ferrellj_final

Evolution of Domestic Violence control measures and techniques
1
Domestic Violence Control Measures and Techniques
Jeffery Ferrell
CRJ 505: Theory and Practice in Criminal Justice
Janne E. Gaub
April 28, 2013

Evolution of Domestic Violence control measures and techniques 2
Abstract:
Many Americans are familiar with the sensitive social issue presented by domestic violence in
our country. Since domestic violence is not governed by one’s socioeconomic status efforts to
measure it have not materialized swiftly. This issue is present in both genders although the
majority of victim’s is women. While recent legislative modifications were made to the Violence
Against Women Act that offer solace, we are far from eradicating domestic violence as
intervention and treatment programs have proven over time to be neither consistent nor cost
effective. This paper will examine the literature on current domestic violence control measures
and techniques such as minimum mandatory sentencing guidelines, while focusing on specific
deterrents that have proven to reduce rising incarceration costs while reintegrating subjects back
into society. Recommendations will be made for the direction of future research, and associated
policy reform implications will be discussed.

Introduction
Violence is prevalent in our country at an alarming rate as (Mercy, Rosenberg, Powell,
Broome & Roper, 1993) pointed out on average in the United States, 65 people die daily and
more than 6,000 are physically injured by interpersonal violence. Between 3 and 8 million
children in the United States witness violence each year (Carlson, 1984). According to the
Department of Justice (DOJ, 2013) domestic violence is a pattern of abusive behavior in any
relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another
intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or
psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any
behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten,
blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.
Early research efforts on domestic violence focused on identifying these complex behaviors
from within. Traditionally ideology entrusted theories based on the principal of patriarchy. This
social system which facilitates female compliance was a great hindrance towards our on-going
ability to establish gender equality. This was a social norm for many Americans until women’s
rights groups promoted reforms and changes in legislation to ensure domestic violence was
addressed through the criminal justice system. It goes without saying a large majority of
domestic violence victims are women therefore, greater attention is given to female victim
perspectives. The National Violence Against Women Survey found that women physically
assaulted by an intimate partner were more than twice as likely to be physically injured as were
assaulted men (Tjaden & Thomas, 2000). Later a review of the multiple types of violence against
partners in which researchers coined the term “Domestic Violence Cycle” will occur this this
term is familiar to our generation.

Advocacy groups have been promoting social change and play a critical role in combating
domestic violence. Advocacy requires that the needs of battered women, individually and as a
class, come first. This purpose can conflict with the interest of the criminal justice system with
its focus on arrest prosecution and sentencing (Sandusky, 2001).
The formation of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) in the late 1970’s
serves as a catalyst for public policy reforms. The NCADV offers numerous programs to support
victims of domestic violence and is an active voice in educating the public’s awareness to
domestic violence (NCADV, 2013). Other organizations have followed suit such as the National
Center for Victims of Crime which formed. The Center serves endlessly to secure resources for
victims of crime while analyzing how we respond to crime. This organization works closely
with the United State Department of Justice, Office of Victims of Crime (OVC) to provide real
time online directories for victims in needs of service.
The National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) was established in 1990. The
NNEDV provides training and assistance gearing towards empowering victims and returning a
sense of confidence battered women are typically lacking. This organization prides it’s self on
placing victims in a position to live an economically sustainable independent life. They provide
transitional housing arrangements while actively lobbying to end domestic violence
(NNEDV.org, 2013). According to (Walker,1999) these organizations have changed the way we
view domestic violence and have forced governments to view domestic violence as a human
rights issue rather than a social and or legal issue. Later in this review we will take a closer look
at the evolution of human rights between men and woman and the cases which shaped today’s
climate.

Background
With greater attention given to domestic violence over the past 40 years it’s important to assess
how societal norms and views of violence against woman have shifted. During the early history
of the United States, a man virtually owned his wife and children as he did his material
possessions. What was once widely considered a topic excluded from everyday conversations
made substantial progress in our courts of public opinion. This was a drastic change from the
common law principles and primitive era that gave men this sense of entitlement. We now
realize patriarchy is a legitimate social problem. Patriarchy is a central feature of Power-Control
Theory and ways males create relationships which they control is important to understand this
theory. Power-control theory asserts that relationships between gender and delinquency will be
the strongest in egalitarian or balanced families where the relative positions of power between
men and women in the workplace and at home reflect daughters and sons are controlled (Cullen
& Agnew, 2011). It appears the higher propensity of mothers to attempt to control their
daughter’s behavior in patriarchal households results in those women being raised to be more
risk averse than in egalitarian households. According to Maiuro and Eberle (2008) the treatment
that appears to have resonated with most states is based on conceptualization of domestic
violence as an abusive form of power and control over one’s life cycle. According to the Reiss
and Roth (1993) this control illustrating by physical violence is one of numerous tactics used by
abusers to undermine a woman’s autonomy and power. Below is a table which depicts
numerous examples of violence against women throughout their life:

