Domestic violence is a pervasive issue in both the Russian Federation and in the United States. The two countries have a very different legal approach to solving the issue.
Domestic violence (also known as intimate partner violence, or IPV) is frequently referred to as one of the most acute social problems in the modern society. Being a relatively new offense, as most countries have adopted some kind of an anti-domestic violence legislation in the late 20th century, it remains a major point of debate around concerns such as citizen privacy, victim stigmatization and the effectiveness of existing prevention methods. However, despite the novelty of this debate in the USA, American citizens enjoy specific working laws targeting domestic violence. This is not the case in the Russian Federation, a country that is otherwise comparable to America in size, culture and development: i.e., both countries occupy a significant territory, have a multiethnic population, are heavily industrialized, and display significant wage and financial stability gaps between the working and the middle/upper class.
Despite a modern criminal justice system, Russia lacked a concrete statute regarding the prevention and criminalization of domestic violence up until last year. Prior to that, domestic violence was vaguely defined in the Criminal Code; and, in 2017, it was completely decriminalized. The decriminalization of domestic violence means that is no longer criminally prosecuted via a specific functioning law and instead constitutes an administrative offense punishable by a fine, detention for up to 15 days, or up to 120 hours of community service. The only instances where domestic violence is criminally punishable are cases defined by recidivism or a fatal outcome. Publication of the domestic violence draft law on the website of the Russian Parliament’s upper chamber in November of 2019 and its potential implementation in late 2020 has gathered significant controversy amongst Russian citizens and sparked both social and scientific interest in the topic. As of December 2021, the draft law was not submitted to the State Duma. This paper therefore aims to discern whether an existence of a specific law on domestic violence affects the perceived effectiveness of various non-legal preventative measures targeting both the recidivism and the primary occurrences of IPV. 12 participants were recruited for the study: 6 from the USA (where a specific domestic violence law exists) and 6 from the Russian Federation (where a specific domestic violence law does not yet exist). All 12 were asked to respond to a questionnaire on the subjects of general crime prevention and safety, as well on the prevalence and handling of domestic violence in their country. In the end of the questionnaire, all participants were asked to rate the existing methods of domestic violence prevention based on whether they thought they would be effective specifically in their country. This paper focused mainly on social and public policy preventative measures rather than legal measures in order to make the questionnaire more accessible for participants coming from different social and educational backgrounds.
Before conducting original research on the perceived effectiveness of preventative measures against domestic violence in the USA and Russian Federation, the previously existing research on these measures had to be investigated and evaluated. In order to reflect the social contexts and laws of the target populations, some sources were chosen from Russian scientists and some from American ones.
The Russian research on the topic of domestic violence prevention started with a short comprehensive article by psychology and sociology researcher Elena Mukhanova “Violence in the Family: A Social and Legal Problem”. Mukhanova defines domestic violence as primarily a significant social problem, since the family “is meant to be an important structural element of the state” (Mukhanova, 1). She notes that, since domestic violence was decriminalized in 2017, most of the current prevention is based in “social control/disapproval” (Mukhanova, 3), and the rates are largely dependent on how domestic violence is viewed in that particular area. The author highlights a lack of police professionalism and the specifics of victim behavior as the main reasons of domestic violence prevalence in Russia. According to her, many policemen are “reluctant” to accept and process domestic violence reports, since many victims end up dropping the criminal proceedings or “taking back” the reports (Mukhanova, 3). The result is that 97% of domestic violence cases do not make it to court. This behavior occurs due to various reasons, including mistrust in the police, financial dependence on the perpetrator, inability to contact the police due to illness or age constraints (in cases of child/senior abuse), and, finally, the pervasive stigmatization of domestic violence victimization. Additionally, victim care, such as the right to claim financial compensation or to state-sponsored shelter during the proceedings is virtually absent in the police procedure (Mukhanova, 6). In the end of the paper, Mukhanova states that, in the absence of a functioning law, the most effective preventative measures against domestic violence in Russia would primarily consist of mass media and education efforts, such as increasing the amount of public service advertising focusing on the issue, and making the information on civil rights within the family a matter of public knowledge, so that the community is more aware of the scope of the issue.
