When Home Becomes a Crime Scene: A Legal View on Domestic Violence

Around the world, domestic violence remains one of the most pervasive and least punished forms of abuse. In this interview, Soul & Law speaks with Dr. Thomas Kruessmann — a legal scholar and international expert on human rights and criminal law — about the intersection of trauma, shame, and systemic barriers, and about how justice systems could evolve toward empathy, prevention, and restoration. Dr. Kruessmann teaches law at Westminster International University in Tashkent (Uzbekistan).

According to UN Women and UNODC, every ten minutes somewhere in the world, a woman is killed by an intimate partner or a family member. WHO reports that nearly one in three women globally has experienced physical or sexual violence during her lifetime. Worldwide, almost one third (27%) of women aged 15-49 years who have been in a relationship report that they have been subjected to some form of physical and/or sexual violence by their intimate partner. In 2023, approximately 51,100 women and girls were killed by partners or relatives, up from 48,800 in 2022 (UN Women / UNODC). Researchers emphasise: “Home remains the most dangerous place for women and girls.”

These figures are not just statistics — they are lived realities that shape legal systems, medical protocols, and social trust. To explore how justice can respond to both trauma and silence, Soul & Law spoke with Dr. Thomas Kruessmann about the deeper human, psychological, and institutional layers of domestic violence — and about the possibility of a justice that heals rather than harms.

Soul & Law:
Dr. Kruessmann, thank you for taking the time to speak with us and for your openness in discussing such a complex and deeply human issue. Why, in your view, do traditional justice systems struggle to respond effectively to cases of domestic violence?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
Traditional justice systems simply are not differentiated enough in the way they work. I think people like you, who look at the issue comprehensively, are very much aware of the many weaknesses. And these weaknesses — it’s not that nobody has ever thought about them — but we still have a justice system in principle designed as a “one size fits all” for all kinds of wrongdoings. That might be fine for a certain spectrum of wrongdoing, but not here. 

At the same time, we see that restorative justice (RJ) is being increasingly praised as an alternative. And despite the fact that RJ has its benefits, it may also undermine the role of women as victims. Pushing them into mediation, especially when they lack resources, may easily lead to sexual assault being redefined as “conflict”, and the victim who does not play along labeled as “uncooperative” or “conflictual”. Still, RJ is addressing many of the issues that the traditional system cannot. Building on that, I think lawyers need to understand that when we deal with victims of domestic violence, we need to begin with the social realities, to distinguish specific situations.

These limitations become most visible when we look at real cases — situations where lives were lost not because there were no laws, but because the system failed to perceive a pattern or act in time.

Let me start with the 2009 case of Clare Wood. She was murdered by her ex-boyfriend, George Appleton, in Salford, Greater Manchester. Appleton had a known history of violence against women — including harassment, threats, and kidnapping — but Clare was unaware of his past. Despite multiple reports to the police about threats and harassment, she was never informed. After her murder, public outcry exposed major gaps in how police handled repeat domestic abuse offenders. This ultimately led to the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS), known as Clare’s Law, in 2014. Appleton, incidentally, was never prosecuted — he took his own life shortly after the murder.

In another case, R v. Dhaliwal (2006), Mrs. Dhaliwal died by suicide after years of psychological and occasional physical abuse by her husband. Evidence presented included her diary, police and medical records, and witness accounts. On the night of her death, he struck her during an argument. The prosecution charged him with manslaughter and grievous bodily harm (GBH), arguing that cumulative abuse had contributed to her death. However, the court ruled that there was “no case to answer,” holding that psychological injury — unless it meets the threshold of a recognised psychiatric condition — could not constitute GBH.

The case revealed a critical blind spot: for a long time, severe emotional abuse was not prosecutable unless it passed a narrow clinical test. This legal threshold effectively erased lived experience unless it translated into a formal diagnosis. The public and legal critique surrounding the case helped shape later reforms — including the Serious Crime Act 2015, which introduced the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in intimate or family relationships.

‍

Soul & Law:
Where do you think the conversation about domestic violence should begin — with situations, or with definitions, perhaps with language itself?

Dr. Kruessmann:
Language is a good starting point. The way we speak about situations, label and categorise them – we do so by using language. And often, our use of language is determined by our ideas of violence. And so we speak of domestic violence, of intimate partner violence,
of violence against women and girls, and we also speak about gendered violence. Every term carries its own meaning and represents different things. Article 3 of the Istanbul Convention gives a good overview of the various definitions. 

