Statistics show why Russian women mutilate men

A consortium of women’s non-governmental associations studied the statistics of criminal cases of causing grievous bodily harm (parts 1–3 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). As it turned out, 43% of female victims suffered at the hands of a partner or relative. And 79% of women who used violence against men explained their actions as an attempt to protect themselves from aggression. The study’s authors call for a “comprehensive” domestic violence law. The deputies interviewed by Kommersant from the family protection committees and the legislation do not see the need for this.

As part of the “Algorithm of Light” project, the Consortium of Women’s Non-Governmental Associations and sociologist Svetlana Zhuchkova are analyzing judicial statistics related to domestic violence. Previously, they studied verdicts in murder cases where the victims were women. It turned out that in 2011–2019, 65.8% of women killed in Russia died at the hands of a partner or relative. And in 2020-2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, this figure increased to 71%. This time, the researchers analyzed the statistics of criminal cases involving grievous bodily harm, where the victims survived.

On the portal of the State Automated System of the Russian Federation “Justice” and the website of the Moscow City Court, they found 156,509 sentences passed in 2011–2022. But 91,852 of them turned out to be unsuitable for scientific study. The fact is that until 2020, this article of the Criminal Code provided for the possibility of a special procedure for considering cases, when the accused admits guilt in exchange for a more lenient punishment. “The special sentences contain little detail, so we could not use them for the purposes of our research. And they concentrated on the analysis of 64,657 sentences adopted in the general manner,” the authors explain.

It turned out that the “absolute majority of aggressors” were men – they caused serious harm to the health of both men (81% of cases) and women (82%). “Typically, the verdict in which a man was injured describes violence by a male acquaintance or stranger,” the study says. In 19% of cases, men were harmed by women, but in only 16% of convictions it was “partners or relatives”. Among the victims, 43% were women. “Domestic violence is therefore a problem that predominantly affects women,” the authors note.

Statistics also showed: 79% of women who used violence against men explained to the court that they were trying to defend themselves. And in 43% of such cases, the court actually found the behavior of the victim man illegal, and in 16% – immoral. Both of these signs allow you to mitigate the punishment. “Illegal behavior is, for example, violence, bullying, serious insult, psychological pressure from the victim,” the authors explain. “It is more difficult with immoral behavior – it is the victim’s violation of moral norms and rules of behavior in society. The immorality of actions is a value judgment, that is, the judge must decide for himself what is immoral and what is not.” In cases where a man caused serious harm to a woman’s health, only 17% of the accused spoke about protection from the actions of the victims. And here, courts were half as likely to recognize a woman’s unlawful and immoral behavior—23% and 9%, respectively.

“Despite the fact that in more than half of the cases the court considered the victim’s behavior to be aggressive towards the accused, the women were convicted specifically for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm. Thus, the courts formally approach the assessment of the situation of violence, especially in relation to accused women,” the researchers conclude. “Judges take into account the behavior of the victim when assigning punishment, but do not consider the violence he used and the fact that the accused defended herself as important factors for reclassification.” If the courts changed the charge to “Exceeding the limits of necessary defense” (Part 1 of Article 114 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), then women could avoid imprisonment, say the authors of the “Algorithm of Light”.

Separately, they indicate that the situation is of a “special order” under Art. 111 of the Criminal Code is disadvantageous for victims of domestic violence. Statistics showed that when making a plea deal, women were much less likely to talk about self-defense – and did not have a chance to reclassify or have their sentences commuted. “The justice system wastes its time on accused women by not taking into account or appreciating the fact that they were defending themselves from violence at the hands of the victim,” the study says.

The authors proposed a number of measures to improve the situation. These include passing a “comprehensive” law to “prevent and combat violence against women, with a clear definition of domestic violence.” And also introduce protective mechanisms, “for example, a protective or restraining order for victims facing an immediate threat.” “The first drafts of the law on domestic violence were back in the 1990s, but it has not yet been adopted, because at the state level they refuse to recognize the problem of domestic violence as systemic,” says lawyer Mari Davtyan, co-author of the study. According to her, the adoption of the law should improve interdepartmental cooperation: “Investigators, prosecutors and judges are people who live in a very stable value system. They must have appropriate training and understanding: what domestic violence is, why it is dangerous, and what consequences it leads to. Precisely so that in situations with the necessary defense of a woman, they would look not only at the moment when she stuck the knife into him, but also a few minutes earlier, when he hit her head against the wall. And the police often don’t know where the nearest government crisis center is.”

Member of the Presidential Human Rights Council (HRC) Eva Merkacheva says that in some colonies almost 100% of women are serving sentences for crimes committed as a result of self-defense from their partners: “The situation is similar – the husband drank, beat, there was nowhere to go. Even the police could record cases of domestic violence, but nothing changed, since the women continued to live in the same territory as the aggressor. A domestic violence law would help bring the problem into the public sphere. Women will learn that they can turn to the state for protection, and this will help prevent the situation from leading to murder or serious harm to health.”

The head of the Duma Committee for the Protection of the Family, Nina Ostanina (KPRF), told Kommersant that “a rapist is a rapist,” so she “does not make a distinction for violence occurring in the family, on the street and anywhere else.” Nevertheless, Mrs. Ostanina is confident: in cases where a woman, “as less protected,” defends herself in a life-threatening situation, the court should take her side “and make concessions, which is also repeatedly evidenced by the decisions of the Supreme Court.”

First Deputy Chairman of the Duma Committee on Legislation Yuri Sinelshchikov (KPRF) believes that to solve the problem of domestic violence, new legislation is not required – we need to turn to existing experience: “Before the decriminalization of the article on domestic battery in 2017, there was a working mechanism. Many cases were not allowed to lead to murder, since the police managed to intervene in the family. Its cancellation led to chaos in this area and only made the situation worse.” Mr. Sinelshchikov also noted: in order for “not the police, but social services to intervene in a family, we need separate resources, financial and labor, and the development of new mechanisms” – which, in his opinion, will not be effective, unlike “returning criminal liability for beatings within the family “

Polina Yachmennikova