Professor at the department of investigative activities at the Russian Institute of increasing the qualifications of employees of the Russian Federation’s Ministry of Internal Affairs Gennadii Afonkin provides more concrete legal insight into the issue in his article “The Problems of Ensuring Criminal Liability for Domestic and Family Violence in the Russian Federation”. He defines the state’s reluctance to create a specific statute regarding domestic violence as a significant obstacle to properly addressing the issue, and claims that, in order to ensure deterrence in cases of domestic violence, several amendments need to be implemented in the Criminal Code of Russian Federation. For example, he suggests including “violence against family members and partners” in the working list of aggravating legal factors, criminalizing elements of emotional and psychological violence, providing extra services to the victims (such as competent state-sponsored attorneys, mandatory financial damages, mediation opportunities), and enabling judicial discretion regarding various types of domestic violence (for example, repetitive cases and attacks against minors would be punished by lengthier prison sentences, but some single-incident cases may still be punishable by fines/community service) (Afonkin, 8). He also notes that, since “most victims are not aware of their rights”, legal education must be popularized and promoted in the Russian society.
Finally, some insight regarding both state-sponsored and community initiatives is delivered by sociology scholar T. Rostovskaya and her colleagues in their study of existing domestic violence prevention strategies in Russia and Kazakhstan. The primary prevention effort on the territory of Russia is the expansion of the women’s shelter network, most community-based (“Sisters”, “Goluba”, “Yaroslavna”, etc.) and one state-sponsored (Women’s Crisis Centers). Crisis hotlines have also been implemented across the country. It is important to note that the Russian centers work not only with victims, but with perpetrators as well (for example, mediation and therapy services are available if the couple is mutually interested in such). According to the authors, however, shelter availability is a single element of prevention; an entire project is in the works, including elements such as social work training, formulation of concrete administrative procedures aimed at long-term prevention of family violence, and increased financing for establishments focusing on victim aid. However, the authors note that the implementation of these measures would require “a combination of state and community efforts” (Rostovskaya et al., 3). In Kazakhstan, the shelter expansion initiative has only recently started gaining momentum; however, many community prevention efforts are present, such as marches and internet flash mobs. The Ne Molchi1 flash mob in particular has led to the creation of awareness lectures and workshops conducted across the entire territory of Kazakhstan, and the publication of various social studies and research articles on domestic violence. In conclusion, the authors note that, while crisis centers and education efforts provide some relief, the issue will likely remain persistent unless “the community gets more actively involved… and a mindset of complete non-tolerance towards family violence and victim blaming is implemented” (Rostovskaya et al., 8).
The American literature review was started with a comprehensive article by professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario2 David Wolfe and practicing psychiatrist Peter Jaffe on the subject of emerging preventative strategies against domestic violence. Wolfe and Jaffe have organized the existing prevention efforts into three categories: primary (aimed at preventing the event in the first place), secondary (intervention at the first signs of potential harm) and tertiary (prevention of recidivism). The secondary and tertiary strategies such as home visitation and child protection services are mentioned mostly in regards to protecting minors, and are described as only somewhat effective. Public awareness initiatives such as social advertising are listed as the most common primary strategy of preventing domestic violence. The strategy appears to be feasible, considering that, after the run of targeted programing by the Family Violence Prevention Fund, there has been a reported decrease in the number of people “who did not know what domestic violence was… [considered it a minor issue]… [or believed that the media was exaggerating its prevalence]” (Jaffe and Wolfe, 8). However, the authors state applying such programs across the United States would be a challenge, and that they would be have to combined with an actual “zero tolerance policy” in order to have effect (Jaffe and Wolfe, 10). Resources to fund such programs remain scarce, and some of the public remain largely skeptical towards the issue due to normalization of domestic violence in the American culture. Unexpectedly, American and Russian research converges on the idea that no prevention strategy would be effective unless “fundamental changes in attitudes and behavior” and ”a clear committment from all levels of government” occur simultaneously (Jaffe and Wolfe, 9).
