Hounded Women: The IPV Protocol and the Autonomy of Abuse Victims

and Maud Faïle Gauthier-Chung
  • Corresponding author
  • London School of Economics and Political Science, Government Department, Houghton Street, London, WC2 2AE, UK
  • Email
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar


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.

  • Anderson, J. (2014). ‘Regimes of Autonomy’, Ethical Theory Moral Practice 17: 355–368.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • Chiu, E. (2001). ‘Confronting the Agency in Battered Mothers’, The Southern California Law Review 74: 1223–1274.

  • 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/.

  • Conly, S. (2013). Against Autonomy-Justifying Coercive Paternalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

  • Crenshaw, K. (1991). ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color’, Standford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–1299.

  • 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.

  • Deveaux, M. (2006). Gender and Justice in Multicultural States (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

  • Dutton, M.A. and Goodman, L.A. (2005). ‘Coercion in Intimate Partner Violence: Toward a New Conceptualization’, Sex Roles 52 (11/12): 743–775.

  • 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.

  • Friedman, M. (2003). Autonomy, Gender, Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

  • 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.

  • Foohey, P. (2008). ‘Applying the Lessons of GPS Monitoring of Batterers to Sex Offenders’, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 43: 281–284.

  • 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).

  • Hamby, S. (2014). Battered Women’s Protective Strategies: Stronger than You Know (New York: Oxford University Press).

  • Hanna, C. (1998). ‘The Paradox of Hope: The Crime and Punishment of Domestic Violence’, William & Mary Law Review 39 (5): 1505–1584.

  • Hooks, B. (2000). Feminist Theory: From Margins to Center (London: Pluto Press).

  • 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.

  • Jones, R. (2000). ‘Guardianship for Coercively Controlled Battered Women: Breaking the Control of the Abuser’, The Georgetown Law Journal 55: 605–657.

  • Khader, S. (2011). Adaptive Preferences and Women’s Empowerment (New York: Oxford University Press).

  • Lépinard, É. (2011). ‘Autonomy and the Crisis of the Feminist Subject: Revisiting Okin’s Dilemma’, Constellations 18 (2): 205–221.

  • Mackenzie, C. and Stoljar, N.Ed (2000). Relational Autonomy-Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

  • Maddhok, S., Phillips, A., and Wilson, K. (2013). Introduction. Gender, Agency, and Coercion (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan), 1–13.

  • Mahoney, M.R. (1991). ‘Legal Images of Battered Women: Redefining the Issue of Separation’. Michigan Law Review 90 (1): 1–94.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Miccio, G.K. (2005). ‘Domestic Violence, and the Conservatization of the Battered Women’s Movement’, Houston Law Review 42 (2): 237–323.

  • Mills, L.G. (1999). ‘Killing Her Softly: Intimate Abuse and the Violence of State Intervention’, Harvard Law Review 113: 550–613.

  • Mills, L.G. (2003). Insult to Injury: Rethinking Our Responses to Intimate Abuse (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

  • 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).

  • 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.html

  • Oshana, M.A.L. (2006). Personal Autonomy in Society (Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing).

  • Okin, S.M. (1998). ‘Feminism and Multiculturalism: Some Tensions’, Ethics 108 (4): 661–684.

  • Raz, J. (1986). The Morality of Freedom (Oxford: Clarendon).

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Sack, E.J. (2004). ‘Battered Women and the State: The Struggle for the Future of Domestic Violence Policy’, Wisconsin Law Review (35): 1658–1739.

  • Schneider, E.M. (2000). Battered Women & Feminist Lawmaking (New Haven: Yale University Press).

  • 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.

  • Showden, C.R. (2011). Choices Women Make: Agency in Domestic Violence, Assisted Reproduction, and Sex Work (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).

  • Stark, E. (2007). Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (New York: Oxford University Press).

  • Stoljar, N. (2000). ‘Autonomy and the Feminist Intuition’, in C. Mackenzie and N. Stoljar (eds.). Relational Autonomy (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

  • Stoljar, N. (2014). ‘Autonomy and Adaptive Preference Formation’, in A. Veltman and M. Piper (eds.). Autonomy, Oppression and Gender (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

  • Suk, J. (2009). At Home in the Law: How the Domestic Violence Revolution Is Transforming Privacy (New Haven: Yale University Press).

  • Wall, S. (1998). Liberalism, Perfectionism and Restrain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
Price including VAT
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.

Journal + Issues

Moral Philosophy and Politics is an international, peer-reviewed journal for original philosophical articles on issues of public relevance. Of particular interest to the journal are the philosophical assessment of policy and its normative basis, analyses of the philosophical underpinnings or implications of political debate and reflection on the justice or injustice of the social and political structures which regulate human action.