Debate batterers' treatment abusers be cured, or punished?
Debate rages on batterers' treatment Can abusers be cured, or must they be punished? By Bill Ibelle Standard-Times staff writer There is a quiet battle brewing among those who work with batterers over what type of treatment will best protect the victims of domestic violence. This treatment debate stems from a deeper schism over what makes batterers tick. On one side is the pro-feminist approach - espoused by David Adams of Emerge in Boston and Common Purpose of Quincy and Respect of Attleboro. They maintain that domestic abuse is the product of a sexist society that accepts male dominance over women. Men have been taught to view women as sex objects, that a women is a man's property and that it is both their right and their duty as men to dominate. ``What's at the core of this problem is that the men don't respect women,'' said Mr. Adams. ``What needs to change is that sense of entitlement - that it is their right to control the lives of their partners. Battering is not a sickness, it's a learned behavior.'' Following this line of reasoning, the pro-feminists view power and control as the driving force behind domestic violence. Batterers are control freaks who consciously manipulate their partners to ensure they get their way. On the other side of the debate is the psychological model - espoused locally by Robert Heskett of the Center for Non-Violence in New Bedford and Claude Verdier of the Family Services Association of Fall River. These men believe that violence stems from deep character flaws created by traumatic childhood experiences and stunted character development. Following this line of thinking, the best way to protect women is to explore, and ultimately change, the glaring character defects that drive the abuser. ``This is not a popular view these days,'' said Mr. Heskett. ``Our society finds something very threatening about looking at early childhood experiences.'' At the core of this treatment battle is a debate over whether batterers can change. Based on their belief that batterers are fundamentally controling, calculating, manipulative people, the pro-feminist thinkers believe this is a pie-in-the-sky hope. ``These are controling people and they don't want to change,'' said Mr. Adams. ``The abuse allows them to stay on top and they like it that way.'' As a result, these pro-feminist/behavior modification programs employ a social control approach to batterers' treatment that focuses almost exclusively on the here and now. Group leaders confront the batterers, forcing them to accept responsibility for their actions. They are not allowed to blame their behavior on their partner, alcohol, the economy, their temper, their childhood or any other excuse. They did it, there was no excuse - and they will either stop or be put in jail. Group members explore the attitudes toward women they use to justify their abuse. They learn ways to control their anger, and communicate more effectively with their partner. They learn that abuse is not just beatings, but also threats, insults, psychological abuse and economic control. ``The goal is not to change men, but to make the women safe and the men accountable,'' said Mr. Adams. Ed Gondolf, a domestic violence researcher at the Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute outside Pittsburgh, agrees that the confrontational method works best. ``There has been an ongoing debate between the psychological and the confrontational approach and there still isn't any conclusion,'' he said. \ ``But there is no doubt that men who come to batterer programs are like long-term alcoholics - they've developed tremendous systems of rationalization and denial and need a forceful and consistent message. The more you diffuse that message with psychology, the more it feeds into their rationalization.'' Mr. Gondolf believes the psychological model should be used only after batterers complete an intensive behaviorally oriented group like Emerge. ``You just don't make a very big dent into long-standing personality issues with short-term therapy,'' he said. ``Men can stop their violence and still be hurting, traumatized and scarred. It's not that these psychological matters shouldn't be tended to, it's a matter of when. It doesn't have to be either/or.'' But Richard Gelles, a nationally recognized domestic violence researcher at the University of Rhode Island, said there is no evidence that the confrontational method works best in all cases. Belief that it does is based more on what makes the treatment professional feel good than on any empirical evidence that it has the best results. While incorporating many of the principles and methods developed by Emerge and Common Purpose, proponents of the pyschological model believe the only way to protect women is to help the men change. ``I'm not against social control, in fact, I think it's very important,'' said Mr. Heskett. ``But if you want to make the effects of treatment last, you've got to make these men change from the