Ich habe neulich noch einmal ein Video gesehen in dem Simon Wilson Jordan Peterson interviewt und ihn fragt, ob nicht in Prozessen wie häuslicher Gewalt oder #MeToo-Fällen etc es das Opfer verdient so behandelt zu werden, als würde es die Wahrheit sagen.
Petersons Antwort (aus dem Transcript kopiert)
Peterson:because that isn’t how the adversarial system worksand I don’t think…Wilsonbut why not advocate for that?Peterson:because the adversarial system is a very effective judicial system andit’s certainly the case that among crimes that are falsely reported rapecrimes are at the top of the listso there is no believing the victim there’sno reason for people to assume that when they enter the criminal justice system that they’re going to be treated with kid gloves or treated easily that isn’t how it works noWilsonbut isn’t it so that we have a major social issue in this country, especially domestic violence is our really big issue. most police call-outs in this country are to do with what they call domesticPeterson:Yeah yes…Wilsonit’s not an issue that we’re going to resolve through the traditional adversarial approach of the courts and having most of the victims revictimisedPeterson:most of that would be best addressed by dealing with alcoholism because most of the cause of domestic violence is alcohol-relatedWilsonit is strongly relatedPeterson:yes and so we’re not looking at the proper causesWilsonBut it is not just look at looking at alcoholPeterson:it’s 50% 50% of violent crimes are a consequence of alcohol intoxication so it’s a huge concern
Four of alcohol’s dose- and rate-dependent pharmacological properties may increase the likelihood of human aggression. As an anxiolytic, alcohol is capable of reducing the inhibitory effect of fear on manifestation of aggressive behavior. As a psychomotor stimulant, alcohol can potentiate aggressive behavior, once evoked, or lower the threshold for such evocation. Alcohol-related disruption of certain higher order cognitive functions may reduce the inhibitory control generally exercised by previously established knowledge and decrease ability to plan in the face of threat or punishment. Finally, alcohol’s ability to increase pain sensitivity may increase the likelihood of defensive aggression. Discussion of the nature and relevance of these pharmacological properties is structured according to a heuristic and synthetic schema, predicated upon consideration of an inhibitory neuropsychological structure–the individually and culturally determined general expectancy set.
Acute alcohol intoxication produces changes in the cognitive functioning of normal individuals. These changes appear similar prima facie to those exhibited by individuals who sustain prefrontal lobe damage during adulthood. In order to test the validity of this observation, and to control for the confounding effects of expectancy, 72 male subjects were administered a battery of neuropsychological tests, within the context of a balanced-placebo design. Each subject received one of three widely different doses of alcohol. Analysis of the results of the cognitive test battery demonstrated that a high dose of alcohol detrimentally affects a number of functions associated with the prefrontal and temporal lobes, including planning, verbal fluency, memory and complex motor control. Expectancy does not appear to play a significant role in determining this effect. The implications of this pattern of impairment are analyzed and discussed.
This study investigated the relationships between provocation, acute alcohol intoxication, impaired frontal-lobe function, and aggressive behavior. The authors ranked 114 men according to their performance on two neuropsychological tests associated with frontal-lobe function. Forty-eight men (24 with scores in the upper and 24 with scores in the lower performance quartiles) participated in the full study. Half completed an aggression task while intoxicated, the remainder while sober. Aggression was defined as shock intensity delivered to a sham opponent. Shock intensity significantly increased as a main effect of provocation, alcohol intoxication, and lower cognitive performance. Furthermore, provocation interacted significantly with test performance such that individuals in the lower cognitive performance quartile responded to increased provocation with heightened aggression.
Crime statistics and controlled experiments both demonstrate that heavy drinking and violence co-occur. Studies analyzing crime statistics are unusually unanimous. Alcohol-intoxicated individuals are involved in the majority of violent crimes, including murders, assaults, sexual assaults, and family violence (Brain, 1986; CoiJins, 1981; Murdoch, Pihl, & Ross. 1990; Pemanen, 1976, 1981). Murdoch et al. (1990) examined 9,304 cases reported in 26 studies from 11 countries. Overall, 62% of violent offenders were drinking at the time of the crime. Comparison between studies revealed that the range of alcohol-related violent crime was 24% to 85%, which contrasted dramatically with the range reported for alcohol-related nonviolent crimes: 12% to 38%. It might be argued additionally that these figures are underestimates as it is an irregular and relatively recent occurrence for police to record physical measures of alcohol use.Typically, in most crime reports, there is merely a statement that the perpetrator of the crime was intoxicated. Those few studies examining physical measures of inebriation have concluded that individuals involved in violence were often drinking heavily, to levels well above those of legal intoxication (Mayfield, 1976; Shupe, 1954).
