Report on Coercive Control and Legislative Responses: Emphasizing Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

On April 27, 2024, Mica Miller, a 30-year-old woman from South Carolina, tragically died by suicide after reporting coercive control and abuse by her husband, John-Paul Miller, a local pastor. This case has brought national attention to the issue of coercive control, a form of nonphysical abuse involving tactics such as financial manipulation, isolation, and surveillance. The incident highlights the urgent need for legal reforms aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

Understanding Coercive Control

• Coercive control involves nonphysical tactics used by abusers to dominate and trap their partners.
• Common tactics include:
  1. Financial manipulation
  2. Isolation from loved ones
  3. Surveillance and tracking
  4. Threats and intimidation
  5. Destruction of property
• Mica Miller’s case illustrated these tactics, including hacking electronics, slashing tires, and removing her from shared bank accounts.

Legislative Developments and National Movement

Mica Miller’s death has spurred legislative action in South Carolina and other states to criminalize coercive control, aiming to fill gaps in domestic violence laws. This movement supports SDG 16 by promoting justice and strong institutions that protect vulnerable populations.

1. South Carolina introduced a bill in April 2024 to make coercive control a felony.
2. Since 2020, over six states have enacted coercive control laws; others including Maine, Kentucky, and New York have pending bills.
3. Most laws add coercive control to domestic violence definitions in civil or family courts, influencing child custody and protective orders.
4. Hawaii is the only state to criminalize coercive control directly as a petty misdemeanor under a pilot program.

Importance of Addressing Coercive Control

• Coercive control is often more dangerous and pervasive than physical violence, contributing to increased risks of assault and homicide.
• Studies show controlling behavior is present in nearly all intimate-partner homicides, underscoring the need for legal recognition of nonphysical abuse.
• Judicial awareness and intervention in cases of coercive control can prevent escalation and protect victims.

Challenges and Concerns in Legal Implementation

While legislative progress is notable, there are concerns regarding the potential misuse of coercive control laws and their impact on victims, particularly marginalized groups. These concerns relate to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16.

• Legal definitions of coercive control may be vague, risking manipulation by abusers.
• Actions such as taking money or breaking objects could be misinterpreted, complicating judicial decisions.
• There is a risk that survivors, especially people of color, may face increased scrutiny or have laws used against them.
• Advocates emphasize the need for careful judicial training and safeguards to protect victims’ rights.

International Perspectives and Comparisons

Globally, several countries have enacted laws criminalizing coercive control, reflecting a growing recognition of its impact on gender equality and human rights, aligning with SDG 5 and SDG 16.

• The United Kingdom, Ireland, and parts of Australia have criminalized coercive control.
• Canada has considered similar legislation.
• Notable cases, such as the civil trial of social media influencer Andrew Tate in the UK, highlight the legal system’s evolving approach.
• In contrast, U.S. courts have been slower to accept coercive control as a legal concept in criminal trials.

Impact and Future Directions

1. In Hawaii, 736 petty misdemeanor domestic violence cases were filed since the law’s enactment, though specific coercive control cases are unclear.
2. Family courts in states with updated laws have begun considering coercive control in custody and protection order decisions.
3. Examples include:
   • A 2023 California case granting full custody and a permanent restraining order based solely on coercive control.
   • A 2023 Washington case where a protection order was granted and gun access was restricted due to coercive control and suicide threats.
4. Despite progress, challenges remain in ensuring laws are applied fairly and effectively, particularly for survivors from marginalized communities.

Conclusion

The case of Mica Miller and the subsequent legislative efforts underscore the critical need to address coercive control within the framework of domestic violence laws. These efforts contribute directly to achieving Sustainable Development Goals by promoting health and well-being (SDG 3), advancing gender equality (SDG 5), reducing inequalities (SDG 10), and strengthening justice systems (SDG 16). Continued advocacy, judicial education, and careful policy design are essential to protect victims and prevent further tragedies.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article discusses mental health issues, suicide, and the impact of domestic abuse on well-being.
2. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • Focus on domestic violence, coercive control, and abuse predominantly affecting women.
   • Legal reforms to protect victims of intimate partner violence.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Legal frameworks and judicial interventions related to domestic violence and coercive control.
   • Access to justice and protection orders for victims.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.
   • Target 3.5: Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol (implied in mental health and abuse context).
2. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation.
   • Target 5.3: Eliminate harmful practices, such as coercive control and abuse in intimate partner relationships.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels (implied through legislative efforts and judicial reforms).

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. SDG 3 Indicators
   • 3.4.2: Suicide mortality rate — relevant as the article discusses suicide related to domestic abuse.
   • Data on mental health service utilization and outcomes (implied through discussions on suicide prevention and mental health struggles).
2. SDG 5 Indicators
   • 5.2.1: Proportion of ever-partnered women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to physical, sexual or psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner in the previous 12 months.
   • 5.2.2: Proportion of women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to sexual violence by persons other than an intimate partner in the previous 12 months (implied).
   • Legal statistics on cases filed and prosecuted related to coercive control and domestic violence (implied through discussion of new laws and court cases).
3. SDG 16 Indicators
   • 16.3.1: Proportion of victims of violence in the previous 12 months who reported their victimization to competent authorities or other officially recognized conflict resolution mechanisms.
   • 16.3.2: Unsentenced detainees as a proportion of overall prison population (implied through judicial system responsiveness).
   • Data on protective orders issued and enforcement outcomes (implied in court cases and legislative changes).

4. Table: SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: themarshallproject.org