ÉVA RUDAS
február 18., 7:30
Vélemény
In the past weeks the media has written about several cases when a woman died as a result of domestic violence. Recently more such cases have come to light – not because there have been more such events, but because recently there is more public interest in these issues, so the media pays more attention to them too.
Formally we have also made a huge step forward, because – as a result of growing media attention and demands – several politicians have acknowledged that the system is not perfect, and Minister of Justice Judit Varga promised a review of relevant legal regulations (although, as we have written about it already, she is adamant that the Hungarian government will not ratify the Istanbul convention).
On the average one woman a week is killed by her current or former partner, which adds up to almost 50 victims a year. These cases are preceded by several years of psychological and physical abuse. Though the media often pretends it was an individual relationship conflict that led to the tragedy, in fact intimate partner violence is a manifestation of the devaluation of women, and in every case the result of gender inequality. Thus, intimate partner violence is not an individual but a social issue.
In most cases the victims do not get adequate support and protection from the authorities. One reason is that there is a huge gap between the legal framework and legal practice. The legal framework is mostly adequate, but legal practice also depends on the subjective attitudes of practitioners. People working in institutions do not get training on the nature and characteristics of domestic violence, plus they often share society’s stereotypes and prejudices about women. As a result, they partly or fully blame the victim and try to rationalize the abuse. This complex phenomenon is known as institutional betrayal.
Institutional betrayal[1] is a form of institutional unprofessionalism. It means that the victim is completely dependent on the abuser or the institution she turned to for help, but the institution does not handle her case efficiently. Institutional betrayal can be committed by authorities, the courts, physicians or child protection agencies. When an abused woman asks for help, but the institutions cannot provide an adequate solution and even blame her for what happened, she becomes even more vulnerable and traumatized. Her desperation, helplessness and hopelessness increases. As a result, fewer women will approach the authorities for help.
Let us review some specific cases when intimate partner violence culminated in manslaughter, and the common systemic errors that occurred in them.
On August 22nd 2019 in Zöldlomb Street, Budapest[2] a man killed his partner, their four-year-old son and their dog, then he committed suicide. In the previous nine months the police had been called to the family at least three times, the last time two days before the killings, because the man had taken away the woman’s keys. However, the police officers concluded that the couple “arranged the conflict between themselves” and left. A neighbor, the perpetrator’s mother and the owner of the apartment all called the police on the night of the killing, in vain. The police started a disciplinary procedure against the officers who neglected their duty, but in their press release they deny being responsible for the tragedy.
However, this case is not unique: the police often do not go to the site of the abuse or do not take any measures there. This is a complex problem, which includes the misconception that domestic abuse is a “family affair”: neither the victims nor their environment dares to report to the police, and the police do not take such cases seriously enough. For instance they interview the parties together, where obviously the abused woman will not confess against the perpetrator – especially as there is no guarantee that he will not revenge himself upon her after the police have left; in several cases such revenge has led to her death. Zöldlomb Street is in a wealthy district of Budapest, so the story challenges the common misconception that domestic abuse only affects the lower classes. In fact, domestic violence does not depend on class or education, abusers come from all backgrounds.
The issue of police responsibility also arises with respect to a tragedy that took place in Mélykút in December. [3]The victim had been to the police the very day when she was killed, saying her ex-husband, who was temporarily staying with her, had threatened her. She had wanted him to move away, but as no physical violence had taken place, eventually she decided not to make a police report. The police took her home and wanted to talk to the man, but as he was not there, they took the woman and her children to her brother’s home. However, the man found them there, and after a quarrel he stabbed her to death and tried to kill himself, finally he set the house on fire. The woman died immediately, but the man was rescued from the burning house by the firefighters; he made a confession in hospital.
