The factors of interpersonal violence

1.1. Interpersonal Violence in NSW – A Definition

In determining the factors of interpersonal violence, we first ask what the term means. Looking at the plain meaning of the words, interpersonal violence refers to any violent act directed from one person onto another. Interpersonal violence as defined by the NSW Public Health Bulletin published by the NSW Department of Health;

“…includes a range of acts and behaviours, including physical violence, and is the term used to describe the intentional use of force or power by one individual or a group of individuals on another person. Interpersonal violence has many contributing factors, often interrelated, which can include social, economic, political, cultural, and biological factors.”[1]

This definition categorizes some factors that contribute towards interpersonal violence that are discussed later. It is also useful to look at the definition of violence by the World Health Organisation, stated in the World Report on Violence and Health 2002 as;

“The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another

person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of

resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.”[2]

The World Report on Violence and Health separates violence into the three categories of self directed, interpersonal, and collective. It then sub-categorizes interpersonal violence into Family and intimate partner violence and Community violence. Child abuse, intimate partner violence and abuse of the elderly are included in the former, while the latter includes youth violence, random acts of violence, and violence in institutional settings. The nature of violent acts is then determined to be physical, sexual, psychological, or deprivative.[3]

This typology for the categorization of violence illustrates the gamut of violence that can occur, and allows this study to focus on the contributory factors as applied solely to physical interpersonal violence.

1.2. Interpersonal Violence in NSW - The Factors

The presence of violence has long been inherent in human interaction and is illustrated in the Bible and the Koran, with the first case of interpersonal violence involving Cain killing his brother Abel. The history of mankind following this is seen to be filled with violence of one against another. Although the level of, and acceptance of violence in society has varied throughout time, there has been a general trend towards its elimination. It is only relatively recently, with the development of the modern world and higher level education that we have begun to study the characteristics of interpersonal violence.

The study of violence has kept inline with the ideal of its eradication. In this endeavour, the adage that prevention is better than cure holds true. The most effective method of eliminating violence would be to prevent its occurrence. However, this requires the prediction of when and where violence would occur, and this in turn requires that the subject of violence and its causes is fully understood. The following sections attempt to classify some of the factors involved in the contribution of interpersonal violence, and to show off the literature available as constrained within the topic of this study.

The factors as identified by the NSW Department of Health are social, economic, political, cultural, and biological factors. These and other factors can be categorized into individual, relationship, community, and societal factors.

1.2.1. Individual Factors

Biological

Individual biological factors have shown to have relevance in their linkage with individual tendencies towards violence. For example, the world report on violence and health gives details of studies that have linked low heart rates in boys with sensation seeking and risk taking, characteristics that may be predispose aggression and violence. High heart rates were linked with the opposed behaviours of anxiety, fear and inhibition.[4]

Another biological factor is gender. Hayen and Mitchell[5] show in Figure 1 that from 1989 to 2004, the hospitalisation rate for injuries due to interpersonal violence in New South Wales was consistently and significantly higher in males than in females. This shows the male tendency to have roughly twice the number of incidents of interpersonal violence.

Figure 1. Time related series of hospitalisation for males and females due to interpersonal violence[6]

Psychological

The psychological characteristics of a person are numerous and may or may not determine the ways in which a person acts. They are however, influential and at the very least, contributory in nature to the functioning of a person. Characteristics such as hyperactivity, impulsiveness and short attention spans may make difficult the self control of a person’s behaviour. The opposing characteristics of nervousness and anxiety do not give a person more control over their own behaviour but instead tend to make a person more cautious in their actions. Other factors include the intelligence of a person and the presence of mental illness.

In Mental Disorder and Violence[7] the risk factors of violence were said to be impulse control, affect regulation, narcissism, and paranoid cognitive personality style. It was also found that violence was increased with low impulse control and affect regulation.

However, in Schizophrenia and Violence[8] the risk associated with schizophrenia or other major mental illnesses is said to be small as compared with substance abuse and personality disorders. These two articles illustrate the huge number of studies done on this topic and the variation in the linking of mental health and personality with violent tendencies.

Although psychological factors cannot be put aside, a concrete formulation of its relationship with interpersonal violence cannot be made until further advances in psychiatric medicine.

1.2.2. Relationship Factors

Known and Unknown Persons

The relationship factors commonly observed involve the interaction of the perpetrator of interpersonal violence with others in the community, and the nature of their relationship. This relationship may range from one of a total stranger to a close and intimate relationship with a family member. The relationship between the perpetrator and his or her peers is especially important in youth violence, and also in hate related crimes against minority groups.

