Home
 / 
Domestic Violence Research Paper

Domestic Violence Research Paper

This sample Domestic Violence Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need help writing your assignment, please use our research paper writing service and buy a paper on any topic at affordable price. Also check our tips on how to write a research paper, see the lists of criminal justice research paper topics, and browse research paper examples.

Violence has long been a subject of interest for criminology, but it was not until the last quarter of the twentieth century that gender became a significant explanatory factor and domestic violence became a focus of research. Although an early, classic work by Wolfgang, Patterns of Criminal Homicide (1958), included a groundbreaking investigation of domestic murders, this was mostly ignored until the 1980s. In the USA, where most criminological research was conducted, the focus was on gang delinquency. This focus drew upon the pioneering work of Merton (1938) and produced a number of empirically informed accounts of gang delinquency and gang violence (Short and Strodtbeck 1965). The prevailing characterization of violent events was of a “face game” with disputes involving “honor” in which both victim and offender “agreed” that violence was an appropriate means of settling the conflict as verbal responses escalated to physical violence (Luckenbill 1977). The concept of “victim precipitation” defined the mutual and equally culpable participation of both parties as each “agreed” to the escalation from verbal encounter to physical violence.

When domestic violence (DV), now termed intimate partner violence (IPV), was “discovered” in the mid-1970s, the sparse accounts of physical and sexual violence against women within criminology relied heavily upon the concept of “victim precipitation” with its implicit conception of male-male encounters, provocation, and mutual agreement to violence, and this was applied to accounts of conflicts between men and women culminating in men’s violence against women (e.g., Amir 1971). Similarly, within the psychiatric literature, women victims of domestic violence were deemed to be “provocative,” “aggressive,” and/or “masculine,” and thus responsible for the violence men used against them (for a review see Dobash and Dobash 1979, 1992). Thus, as social scientists began to focus on domestic violence in the 1970s and 1980s, often in conjunction with activist community groups, many looked outside criminology to the emerging feminist literature that stressed gender, male domination, aggression, and violence as more relevant to this area of research. Such approaches have generally dominated the study of IPV, and the body of literature is now voluminous and includes criminology, socio-legal studies, sociology, anthropology, psychology, evolutionary psychology, health, and medicine. Here, the focus is upon the extent of the violence, the nature of violence and controlling behavior, the context in which it occurs, the characteristics of male perpetrators, and the response of the criminal justice system.

Since the “discovery” of this form of violence in the 1970s, there have been debates about definitions, terminology, research methods, and the resulting findings. Over time, several terms have been used: “wife beating,” “wife abuse,” “wife battering” which were followed by “woman beating, abuse, or battering,” “domestic violence,” and “intimate partner violence.” There have been debates about how much of this violence exists in a given place at a particular time; who commits the violence (men, women, or both, i.e., symmetry or asymmetry in perpetration by men and/or women); a narrow vs. broad definition of what counts as violence, narrowly restricted to physical acts of violence or broadly expanded to include other acts that are emotional, financial, and the like; what should be done about it and by whom; as well as other debates not discussed here (see Dobash et al. 1992; Dobash and Dobash 2004).

Nature And Extent Of Intimate Partner Violence

Here, the focus is on serious, physical “violence” against women rather than upon aggression, controlling behavior, emotional abuse, or financial deprivation. This is not to say that such nonviolent aggressive acts are not problematic or worthy of concern, intervention, or research. However, it is physical acts of violence that are most likely to be defined as illegal or criminal and to warrant intervention by the justice system including police, courts, probation, and prison. Around the world, several national and international studies have attempted to establish the nature and extent of intimate partner violence. When the focus is upon serious physical violence, the overwhelming evidence indicates that it is women, not men, who are significantly more likely to be the victims of violence from an intimate partner, to suffer serious consequences and injuries, and to require emergency attention and hospitalization (Krahe et al. 2005; Tjaden and Thoennes 1998; Watson and Parsons 2005).

National population-based surveys in several industrialized countries suggest that about onequarter of adult women will at some-time in their life experience at least one act of violence from a male intimate partner (Backman and Saltzman 1995; Greenfield et al. 1998; Mirrlees-Black 1999; Tjaden and Thoennes 1998; Wilson et al. 1995; Walby and Allen 2004). Evidence collected by the World Health Organization reveals that intimate partner violence is a “common experience” for women throughout the world (Krug et al. 2002). A WHO meta-analysis of 50 population-based studies from 35 countries found lifetime estimates of between 10 and 69 %. In most countries this varied from 10 % to 50 % (Krug et al. 2002). A subsequent carefully conducted WHO study involving probability samples and standardized face-to-face interviews with 24,097 women at 15 sites in ten countries revealed a lifetime prevalence of 13–61 % for moderate or severe violence (acts capable of inflicting injury and hospitalization) from partners of ever cohabiting or married women with most countries reporting prevalence of 25–45 % (Garcia-Moreno et al. 2006).

Sexual violence against women in intimate relationships also occurs with the WHO research revealing that between 6 % and 59 % of women had experienced “forced sexual intercourse” by an intimate male partner, with most areas varying from 10 % to 50 % (Garcia-Moreno et al. 2006; Watson and Parsons 2005). Research conducted primarily in the USA indicates that 10–15 % of ever married or cohabiting women have been raped by an intimate partner, about one-quarter of all rapes involve intimate partners, and a considerable proportion of physically abused women also suffer sexual assault (Campbell 1999; Randall and Haskall 1995; Russell 1990; Ullman and Siegel 1993). Results of the comprehensive WHO study indicate that the violence is often severe and results in serious injuries, it occurs on a frequent basis, there is a strong relationship between frequency and severity, and it is intrinsically related to sexual violence (Garcia-Moreno et al. 2006). This definitive study corroborates and confirms the results of scores of other national and local surveys conducted in countries throughout the world.

Crime victimization surveys and evidence gathered from other sources have persistently shown that women are much more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner, to suffer injuries, and to require medical treatment. In the USA, National Crime Surveys have been conducted annually since 1972, and these and victimization surveys conducted in other countries have persistently shown that women constitute 70–90 % of all victims of assaults between intimate partners and that women are much more likely than men to report serious injuries (Archer 2000; Gaguin 1977–1978; Schwartz 1987; Johnson and Sacco 1995; Tjaden and Thoennes 1998; Worrall and Pease 1986). Evidence from other sources, such as police, court, and accident and emergency records, gathered in numerous countries over a number of years suggests that in an overwhelming proportion of cases, women are the victims of intimate partner violence (Abbott et al. 1995; Archer 2000; Dobash et al. 1992; Dobash and Dobash 2004; Nazroo 1995).

Extensive population-based surveys and intensive studies provide information about the specific nature of the physical acts of violence perpetrated by men in intimate relationships and repeatedly reveal a range from the more frequent use of pushing, shoving, slapping, punching, and kicking to the less frequent use of weapons and strangulation (Dobash and Dobash 1979; Dobash et al. 1998; Johnson 1996; Tjaden and Thoennes 1998).

Injuries

Research suggests that the most common injury from violent attacks involves bruising and lacerations of the face and body. Fractures, concussions, miscarriages, and internal injuries also occur although less frequently (Campbell 1998; Dobash and Dobash 1998; Coker et al. 2000; Kyriacou et al. 1999; Stark and Flitcraft 1992). Health and medical research indicates that permanent disfigurement, physical disability, and damage to hearing and vision sometimes occur, that abused women are six to eight times more likely to use health services than non-abused women, and that violence during pregnancy threatens the health of the woman and the fetus (Campbell 1998; Walton-Moss et al. 2005). Women are also likely to experience an ongoing sense of fear, helplessness, entrapment, and loss of self-respect (Dobash and Dobash 2004; Watson and Parsons 2005), as well as other longterm negative consequences to their health and well-being.

Constellation Of Abuse

Intimate partner violence is frequently linked to other acts that do not involve physical violence but are controlling, intimidating, and coercive. Such acts do not break bones or cause bruising or bleeding, but may result in fear, intimidation, and damage to self-worth. The impact of coercive and controlling behaviors usually rests upon the fact that physical violence has previously been used and could be used again. This provides a firm foundation upon which to use intimidation in order to maintain authority and control. We have defined this combination of physical violence, injuries, and controlling behavior as the “constellation of abuse” (Dobash and Dobash 1984; Dobash et al. 2000). Our historical and intensive studies confirm the link between violence and other forms of intimation and coercion (Dobash and Dobash 1979; Dobash et al. 1998, 2000), and this link has been corroborated in several population surveys (Tjaden and Thoennes 1998; Walby and Allen 2004; Wilson et al. 1995). A survey by the World Health Organisation (WHO) revealed a direct relationship between violence against intimate partners and various forms of controlling and intimidating acts by men (e.g., restricting her mobility and access to friends and family). While levels of controlling behaviors vary from country to country (from 21 % to 90 %), systematic research from ten countries indicates a strong statistical relationship between “severe” restrictive controls and physical and/or sexual violence (Coker et al. 2000). Violence and other sustained forms of abuse not only result in physical injury and psychological distress but may also result in chronic mental health problems (Coker et al. 2000; Kyriacou et al. 1999).

