While the government’s commitment to addressing gender-based violence is clear, the reliance on reactive crisis committees raises questions about the long-term efficacy of current policies. Critics argue that convening a committee only after a surge in murders suggests a failure to implement consistent, year-round preventive measures. If the summer months are historically known to be a period of heightened risk, the response should be structural and preemptive rather than a series of emergency meetings held in the wake of tragedy. This cycle of 'crisis and response' risks normalizing the violence as an inevitable seasonal event rather than a preventable social failure.
There is also a growing concern that the current legal and police protocols are failing to account for the nuances of domestic abuse, particularly in cases where victims have no prior history of reporting. The fact that a majority of victims had not filed complaints indicates that the system is not reaching those who need it most. Simply asking the public to report more is an insufficient strategy if the underlying support services are not adequately funded or accessible during the times when they are needed most, such as weekends and holidays. The focus on 'recalibrating' judicial decisions must be matched by a tangible increase in resources for social workers, legal aid, and emergency housing.
Ultimately, the accountability of the state is at stake. If the same patterns of violence repeat every year, the government must move beyond condemnation and toward a more radical overhaul of its protection mechanisms. This includes addressing the economic and social barriers that keep women trapped in violent relationships. Without a fundamental shift in how the state supports victims before they reach the point of crisis, the current approach may continue to fall short of the goal of eradicating gender-based violence entirely.