Having discussed the findings of Jaffe and Wolfe, it becomes clear that primary prevention is challenging, but necessary to implement in order to achieve both physical safety and a change of mindset in the American society. Professor and researcher at UC Berkeley (Berkeley Social Welfare) Jeffrey Edleson delves further into the issue in his paper dedicated entirely to primary prevention strategies. He expands on the idea of public education and awareness strategies, building on a concept of an ecological framework, which, although lacking in predictive value, is able to provide “potential points of prevention [with] individual and risk factors” (Edleson, 3). The idea is that if non-permissive attitudes towards domestic violence alongside the promotion of healthy relationships permeate most aspects of individual lives, there is a better chance that these individuals will internalize the attitudes and fall at lesser risk for committing or becoming a victim to IPV. The most crucial element of primary prevention efforts is that they are consistent across life domains; in this case “each effort is likely to reinforce the other” (Edleson, 4). Edleson also mentions that education and public awareness initiatives must be curated and aim at a long-term effect; for example, he describes the school talks described by Wolfe and Jaffe as not targeted enough, and only having some tangent effect due to their promotion of general positive and non-violent attitudes. Later Edleson identifies three targeted primary prevention programs — universal health care screening, school curricula specifically centered around resisting violence, mass media efforts aimed at the general population — and evaluates them all for effectiveness. Healthcare screening is assessed as conducive to the general awareness of the issue and the spreading of potentially helpful resources; however, not necessarily effective in changing attitudes or behaviors. Evaluations of targeted school curricula showed that children who were taught about domestic violence specifically were both “more knowledgeable” and held “more desirable attitudes” about the issue (Edleston, 9). Studies involving mass media efforts such as the already mentioned Family Violence Prevention Fund experiment similarly reflected an increase in knowledge and more desirable attitudes, but none lent any concrete evidence of decreasing offense rates.
Most of American academic literature that was retrieved focused mainly on primary prevention strategies, since it appears that most of the secondary and tertiary strategies have been in place for relatively long in the United States, whereas in the Russian Federation they have only started to appear in the early 2000s. The information on secondary and tertiary efforts used in the research questionnaire was gathered from National Institute of Justice research brief written by professor of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University Christopher D. Maxwell and colleagues. The brief stated that the main strategies relative to the prevention of recidivism in domestic violence cases were arresting the offender after the first incident and setting firm, potentially harsh sentencing guidelines for the offense (Maxwell et al., 7). However, the authors noted that, in the reviewed experiments, the relationship between arrest and subsequent aggression towards the partner barely met the threshold for statistical significance, and therefore, there are additional controlling factors behind the association that need to be accounted for when making arrest and sentencing decisions. Based on the conclusions from the previously described research, it can be assumed that public awareness of and attitudes towards domestic violence account for at least one of these controlling factors.
The participants were recruited via social media. An announcement about the ongoing research was written and posted on the researcher’s profile at the Russian social media site “Vkontakte”, as well as an Instagram post. The announcement briefly explained the aims of the study and listed the participation requirements. There was only two requirements for participation in the study: a) self-identification as female; b) age between 18 and 25. The gender requirement was listed because women remain the most vulnerable population in domestic violence victimization statistics. The age range was chosen for convenience, since young participants were easy to find on a college campus and would theoretically trust a researcher who is also young.
The researcher relied on others to share the posts in order to maximize exposure, but no one was explicitly asked to spread the posts, and whoever ended up sharing or reaching out, did so voluntarily. In the end, all six Russian participants were recruited via Vkontakte and all six American participants via Instagram. All respondents were made aware that participation was voluntary, and given the opportunity to ask questions before, during, or after the study. Full confidentiality was guaranteed and therefore none of the real names will appear in this paper.
