The Victim–Offender Relationship and Police Charging Decisions for Juvenile Delinquents

Abstract

While research has established how victim–offender relationship (social distance) relates to police decision-making, comparatively little research has examined this relationship among juvenile delinquents. This article examines how the social relationship between victim and offender has a main and moderating relationship with police charging decisions among juvenile delinquents in Canada. Incidents recorded using the Uniform Crime Reporting Incident-Based Survey (N = 130,090) are modeled using logistic regression to predict the odds of police laying a charge. Independent variables include nature of the victim–offender relationship as well as demographic, geographic, and offense-specific variables. Main effects models show that incidents involving current intimate partners are most likely to result in arrest, followed by incidents involving strangers. Importantly, stratified models suggest that social distance conditions how other legal and extralegal factors relate to police arrest decisions. Similar to the adult offending population, victim–offender relationship shapes the way criminal incidents are officially addressed in complex ways.

Keywords

victim–offender relationship police decision-making juvenile delinquency social distance

In responding to an interpersonal conflict, police officers may react in any number of ways, including mediating the conflict, separating the parties involved, or making an arrest (Smith, 1987). The decision made by police officers has important implications for the offender(s), the victim(s), their families, and the criminal justice system (McAra & McVie, 2007). The decision to make an arrest is often based on various offense-specific criteria, such as the severity of the offense and the presence of a weapon (Visher, 1983; Worden, 1989). At the same time, research indicates that extralegal factors, such as the gender of the victim and offender as well as the age of the victim and the location of the incident, are related to police decision-making (Black, 1976; Finn & Stalans, 1997; Lally & DeMaris, 2012; Lundman, 1996; Morash, 1984; Novak, Frank, Smith, & Engel, 2002; Smith & Visher, 1981; Spohn & Spear, 1996; Waaland & Keeley, 1985). These factors work together in complex ways to shape the response of police.

Central among these extralegal factors is the nature of the relationship between the victim and the offender, referred to hereinafter as social distance (Dawson & Hotton, 2014; Gartner & Macmillan, 1995; Lally & DeMaris, 2012; Miethe, 1987). Generally, research suggests that social distance is inversely related to arrest; that is, police are less likely to make an arrest in instances where the victim and offender are known to one another, compared to instances in which the victim and offender are strangers (Black, 1976; Lally & DeMaris, 2012; Miethe, 1987). This pattern has been considered particularly troubling by advocates working to support victims of intimate partner violence, as crimes involving intimate partners are less likely to result in an arrest of the perpetrator. The body of research illustrating the importance of social distance, as well as successful litigation in which police departments were held accountable for their failure to intervene in cases of domestic violence, has resulted in an increasing prevalence of mandatory arrest policies for suspected cases of domestic violence (Eitle, 2005; Finn, Blackwell, Stalans, Studdard, & Dugan, 2004; Mills, 1998). Overall, social distance is considered a salient factor in framing the context within which police make arrest decisions.

To date, the research examining the impact of social distance on police decision-making has largely been investigated, as it relates to the adult offending population, with comparatively little consideration of how social distance impacts decision-making for crimes involving juvenile delinquents (those aged 12–17 years). However, the way in which social distance plays into the context in which police make decisions may be different for young people than it is for adults. There are three reasons for this. First, the nature of social relationships is qualitatively different in youth populations than in adult populations. For example, intimate partner relationships among teenagers are less likely than adult relationships to involve shared domestic responsibilities (including children) and financial interdependence. Youth are also more likely than adult populations to be regularly involved with and financially dependent upon their parents and are also more likely to have higher levels of contact with peer groups and casual acquaintances in a leisure setting (Larson & Seepersad, 2003). Thus, the way in which individuals experience relationships is different among young people compared to adults.

Second, police may respond differently to youth suspects than adult ones: Research suggests that police respond to youth crime in a more aggressive manner (Brown, Novak, & Frank, 2009). At the same time, police have a more complicated role when addressing crime committed by a young person; in addition to upholding the law, they may operate in a social assistance capacity and find ways to support a young offender (Bazemore & Senjo, 1997). The dynamic between a young offender and a police officer is thus a unique one and must be considered further (Brown et al., 2009; Liederbach, 2007; Walker & Katz, 2008).

Third, juvenile delinquents are often subject to a different set of procedures with respect to criminal justice processing. In Canada, as in the United States, the juvenile justice system is characterized in part by an underlying assumption of the diminished culpability of juvenile offenders; as a result, there are more options to divert juvenile delinquents away from a formal charge and into alternative programs (Barnhorst, 2004; Caudill, Morris, El Sayed, Yun, & DeLisi, 2013). The concept of “police discretion” takes on a different meaning when viewed in light of these different options to address crimes committed by youth. In short, while previous research has established the importance of the victim–offender relationship as it relates to police decision-making, this relationship has not been considered as it relates to juvenile delinquents. This analysis addresses this gap in the literature.

In addition to the substantive contribution of this article, our methods of analysis advance an understanding of social distance in relation to police decision-making. In particular, this analysis considers both the main effects of the relationship between social distance and police decision-making and an analysis of how social distance moderates the relationship between other legal and extralegal factors with police decision-making. Further, rather than categorizing relationships as either stranger or nonstranger—a practice that is common in previous research—we distinguish between specific types of nonstranger relationships, including friends, family, current intimate partners, and former intimate partners. As a result, we offer a more nuanced understanding of these complex relationships. We begin by situating this analysis in the current theory and literature of victim–offender relationships and police decision-making, followed by a brief consideration of literature specific to the study of young offenders.

Social Distance and Police Decision-Making

The importance of social distance between victims and offenders for police decision-making has been considered from both sociolegal and cultural perspectives. The sociolegal perspective emphasizes the extent to which different social relationships require law (which includes policing) to be applied in varying capacities. Sociologist Donald Black (1976) offers specific insight in his theory of law. For Black, law is a tool to be used in order to restore social order; police can apply law in varying amounts and in various styles. The police have a great deal of discretion in how they respond to incidents. Black (1976) characterizes these responses as penal, compensatory, conciliatory and therapeutic. According to this theory, “law is most likely to become involved, to proceed aggressively, and to be penal in style when the parties are strangers; it is least likely to become involved and most likely to be lenient and conciliatory when they are intimates” (Black, 1976, p. 40). This trend can be explained in terms of the balance of formal and informal social controls: Informal social controls are more likely to be present with intimate partners or family members, thus requiring less formal social control (i.e., law). Conversely, formal social control (through arrest) is required when those involved are strangers.