inside out. If all you do is threaten them with the court and jail, it won't last. We try to help them understand why and when they're violent.'' Mr. Heskett said that surveys at area women's shelters have shown that 80 percent of women return to the men who batterered them. ``I think that indicates that we better be helping these men change so the relationship can improve,'' he said. To accomplish this goal, practitioners like Mr. Heskett in New Bedford and Mr. Verdier in Fall River dedicate the second half of their program to exploring the roots of violence. ``It's not politically correct these days to acknowledge the psychodynamics behind battering,'' said Mr. Verdier. ``Most batterers treatment springs from feminist thinking. We use this stuff but we don't relentlessly hammer at them with the feminist point of view.'' Mr. Verdier does not buy into the pro-feminist view that all batterers are calculating criminals. ``Most of these men are not proud of what they're doing,'' he said. ``A lot of their resistance to treatment is not wanting to face the shame. We try to foster pride in dealing with a situation in a way that shows respect for the partner.'' John DeJesus, director of batterers treatment at the Portuguese Youth Cultural Organization (PYCO) in Fall River, said a large portion of his program is spent helping batterers build their self-esteem. He said battering among his clientele is often based on jealousy that stems from deep insecurities. ``They're scared the woman will find someone smarter or someone more successful - so there's more control and intimidation,'' he said. ``By helping them improve their self-esteem, we teach them that their wife and their kids should stay because they want to spend time with them - not because they are forced to.'' Those who favor the pro-feminist/behavioral approach contend that allowing batterers to explore their inner wounds undermines the hard-won gains of the first half of the treatment. ``A lot of these men already view their lousy childhood as an excuse,'' said Beth Gerhardt, director of Respect, a batterers intervention group in Attleboro and Taunton. ``We don't get into their childhood. This is a behavioral education program. If you want to talk about that, go to a therapist. Here we want to discuss why you threw your partner down the stairs.'' Ms. Gerhardt said there is no research to support the notion that short-term therapy works. ``If you let them, they'll continually sidetrack you,'' she said. ``Going into their childhood is a bunch of malarkey. It's dangerous for the women.'' Patricia Holland-Heaps, co-director of the Center for Non-Violence with Mr. Heskett, disagrees. ``I don't believe the psychological approach allows them to weasel out of anything,'' she said. ``We're not letting them use it as an excuse. Before we even talk about that stuff, they have to accept responsibility.'' Mr. Heskett believes that batterers are more often pathetic than evil. A Maryland study concluded that 75 percent of all batterers witnessed abuse between their own parents and half were the victims of abuse themselves. According to Mr. Heskett, these childhood experiences fill future batterers with impotent rage - a rage they are forced to swallow throughout their childhood. ``They feel helpless, abandoned, manipulated and abused,'' said Mr. Heskett. ``They feel a need to right that situation, so when they get in a position of power, they use it. It's payback time. It's very much an unconscious process. It's automatic. It comes out of their gut.'' Mr. Heskett emphasizes that this view does not, in any way, relieve batterers of responsibility for their actions. He said only a small percentage of the men coming through his program are the macho control freaks described by Mr. Adams. In fact, most are passive in most aspects of their life and this passivity contributes to their explosive rage. If they're criticized by their boss, for example, they don't stick up for themselves or deal with the disagreement in a straightforward manner. They're compliant and swallow their frustration until it boils over at home later on. ``Having control at home is important because they've swallowed all this perceived hostility everywhere else,'' said Mr. Heskett. ``They can't tolerate any other problems and need to have their partner cater to all their needs.'' Thus Mr. Heskett believes one function of batterers' treatment should be to teach men to be more assertive in their lives. Proponents of the Emerge model say this is hogwash. As a psychologist, Mr. Adams said he is well aware of the impact of early life experiences on adult character. But there is a point, he said when severity of a person's present behavior outweighs any injuries of the past. ``Does a slave master need psychotherapy or consequences?'' he asked. ``That slave master may have been a victim himself in his early life, but when a victim crosses over that line and becomes and oppressor, there have to be consequences.'' http://www.s-t.com/projects/DomVio/debatetreatment.HTML