Figure 2 from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows the relationship between the perpetrator of violence and the victim in the number of people who have experienced violence in 2005. Looking just at physical assault by males, the percentage of incidents against known people, whether it be a partner, family or friend, or other known persons, numbers at 43% as compared to 65.7% where the perpetrator was a stranger. Turning to the statistics for females, 87.8% of the physical assault incidents

Figure. 2.[9] Relationship of the victim with perpetrator of assault in 2005.

were perpetrated against known persons as compared to 21.9% whom were strangers. It can be seen then that there is a difference between the characteristics of how men and women interact within society with violence. A majority of men experienced violence from strangers whereas a majority of women experienced violence from known persons. This male/female distinction will be elaborated on later. In combining these numbers, taking into account the total number of persons male and female who experienced assault, it is calculated that 57.9% of the people who experienced assault in total were by known persons and 42.1% were by strangers.[10] It can be seen then that the relationship between perpetrator and victim is of great importance. This suggests that over half of the cases of physical assault may have been avoided with better interpersonal relationship management within society.

Hate Crime

Another contributory relationship factor in interpersonal violence relates to the relationship of minority groups within society. These minorities, for example gay and lesbian groups, may attract the phenomena of hate crimes, causing a disproportionately high level of violence within that social group.[11] The violence directed towards the gay and lesbian groups resulted in protesting and activism in the area, including a large rally in Sydney in 1990.[12] This contrasted with the more recent attitudes of acceptance of gay and lesbian groups in today’s society demonstrate the importance of social relationships not just between individuals, but between the minority and majority groups.

1.2.3. Community Factors

Alcohol and Drugs

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that the 72% of men who were physically assaulted said that the perpetrator had been drinking or taking drugs. 28% also admitted to have taken drugs or alcohol themselves. 47% of women who were physically assaulted reported also that the perpetrator had been drinking or taking drugs. [13] The significance of alcohol and drugs in interpersonal violence is therefore observed to be large. The acceptance and normal practice of the consumption of alcohol and drugs within certain cultural groups therefore lends a higher risk of interpersonal violence to those cultures. In Black and Degenhardt[14] the link between

Figure 2. Relationship between aggression and injecting drug users[15]

aggression and substance abuse is investigated. It was found that high levels or aggression were experienced by injecting drug users and can be seen in Figure 2. This illustrates the highly linked relationship between drug use and aggression showing users of alcohol and methamphetamines to be especially at risk.

Firearms

The issue of firearms as a contributory factor to interpersonal violence is a long debated one. On the one hand, does the availability of firearms increase their usage resulting in a greater number of violent incidents, or are these violent incidents due to other factors and not affected by the availability of firearms.

In 1988, there were at least 3.5 million guns in Australia, and more than one quarter of households owned a gun.[16] Figure 3 below shows the number of murders reported to police in 1986 and 1987 and the type of weapon used. 44.2% in 1986 and 36.9% in 1987 of the murders reported involved the use of firearms. It can be seen that the use of this category of weapon far outnumbered the others.

Figure 3. The proportion of firearms used in murders reported to police in 1986 - 1987[17]

In 1996, the Port Arthur tragedy on the 28th of April resulted in another debate on firearm control. In Firearm Related Violence in Australia[18], it was reported that 20.1% of all homicides in 1995 were by firearm. Figure 4 shows the proportion of homicides by firearm with total homicide from 1915 to 1995 in Australia. Homicide by use of firearm roughly accounts for one third of total homicides demonstrating that firearms do contribute significantly to the rate of interpersonal violence ending in homicide.

Figure 4. Total homicide and homicide by firearm, rate per 100 000 population, Australia 1915 - 1995[19]

However, in Figure 5, we can see that the rate of homicides by use of firearms has dropped from 1992 to 1995. Although there was a visible drop in this method of homicide, the other methods used increased, and the number of total homicides remained relatively stable. This is in contradiction with the idea that firearms are a contributory factor in interpersonal violence. The statistics seem to say that if the availability of firearms had dropped such that homicides could not be executed with a firearm, then the perpetrator would use another method of homicide. This then would show that the motivational factors behind homicide were the cause of violence, and not the method of use.

