“The bodies of a man and woman, and that of a baby, have been found in a house on a rural property south of Darwin in the Northern Territory, when police carried out a welfare check after a tip-off”.

Such a tragic headline story has once again appeared in our media. A follow-up report indicated that the incident is thought to have been an example of a “Domestic Violence Event”.

“Domestic Violence”

What does that description imply? What might it tell us about the cause of the tragedy? Does it make us feel a little less anxious about our own safety? Or does it make us perplexed and concerned about how such an event could unfold? Does the label seem to be a bit too close to the bone if our home life is itself prone to conflict or aggression? 

All the term literally means is a violent episode in a home setting. We all hope to see our home as our safe place, our retreat from worldly stress or threat. But the reality is that the majority of assaults and murders are likely to be within the context of an intimate relationship or a social network of family, friends or associates – therefore quite likely to occur at home. 

The old saying “Your friends, family, kith and kin, the most likely to do you in” indicates that this situation is not a new thing.

When we think about murder, we most often might be concerned about a random assault from a stranger when in a vulnerable or isolated place, or having a serial killer on the prowl. We wouldn’t generally see the risk as being close to home or see it as coming from someone we know well, even a member of our family.

The majority of us will never encounter serious violence so close to home.  Very commonly, when neighbours are interviewed for their reactions to a murder nearby, they will respond with something like – “It’s a shock. It’s usually so quiet here, nothing like this ever happens in our street”.

But domestic violence is common. Being hidden within the home, even close neighbours may be oblivious to it. It can take many forms. It might be non-physical but still traumatising – shouting,  bullying, denigrating, controlling, stalking, threatening. That behaviour may evolve into overt physical violence – pushing, kicking walls, slapping, punching, throwing things, choking, coercing unwanted sexual activity. Men are most often the ones expressing the violence, but women can also be violent and commit murder.

 Life-threatening assault or actual murder has its origins via various pathways. It may result from combinations of personality disorder, intoxication with drugs or alcohol, relationship issues or custody disputes, where rage takes control. Once all the factors are known retrospectively, this pathway is comprehensible, but prior prediction and prevention is fraught with difficulty.

More shocking, and much harder to come to terms with, is domestic murder that seems to come out of the blue, with no logical cause. Psychosis can have an insidious onset and result in delusional beliefs and auditory hallucinations that render the sufferer a loss of insight, understanding and control. Most (but not all) cases of infant homicide arise from psychotic depression in the post-natal period, involving female offenders. Murder suicide involving whole families can result from psychotic depression, most commonly in men.

Planned, cold-blooded murder is less common but gains more notoriety and media attention. Murders for gain, money, revenge or the satisfaction of devious sexual desires all lack the ingredient of out-of-control rage or nihilistic despair. These murders are less likely to happen at home and generally would not be described as  domestic violence events.

So, my thoughts are – should we continue to describe home-based serious violent events, arising from multiple causes, as “Domestic Violence”? Is that helpful, or is it misleading and rather meaningless, given the diversity of phenomena the label encompasses. 

Using this label does carry certain useful messages. It tells us that the violence occurred at home. It implies that the threat was contained within the home; that the offender is not at large in the community. Therefore, that people in the vicinity can relax, albeit they may be shocked. No crazed armed person is going to be doing any more killing.

Using the label also carries the positive educational message that violence and murder often occurs at home. This could assist in a greater focus on domestic violence in terms of research, education and support services to assist victims, understand offenders better and develop preventative strategies.

My concern is that such a bland general term like Domestic Violence might sanitise the reality. Calling such a situation by a more specific description such as “suspected murder/suicide” would drive home the reality of the problem and ensure that full resources are applied to understanding exactly what occurred. It is difficult, of course, for the police to make a clear statement to the public until they have gathered full information, so a more general term such as Domestic Violence may be reasonable in the early stages of investigation.

It is vitally important that such tragic events be thoroughly explored, utilising the resources of police, courts, forensic specialists, forensic psychiatrists, psychologists and social scientists. Once the details are known, an appropriate specific label can be applied.

It is only by increasing our knowledge of how these events evolve in the home that we will be better able to see the red flags, anticipate the potential for severe violence, do full risk assessments and intervene before a tragedy occurs. 

Domestic Violence is a huge problem, actually a collection of problems, that is gradually gaining more attention and funding.

There have been recent legislative measures about coercive control, which can be a prelude to murder. An increased focus on the offender and prevention is welcome and overdue. There is a need in every case of a killing to firmly identify the offender. But that is not the end of the matter. Every murder has its prelude, the pathway that leads to the tragic ending. Every murder can teach us more about those pathways and give us more understanding about possible early interventions that might be able to stop the journey down similar pathways before the end is reached.

Our focus over the years has been to support the victims of violence and their loved ones. That is essential, but a greater  effort to understand violent offenders is more likely to increase our chances of preventing murder.