This constellation of abuse may even extend beyond the “end” of a relationship as some men continue try to control and/or punish the woman for leaving or for beginning a new relationship. The woman may be stalked and/or subjected to further violence, and others (relatives, friends/ neighbors, and new partners) may also be subjected to violence or intimidation in an ongoing effort to punish and control. A representative sample survey of 8,000 women in the USA revealed that 81 % of the respondents who reported having been “stalked” by a former partner indicated that they had previously been assaulted by the person who continued to harass them. Additionally, 31 % of these women also reported a previous incident of sexual assault (U.S. Dept. of Justice 1998a).

Type Of Relationship: Marriage, Cohabitation, And Dating

The type of intimate relationship has been found to be important in several respects. Research on lethal and nonlethal violence suggests that co-cohabiting relationships are more at risk of lethal and nonlethal violence than marital relationships (Miethe and Regoeczi 2004; Shackleford and Mouzos 2005; Wilson et al. 1995). Additional research expanded to include dating, nonresidential relationships revealed that both cohabiting and dating relationships were at a greater risk of lethal violence than marital relationships (Dawson and Gartner 1998; Dobash et al. 2007; Johnson and Hotton 2003). The preponderance of evidence suggests that cohabitation and serious dating/engaged relationships have a greater risk of lethal and nonlethal IPV than state-sanctioned marriage. It may be that such relationships are more tenuous, involve less commitment, have fewer outside supports in the form of relatives or the state, and these circumstances leave the couple with fewer resources to deal with the inevitable conflicts of domestic life as well as reduce the likelihood of external intervention. Alternatively, any observed difference in the risk of IPV relating to the type of relationship may be associated with the distinct characteristics of those in these different types of relationship. Men and women who cohabit or are in a boy/girlfriend relationship are likely to be younger, poorer, and in other ways categorically different than those who are married (Brownridge and Halli 2002). It may be, however, that the observed differences are related both to the characteristics of the individuals involved and to the sociocultural factors associated with various types of relationships.

Conflict, Nonlethal, And Lethal Violence

Conflict usually precedes violent events, and conflicts (often chronic) in intimate relations characterized by violence include a number of recurring issues associated with daily life including: money, children, housekeeping, sex, fidelity, jealousy, possessiveness, authority, and the continuation of the relationship (Dobash and Dobash 1979; Dobash et al. 2000). Men’s sense of entitlement, jealousy, and possessiveness are major issues and may be even more apparent in cases that end in murder (Block and Christakos 1995; Campbell et al. 2007; Dobash et al. 2007; Dobash and Dobash 2011; Polk and Ranson 1991; Serran and Firestone 2004; Wilson and Daly 1998). At the point when women attempt to leave, or terminate a relationship, issues of possessiveness and “ownership” become very apparent, and the combination of these factors appears to contribute to an elevated risk of lethal and nonlethal violence against women. Evidences from several studies of intimate partner murder suggest that at the time of the murder, one-third to one-half of women killed by a partner were either separated from their partner or had indicated their intention to leave the relationship (Browne et al. 1999; Dawson and Gartner 1998; Dobash et al. 2007 Johnson and Hotton 2003; Wilson and Daly 1993). The early stages of separation appear to be the most risky, although some men stalk and kill an ex-partner several years after separation.

Lethal violence in intimate relationships primarily involves men as perpetrators and women as victims, although abused women do sometimes kill their male abuser. In a number of countries, the ratio of male-to-female victims is around one to five, and in some societies there are no reports of women killing male intimate partners (Campbell et al. 2007; Daly and Wilson 1988; Dobash et al. 2007). The homicides of women intimate partners constitute 40–60 % of all murders of women, whereas no more than 10 % of men who are murdered are killed by an intimate partner (Campbell et al. 2007; Dahlberg and Krug 2002). In the USA such murders are one of the leading causes of premature deaths of women and the seventh leading cause of death for African-American women aged 15–45 (U.S. Office of Justice 1998b). When men murder an intimate partner, it usually occurs in the context of sustained, long-term violence and abuse. Research suggests that at least 60 % of all murders of women by intimate partners are associated with the chronic violent abuse by the male perpetrator (Campbell et al. 2007; Dobash et al. 2007; Moracco et al. 1998). A considerable proportion of these cases also involve a history of sexual violence which occurs in about 15 % of the murders of women (Campbell et al. 2007; Dobash et al. 2007; Mathews et al. 2004). When women murder a male partner, it usually occurs in the context of the man’s physical and sexual violence against her and frequently involves self-defense and/or retaliation (Browne 1987).

Collateral Murder Involving Intimate Partner Conflict/Violence

Men not only murder their women partners and ex-partners in the context of intimate partner violence and conflict, they also kill others, such as children or new partners, who might be described as collateral victims (Dobash and Dobash 2012; Langford et al. 1998). Children appear to be the most likely collateral victims, but research suggests that those who attempt to shelter or protect women, usually family and friends, as well as new male partners, are also at risk (Dobash et al. 2007; Dobash and Dobash 2012). The widespread availability of firearms, particularly in the USA, means that police officers attempting to intervene in “domestic disputes” are at considerable risk of injury or death. Men sometimes commit familicide, the murder of the entire family including their woman partner and children, often followed by suicide (Wilson and Daly 1998; Websdale 2010). Such actions are extremely rare among women. Most mass murders (more than two victims) are committed by men in the context of intimate partner conflict/violence, as are the majority of murders followed by suicide (Liem 2010; Websdale 2010).

Male Perpetrators Of Intimate Partner Violence And Murder

Childhood And Adulthood

Clinical survey and longitudinal studies suggest that men who have committed violent acts against an intimate woman partner are significantly more likely than those who have not to have experienced adversity in childhood and various problems in their adult life (Browne et al. 1999; Moffit et al. 1998; Schumacher et al. 2001).

Witnessing domestic violence, along with physical abuse and disadvantage in childhood, has been linked to the subsequent perpetration of lethal and nonlethal violence against a woman intimate partner (Ehrensaft et al. 2003; Gondolf 2002; Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart 1994). Nonlethal and lethal violence against an intimate partner has also been associated with problems in adulthood including poor educational achievement, chronic unemployment, a history of arrest, and convictions for violence or other offenses, as well as problems in relationships with others, particularly intimates (Campbell et al. 2003; Dobash et al. 2000; Dutton and Hart 1992). Chronic substance abuse, particularly of alcohol, often features in the adult lives of both abusers and IPMurderers. It is not merely the consumption of alcohol but binge drinking and/or persistent alcohol abuse that are risk factors for violence, severe violence, and lethality (Fals-Stewart 2003; Finney 2004; Moracco et al. 1998; Walton-Moss et al. 2005). With respect to previous offending among those who commit IPMurder, studies have shown that a prior criminal record for any type of offense is a correlate of intimate partner murder (Dawson and Gartner 1998; Dobash and Dobash 2009; Moracco et al. 1998; Grann and Wedin 2002).

Personality

Focusing on personality, some studies have identified distinct characteristics of abusers, while others have found little difference in the characteristics of abusers and the wider population (Dutton and Kerry 1999; Gondolf 2002; Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart 1994). Focusing only on men who have murdered an intimate partner, the results of several studies suggest that a considerable proportion of men who kill their partners are less likely to exhibit distinct personality problems than abusers and that a considerable proportion differ very little from the wider population (Dobash and Dobash 2009; Echeburua et al. 2003; Grann and Wedin 2002; Weizmann-Henelius et al. nd). While adverse experiences in childhood and problems in adulthood such as alcohol abuse may increase the risk of serious and more injurious forms of violence, clearly they cannot be considered necessary or sufficient conditions either for lethal or nonlethal violence.

While evidence suggests the importance of adversity in the backgrounds of the perpetrator’s of IPV and IPMurder, demonstrating that a considerable proportion of these men are similar to those who, for example, murder other males, there is a body of evidence indicating that some men who assault and murder their partners may not be characterized by such backgrounds. Several studies indicate that a reasonable proportion of men who murder their intimate partner have grown up in a stable family, experienced few problems in childhood, were steadily employed, and appeared to be reliable partners and parents (Dobash and Dobash 2009; Dobash et al. 2004; Echeburua et al. 2003; Grann and Wedin 2002; Weizmann-Henelius et al. nd). This evidence is in sharp contrast to the men who murder other men where difficult backgrounds and criminal records are the norm (Dobash et al. 2004). In a UK study of men who murdered their partner, 40 % appeared to have relatively “conventional” backgrounds (Dobash and Dobash 2009). Additional evidence collected after the murder, however, suggests that around one in five of these men had assaulted their partner at least once at some point in the relationship and their orientations to relationships with women, their violence, and the victims of the murder parallel those of men who have experienced adversity in their backgrounds. These men reacted angrily and violently to their partner’s attempts to terminate the relationship and were reluctant to express remorse or regret regarding the murder (Dobash and Dobash 2011, nd).