Table 1 - Examples of Violence against Women Throughout the Life Cycle
Phase Type of violence
Pre-birth Sex-selective abortion; effects of battering during pregnancy on birth
outcomes.
Infancy Female infanticide; physical, sexual and psychological abuse.
Girlhood Child marriage; female genital mutilation; physical, sexual and
psychological abuse; incest; child prostitution and pornography.
Adolescence and Adulthood
Dating and courtship violence (e.g. acid throwing and date rape)
Adulthood economically coerced sex (e.g. school girls having sex with “sugar
daddies” in return for school fees); incest; sexual abuse in the
workplace; rape; sexual harassment; forced prostitution and
pornography; trafficking in women; partner violence; marital rape;
dowry abuse and murders; partner homicide; psychological abuse;
abuse of women with disabilities; forced pregnancy.
Elderly Forced “suicide” or homicide of widows for economic reasons; sexual,
physical and psychological abuse.
(Source: “Violence Against Women”, WHO., FRH/WHD/97.8)
Substantial progress in identifying and accurately conceptualizing the type of behaviors one uses
to exert control over another has been made. These findings have allowed for the continued
evolution as a society which now utilizes additional crimes which have a direct correlation to
domestic violence such as stalking and harassment. Clearly this life cycle of violence must be
viewed over an extended period of time. Policies on mandatory arrest are now common place, as
are orders of protection and injunctions against harassment. While our criminal codes have
evolved deterring criminal activity is a focal point of concern. The most desirable function of
punishments issued by our criminal justice system is to act as deterrence to would be criminals
and ideally, the mere presence of punishments should cause people to abide to the law. This is
the rationale used by policy makers to justify severe punishments such as prolonged sentences.

A number of scholars agree that current policies that favor incarceration are unfair as the
punishments do not always fit the crime committed and the policies fail to serve the
rehabilitative and re-integrative goals of the Criminal Justice System (Blumstein, 2011). The
goals must be balanced with crime prevention policies so as to offer valid suggestions of what
the police can do to control crime, during this economic climate without resorting to more
incarceration. The cost of domestic violence to the U.S. economy is more than $8.3 billion. This
cost includes medical care, mental health services, and lost productivity (e.g., time away from
work) (Max, Rice, Finkelstein, Bardwell & Leadbetter, 2004). As Tonry (1994) eloquently said
“we shall not have dealt effectively with crime until we have alleviated the conditions that
stimulate it.”
One of the pioneers in promoting women’s rights was Lucy Stone who was fully committed to
natural rights and went on to serve as the chair of the National American Woman Suffrage
Association. Stone is credited with establishing the Women’s Journal which was a weekly
publication promoting women’s rights in the early 19th century. Stone was also the first women
to keep her own name after marriage (Lewis, 2013). Several cases have contributed to forming
the current state of domestic violence control measures. In Bradley v. Mississippi (1824), the
Mississippi Supreme Court found that husbands could indeed be “permitted to exercise the right
of moderate chastisement”. Later justices found in Fulgham v. State of Alabama (1871) that
while privileged in the past a husband is not justified by the vows of marriage to inflict any harm
onto his wife, even “moderately”. This case set the precedent that other cases would follow
throughout our country. By 1919, under the 19th Amendment, women were afforded the
opportunity to vote. This illustrates how society begins shifting towards equality in genders
which previously was not present. The lack of such will be discussed later as scholars believe it

contributed to the control men placed over women involving in domestic violence incidents.
However, it was not until Reed v. Reed (1971) the United States Supreme Court applied the
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to women. This would serve as catalyst in how
domestic violence would be handled by the courts, police and other stake holders. As what was
once seen as a private matter now required police intervention and accountability. These
legislative changes began what historians refer to as a national commitment to condemn crimes
motivated by gender, race and religion.
Today, all states have domestic violence laws that criminalize abusive behavior. For example,
law enforcement officials with probable cause may make a warrantless arrest for misdemeanor
domestic violence. In Arizona, police are mandated to inform victims of a crime of their victims’
rights and there are enhanced penalties for habitual offenders or offenses committed in the
presence of a minor. Furthermore, if police are able to identify who is the suspect while
responding to a domestic violence call they must make an arrest. These police standards are
published by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training and discourage “dual arrests”.
Shifts in legislation now allow a criminal domestic violence case to proceed with or without the
cooperation of the victim. (Hirschel, Buzawa, Pattavina &Faggiani, 2008). Perhaps one the
greatest progress has been made in states abilities to communicate more effectively with the
advances in information technology. While researching this topic it became evident
communication barriers involving neighboring police agencies over the years contributed to slow
police response to domestic violence calls. A closer review of the changing times and protection
leads to laws now in place designed to alleviate some of the conditions involving domestic
violence.