Soul & Law:
Why is terminology so important in understanding this problem?

Dr. Kruessmann:
I started thinking that we can use violence against women and girls as the most general term — simply to describe the fact that women and girls encounter violence. And they do so disproportionately and in some cases quite randomly. You can get beaten or raped because you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. There may be some maniac roaming the streets who sees you, gets aroused, and does bad things. But statistically, around 70% of victims know their offender. He may be a relative, an acquaintance or a work colleague. Still, this situation is qualitatively different from intimate partner violence, where you love someone, you trust someone, you put your faith in someone — and what he does is not just physical pain, it’s also betrayal.

Soul & Law:
‍So how do you distinguish between random violence and violence within intimate relationships?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
I think of it as a system. When we talk about sexual assault, whether it happens randomly or in cases in which the victim knows the perpetrator — what we really need to be addressing first is trauma. From both psychological and criminological perspectives, these two forms of violence follow very different dynamics: random assaults are acts of sudden aggression, while intimate partner violence often involves ongoing control and emotional dependency. Such violence is profoundly destabilizing: it destroys your personal boundaries, your sense of safety, and even your basic trust in people and in life itself. You are left completely shocked, disoriented, and helpless.

Soul & Law:
Many victims are made to feel ashamed of what happened. How does shame operate in these situations?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
There is no real reason to feel ashamed. People often say things like, “Well, that happened because of what you wore,” or “you should have known better than to go out like that.”
That’s rubbish. In reality, what dominates here is trauma — and trauma becomes a very clear factor in access to justice. You are so traumatized that you have nightmares, you can’t sleep, you can’t eat. I’m not a doctor or a psychologist, and I’ve never been raped, but I can imagine, even within the limits of my own understanding, what that must be like. Trauma is the one condition really need to focus on, and it must be something we learn to deal with properly.

‍

When it comes to shame — as Gisèle Pelicot famously said — “shame must change sides.”

‍

Soul & Law:
What can help a person begin to deal with that trauma?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
During that sensitive period, when you are still struggling, it’s important to stay connected to people — to use the networks and relationships around you so you’re not left alone with destructive thoughts. Sometimes it’s simple, supportive interactions that help you reconnect to life, but in professional settings this period often calls for crisis intervention or trauma-informed support. Forgive him, maybe, or not — but understand that it was simply bad luck, being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It’s not because of you. Not because of what you wore, what you did, how you looked, or how you had your hair. It just happened. I don’t know if these things truly help to overcome the trauma, but I believe RJ can become a very important factor in this process.

‍

Soul & Law:
Can you explain why restorative justice plays such an important role in this context?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
I recently heard about it from a different perspective — from parents whose child had been killed. At the postgraduate course on Victimology, Victim Assistance and Criminal Justice 2024 in Dubrovnik (Inter University Centre Dubrovnik), I listened to parents from the United States speak about their daughter, who had been raped and murdered, and how they went through that experience. They took part in an RJ session with the perpetrator and learned that their daughter’s death was the result of pure bad luck — a tragic coincidence. That understanding, painful as it was, helped them as parents.

So, if it’s you — if it’s your own trauma — I believe such a process can also be powerful.

‍

Soul & Law:
And what happens when the violence comes not from a person you are unconnected with, but from the person one loves and trusts?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
That takes it one step further. When it’s intimate partner violence, there is not only the trauma of being physically attacked, but also the unbearable question of how to live with the fact that it was done by the person you chose to share your life with. Can you even talk about it? It’s probably easier to say, “I was raped on a street corner.” But when it’s your partner, you hesitate. You start asking yourself, “What is wrong in my life? Why am I still here?” You realize you are in a relationship with someone powerful — someone you cannot confront. That makes you hesitant to speak to anyone or to seek help, because people will say, “Well, that was your choice.” It’s a completely different situation — and that means we need a completely different kind of intervention.

Soul & Law:
Where does that intervention begin — with law, with psychology, or somewhere else?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
As Gisèle Pelicot famously said — shame must change sides. But shame creeps in easily, especially in cases of domestic violence: when you live with that person, have children together, are financially dependent, or are a daughter-in-law in a family structure. That’s a third level of complication, where shame becomes a very strong obstacle. It is tied to the entire family situation.

