Police Response to Domestic Violence Research Paper

This sample Police Response to Domestic Violence Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. Like other free research paper examples, it is not a custom research paper. If you need help writing your assignment, please use our custom writing services and buy a paper on any of the criminal justice research paper topics. This sample research paper on Police Response to Domestic Violence features 3200 words (10 pages), an outline, and a bibliography with 8 sources.

Wife battering emerged along with child abuse as a social issue during the 1960s. The dominant view at the time held that marital violence was a private matter between the husband and his wife. Law enforcement intervention was rare, occurring in cases where the victim had been killed or severely maimed. The common forms of domestic violence that were prohibited by criminal law usually amounted to misdemeanors; unless police officers witnessed the violence, they had no power of arrest. Police officers were trained on how to respond to family violence crises by separating the parties for a cooling-down period. It was not uncommon for the officers to ‘‘counsel’’ the parties. In extreme cases the victim would be referred to the court to file a private complaint against her husband. These complaints were rarely taken seriously, however, and they resulted in fewer prosecutions than for any other crime.

Throughout the 1970s reformers sought changes that would ensure effective intervention. The debates centered on what type of intervention would be the most effective to protect victims and deter offenders; the no arrest policies of police came under strong criticism from victim advocates. Frustrations over the lack of effective remedies for women victimized through family violence gave rise to social science research exploration of potential approaches.

The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment was the first empirical research to study the deterrent effects of arresting the family violence perpetrator (Sherman and Berk 1984). The preliminary report indicated that police should arrest abusers for crimes of intimate violence. Within ten days of the initial report, the New York Police Department became the first to require police officers to make an arrest in family violence situations, citing the experiment among the reasons for the new policy. Contributing to this policy change were the success of civil suits brought against police departments for their failure to provide equal protection to victims of domestic violence. A classic example is the successful 1982 suit brought by Tracy Thurman, who was permanently disabled when Torrington, Connecticut, police failed to protect her against her estranged husband.

The debate on the effects of arresting the perpetrator for domestic violence crimes still continues. Six replication studies following the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment showed mixed results of the effects of mandatory arrest policies, including the expected deterrent effect in some cases and in others an opposite effect or no effect. Arrest was found to escalate future violence in some relationships involving unemployed and unmarried couples after an initial thirty-day respite. A flood of literature that questioned the efficacy of criminal justice intervention followed. A later recalculation of the replication research found mathematical errors—all of the studies do in fact indicate that arresting deters batterers better than other police responses (Maxwell, Garner, and Fagan 2003).

During the 1980s domestic violence was acknowledged as one of the most serious social problems in the United States. All states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have since enacted some form of legislation specific to domestic violence. The first domestic abuse statutes applied only to adult married spouses of abusers, and only to women as victims. These legislative changes gave police officers the power to make arrests in cases where there existed probable cause to believe that domestic violence had occurred, regardless of whether the violence was witnessed by the officer. Mandatory and preferred arrest procedures in instances of domestic violence were adopted by police departments across the nation. Statutes have broadened the definitions and legislative protections; these definitions and provisions for protection and enforcement vary widely among jurisdictions. Contemporary police response to domestic violence incidents has been shaped by this history.

Outline

I. Definition of Domestic Violence

II. Domestic Violence Relationships

III. Arrest Policies in Domestic Violence

IV. Incident Response

V. Entry into the Home

VI. Primary Aggressor Determination

VII. Probable Cause Determination

VIII. Federal Initiatives

I. Definition of Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is an altercation of sufficient severity or harm to require police response where the parties are legally recognized as being in a domestic relationship and the allegation is that a crime has been committed or is being committed or that an order of protection has been violated. The most common types of domestic violence include child abuse, intimate partner abuse, and elder abuse. Other domestic-related persons may be involved in domestic crime, although intimate partner violence is the most frequently cited type of domestic violence that involves law enforcement intervention. Domestic violence is defined broadly in some states with terms such as ‘‘abuse,’’ ‘‘harassment,’’ ‘‘threats of harm,’’ or ‘‘intimidation.’’ In other states, the definition can include more specific behaviors such as burglary, criminal trespass, arson, sexual assault, denying an elder or person with disability access to needed care, and violation of a protective order.

