MelbourneLockedOut.com :: Information

There is no rational basis for introducing the lockout and the decision was made without consultation.

· The lockout decision was based on incorrect data & assumptions, and deceptive political motives

· Lockouts will have no tangible benefits, will have a devastating effect on the diversity of Melbourne’s nightlife, and will infringe on the public’s civil rights

· Anti social behaviour in the city is not disproportionate to the many hundreds of thousands of people who visit the city every weekend;

· The safety of the public is currently being compromised by a chronic lack of visible police resources and reactive policing tactics, and will be further put at risk by a lockout

· Police are increasingly diverting police resources into squads dedicated to ‘hitting’ nightclubs and bars, and away from protecting the public

· There is no strong action to deal with the cause of offending behaviour in entertainment precincts such as the massive increase in young people seeking hospital admissions and taking prescription drugs for psychosis and related depressive illnesses

· Rejection increases the likelihood of a violent reaction from people with depression and anger management problems, and being refused entry after 2am will fuel further violence by such people

· Young people wanting a drink after 2am, including those who finish work after this time, will be forced into the Casino and other gaming venues, leading to increased problem gambling

In a recent response to us on behalf of the Minister for Mental Health dated 2^nd May, we were informed that “there is a well established research finding that there are links between alcohol and violence and, in particular late night licensed premises and violence”. On enquiring with the contact person nominated in the letter, we were referred to a recent study undertaken by the National Drug Research unit of Curtin University – see http://db.ndri.curtin.edu.au/media.asp?mediarelid=88 for media release.

· Suggests that when a new licensed outlet is opened, regardless of its type, most of the increased violence occurs in private homes rather than at licensed premises

· Is based only on alcohol sales data obtained in Western Australia (with such data not being available elsewhere in Australia)

§ New hotel in metropolitan Perth would increase domestic assaults by 17 a year

§ New liquor store in metropolitan Perth would increase domestic assaults by 8 a year

§ New liquor store in the WA wheatbelt would increase domestic assaults by 29 a year

Apart from these figures being very small, the findings can in no way be translated into a major cosmopolitan city such as Melbourne. Perth is more comparable to a large regional town in Victoria and in WA you have factors such as a higher indigenous population, itinerant workers and, in the wheat belt, no doubt many depressed rural land owners suggesting other factors are at play such as social disadvantage, boredom & mental health issues.

If one were to place credence on this research in a Victorian context, it would suggest that a lockout would be more appropriate to people’s homes than entertainment precincts.

In contrast, there is a great deal of research, particularly in the area of domestic violence to indicate that alcohol does not cause violence. I have attached some samples of this research in Appendix 2.

The Government also needs to explain that if it lockout decision was based on quality research, why then did its recently published Inner City Entertainment Precinct Report recommend more research be undertaken into the causes of problem behaviour in entertainment precincts and, despite acceptance of this recommendation why has this research yet to be undertaken.

There is no evidence that anti social behaviour in Melbourne’s entertainment precincts is out of control relative to the large number of people in the City at night. In Appendix 1 we have included some pertinent statistics on Victoria’s licensed premises which is much more relevant and refutes claims made by the Government and police.

The anti social behaviour which does occur has more to do with a chronic lack of police resources and the decision to engage in reactive policing tactics.

The choice of 2am for the beginning of the curfew also smacks of political convenience rather than public benefits.

Is 2am more to do with when police rosters finish or wind down than when crime incidents occur?

To see if there is a direct correlation between policing rosters and the lockout decision, I am asking you and the Chief Commissioner of Police to urgently provide me with the following statistics and answers:

· Over the past 12 months how many police were rostered on in the CBD before and after 2am on Friday & Saturday nights with direct responsibility for policing entertainment precincts?

· If (as most venues already know from personal observations) there were virtually no police on duty after 2am isn’t this contradictory to the Government’s claims that the City is more dangerous after this time?

· What is the breakdown in crime statistics before and after 2am on Friday & Saturday nights for the previous 12 months?

· Why does Ballarat have a 3am lockout but also allows entry to hospitality workers who finish shifts to enter after 3am, and a pass-out system for smokers? (Neither will apply to Melbourne’s proposed lockout, effectively treating the Melbourne public as second class)

One of the major factors to date which has compromised the safety of the public in entertainment precincts is the strategy of Victoria Police to engage in reactive policing.