A cultural approach offers a different explanation for the same phenomenon, focusing on how cultural narratives of crime guide police decision-making. Miethe (1987) argues that police rely on “crime scripts” to guide the decision-making process. Crime scripts, or stereotypes, are assumptions about the nature of crime, the characteristics of people who are likely to be involved in crime, and the circumstances under which crimes take place. Similarly, Sealock and Simpson (1998) argue that police officers use their knowledge of societal “typescripts” as a decision-making heuristic in processing an event. Like any stereotype, these scripts serve to increase the cognitive efficiency of information processing (Hamilton, 1979). A crime is considered “typical” when it conforms to particular attributes regarding the characteristics of the individuals involved (Sudnow, 1965). In the stereotypical criminal event, the victim is a White female, the offender is a poor, racialized male, and the victim and offender do not know one another (Madriz, 1997). These stereotypes inform how police officers interpret events, which in turn guides their response (Miethe, 1987, p. 571). The nature of the relationship between offender and victim is part of the crime script: “A prior victim–offender relationship seems more likely to generate the images of provocation or participation by the victim than do crimes involving strangers” (Miethe, 1987, p. 574). In other words, crimes in which victims are known to one another may not be considered as serious and therefore not treated as seriously by police officers.

Ultimately, the sociolegal and cultural approaches to understanding relational distance both explain a similar pattern: The likelihood of arrest increases with the social distance between the victim and offender. A significant amount of research supports the general trend that greater relational distance between the offender and the victim decreases the likelihood of arrest (Buzawa, Austin, & Buzawa, 1995; Lally & DeMaris, 2012). Further, when arrests are made, individuals who have perpetrated a crime against a nonstranger are more likely to face a lesser charge and tend to be sentenced more leniently (Dawson, 1994; Gillespie, Loughran, Smith, Fogel, & Bjerregaard, 2014; Miethe, 1987; Simon, 1996). Experimental research has also supported these findings. Weller, Hope, and Sheridan (2013) used a scenario format to examine how victim–offender relationship relates to police officers’ perceptions of the legitimacy of stalking cases. They found that cases of stalking in which the perpetrator was labeled a stranger were most likely to be perceived as “true” cases of stalking, compared to cases when the perpetrator was an acquaintance or intimate partner (Weller, Hope, & Sheridan, 2013). The victim–offender relationship represents an important piece of information that is used to build an understanding of how a criminal event played out, given that police offers are not generally present to witness an event firsthand.

There is limited research to contradict these findings (Smith, 1987). Importantly, there is an increasing trend whereby arrest for cases of intimate partner violence is likely (Hirschel, Buzawa, Pattavina, & Faggiani, 2007). It is suggested that this is largely due to the implementation of pro-arrest policies, which were introduced to combat the issue of intimate partner violence (Finn et al., 2004; Hirschel et al., 2007; Mills, 1998). These policies eliminate police discretion by requiring the arrest of the aggressor (Finn et al., 2004). Thus, social distance remains a salient factor insofar, as it becomes the basis for the arrest itself. While the success of these policies in reducing the prevalence of intimate partner is highly debated (Dugan, 2003; Snider, 1998), pro-arrest policies have resulted in a significant number of arrests in cases that might otherwise have resulted in different outcomes.

Overall, research indicates that social distance is a central factor in police discretion. However, this body of research has not provided an in-depth analysis of how this relationship plays out in the context of young offenders. As mentioned previously, relationships among young people are fundamentally different from those among adults. We now consider police discretion in the context of young offenders more specifically.

Juvenile Delinquents and Police Decision-Making

Compared to adults, crimes involving young people are interpreted differently by police (Carr, Hudson, Hanks, & Hunt, 2008; Parker & Sarre, 2008; Schulenberg, 2010; Schulenberg & Warren, 2009). Allen (2005) argues that delinquent behavior committed by young people is perceived as more serious than similar behavior carried out by an adult. In addition, the nature of the contact between police officers and young people may differ. Some research suggests that young people are more likely to be noncompliant with police officer requests (McCluskey, Mastrofski, & Parks, 1999). The context of the interaction between young people and police is therefore characteristically different from one involving adult offenders.

Further, the decision to make an arrest is complicated when the offender is under the age of 18. In Canada, as with many other jurisdictions, the existence of many diversionary programs means that police have numerous options in responding to an incident involving a youth offender. The act of laying a charge is therefore even more significant: “when police lay a charge, they publicly define what kind of youth problems are official and what kind are absorbed back into the community” (Schulenberg, 2003, pp. 127–128). It is also important to note that the impact of arrest on young offenders is particularly detrimental, given the extent to which contact with the criminal justice system can impact outcomes such as the completion of education and future employment (Bushway, 1998; Kirk & Sampson, 2013; McAra & McVie, 2007). It is therefore necessary to fully understand the dynamics impacting police arrest decisions among young people.

With respect to police arrest decisions for young offenders, prior research suggests that it is impacted by a wide range of legal and extralegal factors. Research shows that juvenile delinquents with a prior record and those who commit a more serious or violent offence are more likely to be placed under arrest (Bell & Lang, 1985; Wolf, 2014). Extralegal factors are also important: Prior research has found that young racialized men from a lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be arrested (Bishop & Frazier, 1988; Chesney-Lind, 1995; Fagan, Slaughter, & Hartstone, 1987; Guevara, Herz, & Spohn, 2006; Sampson, 1986). Situational factors may also come into play. For example, the demeanor a young person shows to a police officer is also considered influential (Allen, 2005; Brown et al., 2009; Klinger, 1994; Smith, 1987; Smith & Visher, 1981; Wolf, 2014). In addition, organizational culture of police departments, legislative mandates, and styles of policing may play a central role (Bazemore & Senjo, 1997; Schulenberg, 2006).

