by Mike Willbur | Domestic Violence, Uncategorized
Familicide is considered a rare phenomenon and therefore, difficult to track the motivating factors and causation. In this case, was he a possessively jealous person? Is it the threat of loosing a possession that might bring this type reaction to the surface? This trait came to the surface as the marriage deteriorated due to the external factors such as failing finances and pending domestic violence charges. It was those internal factors in the life of this husband that dictated that final, ultimate, and desperate act of maintaining control over what he considered his possessions.
by Mike Willbur | Domestic Violence, Uncategorized
Clearly, if we read and research the court records of domestic violence, we will find that it is the male who dominates the perpetrator statistics. Likewise, if it is true that increasing convictions of the females within our western society are occurring, it is no less a societal problem.
A man for example, will put up with the so-called, nagging and occasional tantrums of his wife, but eventually will loose his temper and become the aggressor in the relationship. This is not to say perpetrators are not responsible for their actions because they most definitely are – no one should have to put up with being abused—physically or otherwise.
The wise always consider that this thing we call domestic violence has an equation attached to it. That is to say, it takes two. To what extent is not relevant because of one fact. The aggressor is responsible for the inflicted injuries.
The implication here is simply to say, conflict resolution training should be a mandate in every domestic violence treatment program, and yes, and there must be a way to prepare the couple for eventual training in this area. This will not work if the relationship is being dissolved, but for a couple who is willing to work through their differences, there should be a integrated approach to treatment as difficult as this may seem to some.
The vision here is to have the aggressor complete with a passing grade, the phase of perpetrator treatment that deals with taking responsibility for one’s actions. This should then be followed by some intensive family treatment, specializing in resolving problems in an amicable way.
Yes, I am saying that a victim can also be a perpetrator — a passive aggressive perpetrator to be exact. And regardless of how society chooses to play it out, it still takes two to tango and always will. This is what makes it a family and societal problem. It is the society’s views on relationships that can have meaningful impact on the way marital couples resolve their differences.
Where and when should this training begin? Our first inclination is to say the family of course, but if this is a societal problem, then it should be attacked on a macro level to effectively change the world view of so many who will enter into relationships.
At what age is it appropriate for our public school system to implement courses of study surrounding conflict resolution? When are our children capable of independent thought? This is where the answer lies and the sooner we begin the daunting task, the better.
by Mike Willbur | Domestic Violence, Uncategorized
Domestic Violence is progressive. Given this fact, we gain insights into why the person who is subjected to this violence doesn’t just leave.
The primary reason given by victims of domestic violence for staying or returning to the perpetrator is fear of violence in consequence of leaving and the lack of real options for safety with their children.This fear of the violence is realistic. Research on battered women shows that the lethality of the perpetrator’s violence often increases when the perpetrator believes that the victim has left or is about to leave the relationship (Campbell, J., 1992, Wilson & Daly, 1993). This certainly held true for Tuan Dao’s case.
The literature suggests several indicators for homicide against the victim: the perpetrators’ obsession with the victim, a pattern of escalating physical violence — increased risk-taking by the batterer; threats to kill the victim and self; substance abuse; and a gun in the household (Campbell, J., 1992; Saunders, 1994; Hart & Gondolf, 1984; Kellerman, et al., 1993). In Tuan Dao’s history, there are threats of suicide but not homicide. He did however, in recent years, escalate his violence in the home and in fact, at times, he took out his frustrations on his children, using punishment as a front through which he expressed his frustration with his inability to cope.
by Mike Willbur | Familicide, Uncategorized
Filicide-Suicide (the deliberate act of a parent killing their own child or children while subsequently taking their own life) is usually an extremely unpredictable act; one that is not anticipated by reasonable minds and one that is committed by a mentally deluded individual.
Efforts to rationalize this tragic and outrageous behavior are often attempted by blaming someone else other than the perpetrator for the events that unfold; however, the blame virtually always belongs squarely on the shoulders of the individual who perpetrated the crime. There is simply no reasonable explanation for a father intentionally killing his own children because he is psychologically distraught by his own personal failures or due to the fact that other people in his life are less than accepting or empathetic to his disappointments.
There is also no reason for any person to expect that a father would murder his own children unless he showed outward signs of extreme psychosis. Such an act is the product of an unstable and confused mind and not the product of other people’s criticism of the perpetrator’s past mistakes preceding the commission of the crime. Quite simply, the blame for filicide-suicide lies with the person who committed the crime.
The principal reasons someone perpetrates such an act of violence have been classified into 4 major categories:
- A parent who is severely delusional who believes that they are performing an altruistic act (for example, saving their children from some imagined suffering);
- A parent that is acutely psychotic;
- A parent that commits unintentional filicide (were the parent is in a heat of anger and inadvertently kills the child) and;
- A parent who kills the child as an act of revenge against the spouse.
Obviously, altruistic filicide could be theoretically justified if there was a real and present threat that would otherwise cause the children to endure extraordinary suffering and subsequent death if the parent did not kill them to avoid this extraordinary suffering. However, this is not the circumstance in well over 99% of the cases of filicide-suicide.
Many of the parents who commit filicide that do not subsequently kill themselves, and parents who commit filicide that subsequently commit suicide (who leave notes of explanation for their deeds), attribute altruistic motives to their crimes. However, these attributions cannot be taken at face value because it is simply human nature to attempt to justify any act of impropriety.
