There are hardly any scientifically based clues concerning the “why” in Switzerland. We know the “who” and have numbers on the quantity, but we lack solid insights into the cause.
Convinced? Rate this contribution from the community — and help make the best ideas visible.
7 comments
Join the discussion: ask questions, challenge ideas, and add context so the post becomes clearer.
1000 characters remaining
A. W.
2 days ago
The reasons are probably mostly jealousy, possessiveness, narcissistic injury, loss of control, readiness for violence, in short: poor self‑ and emotion management. Or did you mean non‑psychological causes?
0
R. R.Author
2 days ago
Exactly. At least research findings from Spain support the thesis that unilateral exercise of power (with the help of authorities) significantly contributes to violence. The study is linked in the sources, here a summary on OECD slides: webfs.oecd.org/Els-com/VaW/OECD-VaW-WhatWo...
That is why I am so energetic here. The more important I find the topic, the more important it seems to me to understand the causes. Otherwise we might be throwing sand in our eyes with a lot of money, without prospects for major improvements. Which also does not help the victims. Studies from abroad can also be helpful. Because the psychology of people is at least to a considerable extent the same worldwide.
I am sure there are other reasons. But if you identify the biggest clusters, you can tackle them specifically and efficiently. Cheaper and more protection. But that requires openness to provide data on ideology.
0
A. W.
2 days ago
Interesting thought. I’ve never really considered it: Which personality factors of the victim (!) increase their risk of being murdered by their partner? (Borderline, dependent personality disorder, etc.). But yes, it’s politically delicate due to blame assignment.
In any case, it shouldn’t matter whether the mechanism is direct (she drives him to violence, i.e., “guilty”) or indirect (she always chooses the “hitman” type, i.e., “innocent”). If such a “victim profile” exists, these women deserve special attention (therapeutic or campaign-wise).
1
R. R.Author
2 days ago
Exactly, that's what I mean. Psychotherapeutic treatment is completely different from a sensitisation campaign. And if you want to address the cause, follow‑up measures like women’s shelters might be a good addition, but they do not solve the root problem. And what do we do now, for example, with more money? Do we know who to treat? A sensitisation campaign that, as suspected, does not reach the perpetrators? And beware, hot topic, but I’ll mention it: could women, through prior psychological violence, be a trigger that puts men in a situation where they feel existentially threatened and don’t know how else to help themselves? If so, of course that never justifies violence. But would two therapies then be more sustainable than one?\nI’m not claiming anything. I just want to highlight that we barely know what triggers the violence.
1
A. W.
2 days ago
In principle I agree that cause research must precede solution finding. But a murder will always be multifactorial and with 20 partnership murders per year there are probably too few data points for significant results. Qualitative interviews would be possible.\nBtw: Even if depressed people do not respond to rational arguments (should), they can still be treated well psychotherapeutically and prevention is also possible. I see the problem that narcissists and certain macho cultures are little receptive to prevention campaigns.
1
R. R.Author
2 days ago
And let's be honest. Your assumptions above are plausible but still just assumptions. And this is where I see the problem. Perhaps the most common cause lies elsewhere. What if the most common cause is that a man feels his existence is threatened because he fears everything will be taken from him after a breakup—family, house, money, livelihood until the end of his life—and later is not taken seriously by the authorities and acts in a fit of affect?\n\nI'm not saying I believe any particular explanation is correct. Rather, I believe we must first understand the causes. There are many plausible explanations that would require other solutions. So far, no one has shown me a solid basis for where the causes lie. I get the impression that many people have a picture or an opinion, but that is an opinion, not a data‑driven foundation.
0
R. R.Author
2 days ago
Yes, exactly. If, for example, 90 % of the cause lies in a specific significant psychological problem, I would be skeptical that broad campaigns could reach these people. Because that assumes one can counter it with rationality, which may not be possible. Like trying to tell a depressed person that life is beautiful—it doesn’t work.
Therefore I am strongly of the opinion that when you do something or invest, you should first conduct a solid scientific root‑cause analysis and then derive solutions from that. Here we are already at solutions without understanding the cause. To me it is too much symbolic politics, which merely suggests the issue is important while spending a lot of money with little effect.
Personally, what bothers me about politics in general is that the solution is almost always the focus before the problem is seriously understood, which often leads to costly and ineffective measures.