According, to (gpo.gov.2013), which is our Federal Laws under 18 U.S.C. § 2261(a)(1) it’s a
crime for a person to travel interstate to commit domestic violence. Whereas, another law
makes it illegal to possess a firearm if a subject is convicted a of qualified misdemeanor
domestic violence offense. Under a provision of this law known as “the Lautenberg
Amendment” bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals
convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order
for domestic abuse in all 50 states. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a
firearm or ammunition to such persons.
A prominent form of legislation enacted is the Full Faith and Credit to Orders of Protection
under 18 U.S.C. § 2265. This law allows for a protection order to be enforced no matter the
jurisdiction in which it was issued. Under the Crime Rights Act (2004), 18 U.S.C. § 3771 All
federal crime victims, including a domestic violence victim, have the right to: Be treated with
fairness and respect for the victim's dignity and privacy, be reasonably protected from the
accused offender, be notified of court proceedings, be present at all public court proceedings
related to the offense, unless the court determines that testimony by the victim would be
materially affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial.
With such an influx of legislation and public policies aimed at reducing domestic violence there
are considerable community costs associated with these new measures. According to (Cohen,
Miller & Rossman, 1994) there are economic costs of domestic violence measured in two areas.
The first area is the direct or tangible costs of domestic violence, or the actual dollar
expenditures related to domestic violence. They include but are not limited to, the cost for
medical care, mental health, property damage, lost or reduced productivity at work, home and
school, costs to law enforcement, probation/ parole and the courts. Second, there are indirect

intangible costs, which include the cost of secondary victimization on family members and the
community and non-monetary losses, such as fear, pain, and suffering and lost quality of life.
These costs must be taken into consideration given our current economic climate. They focus on
the direct costs, as well as indirect costs such as assessment of the economic effects of crime on
market operations (Czabanski, 2008).
By the very nature of domestic violence crime, it is quite a daunting task to measure when
immediate victims do not report crimes. In such cases, a substantial number of crimes continue
to go unreported. Research in criminal justice points out an inordinate number of these crimes
today still go unreported. It can be argued this is one of the greatest weaknesses of the criminal
justice system. Victims do not report most crimes because they minimize their victimization and
feel more of a burden by bringing it to the attention of local law enforcement. These crimes have
different impacts on communities, families and individuals. This makes it increasingly difficult
to enlist the impact of crime costs using a single collective method (Catalano, 2006).
Few studies have included a history of the importance of women. Bubar & Thurman (2004)
briefly described the important roles women held before colonization and provided several
examples female autonomy matriarchal societies such as land ownership, divorcing spouse,
exercising control over their children and resources, and participation in government. Often
empirical research lacks this information for various reasons, however understanding the
suffrage you are examining can prove critical as it may provide additional implications that
calculation of numbers cannot explain. McNulty and Bellair (2003) conducted a research on five
ethnic communities, the African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Whites and Native Americans.
They found the following factors contributed to the probability of deviant behavior lack of
family resources, the presence of gangs in the local area, and lack of mainstream attachment in

the context of lack of fathers or positive male role models. The following court cases were an
integral part in suppressing women’s suffrage:
Weishaupt v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1984) was a case in which Weishaupt was indicted for
raping his wife and moved to dismiss based on Old English law without any previous precedence
the court established such by pointing to an increasingly recognized role of the autonomy and
independence of women. This would begin a series of similar cases that would strengthen this
position. One of these cases was Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), in which the United
States Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of a women’s rights to abortion. This case was a
result of changes made in a Pennsylvania law that required women to notify their husband of
their intention to abort a fetus. The Supreme Court added the notification regulation under
Pennsylvania law had amounted to an “undue burden” and deemed it unconstitutional. If placed
into a historical context this case was only twenty years ago.
In the 1990s, state intervention for intimate partner violence was unrecognizable from our recent
past (Fagan, 1996; Schneider, 2000). Domestic violence victims, predominantly women (Tjaden
& Thoennes, 1998), had far more options available to them that focused on providing them with
some measure of safety (Dugan, Nagin, & Rosenfeld, 2003) and they found more equitable
treatment in the courts and by their communities. Furthermore, their research suggested this
increased the likelihood future victims would come forward who had previously allowed their
victimization to go unreported.
In 2002, we saw the first monetary award by after a court ruled law enforcement was negligent
by failing to provide protection to a domestic violence victim prior to her homicide. The Estate
of Maria Macias v. Mark Ihde (2002) stems from Maria Macias who had contacted police

