The Illusion of Justice: How Policing and Politics Collude to Shape Domestic Abuse Narratives

If police and politicians prioritise specific narratives or outcomes over impartial justice, the erosion of public trust is inevitable. Michael Matheson, MSP for the Scottish National Party, allegedly remarked in a conversation with a constituent that the Scottish Government had an “expected outcome” that more men would be charged with domestic abuse in the coming years. The constituent concerned with the gender framing of domestic abuse recorded the statement via a government petition on 12 April 2022 (PE1909/H – Remove the “gender-based crime” domestic abuse narrative and make it gender neutral and equal). Michael Matheson’s statement, which implies a predetermined direction for Police Scotland’s treatment of male suspects, raises serious concerns. Is policing and prosecution in Scotland driven by evidence and impartiality, or are they being shaped to align with political objectives? These concerns are heightened when viewed alongside Police Scotland’s recently reported rise in domestic abuse statistics and the public appeal from Scotland’s most senior prosecutor.

On 23 December 2024, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC urged women suffering from abuse and coercive control to seek help, citing an 11 per cent rise in reported domestic abuse incidents over the six months to September 2024. According to Police Scotland, there were 20,271 reported crimes of domestic abuse during this period. While framed as evidence of progress in combating abuse, the numbers invite a deeper examination of whether they reflect genuine action or deliberate manipulation to fulfil a preordained narrative.

Arrests as Low-Hanging Fruit

The alignment of these events points to a system prioritising arrest figures over justice. Arresting individuals for minor or ambiguous incidents—such as domestic arguments or non-violent disputes—offers an easy way to boost statistics. These arrests often require minimal evidence but count towards the appearance of “success” in tackling abuse. For law enforcement, this becomes an attractive, low-effort means of showing results, while politicians can tout the rising figures as evidence of their policies’ effectiveness.

Yet for those caught in this system, the consequences are catastrophic. Innocent individuals see their lives destroyed, their reputations tarnished, and their families torn apart. Meanwhile, resources that could be used to identify and intervene in cases of serious abuse are squandered on meeting politically driven arrest targets. The real victims of abuse—those enduring the most severe harm—are left without the support they desperately need.

The Systemic Devaluation of Male Victims

The system’s biases are particularly evident in its treatment of male victims. Abuse against men is either ignored entirely or framed as less serious, and their responses to abuse—such as anger, trauma, frustration, or defensiveness—are often weaponised as evidence against them. This perpetuates the harmful myth that domestic abuse is almost exclusively a male-on-female issue.

Scientific literature offers a far more nuanced view, showing that abuse crosses gender lines. Male victims and female perpetrators represent significant portions of cases, yet this reality is systematically excluded from the public facing narrative in Scotland. Organisations that coordinate “us and them” abuse narratives benefit from maintaining this oversimplified perspective, as it justifies funding and policies focused on one demographic while ignoring others. Acknowledging the true scope and complexity of abuse would require systemic change—something these organisations appear unwilling or unable to do, consider, or understand.

An AMIS trustee (Abused Men in Scotland) was invited to observe Police Scotland’s coercive-control training. This training reportedly focused on male perpetrators and largely ignored the experiences of male victims.

• According to the AMIS trustee Police Scotland’s coercive-control training included statements where trainers described men as “posing as victims” more frequently than acknowledging them as actual victims. This reflects a systemic bias in training practices that perpetuates stereotypes about male culpability and diminishes male victimhood​.

This type of training directly influences how officers interpret and respond to domestic abuse cases, discouraging male victims from coming forward and reinforcing societal biases about gender roles in abuse.

Timing and the Narrative of Deception

The timeline of events paints a concerning picture. In April 2022, Michael Matheson MSP openly stated that the Scottish Government anticipated more men being charged for domestic abuse. This prediction aligns uncomfortably well with the subsequent release of Police Scotland’s statistics showing a significant rise in reported domestic abuse cases by September 2024. The 11 per cent increase, rather than reflecting an organic trend, appears manufactured to support the government’s expectations.

