Family Violence and Judicial Empathy
Managing Personal Cross Examination in Australian Family Law Proceedings
##plugins.pubIds.doi.readerDisplayName##:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1037Gako-hitzak:
Family violence, family law, cross-examination, judging, emotionLaburpena
Enquiries and research reveal that many victims of family violence who are personally cross-examined by the alleged perpetrator of that violence in family law proceedings find the process traumatising and intimidating. Not only can such processes generate unsafe and unfair outcomes but also they are unlikely to produce the high quality evidence required by the court. In deference to the emotional wellbeing and vulnerability of these victims, a number of measures for receiving such evidence are available to Australian Family Court judges. However, currently these are all discretionary powers and anecdotal evidence suggests that the use of these tools is unpredictable and dependent on the individual judge. In the absence of empirical evidence, this paper aims to open up potential emotional dimensions of judicial decision-making in this context with a view to exploring these theoretical ideas in later empirical work.
##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF (English) 290
Erreferentziak
Abrams, K., 2010. Empathy and Experience in the Sotomayor hearings. Ohio Northern University Law Review [online], vol. 36, 263-286. Available from: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1858 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Australian Law Reform Commission, 2018. Review of the Family Law System. Discussion Paper Nº 86 [online]. Sydney, 2 October. Available from: https://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/dp86_review_of_the_family_law_system_4.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Bandes, S., 1996. Empathy, narrative, and victim impact statements. University of Chicago Law Review [online], 63, 361-412. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/1600234 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Bandes, S., 2017. Compassion and the rule of law. International Journal of Law in Context [online], 13(2), 184-196. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552317000118 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Bandes, S., and Salerno, J., 2014. Emotion, Proof and Prejudice: The Cognitive Science of Gruesome Photos and Victim Impact Statements. Arizona State Law Journal [online], 46, 1003-1056. Available from: http://arizonastatelawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Bandes-Salerno_Final.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Barbalet, J.M., 1998. Emotion, Social Theory and Social Structure: A Macrosociological Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Bergman Blix, S., and Wettergren, Å., 2016. A Sociological Perspective on Emotions in the Judiciary. Emotion Review [online], 8(1), 32-37. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073915601226 [Accessed 9 January 2019].
Bergman Blix, S., and Wettergren, Å., 2018. Professional Emotions in Court: A Sociological Perspective. London: Routledge.
Birnbaum, R., Bala, N., and Bertrand, L., 2012. The rise of self-representation in Canada’s family courts: The complex picture revealed in surveys of judges, lawyers and litigants. Canadian Bar Review [online], 91, 67-95. Available from: https://cbr.cba.org/index.php/cbr/article/view/4288/4281 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Booth, T., 2012. “Cooling out” victims of crime: Managing victim participation in the sentencing process in a superior sentencing court. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology [online], 45, 214-230. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865812443680 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Bowden, P., Henning, T., and Plater, D., 2014. Balancing Fairness to Victims, Society and defendants in the Cross-examination of Vulnerable witnesses: An Impossible Triangulation? Melbourne University Law Review [online], 37(3), 539–584. Available from: https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1699012/37_3_1.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Bryant, D., 2017. Submission to the “Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2017”—Public Consultation on Cross-examination Amendment [online]. 25 August. Available from: https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/ExposureDraftFamilyLawAmendment/The-Honourable-Diana-Bryant-AO-Submission.pdf [Accessed 16 April 2019].
Burton, M., Evans, R., and Sanders, A., 2007. Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses and the Adversarial process in England and Wales. International Journal of Evidence and Proof [online], 11(1), 1-23. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1350/ijep.2006.11.1.1 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Carson, R., et al., 2018. Direct cross‑examination in family law matters [online]. Report. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Available from: https://aifs.gov.au/publications/direct-cross-examination-family-law-matters/1-introduction [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Conway, H., and Stannard, J., eds, 2016. The Emotional Dynamics of Law and Legal Discourse. Oxford: Hart.
Cox, P.V., 2016. Violence against women in Australia: additional analysis of the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Personal Safety Survey, 2012 [online]. ANROWS Horizons Research Report. Sydney: ANROWS. Available from: https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/violence-against-women-in-australia-additional-analysis-of-the-australian-bureau-of-statistics-personal-safety-survey-2012/ [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Davies, M., 2008. Asking the Law Question. 3rd ed. Sydney: Thomson Lawbook.
Dewar, J., Smith, B., and Banks, C., 2000. Litigants in Person in the Family Court of Australia. Family Court of Australia Research Report [online], nº. 20. Family Court of Australia. Available from: http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/f987e373-90f0-4ebe-a886-db7c7174080f/report20.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Doak, J. and Taylor, L., 2013. Hearing the Voices of victims and offenders: The role of emotions in criminal sentencing. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly [online], 64(1), 25-46. Available from: http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofLaw/Research/NorthernIrelandLegalQuarterly/ [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Douglas, H., 2018. Legal systems abuse and coercive control. Criminology and Criminal Justice [online], 18(1), 84-99. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817728380 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Ellsworth, P., and Dougherty, A., 2016. Appraisals and reappraisals in the courtroom. Emotion Review [online], 8(1), 20-25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073915601227 [Accessed 16 April 2019].