The Russian Sample. All Russian participants were recruited via the Vkontakte social network. Upon agreement to participate, they were given an option of performing the interview by: a) completing an online questionnaire; b) responding to the questions on the phone; c) responding to the questions on a video call. Most participants (3 out of 6) chose to be interviewed via a video call on FaceTime or WhatsApp, 2 requested a phone interview and one chose to fill out the questionnaire online. 4 out of 6 respondents were 21 at the time of the interview, one was 20, and one 22. All participants except for one were currently enrolled in college, and 3 out of 6 also worked part-time.
Besides the information relevant to participation requirements, participants were asked about their home city, religious affiliation and sexual orientation (which was a non-mandatory item due to the sensitive nature of the question). These questions were included based on the researcher’s hypothesis that respondents coming from smaller cities and traditional Russian Orthodox families may display more conservative attitudes towards domestic violence than those coming from a more progressive background. Most participants reported a city background: three were born in Moscow, two in Saint-Petersburg and one in Tomsk. In terms of religious affiliation and sexual orientation, the participants were unexpectedly evenly split. 3 out of 6 participants identified themselves as atheist or agnostic, and three as Orthodox Christian. 3 out of 6 participants also identified themselves as members of the LGBT community (all bisexual). It is worthy to note that one of the respondents who identified as an LGBT member also referred to herself as an Orthodox Christian, which almost immediately went against the original hypothesis about the strong correlation between Orthodox Christianity and conservatism.
The American Sample. All American participants were recruited via Instagram. Elements of snowball sampling were also introduced, since one of the participants also recruited two of her friends. Upon agreement to participate, they were given an option of performing the interview by: a) completing an online questionnaire; b) responding to the questions on the phone; c) responding to the questions on a video call d) completing the interview in person. All participants except for one chose to get interviewed in person. The outlier was out of state and therefore chose to be interviewed on a video call via FaceTime. 4 out of 6 participants were 21 at the time of the interview, one was 22 and one was 24. 5 participants were enrolled in college, one recently finished her Master’s degree and worked full-time, 4 worked part-time and one did not work at all.
All American participants came from different cities, which included St. Louis (MO), Long Valley (NJ), Ann Arbor (MI), Chicago (IL), Charleston (SC), and Cleveland (OH). Much like in the case of the Russian respondents, the reported political and social conservatism associated with the towns did not have a visible impact on the respondents’ attitudes. 4 out of 6 participants identified as atheist (one noted that she was raised Jewish), and two as Presbyterian Protestants. 4 out of 6 reported being heterosexual, 2 as members of the LGBT (both bisexual). Similarly to the Russian population, one of the participants who identified as bisexual also stated that she was a practicing Christian.
After the 12 participants were recruited, they were sent a questionnaire drafted specifically for this study, and asked about their preferred method and date of the interview. All participants were given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the questionnaire prior to the interview and were encouraged to contact the researcher with any questions or concerns. A brief informed consent statement was attached to every questionnaire. The statement was also re-stated aloud by the researcher before proceeding with all in-person interviews. It included information on voluntary participation, confidentiality, and provided the researcher’s contacts for any questions or concerns.