Figure 5. Relative change in homicide, rate per million total population, by methods used, Australia[20]

1.2.4. Societal Factors

Marital Status

The report on Australian Social Trends 2007[21] also shows that another factor of importance within society is marital status, as larger proportions of unmarried men and women experienced violence. 17% of unmarried men experienced violence as compared to 6% of married men, and 8% or unmarried women experienced violence as compared to 3% or married women. It can thus be seen that a societal group with a lower percentage of married couples may be predisposed to higher rates of interpersonal violence.

Age

The age of a person is an evident factor in interpersonal violence. Perhaps what is not understood as well is why certain age groups have a higher tendency for violence. In Schmertmann and Finch[22] Figure 6 is presented, and it shows that for males in New South Wales, the age group highest at risk falls within the 30-34 year range. For females, the peak within 20-24 years is distinctly lower. An observation that may be made is that the rate of male interpersonal violence seems to drop dramatically after its peak at age 30 – 34. This is also interestingly, the median age of marriage in males, which lies at 31.2 years.[23] Perhaps the second peak of interpersonal violence in 40 to 44 years can also be attributed to a similar factor, that of divorce. The statistics show that the median duration from marriage to divorce is 11.2 years in New South Wales, which would put it within that age range.

Figure 6. The relationship between age groups and interpersonal violence death rates[24]

Politics

The role of legal structures and policy in the prevention of violence is of prime importance. The aim of governance and the guidance policies developed is to create a society in which violence plays no part. Hence, the views of politicians and the resulting structures that they set up affects the ways in which violence is either prevented or rears its ugly head. An example of this is set around the racial issues that are currently present in Sydney. The violence in the Cronulla beach riots in 2005 had a distinctly racial element to it. In view of these violent events, it can be seen that the political views of the liberal in blaming the supposed deep vein of racism within Australian society do nothing to rectify the problem. On the other hand, the conservative view that blames cultural problems within single communities does nothing to help the issue either.[25]

The structures setup to combat violence and crime include the use of policing and the criminal justice system. In 1999, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research of the NSW Attorney General’s Department released to the media a quarterly update that stated the police had over the previous two years engaged in a policy targeting repeat offenders for arrest. This policy was based on overseas research that has shown the policy to be an effective way in reducing crime rates.[26] The press release also stated that crime rates by June that year had not increased and had even dropped in certain categories. This report shows how a policy used by the police can have a widespread effect on the crime and violence in NSW.

Economy

The welfare of the economy as a whole impacts the wellbeing of its citizens and hence the resulting crime rate and incidence of interpersonal violence. In the Australian Social Trends 2007[27] it was reported that unemployed men had a higher risk exposure to experience of interpersonal violence as compared to their employed counterparts (24% vs. 12%). The trend is also reflected with women, with 16% of the unemployed having experienced violence as compared with 6%.

Another topic to be explored is the impact of social welfare on crime. The importance of this topic was recognised and discussed in the NSW parliament on the 18 of September 2003.[28] The Hon. Amanda Fazio brought attention to a social welfare program and how it aims to break the cycle of criminal behaviour by strengthening the family and stop children from becoming part of an outside system.

2. Relevant Strategies for the Reduction of Violence

There are three types of strategies in the prevention of violence, primary, secondary and tertiary.[29] Primary strategies aim to prevent violence before its occurrence, secondary strategies aim at managing immediate response to violence such as emergency services, and tertiary strategies aim at long term care following violence such as rehabilitation. This paper will focus only on the primary strategy as this is the only one that actually prevents violence before it occurs.

Within this primary strategy, there are four broad categories into which efforts fall, as identified by the Tonry and Farrington.[30] They are law enforcement, developmental, community, and situational prevention.

Law Enforcement

Law enforcement strategies involve the enactment and enforcement of criminal laws and the punishment of offenders. This is the traditional method for crime prevention and is the basis of criminal law in NSW. This approach at prevention can be seen in the legislation of NSW, including the Crimes Act 1900 and the Summary Offences Act 1988. The policing of NSW with the NSW police force is the method in which the enforcement of criminal law is upheld, and the Department of Corrective Services maintains responsibility over the prisons which punish offenders. This strategy has long been in use and is effective, but only to a certain extent, as violence in NSW is still prevalent. The success of this strategy can be observed when compared to communities with minimal or no policing. However, it is also known that the presence of police may instigate and provoke further violence hence its limiting its success.