Criminal Justice And Intimate Partner Violence

The CJ system has long been the focus of concern for community and pressure groups attempting to assist women victims of IPV (Dobash and Dobash 1992). Activists and advocates learned that the CJ system was at best reluctant and at worst opposed to intervening in “domestic disputes.” This is confirmed by systematic evidence from several countries which revealed that the norm was under enforcement of the laws of assault and that assaults between strangers were more likely than those between family members to result in arrest (Dobash and Dobash 1979). Violence against women in the home was not considered to be a “real crime” and was, instead, treated as a social and personal problem best dealt with by social services and others. Training guidelines, such as those of the International Association of Police Chiefs, suggested that this was a “personal matter” and that arrest should be a “last resort.” If the legal system was to be involved, it was through civil remedies such as injunctions and protection orders. This legacy of legal ideas, principles, and practices constituted the family as a private domain where the man was “in charge” and usually immune from prosecution. Even near the end of the twentieth century, this legacy was boldly reflected in homicide “special immunity” statutes in some US states whereby a man who murdered his wife when she was engaged in a sexual act of infidelity was immune from prosecution (Daly and Wilson 1988).

Beginning in the 1960s, the orientations within criminal justice in the US were merged with “psychiatric ideals” with attempts to provide interventions that would “facilitate human helping” in “family fights” and “domestic squabbles” (Dobash and Dobash 1992). Short-term, immediate interventions, such as “mediation,” were endorsed. Model programs were created around the ideals of “crisis intervention,” and by the 1980s “crisis intervention” and mediation were standard policy and procedure in large police departments throughout the USA (Oppenlander 1982; Lerman 1984). Arrest was a “last resort” to be invoked only in cases of “wanton” or “brutal” assault, and even into the 1980s half of US police departments prohibited arrest in all but the most injurious types of domestic violence (Sherman 1992). Such “model” programs exemplified the approach to domestic violence that was neither seen as a serious criminal problem nor as the responsibility of the criminal justice system. However, subsequent lawsuits and class actions against the police for failure to protect women victims of violence (almost exclusively in the USA) and legislative and administrative mandates at national and local levels brought about changes in such policies.

Police officers in many countries are now given specialized training, often provided by the same pressure groups that lobbied for change. In some cases, protocols mandating enhanced police action are now in place with prescriptive instructions limiting police discretion and requiring actions to protect victims of violence and their children. In several jurisdictions, presumptive arrest of the perpetrator based on “probable cause” is now seen as an appropriate action, and arrest is mandated with such practices sometimes enacted by dedicated domestic violence police units (Iovanni and Miller 2001).

Criminal justice developments have occurred throughout the world. In the USA, the UK, and many other countries, pressure groups have contributed to changes in thinking and practice, particularly concerning the treatment of victims who had previously been deemed outside of the remit of police work. A comprehensive study of European Union countries found significant changes in criminal justice responses (European Commission 2010), and the authors concluded that the concept of “due diligence” to “protect, prosecute, and prevent” is widely accepted as is criminalization of IPV with mediation and conciliation no longer acceptable in most countries. In most, but not all, EU countries, policies and laws associated with domestic violence are usually gender specific, and it is generally acknowledged that women are the usual victims of intimate partner violence.

In some countries there have also been significant developments in the prosecution services, courts, and sentencing. Most importantly, intimate partner violence is now on the agenda and considered an important problem worthy of criminal justice consideration and intervention through prosecution and criminal courts. In some countries dedicated domestic violence courts have been created to facilitate the processing of such cases. New sentencing options have also been developed that mandate offender attendance to innovative feminist-oriented cognitive behavioral interventions that require offenders to deal with and acknowledge their violent acts and take responsibility for them (Dobash et al. 2000; Gondolf 2002). Such programs are an important part of the criminal justice response to intimate partner violence.

It is prudent to ask if such changes have made any difference. Has intimate partner violence been reduced? Are women and their children safer? Are offenders taking responsibility for their actions and changing their behavior? Systematic evaluations of innovations are rare, most have been conducted in the USA and most have focused on the effectiveness of arrest. In the 1980s, a number of studies in the USA attempted to compare the impact of arrest with doing nothing or responding in other ways such as mediation. Initially, arrest appeared to reduce repeat incidents of violence over a 12-month period, and subsequently a pro-arrest strategy was adopted in some jurisdictions (Sherman and Berk 1984). However, subsequent studies conducted in other cities reached conflicting conclusions ranging from studies finding that arrest had “no effect on repeat violence” to those showing a “reduced effect” and to those showing an “increase” in violence. Despite these contradictory findings, policies supporting arrest are now in place in the USA and elsewhere and are deemed to be a useful intervention, although practice has not always followed on from such policies (Ferraro 1989; Jaffe et al. 1993; Zorza and Woods 1994; Logan et al. 2006).

Summary And Conclusions

Violence against women is now recognized as a worldwide problem. While the prevalence of this violence may vary from country to country, it is clear that the problem exists in all those societies where it has been investigated. Violence against women is now recognized as an issue of human rights by the United Nations, UNESCO, the European Union, and other national and international bodies. Where once there was indifference to, or even outright support of, violence by men against women partners, this has now been drastically eroded although not eliminated. Societal values and institutional responses have changed. It is clear that the efforts of women’s groups throughout the world have made a difference in raising the issue and working toward more effective responses to women who have been the victims of intimate partner violence. In the USA, research indicates that there has been a significant reduction in intimate partner violence in those cities that have introduced meaningful interventions for IPV. In addition, national figures show a significant reduction in intimate partner murder.

Recovering from a shaky start, researchers within criminology have, along with those from other disciplines, played an important part in placing this problem on the academic and public agendas, in helping to transform ways of thinking about this problem, and in replacing uninformed speculation with solid evidence. Evidence reveals that violence against women by intimate partners is widespread and serious, but also that it is amenable to positive interventions from the justice system and others that work toward reductions in its frequency and severity and thus toward the well-being of women, their children, and, ultimately, the society at large.

Bibliography:

  1. Abbott J, Johnson R, Koziol-McLain J, Lowenstein SR (1995) Domestic violence against women: incidence and prevalence in an emergency department population. J Am Med Assoc 273:1763–1767
  2. Amir M (1971) Patterns in forcible rape. Chicago University Press, Chicago
  3. Archer J (2000) Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 126:651–680
  4. Backman R, Saltzman LE (1995) Violence against women: estimates from the redesigned survey. Special report of the bureau of justice statistics. U.S. Dept. Justice, Washington D.C
  5. Block CR, Christakos A (1995) Intimate partner homicide in Chicago over 29 years. Crime Delinq 41:496–526
  6. Browne A (1987) When battered women kill. The Free Press, New York, Collier Macmillan
  7. Browne A, Williams KR, Dutton DG (1999) Homicide between intimate partners: a 20-year review. In: Smith MD, Zahn MA (eds) Homicide: a sourcebook of social research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 149–164
  8. Brownridge DA, Halli SS (2002) Understanding male partner violence against cohabiting and married women: an empirical investigation with a synthesized model. J Fam Violence 17:341–361
  9. Campbell JC (1998) Abuse during pregnancy: progress, policy, and potential. Am J Public Health 88:185–187
  10. Campbell JC (1999) Forced sex and intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women 5:1017–1035
  11. Campbell JC, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, Block CR,
  12. Campbell D, Curry MA et al (2003) Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multisite case control study. Am J Public Health 93: 139–152
  13. Campbell JC, Glass N, Sharps PW, Laughon K, Bloom T (2007) Intimate partner homicide: review and implications of research and policy. Trauma Violence Abuse 8:246–269
  14. Cavanagh K, Dobash RE, Dobash RP (2007) The murder of children by fathers in the context of child abuse. Child Abuse Negl 31:731–746
  15. Coker AL, Smith PH, McKeown RE, King MJ (2000) Frequency and correlates of intimate partner violence by type: physical, sexual, and psychological battering. Am J Public Health 90:553–559
  16. Dahlberg LL, Krug EG (2002) Violence – a global health problem. In: Krug EG, Dahlberg LL, Mercy JA, Zwi AB, Lozano R (eds) World report on violence and health. WHO, World Health Organisation, Geneva, pp 1–21
  17. Daly M, Wilson M (1988) Homicide. Aldine De Gruyter, New York
  18. Dawson R, Gartner R (1998) Differences in the characteristics of intimate femicides: the role of relationship state and relationship status. Homicide Stud 2:378–399
  19. Dobash RE, Dobash RP (1977/78) Wives: the ‘appropriate’ victims of marital violence. Victimology 2:426–442
  20. Dobash RE, Dobash RP (1979) Violence against wives: a case against the patriarchy. Free Press & Open Books, New York
  21. Dobash RE, Dobash RP (1984) The nature and antecedents of violent events. Br J Criminol 24:269–288
  22. Dobash RE, Dobash RP (1992) Women, violence and social change. Routledge, London
  23. Dobash RE, Dobash RP (eds) (1998) Rethinking violence against women. Sage, Thousand Oaks
  24. Dobash RP, Dobash RE (2004) Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships: working on a puzzle. Br J Criminol 44:324–349
  25. Dobash RE, Dobash RP (2009) Out of the blue: men who murder an intimate partner. Fem Criminol 4:194–225
  26. Dobash RE, Dobash RP (2011) What were they thinking? Men who murder an intimate partner. Violence Against Women 17:111–134
  27. Dobash RE, Dobash RP (2012) Who died? The murder of collaterals related to intimate conflict. Violence Against Women 18:662–671, Jan
  28. Dobash RP, Dobash RE, Wilson M, Daly M (1992) The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Soc Probl 39(1):71–91
  29. Dobash RP, Dobash RE, Cavanagh K, Lewis R (1998) Separate and intersecting realities: a comparison of men’s and women’s accounts of violence against women. Violence Against Women 4:383–414
  30. Dobash RP, Dobash RE, Cavanagh K, Lewis R (2000) Changing violent men. Sage, Thousand Oaks
  31. Dobash RP, Dobash RE, Cavanagh K, Lewis R (2004) Not an ordinary killer-just an ordinary guy: when men murder an intimate woman partner. Violence Against Women 10:577–605
  32. Dobash RE, Dobash RP, Cavanagh K, Medina-Ariza JJ (2007) Lethal and non-lethal violence against an intimate partner: comparing male murderers with non-lethal abusers. Violence Against Women Int Interdisc J 13(4):1–27
  33. Dobash RE, Dobash RP (nd) When men murder women. Oxford University Press, New York (forthcoming)
  34. Dutton D, Hart S (1992) Risk markers for family violence in a federally incarcerated population. Int J Law Psychiatry 15:101–112
  35. Dutton D, Kerry G (1999) Modus operandi and personality disorder in incarcerated spousal killers. Int J Law Psychiatry 22:287–299
  36. Echeburua E, Fernandez-Montalvo J, Amor PJ (2003)
  37. Psychopathological profile of men convicted of gender violence. A study in the prisons of Spain. J Interpers Violence 18:798–812
  38. Ehrensaft MK, Cohen P, Brown J, Smailes E, Chen H, Johnson JG (2003) Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: a 20 year prospective study. J Consult Clin Psychol 71:741–753
  39. European Commission (2010) Standardise national legislation on violence against women, violence against children & sexual orientation violence: European Commission Directorate for Justice. Daphne, Brussels
  40. Fals-Stewart W (2003) The occurrence of partner physical aggression on days of alcohol consumption: a longitudinal study. J Consult Clin Psychol 71:41–52
  41. Ferraro K (1989) Policing women battering. Soc Probl 36:61–74
  42. Finney A (2004) Alcohol and intimate partner violence: key findings from the research. Home office bulletin 216. Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, London
  43. Gaquin DA (1977/78) Spouse abuse: data from the national crime survey. Victimology 2:632–643
  44. Garcia-Moreno C, Jensen H, Ellsberg M, Heise L, Watt C (2006) Prevalence of intimate partner violence. Findings from the World Health Organisation multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. Lancet 368:1260–1269
  45. Gondolf EW (2002) Batterer intervention systems: issues, outcomes and recommendations. Sage, Thousand Oaks
  46. Grann M, Wedin M (2002) Risk factors for recidivism among spousal assault and spousal homicide offenders. Psychol Crime Law 8:5–23
  47. Greenfield L, Rand MR, Craven D, Klaus PA, Perkins CA, Ringel C, Warchol G, Maston C, Fox JA (1998) Violence by intimates: analysis of data on crimes by current or former spouses, boyfriends and girlfriends. US Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC
  48. Holtzworth-Munroe A, Stuart GL (1994) Typologies of male batterers: three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychol Bull 11:476–497
  49. Iovanni L, Miller SL (2001) Criminal justice system responses to domestic violence: law enforcement and the courts. In: Renzetti CM, Edelson JL, Bergen RK (eds) Sourcebook on violence against women. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 303–327
  50. Jaffe PG, Hastings E, Reitzel D, Austin GW (1993) The impact of police laying charges. In: Hilton NZ (ed) Legal responses to wife assault: current trends and evaluation. Sage, Newbury Park
  51. Johnson H (1996) Dangerous domains: violence against women in Canada. Nelson, Scarborough
  52. Johnson H, Hotton T (2003) Losing control: homicide risk in estranged and intact intimate relationships. Homicide Stud 7:58–84
  53. Johnson H, Sacco VF (1995) Researching violence against women: statistics Canada’s national survey. Can J Criminol 37:281–304
  54. Krahe B, Bieneck S, Moller I (2005) Understanding gender and intimate partner violence from an international perspective. Sex Roles 52:807–827
  55. Krug EG, Dahlberg LL, Mercy JA, Zwi AB, Lozano R (2002) World report on violence and health. World Health Organisation, Geneva
  56. Kyriacou D, Anglin D, Taliaferro E, Stone S, Tubb T, Linden J, Muelleman R, Barton E, Kraus JF (1999) Risk factors for injury to women from domestic violence. N Engl J Med 341:1892–1898
  57. Langford L, Isaac N, Kabat S (1998) Homicides related to intimate partner violence in Massachusetts: examining case ascertainment and validity of the shr. Homicide Stud 2:353–377
  58. Lerman LG (1984) Mediation of wife abuse cases: the adverse impact of informal dispute resolution on women. Harv Women’s Law J 7:57–113
  59. Liem MCA (2010) Homicide followed by suicide: a review. Aggress Violent Behav 15:247–261
  60. Logan TK, Shannon L, Walker R (2006) Police attitudes toward domestic violence. J Interpers Violence 21:1365–1374
  61. Luckenbill DF (1977) Criminal homicide as a situated transaction. Soc Probl 25:176–186
  62. Merton RK (1938) Social structure and anomie. Am Sociol Rev 3:672–682
  63. Miethe TD, Regoeczi WC (2004) Rethinking homicide. Exploring the structure and process underlying deadly situations. Cambridge University Press, New York
  64. Mirrlees-Black C (1999) Domestic violence: findings from a new British crime survey self-completion questionnaire. Home Office, London
  65. Moffit TE, Caspi A, Silva PA (1998) Developmental antecedents of partner abuse: a prospective study. J Abnorm Psychol 107:375–389
  66. Moracco KE, Runyan CW, Butts JD (1998) Femicide in North Carolina, 1991–1993: a statewide study of patterns and precursors. Homicide Stud 2:422–446
  67. Nazroo J (1995) Uncovering gender differences in the use of marital violence: the effect of methodology. Sociology 29(3):475–494
  68. Oppenlander N (1982) Coping or copping out? Criminology 20:449–465
  69. Polk K, Ranson D (1991) The role of gender in intimate homicide. Aust N Z J Criminol 24:15–24
  70. Randall M, Haskall L (1995) Sexual violence in women’s lives. Violence Against Women 1:6–31
  71. Russell DEH (1990) Rape in marriage. Indiana University Press, Indianapolis
  72. Schumacher JA, Feldbau-Kohn S, Smith Slep AM, Heyman RE (2001) Risk factors for male-to-female partner physical abuse. Aggress Violent Behav 6:281–352
  73. Schwartz MD (1987) Gender and injury in marital assault. Sociol Focus 20:61–75
  74. Serran G, Firestone P (2004) Intimate partner homicide: a review of male proprietariness and the self-defense theories. Aggress Violent Behav 9:1–15
  75. Shackleford TK, Mouzos J (2005) Partner killing by men in cohabiting and marital relationships: a comparative, cross-national analysis of data from Australian and the United States. J Interpers Violence 20:1310–1324
  76. Sherman LW (1992) Policing domestic violence: experiments and dilemmas. Free Press, New York
  77. Sherman LW, Berk RA (1984) The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic violence. Am Sociol Rev 49:261–272
  78. Short JF, Strodtbeck FL (1965) Group process and gang delinquency. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
  79. Stark E, Flitcraft A (1992) Spouse abuse. In: Last RJ, Wallace R (eds) Public health and preventive medicine, 13th edn. Appleton & Lange, Norwalk
  80. Tjaden P, Thoennes N (1998) Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: findings from the national violence against women survey. Research in brief (Nat. Instit. Just. & Centre for Disease Control/Prevention). US Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC
  81. Ullman SE, Siegel JM (1993) Victim-offender relation- ship and sexual assault. Violence Vict 8:121–134
  82. US Dept. Justice (1998) Stalking and domestic violence. The third annual report to congress under the violence against women act. US Dept. Justice, Washington, DC
  83. US Dept. Justice-Office of Justice Programs (1998) Bureau of justice statistics factbook: violence by intimates-analysis of data on crimes by current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC
  84. Walby S, Allen J (2004) Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: findings form the British crime survey. Home office research study 276. Home Office, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, London
  85. Walton-Moss BJ, Manganello J, Frye V, Campbell JC (2005) Risk factors for intimate partner violence and associated injury among urban women. J Commun Health 30:377–389
  86. Watson D, Parsons S (2005) Domestic abuse of women and men in Ireland: report of the national study of domestic abuse. Nat Crime Council and Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, pp 1–224
  87. Websdale N (2010) Familicidal hearts: the emotional styles of 211 killers. Oxford University Press, New York
  88. Weizmann-Henelius G, Gronroos M, Putkonen H, Eronen M, Lindberg N et al (nd) Gender specific risk factors for intimate partner homicide— a nationwide register-based study. J Interpers Violence (forthcoming)
  89. Wilson M, Daly M (1993) Spousal homicide risk and estrangement. Violence Vict 8:3–16
  90. Wilson M, Daly M (1998) Lethal and nonlethal violence against wives and the evolutionary psychology of male sexual proprietariness. In: Dobash RE, Dobash RP (eds) Rethinking violence against women. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 199–230
  91. Wilson M, Johnson H, Daly M (1995) Lethal and non-lethal violence against wives. Can J Criminol 37:331–362
  92. Wolfgang M (1958) Patterns in criminal homicide. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia
  93. Worrall A, Pease K (1986) Personal crime against women: evidence from the 1982 British crime survey. Howard J 25:118–124
  94. Zorza J, Woods L (1994) Mandatory arrest: problems and possibilities. National Center on Women and Family Law, New York