Adding to this pattern of bias is Dorothy Bain KC’s public plea on 23 December 2024, which focuses exclusively on women as victims of abuse. Her statement fits seamlessly into the narrative crafted by politicians, reinforcing the notion of male perpetrators and female victims while ignoring the complexities highlighted in scientific research. If this timing is not coincidental—it reflects a coordinated effort to sustain a narrative that benefits institutions while neglecting those truly in need of help.

A System Designed to Perpetuate Itself

Why does this system persist? The answer lies in its incentives. Rising domestic abuse figures translate to increased funding, expanded power, and political justification for policies that might otherwise face scrutiny. For law enforcement and advocacy groups, this creates a self-reinforcing cycle: more arrests lead to higher statistics, which in turn justify demands for more resources. Crime reduction—ostensibly the goal—becomes secondary to maintaining this cycle.

By framing domestic abuse as predominantly a male-on-female issue, the system avoids addressing abuse in all its forms. This approach not only fails male victims but also perpetuates harm against female victims by diverting attention and resources away from the most severe cases of abuse.

Dorothy Bain KC’s Plea: Is it Evidence of an Inside Job?

Dorothy Bain KC’s plea, positioned as a compassionate call to action, might merely reveal the system’s true priorities. Rather than reflecting a community-driven effort to protect victims, it suggests a coordinated attempt to achieve preordained outcomes. The timing of her statement, shortly after the release of police statistics—and following Police Scotland’s campaigns titled Don’t Be That Guy and That Guy, which some have described as implying ‘men are the problem’, along with Michael Matheson, MSP for the Scottish National Party, and his speculative predictions about the future—underscores the alignment between political narratives, legislative goals, law enforcement practices, and public messaging in addressing issues of sexual violence under the banner of promoting cultural change. Despite claims of neutrality and impartiality, there appears to be a clear convergence between these organisations, their chosen narratives, and their enforcement practices. Far from empowering victims, this approach perpetuates a system designed to serve itself.

The real tragedy lies in the system’s failure to address the complexities of domestic abuse. By clinging to outdated and scientifically unsupported notions of male perpetrators and female victims, it betrays the very individuals it claims to protect. Real change requires dismantling this system, prioritising evidence over narratives, and shifting focus from inflating statistics to reducing harm. Until then, Scotland’s compassion toward victims of domestic abuse will remain a façade, benefiting institutions and failing society.

As men increasingly feel targeted by policies and narratives framing them as default perpetrators of domestic abuse, the consequences ripple far beyond personal distress. For those striving to establish healthy boundaries or assert their rights within relationships, the systemic failures of policing and the legal framework may exacerbate rather than alleviate tensions. A justice system rooted in bias and a public discourse that vilifies rather than supports creates an environment ripe for a self-fulfilling prophecy, where men burdened by unfair treatment may inadvertently fall into destructive roles that they would otherwise be able to avoid.

How the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Applies to Domestic Abuse

Expectation Shapes Action

Men who try to set boundaries in relationships—a healthy behaviour—may find themselves labelled as controlling or aggressive, especially within a societal framework that disproportionately casts men as perpetrators. This societal lens influences how conflicts are interpreted and how institutions like the police respond. A minor disagreement or a heated argument may be escalated into criminal charges, feeding the narrative of male culpability.

For those subjected to this repeated pattern of judgment and intervention, the stress and frustration can lead to defensive or rebellious behaviours. Men may find themselves withdrawing from healthy emotional engagement, lashing out in frustration, or resigning themselves to the stereotype of aggressor because the system has predetermined their role and limited their capacity to engage within the dynamics of the relationship to something superficial.

A Feedback Loop of Distrust and Alienation

When men experience this systemic bias repeatedly, their trust in the fairness of institutions erodes. The police, judiciary, and even support systems become symbols of antagonism rather than allies. Feeling abandoned, many men disengage, further isolating themselves and potentially falling into patterns of self-destructive behaviour. These normal responses to ill-treatment could then be used against them to reinforce stereotypes and exacerbate harm.

