Reporting does not necessarily break trust

Many people find it difficult to notify the police or other authorities because they fear that they are breaking the trust they have been shown. This does not necessarily have to be the case, says Professor Kjartan Leer-Salvesen, who has researched trust in relation to reporting violence and abuse.

The duty to avert violence and abuse can force private individuals and professionals into difficult moral dilemmas, where they must make choices that can affect both themselves and people with whom they have a relationship of trust.

For example, you may find yourself in a dilemma where a friend tells you that she has been the victim of serious, long-term violence by her husband or partner, at the same time as she forbids you from taking the matter further. This may be a situation where the duty to avert criminal acts applies.

It can be difficult to decide whether to comply with the friend’s wishes or notify the police, but according to this researcher, we should not be as afraid to report and avert criminal acts as we might think.

Professor Kjartan Leer-Salvesen of the Institute of Social Work at Volda University College has researched the relationship between averting criminal acts and trust in his PhD thesis “Broken trust? A study of the exercise of discretion by teachers and clergy in the tension between the duty of confidentiality, the duty to report and the duty to avert criminal acts”.

“As a private person and as a professional, the duty to avert criminal acts is a very important part of the safety net that is set up to protect vulnerable groups in our society. My research shows that professionals can have a number of thoughts and attitudes regarding trust that can ultimately prevent them from exercising their duty to avert criminal acts,” says Leer-Salvesen.

He explains that the results of his own research largely reject the idea that trust is weakened, contrary to what many people think.

“My research shows that trust is not necessarily threatened, even if one chooses to report violence and abuse. I have written an overview of the available knowledge which indicates that the majority of victims of violence support the duty to avert criminal acts and want support services to report offences. My position is that the duty to avert criminal acts is more important than trying to maintain that trust.”
In a survey conducted by YouGov for Plikt.no, it turns out that a large majority of the respondents answer that they are aware of the scope of the duty to avert criminal acts when they read a description of the duty.

As many as 75 per cent of professionals in health, education and child and youth work answer that they are aware of the scope of the duty to avert criminal acts when they read a description of the duty. This is 31 per cent more than the number (44 per cent) who answer that they are aware of the duty to avert criminal acts without having read the description.

Despite positive findings, Leer-Salvesen believes there is a need to considerably increase knowledge and awareness of the duty to avert criminal acts. This is also true for the relationship to other duties that professionals have with regard to people living with abuse and violence.

“I think the situation is significantly worse than what this survey shows. There is too little knowledge about the topic, and there are many misunderstandings about the relationship between the duty of confidentiality and the duty to avert criminal acts, for example,” Leer-Salvesen believes.