numerous times reporting multiple crimes committed against her, obtained restraining orders to
assist her with her estranged husband. Macias was later killed by her husband who took his own
life as well. This Federal civil rights case as ruled on by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found
the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department failed to provide Macias protections afforded under
the 14th amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. This case placed law enforcement departments
across the country on notice that they will be held accountable for not taking enforcement action
in domestic violence calls for service.
While implementing get tough on crime campaigns in the 1980’s with the “war on drugs”
coupled with research focused on getting domestic violence more national exposure we saw a
huge increase in the amount of subjects incarcerated across America. For example, the stringent
“war on drugs” begun in the 1980s led to an explosion in the prison population, with arrests
increasing by more than 300% within the last 25 years (Mauer & Ryan, 2007). Some of this
exposure caused a societal reaction as developed by Cohen (1972) which is a concept of hysteria
over violent crime. He emphasized this as a point of “moral panic” deeming the societal
responses as fundamentally inappropriate. While discussing panic over violence Chiricos (2000)
shows a similar pattern of exaggeration, distortion and misunderstanding by social outlets.
This is demonstrated by research analyzed that was collected by the National Crime
Victimization Survey during the apparent 400% violent crime increase according to the media in
1993. The research showed violent victimizations including attempts increased slightly (5.6%)
and completed violence decreased (3.2%) from 1992. Clearly one can see the media’s portrayal
of isolated acts of violent criminal behavior can create a moral panic. According to Marion
(2010) this may be due to our fascination with why people commit crimes and what happens to
them afterwards. Media creates a sense of urgency or false sense of reality which is not

necessary. However, due to many policies are implemented immediately as a means to show the
criminal justice system is not standing pat as they too succumb to the pressures applied by the
media. The role the media plays in how one feels about their surroundings cannot go
understated. According to Morgan and Signorielli (1990) it creates a cultivation analysis in
which certain viewers become cynical in their beliefs of the type of world we live in based on
portrayals in television news and entertainment. Additionally they found these false sense of
realities effect the way the view expects violent crime to be handled in the event they are a
victim.
Unfortunately our society is business driven with network ratings which play crucial roles in how
domestic violence incidents are portrayed. The media should be used to educate the public about
crime. Breaking news is merely designed to hold our attention, curb our ideology which in turn
boosts their respective ratings. Media business/ratings competition can be as cut throat driven as
the intentions of a politician who chooses to engage in filibuster tactics to stall a bill they don’t
like. We need to change the mentality of our social media outlets when is it enough. When do
we say to the Media your making a lot of money covering major criminal incidents however, the
right moral choice is to provide all families or victims an opportunity to be heard instead of only
listening when they are now mourning their loss. Is the media is selective in covering mainly
highly publicity driven incidents. For example, the recent tragic events which have unfolded
before our television sets involving former NFL player, Jovan Belcher and South African
Olympian, Oscar Pistorius. (Squire, 2013)
According to Beckett and Sasson, (2004) over the past 30 years, crime has been a dominant
feature of news and entertainment media. As an avid movie goer the argument can be made
fictional crime film portrayal is more violent in films now than ever. Local news provides often

times overly embellished crime reports which truly do not provide a true indication of the entire
story.
Blumstein (2011) notes current financial crises have necessitated a rethinking of previously held
policies on crime and punishment. All states are forced to find a way to cut expenditures as
evident by news recently indicating the United States Supreme Court ruling the State of
California could release some 40,000 prisoners over the next few years to reduce overcrowding
(France-Presse, 2011). With mass number of subjects reintegrating into mainstream society with
domestic violence convictions how can it be said recidivism won’t increase. Behavioral
psychologists have drawn differences between strategies for changing behavioral patterns aimed
at reducing a socially undesirable behavior. (Goldiamond, 1974) They offer eliminative
strategies based focusing on suppressing the act with a greater emphasis on punishment options.
Constructional strategies utilize a progressive discipline approach to reducing this violent type of
crime. Reducing prison populations must be met with great hesitation. Prisons are a very costly
affair and this expense is shouldered by the taxpayer. As if this were not bad enough, prisons
have proven to be ineffective in deterring crime and they also do not result in the rehabilitation
of the subject(s) since a significant number of them end up being repeat offenders. We must ask
ourselves does mass incarceration have a legitimate effect on crime control.
Thompson (2004) argues ex-felons are more predisposed to suffering from mental instability
than the general public and research indicates ex-convicts are four times as likely to be inflicted
by mental illnesses some of which can be attributed to the questionable conditions of many
prisons. This predisposition to mental illness is also blamed on the stress experienced in prison as
well as the stigma attached by society to ex-felons. A policy which has been effectively
implemented is the offering of treatment as an alternative to incarceration for first time offenders

