the aggressor and the victim are reversed. At the same time for the aim of victimological prevention, law enforcement agencies remain extremely passive, despite reports of systematic violence against victims. Victims are not informed about how to protect themselves in violence cases, how to assess risks and safety issues. Victims are not offered protection measures, and there are no services of legal, psychological or social support.

Court practice blames the victim, believing that if the victim does not leave the scene of the incident, then it is “comfortable” for them and “suitable” for the domestic violence victim. The victim is “guilty” because they “had the opportunity to stop the actions of the abuser” and “drove” the situation to the point of causing harm to the aggressor ¹ .

Such a viewpoint does not take into account the process of formation, causes and factors of intra-family victimization. It pays attention to external factors, such as alcoholism, drug addiction, lack of income, unfavorable financial situation, etc. When analyzing the behavior of both the aggressor and the victim, it is assumed that they consciously and logically choose the variation for their behavior, act rationally and reasonably. But given the cyclical, repetitive, and still increasing nature of domestic violence, it is far from the case, because the situations when the victim of violence justifies the aggressor’s actions, “forgives” when the aggressor demonstrates remorse, and repeatedly “educates” the victim, are far from being rational. At the same time, the internal factors that determine the behavior of both the aggressor and the victimare, as a rule, ignored by law enforcement agencies.

In our opinion, internal factors, personality traits, and internal motives determining intra-family violence are the ones that must be in the focus for effective prevention.

Long-term psychotraumatic experience, family models and patterns of behavior seem to be such factors [15].

Psychotraumatic experience inflicted by the father to the mother or violence in childhood is fixed in the patterns of behavior. Ultra-conservative views on women and children as well as upbringing within “traditional” stereotypes form a personal trauma, the consequences of which are many times seen in repeated violence pattern scenarios, very often, through unconscious repetition and reproduction.

The chance of effective prevention and ways of responding is extremely narrow when unconsciously transmitted and reproduced violence patterns are ignored. It is difficult to change behavior without understanding its causes and the mechanism of reproduction.

As a rule, at a deep unconscious are a the behavior pattern of the “victim” and “offender” is coming from the family. The transfer of the behavior patterns from generation to generation is most likely based on unconscious attitudes formed by the family system. There is a concept of the family unconscious as a peculiar form of the ancestor’s claims to be completely repeated in the life of his descendant: “…in the same form of existence in which it manifested itself once or several times in the line of the whole clan” [Quoted from: 13, p. 39]. Psychotherapy also uses the category of “ancestral burden, in which the negative and positive development potential of each member of the genus is hidden [Quoted from: 13, p. 38].

Domestic violence is perceived (both by the law enforcement officers and the prevention services) as an isolated case of a single physical violence act and not as a permanent and repetitive cycle of coercion and control due to the unconscious attitudes of the family system, therefore the reaction to it is far from effective prevention.

Then, there are facts when in five criminal cases one and the same person Ms. M. was found to be the victim, and «though the preventive conversations about safe behavior with the victim were repeatedly conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department and the Police Department, she did not draw any conclusions» [10, p. 57]. This case shows that preventive conversations as measures of vic-timological prevention are not effective, and therefore a more comprehensive approach for prevention is needed.

Let us take a look at criminal case No. 1-11/2020 1-271/2019, which we have discussed previously. The court explained the imposition of punishment as follows: “… the court taking into account the degree of danger, personality data of the perpetrator, his property and family status, and how the punishment affects the correction of the perpetrator’s behaviour and the conditions of his life and family, mitigating circumstances, the principles of justice and humanism, considers that the goals of punishment such as the restoration of social justice, correction of the offender’s behaviour and prevention are achievable when sentencing to imprisonment or to correctional labor [19]. But intra-family violence behavior patterns are unlikely to change. Moreover, an adolescent victim in adulthood is likely to reproduce the “aggressor-victim”behavior pattern. Also, in criminal case No. 1-84/2019, which we have discussed previously too, there was no legal and criminological assessment of victims-turned-offenders. In our view, if victimological (psychological) counseling is well-improved, people can be motivated to change their habitual behavior patterns and the roles of the “victim” and “abuser”for prevention of crimes, for example, murder at the final stage.

We agree with the statements in some studies and research to introduce rehabilitation programs not only for victims of domestic violence, but also for a family abuser and toof-fer active rehabilitation for the whole family by identifying the family problems and ways to solve them [11].

Conclusions

The system of victimological counseling for the prevention of intra-family victimization should involve law enforcement bodies, psychologists and psychotherapists, courts, social services, educational institutions, etc.

Law enforcement bodies should not be misled by the period of “tranquility” in the cycles of domestic violence and a temporary reconciliation (truce), in which the abuser managers to temporarily appeal to the victim,“compensates” for the damage caused, making the victim believe that everything in their relationship can still be fine. All this does not indicate the end of the violence cycles. Patterns of such behavior will inevitably be reproduced. It is necessary to accurately understand the dynamics of domestic violence cycles and their root causes and be able to eliminate them, including through victimological counseling.

“To minimize the consequences of offenses or reduce the risk of becoming victims, assistance to persons -who have suffered from offenses or are at risk of them — is aimed at providing legal, social, psychological, medical and other support to such persons with their consent, carried out in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation”, says Article 27 of Federal Law No. 182-FZ of 23 June, 2016“On the Fundamentals of the Crime Prevention System in the Russian Federation”.

The prevention system should be developed by improving the current legislation of the Russian Federation, which provides for liability for any acts of domestic violence (including psychological violence, harassment, abuse, etc.) and restraining orders for the victim. In law enforcement practice, not only criminal law aspects, but also criminological and victimological (causes, conditions and mechanism of victimization) should be analyzed.

It is necessary to provide psychotherapeutic and victimological counseling for both the victim and the abuser. Social services should be involved in the area of victimological counseling. The activities of social services with a victim of domestic violence should include: the activity to save the victim and maintain the social functioning of the victim, as well as the activity to develop social skills of the victim [7, p. 246].

In addition to special victimological prevention, a significant role in changing behavior patterns is played by prevention in general. For example, the activity of psychologists in education (starting from secondary school) for the correct formation of gender-specific behavior and the interpersonal behavior at the workplace; psychotherapeutic counseling for persons who realize the harmfulness of the violent way of conflict resolution” [9, p. 294]. Considering that intra-family violence is the unconscious reproduction of family patterns, it is necessary to change attitudes to roles in relationships, improving tolerance to the traits of another person and his personal boundaries, and to qualify and differentiate conflicts and violence. Moreover, such work should be carried out both with potential abusers and potential victims.

In our opinion, it is necessary to develop comprehensive programs of moral and psychological rehabilitation and assistance, involving psychologists, lawyers, social services, doctors, and law enforcement officers. We should prevent victimization based on the “readaptation” model, which will provide the psychological safety of the victim.