Mexico.- In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced, based on a study by the agency, that partner violence is the most common form of violence in women’s lives, much more than aggression or rape by strangers or simple acquaintances. In an interview for THE DEBATE, criminologist Lizbeth García defined the domestic aggressor as anyone who violates the physical, psychological, emotional or sexual integrity of another family member. During the live broadcast on Facebook, the researcher delve into the issue of domestic violence and criminological aggressors, as well as the areas of opportunity for public response to this social problem.
Stay informed about what matters most to you
Get the most relevant news of the day in your e-mail
Thank you for subscribing!
Check your inbox to confirm your email and start getting the latest news
Take advantage and take the next step
Get our news alerts so you don’t miss anything
Receive notifications
Not bad! You’ve subscribed to notifications
Set up and choose your preferences
Set up notifications
Enter your e-mail
Subscribe
Subscribing involves accepting the terms and conditions
Not bad! You’ve subscribed to notifications
Set up and choose your preferences
Consequences
García Montoya expressed that this situation transgresses and can bring irreparable consequences, such as the loss of life, referencing femicides, which are the ultimate expression of this type of violence. From a historical perspective, the researcher acknowledged that intervention programs for those who decide to engage in domestic violence are relatively new in Mexico, even though in other countries since the 1970s they have been implemented, as is the case in the United States and England, in order to study the profiles of aggressor men and subsequently include them in intervention programs , where they were re-educated in new ways of resolving conflicts without having to resort to violence.
He noted that although these types of programs were successful and replicated in other European countries, in Mexico until the mid-1990s such interventions with domestic aggressors were proposed. In this context, WHO-led research was developed in 2005, describing the very serious health and well-being consequences of physical and sexual violence by the husband or partner worldwide, and exposing the degree of concealment that continues to surround this type of violence. The agency’s director at the time said this study showed that women are more exposed to domestic violence than on the street, which has serious implications for women’s health, and said it also highlighted the importance of bringing domestic violence to light around the world and treating it as a serious public health problem. Intervention to aggressors in Sinaloa
Lizbeth García mentioned that at a regional level, in Sinaloa, between 2007 and 2009, such resources are implemented in the State Council for the Care and Prevention of Family Violence (Cepavif). This project was led by the Center’s Department of Psychology, and Lizbeth García was able to evaluate it as part of her doctoral thesis project. It noted that in 2013 a change was made to the law on access to public information that spoke of the integration of a state system to prevent and address family violence, which should be composed of several government agencies, such as Ismujeres, Cepavif, Secretariat of Public Security, Ministry of Health, among others, while supported by civil associations. He noted that this reform provided the guideline for reforming the fractions of section 34 and 35 of the law that mandates timely intervention with men who decide to exercise domestic violence at the family level from another approach, and not just with the focus on the victim, as it has been assessed internationally as successful programmes. It cited the case of Chile as a positive result in the implementation of this approach. The researcher said there is great resistance to such interventions, so it is an area of opportunity to combat these resistances. It recognized that there was equal criticism of this approach in the sense that some researchers pointed it out as benevolence towards the aggressor. Criticism is also made in the economic sense, since it generatesGovernment budgets to combat violence against women at the international level are small, and allocating some of these resources for perpetrator rehabilitation does not convince some groups of people. Resistance in intervention
However, the criminology expert believes that comprehensive prevention should come from the root; that is, from a primary approach that conjures attention to the victim, re-editing the victim as well, since there are certain victimological profiles that at the time of matching a particular criminological profile of the aggressor, that crimino-dynamic relationship enhances a domestic aggression in the home. He considered from his experience that within domestic aggressor intervention programs there was a diverse range in effectiveness, some with significant success rates and others that had not had such good results. He assured that these differences were mainly in the profile of the domestic aggressor, as not everyone could be subject to these programs if the origin of the violence they had decided to exercise had as their source other types of mental health problems, for example that they need an appropriate channeling to other institutions where those clinical situations could be addressed, which would have an impact on the positive or negative impact on the effectiveness of the intervention programme. It added that there were three basic principles to consider with regard to interventions: one was to re-edit the aggressor from gender theory by eliminating that social construct to which we were exposed in a generational manner; another is the impact of the role of the social system and governing institutions, i.e. commitment or lack there is; Finally, those who lead the intervention should be trained with elements of training specialized in psychology and equally important to have a gender perspective. Magnitude of the global problem
WHO has shared the most accurate estimates of the prevalence of intimate partner violence and sexual violence, and states that they are derived from population surveys based on the testimonies of victims. An analysis conducted in 2013 by WHO in collaboration with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the South African Medical Research Council, which used data from more than 80 countries, found that, worldwide, one in three women (35%) had been subjected to physical or sexual violence inside or outside the couple. Global and regional estimate
This data obtained by WHO indicate that one third (30%) of all women who have had a relationship has experienced physical or sexual violence on the part of their partner. Estimates of prevalence of intimate partner violence range from 23.2% in high-income countries to 24.6% in the Western Pacific region, to 37% in the Eastern Mediterranean region, and 37.7% in the South-East Asia region.38% of femicides committed in the world are perpetrated by the couple. In addition to intimate partner violence, 7% of women report sexual assault by people other than their partner, although data in this regard are scarcer. Acts of intimate partner violence and sexual violence are mostly committed by men versus women.
Machismo.- Violence against women in the couple is a phenomenon recorded in societies throughout history.
Violence against women at home
The United Nations defines violence against women as “any act of gender-based violence that results in or may result in physical, sexual or psychological harm to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether they occur in public or private life”The same body defines intimate partner violence as the behaviour of the couple or expareges that causes physical harm , sexual or psychological, including physical assault, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and control behaviors.
Risks.- Risk factors for intimate partner violence and sexual violence are individual, family, community and social.
Recommendation
WHO recommends that political and health-sectors take steps to reduce the human and health cost of the problem, including by integrating violence prevention plans into various social programmes. Intervention
A set of interventions essential to change behaviours and eliminate the inequalities and social norms that perpetuate ill-treatment is recommended. It is also recommended to integrate violence prevention plans into initiatives already in children and youth march (WHO Source).
