Huiselijk geweld lijkt sterk toe te nemen tijdens de Covid-19 pandemie. Wat opvalt in de berichtgeving, is dat er stelselmatig wordt uitgegaan van mannelijke daders en vrouwelijke slachtoffers. Is dit wel terecht? In dit artikel beschrijven Vivienne de Vogel en Kasia Uzieblo dat ook vrouwen huiselijk geweld plegen en gaan ze in op de weerstand in de maatschappij om vrouwen als pleger én om mannen als slachtoffer te zien van huiselijk geweld. The prevalence of domestic violence seems to be increasing during the COVID-19 pandemic. In most media coverage and calls for preventive initiatives from professionals and policy, males are consistently portrayed as perpetrators of domestic violence and females and children as victims, also by leading organizations like the WHO. However, research has clearly shown that there are more types of domestic violence, like sibling and elder abuse and that women are also capable of serious violence towards their family. The current article aims to summarize the literature on gender and domestic violence, and to discuss the societal reluctance to acknowledge females as potential perpetrators, and males as potential victims.
Geen samenvatting beschikbaar
Most violence risk assessment tools have been validated predominantly in males. In this multicenter study, the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 (HCR-20), Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 Version 3 (HCR-20V3), Female Additional Manual (FAM), Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START), Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF), and Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) were coded on file information of 78 female forensic psychiatric patients discharged between 1993 and 2012 with a mean follow-up period of 11.8 years from one of four Dutch forensic psychiatric hospitals. Notable was the high rate of mortality (17.9%) and readmission to psychiatric settings (11.5%) after discharge. Official reconviction data could be retrieved from the Ministry of Justice and Security for 71 women. Twenty-four women (33.8%) were reconvicted after discharge, including 13 for violent offenses (18.3%). Overall, predictive validity was moderate for all types of recidivism, but low for violence. The START Vulnerability scores, HCR-20V3, and FAM showed the highest predictive accuracy for all recidivism. With respect to violent recidivism, only the START Vulnerability scores and the Clinical scale of the HCR-20V3 demonstrated significant predictive accuracy.
MULTIFILE