Epstein, D., and Goodman, L., 2018. Discounting Credibility: Doubting the testimony and Dismissing the Experiences of Domestic Violence Survivors and Other Women. University of Pennsylvania Law Review [online], 167. Available from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2037 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Family Law Council, 2016. Families with Complex Needs and the Intersection of the Family Law and Child Protection Systems: Final Report – June 2016 (Terms 3, 4 & 5) [online]. Available from: https://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/FamilyLawCouncil/Documents/Family-with-Complex-Needs-Intersection-of-Family-Law-and-Child-Protection-Systems-Final-Report-Terms-3-4-5.PDF [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Feigenson, N., and Park, J, 2006. Emotions and attributions of legal responsibility and blame: A research review. Law and Human Behavior [online], 30(2), 143-161. Available from: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s10979-006-9026-z [Accessed 16 April 2019].
Graycar, R., and Morgan, J., 2002. The Hidden Gender of Law. 2nd ed. Sydney: The Federation Press.
Harman, J., 2017. The prevalence of allegations of family violence in proceedings before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Family Law Review, 7(1), 3-19.
Henderson, E., 2016. Taking control of cross-examination: Judges, advocates and intermediaries discuss judicial management of the cross-examination of vulnerable people. Criminal Law Review, 3, 181-205.
Henschen, B., 2018. Judging in a mismatch: The ethical challenges of pro se litigation. Public Integrity [online], 20(1), 34-46. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2016.1272438 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Police and Legal Affairs of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2017. A Better Family Law System to Support and Protect those Affected by Family Violence: Recommendations for an accessible, equitable and responsive family law system which better prioritises safety of those affected by family violence [online]. Canberra, December. Available from: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportrep/024109/toc_pdf/Abetterfamilylawsystemtosupportandprotectthoseaffectedbyfamilyviolence.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Hunter, R. (with A. Genovese, A. Melville and A. Chrzanowski), 2000. Legal Services in Family Law [online]. Sydney: Justice Research Centre. Available from: http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/site/templates/reports/$file/lsfl_rep.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Huntington, C., 2007. Repairing Family Law. Duke Law Journal [online], 57(5), 1245-1319. Available from: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol57/iss5/1 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Huntington, C., 2016. Affective family Law. In: H. Conway and J. Stannard, eds., The Emotional Dynamics of Law and Legal Discourse. Oxford: Hart, 9-33.
Karstedt, S., 2002. Emotions and criminal justice. Theoretical Criminology [online], 6(3), 299-317. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/136248060200600304 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Karstedt, S., 2011. Handle with Care: Emotions, Crime and Justice. In: S. Karstedt, I. Loader and H. Strang, eds., Emotions, Crime and Justice. Oxford: Hart.
Kaspiew, R., et al., 2015. Evaluation of the 2012 Family Violence Amendments. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Kaspiew, R., et al., 2017. Domestic and family violence and parenting: Mixed method insights into impact and support needs: Final report. ANROWS Horizons, April. Sydney: ANROWS.
Kaye, M., Wangmann, J., and Booth, T., 2017. Preventing personal cross-examination of parties in Family Law proceedings involving family violence. Australian Journal of Family Law [online], 31(2), 94-117. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10453/121595 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Knowlton, N.A., et al., 2016. Cases without Counsel: Research on Experiences of Self-Representation in U.S. Family Court [online]. Report. Denver, CO: Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System. Available from: https://iaals.du.edu/publications/cases-without-counsel-research-experiences-self-representation-us-family-court [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Laster, K., and O'Malley, P., 1996. Sensitive new-age Laws: The reassertion of emotionality in law. International Journal of the Sociology of Law [online], 24(1), 21-40. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1006/ijsl.1996.0002 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Law Council of Australia, 2017. Submission to the “Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2017”—Public Consultation on Cross-examination Amendment [online]. Available from: https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/docs/92d486a9-af6a-e811-93fb-005056be13b5/3337%20-%20Family%20Law%20Amendment%20(Family%20Violence%20and%20Cross-Examination%20of%20Parties)%20Bill%202017.pdf [Accessed 16 April 2019].
Lerner, J.S., et al., 2015. Emotion and Decision-Making. Annual Review of Psychology [online], vol. 66, 799-823. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Loughman, J., 2016. Protecting vulnerable witnesses in family law. Law Society of New South Wales Journal [online], 19, 26-27. Available from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/233512226 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Lynch, A., Loughman, J., and Eleanor, 2016. Intimate partner sexual violence and family law. In: L. McOrmond-Plummer, J.Y. Levy-Peck and P. Easteal, eds., Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Sexual Violence: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Prevention, Recognition, and Intervention. Abingdon: Routledge, 153-165.
