Exploring Officer Arrest Discretion Following State Policy Changes in Intimate Partner Violence

In 2015, South Carolina passed the Domestic Violence Reform Act giving officers increased arrest discretion and rescinding mandatory arrest laws for intimate partner violence (IPV). Analyses using incident reports (2016/2017) from South Carolina show that officers primarily rely on the presence of five variables to determine arrest: children, injury, property destruction, offender at scene, and weapons. Cases with Black female victims are more likely to result in arrest, suggesting that Black males are being criminalized. We conclude that officers are reluctant to use individual discretion and rely on a form of structured discretion provided by administrators that shapes local culture and decision-making.

Perpetrator or victim? A review of the complexities of domestic violence cases

Purpose The purpose of this study is to provide a review of research on the merits of public policy and law enforcement responses to intimate partner violence (IPV) in the USA using prevalence rates and dynamics of IPV. Design/methodology/approach A reading of recent comprehensive literature reviews was supplemented by a PsychInfo search of relevant articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Findings Laws against IPV in the USA have been enforced much more vigorously in comparison with most of the world, many of which have no such laws at all. While more perpetrators have been held accountable for their actions – increasing the safety of victims – many perpetrators are never brought to justice, and “mandatory arrest” laws sometimes result in arrests being made with a scant evidence of wrongdoing. This state of affairs can be traced two key factors. First, the persistence of the gender paradigm – an outdated and discredited set of assumptions about the role of gender in IPV – as formulated by battered women’s advocates, which has informed IPV public policy for several decades. Second, the complex nature of IPV, a phenomenon that mostly happens behind closed doors, varies widely in frequency, intensity, mutuality and impact on victims, and it cannot easily be framed in binary victim/perpetrator terms. Practical implications The arrest and prosecution of possibly innocent individuals is in violation of due process and mitigates against our common efforts to reduce IPV in our communities. Originality/value A compact summary of the relevant IPV policy literature is presented with a focus on an under-studied topic, i.e. the problems inherent in the categorization of individuals as either victims or perpetrators and the failure to recognize the inherently complex nature of IPV.

The Evidentiary Rules of Engagement in the War against Domestic Violence

Our criminal justice system promises defendants a fair and just adjudication of guilt, regardless of the character of the alleged offense. Yet, from mandatory arrest to "no-drop" prosecution policies, the system's front-end response to domestic violence reflects the belief that it differs from other crimes in ways that permit or require the adaptation of criminal justice response mechanisms. Although scholars debate whether these differential responses are effective or normatively sound, the scholarship leaves untouched the presumption that, once the adjudicatory phase is underway, the system treats domestic violence offenses like any other crime.This Article reveals that this presumption is false. It demonstrates that many jurisdictions have adopted specialized evidence rules that authorize admission of highly persuasive evidence of guilt in domestic violence prosecutions that would be inadmissible in other criminal cases. These jurisdictions unmoor evidence rules from their justificatory principles to accommodate the same iteration of domestic violence exceptionalism that underlies specialized front-end criminal justice policies. The Article argues that even though such evidentiary manipulation may be effective in securing convictions, enlisting different evidence rules in our war on domestic violence is unfair to defendants charged with such offenses and undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system. It also harms some of the people the system seeks to protect by both reducing the efficacy of the criminal justice intervention and discrediting those complainants who do not support prosecution.

Women, Domestic Violence, and the Criminal Justice System

This chapter describes women’s experiences of recent justice reforms intended to enhance the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions in incidents of domestic battering, specifically mandatory arrest laws and no-drop policies. Domestic violence is a form of complex trauma that is associated with poor mental and physical health outcomes. This chapter discusses how trauma-related symptoms explain women’s responses to physical, emotional, and psychological abuse as well as their ambivalent attitudes towards the justice and mental health systems. It also highlights the way racial and gender stereotypes, poverty, immigration status, and fear of social rejection constitute barriers to seeking help. Lastly, this chapter highlights the principles of a gender-responsive, trauma-informed approach to the treatment of female survivors of domestic violence.

Intimate Partner Violence

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious problem that affects many individuals and crosses national borders, religions, gender, sexual orientation, racial, and ethnic groups (Harvey, Garcia-Moreno, & Butchart, 2007; Krug, Mercy, Dahlberg, & Zwi, 2002). The World Health Organization has defined intimate partner violence as any behavior that inflicts harm on an intimate partner, such as a spouse, prior spouse, or partner. This harm can be physical, psychological, or sexual in nature and is inflicted through physical aggression, psychological abuse, sexual coercion, or other controlling behaviors (Krug et al., 2002). At times, the terms domestic violence and partner/spouse abuse are used interchangeably with the term intimate partner violence (Harvey et al., 2007). Historically, intimate partner violence was seen as a matter to be dealt with in the home (Andrews & Khavinson, 2013); that is, it was largely considered a private issue between intimate partners. As such, little attention or support was extended toward victims of violence. The women’s rights movement during the 1970s brought many of the deleterious effects of IPV to the attention of the public. As a result, assistance became increasingly available for victims (Dugan, Nagin, & Rosenfeld, 2003). Some of the efforts to provide assistance to victims of IPV include mandatory arrest laws, victim advocacy, counseling services, shelters, and crisis hotlines. Substantial efforts have been made to provide needed services to the victims of IPV, yet the exact rates of victimization are unknown. This is due to different research methodologies and operationalizations of IPV that are used across studies. For instance, there is some controversy as to whether IPV should be measured by acts of violence (e.g., hitting, choking) or the severity of injuries (e.g., bruises, broken bones). Complicating the issue is the fact that different sampling methods may yield different estimates of IPV. Research drawn from the general population, for instance, may uncover higher rates of less severe IPV, while purposive samples drawn from domestic violence shelters may yield higher rates of severe IPV (Johnson, 2008). Measurement challenges also occur because many individuals underreport or misrepresent their victimization. Thus, research that incorporates multiple study designs and sampling techniques, indicates that approximately 16% of adults in the United States experience IPV victimization each year (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Misra, Selwyn, & Rohling, 2012). Social scientists have used a number of theories to better understand IPV. These theories include feminist theories, power theories, social learning theories, and personality theories. Research grounded in these theories has found many risk factors that are related to the likelihood of victimization and perpetration. Additionally, various risk factors for IPV perpetration and victimization have been identified, including individual (e.g., alcohol abuse, anger), historical (e.g., abuse as a child), and demographic (e.g., cohabitation, age) factors (Stith et al., 2000; Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004). Recently, behavioral scientists have begun to investigate the biological and genetic factors related to IPV perpetration (Barnes, TenEyck, Boutwell, & Beaver, 2013; Hines & Saudino, 2004). Because there are many short- and long-term negative effects of IPV victimization, scholars and advocates continue to explore new avenues to increase understanding of IPV perpetration and victimization to better assist victims and perpetrators. Currently, the main sources of help for victims of IPV include mandatory arrest laws, domestic violence shelters, crisis hotlines, civil protection orders, victim advocacy, treatment programs, and informal means of assistance. However, each of these resources has demonstrated varying degrees of effectiveness for increasing victim support and reducing repeated victimization.