Despite these important contributions, to our knowledge, there is no research that has considered different types of victim–offender relationships in its analysis of police decision-making among youth. Our research seeks to address this gap by examining how various victim–offender relationships relate to police decision-making among young people aged 12–17. We consider several different types of relationships: current intimate partners, former intimate partners, friends, family, casual acquaintances, and strangers. Further, we hypothesize that relational distance also has a moderating effect; therefore, we examine how relational distance conditions the way other legal and extralegal factors impact police decisions to arrest young offenders. An analysis of both the main and moderating effects of various types of social relationships on police decision-making among young offenders offers a nuanced picture of the complex ways in which the relational context of interpersonal conflict frames the official response.

Data

This study is based on the police-reported crime in Canada. The data are from the Uniform Crime Reporting Incident-Based Survey (UCR2) collected by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics and accessed through the Toronto Region Research Data Center.¹ The UCR Incident-Based Survey collects detailed information about incidents, including information about offences and the individuals accused of committing the offences as well as information about any victims involved in an incident. The UCR2 police-reported crime survey captures all actual offences that have been brought to the attention of police and for which the investigating officer determines that an offence has actually taken place. The UCR2 is a mandatory survey with nearly 100% coverage of police services in Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2013, pp. 3–4). Research based on self-report surveys suggests that much crime is not brought to the attention of police (Thornberry & Krohn, 2000). Therefore, these data are the representative of crime known to police and not of all crime in Canada.

The UCR2 includes three types of data files: an incident file, which includes information pertaining to the incident (specific location, date, and offence details), a victim file, which includes the characteristics of the victim (including relationship to the accused and demographic information about the victim), and an accused file, which includes details about the accused person (such as demographic information and information relating to charges laid against an accused person). It is important to note that one incident can involve multiple offences, accused, and/or victims.

The confidential UCR2 files include all police-reported data for the years 2007–2011. We examine the 5-year file (2007–2011) to ensure adequate sample size to examine our research questions. In order to analyze the relationships of victims and accused, the analysis is limited to incidents with a single accused and a single victim. Due to the structure of the files and the way data are collected, the only way to be certain that the correct victim is linked to correct accused is to limit analyses to incidents with a single accused and a single victim. In addition, given the focus of our research, we limit our analysis to young people. Individuals may be charged in Canada as youth under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), beginning at 12 years old and before the age of 18. In short, our analysis is focused on police-reported incidents involving accused persons 12–17 years old, where there is a single accused and a single victim.

Measures

This research examines the impact that the relationship between a victim and offender has on the likelihood of offenders being charged with a crime, while taking into account detailed characteristics of crimes, such as the type of crime, whether weapons were used during an incident as well as demographic characteristics of the crime’s location and of the offender and the victim. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for all of the variables in the study. The measures used in this analysis include those collected by the police. While additional measures may be of interest for the analysis of victim–offender relationships in the decision to lay charges (such as race and ethnicity), these characteristics are not measured in the police survey.

Table 1.

Percentage Distribution of All Variables, Full Sample, and Stratified by Social Distance Between Accused and Victim.

Variable	Category	Full Sample	Subsamples Stratified by Relationship of Accused to Victim
Variable	Category	Full Sample	Current IP	Former IP	Family	Friend	Stranger
Charges (N = 130,090)	Cleared otherwise	53.33	28.92	45.94	57.62	65.04	36.91
Charges (N = 130,090)	Charges laid or recommended	46.67	71.08	54.06	42.38	34.96	63.09
Relationship of accused to victim (N = 129,930)	Current intimate partner	4.27	—	—	—	—	—
	Former intimate partner	3.22	—	—	—	—	—
	Immediate/extended family	19.21	—	—	—	—	—
	Friend	7.87	—	—	—	—	—
	Casual acquaintance	43.25	—	—	—	—	—
	Other nonfamily	8.23	—	—	—	—	—
	Stranger	13.94	—	—	—	—	—
Sex of accused and sex of victim (N = 128,670)	Male accused/female victim	25.65	63.29	62.82	41.41	20.21	14.96
	Male accused/male victim	45.52	4.47	5.42	29.28	46.25	64.81
	Female accused/female victim	21.35	9.77	10.11	23.18	29.50	12.34
	Female accused/male victim	6.70	22.47	21.66	6.14	4.05	7.88
Most serious violent offence (N = 129,645)	Common assault Level 1	50.89	68.17	40.74	57.80	47.91	35.21
	Serious assault	17.18	14.61	8.12	16.13	15.02	29.38
	Sexual violations	7.46	8.30	7.77	12.61	14.38	2.94
	Other violations	24.47	8.93	43.37	13.47	22.70	32.46
Property theft during incident (N = 130,090)	No property stolen	96.18	98.82	98.45	99.02	98.58	83.57
Property theft during incident (N = 130,090)	Property stolen	3.82	1.17	1.55	0.98	1.42	16.43
Use of weapon (N = 130,090)	Threat of violence/no known weapon	21.28	7.75	39.62	14.90	22.98	17.17
	Physical force	63.21	79.55	51.55	67.81	62.84	60.94
	Weapon involved	15.51	12.70	8.83	17.29	14.18	21.89
Level of injury to victim (N = 130,090)	No known injury	60.86	47.03	70.41	63.07	58.34	61.05
	Minor physical injury	37.34	51.53	29.00	35.77	39.07	36.13
	Major physical injury or death	1.81	1.44	0.60	1.16	2.59	2.82
Accused’s apparent age (N = 130,090)	Mean	15	16	16	15	15	16
Accused’s apparent age (N = 130,090)	Standard deviation	0.004	0.015	0.018	0.009	0.016	0.010
Victim’s apparent age (N = 129,230)	Mean	23	20	19	32	15	27
Victim’s apparent age (N = 129,230)	Standard deviation	0.037	0.109	0.109	0.102	0.057	0.111
Currently living together (N = 130,090)	No	81.37	77.84	94.51	33.05	92.03	98.23
Currently living together (N = 130,090)	Yes	18.63	22.16	5.49	66.95	7.97	1.77
Location of the incident (N = 130,090)	Residential	37.93	68.47	56.21	86.30	36.14	16.20
	School	24.40	6.04	16.83	3.02	29.10	13.08
	Other	37.67	25.50	26.97	10.67	34.77	70.71
CMA (N = 130,090)	Not in a CMA	49.04	54.68	47.49	53.13	56.19	33.82
CMA (N = 130,090)	In a CMA	50.96	41.71	52.98	46.87	43.81	66.18
Region (N = 130,090)	Atlantic (NFLD, PEI, NS, NB)	9.84	9.10	9.19	11.54	11.20	7.90
	Quebec	20.57	10.27	26.01	16.44	18.83	20.71
	Ontario	36.23	38.74	37.59	31.02	34.33	40.03
	Manitoba	6.10	9.37	3.70	6.53	5.28	5.26
	Saskatchewan	6.38	7.57	5.25	7.87	6.31	5.49
	Alberta	11.25	11.98	9.27	13.74	11.54	10.41
	British Columbia	8.01	10.00	7.64	10.80	10.81	9.30
	Territories	1.61	2.97	1.19	2.06	1.71	0.91