The term domestic refers to the legally recognized relationship of the offender to the victim rather than a specific offense. For example, an ex-husband who burns down the house of his estranged wife may properly be charged with the crime of arson and identified as having committed a domestic crime. Examples of the crimes commonly committed against the person in domestic violence situations include assault, assault and battery, assault with a dangerous weapon, aggravated assault, rape, stalking, and murder. Domestic violence acts include but are not limited to beating, biting, kicking, punching, pulling hair, shoving, striking, slapping, throwing things, threatening, and sexual abuse.

II. Domestic Violence Relationships

For determination of full legal protections under domestic violence law, the victim-to-perpetrator relationship must be clearly identified. Typical relationships that have been recognized by legislation are:

. persons who are or were legally married (a spouse or former spouse),
. persons who reside or previously resided together without marriage (a cohabitant or former cohabitant),
. persons related through marriage (any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, related by blood or through marriage),
. persons who share a child in common, where the presumption is that the male is the biological father and the female is the biological mother (whether or not they were ever legally married),
. women who are pregnant and men who are presumed to be the fathers,
. persons who are having or have had a substantial dating or engagement relationship,
. biological children or stepchildren, and . biological parents or stepparents.

Most states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Territories of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico include children as a class of protected persons in some way within their definitions of domestic violence. Five states include child abuse in their definitions of domestic violence, four states specifically include grandchildren as protected persons, and three states include foster children. Identifying the relationship entitles the victim to domestic violence civil and criminal orders of protection, family court options, and social systems responses.

Domestic violence crimes are not limited to any category of individuals; they transcend all social, racial, and gender boundaries. Intimate violence occurs within heterosexual and homosexual partnerships, though the most frequent victims are women who are abused by their male partners.

III. Arrest Policies in Domestic Violence

Aggressive law enforcement actions that include mandatory arrest policies have become the primary criminal justice response to family violence. Domestic violence arrest laws authorize warrantless arrests when particular conditions are met and encourage or mandate police officers to arrest for certain crimes. Mandatory arrest statutes require that police officers make warrantless arrests of abusers when called to the scenes of complaints of domestic violence and probable cause exists that the abuse occurred. A hybrid statute mandates an arrest in some circumstances and grants discretion to police officers in some other situations. Preferred arrest statutes suggest that an officer make an arrest whenever probable cause to do so exists but does not require that the officer make an arrest.

The final determination of action lies in the hands of the responding police officers, even where a state mandates that an arrest be made. Individual officers must determine, based on their own knowledge and expertise, whether the situation they are investigating constitutes a domestic crime and whether probable cause exists. The form and substance of police training is critical to victim protection; the education of police officers relative to their responsibilities for the crimes committed within legally recognized domestic relationships should not be underestimated in its importance.

IV. Incident Response

Police officers rely heavily on the dispatcher to obtain information about the likelihood of danger at the scene. Domestic violence incidents are no more dangerous than other forms of violence that police respond to. Prior to arriving at the scene the dispatcher obtains information about the people who are involved, their history of domestic violence, including the existence of protection orders involving either person, and whether there are any guns registered to the individuals in the home. On arrival, police officers secure the scene by limiting access and providing assistance to the people there. Entry into the home is legally permitted by consent or due to exigent circumstances. The individuals at the scene are separated and interviewed outside of the hearing of each other. First aid is rendered, and injuries, if present, are documented. Victim safety is the first concern of the responding police officers, yet determining who is in need of protection may not be as readily apparent.

An investigation at the scene is made through interviewing the victim, witnesses, and the suspect. Using the primary aggressor standard, the police officer makes a determination of who is the victim and who is the offender. An arrest decision is made based on the existence of probable cause that a crime has occurred and that a specific person committed that crime. Evidence is collected in the form of photographs and interview statements. Forms of domestic violence that do not meet the legal standard for criminal violation provide supporting evidence for domestic battering, a pattern of violent or coercive behaviors used for the purposes of control, intimidation, or punishment.