In other words police only respond after an incident has happened. At all other times, there is no constant visible police presence in any of Melbourne’s entertainment precincts (except at times when they are mounting the occasional special operation).

Let’s contrast this with a major sporting event at the MCG. Police are present in large numbers throughout the event. They are strategically positioned amongst the crowd, whilst others constantly scan the crowd with cameras and binoculars. They work in partnership with private security and quickly jump on any hint of trouble.

Apart from quickly defusing incidents before they get out of hand, the visible presence of police and the knowledge one will be apprehended has an enormous deterrent effect.

Melbourne’s entertainment precincts attract far more people than even the largest sporting event yet police by comparison only roster on skeleton numbers.

It can be argued that police cannot be everywhere at once but this can be overcome by strategic planning and better prioritization of resources. Victoria Police itself claims to have identified four so called hotspots in Melbourne, yet it still stands back and waits for incidents to occur in these areas.

If one visits other major cities around the world with a vibrant nightlife, for example Rome and New York, there is a highly visible police presence late at night.

With Victoria Police’s current reactive policing strategy, there is, in fact, a strong case to be argued that police are failing in their very core duty of care to the Victorian pubic and that they could be held liable to victims of crime for failing in their inherent duty.

There also seems to be an assumption that, rather than provide a protective public presence, cheap and nasty measures such as lockouts will somehow provide an effective alternative.

Victoria Police seems to be directing all its resources into hit squads against licensed premises and recruiting young people to entrap small business operators. Even the wording of a police media release on Victoria Police’s homepage entitled “police hit bars....” is suggestive of a war against licensees and totally contrary to the spirit of cooperation promoted through licensee Accords.

No doubt many more police will be required in the future to spy on the entrances to licensed premises to ensure nobody is breaking the curfew.

We hear almost every week of a senseless act of violence in wider society caused by a person who has a mental illness and is receiving hospital and /or drug treatment.

We know that such people visit entertainment precincts and can act irrationally particularly if they have stopped taking medication, combine it with other drugs or suffer rejection.

There are also other persons with anger management problems, gangs of young people deliberately targeting vulnerable members of the public, and certain members of ethnic communities who harbour grudges against other sections of the community.

Yet the Government still tends to blame licensed premises for these actions and refuses to adequately deal with offending behaviour in the street.

One wonders what the reaction of the Government would have been if the recent shooting in the Sydney Casino had occurred in a nightclub or bar.

It is time the Government and police focused on the true cause of anti social behaviour and targeted offenders, both with stronger support and enforcement.

In conclusion, it is not too late to apply some common sense and reverse the lockout decision, and then instruct your officers to facilitate more informed research on the social dynamics of entertainment precincts and the infrastructure investments (such as more, better deployed police) to provide the level of facilities the public has a right to expect for their safety & comfort.

The Regulatory Impact Statement - Standards for Security Cameras which was released by the Government this week contains statistics on assaults and alcohol consumption - see

The following table from the Statement seems to indicate that crimes against the person have actually decreased in entertainment precincts across Victoria despite high population growth, an increase in the number of licensed premises and an increase in tourism.

Comparison of offences with location “Licensed Premises” 2003/04 – 2005/06

According to the AGE (7^th May 2008) Victoria Police crime figures reveal more than 1200 assaults, 53 rapes and five murders in Southbank since 2002. This represents a huge slice of the number of assaults recorded for the total of Victoria, yet the Government has chosen to exempt Crown Casino and other gaming venues.

Let’s first look at the number of liquor licenses – at the end of June 2007, there were 17,519 liquor licenses in Victoria of which 1,033 were authorised to trade to 3am or later (comprising 270 in the CBD, 565 metro & 198 country). Of these, only 719 are defined as nightclubs or bars (the others being gaming venues, clubs, restaurants, etc). These businesses comprise 4% of the licensed premises in Victoria. Furthermore, the majority of the businesses are small businesses employing less than 20 persons.

In comparison, only 46 pub, tavern and bar businesses (1.3% of total businesses) recorded employment of 100 or more persons.

However, these large businesses accounted for 20.5% of employment in pub, tavern and bar services, a whopping 22.9% of income from sales of liquor and other beverages, 20.5% of gambling income and 22% of total income.