The first part of the questionnaire consisted of 6 demographic items, including age, city of origin, level of education, occupation, religious affiliation and sexual orientation. Age, level of education, occupation, and sexual orientation were chosen for inclusion due to their correlation with the risk of IPV victimization (young women, women with lower levels of education, unemployed women and LGBT women are all considered high-risk). City of origin and religious affiliation were chosen for inclusion due to the researcher’s personal hypothesis that religious participants and participants coming from politically conservative cities and towns would be more likely to display more lenient attitudes towards domestic violence. Besides the demographic items, the questionnaire included 11 items (20 if including the sub-items under item 10) on the topics of overall criminal deterrence, crime safety, crime prevention strategies, and deterrence and prevention strategies specifically related to domestic violence. Examples of overall criminal deterrence questions included items such as ” are you familiar with the general idea of criminal deterrence?” and “are you, on the whole, familiar with the laws and functioning of the criminal justice system in your country?”. Examples of domestic violence prevention strategies included items such as “would you say that domestic/intimate partner violence is a prominent social problem in your country?” and “to your knowledge, does the criminal justice system in your country utilize any preventative measures against domestic/intimate partner violence?”. The items in the questionnaire progressed from the topic of general criminal deterrence to violent crime prevention to specifically domestic violence prevention strategies in order to make it easier for the participants to talk about a sensitive topic. The discussion of specific domestic violence prevention strategies was reserved for the last two items (10 and 11). Item 10 listed several types of prevention strategies deemed the most effective by American researchers and asked the participants to respond whether they would think such strategies would be effective in their country specifically. Item 11 asked the participants to state which strategy they think would be the most effective at preventing and limiting the scope of domestic violence in their country.
The questionnaire unexpectedly received unprompted positive feedback from the participants. Two respondents complimented the questionnaire structure post-interview, saying it was easy to follow, and that it “tackled a controversial issue in a comfortable way”. Several participants also expressed an interest in reading the study afterwards. All participants were thanked at the end of the interview and once again given the researcher’s contact information in the case they had any additional inquiries.
The Russian population. Overall, the Russian participants reported not being extensively familiar with the idea of criminal deterrence, laws, or the functioning of the criminal justice system. However, after the general concepts have been explained to them, they had a lot to say about violent crime and, specifically, domestic violence in the Russian population. Regarding the overall criminal statistic, all participants except one reported that there have been some minor improvements to the criminal justice system, and that they feel safer from crime now than they felt five years ago. However, most of them pointed out that this statement only applied to large cities such as Moscow and Saint-Petersburg as opposed to the province3, and that overall, existing policies seemed more effective in terms of punishment than deterrence (especially regarding violent and drug-related cases). When asked about potential improvements, most participants reported that the most important issue would be changing the Russian “lenient” mentality about crime and violence. However, policies such as increasing the presence of police patrol, establishing prompt crime call response policies, ensuring criminal procedure adherence and eliminating police corruption were also listed. Despite not being very familiar with the functioning of the criminal justice system, most participants reported knowing the general scope of violent crime and, in particularly, of domestic violence, either via the media reports or, as one participant put it, via “everyday life”, since she knew a victim personally. Most claimed that, while the crime statistic “bothered” them, they were not surprised. The general attitude of participants can be summed up by the words of Sonya from Moscow4: “We Russians have trouble viewing violence as something abnormal”.
Going into more specific questions regarding domestic violence, most participants reported that they consider domestic violence a prominent social problem due to the “normalization” and “state’s ignorance” of the issue. As examples, participants stated that most women are afraid to report the crime or are unwilling to leave their aggressors due to the idea that this constitutes betrayal/unfaithfulness, or the fear of being stigmatized. Two participants offered personal stories regarding the issue. One (Martha, St. Petersburg) said that several of her friends fell victim to relationship violence, but “none of the aggressors were punished”. The other (Aglaya, Moscow) told that her mother knew a child whose mother was killed in a domestic violence incident during her teaching career. Most participants agreed that, until recently, the issue has been actively concealed and one reason why today’s statistic is so alarming is the trend of under-reporting domestic violence incidents during the earlier years. When asked about existing state-sponsored preventative measures against domestic violence, two participants claimed that they didn’t think any existed, and the rest listed very “general” initiatives such as public service advertisements and police counseling. The only potential criminal punishment reported by participants was the battery charge, which is punished by either community service or jail/prison time ranging from 15 days to 2 years. (The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Article 300). As mentioned before, no specific statutes criminalizing domestic violence currently exist in the Russian Federation. The participants were able to list more examples when asked about the community initiatives against domestic violence. Reported efforts included rallies, media efforts and blogs dedicated to the problem, insurance-covered therapy and counseling, church-sponsored housing, and fundraisers. However, despite all the options listed, most participants agreed that they do not constitute effective prevention without a specific law in place, and that the overall mentality is still very permissive towards domestic violence.