Note. CMA = census metropolitan area; IP = Intimate Partner; NFLD = Newfoundland and Labrador; PEI = Prince Edward Island; NS = Nova Scotia; NB = New Brunswick.

The dependent variable for this analysis is whether or not police decide to lay charges against an accused young person. Once an incident is determined to have occurred, police may either lay charges (or recommend that charges be laid, as is the case in some provinces) or choose not to lay charges. When the decision is made not to lay charges, the incident is “cleared otherwise.” An incident cleared otherwise can mean that the police chose alternative means to judicial proceedings as specified in the YCJA. Police may choose to clear an incident by issuing an informal verbal warning, a written caution (often a letter to the youth and/or their parents), referring the young accused to a community program (such as a drug abuse program), or they could refer the youth to a formal diversionary program referred to as “extrajudicial sanctions”—programs specified under the YCJA. For this article, we use the dichotomous measure determining if charges were laid or if they were cleared otherwise.

The purpose of this article is to explore the victim–offender relationship and the impact of this relationship on the laying of charges. The UCR2 collects some important characteristics of the victim–offender relationship: Whether the accused is known to the victim as a current intimate partner of the victim (reference category), a former or other intimate partner, an immediate or extended family member, a friend of the victim, a casual acquaintance, or a stranger to the victim. The UCR2 also includes detailed information about the legal factors related to the alleged crimes, which are included in this analysis. As mentioned above, an incident may include multiple offences. The most serious violent offence in the incident is measured for this analysis: common assault Level 1 (reference category), serious assaults including violations causing death or attempting the commission of a capital crime, sexual violations, other violations resulting from the deprivation of freedom—abduction and kidnapping, and other violations involving violence or the threat of violence. In addition, we account for whether property was stolen or not during the commission of the incident. We also consider whether a weapon was present in the commission of the incident, distinguishing between the mere presence of a weapon, the use of a weapon to enact physical force, and no known weapon (reference category). Finally, the level of injury, if any, to the victim is taken into account. Individuals with no injuries represent the reference category; for those with injuries, they are categorized as minor physical injury or major physical injury or death.

The analysis also takes additional extralegal factors into consideration. The UCR2 collects some information about the victims and the accused as well as some geographical information related to the incident. We consider the gender pairing of the victim–offender relationship (i.e., male victim/male offender, female victim/male offender, female victim/female offender, and male victim/female offender). For this variable, male accused and female victim are the reference category. The age of the victim and the age of accused are recorded by the police based on the police officer’s estimation. Whether the victim and offender are currently living together is also recorded. The geographical context variables available for analysis in the UCR2 are the location of the incident, defined as in a residential location (reference category), on school property, or in some other location. Finally, we control for the region of the incident. This variable is measured at the province level with some provinces aggregated to regions. The Atlantic region includes the four provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick, and the Territories region includes the three northern Canadian Territories of the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. The Atlantic region is the reference category for this group of variables.

Method of Analysis

We begin our analysis by examining the percentage distribution of all variables and how these distributions vary by social distance (Table 1). The multivariate analysis employs logistic regression, which is appropriate given the dichotomous outcome of the dependent variable. The main effects model is presented in Table 2. Interaction effects examining social distance with each of the independent variable indicate statistically significant effects; therefore, logistic regression models for each of the following social relationships are run: current intimate partner, former or other intimate partner, immediate or extended family, friend, and stranger. These models are presented in Table 3.

Table 2.

Logistic Regression Predicting Police Charge, Main Effects Model.

Variable	Odds Ratio	B	SE (B)
Relationship of accused to victim^a
Former intimate partner	0.575***	−0.558	.046
Immediate or extended family	0.292***	−1.231	.037
Friend	0.259***	−1.35	.04
Casual acquaintance	0.341***	−1.076	.035
Other nonfamily	0.685***	−0.378	.041
Stranger	0.464***	−0.769	.039
Sex of accused and sex of victim^b
Male accused/male victim	0.862***	−0.149	.017
Female accused/female victim	0.751***	−0.286	.02
Female accused/male victim	0.693***	−0.366	.027
Most serious violent offence^c
Serious assaults	2.735***	1.006	.023
Sexual violation	2.969***	1.088	.027
Other (resulting from violence)	2.042***	0.714	.026
Property stolen during incident	3.334***	1.204	.042
Weapon present during incident^d
Physical force	2.047***	0.716	.025
Weapon involved	2.000***	0.693	.029
Level of injury to the victim^e
Minor physical injury	1.675***	0.516	.015
Major physical injury or death	3.985***	1.383	.064
Accused’s apparent age (12–17 years old)	1.202***	0.184	.004
Victim’s apparent age	1.009***	0.009	.001
Accused and victim living together	1.212***	0.192	.02
Location of incident^f
School	0.892***	−0.114	.019
Other	1.385***	0.326	.017
Incident occurred in a CMA	1.47***	0.385	.013
Region^g
Quebec	0.812***	−0.208	.024
Ontario	1.294***	0.258	.022
Manitoba	1.019***	0.019	.032
Saskatchewan	1.002	0.002	.031
Alberta	1.053	0.052	.027
British Columbia	0.780***	−0.249	.029
Territories	0.803***	−0.219	.053
Constant	0.027	−3.618	.082
N	127,550
Pseudo-R ²	0.1246
ll(null)	−88,102.675
ll(model)	−77,123.868
LR χ² (30)	21,957.61
Probability > χ²	0.000
AIC	154,309.7
BIC	154,612.2

Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; LR = Likelihood ratio.

