Lance Hart killed his wife, but reports implied guilt on her part. Couching male violence against women in terms that absolves the perpetrator of responsibility reinforces a culture that doesn’t value female lives
Spalding shooting victims – Charlotte Hart and mother Claire Hart.
Photograph: Facebook
I can think of many words to describe the murder of a woman by her own husband. “Understandable” is not one of them.
Yet this is the word that Dr Max Pemberton chose to use when he weighed in on Lance Hart’s recent murder of his wife, Claire, and their 19-year old-daughter, Charlotte. Writing in the Daily Mail, and referencing the recent breakdown of the Harts’ marriage, he said:
Of course, such men are often motivated by anger and a desire to punish the spouse.
But while killing their partner as an act of revenge may be understandable, for a man to kill his children (who are innocent bystanders in a marital breakdown) is a very different matter.
I believe it is often a twisted act of love, as the man crassly believes that the crisis in their lives is so great that the children would be better off dead.
In this short extract, Pemberton describes the “understandable” murder by a man of his own wife as a “very different matter” to his killing his child – an “innocent bystander” – implying guilt on the part of the wife. He seems to suggest that, by ending their marriage, Claire had – at least in part – brought her death upon herself. Later referring to men who kill their own children, he goes on to use the phrase “act of love”, implying that perpetrators of such crimes are overtaken by passion – that such men should not necessarily be held fully responsible.
Pemberton admits that “there is often no evidence that men who kill their children have an identifiable mental illness”, and yet later writes: “And while it is, inevitably, hard to sympathise with such men, psychologists are divided as to whether they can be held truly culpable for their actions.”
Meanwhile, the Telegraph ran an article that opened: “A father of three who gunned down his wife and 19-year old daughter before killing himself had been upset following the breakdown of his marriage, it was claimed last night.”
The article went on: “Friends of the pair said they believed Lance had been struggling to move on with his life following the breakdown of the marriage, but they were still deeply shocked by the incident.” Those little words “but” and “still” suggest, powerfully, that the circumstances might somehow make Hart’s actions more understandable, or even expected.
What’s more, the piece went on to praise Hart, featuring vox pops from neighbours saying what a “very, very nice guy” he was, describing him as “full of the joys of spring” and giving irrelevant details about his DIY skills. The article contained no such quotes praising Hart’s victims, Claire and Charlotte.
This is not just a matter of semantics. The way our media reports male violence against women can have a huge impact on societal perceptions of the problem.
As Polly Neate, the chief executive of Women’s Aid, says:
The reporting of this case is deeply irresponsible because it minimises the culpability of Lance Hart, portraying him as an equal victim in a tragic case, rather than a man who chose to kill his wife and daughter. The phrase ‘twisted act of love’ is particularly harmful, and shows why journalists need robust training on domestic abuse and homicide. Unless the lives of Claire and Charlotte are considered more important than some of the so-called ‘reasons’ Lance killed them, we will never move to a culture that values women’s lives enough to make them safer.
Perhaps most worryingly of all, media responses such as those described above actively relieve perpetrators of responsibility and, by failing to set such incidents like this within a wider context of male violence, erase the societal problem they represent.
In his Daily Mail article, Pemberton concludes: “After any such incident, questions are inevitably asked about whether anything could have been done – if someone could have spotted the signs or intervened.
“Tragically, in most cases, experts agree that the answer is ‘no’.”
Having completely divorced an incident from the systemic violence men inflict on women and girls, this is an unsurprising conclusion to reach. Which is why such narratives must be challenged, and why they are so dangerous. We must identify examples of male violence as just that: male violence against women. We must hold perpetrators fully accountable, and we must report responsibly on these cases. Only then will we as a society be able to recognise that, in fact, there is so much more that could be done.
I can think of many words to describe the murder of a woman by her own husband. “Understandable” is not one of them.
Yet this is the word that Dr Max Pemberton chose to use when he weighed in on Lance Hart’s recent murder of his wife, Claire, and their 19-year old-daughter, Charlotte. Writing in the Daily Mail, and referencing the recent breakdown of the Harts’ marriage, he said:
In this short extract, Pemberton describes the “understandable” murder by a man of his own wife as a “very different matter” to his killing his child – an “innocent bystander” – implying guilt on the part of the wife. He seems to suggest that, by ending their marriage, Claire had – at least in part – brought her death upon herself. Later referring to men who kill their own children, he goes on to use the phrase “act of love”, implying that perpetrators of such crimes are overtaken by passion – that such men should not necessarily be held fully responsible.
Pemberton admits that “there is often no evidence that men who kill their children have an identifiable mental illness”, and yet later writes: “And while it is, inevitably, hard to sympathise with such men, psychologists are divided as to whether they can be held truly culpable for their actions.”
Meanwhile, the Telegraph ran an article that opened: “A father of three who gunned down his wife and 19-year old daughter before killing himself had been upset following the breakdown of his marriage, it was claimed last night.”
The article went on: “Friends of the pair said they believed Lance had been struggling to move on with his life following the breakdown of the marriage, but they were still deeply shocked by the incident.” Those little words “but” and “still” suggest, powerfully, that the circumstances might somehow make Hart’s actions more understandable, or even expected.
What’s more, the piece went on to praise Hart, featuring vox pops from neighbours saying what a “very, very nice guy” he was, describing him as “full of the joys of spring” and giving irrelevant details about his DIY skills. The article contained no such quotes praising Hart’s victims, Claire and Charlotte.
This is not just a matter of semantics. The way our media reports male violence against women can have a huge impact on societal perceptions of the problem.
As Polly Neate, the chief executive of Women’s Aid, says:
Perhaps most worryingly of all, media responses such as those described above actively relieve perpetrators of responsibility and, by failing to set such incidents like this within a wider context of male violence, erase the societal problem they represent.
In his Daily Mail article, Pemberton concludes: “After any such incident, questions are inevitably asked about whether anything could have been done – if someone could have spotted the signs or intervened.
“Tragically, in most cases, experts agree that the answer is ‘no’.”
Having completely divorced an incident from the systemic violence men inflict on women and girls, this is an unsurprising conclusion to reach. Which is why such narratives must be challenged, and why they are so dangerous. We must identify examples of male violence as just that: male violence against women. We must hold perpetrators fully accountable, and we must report responsibly on these cases. Only then will we as a society be able to recognise that, in fact, there is so much more that could be done.
Topics