See also:

Free research papers are not written to satisfy your specific instructions. You can use our professional writing services to buy a custom research paper on any topic and get your high quality paper at affordable price.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER


Always on-time

Plagiarism-Free

100% Confidentiality
FREE INQUIRY
ORDER NOW
Special offer! Get discount 10% for the first order. Promo code: cd1a428655

Related Posts

Home
 / 
Domestic Violence Research Paper

Domestic Violence Research Paper

This sample domestic violence research paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. Free research papers, are not written by our writers, they are contributed by users, so we are not responsible for the content of this free sample paper. If you want to buy a high quality research paper on domestic violence at affordable price please use custom research paper writing services.

This sample research paper on domestic violence features: 7200+ words (26 pages), an outline, APA format in-text citations, and a bibliography with 31 sources.

Outline

I. Introduction

II. History

III. Types of Abuse

A. Physical Violence

B. Sexual Violence

C. Psychological Violence

D. Stalking

E. Dating Violence

IV. Prevalence of Domestic Violence

V. Explaining Domestic Violence

A. Cycle of Violence

B. Psychopathology

C. Perceived Gender Roles

VI. Domestic Violence and the GLBT Community

VII. Domestic Violence: Myth Versus Fact

VIII. Domestic Violence Legislation

A. Effects of Legislation

IX. Domestic Violence Courts

X. Conclusion

I. Introduction

Domestic violence occurs when a current or former intimate partner exerts dominance and control in a relationship through physical, sexual, or psychological-emotional abuse, resulting in physical or emotional trauma to the victim. Other forms of domestic violence include stalking and dating violence. Other terms used for domestic violence include intimate partner violence, domestic abuse, family violence, spousal abuse, dating violence, wife abuse, and battering.

Domestic violence exists within all cultures, ethnicities, faiths, age groups, education levels, income levels, and sexual orientations. Domestic violence can occur between many different kinds of couples: married or unmarried couples, couples who live in rural areas and urban areas, those that cohabitate or live separately, couples that had been formerly married or had dated, and between heterosexual or same-sex couples. Furthermore, sexual intimacy is not required to be present in a relationship in order for domestic violence to occur.

While the statutory term for domestic violence in most states usually includes other family members besides intimate partners, such as children, parents, siblings, sometimes roommates, and so forth, practitioners typically apply the term domestic violence to a coercive, systemic pattern of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse between intimate partners. Victims of domestic violence can be women or men; however, the overwhelming majority of domestic violence involves women as victims and men as perpetrators. For this reason, many organizations concerned with domestic violence focus their attention and services specifically on violence against women and their children.

The following section of this research paper discusses the types and prevalence of domestic violence. It also discusses domestic violence warning signs, stalking, dating violence, and domestic violence in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. The research paper concludes with a discussion of the judicial response to domestic violence such as domestic violence and family courts.

II. History

The domestic violence movement, also referred to as the battered women’s movement, has a long history, although it picked up steam with the advent of the feminist movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 1971, Erin Pizzey opened the first battered women’s shelter in Chiswick, England. The first shelters in the United States opened their doors in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota; Pasadena, California; and Phoenix, Arizona, in 1972. Soon thereafter, a shelter opened in Boston, Massachusetts, and Casa Myrna Vasquez, also in Boston, opened its doors as the first shelter providing services primarily for Latinas. The first support group for battered lesbians began in Seattle in 1985. Awareness and services have increased exponentially over the past three decades, and as of September 2007, a total of 1,949 domestic violence programs were operational across the United States (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2008).

III. Types of Abuse

The underlying commonality behind all types of abusive behaviors associated with domestic violence is the intent to gain power and control over one’s partner or ex-partner through patterns of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse. As previously mentioned, physical, sexual, and psychological violence, stalking, and dating violence are different types of abuse experienced by victims of domestic violence on a daily basis. Each type of abuse is discussed below.

A. Physical Violence

Physical violence involves the use of force, possibly resulting in physical harm, disability, or death. Examples of physical abuse include hitting, scratching, shoving, grabbing, biting, throwing, choking, shaking, kicking, burning, physical restraint, use of a weapon, or otherwise causing intentional physical injury to the victim.

B. Sexual Violence

Sexual violence occurs when one forces or compels a person to engage in a sexual act or experiences sexual contact against his or her will. If a participant cannot communicate an understanding of and willingness to engage in a sexual act for any reason, including but not limited to disability, illness, and alcohol or drug intoxication, and the sex act is nonetheless attempted or completed by a perpetrator, an act of sexual violence transpires. In addition, sexual violence sometimes occurs within physically or emotionally abusive relationships where the victim agrees to sexual activity solely as a means to avoid additional abuse or intimidation. Examples of sexual violence include rape (including marital and date rape), attempted rape, inappropriate touching, unwanted voyeurism or exhibitionism, sexual harassment, or any other type of sexual activity to which one does not willingly agree.

C. Psychological Violence

Psychological violence is also commonly called emotional abuse and refers to behaviors of intimidation, control, or coercion resulting in emotional trauma. While a relationship does not need to include physical or sexual violence to be abusive, any prior acts or threats of physical or sexual violence do constitute psychological violence. Additional examples of psychological violence include stalking; limiting or controlling the victim’s activities or behaviors; isolating the victim from contact with friends or family; limiting or denying the victim’s access to basic or financial resources; destroying the victim’s personal property; abusive behavior toward a victim’s loved ones; verbal threats; humiliation; put-downs; and any other behaviors intended to cause emotional pain, embarrassment, diminishment, or powerlessness.

A relationship does not have to include all of the above behaviors in order to be considered abusive; a partner who attempts to wield dominance and control within a relationship through any threat or act of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse is committing an act of domestic violence. It is also important to note that while a few of the above behaviors are not necessarily prosecutable in criminal court, they nevertheless constitute abuse.

D. Stalking

As defined by the National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC, 2008), stalking is “a pattern of repeated, unwanted attention, harassment, and contact.” Today, stalking is considered to be an example of abusive behavior within the framework of domestic violence because the dangers that victims face frequently continue even after they leave an abusive relationship. Research has indicated that many victims of domestic violence have experienced stalking behavior from a current or former intimate partner. Examples of stalking behaviors include following the victim, sending unwanted gifts and notes, repeated harassment such as phone calls or showing up at the victim’s place of work, and other behaviors that a stalker uses to inappropriately invade the victim’s life. These incursions may increase in frequency as a stalker tries to exert more control over a victim, sometimes in response to the loss of control he or she experienced at the end of the relationship. When stalking behaviors escalate, they may lead to outright threats or incidents of physical violence.

Nationally, all 50 of the United States have implemented anti-stalking laws and protective orders for victims. However, not all states treat the first offense of stalking as a felony; in most states, first-time offenders are charged with a misdemeanor. In some cases, a felony conviction occurs only after a third offense.

E. Dating Violence

Dating violence is a form of domestic violence that has been receiving much attention in recent years from the research and practice community (those who work with abuse victims). However, there are a few notable differences between dating violence within adolescent and young adult couples (high school and college age) and domestic violence within older couples who perhaps live together, have children in common, or are married. Many young people who are involved in dating relationships experience unhealthy and abusive behaviors, but the problem is often overlooked because the relationship is less likely to be viewed as long-term or dependent in nature. Young people in relationships today do not necessarily view their relationships as long-term, as relationships were once assumed to be. In addition, both men and women view relationships as being more casual in general today, compared to previous generations. Finally, changing women’s roles in society may have had an impact on how female adolescents conduct themselves in relationships today.

Statistics show that dating violence is a serious problem among youth. Research suggests that college students are highly vulnerable to dating violence because so many are involved in romantic relationships during these formative years. Dating violence research has produced interesting findings regarding the relationship between gender and victimization. Early research on adolescent dating violence suggested that females were more likely than males to be victimized by their dating partners (Roscoe & Kelsey, 1986). Some studies have reported similar dating violence victimization rates for males and females (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004). According to a recent study of approximately 2,500 college students attending two large southeastern U.S. universities, 24% of males perpetrated physical violence against a partner, 32% of females perpetrated physical violence against a partner, 57% of females perpetrated psychological abuse against a partner, and 50% of male respondents perpetrated psychological abuse against a partner (Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008). This is consistent with a Fact Sheet distributed by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV, 2008), which reports that 1 in 5 college students say they have experienced violence within a current dating relationship, about a third have experienced dating violence within a previous relationship, and over half of acquaintance rapes on college campuses occur within the context of a dating relationship. Overall, the relationship between gender and dating violence is one that needs to continue to be explored because there are many questions that current research is unable to answer. Specifically, while there are many studies that discuss the prevalence of different forms of dating violence, these studies very rarely also inquire as to the context in which this violence occurs. This makes it hard to understand the quantitative data, and it makes it difficult to move forward on the best way to educate the community and respond to the issue given the fact that nondating violence research indicates that women are significantly more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence compared to men.