^aReference category is current intimate partner. ^bReference category is male accused and female victim. ^cReference category is common assault Level 1. ^dReference category is the threat of violence or no known weapon. ^eReference category is no known injury. ^fReference category is residential. ^gReference category is Atlantic region (Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick).

*Statistically significant at p < .05.

**Statistically significant at p < .01.

***Statistically significant at p < .001.

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Models Predicting Odds Ratios of Charges Being Laid or Recommended, Stratified by Social Distance Between Victim and Accused.

Variable	Current Intimate Partner	Past Intimate Partner	Family	Friend	Stranger
Sex of accused/victim^a
Male/male	0.29***	0.39**	0.69*	0.94	1.19*
Female/female	0.22***	0.35***	0.64*	0.98	1.14
Female/male	0.50***	0.43	0.47*	0.56*	1.06
Most serious offence^b
Serious assault	2.00***	1.91***	2.35*	2.55*	3.17*
Sexual violation	0.39***	0.52***	4.48*	4.05*	2.95*
Other	1.67**	1.02***	2.50*	2.26*	2.73*
Property stolen	1.96	2.68**	3.63*	3.50*	2.95*
Weapon present^c
Physical force	3.17***	2.51***	1.39*	2.19*	2.88*
Weapon involved	3.65***	2.59	1.89*	2.05*	2.74*
Level of injury to victim^d
Minor physical	2.06***	1.71***	1.72*	2.12*	1.39*
Major or death	4.37**	3.61***	4.54*	5.87*	2.58*
Accused’s apparent age	1.24***	1.25***	1.15*	1.23*	1.19*
Victim’s apparent age	0.98***	0.99	1.01*	1.01*	1.02*
Living together	1.45***	0.90	1.00	1.53*	—
Location of incident^e
School	0.79	0.74**	0.91	0.77*	1.10
Other	0.92	1.35***	1.30*	1.10*	1.67*
Occurred in city	1.69***	1.68***	1.54*	1.17*	1.39*
Region^f
Quebec	0.38***	0.76*	0.77*	1.00	0.59*
Ontario	2.61***	2.37*	1.42*	1.30*	1.17*
Manitoba	2.47***	1.81*	0.70*	1.01	1.35*
Saskatchewan	0.66**	0.73	0.85*	0.99	1.50*
Alberta	1.00	0.81	0.86*	1.20	1.22*
British Columbia	1.38*	1.34	0.64*	1.22*	0.69*
Territories	1.49	1.81	0.73*	0.48*	0.75
Constant	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.00	0.01
N	5,460	4,140	24,685	10,040	17,340
Pseudo R ²	0.20	0.16	0.09	0.12	0.15
ll(null)	−3,260.1159	−2,855.87	−16,821.169	−6,480.7433	−11,470.144
ll(model)	−2,623.6288	−2,396.95	−15,244.969	−5,722.9734	−9,723.2563
LR χ² (df)	1,272.97 (24)	917.84(24)	3,152.40(24)	1,515.54(24)	3,493.78(23)
Probability > χ²	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
AIC	5,297.258	4,843.899	30,539.94	11,495.95	19,494.51
BIC	5,462.388	5,002.122	30,742.790	11,676.300	19,680.770

^aReference category is male accused and female victim. ^bReference category is common assault level. ^cReference category is the threat of violence or no known weapon. ^dReference category is no known injury. ^eReference category is residential. ^fReference category is Atlantic region (Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick).

*Statistically significant at p < .05.

**Statistically significant at p < .01.

***Statistically significant at p < .001.

There are, of course, several limitations in this analysis. To begin, this analysis considers only those incidents with a single victim and a single offender. The presence of other victims or offenders in the incident may have an impact on how police respond (Dawson & Hotton, 2014). Further, this research has dichotomized the actors in the criminal incident as “victim/offender”—a practice that is somewhat problematic. Oftentimes, these categories overlap, and the distinction between the two is not clear-cut. (Black, 1983). Indeed, the notion of the victim as the “innocent” actor in an event is problematic altogether, as this reflects very middle-class ideas of victimization and the criminal event (McShane & Williams, 1992).

Another limitation of our analysis concerns the omission of several key variables for reasons beyond our control. For example, our analysis does not control for the criminal record of the offender—a variable that has been found to be extremely important in police decision-making for juvenile delinquents (Bell & Lang, 1985). In addition, our analysis does not control for the race of the victim or offender. Several high-profile events in Canada and the United States have raised awareness of police responses to marginalized groups, particularly young Black men (Fridell & Lim, 2016; Oriola, Neverson, & Adeyanju, 2012). Scenario-based research has found that Black youth are more likely to be charged with more offenses while White youth are released more frequently, indicating that racial bias is present when police must make decisions regarding arrest (Sutphen, Kurtz, & Giddings, 1993). Thus, race is undoubtedly an important factor that enters into the crime script and likely informs how police respond to individual events, particularly in crimes involving young people. Unfortunately, the UCR2 does not include data on the race of the victim or the offender, making it impossible for us to control for these likely effects in the present analysis. Finally, this analysis does not control for police officer characteristics, such as the demographics of the police officer, their attitudes toward arrest, or the institutional context in which they operate, which may impact decision-making (Bazemore & Senjo, 1997; Schulenberg, 2006).

Results

Overall, the data indicate that nearly half (47%) of incidents known to police result in a charge being laid or recommended. The percentage distribution (Table 1) shows that the likelihood of charges being laid varies as a function of social distance. Specifically, charges are laid more often in cases involving intimate partners and strangers and less often if the victim and offender are friends or family.

When controlling for other legal and extralegal factors, social distance between the victim and offender still plays a central role. Results of the logistic regression (Table 2) indicate that, when compared to incidents involving current intimate partners, incidents between former intimate partners, friends, family members, casual acquaintances, and strangers are all far less likely to result in charges. Perhaps, most striking finding is that the probability of arrest in cases involving strangers is 51% while the probability of arrest is 70% for incidents involving current intimate partners when holding legal and extralegal factors at their means. Thus, even though intimate relationships constitute a small percentage of incidents known to police (4.27%), these incidents are far more likely to result in an arrest compared to other types of relationships. Other results of the main effects model are consistent with previous research on adult populations: The odds of arrest are higher for serious assaults or sexual assaults, incidents involving a weapon, incidents involving property theft, and incidents resulting in physical injuries. Further, crimes involving a male offender and a female victim are more likely to result in arrest compared to those with female offenders or male victims.

New insight is gleaned when stratifying the models by social distance. In Table 3, we present the models stratified by victim–offender relationship, selecting those relationships which were of key theoretical interest (current intimate partners, past intimate partners, immediate or extended family, friends, and strangers). The most noteworthy finding is that the relative impact of legal and extralegal factors varies considerably when stratifying the models by the nature of the relationship between victim and offender. For example, the main effects model (Table 2) indicated that the commission of a sexual violation will nearly triple the odds that police will charge the offender. However, when stratifying the models by social distance, this trend only holds true for relationships involving family, friends, or strangers. In contrast, sexual offenses committed against a current or former intimate partner actually decrease the odds that the offender will be charged, even when controlling for other legal and extralegal variables. This important contradiction is not evident when examining the main effects model.

Another interesting aspect involves the way in which the gender dynamic between victim and offender impacts police charging decisions, and how this varies depending on the relationship between victim and offender. As noted previously, the main effects model shows that incidents involving a male offender and a female victim are more likely to result in arrest compared to those with female offenders or male victims. When stratifying the models by social distance, however, the relative effect size varies. Specifically, the probability of arrest decreases considerably for those current intimate relationships that do not conform to a male offender/female victim typology. Same-sex relationships in particular have a far lower probability of resulting in an arrest (38% for female intimate partners and 58% for male intimate partners) compared to a probability of 82% for heterosexual intimate partners with a male accused and 70% with a female accused, holding other variables at their mean. In relationships among friends, those incidents involving a male victim and a female offender are less likely to result in a charge, but there is no difference among other gender pairings. In contrast, in incidents involving strangers, male offenders who perpetrate a crime against a male victim (as opposed to a female victim) have a slightly higher probability of being charged by police (67% vs. 63%, respectively). To illustrate these differences more clearly, we present predicted probabilities in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Predicted probability of having charges laid or recommended, stratified by social distance between victim and offender.

Other legal factors remain consistent across models. For example, incidents resulting in injury to the victim (minor or major) increase the odds of charging across all types of social relationships, although the effect is much stronger if the relationship is between friends and strangers (odds ratios of 5.9 compared to 2.6, as shown in Table 3). Similarly, incidents involving physical force or a weapon increase the odds of charging in all relationship contexts; however, the effect is not as strong when weapons are used in incidents occurring between family members. Incidents occurring in urban areas are more likely to result in charges, but the odds are greatest for incidents involving current and former intimate partners and the lowest among friends.

Overall, these findings highlight the importance of considering the moderating impact of social distance. We now consider the most striking of these findings in more detail and offer some suggestion as to the rationale for these differences. We also consider the limitations of our analysis and directions for future research.

Discussion and Conclusion

This analysis provides an in-depth examination of the relationship between social distance and police arrest decisions for juvenile delinquents. Past research has established the relevance of social distance in police decision-making; however, no research has examined how social distance plays into decision-making among young offenders. Our research represents a preliminary step in addressing this.

Our analysis shows that incidents involving current intimate partners are more likely than other types of relationships to result in an arrest, even when controlling for offence severity and the level of injury to the victim. These findings contradict Black’s (1976) theory of law, which states that incidents involving intimate partners would be among the least likely to result in a charge. There are several possible explanations for this finding. It is possible that violent altercations between a young offender and a family member or friend may not be perceived as “dangerous” enough to warrant an arrest. Aggression toward a dating partner or stranger may be understood in a different context—as one that is part of a larger pattern of pathological violence, thus warranting a more formal reaction by police. Other explanations for these findings can be taken from the literature on adult offenders. In their study of police arrests for adult intimate partners, Dawson and Hotton (2014) suggest that police are more likely to arrest when both victim and offender remain at the scene, pointing to research showing that police are more likely to proceed with charges when the suspect is at the scene when police arrive (Hall, 2005; Hirschel, Hutchison, & Shaw, 2010; Robinson & Chandek, 2000). They also suggest that, due to the close social distance between the victim and offender, the police may perceive the victim to be in imminent danger unless the offender is arrested (Dawson & Hotton, 2014, p. 677). It is possible that similar processes are at play among young people.

When stratifying the models by social distance, important nuances in these relationships are evident. First, the analysis shows that the commission of a sexual offense has a distinct effect based on the nature of the relationship between the victim and offender. That is, sexual offenses lower the odds of arrest if occurring in the context of current or former intimate partners but increase the odds of arrest if occurring in the context of friend, family, or stranger relationships. This finding is consistent with the past research on intimate partner relationships in the adult population, whereby sexual offenses are unlikely to result in arrest (Dawson & Hotton, 2014; Simon, Ellwanger, & Haggery, 2010). Despite significant efforts to sensitize law enforcement personnel to the issue of sexual violence in intimate relationships, crime scripts regarding the acceptability of this type of violence continue to exist (Page, 2010). The findings of our study are particularly interesting insofar, as they illustrate the persistence of these crime scripts in intimate relationships in the youth population.

Another important finding is the way in which the gendered nature of the relationship also impacts an offenders’ likelihood of arrest. Those incidents involving a heterosexual couple—particularly those involving a male offender and a female victim—are far more likely to result in an arrest. This finding is consistent with cultural theories of police decision-making and prior research on the adult population (Visher, 1983). Our findings may be explained by a “chivalry effect,” whereby police intervene most harshly to protect female victims of male violence (Felson & Feld, 2009). Interestingly, our research also found that this gendered effect is particularly pronounced in relationships involving current and former intimate partners, where heterosexual relationships are more likely to result in a charge. These results reinforce research illustrating the tendency to respond to violence within same-sex relationships differently than heterosexual ones (Pattavina, Hirschel, Buzawa, Faggiani, & Bentley, 2007; Renzetti, 1992; Younglove, Kerr, & Vitello, 2002). If police officers’ perceptions of violence in same-sex relationships mirror those of the broader society, they are likely to understand violence in same-sex relationships to be less serious (Poorman, Seelau, & Seelau, 2003). Other research has established that lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) youth are policed differently, particularly with respect to displays of intimacy (Dwyer, 2011). Failure to make an arrest has implications for victims, as they may be less likely to seek the assistance of the police in the future if they do not feel their earlier experiences were positive (Poorman et al., 2003).

As mentioned earlier, there are several limitations in this analysis. First, this analysis does not control for the potential effects of race or criminal record of the victim or offender, which may impact police decision-making. Future research might consider how these variables play into the relationships that were examined in this analysis. Further, this analysis considers only those incidents with a single victim and a single offender. The victim/offender dichotomy was necessary in the present analysis and is often necessary when using official statistics. Consequently, police discretion is understood solely in the context of police involvement with young people as offenders. Other research studies have employed observational methods, survey research methods, or even scenario-based research, allowing for a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the complex nature of police involvement with members of the public. (Allen, 2005; Brown et al., 2009; Godfredson, Ogloff, Thomas, & Luebbers, 2010). Using methods other than the analysis of official statistics may provide more insight police discretion when young people are a suspected offender. Despite these limitations, this analysis makes an important contribution to the literature on police discretion among young offenders. To our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind to offer an in-depth analysis of social distance with respect to the youth population. Overall, our findings confirm that, much like adult offenders, social distance is an important factor in shaping how police respond to incidents involving interpersonal conflict. More importantly, this research shows how the manner in which legal and extralegal factors impact police decision-making is heavily conditioned by social distance. Future research might address some of the limitations of our study, particularly insofar as race, community context, and organizational variables play into the decision-making process for youth offenders.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by funds to the Canadian Research Data Centre Network from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canadian Institute for Health Research, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, and Statistics Canada. Although the research and analysis are based on data from Statistics Canada, the opinions expressed do not represent the views of Statistics Canada.

References

Allen

T. T.

(2005). Taking a juvenile into custody: Situational factors that influence police officers’ decisions. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 32, 121–130.

Barnhorst

(2004). The youth criminal justice act: New directions and implementation issues. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46, 231–250.

Bazemore

Senjo

(1997). Police encounters with juveniles revisited: An exploratory study of themes and styles in community policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 20, 60–82.

Bell

Jr Lang

(1985). The intake dispositions of juvenile offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 309–328.

Bishop

D. M.

Frazier

C. E.

(1988). The influence of race in juvenile justice processing. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25, 242–263.

Black

(1976). The behavior of law. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Black

(1983). Crime as social control. American Sociological Review, 48, 34–45.

Brown

R. A.

Novak

K. J.

Frank

(2009). Identifying variation in police officer behavior between juveniles and adults. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 200–208.

Bushway

S. D.

(1998). The impact of an arrest on the job stability of young white American men. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 454–479.

10.

Buzawa

Austin

T. L.

Buzawa

C. G.

(1995). Responding to crimes of violence against women: Gender differences versus organizational imperatives. Crime and Delinquency, 41, 443–466.

11.

Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. (2013). Uniform Crime Reporting incident-based survey user manual. Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada.

12.

Carr

N. T.

Hudson

Hanks

R. S.

Hunt

A. N.

(2008). Gender effects along the juvenile justice system: Evidence of a gendered organization. Feminist Criminology, 3, 25–43.

13.

Caudill

J. W.

Morris

R. G.

El Sayed

Yun

DeLisi

(2013). Pathways through the juvenile justice system: Predictors of formal disposition. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11, 183–195.

14.

Chesney-Lind

(1995). Girls, delinquency, and juvenile justice: Toward a feminist theory of young women’s crime. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

15.

Dawson

(1994). Rethinking the boundaries of intimacy at the end of the century: The role of victim-defendant relationship in criminal justice decision-making over time. Law and Society Review, 38, 105–138.

16.

Dawson

Hotton

(2014). Police charging practices for incidents of intimate partner violence in Canada. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 1–29.

17.

Dugan

(2003). Domestic violence legislation: Exploring its impact on the likelihood of domestic violence, police involvement, and arrest. Criminology and Public Policy, 2, 283–312.

18.

Dwyer

(2011). “It’s not like we’re going to jump them”: How transgressing heteronormativity shapes police interactions with LGBT young people. Youth Justice, 11, 203–220.

19.

Eitle

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

20.

Fagan

Slaughter

Hartstone

(1987). Blind justice? The impact of race on the juvenile justice process. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 224–258.

21.

Felson

R. B.

Feld

S. L.

(2009). When a man hits a woman: Moral evaluations and reporting violence to the police. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 477–488.

22.

Finn

M. A.

Blackwell

B. S.

Stalans

L. J.

Studdard

Dugan

(2004). Dual arrest decisions in domestic violence cases: The influence of departmental policies. Crime and Delinquency, 50, 565–589.

23.

Finn

M. A.

Stalans

L. J.

(1997). The influence of gender and mental state on police decisions in domestic assault cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 157–176.

24.

Fridell

Lim

(2016). Assessing the racial aspects of police force using the implicit- and counter-bias perspectives. Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 36–48.

25.

Gartner

Macmillan

(1995). The effect of victim-offender relationship on reporting crimes of violence against women. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 37, 393–429.

26.