Murdoch et al. ’s (1990) review of26 studies also demonstrated that 45% of victims of violence were intoxicated when victimized. One of the first studies of victim-precipitated homicide found that 60% of victims had been drinking heavily (Wolfgang &. Strahan, 1956). This figure compares with that of the 47% estimated for victims drinking in offender-precipitated cases. The fact that each individual involved in a violent encounter is likely intoxicated might simply be a function of the environment in which aggression is likely to be expressed, rather than an effect of alcohol per se. In addition. crime statistics might also be affected by the fact that intoxicated individuals are perhaps both more likely to be apprehended and less likely to provide appropriate aid to their victims. Thus there are sufficient arguments to challenge any notion of causality in regard to the alcohol-aggression relationship, in the context of the real world.
Nonetheless controlled laboratory studies also demonstrate that a relationship between alcohol and violence exists, and suggest that intoxication may play a direct role in increasing aggression and victimization.
This paper reviews evidence regarding alcohol and domestic violence, including cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys, experimental studies of aggression and marital conflict, event-based research, and intervention studies with alcoholics. Based on this review, it is concluded that alcohol is a contributing cause in domestic violence, but neither a necessary nor sufficient cause. In addition, the evidence suggests that intoxication in the perpetrator of violence does not appear to excuse his aggression, but that intoxication in the victim is often viewed as an excuse for the perpetrator’s behavior. Based on this review, several tentative policy implications are discussed. In general, policies that reduce drinking, aggressive tendencies and conflict should have beneficial effects. Alcohol intervention/prevention should focus on men in the early stages of aggressive behavior and should include goals of reduced intoxication and management of anger/conflict. For more severe populations, alcohol interventions might have a beneficial impact, but they must be included as additional requirements in the overall criminal justice response, not as an alternative for other requirements. Finally, it is critical that research regarding alcohol and domestic violence move beyond simple studies of association and begin to frame these questions with an eye toward policy implications.
Aims A small number of studies have identified a positive relationship between alcohol outlet density and domestic violence. These studies have all been based on cross-sectional data and have been limited to the assessment of ecological correlations between outlet density and domestic violence rates. This study provides the first longitudinal examination of this relationship.
Design Cross-sectional time-series using aggregated data from small areas. The relationships between alcohol outlet density and domestic violence were assessed over time using a fixed-effects model. Controls for the spatial autocorrelation of the data were included in the model.
Setting The study uses data for 186 postcodes from within the metropolitan area of Melbourne, Australia for the years 1996 to 2005.
Measures Alcohol outlet density measures for three different types of outlets (hotel/pub, packaged liquor, on-premise) were derived from liquor licensing records and domestic violence rates were calculated from police-recorded crime data, based on the victim’s postcode.
Findings Alcohol outlet density was associated significantly with rates of domestic violence, over time. All three licence categories were positively associated with domestic violence rates, with small effects for general (pub) and on-premise licences and a large effect for packaged liquor licences. Conclusions: In Melbourne, the density of liquor licences is positively associated with rates of domestic violence over time. The effects were particularly large for packaged liquor outlets, suggesting a need for licensing policies that pay more attention to o off-premise alcohol availability.
Objective. —To evaluate the characteristics of victims and perpetrators of domestic assault.
Design and Setting. —Consecutive-sample survey study conducted at the scenes of police calls for domestic assault in Memphis, Tenn, in 1995.
Participants. —A total of 136 participants (72 victims and 64 assailants) involved in 62 incidents of domestic violence and 75 adult family members at the scene.
Main Outcome Measures. —Participants‘ responses to a confidential survey and review of police records.
Results. —Of 62 episodes of domestic assault, 42 (68%) involved weapons and 11 (15%) resulted in serious injury. Fifty-five (89%) of 62 assault victims reported previous assaults by their current assailants, 19 (35%) of them on a daily basis. Although nearly all assault victims had called the police for help on previous occasions, only 12 (22%) reported having ever sought medical care, counseling, or shelter because of domestic assault. Sixty (92%) of the 64 assailants reportedly used alcohol or other drugs on the day of the assault. Of the assailants, 28 (44%) had a history of arrest for charges related to violence, and 46 (72%) had an arrest for substance abuse. Eleven (15%) of the victims were children. Children directly witnessed 53 (85%) of the assaults.
Conclusions. —Most victims of domestic violence who had called the police rarely used medical or mental health facilities for problems related to family violence despite frequent assaults. Victims and assailants were willing to discuss their histories of family violence and undergo assessments at the scenes of police calls.