such as Electronic Monitoring; Mental Health Courts; Domestic Violence Courts; Day Reporting
Centers; Restorative Justice; Community Service; Fines; Probation; and Parole. However, this is
again at the sole discretion and or recommendation the prosecutor makes to the court which in a
large majority of these cases the court will go with the recommendation made by prosecutors.
Recent legislation under the Affordable Care Act (whitehouse,gov, 2013) now requires insurance
plans to makes domestic violence screening and counseling available as a preventative service.
These pro-active programs allow us to reach victims who may have previously not been inclined
to report violence against them.
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAMA) which was reauthorized in February 2013.
The law allows for $659 million a year for the next years to be used funding how we respond to
crimes against women, men and includes training for hotline workers and law enforcement
personal. Locally the ramifications of this act hit close to us with more authority given to
American Indian Courts as Arizona has over 22 federally recognized Indian tribes. According
to Kirsch (2001) deferred prosecution allowing for treatment and or counseling is better than
taking the chance of losing a conviction in court due to victim not willing to cooperate. Funding
is a vital component to this vicious cycle.
Arizona has gone as far as to reach into the private sector by securing assistance from companies
such as Corrections Corporation of America which serve as private prisons. Do we really think
private prisoners or companies have society’s best interests at hand which are reintegration back
into main stream America as productive members of society. If we continue to incarceration at
this rate we will have to consider building prison healthcare facilities or elderly homes which is
not economic or fiscally responsible. Combating the issues which facilitate intimate partner

violence are the utmost concern not merely incarcerating someone in hopes they will not commit
the act repeatedly upon their release.
Research should focus on Laub and Sampson (2003) findings which indicated at some turning
point a subject ages out of a life of criminality (desistance) assisted perhaps by marriage,
employment status, military service and or maturation. Maybe the answer lays somewhere in
recognizing where we can really make a difference. MCCarney (2002) contends as a result of get
tough on crime philosophies adopted by some governors in the U.S.A in the mid-1990s, more
juvenile delinquents were sent to the adult system. Findings indicate those delinquent’s left jail
with a greater propensity towards engaging in criminal activities demonstrating jail trained the
youth to become tougher criminals. Perhaps incarceration it’s self is criminogenic. Scholars have
found risk assessments focusing on mental disorder and violent behavior to be a valid form used
to guide decision making on a case by case basis according to (Grisso & Appelbaum, 1992,
1993; Litwack, 1993; Webster, 1990). Which contrasts initial responses in which the assessments
adopted a one size fits all approach. Although a number of criminal and civil justice tools exist
to stop abuse and hold batterers accountable for their behavior, no one tool has proven effective
across all situations (Sartin, Hansen & Huss, 2006).
Asset Forfeiture may have a high deterrence factor since people want to maintain control of their
possessions. McCaw (2009) goes on to discuss how this kind of punishment would result in the
government benefiting from criminals as opposed to the criminals draining money from the
government through the prison system. The prosperity and well-being of any society rests on the
conformity of law and order however, criminal activities offset this balance and therefore
threaten the society’s well-being and prosperity. There is a general consensus among researchers
that crime prevention should be based on the best possible evidence. With this in mind, it makes

sense for the government to rely on evidence-based crime prevention methods instead of relying
on the traditional imprisonment methods which are evidently not very effective.
Many politicians in the U.S.A are apprehensive about adopting crime prevention since they fear
being perceived by their constituents as being soft on crime if they back social crime prevention
efforts. Instead they worry about their legacies and ability to get re-elected. Clearly it is possible
to shift away from incarceration and towards crime preventive measures. Most prevention efforts
focus on enhancing awareness to the frequency with which partner violence occurs. We know
much behavior is learned however, certain behavior(s) committed in which subjects have
justified their actions by internalizing the decisions they have made using their own
rationalization is what we are left to ponder over.
Preventative by design Treatment programs primary goals were on reeducating the male offender
in domestic violence incidents. According to Straus (2009 ) we often times fail to assess the
overall condition of the offender in which he suggests they are dealing with multiple on-going
social and psychological problems. He contends these problems not only contribute to the crime
of domestic violence but to the other crimes the subject has probably committed. This is
supported by Kleiman (2009), who indicated the criminal justice system spends a large majority
of money on arresting and imprisoning drug dealers which he suggests engage in other criminal
arenas such as domestic violence. Whereas Zimbardo (2006), believes changing or preventing
undesirable behavior of individuals or groups requires an understanding of what strengths,
virtues, and vulnerabilities they bring into a given situation. This means taking a closer look at
social influences and how they transform our decision making process.

Studies have suggested that recidivism rates in domestic violence cases are high with studies
estimating 40% to 80% or more of repeat violence when victims are followed longitudinally and
interviewed directly (Garner, Fagan, & Maxwell, 1995; Shepard, 1992). Mandatory arrest
policies and court-ordered batterers’ intervention programs have become common law
enforcement practice. Recent studies have indicated that these programs do not significantly
reduce recidivism or change batterers’ attitudes toward violence (National Institute of Justice,
2003).
According to Rosenbaum and Geffner, (2001) batterer treatment standards, must be practical,
reasonable, empirically informed, and flexible They stress the importance of maintaining the
ability to make imperative policy changes in timely manners to achieve their intended results.
Standards must facilitate rather than impede the development of effective interventions. Batterer
intervention programs while ideally offer promise their inability to require evaluations questions
their effectiveness across the board.
Maruna (2001) discusses the blocked opportunities offenders discuss which contributes to the
decisions they make when committing a crime of domestic violence. What he found was many
subject(s) who successfully abstained from crime it was not a matter of if the crime they
committed was right or wrong but how they now prioritized what matters in life. When we talk
about what matters in life and how one while attempting to reintegrate back into society it’s
important we consider burdens. Financially, we spend an inordinate amount of money
incarcerating subjects and if we are focused on believing we will receive additional funding (i.e.
formal financial social support) we are mistaken. Community social support informally while
cost effective will always be available in a case by case basis as Matza (1964) in discussing
delinquency theory indicated the sense of irresponsibility frees one from any moral constraint.