Finally, the participants were asked to rate existing preventive measures against domestic violence deemed effective by American researchers. Most chose “mass media” and “education efforts” as the most effective primary strategy, since the reported main source of the problem was the already mentioned “lenient” mentality towards violence. The participants stated that education and media coverage should at least have some impact on the existing perception on the problem, but, in order to work, these efforts must be consistent, based on empirical research and be ideally present both in school, at home, and in social settings. In other words, as Sonya put it, “law put aside, any changes would require a complete change of mentality”. The idea of mandatory reports in healthcare settings was more controversial, since some participants believed that this kind of practice had potential for abuse (such as not reporting in exchange for bribes) and could be considered a “family life disruption” by the very vocal Orthodox Christian community.
In terms of the secondary and tertiary strategies, the participants deemed the expansion of women’s shelter networks, mandatory therapy for both perpetrators and victims, and the increase of sentence length for domestic violence charges to be he most effective strategies. Some participants also responded rather enthusiastically to the idea of arresting the perpetrator after the first incident (which is probably the best known prevention strategy in America to date), but others were concerned about the issue of post-release recidivism. The most controversial item was the mandatory home visitation program, as the participants claimed it would be difficult to ensure professionalism (social work is a relatively new field in Russia) and that ensuring improvement would be near impossible unless the household was under constant surveillance.
Finally, when asked about their idea about the most potentially effective preventative measure in their opinion, participants have proposed the following: a) efforts to increase the overall quality of life, including education, housing, and the economy; b) education and mass media efforts promoting a different mentality and social awareness of the issue; c) mandatory arrest and surveillance programs; d) police professionalism; e) increased funding for shelters and other victim resources; f) normalization and increased availability of mental health services. A specific law criminalizing domestic violence was also mentioned by all participants, but most have indicated that one law would not be enough to fix the problem, and that additional community efforts such as listed above would help to solidify its effect.
The American population. All American participants except one reported being familiar with at least the general idea of criminal deterrence, as well as the functioning of the USA criminal justice system, although many had doubts as to their knowledge of the law. All participants assessed the current deterrent practices as not effective, or “only effective against petty crimes”, and, in general, were as critical of the USA criminal justice system as the Russian participants were of theirs.
Only two participants out of six reported feeling more secure now in terms of crime protection than five years ago; the rest reported that they still did not feel safe from crime, especially during vulnerable times, such as “when walking somewhere at night”. When asked to list potential improvements to the USA justice system, the participants suggested increasing gun control, implementing harsher punishments for sexually based offenses, ensuring police professionalism, funding rehabilitative and restorative justice programs, and, on the whole, improving the relationship between law enforcement/governmental entities and the general public. One of the participants offered a personal story: having survived a school shooting, she believes that restricting gun laws and limiting weapon accessibility would have a huge impact on citizen safety. In regards to the scope of violent crimes, participants showed two different trends. Two were rather cynical, reporting that they are aware of the scope, but it does not surprise them. Two more reported a more optimistic attitude, claiming that, according to their sources (a parent of one works in the criminal justice system), the rates have somewhat “gone down” in the latest years, and the rest said that they try to avoid this type of content on the news. Per the scope of domestic violence, four participants reported not being familiar with the issue, but were interested in learning more, and expressed a concern about the issue not being a major part of the public discourse despite its high prevalence. Two participants, however, ended up coming from the same sorority engaged in domestic violence fundraisers, and therefore had a good grasp on the statistics.
