Abstract
In the early 90s, many jurisdictions adopted a special protocol in an effort to stop and punish intimate partner abuse. This article focuses on the particular form this policy has taken in the New York County jurisdiction, as it is a source of deep disagreement among feminists. In this article, I explore this disagreement in order to demonstrate two things. First, that like many other contentious issues, this controversy revolves around the question of how oppressed individuals’ autonomy should be conceived. Second, that a structural understanding of autonomy, such as the one pioneered by the philosopher Joseph Raz, can be of great use to resolve disagreements on this protocol. I offer an interpretation of his account which enables us to acknowledge the agency of ‘hounded women’ while legitimizing interventions aimed at eradicating the coercion they are victims of.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Anne Phillips, Natalie Stoljar, Christopher Mills, and Vincent Grondin for their useful comments on earlier versions of this paper.
References
Anderson, J. (2014). ‘Regimes of Autonomy’, Ethical Theory Moral Practice 17: 355–368.10.1007/s10677-013-9448-xSearch in Google Scholar
Bassuk, E., Melnick, S., and Browne, A. (1998). ‘Responding to the Needs of Low Income and Homeless Women Who are Survivors of Family Violence.’, Journal of American Medical Women’s Association 53 (2): 57–64.Search in Google Scholar
Campbell, C., and Jenevieve M. (2016). ‘Conceptualising the agency of highly marginalised women: Intimate partner violence in extreme settings’, Global Public Health 11: 1–16.10.1080/17441692.2015.1109694Search in Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Intimate Partner Violence Surveillance –Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements (Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control).Search in Google Scholar
Chiu, E. (2001). ‘Confronting the Agency in Battered Mothers’, The Southern California Law Review 74: 1223–1274.Search in Google Scholar
Christman, J. 2015. ‘Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/autonomy-moral/.Search in Google Scholar
Conly, S. (2013). Against Autonomy-Justifying Coercive Paternalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).10.1017/CBO9781139176101Search in Google Scholar
Crenshaw, K. (1991). ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color’, Standford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–1299.10.2307/1229039Search in Google Scholar
Davis, R.L. (2001). ‘Mandatory Arrest and Restraining Orders are Ineffective’, in J.D. Lloyd (ed.). Family Violence (San Diego: Greenhaven Press), pp. 116–121.Search in Google Scholar
Deveaux, M. (2006). Gender and Justice in Multicultural States (Oxford: Oxford University Press).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199289790.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Dutton, M.A. and Goodman, L.A. (2005). ‘Coercion in Intimate Partner Violence: Toward a New Conceptualization’, Sex Roles 52 (11/12): 743–775.10.1007/s11199-005-4196-6Search in Google Scholar
Fedders, B. (1997). ‘Lobbying for Mandatory-Arrest Policies: Race, Class, and the Politics of the Battered Women’s Movement’, Review of Law and Social Change XXIII: 282–300.Search in Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (2003). Autonomy, Gender, Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).10.1093/0195138503.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (2014). ‘Moral Responsibility fo Coerced Wrongdoing: The Case of Abused Women Who “Fail to Protect” Their Children’. in C. Mackenzie, W. Rogers and S. Dodds (eds). Vulnerability New Essays In Ethics And Feminist Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 222–241.Search in Google Scholar
Foohey, P. (2008). ‘Applying the Lessons of GPS Monitoring of Batterers to Sex Offenders’, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 43: 281–284.Search in Google Scholar
Gies, S.V., Gainey, R., Cohen, M.I., Healy, E., Duplantier, D., Yeide, M., Bekelman, A., Bobnis, A., and Hopps, M. (2012). Monitoring High-Risk Sex Offenders with GPS Technology: An Evaluation of the California Supervision Program, Final Report (Wisconsin: U.S. Department of Justice).Search in Google Scholar
Hamby, S. (2014). Battered Women’s Protective Strategies: Stronger than You Know (New York: Oxford University Press).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199873654.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Hanna, C. (1998). ‘The Paradox of Hope: The Crime and Punishment of Domestic Violence’, William & Mary Law Review 39 (5): 1505–1584.Search in Google Scholar
Hooks, B. (2000). Feminist Theory: From Margins to Center (London: Pluto Press).Search in Google Scholar
Johson, M.P. and Leone, J.M. (2005). ‘The Differential Effects of Intimate Terrorism and Situational Couple Violence-Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey’, Journal of Family Issues 6 (3): 322–349.10.1177/0192513X04270345Search in Google Scholar
