Spatial and Temporal Distance Between the Victim and Offender as a Factor in Protective Order Violations: How Much Distance is Enough?

Research on the effectiveness of protective orders indicates that they have only marginal protective value for the victim. The current research This exploratory study investigated how the physical distance and temporal distance between the victim and offender corresponds to the rate of protective order violations. Results indicated that the rate of protective order violations was reduced to virtually zero when the victim and offender lived 25 miles or more apart. Surprisingly, this condition held for all types of relationships examined (physical, telephone, and cyber). The study concludes with a discussion of the policy implications of the findings and suggestions for future research.

On violation of the logic of the legal mechanism of bringing to justice for beatings and additional measures for their prevention

The relevance of the research is determined by a legal gap in the current legislation, which lies in the fact that when bringing a person who has committed a crime under Article 116.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation repeatedly in relation to the same person to responsibility, the state of the criminal record of this criminal is not taken into account. In this case, a person who has unexpunged or outstanding convictions, when committing battery for the third time, according to common sense, should be brought to criminal responsibility, and not to administrative responsibility, as is currently the case. In order to eliminate this conflict, the authors propose to include part 2 of Art. 1161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for the liability of a person who has an unexpunged or outstanding conviction in relation to the same person. At the same time, the authors consider it necessary to include a group of criminal cases considered as cases of public prosecution to part 2 of Art. 1161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The authors also see an urgent problem of the need to improve the effectiveness of the prevention of domestic violence through the inclusion of new legal means in legislation and law enforcement practice. Attempts to implement the norms of international acts providing for legal means of preventing domestic violence in the Russian Federation, as well as the study of foreign experience on this issue, according to the authors, looks ambiguous and is debatable. In particular, the issue of introducing protective orders and orders as administrative and legal means of preventing administrative offenses through the adoption of the federal law «On the Prevention of Domestic Violence in the Russian Federation» is being considered. According to the authors, taking into account the foreign practice, there are sufficient grounds to believe that protective prescriptions and some other means will not be able to confirm their effectiveness in Russia.

Matching batterer typologies with their risk of recidivism: Boosting the applicability of typological research

In order to improve the applicability of criminal typologies, Spanish intimate partner violence against women offender subtypes (i.e., high instability/high antisociality, HiHa; low instability/high antisociality, LiHa, high instability/low antisociality, HiLa; low instability/low antisociality, LiLa) were matched with their police recidivism outcomes in a longitudinal study of 9,672 cases extracted from the VioGén System. Individuals with high antisociality features showed the highest recidivism (26.5% HiHa; 22.6% LiHa) and multi-recidivism rates (10.7% HiHa; 8.1% LiHa), and were more likely to be reported for new severe violent episodes against their victims (8.1% LiHa; 7.7% HiHa;) and to violate the protective orders imposed (28.8% HiHa; 28.1% LiHa). Following risk-need-responsivity principles, HiHa and LiHa offenders should be assigned higher intensity treatment programs than LiLa and HiLa individuals. Additionally, the risk posed by all offender subtypes decreased during the follow-up period; however, HiHa offenders presented with the highest risk over time and had a longer police monitoring. Considering this, law enforcement agencies should deploy the most intense police protection measures for victims of HiHa individuals. With regard to prison data, individuals with greater antisociality (HiHa and LiHa) and criminal versatility (generalist batterers) were the most represented in prison; therefore, it would be advisable to include therapeutic ingredients for common offenders in prison-based batterer intervention programs.

Effects of Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrator and Victim Race on Protective Order Determinations

The legal granting of temporary and permanent protective orders prohibits a perpetrator from engaging in contact with the victim. Although protective orders reduce risk of re-abuse, very little research has explored factors that predict the likelihood that a victim is granted a protective order. Thus, we conducted an archival analysis on data previously collected from a Protection Order Assistance Office in a midwestern region of the United States, testing the influence of victim and perpetrator race on protective order allocations. Specifically, we coded data gathered from 490 petitioners (i.e., victims) seeking a protective order against a perpetrator of intimate partner violence, stalking, or sexual offending. Analyses revealed that racial minority victims were significantly less likely to receive a temporary protective order compared to White victims – effects that were exacerbated when the perpetrator was White (versus racial minority). These results are in line with existing research and theory regarding aversive racism. Implications for theory, policy, and practice are discussed.

