this with international examples, also noting the limits of this responsibility. Applying international human rights norms within the U.S. would require the U.S. to adopt the concept of ‘due diligence’, necessitating expansion of the current U.S. focus on prosecution and punishment to a broader obligation that also prevents and protects against IPV and provides redress for victims. The human rights framework also encourages an intersectional understanding of IPV, engages communities in dialogue via human rights tribunals, and requires policymakers to respond to the root causes of violence. It is difficult to argue with Goodmark’s call for a more balanced policy approach. The U.S. would do well to reduce its reliance on the CJS and to increase the spectrum of options available to respond to IPV. However, Goodmark ultimately remains restricted by the CJS framework, acknowledging that serious repeat offenders should be prosecuted and incarcerated. Goodmark’s biggest contribution to the IPV literature is her call for a victim-focused approach, which runs through each of the alternative lenses she describes. This is not a new idea; indeed, Goodmark advocates a return to ‘feminist first principles’ of consciousness-raising, using victims’ voices to guide lobbying efforts (p. 154). Concentrating on victims’ needs and desires requires policymakers to understand the complexity of IPV and the multifaceted and intersecting identities of those who are affected by it. Additionally, a focus on victimisation requires the acknowledgement that perpetrators of IPV may also have been victimised. Critically evaluating the victim/offender binary is essential if we are to move beyond a solely reactive strategy and incorporate prevention. Whilst the book focuses on the U.S., readers from other jurisdictions will also find much of interest within it. Decriminalising Domestic Violence should be considered essential reading for anyone with an interest in legal and policy responses to IPV or gendered violence more broadly.

中文翻译：

---

书评：性别认同、性取向和性侵犯：挑战神话

这与国际例子有关，同时也注意到这种责任的局限性。在美国应用国际人权规范将要求美国采用“尽职调查”的概念，从而需要将美国目前对起诉和惩罚的关注扩大到更广泛的义务，同时防止和保护 IPV 并为受害者提供补救。人权框架还鼓励对 IPV 的交叉理解，通过人权法庭让社区参与对话，并要求决策者应对暴力的根源。很难与 Goodmark 呼吁采取更平衡的政策方法争论。美国最好减少对 CJS 的依赖，并增加应对 IPV 的可用选项范围。然而，Goodmark 最终仍受 CJS 框架的限制，承认应起诉和监禁严重的惯犯。Goodmark 对 IPV 文献的最大贡献是她呼吁采取以受害者为中心的方法，贯穿她描述的每个替代镜头。这不是一个新的想法; 事实上，古德马克主张回归到“女权主义首要原则”的意识提升，利用受害者的声音来指导游说工作（第 154 页）。关注受害者的需求和愿望需要政策制定者了解 IPV 的复杂性以及受其影响的人的多面性和交叉性。此外，关注受害需要承认 IPV 的肇事者也可能受害。如果我们要超越单纯的反应性策略并纳入预防，那么批判性地评估受害者/罪犯的二元性是必不可少的。虽然这本书的重点是美国，但其他司法管辖区的读者也会对它感兴趣。对于更广泛地对 IPV 或性别暴力的法律和政策回应感兴趣的任何人，都应将家庭暴力合法化视为必不可少的读物。