All participants agreed with the statement that domestic violence is a prominent social problem in their country and stressed that, while, some laws and policies exist, the issue is not being discussed enough and is still subject to social stigma. When asked if they knew any state-sponsored efforts aimed at the prevention of domestic violence, all participants stated that they knew policies or laws existed, but struggled to list any specific ones, although some mentioned Title IX and the Three Strikes policy (which are not directly pertinent to the offense). All participants also agreed that existing measures are not effective in terms of prevention. When asked to provide some community initiatives, participants listed items such as: a) internet flash mobs and blogs dedicated to destigmatization of domestic and sexual violence such as #MeToo; b) couples counseling; c) shelter and safe housing initiatives in the community; d) political activism; e) online seminars, workshops and discussions that focus on victim rehabilitation and community awareness. All participants expressed their belief in that the community initiatives on education and advocacy have been much more effective in prevention of domestic policies as opposed to concrete laws and policies.
When asked to evaluate primary domestic violence prevention strategies, American participants overall provided opinions similar to these of the Russian sample. Statewide education efforts aimed at denormalization of violence and patriarchal standards, as well as increasing media coverage of the issue were overall deemed effective. The idea of mandatory reports in healthcare setting was also similarly viewed as controversial by participants due to privacy concerns, although one of them pointed out that this initiative could contribute to more efficacy regarding rape kits. Most participants agreed that the public discussion and visibility of the issue are one of the most important elements of mitigating its effects.
Per secondary and tertiary efforts, the top three strategies chosen as the most effective by American participants were: a) increasing the number and the availability of women’s shelters’ network; b) mandatory therapy for perpetrators, with or without a prison sentence; c) implementing a policy of prioritizing domestic violence cases in the criminal justice system. While the first two items are the same as those chosen by the Russian respondents, the third most popular option chosen by them (increasing the sentence length for domestic violence) was the most polarized amongst American participants. Some argued that it’s “a no-brainer” that this would work, and that it “would be effective as both as a security and a deterrence measure”, while others stated that they believed “it would not deter anybody” and that it would not be effective unless the sentence was “life without parole”. The general consensus on this item was that, while increased sentence length could provide post-incident security, it would be questionable as a deterrence measure. Home visitation programs were not deemed effective by most participants due to maintenance and potential privacy breaches. Arresting the perpetrator after the first incident was overall perceived as effective, but some participants expressed concerns as to whether it would truly disable a recidivist.
When asked about the potentially most effective way of preventing and limiting the scope of domestic violence in the USA, American participants made the following suggestions: a) increasing the general awareness about the issue, promoting public discourse and de-stigmatizing victimization; b) increasing the number of shelters and other resources available to battered women; c) implementing appropriate changes in the education system and childcare settings; d) taking domestic violence more seriously in the criminal justice system, providing workshops on call response, improving the overall competence of the officers and other system workers; e) funding social and healthcare services and increasing the overall quality of life.
The Russian and the American participants showed many more similarities in their responses than originally anticipated. Both samples were relatively aware of the scope of domestic violence in their country despite only a few being familiar with the functioning of the criminal justice system and overall crime tendencies, and both actively condemned the normalization of violence in their respective cultures. Regardless of a concrete domestic violence statute existing in their country, the participants identified education, public awareness, and discourse as the most effective primary components of domestic violence prevention that would be the most likely to lead to actual social change. Furthermore, the participants reflected similar attitudes on the effectiveness of existing secondary and tertiary prevention strategies: both rated increasing the number and availability of women’s shelters and mandatory therapy for known perpetrators as the most feasible options.
The most important difference reflected in the responses was that the Russian participants displayed stronger pro-incarceration attitudes, rating the increased sentence length for domestic violence as one of the most effective strategies, wherein the American participants were quite doubtful about that item. This difference is likely explained by the notorious fact of American prison and jail overcrowding and the controversy of “tough on crime” policies. Other significant differences included the fact that Russian participants were, on the whole, more familiar with the extent of domestic violence and more reported knowing victims personally. In conclusion, it appears that, contrary to the original hypothesis, the existence of a concrete domestic violence statute does not lead to different perceptions of prevention strategies; or a significantly smaller scope of domestic violence on the whole. Thus, the main takeaway from the study seems to be that certain preventative measures on the part of the state and the law are not as effective as one would think if they are not combined with social and educational efforts on the part of the entire community. It is therefore imperative for us as criminal justice researchers to focus on the development of programs that target the normalization of domestic violence in the American and Russian cultures and implement new, prosocial norms that are intolerant of violence inside and outside of the home. Only if we succeed in weaving this new social fabric, may the laws lead to desired results, and this task may only be achieved if the government, the educational institutions, the criminal justice system and the citizens are joined in this effort despite political and cultural differences. It is true that violence has become a global norm; and therefore, only a global prevention strategy may finally fix it.