The Burden of Societal Narratives

The persistent portrayal of domestic abuse as a male-on-female phenomenon compounds this issue. Even when men are victims, they are often disbelieved or told that their experiences are not serious. Attempts to defend themselves may be reframed as aggression, and their boundaries are dismissed as controlling behaviour. In such a system, men may feel that asserting their rights is futile, leaving them vulnerable to both relational and systemic abuse as well as at risk of overreactions or acts of retribution driven by frustration stemming from both institutional failures and continuous silencing within their abusive relationship.

Future Implications: The Escalation of Frustration

If these patterns continue unchecked, the consequences for society could be profound:

1. Increased Aggression and Rebellion:
   Men who feel targeted by a biased system may internalise resentment, which can manifest as aggression or destructive behaviour. Instead of de-escalating domestic abuse, the system inadvertently fuels cycles of conflict and frustration, even benefiting from its failures by framing the outcome of its errors, such as agression or rebellion, as proof that its continued action is a necessity.
2. Polarisation of Gender Relations:
   The adversarial framing of men versus women in domestic abuse narratives could deepen gender divides. Trust and collaboration between genders may deteriorate, hindering the pursuit of healthy, equitable relationships, consequently escalating conflicts.
3. Rise of Reactionary Movements:
   As alienation grows, some men may gravitate towards movements that amplify their grievances, potentially fostering harmful ideologies or promoting actions that worsen societal tensions.
4. Neglect of Real Victims:
   While resources are poured into upholding a simplistic narrative, genuine victims—both male and female—are left unsupported. This failure exacerbates harm and perpetuates cycles of abuse.

A System That Fails All

In this context, the plea by Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC on 23 December 2024 urging women to report abuse becomes emblematic of a broader systemic failure. Her appeal, couched in language that frames women as the primary victims, neglects the complexities revealed in scientific literature. Abuse is not heavily weighted towards male perpetrators and female victims—this framing is a construct maintained by organisations that benefit from its simplicity.

The timing of Bain’s statement, following the 11 per cent rise in domestic abuse incidents reported by Police Scotland, aligns uncomfortably with the “expected outcome” articulated by Michael Matheson MSP in April 2022. Rather than reflecting a genuine effort to address abuse, this alignment suggests a coordinated effort to inflate figures and validate preconceived narratives. By prioritising the appearance of progress over the reality of harm reduction, these systems betray all victims of abuse and those wrongly targeted by biased enforcement.

Breaking the Cycle

If society is to break this destructive cycle, it must confront the systemic biases and incentives that drive these patterns:

• Equal Recognition for All Victims: Support systems must validate the experiences of all victims, regardless of gender, and provide equitable resources.
• Evidence-Based Policies: Replace politically driven targets with impartial, research-based approaches that focus on harm reduction rather than statistical inflation.
• Transparent Oversight: Introduce independent reviews of policing and prosecution practices to ensure fairness and accountability.
• Public Discourse Reform: Challenge the simplistic narratives that dominate public discussions about domestic abuse, fostering a more nuanced understanding of the issue.

Without these changes, the cycle of harm will continue, trapping men, women, and families in a system that prioritises appearances over justice. The result will be a society more polarised, less trusting, and further removed from the possibility of genuine progress in tackling domestic abuse.

Official Dismissal of Gender-Neutral Approaches

The petition calling for gender-neutral domestic abuse policies was met with mixed responses. Submissions to the committee included input from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, who defended the existing gender-based framework. The Cabinet Secretary argued that this approach is justified by statistics showing that domestic abuse is predominantly perpetrated by men against women. For instance:

• 95% of charges reported by Police Scotland to COPFS in 2020-21 involved a male alleged perpetrator.
• Women are three times more likely to be killed by a partner or ex-partner than men.

In their response, the Cabinet Secretary emphasised that while men and boys can be victims, the overarching framework reflects broader patterns of gender inequality:

“The causes and consequences of violence are different for men and women, as are the approaches we need to take to prevent and eradicate that violence.”