It should now be clear where the majority of liquor sales are coming from, and much of this is of course cheap packaged liquor, the true source of much of the binge drinking which occurs in entertainment precincts. This drinking of course occurs in the streets or other public places, prior to entering or after leaving bars and nightclubs, and is poorly enforced by Victoria Police despite it being one of the major problem offences leading to other anti-social behaviours.

How many on infringement notices have been issued by Victoria Police for drinking in public over the past 5 years, broken down into each entertainment precinct??

Source: Research Paper Commissioned by Peter Iwaniuk 1995 Author: Dr Paul Wilson OAM, Chair of Criminology at Bond University

“The significance of drinking and propensity to violence varies widely across cultures. Many years ago Dr Margaret Sargent in her book Alcoholism as a Problem (1973) demonstrated that many cultural attitudes towards violence moderated the propensity towards violence.

In her comparison of Japanese and Australian drinking habits Sargent found that Australians, through using drinking as a symbol of mateship and solidarity, display a tendency towards aggression and violence as a way of overcoming personal feelings of inadequacy, low self esteem and dissatisfaction with life. The Japanese on the other hand, used drinking as part of established social rituals – a far more beneficial motivation since it promoted group feeling, unity and non-aggression.

The Japanese disapprove of drunkenness in young men though, obviously, some occurs. By contrast, Australian society passively accepts drunkenness among the young and the young themselves accept drunkenness with being tough and aggressive. In Japan, on those rare ceremonial occasions when drunkenness among young men is encouraged – such as the Autumn festival in some villages – expressions of friendship rather than release of aggression occurs. The increasing “Westernisation” of Japanese society might have modified this pattern but non-aggression associated with youthful drinking is still the norm.

Though there are basic social causes to be addressed in terms of dealing with the reasons for alcohol being used as a personal stress and lifestyle relieving mechanism among Australians, a great deal could be done by way of public education in order to change public attitudes towards the use of drinking behaviour as a mechanism to deal with personal inadequacies.

In line with modern cognitive approaches to changing individual behaviour in the therapeutic setting, the rationale of such public education campaigns would be that if people can be made to think differently about themselves and their beliefs – in this case that alcohol and fighting are not a solution to personal problems, as well as showing toughness – then they may begin to feel and act differently when drinking.

Though a secondary aim of the campaign would be to reduce alcohol consumption among young adult males, the primary purpose of the campaign would be to disassociate the personal and social worth of fighting with alcohol consumption. Such a campaign would target the general population as well as young adult males.

Useful examples to consider in order to understand this point are the successful public education campaigns designed to change the collective views of the community towards drink driving, domestic violence, AIDS awareness, smoking and perhaps dangerous driving [it is interesting to note, in this context, the increase in aggression in driving and road rage as a likely contributor to the recent increase in the road toll, and how a public campaign against violence could make a positive impact in this area also]. With drink driving, for example, a combination of widespread and effective media campaigns and intensive and sustained enforcement significantly reduced road deaths (Homel and Wilson, Traffic Enforcement, Australian Institute of Criminology, 1991).

In my view, public education campaigns similar to the ones used in the areas mentioned above are required in order to reduce levels of violence associated with alcohol consumption. If governments are serious about changing cultural attitudes and behaviour in this area, then sustained and carefully formulated public campaigns are required. These campaigns would utilise the schools, local community organisations and the mass media as institutions to promote the appropriate messages.”

This paper focuses on the last area, the importance of the cultural context. This perspective is largely influenced by a classic study, Drunken Comportment, by MacAndrew and Edgerton (1969).

Before the preparation of this book, the conventional wisdom was that alcohol "changed people for the worse" because as a psychoactive substance it had a negative impact on the brain's functions. MacAndrew and Edgerton argued in opposition to this by stating that alcohol did not always change people for the worse; it sometimes did, but certainly not all the time, which would be expected if it was a result of direct pharmacological effect.

MacAndrew and Edgerton showed that drunken comportment was different between different cultures, varied within a specific culture from one context to another, and also varied between time periods.

Their conclusion was that the effects of alcohol on human behavior were not determined by the psychoactive substance; instead, the effects of alcohol were determined by society.

Their explanation was that many societies or cultures established intoxication as a time-out situation, a situation where society created an increased scope for otherwise unacceptable behavior through offering intoxication as a freedom from responsibility.

