Those who know but don’t speak up

We often lash out at what is often called the “environment” in a criminal case. “How could they not know?” we wonder with a frown. Here we have a policeman/father who abused his family so brutally that one of his children tried to jump off the balcony; a policewoman/mother (who participated in the abuse and was also a victim of it), who turned up at work bearing obvious signs of violence; a daughter who described some of what was going on at home in a school essay. It’s only natural to assume that one of the many people involved in the life of this monstrosity called a family would have known that horrible things were happening inside it. 

What we sometimes fail to consider is how limited the ability of the environment to do something is. What could a neighbor actually do? Call the police? Both parents worked in the police and it was the police that had been covering up for them for years. The wife had recently filed another domestic abuse complaint, but it appears that it slipped through the cracks of the porous bureaucracy and stumbled on her own remorse. So what else can someone do? Call social services, which would require the backing of the police? Take the law into their own hands and risk a beating from the monster of a father?

The “shocked” public, which does indeed feel shocked by such revelations, usually after the fact, is likely not really interested in anything that has no direct bearing on their own individual lives. But even if we were to assume that everyone who knew and said nothing is an accomplice to the abuse, we still have to concede that it is not the job of citizens to determine culpability and mete out justice. Even the most cynical neighbor who did nothing cannot be tasked with handling the crime. That’s what the state is there for. That’s what we pay for, often more than we can bear: to take the initiative, to step in where we cannot, to be persistent and intrusive so it can bring tangible results in the endeavor for social and individual peace.

So, what we’re dealing with here is another failure of the state. Lawsuits that are dropped, complaints that are retracted, witness testimony that’s refuted – all the instances where the state’s bodies neglected or conveniently ignored efforts to bring incidents of domestic violence to light are at the root of the problem. We see the same pattern of behavior repeating itself again and again – it’s not that the victims aren’t speaking out; it’s that the authorities are not willing to take them seriously.

The reputation of the police

Apart from the perpetrators, responsibility in the case of the police officer who served as a guard in Parliament also lies with the police, and in two respects. It did not just allow the crimes being committed against underage children to continue, after being informed of domestic abuse taking place in the same family. It also employed both parents. In other words, it did not just have a general and vague impression that something was going on, but had very specific knowledge of the profiles of the parents and especially of the father. Be it a result of procedural laxity and a lack of professionalism or a deliberate coverup, the police force ignored the red flags and allowed the situation to carry on. After the fact, of course, all sorts of things are being said, including that the father’s appointment to Parliament security had heft backing and that this same backing also stoked his confidence. It is also being said that the violent father was also a violent colleague, officer and citizen, a man of violence overall, yet seemingly untouchable nonetheless. His confidence was not misplaced; he was, indeed, untouchable for many years.

All the “psychological problems” only emerged after he was arrested, and that revelation, too, was to secure him better treatment. Does anyone wonder why the police has a lousy reputation? This is why. And it’s quite possible that it has never wondered why itself.