You start asking yourself, “Do I need a shelter? Can I even go there? Who can I talk to? Are there NGOs that can help?” If you’re still dating someone and you have your own apartment, you can move out, you have some financial resources — it’s easier to cope. But if you’re dependent, perhaps moving between countries and becoming part of a traditional family structure, it becomes extremely difficult. These factors lie at the very foundation of the issue. When we speak about access to justice, we have to address these layers first — before, as lawyers, we start thinking about the legal process itself.  In high-risk cases, effective intervention also requires interdisciplinary cooperation — between police, NGOs, and social services.

Soul & Law:
Once a person overcomes fear and shame and decides to reach out for help — what happens next?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
You have to talk to someone. It can be a non-state actor — an NGO, a victims’ protection association — or an official institution. But officials are very often not adequately trained. And they are caught in bureaucratic routine – filling in forms, ticking boxes, all sorts of paperwork. They rarely sit down to talk, and if they do, they may continue to carry their own prejudices. Their way of asking questions often leads to repeat victimization. That is well known — everyone in the system is aware of it.

Soul & Law:
So when the case reaches the legal system, what are the main barriers victims face?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
Once we enter the legal system — that’s the top of the pyramid. You have evidentiary rules and procedures. For instance, what I’ve seen a lot in Georgia: there’s a rule of evidence that says a judge cannot convict a perpetrator based solely on the victim’s testimony. You need corroborating evidence. And this is very dramatic. It means that a victim’s statement will never be taken as sufficient. There are millions of ways to undermine a woman —  defamation proceedings, threats, using the children as leverage. Even if she speaks up and testifies, the legal system still won’t consider that enough to convict. They always need corroborating evidence.

“We have to give victims what is called low-threshold institutions.”

‍

Soul & Law:
That sounds like an enormous barrier. How do you think this gap between personal truth and legal proof can be addressed?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
That’s something we are working on. There’s now a growing level of awareness. One issue is the psychological dimension — trauma and shame — and the other is institutional. We have to give women and victims what is called low-threshold institutions. It means a place where you can go that does not automatically start criminal proceedings. You don’t need to go to the police; they won’t call the police. They will do a medical exam of your body and document the traces of violence in a way that can later be used in court — but still without involving law enforcement.

‍

Soul & Law:
Where in Europe has this model already been implemented successfully?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
Austria is right now leading in Europe in establishing these medical centers at central hospitals. They provide free-of-charge treatment and psychological advice — but most of all, medical forensic examination and documentation of the traces of violence. So that if it comes to a trial, you already have additional proof. And hopefully you are not in a legal system that still requires corroborating evidence, like in Georgia, which undermines the entire situation.

‍

“Austria is among the leading countries in Europe in establishing medical centers at central hospitals, while Ireland has a longer history of sexual assault treatment units.”

‍

Soul & Law:
How can this approach reach smaller local hospitals that don’t have special staff or resources?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
By giving what’s called rape kits or even rape suitcases to local hospitals. Most of them are unaware, they don’t have the equipment — but you need basic tools to store DNA samples and to prevent them from becoming contaminated. You need slabs and materials ready.
In a situation deep at night, no one is prepared. So at least having a forensic nurse, the equipment ready, the ability to handle an unexpected situation — that is already very good.
To enable general hospitals to take care of such cases and give women a first professional counterpoint without involving the police — I think that’s a very good answer to these levels of trauma and shock.

Soul & Law:
What happens today if a victim in Georgia comes to an emergency room after violence?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
If you go to a 24/7 emergency service in a hospital in Georgia, they will always call the police. They don’t have the staff. They’re not trained. They’re not really interested. So the person loses control over the situation immediately — she came for help, but suddenly she’s drawn into a process she might not be ready for.

Soul & Law:
It sounds as if what you’re describing is not only about law, but about creating safety and dignity before the law even enters the picture.

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
Exactly. You need a strong civil society and a medical infrastructure of specialized, well-equipped hospitals that allow you to deal with the situation. As lawyers, we tend to think only of the heart of the legal system — but the legal system comes much later. If you have assurances in the early steps — call it empowerment — if women find that there is a real way to respond, to seek and receive help, then they are in a much safer space to think about the next steps. We cannot assume that people will immediately go to a lawyer. That’s not to be taken for granted. So you have to address the non-legal layers — where shame and trauma play a very big role as obstacles to justice.

