ABSTRACT
Domestic abuse receives relatively little attention from most theories of punishment.1 Discussions about criminal law tend to focus on serious crimes, such as murder or rape, but without acknowledging that domestic abuse is a serious crime as well. In fact, ‘domestic abuse’ is perhaps best characterized as a bundle of crimes united by the relations between an offender and victim. These crimes are not evils imposed upon us by some bogeyman, but those with whom we share intimate relations. Domestic abuse is a ‘crime’ unlike any other in its multifaceted nature and the intimate relations damaged. Some have likened domestic abuse to ‘intimate terrorism’.2 Moreover, it is a crime with many victims, affecting more lives than most crimes. Together, these are several reasons why any discussion of punishment must be able to address its relation to domestic violence. This chapter will explain what is understood by ‘domestic abuse’ and the
more compelling arguments about how it may be best punished. Many defend the use of restorative mediation frameworks to promote healing without recourse to criminal justice. Others argue that this sends the wrong message to abusers and severe punishment is desirable and perhaps required. I will argue for a middle ground of punitive restoration that is best advanced by a unified theory of punishment which aims at the restoration of rights and promotion of stakeholding. The unified theory helps illuminate how to navigate different circumstances that may require different outcomes within a coherent framework.