People became involved in violence when they had been drinking because they could get away with it. Afterwards individuals were not seen as deviant--they were still seen as the same person who did something "stupid" just because drunk.

On the other hand, MacAndrew and Edgerton also stated that there were norms that could not be changed even for intoxication, something they described as the "within limits clause" (MacAndrew and Edgerton 1969).

Graham et al. have pointed out three conditions that need to be fulfilled if time-out theory is to account for some or all of the relationship between alcohol and violence:

2) individuals or society should view a person who behaves violently when intoxicated as less deviant or less blameworthy than a person who is involved in violence without having consumed alcohol and

3) the expected lessening of blame should make an individual who consumes alcohol more prone to behave aggressively (Graham et al. 1998).

Several attempts have been made to test the empirical support for these conditions. It has been shown that people carry a strong belief that alcohol is a cause of violence (for review, see Graham & West 2001).

For example, Paglia and Room (1998) found that 75% of their Canadian sample believed alcohol was a cause of violence.

However, they also found that people's belief in the link between alcohol and violence was only weakly related to whether they agreed that an intoxicated aggressor was less responsible for his behavior, and in contrast to what they expected, the relationship was in fact negative.

There has also been research using quasi-experimental designs where respondents were presented different vignettes, with the aggressor's and the victim's alcohol intake varying as the vignette was presented to different respondents.

These studies have not been consistent in their findings. Richardson & Campbell (1980, 1982) found that the perpetrators of wife abuse and rape were considered less to blame for their acts when they were described as drunk compared with when they were described as sober.

They also found that the victim was considered more responsible and her character was evaluated less positively when she was drunk compared with when she was sober. Critchlow (1985) found that the intoxication of the perpetrator lessened responsibility and blame, but only for more severe acts.

Other studies (assault with a male aggressor and a male or female victim, and assault with a male aggressor and a female victim) have shown that perpetrators, as well as their victims, are blamed more when they are presented as drunk compared with sober (Aramburu & Leigh 1991, Leigh & Aramburu 1994).

Aramburu and Leigh (1991) also found that aggression toward a drunken victim was more acceptable than aggression toward a sober victim. They also addressed the question of whether the increased blame for the victim was related to gender violation (women are not supposed to get drunk, and if they violate that norm, it could be a lesser norm violation to hit them), but they found that blame increased with intoxication for both male and female victims.

Some later studies have shown even more complex results. Stormo et al. (1997) found that the aggressor's alcohol consumption reduced the attributed responsibility in a date-rape scenario when the aggressor and the victim were equally intoxicated, but increased the responsibility if the victim was more intoxicated than the aggressor.

Wild et al. (1998) used five different scenarios: unwanted touching, date rape, assault and rape, vandalism, and assault. Only one main effect of the offender's drinking was found: A drunk offender was blamed more than a relatively sober offender in the unwanted-touching scenario. Wild et al. also found a two-way interaction in the assault vignette where the offender's drinking interacted with criminal history: For offenders without a criminal history, intoxication decreased the perceived blame. In two cases the perpetrators were blamed significantly less when the female victims were drunk compared with when they were relatively sober.

There was, however, a moderate indication that the punishments assigned as appropriate were lower for drunken perpetrators in two of the vignettes; this in turn shows that there are differences between the concepts of blameworthiness and appropriate punishment that might be important for the concept of timeout or excuse value.

Even though not very consistent, these studies seem to indicate that intoxication might work as an excuse for some behaviors in some contexts, but the evidence for an overall excuse concept is not very strong. There seems to be stronger agreement about the increased blame for drunken victims, and there are indications that the aggressor's blame may depend on the victim's drinking.

The studies discussed so far were concerned with responsibility or blame attributed to other people. The timeout or excuse value is also thought to have meaning for the managing or maintenance of self-identity. For example, McCaghy (1968) has shown that child molesters who attributed their crime to their drinking could thereby admit the act and still maintain their identity as a normal member of society.

There are also examples that show how alcohol is used as an excuse even though nothing is said about whether it works or not (no dependent variable used). Rhodes and Cusick (2002) have demonstrated that alcohol is used to retain a rationale of the self for HIV-positive people engaged in unprotected sex.