Some of the notions such as: we should attempt to give the subject a reason to live and a new
sense of self I feel are neither practical nor cost effective. We must consider the personnel
training and costs associated with any additional support outside a controlled environment and
given our economic climate these challenges make reintegration difficult.
As Sherman and Berk (1984) alluded to when they advised us they do have findings that swift
imposition of a sanction of temporary incarceration may deter male offenders in domestic assault
cases. The key phrase is temporary incarceration. Additional resources such as the use of
Injunctions against Harassment and Orders of Protection offer some protections. Opponents
argue they work for subjects who are for the most part law abiding citizens which would not
apply to defendants involved in a domestic violence incident. While noted these merely serve as
additional protection in the event or violation of such order is reported. In Arizona if a subject is
located who has violated an order of protection police discretion is not allowed the subject must
be placed under arrest. For example, let’s say you located two subjects arguing outside a hotel
in which it was determined there was an existing order of protection in place. One of the parties
was adamant about the reconciliation and downplayed the order indicating it was a formality
which they have intended on having dismissed against their partner. Perception and reality can
change if partner is placed under arrest the reality of the situation now requires their attention.
Judges take extra precautions in the face of credible threats when these orders are issued and
must protect a subject requesting one.
Logan and Walker (2011) found nearly 86 percent of women felt safer when they obtained an
emergency order of protection which in turns means less stress. Harrell and Smith (1996)
reported the likelihood of post-protection order abuse is lower if the abuser is arrested at the time
of the incident in which the other party is requesting protection. Restraining Orders carry

controversy about their effectiveness it would appear they do indeed reduce the risk of future
violence towards the victim as the aforementioned research supports. These orders are issued by
Judges after determining if a clear and present danger standard has been met referred to as a
preponderance of the evidence. The accused must compel a judge or law enforcement officer
(emergency situations after normal hours) to have proof or 51 percent of the evidence on their
side. The other standard used in criminal cases to prosecute domestic violence offenders is proof
beyond a reasonable doubt which is the highest of standards in our criminal justice system.
Discussion
Much has been made about the transformation we have witnessed in our Criminal Justice System
over the past 20 years with respect to services, programs and legislation aimed at protecting
victims of domestic violence. However, we have failed to make an impact on women who have
immigrated to our country as they suffer the most based on socio-economic status and least
access to basic human rights (Erwin, 2006). Reaching into the homes of other victims of this
dark crime is of significant importance. As we have pushed for standards involve many
stakeholders doesn’t it feel as if they are more like a political statement than a protection against
violence. The core of the problem has remained the same while research continues to suggest
there is no unilateral program to combat domestic violence. Sure we can pride ourselves on
prosecuting more domestic violence’s cases than ever before however, this will not help single
parents who come forward as a victim and find themselves struggling financially more after the
incarceration of their partner.
Proactive measures from the beginning may ensure we do not rely on a single intervention
strategy to be effective. Rehabilitating our victim’s confidence, self-esteem are equally important

especially if we want to effect positive long term change. Results oriented disciplines focus on
how much has been done to reintegrate batterers into society yet; it would appear we could be
doing more to place our victims with a sense of self- respect so they have the confidence to purse
their happiness. Another concern locally is tribal courts are not courts of record therefore, they
lack qualified misdemeanor domestic violence conviction records. Technically one could have
multiple tribal domestic violence convictions which would only be known by the Tribal
Governments who operate as Sovereign Nations. These Nations do not have to comply with the
Federal Freedom of Information Act requests by other jurisdictions for records of crimes
committed on a reservation which is of great concern given we have numerous reservations
Native Americans in Arizona. The sharing of information is vital to attack this social problem.
Conclusion/Future Implications
Implications for the future begin with research geared towards assessing what we are currently
doing and if it has any effects on domestic violence recidivism. This is our intended outcome
therefore; we must stay focused on modifying policies and procedures to accommodate our
intended results. Moving forward with consideration towards more research on prosecutorial
discretion in these types of cases allows for one to view evidence of specific deterrent effects.
The may provide a telling story of the dynamics which now make up what a successful
prosecution is for these type of cases not to mention the process of plea-bargaining the strenuous
caseloads prosecutors are faced with.
Recognition for the need of some defendants require specialized services such as ankle
monitoring and intense supervision. This cost will continue to be a burden yet, with attention on
minimizing the number of subjects who require these costly services we are being fiscally

