Why is only physical abuse illegal, but not other forms of abuse?
<p>In my understanding, there are 4 forms of psychological abuse: physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, economical abuse. However, only physical abuse is illegal, and thus can be intervened. But, psychologically speaking, other forms of abuse are also impactful as well. Especially the case of manipulation. And there are also signs and symptoms to conclude whether such abuses happen or not. So why they aren't illegal?</p>
<p>Or perhaps it's more about evidence rather than law? To quote one person:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is no finite definition of mental/emotional abuse. No protocols or reference to state what's harsh, excessive, just bad parenting... and there are no legal definitions. Its not like physical abuse where you have concrete signatures. It's a very destructive abstract so prevalent... hell, we know the damage it causes long term, have long known it, but as hurtful as it is, its technically not illegal. Unless it causes a physical manifestation like suicide... the occurrences are typically denied and its shrugged off.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm asking about adults as well, not just children. I just can't find a suitable tag.</p>

<p>Subsection (3) of <strong>The Domestic Abuse Act (Scotland) 2018</strong> defines <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2018/5/section/2/enacted" rel="nofollow noreferrer">abusive behaviour</a> as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(a) making B dependent on, or subordinate to, A,</p>
<p>(b) isolating B from friends, relatives or other sources of support,</p>
<p>(c) controlling, regulating or monitoring B’s day-to-day activities,</p>
<p>(d) depriving B of, or restricting B’s, freedom of action,</p>
<p>(e) frightening, humiliating, degrading or punishing B.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and also</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In subsection in paragraph (a), the reference to violent behaviour
includes sexual violence as well as physical violence,</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So there are some jurisdictions where the examples you list are illegal.</p>
<p><strong>EDIT:</strong> I'm not a lawyer, so can't provide much more insight into the evidentiary requirements of this Act. The Assistant Chief Constable of Scotland was quoted as saying that law officers and staff have &quot;<em><strong>received further training on the dynamics of power and control in abusive relationships to help recognise the signs, identify investigative opportunities and to tackle the myths and misconceptions of abuse that still exist.&quot;</strong></em>, but no indication of what that amounts to in practice regarding evidence thresholds.</p>

<p>All abuse has been illegal for a long time. Some kinds are so egregious that they are the subject of criminal statutes (assault, physical abuse). <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Intentional infliction of emotional distress</a> is a common law tort, which covers emotional abuse. The difference in punishment derives how the legal system view the contrast between civil dispute versus criminal prosecutions, the key being that punishment is not meted out when you have harmed a person, it is meted out when the government deems that you have harmed society (perhaps by harming a person). Litigation of a civil wrong is therefore aimed at making the aggrieved party whole, compensating them for the damage that was done to them. Punishment, such as imprisonment, has an entirely different rationale.</p>
<p>Liability for &quot;causing harm&quot; does not require a specific statute enumerating what kinds of acts constitute &quot;causing harm&quot;, that conclusion may flow from prior case law as long as certain elements are true (the act was intentional or reckless, extreme and outrageous, and it caused distress). Criminal statutes (at least traditionally) need to be more specific, because people need to be clearly put on notice what actions will receive the most extreme consequences (punishment). The question of why a certain jurisdiction has not criminally outlawed a given action (e.g. &quot;giving a snarky response&quot;) is in part political (legislators do not generally agree that such an action should be elevated to the status of a crime) and partly constitutional in some jurisdictions (a law criminalizing hurtful speech in the US would be struck down under as contradicting the First Amendment).</p>

<h2>The premise of your question is simply wrong</h2>
<p>In most jurisdictions, domestic violence includes all those categories and more. For <a href="https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/domestic-violence/about/types-of-abuse-in-dv" rel="nofollow noreferrer">example</a>, <a href="/questions/tagged/new-south-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;" rel="tag">new-south-wales</a>:</p>
<ul>
<li>verbal abuse</li>
<li>psychological abuse</li>
<li>emotional abuse</li>
<li>financial abuse</li>
<li>physical abuse</li>
<li>sexual abuse</li>
<li>harassment and stalking</li>
<li>spiritual or religious abuse</li>
<li>reproductive abuse</li>
<li>image-based abuse</li>
</ul>

abuse