KINGSTON, Jamaica — With Jamaica recording a significant reduction in murders and other serious crimes, one attorney and a technology youth engagement consultant are urging that similar urgency be applied to violence occurring within homes, families and intimate relationships.

According to attorney-at-law, Rodain Richardson, the domestic violence statistics are sobering.

Richardson pointed out on Wednesday that Jamaica recorded 7, 559 reported cases of domestic violence in 2025, which is a reduction compared to 2024 when there were 8,070 reported cases. Despite this reduction, Richardson asserts that the problem is still very serious and needs urgent attention.

“The police linked 34 murders in 2024 to domestic violence. In St Elizabeth, police reported in August this year that more than 60 per cent of the 21 homicides recorded in the parish were linked to domestic violence.

This is occurring against a significantly improving national crime picture.

According to the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF), as at September 26, 2026, Jamaica  recorded 392 murders, compared to 515 over the corresponding period in 2025. That is a reduction of 24 per cent,” Richardson said.

According to the attorney, the contrast should cause Jamaica to reconsider how it defines public safety.

“We should acknowledge the significant progress Jamaica is making in reducing murders and other serious crimes. But a safer Jamaica cannot simply mean safer streets. It must also mean safer homes. If someone is living in fear behind their front door, being threatened by a partner or being controlled through their phone, then our work on public safety is incomplete,” he said.

“The issue has assumed greater significance as the Joint Select Committee of Parliament reviewing the Domestic Violence Act, chaired by Olivia “Babsy” Grange,  Minister of Culture, Gender, Entertainment and Sport, considers further reform of the legislation, including whether domestic violence itself should become a stand-alone criminal offence,” added.

Richardson stated that the review presents an opportunity to look beyond simply just adding another offence to the statute and should consider what Jamaica’s domestic violence framework should look like for a changing society. He recommended that it should include examining what behaviours should legally constitute abuse. He also said that it must outline when the criminal law should intervene and how institutions can identify escalating risks before violence becomes fatal.

“That conversation has become increasingly important as domestic violence extends beyond physical confrontation and the walls of the home. Cyberstalking, persistent unwanted communication, unauthorised tracking, password coercion, online impersonation and threats involving private or intimate material can allow abusive behaviour to continue even after a victim has physically left an environment,” Richardson said.

For international technology and youth engagement consultant Danielle Mullings, this changing reality is particularly important for younger Jamaicans, whose relationships and social interactions increasingly move seamlessly between physical and digital spaces.

“There was once an assumption that physically leaving an abusive environment created some measure of distance from the abuser. Technology has changed that reality. Someone can leave the house and still be monitored, contacted, threatened or intimidated throughout the day. In a digital society, distance no longer automatically guarantees safety,” she said.

Mullings recommended that protection orders and support systems must therefore evolve to recognise technology-facilitated abuse. She said that greater attention must also be given to digital evidence, including screenshots, voice notes, call logs, messages and geolocation data, which can demonstrate patterns of behaviour that may not otherwise be immediately apparent.

“Victims should not be left on their own to determine what evidence should be preserved or how it should be presented. This requires support from the police, the courts and the relevant agencies to become increasingly equipped to deal with digital evidence. Technology can also become part of the solution. In August, Minister Grange signed an agreement for the development of JamSafe, a technology-based platform intended to connect persons experiencing or at risk of gender-based violence with emergency assistance, support services, information and referrals.

“The initiative is an important step, particularly because of its potential to connect the JCF, the Bureau of Gender Affairs and other elements of the support system. The ultimate objective should be a system in which a person in crisis does not need to understand the architecture of government before receiving help. A single disclosure should, where appropriate, be capable of activating a coordinated response involving law enforcement, psychosocial support, healthcare, child protection, legal assistance and digital-safety interventions,” Mullings said.

Both Richardson and Mullings serve as chairman and deputy chairman respectively, of the National Youth Advisory Council of Jamaica and are passionate about issues regarding domestic violence.