responsible. In any form of crime measurement there will a percentage of subjects which
services will not reach however, being cognizant of such will force us to devote our often limited
resources to an area where they can make a difference.
Future policies should consider focusing on transitioning adolescents of both genders who have
grown up, witnessed or been victims of domestic violence into adulthood. This is of a great
importance given how this review has provided empirical data which suggests children subjected
to domestic violence are more likely to engage in this type of behavior as adults.
This review has provided research focused on the impact of domestic violence treatment
programs, and the results have been equivocal. Research needs to focus on how we can get
victims of all kinds to take an active role in what does or does not happen in their lives with
attention towards the victims who do not choose to separate from a batterer.
We must acknowledge our failures and move forward focusing on the specialized domestic
violence treatment courts which are unique in nature and ever-evolving intervention programs
used to reduce violence all while being fiscally responsible. Adequate specialized training for all
the stakeholders is paramount for long term success and could contribute to a reduction in
domestic violence recidivism. Aside from the financial burden of incarceration for batterer’s we
must look at correlations in behavior modification as research appears to suggest a large majority
of these subjects are not just batterers but suffer from other mental and physical conditions.
Alternative sanctions should be developed and empirically tested along with alternative
treatments.
We could investigate the incorporation of violence-free principles and activities as in support
programs. As we have seen there are many components to a coordinated community response to

domestic violence let us not forget how far we have come in a short period of time and yet how
far we have to go to end domestic violence. These responses encourage the justice system,
educational groups and social services to work closer with crisis centers, shelters coalitions and
other organizations. This collaborate effort is not easy however; approaching people with good
intentions will collectively bridge existing gaps and contribute in meaningful ways towards the
ongoing goals to reduce such violence.

References
Beckett, K., & Sasson, T. (2004). The Politics of Injustice: Crime and Punishment in America,
73-101.
Bradley v. State, 2 Miss. (1Walker) 156 (1824).
Bubar, R., & Jumper-Thurman, P. (2004). Violence against Native Women. Social Justice, 31
No. 4, 70-86.
Carlson, B. (1984). Children’s observations of interparental violence. In A. R. Roberts (Ed.),
Battered women and their families: Intervention strategies and treatment programs (pp.
147-167).
Catalano, S. M. (2006). The measurement of crime: Victim reporting and police recording. 50-
65.
Chiricos, T. (2000). The media, moral panic, and the politics of crime control. In G. Cole, M.
Gertz & A. Bunger (Eds.), the Criminal Justice System (9 ed., pp. 41-61). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Cohen, M. A., Miller, T. R., & Rossman, S. B. (1994). The costs and consequences of violent
behavior in the United States. In J. Roth & A. Reiss (Eds.), Understanding and preventing
violence: Consequences and control, (Vol. 4, pp. )
Czabanski, J. (2008). Estimates of cost of crime: History, methodologies, and implications.
Berlin: Springer.
Cullen, F., & Agnew, R. (2011). Criminological Theory: Past to Present (4 ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Erwin, P., (2006). Exporting U.S. domestic violence reforms: An analysis of human rights
frameworks and U.S. “Best Practices”. Feminist Criminology 1, 188-206.
Dugan, L., Nagin, D., & Rosenfeld, R. (2003). Exposure reduction or retaliation? The effects of
domestic violence resources on intimate-partner homicide. Law & Society Review, 37(1),
169-198.
Estate of Maria Teresa Macias v. Mark Ihde 219 F.3d 1018, 1028 *'2000 U.S:"
Fagan, J. (1996). The criminalization of domestic violence: Promises and limits. Washington,
DC: Department of Justice.
France-Presse, A., (2011, May 23). Supreme Court orders California to free 40,000 prisoners.
Rawstory.com. Retrieved March 22, 2013, from

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/23/supreme-court-orders-california-to-free-40000-
prisoners/
Fulgham v. State, 46. Ala. 143, 146-47 (1871).
Health Reform. (2013). Affordable Care Act. About the New Law. Washington DC: Retrieved
on March 27th, 2013 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/healthcare-
overview#healthcare-menu
Garner, J., Fagan, J., &Maxwell, C. (1995). Published findings from the Spouse Assault
Replication Program: A critical review. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11, 3-28.
Goldiamond, I. (1974). Toward a constructional approach to social problems: Ethical and
constitutional issues raised by applied behavior analysis. Behaviorism, 2, 1-84
Government Printing Office. (2013). United States Code. Washington DC: Retrieved on March
31st, 2013 from
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionUScode.action?collectionCode=USCODE&s
earchPath=Title+18%2FPART+I&oldPath=Title+18&isCollapsed=true&selectedYearFr
om=2009&ycord=940
Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. S. (1992). Is it unethical to offer predictions of future violence?
Law and Human Behavior, 16, 621–633.
Harrell, A., & Smith, B.E. (1996). Effects of restraining orders on domestic violence victims,
Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work, 214–242.
Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., & Faggiani, D. (2008). Domestic violence and
mandatory arrest laws: To what extent do they influence police arrest decisions? The
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 98, 255-290.
Kirsch, T., (2001). Problems in Domestic Violence: Should victims be forced to participate in the
prosecution of their abusers? Vol. 7. 1-64.
Kleiman, M. (2009). When Brute Force Fails. How to have less crime and less punishment.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginning, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age
70. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.
Lewis, J. (2013). Women’s Rights. Retrieved from:
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/stonelucy/p/lucy_stone.htm
Litwack, T. R. (1993). On the ethics of dangerousness assessments. Law and Human Behavior,
17, 479–482.