Police officers are often called to enforce domestic violence civil and criminal orders of protection. These may be called no-contact or restraining orders, since their intent is to restrain the perpetrator from further abusive behavior and to grant relief to the victim.

V. Entry into the Home

The ‘‘chief evil’’ against which the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects is the ‘‘physical entry of the home’’ (Payton v. New York 1980). The reasonableness of police entry into the home ordinarily requires that police obtain a warrant based on probable cause prior to entering, except in a few well-defined circumstances. The Fourth Amendment prohibition against entering a home without a warrant applies equally whether the police are there to conduct a search or seizure or for any other purpose.

Exceptions to the warrant requirement in cases of domestic violence generally fall into the categories of consent and exigent circumstances. Voluntary consent may be given to enter the home by the owner of the home or property or by someone with the apparent authority to consent. Exigent circumstances are situations in which immediate and serious consequences will most likely occur if the police officer postpones action to obtain a warrant. Circumstances are deemed exigent when: (1) hot pursuit is initiated against a fleeing felon, (2) destruction of evidence is imminent, (3) escape of a suspect is imminent, and (4) there is a risk of danger to the police or others (Thacker v. City of Columbus 2003). In some situations an emergency 911 call alone may be enough to support a warrantless search of a home. When a call for help originates from within the residence, the expectation of privacy is diminished. Courts recognize that police officers have a right and a duty to respond to emergencies, including domestic violence situations.

VI. Primary Aggressor Determination

The challenge for the criminal justice community is in assigning blame. One party must be responsible and held accountable in the criminal justice paradigm. The practice of mutual arrest, where both parties in a dispute are arrested, is strongly discouraged by the courts in cases of domestic violence. Not only does it confuse the court as to how to proceed, it often results in neither party being prosecuted.

When police officers respond to intimate partner violence, they take action regarding a single allegation of harm, yet in determining the severity of that injury and the relative responsibility for that altercation, the police officer may consider previous harms. This is called the primary aggressor determination. A primary aggressor determination may be based on the prior history of violence between the partners or family members; the relative severity of injuries received by each person; whether an act of or threat of violence was taken in self-defense; the relative size and apparent strength of each person; the apparent fear or lack of fear between the partners or family members; and statements made by witnesses. For example, a woman who alleges that her partner placed her in a choke hold may tell the police officer that she thought he was going to kill her, so she bit his arm to release it from around her throat. The male partner may also allege harm by showing the police officer that she bit him on the arm. The police officer would determine if the bite mark is consistent with an act of self-defense based on the angle and location of the mark and whether the woman fought back in fear of her safety. A history of previous threats to kill her or prior beatings would provide further credibility for the claim of self-defense. When the harm against the woman is determined to be a criminal violation (strangulation, in this case) and her actions in biting the partner were consistent with her level of fear for her safety (due to prior assaults), then self-defense by that person is reasonable and her actions would not constitute a criminal violation.

In any relationship violence, including gay and lesbian partner violence, the victims may use self-defense during an attack. Traditionally police officers have looked at gender and physical size when determining who is at fault in a domestic dispute. A clearer picture of who is in need of protection is therefore made using the primary aggressor determination criteria.

It should be noted that the primary aggressor determination is not based on any one physical characteristic such as gender or size; it is a combination of factors. Common myths are that the victim can be determined by judging who is the passive partner, or the most agreeable to the police, or the one who is grateful for police intervention. These are misconceptions about the nature of family violence. Victims often appear defensive and may be either passive or aggressive; there is no proper way for a victim to act. Frustrations, anger, fear, and shame are just some of the emotions that victims may experience which cause them to react negatively against a person attempting to intervene. An objective interview will not be based on the sympathies of the police officer toward any party.

VII. Probable Cause Determination

The manner in which the police officer responds in these diverse situations of domestic violence is based on a probable cause determination. The resolution regarding the primary aggressor is one part of the probable cause determination on whether to make an arrest.

