A Mixed-Method Approach to Understand Themes of Love in Victims’ Dismissals of Civil Protection Orders

Domestic violence protective orders are the most widely used intimate partner violence-related legal intervention in the United States, yet many victims later ask to have these orders dismissed. This article uses a mixed-methods approach to examine the conditions that help explain why victims of intimate partner violence dismiss their protection orders. Quantitative findings from 841 civil protection order cases show that victims who need protection the most are the most likely to seek dismissals. Victims who experienced recent or physical abuse were significantly more likely to dismiss their protection orders. Qualitative findings from 200 dismissal requests reveal that victims reference common themes of loving the abuser, that the abuser is a good parent, that the abuser is seeking treatment, or that they desire to save the relationship. Victims draw from broad romantic rationalizations when describing their decision to drop a protection order from the court. Building upon insights from constructs of romantic love, this study highlights how the rationalizations victims invoke in their dismissal requests are also associated with their experiences of abuse. A mixed methodological approach reveals a significant contrast between the language in victims’ petitions and their dismissal requests. Victims voiced fear and violence in their petitions for protection orders, then employed meanings of romantic love, reconciliation, and change when requesting that these temporary protection orders be dropped. This contrast reflects the cyclical nature of abuse and suggests that greater attention must be paid to ensuring court officials have a strong understanding of the complexities of victim attrition.

Pragmatic Punitiveness: The Institutionalization of Criminal Domestic Violence Protection Orders

This paper analyzes the implementation of a domestic violence law in Minnesota that, in 2006, made the violation of a Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order a felony-level offense. Since this legal change, the rate of conviction for Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order felonies skyrocketed with stark racial disparities among Black and Native American residents, relative to Whites. Analysis of case files reveals that Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order convictions result from a range of behaviors, from seemingly mutual contact between the defendant and protected party to serious physical violence. We argue that the Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order law facilitates pragmatic punitiveness for legal actors. It is easier for prosecutors to demonstrate contact occurred than to prove domestic assault. Yet, the penalty for a Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order is as severe as the penalties for other domestic abuse-related crimes in Minnesota. Thus, the Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order law enables prosecutors to respond forcefully to domestic violence while avoiding additional burdens on their time and resources.

The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill 2012: Is post-sentence detention of sex offenders consistent with human rights?

<p>The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill 2012 was introduced by the National-led Government to address a perceived public safety problem relating to recidivist sex offenders. The Bill enables the detention of sex offenders beyond the expiration of their finite sentences, if they are seen as highly likely to reoffend. As such, the Bill raises a number of serious human rights issues. In response, the Attorney-General issued a statement contending the Bill was consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This article analyses the correctness of that statement, with a particular focus on whether the Bill is a form of civil committal and is, in substance, different to imprisonment. Drawing on case law from the United States and Australia, where similar post-sentence detention schemes operate, this paper suggests the Bill actively engages with human rights concerns. The conclusion reached is that the Bill appropriately balances the public safety interest and the basic human rights of sex offenders.</p>

The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill 2012: Is post-sentence detention of sex offenders consistent with human rights?

<p>The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill 2012 was introduced by the National-led Government to address a perceived public safety problem relating to recidivist sex offenders. The Bill enables the detention of sex offenders beyond the expiration of their finite sentences, if they are seen as highly likely to reoffend. As such, the Bill raises a number of serious human rights issues. In response, the Attorney-General issued a statement contending the Bill was consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This article analyses the correctness of that statement, with a particular focus on whether the Bill is a form of civil committal and is, in substance, different to imprisonment. Drawing on case law from the United States and Australia, where similar post-sentence detention schemes operate, this paper suggests the Bill actively engages with human rights concerns. The conclusion reached is that the Bill appropriately balances the public safety interest and the basic human rights of sex offenders.</p>

Colorado’s first year of extreme risk protection orders

Background Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) are a relatively new type of law that are being considered or implemented in many states in the United States. Colorado’s law went into effect on January 1, 2020, after significant controversy and concern over potential misuse of the law to confiscate weapons; many (n = 37 of 64) counties declared themselves “2nd Amendment (2A) sanctuaries” and said they would not enforce the law. Here, reviewed the patterns of use of the law during its first year. Methods We obtained all court records for ERPO petitions filed between January 1 and December 31, 2020. Data elements were abstracted by trained staff using a standardized guide. We calculated the proportion of petitions that were approved or denied/dismissed, identified cases of obvious misuse, and examined patterns by 2A county status. Finding and results In 2020, 109 ERPO petitions were filed in Colorado; of these, 61 were granted for a temporary ERPO and 49 for a full (year-long) ERPO. Most petitions filed by law enforcement officers were granted (85%), compared to only 15% of petitions filed by family or household members. Of the 37 2A sanctuary counties, 24% had at least one petition filed, versus 48% of non-2A sanctuary counties. Across the 2A counties, there were 1.52 ERPOs filed per 100,000 population, compared to 2.05 ERPOs filed per 100,000 in non-2A counties. There were 4 cases of obvious law misuse; none of those petitions resulted in an ERPO or firearm confiscation. Conclusion State-level studies suggest ERPOs may prevent firearm injuries. Robust implementation, however, is critical for maximal effect. Understanding ERPO experiences and challenges can inform policy creation and enaction in other states, including identifying how best to address concerns and facilitate evaluation.