FAMSA, WESTERN CAPE
SUBMISSION ON THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL
FAMSA Western Cape would firstly like to in principle support the above mentioned bill. However it has to be kept in mind that there is still much room for clarification of terminology necessary e.g. "shared household" sec 1 (xx1) is not clear where the applicant lives within an extended family. etc. In this instance it is not clear whether shared household refers to the nuclear family or extended family. The definition of extended family needs clarification, especially as regards to urban vs. rural definitions.
Many organisations will be handling some of these issues, FAMSA Western Cape would like to address the issue of MANDATORY COUNSELLING which is NOT reflected in the bill.
From the onset I would like to quote our Deputy Minister of Justice, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, in her response to the Cape Times on Wednesday 22 July 1998, where she was reported in saying about the new bill:
"It would be important to develop a more "comprehensive package" to deal with the problem because you also want to assist the perpetrators or the people who commit domestic violence -
they themselves need to be involved in rehabilitation programmes. While protecting victims, methods of rehabilitation such as mediation and counselling also had to be explored. The intention was not just to separate family units."
If she has been quoted correctly, it sounds as if the Deputy Minister is paying lip service to the issue of rehabilitation, because there is no reference made to rehabilitation in the bill.
FAMSA Western Cape approached a member of the working group of the Law Commission who played an active role in the drawing up of the domestic violence bill, and asked why MANDATORY COUNSELLING was not included. Her response was, "Research overseas has shown that it does not make a difference", "therefore we decided not to include it".
This comment is shocking! How can we dismiss something we have not given the South African community the chance to adequately experience? Why has no-one approached us who are so actively involved with perpetrators what implications such a dismissal will result in?
I am convinced that this was given no serious consideration and therefore we would like to propose the following:
While FAMSA Western Cape strongly supports the bill in its attempt to provide safety for women and children, we also acknowledge that many women want the violence in the relationship to end, not their marriage.
FAMSA Western Cape has been in existence for 50 years and we’ve done pioneering work for the past 6 years in perpetrator programme, and our continued experience is that without any MANDATORY COUNSELLING abusive men will continue to deny that they have a problem. Without any form of intervention these men are incapable of changing their own behaviour.
While sufficient services exist for abused women the services for men are sorely lacking primarily due to a lack of them recognising that they need help. Should MANDATORY COUNSELLING be included in the bill, we will most definitely see an increase in the delivery in service to help abusive men.
The issue of cost of this delivery seems to be a pressing one to the Dept. of Justice, particularly magistrates who easily fine an abuser R300-00 while at our present cost of R35-00 per session for 10 sessions he could have used that money to pay for his rehabilitation, which he should. We can even go so far as to say that should anyone not be in a position to pay, for example due to unemployment, retrenchment, etc. individual arrangements can be made. Let the issue of cost not be use as an excuse. Instead lets examine why in the bill the maximum prison sentence is 5 years. While we are supportive of this, prison is not rehabilitation. Prison sentences should be implemented when rehabilitation has been unsuccessful.
With the high rate of violence in our country and heavy caseloads the magistrates courts have to contend with, using MANDATORY COUNSELLING as a first step will ease the heavy burden placed on courts, police and prison services. Not to mention the TREMENDOUS COST SAVING this would mean for all the relevant departments.
While we are unable to give exact statistics, FAMSA Western Cape does ongoing telephonic evaluations of our client base to determine the level of our success. Between 80% - 90% of our clients report satisfactory to more than satisfactory service delivery.
In closing we recommend that MANDATORY COUNSELLING should be incorporated in the final protection order. i.e. section 10 (14) should read:
Once a final order is granted the respondent shall attend mandatory counselling.
Details of which will be given to The Clerk of the Court OR alternatively when the interim or final protection orders are breached depending of course on the severity of the violence sustained.
We propose the former as we previously acknowledged that it is safer for the women and children for the perpetrator to be treated as soon as possible.
Why wait till he has breached the order? It may be too late.
It is our hope that the above be given the serious consideration it deserves.
S. Pratt (Mrs)
MANAGER OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROGRAMME