Situational Ambiguity and Gendered Patterns of Arrest for Intimate Partner Violence

Abstract

Using data from the 2005 National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), this analysis focuses on the impacts that domestic violence mandatory arrest policies have on arrest outcomes in “situationally ambiguous” cases: cases where both the female and male partners have been identified by police as both a victim and an offender. Results indicate that although officers arrest male partners more frequently than female partners, after controlling for incident and individual factors, mandatory arrest policies disproportionately affect women. Furthermore, correlates of arrest differ for male-only arrests versus female-only arrests. These findings are discussed in the context of changing legal responses to domestic violence.

Keywords

arrest domestic violence mandatory arrest

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bourg

Stock

H. V.

(1994). A review of domestic violence arrest statistics in a police department using a pro-arrest policy: Are pro-arrest policies enough? Journal of Family Violence, 9, 177-189.

Buzawa

E. S.

Hotaling

(2000). The police response to domestic violence calls for assistance in three Massachusetts towns: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Chesney-Lind

(2002). Criminalizing victimization: The unintended consequences of pro-arrest policies for girls and women. Criminology & Public Policy, 82, 81-90.

Connolly

Huzurbazar

Routh-McGee

(2000). Multiple parties in domestic violence situations and arrest. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 181-188.

Crager

Cousin

Hardy

(2003). Victim-defendants: An emerging challenge in responding to domestic violence in Seattle and the King County region. Retrieved from http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/victimdefendant/victimdefendant.pdf

Dasgupta

S. D.

(2003). Safety and justice for all: Examining the relationship between the women’s anti-violence movement and the criminal legal system. New York: Ms. Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.ms.foundation.org/user-assets/PDF/Program/safety_justice.pdf

DeLeon-Granados

Wells

Binsbacher

(2006). Arresting developments: Trends in female arrests for domestic violence and proposed explanations. Violence Against Women, 12, 355-371.

Eitle

(2005). The influence of mandatory arrest policies, police organizational characteristics, and situational variables on the probability of arrest in domestic violence cases. Crime & Delinquency, 51, 573-597.

Feder

Henning

(2005). A comparison of male and female dually arrested domestic violence offenders. Violence and Victims, 20, 153-171.

10.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2000). National Incident-Based Reporting System Volume 1: Data collection guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/nibrs/manuals/v1all.pdf

11.

Felson

R. B.

Pare

(2007). Does the criminal justice system treat domestic violence and sexual assault offenders leniently? Justice Quarterly, 24, 435-459.

12.

Ferraro

K. J.

(1989). Policing woman battering. Social Problems, 36, 61-74.

13.

Ferraro

K. J.

(2006). Neither angels nor demons: Women, crime, and victimization. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

14.

Finn

M. A.

Bettis

(2006). Punitive action or gentle persuasion: Exploring police officers’ justification for using dual arrest in domestic violence cases. Violence Against Women, 12, 268-287.

15.

Goodmark

(2004). Law is the answer? Do we know that for sure? Questioning the efficacy of legal interventions for battered women. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 23, 7-48.

16.

Hall

D. L.

(2005). Domestic violence arrest decision making: The role of suspect availability in the arrest decision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 390-411.

17.

Henning

Renauer

(2005). Prosecution of women arrested for intimate partner abuse. Violence and Victims, 20, 361-376.

18.

Hirschel

Buzawa

(2002). Understanding the context of dual arrest with directions for future research. Violence Against Women, 8, 1449-1473.

19.

Hirschel

Buzawa

Pattavina

Faggiani

(2007). Domestic violence and mandatory arrest laws: To what extent do they influence police arrest decisions? Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 98, 254-298.

20.

(2003). The influence of suspect gender in domestic violence arrests. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 183-195.

21.

Horton

Simonidis

K. M.

Simonidis

L. L.

(1987). Legal remedies for spousal abuse: Victim characteristics, expectations, and satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence, 2, 265-279.

22.

Houry

Reddy

Parramore

(2006). Characteristics of victims co-arrested for intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1483-1492.

23.

Jones

D. A.

Belknap

(1999). Police responses to battering in a progressive pro-arrest jurisdiction. Justice Quarterly, 16, 249-273.

24.

Jordan

C. E.

(2004). Intimate partner violence and the justice system: An examination of the interface. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1412-1434.

25.

Leisenring

(2008). Controversies surrounding mandatory arrest policies and the police response to intimate partner violence. Sociology Compass, 2, 451-466.

26.

Martin

M. E.

(1997). Double your trouble: Dual arrest in family violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 139-157.

27.

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. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

28.

Melton

H. C.

Belknap

(2003). He hits, she hits: Assessing gender differences and similarities in officially reported intimate partner violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 328-348.

29.

Mignon

S. I.

Holmes

W. M.

(1995). Police response to mandatory arrest laws. Crime & Delinquency, 41, 430-442.

30.

Mills

L. G.

(1998). Mandatory arrest and prosecution policies for domestic violence: A critical literature review and the case for more research to test victim empowerment approaches. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 25, 306-318.

31.

Mills

L. G.

(1999). Killing her softly: Intimate abuse and the violence of state intervention. Harvard Law Review, 113, 550-614.

32.

Miller

(2004). Domestic violence: A review of state legislation defining police and prosecution duties and powers. Retrieved from http://www.ilj.org/publications/docs/Domestic_Violence_Legislation.pdf

33.

Miller

S. L.

(2001). The paradox of women arrested for domestic violence: Criminal justice professionals and service providers respond. Violence Against Women, 7, 1339-1376.

34.

Miller

S. L.

(2005). Victims as offenders: The paradox of women’s violence in relationships. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

35.

Muftic

L. R.

Bouffard

L. A.

Bouffard

J. A.

(2007). An exploratory analysis of victim precipitation among men and women arrested for intimate partner violence. Feminist Criminology, 2, 327-346.

36.

Pattavina

Buzawa

Hirschel

Faggiani

(2007). Policy, place, and perpetrators: Using NIBRS to explain arrest practices in intimate partner violence. Justice Research and Policy, 9, 31-51.

37.

Pattavina

Hirschel

Buzawa

Faggiani

Bentley

(2007). A comparison of the police response to heterosexual versus same-sex intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 374-394.

38.

Rajan

McCloskey

K. A.

(2007). Victims of intimate partner violence: Arrest rates across recent studies. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 15, 27-52.

39.

Robinson

A. L.

Chandek

M. S.

(2000). The domestic violence arrest decision: Examining demographic, attitudinal, and situational variables. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 18-37.

40.

Ruttenberg

M. H.

(1994). A feminist critique of mandatory arrest: An analysis of race and gender in domestic violence policy. American University Journal of Gender & the Law, 2, 171-199.

41.

Schmidt

J. D.

Sherman

L. W.

(1993). Does arrest deter domestic violence? American Behavioral Scientist, 36, 601-610.

42.

Sherman

L. W.

Berk

R. A.

(1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49, 261-272.

43.

Simpson

S. S.

Bouffard

L. A.

Garner

Hickman

(2006). The influence of legal reform on the probability of arrest in domestic violence cases. Justice Quarterly, 23, 297-316.

44.

Strack

G. B.

(2000). “She hit me, too.” Identifying the primary aggressor: A prosecutor’s perspective. Retrieved from www.peaceathomeshelter.org/DV/readings/aggressor/She_hit_me.pdf

45.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

46.

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2006). Crime in the United States, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/index.html

47.

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2008). Crime in the United States, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/07cius.htm

48.

Worrall

J. L.

Ross

J. W.

McCord

E. S.

(2006). Modeling prosecutors’ charging decisions in domestic violence cases. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 472-503.

49.

Zorza

(1993). Must we stop arresting batterers: Analysis and policy implications of new police domestic violence studies. New England Law Review, 28, 929-990.