Towards a Single Government Approach via Further Consolidation of Law and Order in Estonia, with Domestic Violence as an Example

Raul Narits, Silvia Kaugia, Iris Pettai
{"title":"Towards a Single Government Approach via Further Consolidation of Law and Order in Estonia, with Domestic Violence as an Example","authors":"Raul Narits, Silvia Kaugia, Iris Pettai","doi":"10.12697/JI.2018.27.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An appropriate ‘solution pattern’ for social problems in a state based on the rule of law entails the existence of corresponding legislative regulations. The solution should be approved at the level of a law as a legislative act of supreme juridical power. A solution created at that level would fully correspond to the principle of rule of law and also minimise the possibility of socalled departmental special interests prevailing, in recognition that this danger accompanies efforts toward the solution of every multifaceted problem. The authors find that, since Estonia already possesses relatively extensive experience in legislative consolidation for various aspects of the society’s reality, with most of this experience being of a positive nature, it would be a most welcome development if the issue of DV were to be included in the current process of consolidation under the auspices of the project Towards the Development of Better Legislation. Legislative drafting is stimulated by the perception of acute social problems and of a need to regulate them by legislative means. Results from 2014 and 2017 surveys show that Estonia’s legal practitioners perceive DV as a problem the causes of which demand research and whose victims require help. Most legal practitioners surveyed encountered DV in their day-to-day work, with prosecutors and police detectives bearing the heaviest burden: it consumed nearly one third of their work hours. A serious problem was identified in prejudice and stereotypes, which yield an oversimplified and distorted image of the actual causes of DV, in which the victim frequently is considered responsible. Both the general population and legal practitioners widely share the erroneous impression that the victims could avoid violence through ‘appropriate conduct’. Such stereotypic attitudes wherein victims are considered partially to blame for violence can obstruct the work of law-enforcement agencies. While the idea of a special law on DV found support and scepticism in roughly equal measure, support for it increased significantly when respondents judged the concrete opportunities and solutions offered by such a law. These legal practitioners perceived numerous bottlenecks and unsolved problems in relation to the existing legislative regulation and legal practice, which one would expect to be overcome through a special law on DV. The authors conclude from the survey-based findings that Estonia’s legal practitioners demonstrate considerable anticipation for a law on DV. The participants in the surveys also perceived an increasing need for co-operation with law-enforcement agencies in this regard – i.e., for concentrating on collaboration within this domain. However, the authors consider it undoubtedly important also to increase the involvement of specialists in the DV field: victim support services, staff of women’s shelters, and municipal social workers. ","PeriodicalId":55758,"journal":{"name":"Juridica International","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Juridica International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12697/JI.2018.27.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An appropriate ‘solution pattern’ for social problems in a state based on the rule of law entails the existence of corresponding legislative regulations. The solution should be approved at the level of a law as a legislative act of supreme juridical power. A solution created at that level would fully correspond to the principle of rule of law and also minimise the possibility of socalled departmental special interests prevailing, in recognition that this danger accompanies efforts toward the solution of every multifaceted problem. The authors find that, since Estonia already possesses relatively extensive experience in legislative consolidation for various aspects of the society’s reality, with most of this experience being of a positive nature, it would be a most welcome development if the issue of DV were to be included in the current process of consolidation under the auspices of the project Towards the Development of Better Legislation. Legislative drafting is stimulated by the perception of acute social problems and of a need to regulate them by legislative means. Results from 2014 and 2017 surveys show that Estonia’s legal practitioners perceive DV as a problem the causes of which demand research and whose victims require help. Most legal practitioners surveyed encountered DV in their day-to-day work, with prosecutors and police detectives bearing the heaviest burden: it consumed nearly one third of their work hours. A serious problem was identified in prejudice and stereotypes, which yield an oversimplified and distorted image of the actual causes of DV, in which the victim frequently is considered responsible. Both the general population and legal practitioners widely share the erroneous impression that the victims could avoid violence through ‘appropriate conduct’. Such stereotypic attitudes wherein victims are considered partially to blame for violence can obstruct the work of law-enforcement agencies. While the idea of a special law on DV found support and scepticism in roughly equal measure, support for it increased significantly when respondents judged the concrete opportunities and solutions offered by such a law. These legal practitioners perceived numerous bottlenecks and unsolved problems in relation to the existing legislative regulation and legal practice, which one would expect to be overcome through a special law on DV. The authors conclude from the survey-based findings that Estonia’s legal practitioners demonstrate considerable anticipation for a law on DV. The participants in the surveys also perceived an increasing need for co-operation with law-enforcement agencies in this regard – i.e., for concentrating on collaboration within this domain. However, the authors consider it undoubtedly important also to increase the involvement of specialists in the DV field: victim support services, staff of women’s shelters, and municipal social workers. 
通过进一步巩固爱沙尼亚的法律和秩序,以家庭暴力为例,实现单一政府的做法
在一个以法治为基础的国家,社会问题的适当“解决模式”需要有相应的立法规定。该解决方案应作为具有最高司法权力的立法行为在法律层面得到批准。在这一层面上制定的解决方案将完全符合法治原则,并将所谓的部门特殊利益盛行的可能性降至最低,因为人们认识到,这种危险伴随着解决每一个多方面问题的努力。提交人发现,由于爱沙尼亚在社会现实的各个方面的立法整合方面已经拥有相对丰富的经验,其中大多数经验都是积极的,如果在“制定更好的立法”项目的主持下,将家庭暴力问题纳入目前的合并进程,这将是一个非常受欢迎的事态发展。人们认识到严重的社会问题,并认为有必要通过立法手段对这些问题进行规范,从而推动了立法起草工作。2014年和2017年的调查结果显示,爱沙尼亚的法律从业者认为DV是一个问题,其原因需要研究,受害者需要帮助。大多数接受调查的法律从业者在日常工作中都会遇到DV,检察官和警探的负担最重:它消耗了他们近三分之一的工作时间。人们发现偏见和陈规定型观念是一个严重的问题,它们对家庭暴力的实际原因造成了过于简单和扭曲的印象,受害者往往被认为对此负有责任。普通民众和法律从业者都普遍认为,受害者可以通过“适当的行为”避免暴力。这种将受害者视为暴力行为的部分责任的陈规定型态度可能会阻碍执法机构的工作。虽然制定一项关于家庭暴力的特别法律的想法得到了大致同等程度的支持和怀疑,但当受访者判断这项法律提供的具体机会和解决方案时,对这项法律的支持大大增加。这些法律从业者认为,在现有的立法法规和法律实践方面存在许多瓶颈和未解决的问题,人们希望通过一项关于家庭暴力的特别法律来克服这些问题。作者从基于调查的结果得出结论,爱沙尼亚的法律从业者对DV法律表现出了相当大的期望。调查参与者还认为,在这方面越来越需要与执法机构合作,即专注于这一领域的合作。然而,作者认为,增加家庭暴力领域专家的参与无疑也很重要:受害者支持服务、妇女庇护所的工作人员和市政社会工作者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信