Developmental

Developmental efforts aim at preventing the development of criminals by reducing exposure to risk factors, some of which were discussed previously. The Families First program is NSW government’s implementation of this strategy. The Families First program aims to improve the well-being of children by supporting families during times of rapid development. [31] This is done by building upon parenting skills, supporting parents to respond to problems early, building familial support communities, and improving inter-agency cooperation to ensure the availability of support and services to families. Fisher et al. conclude that the program has made significant gains in the development of structures and processes for family support. This can be seen as the incremental success of the program while it further develops and matures.

Community

Community efforts aim to change the social conditions in communities. An example of a community effort in NSW is the night patrols that are carried out in certain rural and inner city areas also known as the street beat program. The program is aimed at preventing youth related anti-social behaviour and is run by youth workers and volunteers. It offers safe transportation as a primary service. Effectiveness of this service is not evaluated by formal means, but relies instead on feedback and anecdotal material. With the exception of the Castlereagh patrol, all patrols claim to be successful, placing emphasis on the prevention of crime with proactive work. For a true evaluation on the efficacy of night patrols, measures such as victimisation surveys, rates of alcohol consumption, lock up statistics , road accidents, rates of family violence and school attendance need to be established.[32]

Situational Prevention

Situational prevention efforts aim to reduce the opportunities for the occurrence of crime. This may involve the management of public spaces and environment by providing for lighting of walkways, and security systems in public housing. In 2001, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources introduced the Crime Prevention Legislative Guidelines into the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and outlines principles and strategies in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).[33] CPTED in turn uses four strategies that create the perception of capable guardianship. The four strategies are territorial re-enforcement, surveillance, access control and space/activity management. Territorial re-enforcement uses boundaries to encourage communal responsibility for public areas. Surveillance uses well designed spaces, CCTV, and security guards to supervised places. Access Control restricts and channels people within spaces and pathways, fencing, security hardware and security officers. Lastly Space/activity management maintains the natural community control over a space as unused space is often abused.

The efficacy of this method can be seen in its wide implementation throughout Sydney. The measurement of its success however is undetermined. This strategy does have its limitations however, and these include the adaptation of criminals to take advantage of these spaces, and failure during the design stage to anticipate certain spatial characteristics prone to abuse.

References

[1] NSW Public Health Bull (2005) 17 (1–2) at 8–12.

[2] World Health Organization, World report on violence and health. Geneva (2002) at 5.

[3] World Health Organization, World report on violence and health. Geneva (2002) at 6.

[4] World Health Organization, World report on violence and health. Geneva (2002) at 32.

[5] NSW Public Health Bull (2005) 17 (1–2) at 8–12.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Nestor P, The American Journal of Psychiatry, (2002) 159:12 at 1973.

[8] Matthias, C. Angermeyer, Schizophrenia and violence, (2000) Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 102 (s407) at 63–67.

[9] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Social Trends (2007) 4102.0 at 2.

[10] [(0.43*485.4)+(0.878*242)]/(485.4+242)*100=percentage of physical assaults by known persons by males and females.

[11] Thomsen, Stephen, The political contradictions of policing and countering anti-gay violence in New South Wales : contemporary comment, Current Issues in Criminal Justice (1993) 5(2) at 209-215.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Social Trends (2007) 4102.0 at 4.

[14] NSW Public Health Bull (2005) 17 (1–2) at 12–16.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Australian Institute of Criminology, Firearms and Violence in Australia (1988).

[17] Ibid.

[18] Australian Institute of Criminology, Firearm-related Violence in Australia (1997) at 2.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Australian Institute of Criminology, Firearm-related Violence in Australia (1997) at 5.

[21] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Social Trends (2007) 4102.0 at 2.

[22] NSW Public Health Bull (2005) 17 (1–2) at 4–7.

[23] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Demography, New South Wales, 2004 Final.

[24] Ibid.

[25] David Burchell, Lawlessness the Real Flaw, (2005), Australian Policy Online, accessed 10 September 2007.

[26] Dr Don Weatherburn, ‘MEDIA RELEASE NSW Recorded Crime Statistics: Quarterly Update – June 1999’, (Press Release, 6 August 1999).

[27] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Social Trends (2007) 4102.0 at 2.

[28] New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 18 September 2003 (Amanda Fazio) at 3573.

[29] World Health Organization, World report on violence and health. Geneva (2002) at 15.

[30] Tonry M, Farrington D.P., Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention (1995), 19 Crime and Justice