In many states, the law simply overlooks victims of dating violence when it comes to protection. As reported by NCADV (2008), in many states the criminal and civil domestic violence laws only apply to victims who are married to, cohabitate with, or have a child in common with the perpetrator. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia allow victims of dating violence to apply for orders of protection against a perpetrator. Eleven states do not recognize dating violence in their statutes.

IV. Prevalence of Domestic Violence

The National Violence Against Women Survey indicates that 1 in every 4 women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime (Tjaden &Thoennes, 2000). In addition, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005, 2006) reports that females represent an overwhelming majority of family violence victims, spousal abuse victims, and dating violence victims, with women at the greatest risk for intimate partner violence between the ages of 20 and 24.

A few studies have reported that males are victims of domestic violence in similar numbers to women (Straus, 1999); however, it is often argued that domestic violence perpetrated by women toward male victims rarely result in injuries as serious as those experienced by female victims of male perpetrators (Stets & Straus, 1990). Many victim advocates suspect that the majority of violence committed by women in abusive relationships takes place for purposes of self-defense against an abusive male partner.

In September 2007, the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV, 2007) conducted a 24-hour point-in-time survey known as the National Census of Domestic Violence Services. With participation by 69% of domestic violence programs across the United States, results indicated that 52,203 victims of domestic violence were served within one 24-hour period. Of those served, about half sought shelter. Also during that time, 20,582 domestic violence hotline calls were answered across the country. The report also found that 7,707 requests for services were unmet due to lack of space or resources. Clearly, the pervasiveness of domestic violence across the United States is overwhelming, with a tremendous need for services for victims and their children on a daily basis.

V. Explaining Domestic Violence

Scholars have had a difficult time developing explanations for the occurrence of domestic violence. Yet, it is widely understood that perpetrators turn to abusive behaviors as a means to gain power and control over their partner. Behaviors of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse within a relationship typically increase in their severity over time, as the perpetrator seeks to dominate the victim more fully. But abusers may differ from one another when it comes to the reasons why they seek to increase their power through abuse.

A. Cycle of Violence

The majority of relationships characterized by domestic violence experience what is referred to as the cycle of violence, which consists of three stages: (1) the tension-building stage, (2) the explosive stage, and (3) the honeymoon stage. The cycle is not the same for all victims in terms of duration, but there is evidence that the violence escalates as the cycle increases in frequency. Victims become so accustomed to the cycle that based on the behavior of their partner, they can usually anticipate when their batterer will become abusive. The first stage, the tension-building stage, is a time that can be characterized by extremely high stress. The batterer may vent this increased tension by taking it out on objects or by acting aggressively in other ways, and it is common for the batterer to act overly jealous of his partner and attempt to isolate the partner from family and friends more than normal. While this is happening, many victims feel like they are walking on eggshells and they try to do anything they can to stop their batterer from becoming physically abusive.

The tension-building stage is followed by the explosive stage. The term for this stage is appropriate because this is the point in the cycle when the batterer releases his accumulation of stress by perpetrating violence against his partner in an act of rage. This may consist of either physical or sexual violence. During this stage, the batterer believes that the victim has caused him to be violent and that she must be put in her place, which is the batterer’s effort to control the situation. Law enforcement may or may not become involved at this stage, depending on whether the victim or a third party calls the police. If law enforcement does become involved during this stage, many batterers who remain at the scene often appear very calm and collected to the officer, since their stress was released through their perpetration of violence. On the other hand, victims often appear confused, hysterical, terrified, shocked, angry, afraid, and degraded. Batterers often use the victim’s demeanor to manipulate the situation by lying about what had transpired and denying that they perpetrated violence.

The final stage is referred to as the honeymoon stage. This stage is composed of acts on the part of the batterer to convince the victim to stay in the relationship, including promises to the victim that things will change. The batterer will typically ask for forgiveness and shower the victim with various presents as an expression of love and commitment to the relationship. During this stage, batterers also may seek counseling or go to church to show the victim that they are committed to changing their behavior. Unfortunately, victims who have been through the cycle before want to believe the promises that are being made, but instead feel depressed, helpless, hopeless, and trapped. While the batterer may feel somewhat in control again, he is still fearful that the victim may leave or obtain the involvement of the criminal justice system. Although apologies are made, batterers tend to minimize the abuse they inflicted on the victim.

In sum, the honeymoon stage eventually cycles back to the tension-building phase, since the cycle of violence is a continual repetitious pattern. Many women find it difficult to break out of the cycle of violence because of the new hope that comes out of the honeymoon stage, which is a reminder that their partner has the capability of also being a good person and isn’t always a bad person.

B. Psychopathology

One explanation behind domestic abuse is that the perpetrator suffers from certain mental disorders that lead him to seek psychological gratification through dysfunctional relationships. Detractors of this theory point out that most domestic abusers manage to function normally in other relationships, not necessarily behaving aggressively toward others in their daily life. While some abusers probably do suffer from mental illness or exhibit some signs of personality disorders, it is difficult to claim psychopathology as the main cause of domestic violence.

C. Perceived Gender Roles

A more widely accepted theory from the feminist school of thought, gender role theory is a perspective that sees institutionalized patriarchy as an explanation for domestic violence. Abusers look to society’s heterosexual behavior norms as reinforcing male power and control, and reflect them in their intimate relationships. As such, an abuser who expects his partner to fill a traditionally subservient feminine gender role may resort to power and control behaviors to assert his power in the relationship. While this explanation rings true for many couples in abusive relationships, it fails to explain the occurrence of domestic violence within lesbian and gay relationships. There are specific reasons for domestic violence between same-sex couples, which will be discussed later in this research paper. However, one may argue that gender role theory can apply to homosexual relationships as well, in that the abuser may be trying to achieve a perceived societal gender norm within the relationship.

It is difficult to pinpoint one distinct explanation for the epidemic of domestic violence; every relationship is unique, and abusers exhibit violent behaviors for a variety of reasons. Ultimately, it is most likely a combination of social, psychological, cultural, and individual factors that lead abusers to control their victims through domestic violence.

VI. Domestic Violence and the GLBT Community

While the majority of research on domestic violence refers to heterosexual couples, studies focusing on intimate partner abuse within gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (GLBT) relationships show that it happens at the same rates (Renzetti, 1992). Since their inception, domestic violence shelters have become more inclusive in welcoming and assisting gay women. Nonetheless, as stated by the New York Anti-Violence Project,

Services are fraught with potentials for re-victimization that pivots on homophobia, transphobia and heterosexism. To this end, the deleterious effects of homophobia and heterosexism cannot be discounted in the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) survivors of IPV [interpersonal violence].” (Fountain & Skolnik, 2006)

In addition to societal stereotypes in regard to homosexuality, myths also exist around intimate partner abuse within GLBT relationships. Stereotypical beliefs about gender roles and expectations may lead others to think that women are not capable of battering and that men cannot be labeled as victims. As with heterosexual couples, abuse in GLBT relationships is not always physical, does not only occur between couples who cohabitate, and it happens between young dating partners as well as adults.

Legislation in regard to abuse within GLBT relationships is limited. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (2008), 30 states and the District of Columbia have domestic violence laws that are gender neutral and include dating partners as well as those living together. Conversely, three states (Delaware, Montana, and South Carolina) have language that explicitly excludes same-sex partners from legal protection in cases of abuse.

VII. Domestic Violence: Myth Versus Fact

One of the major efforts of the domestic violence movement, from the beginning, has been to debunk commonly believed stereotypes and myths about domestic violence. This is important because an accurate awareness of the issue cannot occur within society if the general public believes that domestic violence is a problem that only affects certain groups of people and is therefore not in need of attention since it is not that common. In addition, one of the easiest ways to acquire an overall understanding of the basic elements of domestic violence is to debunk commonly believed stereotypes. For example, it is commonly believed that domestic violence only affects certain populations. As mentioned above, domestic violence occurs across all cultures, religions, ethnicities, income levels, sexual orientations, age groups, and education levels. Another myth is that domestic violence is not a common or serious problem when in fact, in the United States, a woman is battered every 9 seconds (NCVC, 2008). Another myth is that domestic violence is caused by substance abuse. In fact, many batterers abuse alcohol or drugs, but it is not an excuse for their violence, as not all abusers are alcoholics or addicts and not all alcoholics or addicts abuse their partners. While some substance abusers blame their addiction for their battering behavior, they mistakenly assume that if the substance abuse stops, so will the abuse. It is best to think of substance abuse as being correlated with the incidence of domestic violence.