Soul & Law:
So, in essence, justice begins long before the courtroom?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
Yes. That is, in six words, the essence of what I believe. Every country has different rules, but we all see the same patterns repeating — across this spectrum of violence, from the anonymous to the domestic. And in the end, you have to address the non-legal layers — where shame and trauma play a very big role in access to justice.

Soul & Law:
If we look at everything we’ve discussed — you described two levels of the problem: the human one, rooted in trauma and shame, and the institutional one, rooted in law and procedure. Which change has to happen first for the system to truly work — the internal or the structural?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:I don’t think we have the luxury to think in alternatives. We need to do whatever is possible. Structural changes take so much longer. But once there is a strong civil society recognizing a problem and calling for solutions, politicians will listen and lawmakers will act. We see this in many countries now regarding femicides – a category of violence against women that is still often being neglected.

Soul & Law:
You often mention shame as one of the strongest barriers. Do you believe the law itself can help change this emotion — not just protect people legally, but reshape how society perceives survivors?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
I referred several times to the Pelicot case. And indeed, the wordwide resonance to this case shows that it is possible to shake up societies and change the way survivors are being viewed. But media attention fades quickly, and lasting change is hard to come by. Generally, the tide is turning and there is a strong anti-gender backlash in many countries.

‍

Soul & Law:
The model you describe — with low-barrier institutions, trained medical staff, and conscious judges — sounds like a project of trust between people and the state. What, in your view, destroys that trust most deeply today?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
The single most destructive force as of today is the polarizing unashamed male chauvinism that is recklessly promoted by the Trump administration. It feeds into an anti-gender backlash which we are witnessing in many countries. Much of it is transnational copy-paste between popular right-wing movements and parties. Unfortunately, some of it is also attributable to the Roman Catholic Church. I believe it is worthwhile to critically reflect on some of the more recent initiatives. Back in 2002, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a pastoral letter titled “When I Call for Help”, which acknowledges domestic violence as a sin and calls for compassionate support for survivors (Domestic Violence | USCCB). Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV have both been vocal in calling out violence against women. But this does not necessarily mean that the Roman Catholic Church is willing to recognize gendered discrimination as the root cause of violence. Patriarchy is deeply embodied in the Church, and it goes a long way in legitimizing violence against women. Mainstream feminism in the U.S. is also experience a conservative turn, and by adopting conservative values it may be drawn towards abandoning claims for systemic social transformation based on equality.

Rebuilding trust can start from many sources: spiritual ones, as for instance expressed by the Roman Catholic Church, and also from universal values and human rights. The anti-gender backlash attempts to destroy the gendered view on discrimination as a woke ideology, replacing it in the best case with calls for compassion and empathy. But it is clear that compassion is not getting us anywhere as long as the root causes of violence are not addressed.

Soul & Law:
If you could address lawmakers who are currently drafting or revising domestic-violence legislation, what would you tell them in one sentence — what must not be forgotten?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
In one sentence – read the Istanbul Convention!

‍

Soul & Law:
Earlier you said that justice begins long before the courtroom — with trust, safety, and understanding. What would a truly humane system look like to you, one that does not retraumatize but restores?

Dr. Thomas Kruessmann:
The system of justice itself is only responding to actual wrongdoing, as defined by law. Calls for compassion are merely cosmetic and do actually help to preserve the status quo. Talk about “toxic masculinity” as a trait in men has become popular, but such pseudo-diagnoses are getting us nowhere. What is needed is to go even beyond a gendered perspective on violence and to understand the root cause: what economists call the “free market economy”, representing in reality plain-old capitalism: a system that is both egalitarian in the way it pulls men and women into the “grinder” of the job market, and structurally discriminating in how it reinforces masculine stereotypes. Not that women cannot come out on top, but “losing” in this market is a fate that women take differently than men. Women do get homeless, they succumb to alcohol and drugs. But rarely do we see women using violence to rebuild their self-esteem. In many cases, men are the “losers”, especially in societies in transformation in which people struggle to make ends meet. Compared to earlier generations in which large parts of society lived in equally poor or modest conditions, social media are now displaying the images of success, beauty and a carefree life. Becoming a “loser” in such a system 

Clearly, we need to go deeper than even viewing violence against women as gendered violence.