Afonkin, G. P. (2013). Современные проблемы правового обеспечения уголовной ответственности за семейное (домашнее) насилие в России [Modern Problems of Legal Provision of Criminal Liability for Family (Domestic) Violence in Russia]. Полицейская и следственная деятельность [Police and investigative work], 3, 56–74.
Domestic Violence Statistics. (n. d.). Retrieved February 6, 2020, from https://ncadv.org/statistics.
Edleson, J. L. (2000). Primary Prevention and Adult Domestic Violence. Minnesota Center Against Domestic Violence and Abuse, 1–17.
Maxwell, C.D., Garner, J.H., Fagan J.A. (2001). The Effects of Arrest on Intimate Partner Violence: New Evidence From the Spouse Assault Replication Program. National Department of Justice Research Brief from July 2001.
Mukhanova, E. D. (2017). Насилие в семье: проблема социальная и правовая [Domestic Violence: A Social and Legal Problem]. «Наука. Мысль», (4), 144–148.
Rostovskaya, T. K., Kaliev , T. B., Zavialova , N. B., & Bezverni, V. A. (2018). Профилактика насилия как фактор безопасности семьи: российский и казахстанский опыт [Prevention of Violence as a Factor of Family Safety: Russian and Kazakh Experience]. Женщина в российском обществе [Woman in Russian Society], 78–88.
Wolfe, D. A., & Jaffe , P. G. (2012). Emerging Strategies in the Prevention of Domestic Violence. The Future of Children , 9(3), 133–144.
Реальный масштаб домашнего насилия в России. 20 чисел [The real scale of domestic violence in Russia. 20 numbers]. (2020, January 28). Retrieved February 4, 2020, from https://meduza.io/feature/2020/01/28/realnyy-masshtab-domashnego-nasiliya-v-rossii-20-tsifr.
Уголовный Кодекс РФ [The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation]. 1996.
Проект Федерального Закона «О профилактике семейно-бытового насилия в Российской Федерации» [Draft Law on Prevention of Domestic Violence in the RF]. 2019.
Loyola University Chicago (2020, B.S. in criminal justice and criminology, magna cum laude), paralegal at Reem Odeh Law Offices (immigration and family law). [email protected]
Keywords: domestic violence, intimate partner violence, partner violence, intimate partner violence in the United States, intimate partner violence in Russia, preventative measures against domestic violence, deterrence of domestic violence.
Abstract: Domestic violence (intimate partner violence, IPV) is a pervasive issue in both the Russian Federation and in the United States. Despite the fact that they both deal with significant levels of both reported and unreported IPV, the two countries have a very different legal approach to solving the issue: the United States has a set of laws aimed at the prevention and punishment of domestic and intimate partner violence, while the Russian Federation does not. The goal of this paper was to determine whether life in a society that does or does not have a functioning domestic violence law affects the perceived effectiveness of various social and public policy (non-legal) preventative measures. For these purposes, six academic articles on the issue from both Russian and American/Canadian research journals were reviewed, a list of strategies that were deemed potentially effective in both sources was compiled, and a questionnaire was structured around it. Afterwards, 12 women from Russia and the United States were questioned on their opinions regarding the selected preventative measures and whether they would be effective or not. Based on their responses, it can be concluded that the perceived effectiveness of educational, cultural and community-based efforts is significantly higher compared to court and police-based efforts, and they are viewed as more realistic in regards to long-term implementation.