THE SECOND THOUGHT

1 in 4 women in England and Wales will experience domestic abuse in her lifetime, and on average, one woman is killed by a partner or ex every five days. These stark realities underscore the urgent need for action.

This issue has gained renewed attention recently, with the government pledging to halve violence against women and girls (VAWG) within the next decade — a bold promise reaffirmed ahead of International Women’s Day. Meanwhile, cultural conversations are shifting too: the Netflix series Adolescence has sparked public debate about social media’s role in normalising violence, and high-profile cases, like the tragic murder of Sarah Everard, continue to shock the nation and highlight ongoing safety concerns.

But beyond headlines and promises lies a difficult question: how will this goal be achieved? Will it come through tougher criminal laws, better protection, offender rehabilitation, or tackling the deeper roots of misogyny and inequality?

In this post, I examine these approaches—punishment, protection, rehabilitation, resources, and prevention—and argue that halving violence against women demands a coordinated, well-funded strategy that addresses not just symptoms, but the root causes of this epidemic.

** I want to make one thing clear: this is in no way a comprehensive answer, nor does it cover all the possible avenues for change. I’m not claiming to have the solution. I just want to ask the questions that matter, challenge some assumptions, and explore where real impact might lie 

1: Sounding Tough: Are Harsher Measures Helping?

In recent years, the government has introduced a range of so-called “tough” measures, from Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (DAPOs) and new offences like forced marriage and stalking, to sentencing reforms promising longer jail terms for domestic homicide and harsher penalties for coercive control and street harassment. Initiatives like the planned ‘Raneem’s Law,’ which aims to embed domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms, also signal intent.

On paper, these actions suggest serious progress. However, many of these laws overlap or replicate existing powers, creating a confusing patchwork of remedies that often fail to improve victims’ everyday safety. While harsher sentencing may deter some repeat offenders, it rarely stops first-time abuse—particularly in domestic settings where violence is hidden, escalating, and underreported.

Worse still, these measures rely heavily on a justice system that is already overstretched. Police forces across the UK are under-resourced, leading to delays, failures to act on known threats, and low conviction rates. Without the necessary training, time, and enforcement capacity, new laws risk being little more than symbolic gestures.

More fundamentally, focusing on punishment assumes violence begins only after a law is broken, ignoring the warning signs and root causes present long before offences occur. Rather than layering on more legislation, the government must prioritize resourcing and reforming existing services to create a system that truly protects and prevents.

3: Protection – Keeping Women Safe, or Just Moving the Threat?

Protective measures like restraining orders, panic alarms, and emergency accommodation can be life-saving. They are a crucial part of the response — especially for women in immediate danger.

But these tools are reactive. They kick in after abuse has been disclosed and reported — and for many women, that’s a barrier too high to cross.

Less than 20% of women report domestic abuse to the police. Those who do are often forced to flee their homes, change their routines, and live in a state of constant vigilance. The psychological toll of “living in hiding” can be immense — and protection, while essential, can feel more like containment than safety.

Moreover, access to protective measures varies greatly across the country. In some areas, women face long waits for refuge spaces or find that legal orders are not enforced. For a strategy based on keeping women safe, we are still falling short.

4: Rehabilitation – Can Perpetrators Change?

This is perhaps the most controversial area of all. Can perpetrators of abuse truly change? And if so, should we invest in their rehabilitation?

Evidence from programmes like the Drive Project suggests that high-intensity, behaviour-focused interventions can reduce repeat offending — particularly when they work in tandem with support services for survivors. But these programmes are few and far between, often underfunded, and not consistently rolled out.

Rehabilitation must never come at the expense of victim safety. Yet, ignoring this approach entirely risks missing a critical opportunity. If we can prevent even some abusers from harming again, isn’t that a public good? In a long-term strategy to reduce violence, meaningful rehabilitation should be part of the picture — alongside strict monitoring and robust safeguarding.

5: Resources – The Case for Funding Specialist Support Services

No policy is effective without resources. Yet across the UK, frontline services for women — refuges, rape crisis centres, legal aid, trauma counselling — are stretched to breaking point. Many operate on shoestring budgets, rely on short-term grants, or have had to close altogether due to funding cuts.

When survivors do reach out for help, too often there is no help to be found.

This is not a question of capacity. It’s a question of political will. Funding specialist services is not just about “managing risk” — it’s about valuing women’s safety, dignity, and recovery. If we truly want to reduce violence, we need to resource the people already doing the work — and do it consistently, not just in response to public outcry.

6: Root Causes – Adressing Gender Inequality and Cultural Norms

Ultimately, violence against women and girls is not random – it grows out of gender inequality, toxic masculinity, and social norms that excuse or trivialise abuse. Should we be focusing our efforts on challenging the deep-rooted cultural and societal attitudes that perpetuate violence and gender inequality? In essence, addressing the root cause of violence against women and girls.

The challenge the government faces is changing these deeply-ingrained attitudes. These beliefs not only fuel harmful behaviours but also create a climate in which victims are silenced, abuse is normalised, and prevention efforts struggle to gain traction. Even with legislative changes and improved services, if societal attitudes don’t shift, women and girls will continue to face significant barriers in seeking justice and support. Changing these entrenched norms requires a whole-of-society approach that goes far beyond the criminal justice system.

The recent Netflix series Adolescence sparked public conversation on the need to protect young individuals from the harms of social media and violence, highlighting how exposure to toxic content can normalize abuse and distort healthy relationships from a young age. In addition, as Baroness Bertin has maintained, pornography plays a significant role in shaping how men view and treat women. Despite the passage of the Online Safety Act, a YouGov poll revealed that 52% of people believe the internet has becomes more dangerous for women and girls. The government must address the role of tech companies in facilitating and profiting from VAWG. 

Long-term prevention means starting early: teaching healthy relationships in schools, challenging sexist attitudes in the media, building communities that do not tolerate harassment, control, or intimidation.

Ending violence means confronting the attitudes that enable it — not just punishing it after the fact.

CONCLUSION: A Holisitc Strategy

The government’s goal to halve VAWG is bold, but it also brings me hope. 

We are taking a step in the right direction but achieving it will demand more than tough talk and new laws. It will require a joined-up strategy — one that combines punishment, protection, rehabilitation, sustained resourcing, and above all, a long-term commitment to tackling inequality at its root. 

---