Many believe that if a victim really wants to stop the abuse, she could easily just walk out. The fact is that it is often very difficult for an abuse victim to end the relationship. Victims stay with the batterer for many reasons, including but not limited to economic constraints, child issues, fear, and intimidation. People also assume that as soon as a victim leaves her abuser, she is safe. In reality, abuse victims are in the most danger after the relationship has ended. Another commonly accepted myth is that battering incidents are isolated behaviors. In reality, batterers use a cycle of power and control to keep their partner in the relationship. Abuse rarely happens just once. It can happen often, or only once a year, but most physical violence continues to escalate and happens more often as the relationship progresses.

Another commonly accepted myth is that domestic violence can only occur in instances of physical aggression. In fact, emotional and psychological abuse and control are just as damaging and dangerous to the victim as physical abuse. Finally, many believe the myth that abusers just have anger issues—that the battering can be stopped through anger management courses. The fact of the matter is that although many abusers batter when they are angry, they are using violence to maintain power and control over their partner. They do not batter just because their partner did something to make them mad. While there are intervention programs for batterers, anger management is only a small part of the process. Other issues such as the need for control; the misuse of power; and what constitutes a healthy, functioning relationship must be worked on as well. For this reason, batterer intervention treatment is much more comprehensive than anger management counseling.

VIII. Domestic Violence Legislation

While domestic violence has been criminalized in some way in every state, the degrees of the offense and penalties for offenders vary significantly from state to state. For a breakdown of the criminal code provisions, criminal procedure, and police and prosecutor training and guidelines as they vary among states, see Domestic Violence: A Review of State Legislation Defining Police and Prosecution Duties and Powers (N. Miller, 2004).

The criminal justice system has made substantial improvements and changes pertaining to domestic violence offenses over the past 15 years. According to Miller (2004), some of the more noteworthy changes include the adoption of anti-stalking laws in every state, the repeal or limitation of states’ spousal exemption laws in rape cases, and the passage of new domestic violence laws that provide unique penalties in family-related assault cases. In addition, every U.S. state now allows law enforcement personnel to make an arrest without a warrant for domestic violence cases, and penalties that offenders’ have to pay have been increased for violations of protective orders. In many states, reduced court fees and protection for nonmarried couples have made court protection more accessible. While each of these changes is a step in the right direction, domestic violence legislation remains inconsistent across the nation. Significant variations exist from state to state in the degree to which new laws have been adopted and in prosecution rates for offenders.

The most obvious indicator of the way a particular state legislates domestic violence offenses can be seen in whether it categorizes the offense as a misdemeanor or a felony. At the time this research paper was written, 11 states have yet to adopt laws explicitly dealing with domestic violence. Within the other 39 states, the first domestic violence offense can be treated as a felony in 9 states; the second domestic violence offense is treated as a felony in 7 states; and in 18 states, the third domestic violence offense is a felony. In addition, 13 states have enhanced penalties for violations of domestic violence law committed in the presence of a minor, and 3 states have instituted enhanced penalties for the assault of a pregnant woman (N. Miller, 2004).

As the recent changes in domestic violence law have benefited the domestic violence movement to a great extent, advances within law enforcement policies and enhanced prosecutor training have also been making a positive difference. Across the nation, entry-level training for police in most states now includes a domestic violence requirement, with a few states including in-service instruction as well as entry-level training. Also, some states have begun to require knowledge of written policies and procedures as they pertain to domestic violence as a component of law enforcement training (N. Miller, 2004). While the current advancements in police training have yet to reach consistency across the nation, they do provide a stark contrast to such training in the past. For example, police training as it existed in Chicago 40 years ago provided no training for domestic violence; however, it did include 1 hour of instruction on dealing with disturbances in general, out of a total 490 hours of training (Parnas, 1967). Prosecutor training for domestic violence cases has seen a slight improvement, but it lags behind law enforcement. To date, a mere four states require training for prosecutors in handling domestic violence cases; three others offer domestic violence instruction for prosecutors, but not as a requirement (N. Miller, 2004).

Overall, great strides have been made in domestic violence legislation, enforcement, and prosecution. However, the vast inconsistencies among states reveal the need for comprehensive, nationwide policies pertaining to the arrest and prosecution of offenders.

A. Effects of Legislation

The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment (MDVE) was conducted to determine whether arresting offenders for domestic violence significantly reduced subsequent arrests (Sherman & Berk, 1984). Many in the legislative community and elsewhere interpreted the MDVE results, which suggested that mandatory arrest could reduce future arrests, as a strong support for mandatory arrest laws for the law enforcement response to domestic violence. In fact, most states soon passed pro/mandatory arrest statutes, and law enforcement agencies implemented pro/mandatory arrest policies for cases of domestic violence. It did not take long, however, for the practice community to realize that there were going to be several unintended consequences of mandatory arrest policies. For example, as a result of mandatory arrest policies, female arrests for domestic violence have increased dramatically because often, officers who respond to domestic violence calls are unsure which partner is the primary aggressor. If the perpetrator has wounds as well as the victim, the officer is often unable to conclusively identify whose wounds are offensive and whose are defensive. Having not witnessed the altercation, the responding officer has no choice but to arrest both parties (Parmley, 2004). Some feel that as a result of the increased risk for arrest, victims of domestic violence may be less likely to contact the police, thus risking their safety and further enabling the abuser.

Others point to the more hidden consequences that mandatory arrests pose in regard to issues of race and class. As previously discussed, dual arrest rates surged as a result of mandatory arrest policies. For example, the rates of female arrests for domestic violence rose from 12.9% to 21% in the state of Maryland; from 6% to 16.5% in a California study; and shockingly, in the city of Sacramento alone, there was a 91% increase in women arrested, and a 7% decrease in men arrested (Chesney-Lind, 2002). Concurrently, African American females were arrested at almost 3 times the rate of Caucasian women in 1998 (Chesney-Lind, 2002).

In addition, various forms of racial bias have come to light as a result of increased arrest for domestic violence. For example, Maxwell, Garner, and Fagan’s (2001) reanalysis of the MDVE replication studies cites official arrest data showing that men of color are more likely to recidivate. On the other hand, victim interviews have shown that white men were more likely to batter again (Chesney-Lind, 2002). It is theorized that the disparity stems from a stronger likelihood for police to arrest suspects of color, as it has been shown that African American women are more likely to alert authorities when domestic violence has occurred. Accordingly, official data may reflect a disproportionate number of men of color as domestic violence offenders, which promotes racial stereotypes and leads to the overpolicing of people of color (Chesney-Lind, 2002).

Mandatory arrest policies may have caused unintended consequences for victims of lower socioeconomic class as well. For example, victims with limited resources may look to law enforcement as their best option to keep them safe. However, mandatory arrest policies increase the chances that the primary provider will be taken from the home, resulting in a loss of income. As a result, these victims may become less likely to call the police (S. Miller, 1989).

Others debate the issue of whether mandatory arrest policies have been helpful to victims or disempowered them. Many feminists profess ambivalence because they want to hold law enforcement accountable for keeping citizens safe, but they also feel that often a police officers’ power comes at the expense of women, particularly women of color and women of lower socioeconomic status (Coker, 2000).

Coker (2000) also discusses the consequence of having resources focused on arrests to the detriment of other benefits to victims, such as social programs leading to empowerment through education and job training. Having fewer social systems in place to support change leaves the criminal justice system with increased responsibility to produce results. Consequently, a failure on the part of the criminal justice system may breed victims’ antagonism toward the system, thus reducing their likelihood of using police and court assistance in the future, particularly if the consequences include dual arrest or even arrest of the offender against the victim’s wishes (Smith, 2000).

It is important to reiterate that there are benefits to mandatory arrest. For example, a mandatory arrest policy takes the decision out of the hands of the victims, and therefore the batterer should not hold the victim responsible for his or her prosecution. In addition, mandatory arrest policies send a punitive message to batterers and to the community that the criminal justice system responds to the crime of domestic violence in a harsh manner and holds offenders accountable. However, the unintended consequences of mandatory arrest must also be weighed when determining the best policy approach to this crime.

IX. Domestic Violence Courts

Victims of domestic violence have long endured a culture of ignorance on the subject of domestic violence. Thus, it is no surprise that until the late 1970s, a wife was not able to file a protection order against her husband unless she also filed for divorce. Even so, restraining orders offered little in the way of protection by law enforcement or the criminal justice system; they were rarely monitored or enforced. The problem of domestic violence was largely viewed as a dilemma best addressed through counseling or crisis intervention programs rather than through the legal system. Yet, as the domestic violence movement worked to increase public awareness on the subject, it began to receive more attention from the legal system. Finally, domestic violence gradually came to be seen more seriously as a crime that is more appropriately addressed through the courts instead of family counseling sessions. However, even though awareness improved, negative stereotypes persisted as an impediment to prosecution. Offenders were rarely sentenced, and courts continued to turn toward family crisis intervention programs instead of taking punitive measures (Fagan, 1996).