Jones, R. (2000). ‘Guardianship for Coercively Controlled Battered Women: Breaking the Control of the Abuser’, The Georgetown Law Journal 55: 605–657.Search in Google Scholar
Khader, S. (2011). Adaptive Preferences and Women’s Empowerment (New York: Oxford University Press).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777884.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lépinard, É. (2011). ‘Autonomy and the Crisis of the Feminist Subject: Revisiting Okin’s Dilemma’, Constellations 18 (2): 205–221.10.1111/j.1467-8675.2011.00634.xSearch in Google Scholar
Mackenzie, C. and Stoljar, N.Ed (2000). Relational Autonomy-Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar
Maddhok, S., Phillips, A., and Wilson, K. (2013). Introduction. Gender, Agency, and Coercion (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan), 1–13.10.1057/9781137295613Search in Google Scholar
Mahoney, M.R. (1991). ‘Legal Images of Battered Women: Redefining the Issue of Separation’. Michigan Law Review 90 (1): 1–94.10.2307/1289533Search in Google Scholar
Meyer, S. (2012). ‘Why Women Stay: A Theoretical Examination of Rational Choice and Moral Reasoning in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence’, Journal of Criminology 45: 179–193.10.1177/0004865812443677Search in Google Scholar
Meyer, S. (2016). ‘Examining Women’s Agency in Managing Intimate Partner Violence and the Related Risk of Homelessness: The Role of Harm Minimisation’, Global Public Health 11 (1–2): 198–210.10.1080/17441692.2015.1047390Search in Google Scholar
Miccio, G.K. (2005). ‘Domestic Violence, and the Conservatization of the Battered Women’s Movement’, Houston Law Review 42 (2): 237–323.Search in Google Scholar
Mills, L.G. (1999). ‘Killing Her Softly: Intimate Abuse and the Violence of State Intervention’, Harvard Law Review 113: 550–613.10.2307/1342332Search in Google Scholar
Mills, L.G. (2003). Insult to Injury: Rethinking Our Responses to Intimate Abuse (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Search in Google Scholar
Narayan, U. (2002). ‘Minds of Their Own: Choices, Autonomy, Cultural Practices and Other Women’, in M. Louise (eds.). A Mind of One’s Own Feminist Essays on Reason and Objectivity (Anthony and Charlotte E. Witt, Boulder: Westview Press).Search in Google Scholar
National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV). 2008. GPS Monitoring of Offenders. Online: http://nnedv.org/resources/safetynetdocs/154-organizational-technology-capacity-development/1021-gps-monitoring-of-offenders.htmlSearch in Google Scholar
Oshana, M.A.L. (2006). Personal Autonomy in Society (Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing).Search in Google Scholar
Okin, S.M. (1998). ‘Feminism and Multiculturalism: Some Tensions’, Ethics 108 (4): 661–684.10.1086/233846Search in Google Scholar
Raz, J. (1986). The Morality of Freedom (Oxford: Clarendon).Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, A.R. (2007). ‘Overview and New Directions for Intervening on Behalf of Battered Women’, in Albert R. Roberts (ed.). Battered Women and Their Families, 3rd Edition (New York: Springer), pp. 3–32.Search in Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, D.L. (2007). ‘GPS Monitoring Systems for Batterers: Exploring a New Paradigm of Offender Accountability and Victim/Survivor Safety’, Domestic Violence Report 12: 49–52.Search in Google Scholar
Sack, E.J. (2004). ‘Battered Women and the State: The Struggle for the Future of Domestic Violence Policy’, Wisconsin Law Review (35): 1658–1739.Search in Google Scholar
Schneider, E.M. (2000). Battered Women & Feminist Lawmaking (New Haven: Yale University Press).Search in Google Scholar
Shackelford Todd, K. and Mouzos, J. (2005). ‘Partner Killing by Men in Cohabitating and Marital Rela- Tionships’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 20 (10): 1310–1324.Search in Google Scholar
Showden, C.R. (2011). Choices Women Make: Agency in Domestic Violence, Assisted Reproduction, and Sex Work (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).10.5749/minnesota/9780816655953.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Stark, E. (2007). Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (New York: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar
Stoljar, N. (2000). ‘Autonomy and the Feminist Intuition’, in C. Mackenzie and N. Stoljar (eds.). Relational Autonomy (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar
Stoljar, N. (2014). ‘Autonomy and Adaptive Preference Formation’, in A. Veltman and M. Piper (eds.). Autonomy, Oppression and Gender (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar
Suk, J. (2009). At Home in the Law: How the Domestic Violence Revolution Is Transforming Privacy (New Haven: Yale University Press).Search in Google Scholar
Wall, S. (1998). Liberalism, Perfectionism and Restrain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).10.1017/CBO9780511583339Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
