Tougher penalties proposed for partner killings following domestic abuse
Offenders who kill their (ex-)partner after a pattern of domestic abuse face harsher sentencing. Ellen Gijselaar, assistant professor in criminal law and criminal procedure, sees opportunities and risks in the Dutch government’s proposal: ‘Criminal law alone is not the answer.’
Until now, judges in the Netherlands have given little weight to this pattern of abuse: offenders who kill their partner without proven premeditation are convicted of manslaughter, not murder. For a murder conviction, there must be proof that the suspect had the opportunity to reflect on what they were about to do and on the consequences of their actions. In cases of femicide – the killing of a victim because she is a woman – such evidence is rarely available.
Gijselaar explains: ‘In practice, judges tend to infer premeditation primarily from concrete indications immediately preceding the act, such as death threats directed at the victim or chat messages showing that the suspect had hinted to others that they intended to harm the victim.’ The murder or manslaughter of women is most often committed by a (former) partner or family member. Statistics show that more than half (53.7%) of women killed in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2024 were killed by a current or former partner. In many cases, the killing was preceded by a history of violence.
Preventing femicide
Justice and Security Minister David van Weel wants to address this situation. He has published draft legislation that would criminalise coercive control and psychological abuse and increase the maximum sentence for manslaughter committed after prolonged domestic abuse to 30 years in prison or a life sentence. In this way, perpetrators would receive the same punishment as for murder, even when a premeditated plan cannot be proven.
Calls for a separate criminal offence covering psychological abuse have been made for some time, particularly in relation to femicide. Former State Secretary Ingrid Coenradie introduced the draft legislation in the previous government’s term as a way to help prevent femicide. Experts regard coercive control as a precursor to intimate partner femicide, one that has so far remained largely invisible in legal terms. ‘Legal recognition of the concept of intimate partner femicide is important primarily for its symbolic and normative value: it makes the phenomenon visible and recognisable,’ Gijselaar says.
‘Legal recognition of the concept of intimate partner femicide makes it visible and identifiable'
From coercive control to sextortion
Grounds for a harsher sentence are part of broader legislation that would criminalise coercive control and psychological abuse. Coercive control involves one partner exerting power over the other through a sustained pattern of humiliation, intimidation, or restrictions on the other person’s freedom. This type of behaviour is not currently a criminal offence which limits the powers of the police and public prosecution service to intervene, even in serious situations or when there is a risk of escalation.
The legislation proposed by the government also addresses sextortion: blackmail involving sexual images or videos. At present, this is only a criminal offence when the blackmail has been used to force someone into sexual acts; under the proposed legislation, the threat itself would be punishable. Gijselaar welcomes the decision to tailor the offence of coercive control specifically to the context of a current or former intimate relationship. ‘This gives the offence a distinct function and can genuinely help government bodies and support services to recognise patterns of abuse,’ she says.
Hard to prove
Gijselaar, however, has doubts about how feasible the new offence will turn out to be in practice. Coercive control is about patterns of behaviour rather than a single incident, which makes prosecution difficult. ‘It’s true that coercive control is difficult to prosecute and adjudicate,’ she says. ‘That’s why it’s important that the introduction of this legislation is accompanied by intensive specialist training for public prosecutors, police officers and support workers.’
She points to a framework used in Scotland, where coercive control has been a criminal offence for some time. It shows that, when interviewing victims, investigators should not focus on individual incidents in isolation, but rather on the context of the relationship: what implicit rules were in place, how much contact did the victim have with family and friends, and how financially independent the victim was. ‘Victims of intimate partner violence often decide at a later stage not to cooperate with criminal proceedings,’ Gijselaar adds. ‘That’s why other forms of evidence, like text messages, recordings, and footage from smart doorbells, are also important.’
‘Prevention, early intervention, and programmes for perpetrators are equally essential.’
Implementation and prevention
Another question is whether harsher sentences actually prevent femicide. Gijselaar points to European instruments that prescribe a broader approach, including prevention through awareness campaigns and education aimed at early intervention, as well as measures to protect victims. She also emphasises that effective implementation requires more than granting additional rights to victims: ‘A gender-sensitive perspective is also needed in both implementation and evaluation, because this is an issue that affects men and women in different ways and therefore requires tailored policy measures.’
The proposed offence of psychological abuse would apply broadly and is not limited to the period preceding intimate partner femicide. Gijselaar sees a genuine risk in that. Psychological abuse encompasses behaviour that ‘occurs in virtually all relationships from time to time, such as hurtful remarks, name-calling or occasional instances of controlling behaviour.’ According to her, the distinction between a partner who once reads a text message without permission and a partner who threatens suicide to force the other person into doing something will need to be carefully maintained in practice. It is a nuance that the law itself cannot enforce, but one that makes all the difference in practice. The proposed legislation is a step forward, but it is not the final destination. Gijselaar is clear about what still needs to happen: ‘Criminal law alone is not the answer. Prevention, early intervention, and programmes for perpetrators are equally essential.’