The Law Was Needed for Hanna... Dating Violence That Ends Only in Death [After Deadline]

Coercive Control by Intimate Partners
Early Signs of Violence and Homicide
Regulated by Law Overseas
Focus on Prevention, Not Aftercare
South Korea at Initial Stage of Legislative Discussion

Editor's Note‘After Deadline’ delivers in-depth stories online that could not be covered in print. Moving beyond breaking news, straight reports, and brief articles that everyone remembers, it presents the background stories, issues and points of debate, pros and cons, along with various visual materials.

Hannah Clark (31) and her three children Aaliya (6), Raiana (4), Trey (3) Photo by Instagram smallsteps4hannah page

Hannah Clark, 31, who lived in Queensland, Australia, was the mother of three children: Aaliya (6), Raiana (4), and Trey (3). She met Rowan Baxter in 2009 and married him in 2012. Although her husband did not physically abuse Hannah, he controlled what she wore, the times and places she went out, and the people she met in real time. He also forbade her from contacting her parents or friends. He coercively demanded sex every day and called Hannah a “fat pig.” He frequently threatened to commit suicide. Hannah felt fear, but because there was no physical or bodily violence that could serve as evidence, she could not get help from the police.

After divorcing her husband in early December 2019, Hannah lived with her three children at her parents’ house. On February 19, 2020, Hannah was putting her three children into the car to take them to school. Suddenly, her ex-husband Rowan got into the passenger seat, doused Hannah and the children with gasoline, and set them on fire. Hannah and her three children were all killed, and Rowan also committed suicide on the spot.

Since their daughter’s death, Hannah’s parents, Sue Clark and Lloyd Clark, have been campaigning for legislation to classify 'Coercive Control' as an independent crime. (Source=Instagram smallsteps4hannah page)

Australian Government to Enforce Coercive Control Regulation Law from July 1

After their daughter’s death, Hannah’s parents, Sue Clark and Lloyd Clark, have campaigned for legislation to define ‘Coercive Control’ as an independent crime. The term ‘coercive control’ was first used in 2007 by Professor Evan Stark of Rutgers University and refers to a range of threatening, intimidating, and exploitative behaviors in intimate relationships. Specifically, it means ‘tracking and monitoring whereabouts,’ ‘insulting and blaming,’ and ‘depriving freedom of action and isolating from acquaintances.’ Hannah’s parents argued that coercive control behaviors are precursors to violence and murder in intimate relationships and should be regulated by law in advance.

Deeply shocked by Hannah’s case, the Australian government amended the criminal law on March 6 this year to criminalize coercive control. Ahead of the law’s enforcement on July 1, a public awareness campaign began on May 1. A video titled ‘It's not love, It's coercive control’ was posted on YouTube and various other channels.

The Australian government amended the Criminal Code on March 6 this year to define coercive control as a crime. Ahead of the law's enforcement on July 1, a public awareness campaign began on May 1. A video titled "It's not love, It's coercive control" was posted through various channels, including YouTube.

Similar cases have occurred in the United States. Jennifer Dulos, a mother of five, was killed by her husband in 2021, and Jennifer Magnano was shot and killed by her divorced husband. Both victims were confirmed to have been subjected to threats and exploitation by their perpetrators before their deaths. As a result, the state of Connecticut enacted the so-called Jennifer’s Law to regulate ‘coercive control.’ In the UK, after reviewing factors triggering violent murders in intimate relationships, a survey found that 65% involved coercive control, leading to the 2015 amendment of the Serious Crime Act to criminalize coercive control in intimate relationships.

Jennifer Duluth was killed by her husband in 2021, and Jennifer Magnano also died after being shot by her ex-husband. It was confirmed that both victims had been subjected to threats, intimidation, and exploitation by the perpetrators before their deaths. In response, the state of Connecticut in the United States enacted the so-called Jennifer's Law, which regulates 'coercive control.'

As a result of examining the triggers of violent homicide in intimate relationships in the UK, a survey found that 65% involved coercive control, leading to the amendment of the Serious Crime Act in 2015, which defined coercive control occurring in intimate relationships as a criminal act.

Common Early Warning Signs...Need for Prevention Before Harm Occurs

The purpose of legislating coercive control is to shift from a ‘too little, too late’ response after victims suffer serious violence or death to a proactive approach where public authorities intervene at the early warning signs and triggers to prevent greater harm.

In South Korea, amid a series of cases where ex-partners kill victims during breakups, the common early warning signs of dating-related murders include threats, control, intimidation, and exploitation by the perpetrator. In the ‘Geoje Dating Murder Case,’ where a man strangled his ex-girlfriend to death after she broke up with him, there were incidents of violence and persistent stalking. A 20-year-old female university student in Hanam, Gyeonggi Province, who was killed by her boyfriend wielding a knife, had been subjected to overt and obsessive demands for sex during their three-week relationship. In another case where a girlfriend was confined, had her head shaved with clippers, and was assaulted, coercive control behaviors such as physical threats and exploitation were present.

A woman in her early 20s was confined, assaulted, and raped by her boyfriend in the 'Barikan Assault Incident' Photo (Source: MBC news footage capture)

However, in South Korea, there are currently no legal means to regulate coercive control behaviors. The ‘Domestic Violence Punishment Act,’ which punishes dating violence and violence in intimate relationships, explicitly states in its purpose clause that it aims to ‘restore peace and stability in the family and dream of a healthy family,’ often resulting in mediation and reconciliation rather than punishment. The Act applies the principle of non-prosecution without the victim’s complaint, making it easy for cases to be dropped if victims fear retaliation and do not want the perpetrator punished.

The problem is that violence and murder cases in intimate relationships such as with romantic partners and spouses are increasing significantly under these circumstances. According to data compiled by Korea Women’s Hotline, at least 449 women were killed or faced the risk of being killed by male partners in intimate relationships last year (138 murders, 311 attempted murders). Including 119 people around them such as children and parents, the total number of murder and attempted murder victims rises to 568. Reports of dating violence also more than doubled from 36,267 cases in 2017 to 77,150 cases in 2023.

In response, the National Assembly has begun revising related laws. On the 10th, Representative Jeong Chun-saeng of the Innovation Party proposed an amendment to the ‘Act on Punishment of Domestic Violence Crimes and Intimate Relationship Violence Crimes’ to include ‘coercive control behaviors’ in the definition of violence and to exclude the application of non-prosecution without the victim’s complaint. Furthermore, if emotional and mental abuse such as excessive interference in the other party’s daily life occurs, investigative and judicial authorities will be able to intervene. This is the first bill related to dating murder measures introduced in the 22nd National Assembly.

However, during the legislative process, issues such as overlap with existing crimes like coercion and threats, and the fact that even if the non-prosecution without complaint principle is abolished, withdrawal of prosecution requests may remain, are considered challenges. Even if a provision criminalizing coercive control is established, if there is no evidence and violence is not proven, police intervention could be considered unlawful official conduct.

Kim Hong-miri, a senior researcher at the Korean Women’s Development Institute, said, “Violence in intimate relationships has had consistent patterns, making risk prediction possible. However, the emphasis on the ‘intimacy’ of the relationship or the ‘family’ framework has often led to overlooking predictability. This aspect needs to be corrected through legal amendments.” Heo Min-sook, a legislative researcher at the National Assembly Research Service, said, “Acts such as monitoring and blaming the other’s daily life, forcing obedience to commands and instructions, isolating from people, and controlling behavior and thoughts should be made illegal, and investigative and judicial authorities should be able to intervene.”