Richardson stated that the national conversation needs to also reflect the full range of people who experience domestic and familial harm.

He explained that while women remain disproportionately affected by intimate-partner violence and must continue to be prioritised in protection efforts, JCF figures indicate that approximately 27 per cent of reports to Domestic Violence Intervention Centres are now being made by men.

“Acknowledging male victims does not diminish the serious and disproportionate violence experienced by women. Rather, it recognises that men, women and children can be victims and that abuse may occur between partners, parents and children, siblings and other relatives. That broader understanding should also allow Jamaica to confront difficult forms of familial harm that have traditionally received less attention, including deliberate deception surrounding paternity. Paternity fraud, where a person knowingly and intentionally misrepresents the biological paternity of a child, can result in significant psychological, emotional, familial and financial consequences.

“For a man who discovers that he is not the biological father of a child he believed to be his, the consequences can extend beyond financial loss to questions of identity, trust and a parental relationship developed over many years. For the child, questions may also arise concerning identity, family relationships and medical history. Jamaican law already recognises aspects of the issue. The Registration (Births and Deaths) Act provides a mechanism through which a man’s name may, in specified circumstances, be removed from a birth record where registration resulted from false information,” he said.

However, he argued that correcting a record after the deception is discovered does not necessarily address the deliberate conduct that caused the harm.

“We need to be prepared to have the uncomfortable conversation about paternity fraud. Where it can be proven that someone knowingly and deliberately deceived a man about the paternity of a child, that should not simply end with correcting a birth record. There are potentially years of emotional, psychological and financial consequences arising from that deception. I believe Jamaica should examine whether deliberate paternity fraud ought to be specifically criminalised, with an appropriately high evidential threshold and clear safeguards for genuine uncertainty or mistake,” Richardson said.

He recommended that any such reform would have to place the welfare of the child at the centre as a child bears no responsibility for the actions of adults and should never be stigmatised because of the circumstances surrounding his or her parentage.

“Neither should the issue be weaponised in ordinary relationship disputes or used to diminish the disproportionate violence experienced by women. Instead, it raises a broader question of whether the law should consistently recognise deliberate deception, psychological harm, financial abuse and other abuses of trust within intimate and familial relationships. Legislation alone, however, will not solve the wider problem. Patterns of isolation, possessiveness, threats, digital monitoring, financial control and coercive behaviour can emerge long before physical violence occurs. Yet these warning signs are frequently dismissed as jealousy, relationship problems or private family matters until the situation escalates.

“Prevention must therefore become as important as prosecution. Accessible counselling, behavioural support, public education, digital literacy and earlier intervention should be treated as components of public safety rather than optional social services. This is particularly important for young people, who may encounter controlling or abusive behaviour online without immediately recognising it as such. The current parliamentary review therefore presents Jamaica with an opportunity to bring legislation, technology, enforcement, education and early intervention together within a more coherent national response,” Richardson said.

The attorney stated that the question before policymakers should extend beyond whether another offence should be placed on the statute books. He said Jamaica must get to a place where it determines what a modern domestic violence framework should recognise and protect against.

“That framework should account for physical violence, psychological and financial abuse, coercive control and technology-facilitated abuse. It should protect women without rendering male victims invisible, recognise harmful conduct across families and not only between intimate partners, and ensure that victims can move quickly from disclosure to protection and support. The fact that Jamaica has reduced murders by 24 per cent as at September 26 demonstrates what can happen when institutions, policy and resources are deliberately aligned around a public-safety objective.

“That same determination must now be brought into Jamaican homes. A safer Jamaica cannot simply mean fewer murders on our streets. It must also mean fewer people living in fear behind their front doors, fewer children growing up believing violence is how adults resolve conflict, fewer victims being controlled through their phones, and fewer families coming to the attention of the State only after something irreversible has happened. Ultimately, the success of Jamaica’s response to domestic violence cannot be measured only by how effectively perpetrators are punished after violence occurs. It must also be measured by how effectively the country recognises the warning signs, intervenes earlier and prevents tragedies before they happen.”