Examples of people's views can also be found in studies that focus on other issues. In a study of criminal homicide in the USA, an offender who had killed his wife's lover stated: "If they were drunk or something, I could see it. I mean, I've done it myself. But when he said they loved each other, well, that did it" (Luckenbill 1977, p. 180).

In popular culture, Lang (1983) has shown that alcohol has been described as an excuse in texts of American Blues music. Intoxication also seems to be a common excuse in films and books, but no research has been done in this area. The use of alcohol as an excuse for undesirable behavior does not prove that it leads to more undesirable behavior; on the other hand, it is hard to believe that it is used without meaning, and such meaning could affect the prevalence of those behaviors.

The current research indicates a rather complex situation with some divergent and sometimes apparently contradictory results. As seen before, Paglia and Room (1998) found that people felt that intoxication did not change the responsibility for one's behavior. In addition, some of the vignette studies showed that alcohol not only failed to reduce attributed blame, it even increased the blame. On the other hand, Paglia and Room (1998) found support for the idea that people believe alcohol causes violence, a belief that paves the way for using alcohol as an excuse”.

“ALCOHOL ABUSE DOES NOT CAUSE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, PANEL TOLD A STATE COMMISSION IS CONSIDERING A SET OF STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF BATTERERS.

Alcohol abuse does not cause domestic violence, and the two problems should be treated separately, several speakers told a legislative commission Monday. The Virginia Commission on Family Violence Prevention is considering establishing statewide standards for treatment of people who batter their spouses or other family members.

One proposal is to base the model on the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program, which provides court-ordered education and treatment for drunken drivers. The commission voted to propose legislation to study the issue for a year before taking more definitive action in the 1998 legislative session.

``Most of us believe abuse is an issue of control,'' said Sheila Crossen-Powell, supervisor of a family violence-prevention program in Richmond. ``They want power over another human being. It's a choice.''

She said it would be a mistake to link alcohol abuse and family violence treatment programs. ``Many batterers don't abuse any substance. They just choose to batter,'' she said.

Dr. Alice Twining, a psychotherapist who specializes in domestic violence, said national studies have shown that 40 percent to 60 percent of batterers also have substance abuse problems. ``But substance abuse doesn't cause battery. It's the belief that battery is OK,'' she said.

Laurie Olan, director of a family violence prevention organization in Rockingham County, said the first question judges and magistrates often ask in domestic cases is whether drugs or alcohol were involved. If the answer is yes, the judges often order alcohol or drug abuse counselling that never occurs, and nothing else is done to hold the perpetrator accountable, she said”.

Understanding the role drinking does and does not play in sex assaults is essential to prevention efforts.

Alcohol and sexual assault often occur together. According to Lawrence Greenfeld, The Director of The Bureau of Justice Statistics (1998), over 30 percent of all sexual assaults occur when the perpetrator is under the influence of alcohol. In some cases, the victim also is intoxicated. Drinking makes it easy for the perpetrator to ignore sexual boundaries, while the victim's intoxication makes it more difficult for her to guard against an attack.

A common misunderstanding is that if people commit sexual assaults only when drunk, then (a) the drinking must have caused the assault and (b) sobriety and alcohol counseling are adequate to prevent future assaults. These erroneous conclusions confuse correlation and causation. To illustrate, consider the correlation between consciousness and sexual assault. Perpetrators of sexual assault typically commit sexual assaults only when they are awake, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that being awake caused them to commit sexual assaults. So, what is the relationship between alcohol and sexual violence?

First, alcohol use does not cause sexual violence. Putting alcohol into your system does not cause you to commit a sexual assault anymore than putting gasoline into your car causes you to drive to the airport. Gasoline makes it easier to do what you want to do (e.g., drive a car) while alcohol also makes it easier to do what you want to do (e.g., grope women). If you do not at least think about doing something when sober, you are not likely to do it when drunk. For example, no one worries about becoming so intoxicated that he will lose control and stab himself in the eye with a fork. Why? Because he would never consider doing that when sober.

Alcohol acts as a permission slip. By reducing inhibitions, alcohol often makes it more likely that someone will choose to sexually assault another person. As one man in a violent offender program noted, “When I first came to your program I told you that I hit my wife because I was drunk; now I realize that I drank so that I could hit her.” He realized that alcohol did not excuse or even explain the abuse. Instead, alcohol was the way that he had tried to avoid responsibility for the abuse.