This stance is echoed in government policies such as Equally Safe, which defines domestic abuse as part of “a range of behaviours constituting male abuse of power” and ties it to structural gender inequality.

---

Criticism of the Gendered Approach

Opposing this view, AMIS (Abused Men in Scotland) and other critics argue that the statistics cited by government officials reflect biased data collection methods that fail to capture the true complexity of domestic abuse dynamics. AMIS highlighted the following issues:

• Bias in Reporting and Training: Male victims are often treated as perpetrators by default. Police Scotland’s coercive control training disproportionately focuses on male offenders while minimising female-perpetrated abuse.
• Underrepresentation of Male Victims: Many male victims do not seek help due to fear of being disbelieved or treated unfairly. This reluctance further skews the data in favour of the prevailing narrative​​.

AMIS’s submission also criticised the government’s framing of domestic abuse as part of “violence against women and girls” (VAWG), arguing that this framework excludes male experiences. AMIS stated:

“The current gendered analysis does not adequately recognise male victimhood or female perpetration. There is an opportunity to undertake a new analysis based on recent evidence to aim for a more collaborative approach that recognises every victim’s vulnerabilities and strengths.”

---

Divergence in Perspectives

This divergence in viewpoints reflects a fundamental disagreement about how domestic abuse should be understood and addressed:

• Government’s Position: Emphasises structural gender inequality as a root cause and prioritises female victims due to their perceived higher risk.
• Critics’ Position: Advocates for a more inclusive framework that recognises abuse as a human issue rather than a gendered one, arguing that failure to do so perpetuates bias and neglects significant portions of victims.

---

Implications

The official dismissal of gender-neutral approaches has significant implications for how domestic abuse cases are handled. Critics argue that by embedding a gendered framework in policy and practice, the system reinforces stereotypes, limits support for male victims, and sustains a biased narrative that may not accurately reflect the realities of domestic abuse in Scotland.

This bias is glaring when juxtaposed with the promoted “11% increase in reported domestic abuse incidents” because the Cabinet Secretary’s defence of the gendered framework is failing to acknowledge the broader context of these type of statistics. The reported rise in incidents encompasses all cases tagged with a domestic abuse identifier, including male victims, same-sex relationships, non-intimate familial relationships (e.g., abuse between siblings or parents and children), and male victims erroneously treated as perpetrators.

There is no direct evidence connecting this increase to a rise in violence against women, nor any meaningful analysis to substantiate such a claim. The 11% figure, therefore, is a hollow statistic—devoid of practical meaning, skewed by systemic biases, and with no demonstrated real-world utility.

The Cabinet Secretary’s reliance on female homicide rates and violence against women narratives to defend the dismissal of gender-neutral approaches is an overreach that misrepresents the data. While women are disproportionately affected in certain severe cases—such as homicide—these extreme outcomes are specific and cannot be conflated with the generalised rise in domestic abuse reports.

By framing domestic abuse statistics solely within the context of violence against women, the government demonstrates a blinkered understanding of what domestic abuse actually entails. This narrow focus perpetuates systemic bias, marginalises victims who do not fit the preferred narrative, and undermines efforts to address the broader realities of domestic abuse in Scotland.

---

Appendix: Evidence Supporting the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Definition and Core Mechanism

The self-fulfilling prophecy refers to a psychological and sociological phenomenon where an expectation or belief about a group or individual influences behaviour in a way that reinforces the original expectation. First introduced by sociologist Robert K. Merton (1948), it describes how predictions can bring about behaviours or outcomes that make those predictions come true.

