Early intervention key to preventing domestic violence fatalities

In March 1981, Minneapolis police officers in Minnesota responding to a domestic violence call were handed three cards. Each card represented one of three possible actions: immediately arresting the offender, ordering the offender to leave the home for eight hours, or issuing a warning and allowing the offender to return. One action was chosen at random.

A six-month follow-up of 330 cases found that the recidivism rate was lowest, at 19 percent, among offenders who were arrested, while the rate for those who received only a warning was nearly twice as high. This became the famous “Minneapolis experiment,” demonstrating that domestic violence is not merely a private matter but a crime requiring law enforcement intervention. Following the study, many U.S. states abandoned the traditional “hands-off” approach and adopted mandatory arrest policies for domestic violence cases.

The approach sparked debate. Critics argued that automatic arrests could, over the long term, undermine victim safety and be misused as a tool for false accusations. In response, the U.S. developed a tailored intervention package that goes beyond arrest, combining victim safety planning, housing and financial support, counseling, and offender rehabilitation programs. The principle is clear: the key is how early and consistently society intervenes.

The situation in South Korea is different. The proportion of homicide victims killed by family members rose from 29.6 percent in 2020 to 47.5 percent in 2024, meaning nearly half of all homicides were committed by relatives, and more than half of these crimes occurred in the home.

In June, a man in his 60s in Bupyeong District, Incheon, killed his wife just days after a restraining order against him had expired. Three days before the murder, the wife had asked the police for protection, but no action was taken. The delayed intervention turned what should have been the safest space into the deadliest.

Advocates at the scene also call for the early removal of offenders. Heo Soon-im, director of a domestic violence shelter in Jeju, stressed, “Ultimately, these shelters should not have to exist.” She explained that current laws and policies are often too lenient toward perpetrators, leaving victims isolated and deprived of normal daily life.

The United Kingdom has also strengthened early intervention measures. The “Clare’s Law” initiative is a notable example, prompted by the 2009 murder of 36-year-old Clare Wood by her partner. The man had a prior record of assaulting cohabiting women, but Clare had no way of knowing this. As a result, the United Kingdom implemented the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme nationwide in 2014. The program centers on two key principles. The first is the “right to know,” which allows victims to check a partner’s criminal history. The second is the “duty to inform,” requiring police to warn victims if they detect potential danger. Unfortunately, South Korea does not have a similar system.

In South Korea, the prevailing view remains that family issues should be resolved within the family. Unless a crime is witnessed in the act, arrests are difficult, and housing, counseling, and financial support programs are spread across multiple agencies. The lessons from the Minneapolis experiment and Clare’s Law are clear.

Society must intervene before family conflicts escalate into violence, and once intervention begins, it must continue without interruption. To prevent the home, the supposed safe haven, from becoming a site of harm, early action by society is essential.