From the Holtzworth-Munroe Typology, Essay Example

From the Holtzworth-Munroe typology, it seems to me that common couple violence is much less of a concern for intervention, generally speaking, than “terrorist” violence where one party victimizes the other. Both parties are responsible, and neither one has the monopoly on violence. Of course, if such reciprocal violence endangers the welfare of children, and/or the couple are endangering each others’ safety, or if they are disturbing the peace, then certainly there should be an intervention.

Nonetheless, the intervention should be different from cases of “terrorist” intimate partner violence, precisely because neither party has a monopoly on the violence: both parties would need to be restrained, even arrested, and both would need to be treated as culpable. The emphasis should be on helping both to find other means of resolving conflict and expressing disappointment and anger, in order to create a dynamic characterized by much more efficacious and mutually satisfactory interactions. By so doing, more good could be achieved, in terms of ameliorating violence and discord.

References

Buzawa, E. Buzawa, C. and Stark, E. (2012). Responding to Domestic Violence: The Integration of Criminal Justice & Human Services (4th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Vézina, J., & Hébert, M. (2007). Risk factors for victimization in romantic relationships of young women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8(1), pp. 33-66. DOI: 10.1177/1524838006297029