Sexual assault occurs despite alcohol use, not because of it. When someone is extremely intoxicated, we call that person “impaired.” “Impaired” means that you have more difficulty performing tasks. Therefore, if you are going to sexually assault someone when drunk, you have to try harder, focus your attention and be more determined than if you were sober. In effect, people who sexually assault when drunk, do so, not because they are intoxicated, but despite their intoxication. They have to overcome the impairment to commit the sexual assault.

Memory loss is not the same as lack of intent. If a perpetrator of sexual assault claims that he has no specific recollection of the assault, that does not mean that he had no intention of doing it at the time. All it means is that the perpetrator is currently either unable or unwilling to report his state of mind when the assaults occurred. For example, sometimes we hear perpetrators report on events that were acceptable (e.g., “I remember drinking and dancing”) but not the events that could result in arrest and prosecution (e.g., “I don’t recall fondling that person”). Or the perpetrator will not recall the offense, but will be able to assert with confidence what his state of mind was at the time (e.g., “I had no desire for sexual gratification.”). How can you NOT remember what you did, but be absolutely certain what your motives were when you did it? How does alcohol know which memories to delete and which to keep intact?

Sexual assault and substance abuse are separate issues. If someone violates sexual boundaries while drunk, that person has two problems that need to be addressed. Taking responsibility for alcohol consumption addresses only half of the problem. The perpetrator also needs to take responsibility for the sexual violence. On the most basic level, the perpetrator needs to learn that all sexual contact without permission is sexual violence”.

“Myths About Alcohol and Domestic Violence - A Project by Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights

The relationship between alcohol or other substance abuse and domestic violence is complicated. A prevailing myth about domestic violence is that alcohol and drugs are the major causes of domestic abuse. In reality, some abusers rely on substance use (and abuse) as an excuse for becoming violent. Alcohol allows the abuser to justify his abusive behavior as a result of the alcohol. While an abuser's use of alcohol may have an effect on the severity of the abuse or the ease with which the abuser can justify his actions, an abuser does not become violent "because" drinking causes him to lose control of his temper. As described more fully in the section on theories of violence, domestic violence is used to exert power and control over another; it does not represent a loss of control.

Understanding some of the theories that have been advanced to explain the substance-violence relationship can, however, help advocates design interventions that can increase women's safety and help men choose non-violence. Most importantly, domestic violence and substance abuse should be understood and treated as independent problems: "[T]he reduction of one problem to the familiar language and interventions of the other problem is ill-advised." At the same time, because the relationship between substance abuse and domestic violence is complex, institutions that address these problems together must be capable of managing their complexity.”

“Violence, Alcohol and the Individual

Source: Aboriginal Law Bulletin #36 1991: Article Stinkin’ Thinkin’ - Alcohol, Violence and Government Responses by Judy Atkinson

Although there is a great deal of controversy about the relationship between alcohol and violence towards women, one point must be made clear; alcohol does not cause violence and it should never be used as an excuse for violent behaviour.”

“Causes of Domestic Violence

Source: Turning Point - Domestic Violence Agency McHenry County, Illinois

http://www.mchenrycountyturningpoint.org/causes.html

Learned and Reinforced

Most domestic violence is caused by learning and reinforcement rather than by biology or genetics. Domestic violence behaviors are learned through observation. Studies have found that nearly one half of abusive men grew up in homes where their father or step father was an abuser.

Domestic violence behaviors are learned and reinforced in the family as well as in all of society's major institutions - legal, social, religious, educational, medical and mental health.

Male violence against women in intimate relationships is a social problem condoned and supported by the customs and traditions of a particular society. Domestic violence is not caused by addiction to drugs or alcohol.

Addiction does not cause partner abuse and recovery from addiction does not cure partner abuse. Partner abuse and substance abuse are two separate problems.

Certain chemicals - anabolic steroids, crack cocaine - can cause violent behavior, but alcohol is not among them.

In the human body, alcohol is actually a depressant, a substance that rarely causes aggression.

“Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

Source: Safe Place Michigan State University noabuse@msu.edu

A: No. Not all alcohol and drug users are violent, and not all batterers abuse to drugs or alcohol. For cases where men use alcohol and/or other drugs and are violent, it is commonly believed that if the addiction is treated, the violence will stop. This is not the case. The violence will continue if not addressed as well. Therefore, while there may be many batterers who are addicted to drugs or alcohol, or who use alcohol and/or other drugs at the time of being violent and blame violence on the drug use, the use of alcohol or other drugs does not cause the violence. It may compound the problem, however, in some cases.”

“Drinking Alcohol and Domestic Abuse

There is a general correlation between alcohol consumption and violence toward a spouse or partner: They sometimes occur together. But does drinking actually cause abuse in a relationship? Researchers and other experts warn against jumping to the conclusion that it does.

It’s easy to fall into the trap of assuming that a relationship between two things means that one causes the other. For example, the number of people who drown is correlated with the consumption of ice cream. But neither causes the other. In warmer weather more people eat more ice cream and more people go swimming, which increases the chances of drowning.

Experts emphasize that there is no research evidence that alcohol consumption or even alcohol abuse causes domestic violence. Furthermore, the majority of alcoholics and other men who abuse alcohol don’t abuse their partners and most instances of abuse occur in the absence of any alcohol consumption at all.

The Women’s Rural Advocacy Program says that the higher incidence of alcohol abuse among men who batter results from the overlap of two separate social problems.

In “The False Connection between Adult Domestic Violence and Alcohol,“ Theresa Zubretsky and Karla Digirolamo report that “economic control, sexual violence, and intimidation, for example, are often part of a batter’s ongoing pattern of abuse, with little or no identifiable connection to his use of or dependence on alcohol.”

Alcohol does not and cannot make one person abuse another. Many authorities explain that “men who batter frequently use alcohol abuse as an excuse for their violence. They attempt to rid themselves of responsibility for the problem by blaming it on the effects of alcohol.”

Although most writers focus on men as abusers of women, research also indicates that women abuse men about as often. And there’s no reason to believe that alcohol causes women to abuse men.”

The causal link is dubious. Does alcohol cause violence? Or is alcohol consumption a symptom of other problems that cause violence, such as poverty?

Another theory about why alcohol and violence might be linked: for many people life is hopeless, despairing, lonely, or meaningless. Alcohol can provide solace. But people don’t get violent because they are drunk. They get violent because of problems in their lives. At worst, alcohol might be a contributing factor, easing the release of latent aggression in individuals already prone to violence. But how many times has alcohol comforted the disenfranchised? How much violence has been prevented by the stress-relieving effects of alcohol?

In my book I argue that the industrial revolution caused great social turmoil and tremendous environmental destruction. I also argue that problems associated with alcohol spiked as a result of the problems caused by industrialization.

Prohibition was as much a reaction against modernism and industrialism as it was against alcohol itself. Early prohibitionists actually encouraged beer consumption as a drink of moderation and family values. Spirits like rum, made from sugar cane grown by and traded for slaves, were the real target of most prohibitionists, many of whom were also abolitionists.

In general, they were advocating against violence and they mistakenly targeted alcohol itself as the perpetrator rather than setting their sights on the root causes of violence such as injustice and oppression.”

Beliefs about the effects of alcohol also influence behavior - even when these beliefs are false. Because alcohol use precedes the majority of domestic violence, sexual assault, and rape incidents, many people believe that alcohol causes aggressive behavior. Several experiments have been conducted to determine if alcohol use causes aggressive behavior. For example, participants are randomly assigned to an experimental condition, then given the opportunity to administer electric shocks to someone who had insulted them, socialized with members of opposite gender, or complete questionnaires about handling arguments. What do you expect the results of these experiments show?

Experimental Conditions

People believed they were drinking alcohol

People believed they were not drinking alcohol

Consumed Alcoholic Beverage

higher rates of shocks
greater likelihood of hitting someone
more sexual advances

lower rates of shocks
less likelihood of hitting someone
fewer sexual advances

Consumed Non- Alcoholic Beverage

higher rates of shocks
greater likelihood of hitting someone
more sexual advances

lower rates of shocks
less likelihood of hitting someone
fewer sexual advances

As you can see from the above research extract, some people will behave more violently if they believe they have consumed alcohol even when they haven’t.

This clearly indicates, once again violence is a learnt reponse, and the link between alcohol and violence is social and cultural.