SECRECY IN PRETRIAL DISCOVERY: HOW NON-RENDERING COURTS SHOULD TREAT PRIOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN SUBSEQUENT LITIGATIONS

Simply put, the issue that presents itself, at the heart of this Article is what weight, if any, should a non-rendering court accord the protective orders emanating from pending, settled and dismissed cases in other courts? This Article adds a special tone to the already loud voices on protective-order modification, arguing principally that absolute deference to the issuing court is a leeway for duplicative discovery that places an unfair burden on litigants, a consequence that diminishes sound judicial administration and the Rule-1 objectives. This Article will advance the policy argument that excessive deference to the issuing court is an invitation for absolute insulation of the party insisting on it to decline cooperation in subsequent litigations, which has the potential for engendering further secrecy of bad products and conducts at the expense of public safety. This article will assess the justifications and criticisms underpinning the idea of deference to the issuing court to modify and vacate its orders, emphasizing the validity of those justifications and criticisms and the prospect for meaningful balance to cater for necessary practicalities and the legitimate interests of litigants while allowing subsequent parties to benefit from civil discovery in substantial ways. <div><div><p><br></p> </div> </div>

SECRECY IN PRETRIAL DISCOVERY: HOW NON-RENDERING COURTS SHOULD TREAT PRIOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN SUBSEQUENT LITIGATIONS

Simply put, the issue that presents itself, at the heart of this Article is what weight, if any, should a non-rendering court accord the protective orders emanating from pending, settled and dismissed cases in other courts? This Article adds a special tone to the already loud voices on protective-order modification, arguing principally that absolute deference to the issuing court is a leeway for duplicative discovery that places an unfair burden on litigants, a consequence that diminishes sound judicial administration and the Rule-1 objectives. This Article will advance the policy argument that excessive deference to the issuing court is an invitation for absolute insulation of the party insisting on it to decline cooperation in subsequent litigations, which has the potential for engendering further secrecy of bad products and conducts at the expense of public safety. This article will assess the justifications and criticisms underpinning the idea of deference to the issuing court to modify and vacate its orders, emphasizing the validity of those justifications and criticisms and the prospect for meaningful balance to cater for necessary practicalities and the legitimate interests of litigants while allowing subsequent parties to benefit from civil discovery in substantial ways. <div><div><p><br></p> </div> </div>

PROTECTION ORDER: INTERNATIONALSTANDARDS, FOREIGN EXPERIENCE AND NATIONAL PRACTICE

The article is devoted to the experience of using a protection order to protect victims of domestic or domestic violence. The article provides an overview of relevant international documents, considers the experience of a number of foreign countries, as well as the experience of Uzbekistan. The article notes that along with the concept of "protection order", there are the concepts of "restrainingorder", "protective order", "injunction", "restraining order", etc. In the practice of foreign countries, as a rule, there are 2 types of protective orders -issued for a shorter period (by the police) and for a longer period (by the court). In parallel with the protection order procedure, the victim has the right to apply to the court for compensation and prosecution of the aggressor

Armed, Prohibited and Violent at Home: Implementation and Enforcement of Restrictions on Gun Possession by Domestic Violence Offenders in Four U.S. Localities

Firearms increase the risk of lethality in violent intimate relationships. Policies that restrict access to firearms by respondents to civil domestic violence protective orders (DVROs) are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide, yet there is scant literature about how such prohibitions are implemented. We document how four localities are implementing gun possession prohibitions that result from civil and criminal restraining orders and domestic violence misdemeanor convictions; and assess the findings in the context of Kingdon’s agenda setting framework. We identified four jurisdictions where gun dispossession of prohibited domestic violence offenders was underway and collected data through in-depth interviews, site visits, and documents. We coded the data, identified explanatory themes, and compared the findings to Kingdon’s framework. The four jurisdictions have policies ranging from no state laws restricting domestic violence offenders’ access to guns to comprehensive state laws. We describe implementation initiatives to dispossess prohibited people of their guns in the four jurisdictions, two distinct implementation models through which gun dispossession occurs, and an expanded application of Kingdon’s model. In each jurisdiction, we identified one or more individuals who championed implementation. Policies that prohibit domestic violence offenders from possessing guns are promising, and possible in diverse settings and jurisdictions. Here we provide insight into implementation efforts in four jurisdictions, emphasize the role of individuals in prioritizing implementation, and highlight the potential to realize these restrictions across states with different laws. Focusing on implementation is a much-needed paradigm shift that complements the traditional focus on passing domestic violence prevention laws.