Season 7 Episode 16: The Myth of Perpetrator Accountability

Perpetrator BehaviorSystems Change
Written By

About This Episode

“Perpetrator accountability” gets thrown around like a magic word, but when we slow down and look closely, it often means everything and nothing at the same time. 

In this episode, Ruth and David dig into why domestic violence systems, child protection, and family court have no shared definition of it. They look at how that vagueness lets institutions claim progress without showing that harm has decreased, or that adult and child survivors are better off for their contact with the system, its professionals, and the kinds of “accountability” it pursues.

They challenge the default system scoreboard: arrests, protection orders, compliance, program attendance, incarceration. Those actions can matter, but none of them automatically creates lasting behaviour change, healthier parenting, or an end to coercive control. They also examine how survivor-centred language can hide interventions that put the pressure on survivors. Victims are scrutinised, mandated, pressured to leave, or threatened with “failure to protect,” while the person causing harm stays oddly undefined.

Then they get practical. They talk about micro-accountability: describing what the perpetrator did, documenting patterns, naming the impact on a child’s wellbeing and a survivor’s functioning, and using survivor-defined “better” as the real measure of success. They explore what meaningful responsibility can look like, including listening to children, accepting consequences, and repairing harm in ways survivors say matter. If we can see men as fully capable of relational health and accountable parenting, we can build systems that both demand it and support it.

Additional Resources

Next

Season 7 Episode 15: Why Men’s Behaviour Change Requires More Than a Program Tick Box