| Domestic violence is a difficult issue for states to navigate both legally and socially. From a legal perspective, both legislatures and judiciaries are heavily involved in domestic violence law. While most reform efforts focus on these two branches of government, there is generally little appreciation for the fact that a state's legal approach to domestic violence occurs against the backdrop of its constitution and is heavily influenced by the constitution's structure and content. In this dissertation I analyze the United States—the federal system as well as Wisconsin, Colorado, and Montana—and South Africa to argue that constitutional structure has a significant impact in shaping a state's legal response to domestic violence. I argue that constitutional structure, in particular the relative horizontality or verticality of rights provisions, influences the thinkability of different legal responses to domestic violence. Structure influences thinkability largely by outlining the public and private spheres in a given society and helping to shape understandings of appropriate legal action. I argue that it is the ability of the lay and legal communities to conceive of possible appropriate options, more than explicit legal directives, that has the most significant impact on legal outcomes. |