In this case the police were right to ask the victim several times whether she wanted to make a report and accepted her negative answer, but they neglected the fact that police officers can take measures even without a report if they see well-founded evidence of domestic abuse. The case also highlights the fact that in case of abuse it is the victim, not the perpetrator, who must leave their home – even if she is the one maintaining or owning it. Therefore, the responsibility for finding safety is put on the victim, though abused women are extremely vulnerable because they are often financially dependent on their partner. There are few shelters for abused women, and even fewer where they can take their children too. What is more, in the case of child abuse it is not the abusive parent who is removed from the family but the child, who is then taken into state care, if the mother cannot provide a safe environment for them – this is again considered the mother’s responsibility.
We have written about the Győr case where a father killed his two children. This case highlights how abusers often use their visitation or custody rights to continue abusing their partner through her children, as they have no direct access to the partner herself. This is why visitation is important for them – not because they are caring fathers. In principle, the law serves the child’s best interest by ensuring they can keep in touch with both parents, but completely ignores situations where the father is an abuser or an ex-convict, thus putting the child in grave danger. In the Győr case the court made a huge mistake by letting the father have visitation rights, and without supervision at that.
These are just a few cases where domestic violence has led to death, but every 5th woman in Hungary lives in an abusive relationship. Most cases do not even get to the authorities, but when they do, it often does not make a difference. Cases can “fall out” of the system at several points: the police fails to take action or drops the case for (alleged) lack of evidence; courts often do not take all evidence into consideration and show a degrading, victim-blaming attitude towards the woman. Sentences are disproportionately light; it happens that the perpetrator gets a suspended sentence for attempted manslaughter, so he remains a threat for his family. Institutions do not have the right protocol and knowledge to handle gender-based and domestic violence. Much more attention should be paid to prevention, as a prison sentence cannot resurrect the dead or erase the trauma of the survivors.
How about the women who have lived to tell the story of their abuse? Unfortunately, nothing guarantees their safety either.
Bernadett Orosz, a single mother, was beaten almost to death by her ex-partner on November 10th. She turned to the police, asking for personal protection and a restraining order, but she did not get either. Therefore, she turned to the general public and shared her story on Facebook. As a result, she did get a four-month restraining order, but in practice this does not guarantee her and her children’s safety. She wrote an open letter to the Minister of Justice[4], but instead of protection she was offered legal and psychological help. She has been talking on the media about how nothing has been done to ensure her protection, her abuser is still on the loose, and she as the victim gets blamed. Her story is a good illustration that without civil support and the control of publicity the victim is even more vulnerable.
In February the government started a debate whether to make regulations stricter on the probation of people convicted for crimes against life. However, abusers do not change (automatically), so whether they are released three years earlier or later, they still pose a danger to their past and future partners. An illustration is a case in Budapest, Menyecske Street in January 2020. [5] The woman was attacked by her ex-partner and was saved by the locksmith working to change the lock in order to keep the perpetrator away. The man had been in prison before, and after that tried to kill another ex-partner for breaking up with him – that woman’s life was saved by her neighbor. Then he was sentenced to ten years in prison but was released after 6 years last spring for good conduct. However, good conduct in prison does not mean that women will be safe with him after he is released. Experts say the amendment may even prove harmful, as the promise of probation makes inmates keep the prison regulations, so depriving of this possibility will take away the motivation for good conduct. Also, only a tiny percentage of perpetrators actually gets into prison, so this superficial change does not tackle the real problem. A mere amendment does not help recognize and prevent abuse, nor does it offer more protection or better treatment for abused women.
For a true change we would need complex institutional protocols, professional training and legal practice that truly reflect on the needs of victim. The Istanbul Convention would provide a comprehensive legal framework for this.
[1] – http://nokjoga.hu/alapinformaciok/az-intezmenyi-arulas
[2] – https://index.hu/belfold/2019/08/26/zoldlomb_utca_gyilkossag_rendorseg_112/
[3] – https://24.hu/belfold/2019/12/19/melykut-emberoles-rendorseg/
[4] – https://168ora.hu/itthon/isztambuli-egyezmeny-kapcsolati-eroszak-agresszio-varga-judit-orosz-bernadett-csaladon-beluli-eroszak-179198
[5] – https://index.hu/belfold/2020/01/14/hat_ev_utan_feltetelesen_szabadult_ugyanugy_akart_olni_a_kobanyai_keselo/