Macfarlane, J., 2013. The national self-represented litigants project: Identifying and meeting the needs of self-represented litigants [online]. Report. Available from: https://lawsocietyontario.azureedge.net/media/lso/media/legacy/pdf/s/self-represented_project.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Mack, K., and Roach Anleu, S., 2010. Performing impartiality: Judicial demeanor and legitimacy. Law & Social Inquiry [online], 35(1), 137-173. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2009.01180.x [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Maroney, T.A., 2006. Law and Emotion: A Proposed Taxonomy of an Emerging Field. Law and Human Behavior [online], 30(2), 119-142. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9029-9 [Accessed 9 January 2019].
Maroney, T.A., 2011a. Emotional Regulation and Judicial Behavior. California Law Review [online], 99(6), 1485. Available from: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38XQ3J [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Maroney, T.A., 2011b. The Persistent Cultural Script of Judicial Dispassion. California Law Review [online], 99(2), 629-681. Available from: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38K98M [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Maroney, T.A., 2012. Angry Judges. Vanderbilt Law Review [online], 65(5), 1207-1296. Available from: https://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/2012/10/angry-judges/ [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Maroney, T.A., and Gross, J.J., 2014. The ideal of the dispassionate judge: An emotion regulation perspective. Emotion Review [online], 6(2), 142-151. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073913491989 [Accessed 5 September 2018].
McLachlin, B., 2007. Justice in our Courts and the Challenges We Face. The Empire Club of Canada Addresses (Toronto, Canada) [online], 8 March, pp. 325-335. Available from: http://speeches.empireclub.org/62973/data [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Meier, J.S., and Dickson, S., 2017. Mapping gender: shedding empirical light on family courts’ treatment of cases involving abuse and alienation. Law & Inequality [online], 35(2), 311-334. Available from: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq/vol35/iss2/10/ [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Moorhead, R., 2007. The passive arbiter: Litigants in person and the challenge to neutrality. Social & Legal Studies [online], 16(3), 405–424. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663907079766 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Parkinson, P., Cashmore, J., and Webster, A., 2010. The views of family lawyers on apprehended violence orders after parental separation. Australian Journal of Family Law [online], 24(3), 313-336. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1753404 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Pilsbury, S., 1999. Harlan, Holmes, and the Passions of Justice. In: S. Bandes, ed., The Passions of Law. New York University Press, 330-362.
Roach Anleu, S., and Mack, K., 2005. Magistrates’ Everyday Work and Emotional Labour. Journal of Law and Society [online], 32(4), 590-614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2005.00339.x [Accessed 9 January 2019].
Roach Anleu, S., and Mack, K., 2017. Performing Judicial Authority in the Lower Courts. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Roach Anleu, S., Rottman, D., and Mack, K., 2016. The emotional dimension of judging: Issues, Evidence and Insights. Court Review [online], vol. 52, 60-71. Available from: http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/publications/courtrv/cr52-2/Anleu.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Schuster, M.L., and Propen, A., 2010. Degrees of Emotion: Judicial Responses to Victim Impact Statements. Law, Culture and the Humanities [online], 6(1), 75-104. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1743872109349104 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Shapland, J., 2010. Victims and Criminal Justice in Europe. In: S. Shoham, P. Knepper and M. Kett, eds., International Handbook of Victimology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 347-372.
Smyth, B.M., and Moloney, L.J., 2017. Entrenched postseparation parenting disputes: the role of interparental hatred. Family Court Review [online], 55(3) 404-416. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12294 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Stubbs, J., and Wangmann, J., 2015. Competing conceptions of Victims of domestic violence within legal processes. In: D. Wilson and S. Ross, eds., Crimes, Victims and Policy: International Contexts, Local Experiences. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 107-132.
Tata, C., 2019. Humanising Punishment? Mitigation and “Case-Cleansing” Prior to Sentencing. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 9(5-this issue). Available from: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1098 [Accessed 12 November 2019].
Trinder, L., et al., 2014. Litigants in person in private family law cases. Commissioned report. Ministry of Justice.
Victoria Legal Aid, 2017. Submission to “A Better Family Law System: Submission to Parliamentary Inquiry into a better family law system to support and protect those affected by family violence” [online]. May. Available from: https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/sites/www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/files/vla-submission-a-better-family-law-system_-_for_web.docx [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Wettergren, Å., and Bergman Blix, S., 2016. Empathy and objectivity in the legal process: The case of Swedish prosecutors. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention [online], 17(1), 19-35. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14043858.2015.1136501 [Accessed 2 April 2019].
Women’s Legal Services Australia, 2017. Submission to the “Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2017”—Public Consultation on Cross-examination Amendment [online]. Available from: https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/ExposureDraftFamilyLawAmendment/Womens-Legal-Services-Submission.DOCX [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Zaki, J., 2014. Empathy: a motivated account. Psychological Bulletin [online], 140(6), 1608-1647. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037679 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
##submission.downloads##
Argitaratuta
##submission.howToCite##
Zenbakia
Atala
##submission.license##
##submission.copyrightStatement##
##submission.license.cc.by-nc-nd4.footer##OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