Logan, T., & Walker, R. (2011). Civil protective orders effective in stopping or reducing partner
violence. Carsey Institute 18, 1-6.
Maiuro, R., D., & Eberle. J.A. (2008). State standards for domestic violence perpetrator
treatment: current status, trends, and recommendations. Violence and Victims 23, 133-
157.
Marion, N. E. (2010). A Primer in the Politics of Criminal Justice, 197-224. Boulder: Lynne
Rienner.
Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and drift. New York: Wiley.
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington,
D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Mauer, M. & Ryan, K. (2007). A 25-Year Quagmire: The War on Drugs and its Impact on
American Society. Washington, D.C: The Sentencing Project
Max, W., Rice, D.P., Finkelstein, E., Bardwell, R. & Leadbetter, S. (2004). The economic toll of
intimate partner violence against women in the United States. Violence and Victims
19(3):259-72.)
McCarney, W. (2002). Restorative justice: International approaches. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 3 (1): 2-13.
McCaw, C.E. (2009). Asset Forfeiture as a Form of Punishment: A Case for Integrating Asset
Forfeiture into Criminal Sentencing. American Journal of Criminal Law, 38(2): 54-76.
McNulty, T., & Bellair, P. (2003). “Explaining Racial and Ethnic Differences in Serious
Adolescent Violent Behavior” Criminology, 41, 709-748.
National Coalition against Domestic Violence. (2013). Mission Statement and Purpose.
Washington, DC: Retrieved on April 2nd, 2013 from http://www.ncadv.org/aboutus.php
National Institute of Justice. (2003). Do batterer intervention programs work? Two studies.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
National Network to End Domestic Violence. (2013). History of National Network to End
Domestic Violence. Washington, DC: Retrieved on March 21st, 2013 from
http://www.nnedv.org/about/history.html.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971).

Reiss, A., & Roth, J., (1993). Understanding and preventing violence. National Academy Press
Rosenbaum, A., & Geffner, R.A., (2001). Future Direction in Mandated Standards for Domestic
Violence Offenders. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment& Trauma Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.
287-293.
Sandusky, J. (2001).Working effectively with the police: A guide for battered women’s
advocates. Battered Women’s Justice Project.
Sartin, R. M., Hansen, D. J. & Huss, M. T. (2006). Domestic violence treatment response and
recidivism: A review and implications for the study of family violence. Aggression &
Violent Behavior,1(5), 425-440.
Schneider, E. M. (2000). Battered women and feminist lawmaking. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Sherman, L.W., & Berk, R.A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic
assault. American Sociological Association 49, 261-272.
Squire, J. (2013, March 24). Athletes who snapped. thedailybeast.com. Retrieved March 24,
2013, from http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2012/12/04/jovan-belcher-george-
huguely-chris-benoit-other-athletes-who-snapped-photos.html
Straus, M. (2009). Gender symmetry in partner violence: Evidence and implications for
prevention and treatment, 245-271.
Thompson, A. C. (2004). Navigating the Hidden Obstacles to Ex-Offender Reentry. Boston
College Law Review, 45 (2): 2-12.
The National Center for Victims of Crime. (2013). The Mission of the National Center of Crime.
Washington, DC: Retrieved on March 24th, 2013 from
http://www.victimsofcrime.org/about-us.
Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against
women: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. (NCJ 172837).
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice/Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Retrieved on April 1st, 2013, from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
Tonry, M. (1994). Racial Politics, Racial Disparities and the War on Crime: Crime and
Delinquency, 40 (4): 475-494.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2013). Office on Violence against Women. Washington, DC: U.S.
Retrieved from http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/domviolence.htm

Walker, L. (1999). Psychology and Domestic Violence around the World. American
Psychologist 54 (1), 21-29.
Webster, C. D. (1990). Prediction of dangerousness polemic. Canadian Journal of Criminology,
32, 191–196.
Weishaupt v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 389, 400, 315 S.E.2d 847, 852 (1984).
Zimbardo, P. (2006). The Lucifer Effect.com. Retrieved March 29th, 2013, from
http://www.lucifereffect.com.

ferrellj_final

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to ferrellj_final (20)

ferrellj_final