The court system has seen a large influx of domestic violence cases since the implementation of mandatory arrest laws for offenders. Unfortunately, there is little conclusive research as to how these cases fared within the legal system (Henning & Feder, 2005). Advocates and the legal system began to grapple with an emerging need for across-the-board legal processes that could successfully resolve the social, human, and legal dilemmas pertaining to domestic violence cases. As a result, domestic violence cases are now commonly viewed as a distinctive legal phenomenon that should be handled similarly to drug or mental health cases that are handled in specialized drug courts or mental health courts (Mazur & Aldrich, 2003).

Although domestic abuse is a crime, the traditional court system is ill-equipped to deal with all of the complexities involved in domestic violence cases. Because these cases typically include extenuating concerns pertaining to children, property, finances, and victim safety, they necessitate legal services and procedures that are different from those in regular courts. As attention has turned to the unique circumstances of domestic violence cases, specialized courts have emerged in the United States to meet victims’ needs.

Similar to drug courts, there is no particular model that has been determined to be the “example court” model. What has emerged over the years, however, are common programming aspects that are usually indicative of a more progressive specialized court. Examples of these include case assignment, specialized judges, screening for related cases, intake units and case processing, service provision, and case monitoring. Ideally, cases are assigned to specific judges who specialize in domestic violence cases. The screening process determines whether victims or families are involved in other open cases or have prior involvement in domestic violence court. Often, however, screening is hampered by poor technology or limited information exchange. Thus, current court models seek to simplify the screening process and open information channels in order to obtain documents pertaining to specific victims or families. Because victims and offenders require community resources that apply specifically to their situation, domestic violence courts and community programs must be able to work together in order to provide needed services. Efficient domestic violence courts also include case monitoring. Effective coordination of services among the legal system, treatment providers, and victim advocates is enhanced through frequent meetings to exchange thoughts and ideas for improvements (Mazur & Aldrich, 2003). Overall, a common theme among successful models for domestic violence courts seeks to meet two main goals: victim safety and offender accountability.

Tsai (2000) did a multisite study to evaluate domestic violence court models. One of the specialized courts Tsai evaluated is located in Quincy, Massachusetts, an urban community outside of Boston. The Quincy court coordinates an integrated system of judges, clerks, law enforcement, social services, and local agencies to provide a comprehensive community response. Tsai concluded that the primary effectiveness of Quincy’s coordinated system stems from its ability to increase the victim’s sense of empowerment through an adequate provision of legal and community resources. Due to its ability to provide victims with the services they need to maintain their safety and successfully escape their abusive situation, Quincy’s domestic violence court is often used as a model for other cities.

Tsai (2000) also evaluated the domestic violence court of Dade County, Florida. The Dade County court model is based on therapeutic jurisprudence, which has its roots in mental health cases but has also come to the attention of experts as an appropriate response for domestic violence cases. The idea behind therapeutic jurisprudence is to enhance the psychological well-being of those who come into contact with the legal system (Winick, 1997). The Dade County domestic violence court prides itself on expanding its ideas and roles beyond that of the traditional legal system in order to reinforce victim empowerment, increase victim safety, and provide treatment alternatives to traditional penalties for offenders.

Positive findings were reported by a process and outcome evaluation of the Lexington County Domestic Violence Court in South Carolina (Gover, MacDonald, & Alpert, 2003). This study found that offenders who were processed in the specialized court had a 40% lower recidivism rate compared to a historical control group of offenders who were processed in traditional courts. This court also followed the tenets of therapeutic jurisprudence. In addition, Gover, Brank, and MacDonald (2007) reported that victims and offenders whose cases were processed in the domestic violence court found the court to have treated them with respect and thought that the process was fair, and also felt that they had a “voice” in the process in the sense that the judge listened to their side of the story and seemed concerned.

X. Conclusion

The purpose of this research paper was to review the topic of domestic violence from a criminology and criminal justice perspective. Domestic violence is the attempt by one person to obtain power and control over his or her intimate partner through psychological, physical, or sexual abuse. Victims of domestic violence are familiar with what is called the “cycle of violence,” which consists of three stages that victims of domestic violence continually cycle through at the hands of their batterers.

Although there is no specific way to identify a batterer before the abuse starts, the following are some common red flags to be aware of in a relationship: extreme jealousy or possessiveness, the need for control, rigid stereotypical views on gender roles, isolation from friends and family, economic control, extreme insecurity regarding the self or the relationship, and constantly checking up on or questioning the other’s whereabouts. Similarly, there is no way to identify a victim prior to the person’s victimization because this form of violence is pervasive in all cultures, faiths, educational levels, income levels, and sexual orientations. The domestic violence movement, with the help of the women’s movement, has made many strides toward improving the criminal justice system’s response to the crime of domestic violence. For example, although somewhat controversial, the passage of mandatory arrest laws have shown society that law enforcement officers are committed to holding offenders accountable for their actions. The development of domestic violence courts has indicated that the judicial system views domestic violence differently from other crimes and that it therefore needs its own system of offender processing. Despite the many ways in which the criminal justice system has evolved in its response to domestic violence in the past 40 years (Parnas, 1967), there is still much more work to do in the fight against domestic violence.

See also:

Bibliography:

  1. Alabama Coalition of Domestic Violence. (2013). Dating violence. Retrieved August 21, 2013, from http://www.acadv.org/dating.html
  2. Arriaga, X. A. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adolescent dating violence: Do adolescents follow in their friends’ or their parents’ footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 162–184.
  3. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). Family violence statistics. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
  4. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Intimate partner violence in the United States. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
  5. Chesney-Lind, M. (2002). Criminalizing victimization: The unintended consequences of pro-arrest policies for girls and women. Criminology and Public Policy, 2, 81–90.
  6. Coker, D. (2000). Crime control and feminist law reform in domestic violence law: A critical review. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 4, 801–860.
  7. Fagan, J. (1996). The criminalization of domestic violence: Promises and limits. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice Report.
  8. Fountain, K., & Skolnik, A. A. (2006). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender domestic violence in the United States in 2006. New York: National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP).
  9. Gover, A. R., Brank, E. M., & MacDonald, J. M. (2007). A specialized domestic violence court in South Carolina: An example of procedural justice for victims and defendants. Violence Against Women, 13, 603–626.
  10. Gover, A. R., Kaukinen, C., & Fox, K. A. (2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(12), 1667–1693.
  11. Gover, A. R., MacDonald, J. M., & Alpert, G. A. (2003). Combating domestic violence in rural America: Findings from an evaluation of a local domestic violence court. Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 109–132.
  12. Henning, K., & Feder, L. (2005). Criminal prosecution of domestic violence offenses: An investigation of factors predictive of court outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 612– 642.
  13. Maxwell, C. D., Garner, J. H., & Fagan, J. A. (2001). The effects of arrest on intimate partner violence: New evidence from the Spouse Assault Replication Program (NCJ 188199). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
  14. Mazur, R., & Aldrich, L. (2003). What makes domestic violence court work? Lessons from NewYork. Judges Journal, 42, 2.
  15. Miller, N. (2004). Domestic violence: A review of state legislation defining police and prosecution duties and powers. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Law and Justice.
  16. Miller, S. (1989). Unintended side effects of pro-arrest policies and their race and class implications for battered women: A cautionary note. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 3, 299–316.
  17. National Center for Victims of Crime. (2013). Stalking. Retrieved August 21, 2013, from http://www.victimsofcrime.org/library/crime-information-and-statistics/stalking
  18. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (2008). Domestic violence and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender relationships. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from http://www.ncadv.org
  19. National Network to End Domestic Violence. (2007). Domestic Violence Counts: 07. A 24-hour census of domestic violence shelters and services across the United States. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 21 2013, from http://nnedv.org/downloads/Census/DVCounts2007/DVCounts07_Report_BW.pdf
  20. Parmley, A. M. (2004). Violence against women research post VAWA. Violence Against Women, 10, 1417–1430.
  21. Parnas, R. I. (1967). The police response to the domestic disturbance. Wisconsin Law Review, 2, 914–960.
  22. Renzetti, C. M. (1992). Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  23. Roscoe, B., & Kelsey, T. (1986). Dating violence among high school students. Psychology, 23, 53–57.
  24. Sherman, L. W., Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49, 261–272.
  25. Smith, A. (2000). It’s my decision, isn’t it? A research note on battered women’s perceptions of mandatory intervention laws. Violence Against Women, 6, 1384–1402.
  26. Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medial and psychological consequences. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 151–166). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
  27. Straus, M. A. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In X. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 17–44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  28. Tjaden P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NCJ 183781). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  29. Tsai, B. (2000). The trend toward specialized domestic violence courts: Improvements on an effective innovation. Fordham Law Review, 1285–1327.
  30. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001). Special report: Intimate partner violence and age of victim, 1993–1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  31. Winick, B. J. (1997). The jurisprudence of therapeutic jurisprudence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 184–206.

Free research papers are not written to satisfy your specific instructions. You can use our professional writing services to order a custom research paper on domestic violence and get your high quality paper at affordable price.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER


Always on-time

Plagiarism-Free

100% Confidentiality
FREE INQUIRY
ORDER NOW
Special offer! Get discount 10% for the first order. Promo code: cd1a428655