Scientific Research on Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

1. Education and Teacher Expectations
   Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968): “Pygmalion in the Classroom”
   • This classic study demonstrated that teachers’ expectations of students significantly influenced academic performance. Students randomly labelled as “high potential” showed greater improvements in test scores, even though they were not objectively different from their peers.
   • Implication: Expectations create behavioural changes through differential treatment, feedback, and opportunities.
2. Labelling Theory in Criminology
   Becker (1963): “Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance”
   • Labelling theory posits that individuals who are labelled as deviant or criminal are more likely to adopt deviant behaviours due to societal exclusion and internalised stigma.
   • Study Example: Research shows that youths who are labelled as “delinquent” often face greater police scrutiny, fewer opportunities, and social marginalisation, increasing the likelihood of recidivism.
   • Implication: Labels drive systemic and individual behaviours that reinforce the label.
3. Identity Threat and Performance
   Steele and Aronson (1995): Stereotype Threat
   • Research on stereotype threat demonstrates that when individuals are reminded of negative stereotypes about their group, their performance often declines. For example, African American students performed worse on standardised tests when their race was emphasised compared to when it was not.
   • Implication: Societal expectations shape outcomes by inducing stress, anxiety, or disengagement.
4. Police Perception and Over-Policing
   Goffman (1963): Stigma and Deviance
   • Studies on police practices reveal that over-policing certain demographics (e.g., racial minorities or low-income communities) leads to higher arrest rates, reinforcing the perception of those groups as inherently criminal. This results in alienation, mistrust, and increased conflict with law enforcement.
   • Example: Research from the United States has shown that stop-and-frisk policies disproportionately targeting young Black men led to higher arrest rates but did not correlate with higher crime rates, indicating the role of bias rather than behaviour.
   • Implication: Targeted enforcement reinforces stereotypes and distrust, creating a cycle of antagonism.
5. Gender Expectations and Behaviour
   Vandello and Bosson (2013): “Precarious Manhood”
   • Research shows that societal expectations around masculinity lead to defensive behaviours when men feel their status as “real men” is threatened. In contexts where men are labelled as aggressive or controlling, they may adopt hypermasculine behaviours to compensate for perceived identity threats.
   • Implication: Labels and societal pressures influence behaviours in ways that reinforce stereotypes, particularly in relational and conflict contexts.

Application to Domestic Abuse Contexts

1. Bias in Reporting and Response
   Felson and Outlaw (2007): “The Control Motive in Intimate Partner Violence”
   • This study found that societal assumptions about male aggression and female victimhood influenced how intimate partner violence was reported, investigated, and prosecuted. Male victims were less likely to be believed, and their experiences were often minimised.
   • Implication: Societal narratives about abuse shape institutional responses, discouraging male victims and reinforcing stereotypes about male aggression.
2. Reinforcement of Gender Norms
   Straus (2011): “Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence”
   • Straus’s research highlighted the existence of significant levels of female-perpetrated violence in intimate relationships, often overlooked due to societal narratives. When men’s defensive actions were recorded, they were more likely to be labelled as the aggressor.
   • Implication: Overrepresentation of male perpetrators in domestic abuse statistics perpetuates biases that influence legal and social outcomes.
3. Identity Threat in Men
   Kimmel (2008): “Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men”
   • Research on male identity shows that societal pressures to conform to specific roles can lead to feelings of inadequacy or frustration, especially when men feel unjustly targeted. This can contribute to disengagement or reactive behaviours.
   • Implication: Men who feel alienated by biased systems may adopt maladaptive coping mechanisms, reinforcing negative stereotypes.

Conclusion: A Trap for Those Targeted

The research outlined above demonstrates how self-fulfilling prophecy mechanisms operate across various contexts, including education, criminology, and identity dynamics. In the domestic abuse narrative, societal expectations that men are inherently aggressive or controlling create a trap:

• Men attempting to assert boundaries or defend themselves may be interpreted as fulfilling the stereotype of the aggressor.
• Institutions, shaped by these biases, may disproportionately target men, reinforcing the perception of male culpability.
• This cycle alienates male victims, fuels resentment, and perpetuates behaviours that align with societal expectations.

By recognising these dynamics and addressing the biases that underpin them, it is possible to break free from these cycles and create a more equitable, evidence-based system for addressing domestic abuse.