Probable cause is a standard of proof that must be satisfied for any search or seizure to occur. An arrest is legally defined as a seizure and therefore falls under the same requirement for probable cause as a search. The requirement is stated in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and in state constitutions: ‘‘The right of the people to be secure in their person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated . . . and no warrant shall issue except for probable cause.’’ In order to make an arrest, a police officer has the responsibility to determine whether probable cause exists, the likelihood that a crime has been committed, and which person(s) committed that crime. The standard is universal and must be met on both the state and federal levels before a person can be deprived of his or her liberty. Additionally, probable cause to arrest must exist at the moment of arrest. Facts and circumstances that come to the attention of the police officer after a person has been taken into custody may not be used retroactively to justify the arrest. The Fourth Amendment does not require that a police officer be absolutely certain that a crime occurred at the time of arrest, but it necessitates an inquiry into probability.

Sources for determining probable cause include the observations of the police officer, reliable hearsay, knowledge about the suspect, the suspect’s behavior toward police, and the collective knowledge doctrine. The collective knowledge doctrine concerns the shared knowledge of the police as a unit rather than merely the knowledge of the officer who is acting. The doctrine therefore allows a police officer to act (make an arrest) if the officer reasonably relies on instructions from an officer who has probable cause.

In developing probable cause to effect an arrest in a case of domestic violence, the police officer relies heavily on interviewing skills. At the domestic dispute, the parties are separated; outside of the hearing of the other person, each is asked questions about what happened. These statements may become valuable evidence in the event the victim is unable to testify at trial; therefore they are well documented. The police officer views any complaints of injury and makes determinations of whether there are defense wounds or injuries caused by one person in self-defense from attack. This information is compared with statements from witnesses if they are available, including children, and with the physical condition of the place where the dispute took place.

When the victim is a child or an elder, the police officer makes the determination of who is the best agent to interview that victim. Again the officer documents injury and collects evidence. Through a probable cause determination, the police officer decides whether a specific law has been violated.

VIII. Federal Initiatives

Domestic violence has traditionally been within the jurisdiction of state law enforcement response. This changed in 1994 when Congress enacted the Violence against Women Act (VAWA). It encourages states to adopt mandatory arrest policies, supports state and local prosecutions of domestic violence, and provides federal penalties for criminalized conduct. Federal crimes of domestic violence now include interstate travel to commit domestic violence (18 U.S.C. §2261), interstate stalking (18 U.S.C. §2261A), and interstate violation of an order of protection (18 U.S.C. §2261). Federal law also prohibits an abuser subject to an order of protection from possessing firearms and ammunition (18 U.S.C. §9229(g)(8)). When a police officer determines that a valid order has been issued against an abuser, the officer should enforce the federal prohibition of gun possession.

VAWA directs police officers to enforce valid orders of protection properly issued by courts of other states, whether or not those orders are registered in the jurisdiction where the abuse occurs. This is known as full faith and credit. A responding officer must enforce the conditions of a valid criminal or civil order, including custody provisions and firearms prohibitions. Civilian orders of protection are given full force and effect on military installations under the Armed Forces Domestic Security Act (2002). Paving the way for the nationwide reciprocal enforcement of protection orders, the National Stalker and Domestic Violence Reduction Act (1997) authorizes civil restraining and abuse protection orders to be entered in all National Crime Information Center databases.

Bibliography:

Armed Forces Domestic Security Act (10 U.S.C. 1561a, 2002).
Maxwell, C. D., J. H. Garner, and J. A. Fagan. ‘‘The Preventive Effects of Arrest on Intimate Partner Violence: Research, Policy, and Theory.’’ Domestic Violence Report 9, no. 1 (2003): 9–10.
National Stalker and Domestic Violence Reduction Act (28 U.S.C. § 534, 1997).
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
Sherman, L. W., and R. A. Berk. ‘‘The Specific Deterrent Effects of Arrest for Domestic Assault.’’ American Sociological Review 49 (1984): 261–272.
Thacker v. City of Columbus, 328 F.3d 244 (2003).
Thurman v. City of Torrington, 595 F. Supp 1521 (1984).
Violence against Women Act (VAWA 18 U.S.C., 2§ 40221, 1994).

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.