Gillespie

L. K.

Loughran

T. A.

Smith

M. D.

Fogel

S. J.

Bjerregaard

(2014). Exploring the role of victims sex, victim conduct, and victim-defendant relationship in capital punishment sentencing. Homicide Studies, 18, 175–195.

27.

Godfredson

J. W.

Ogloff

J. R. P.

Thomas

S. D. M.

Luebbers

(2010). Police discretion and encounters with people experiencing mental illness: The significant factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1392–1405.

28.

Guevara

Herz

Spohn

(2006). Gender and juvenile justice decision making: What role does race play? Feminist Criminology, 1, 258–282.

29.

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.

30.

Hamilton

D. L.

(1979). A cognitive-attributional analysis of stereotyping. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 53–84). New York, NY: Academic Press.

31.

Hirschel

Buzawa

Pattavina

Faggiani

(2007). Domestic violence and mandatory arrest laws: To what extent do they influence police arrest decisions? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 98, 255–298.

32.

Hirschel

Hutchison

I. W.

Shaw

(2010). The interrelationship between substance abuse and the likelihood of arrest, conviction, and re-offending in cases of intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 81–90.

33.

Kirk

D. S.

Sampson

R. J.

(2013). Juvenile arrest and collateral educational damage in the transition to adulthood. Sociology of Education, 86, 36–62.

34.

Klinger

D. A.

(1994). Demeanor or crime? Why “hostile” citizens are more likely to be arrested. Criminology, 32, 475–493.

35.

Lally

DeMaris

(2012). Gender and relational-distance effects in arrests for domestic violence. Crime and Delinquency, 58, 103–123.

36.

Larson

Seepersad

(2003). Adolescents’ leisure time in the United States: Partying, sports, and the American experiment. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 99, 53–64.

37.

Liederbach

(2007). Controlling suburban and small-town hoods: An examination of police encounters with juveniles. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 107–124.

38.

Lundman

(1996). Extralegal variables and arrest. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 349–353.

39.

Madriz

E. I.

(1997). Images of criminals and victims: A study on women’s fear and social control. Gender and Society, 11, 342–356.

40.

McAra

McVie

(2007). Youth justice? The impact of system contact on patterns of desistance from offending. European Journal of Criminology, 4, 315–345.

41.

McCluskey

J. D.

Mastrofski

S. D.

Parks

R. B.

(1999). To acquiesce or rebel: Predicting citizen compliance with police requests. Police Quarterly, 2, 389–416.

42.

McShane

M. D.

Williams

F. P.

III . (1992). Radical victimology: A critique of the concept of victim in traditional victimology. Crime and Delinquency, 38, 258–271.

43.

Miethe

T. D.

(1987). Stereotypical conceptions and criminal processing: The case of the victim-offender relationship. Justice Quarterly, 4, 571–593.

44.

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 and Behavior, 25, 306–318.

45.

Morash

(1984). Establishment of a juvenile police record: The influence of individual and peer group characteristics. Criminology, 22, 97–111.

46.

Novak

K. J.

Frank

Smith

B. W.

Engel

R. S.

(2002). Revisiting the decision to arrest: Comparing beat and community officers. Crime and Delinquency, 48, 70–98.

47.

Oriola

Neverson

Adeyanju

C. T.

(2012). “They should have just taken a gun and shot my son”: Taser deployment and the downtrodden in Canada. Social Identities, 18, 65–83.

48.

Page

A. D.

(2010). True colors: Police officers and rape myth acceptance. Feminist Criminology, 5, 315–334.

49.

Parker

A. L.

Sarre

(2008). Policing young offenders: What role discretion? International Journal of Police Science and Management, 10, 474–485.

50.

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.

51.

Poorman

P. B.

Seelau

E. P.

Seelau

S. M.

(2003). Perceptions of domestic abuse in same-sex relationships and implications for criminal justice and mental health responses. Violence and Victims, 18, 659–669.

52.

Renzetti

C. M.

(1992). Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

53.

Robinson

A. L.

Chandek

M. S.

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

54.

Sampson

R. J.

(1986). Effects of socioeconomic context in official reaction to juvenile delinquency. American Sociological Review, 51, 876–885.

55.

Schulenberg

J. L.

(2003). The social context of police discretion with young offenders: An ecological analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 45, 127–158.

56.

Schulenberg

J. L.

(2006). Police culture and young offenders: The effect of legislative change on definitions of crime and delinquency. Police Quarterly, 9, 423–447.

57.

Schulenberg

J. L.

(2010). Patterns in police decision-making with youth: An application of Black’s theory of law. Crime, Law and Social Change, 53, 109–129.

58.

Schulenberg

J. L.

Warren

(2009). Police discretion with apprehended youth: Assessing the impact of juvenile specialization. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 10, 3–16.

59.

Sealock

M. D.

Simpson

S. S.

(1998). Unraveling bias in arrest decisions: The role of juvenile offender type-scripts. Justice Quarterly, 15, 427–457.

60.

Simon

L. M. J.

(1996). Legal treatment of the victim-offender relationship in crimes of violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 94–106.

61.

Simon

L. M. J.

Ellwanger

S. J.

Haggery

(2010). Reversing the historical tide of iatrogenic harm: A therapeutic jurisprudence analysis of increases in arrests of domestic batterers and rapists. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33, 306–320.

62.

Smith

D. A.

(1987). Police response to interpersonal violence: Defining the parameters of legal control. Social Forces, 65, 767–782.

63.

Smith

D. A.

Visher

C. A.

(1981). Street-level justice: Situational determinants of police arrest decisions. Social Problems, 29, 167–177.

64.

Snider

(1998). Towards safer societies: Punishment, masculinities and violence against women. British Journal of Criminology, 38, 1–39.

65.

Spohn

Spears

(1996). The effect of offender and victim characteristics on sexual assault case processing decisions. Justice Quarterly, 13, 649–679.

66.

Sudnow

(1965). Normal crimes: Sociological features of the penal code in a public defender office. Social Problems, 12, 255–276.

67.

Sutphen

R. P.

Kurtz

Giddings

(1993). The influence of juveniles’ race on police decision-making: An exploratory study. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 44, 69–78.

68.

Thornberry

T. P.

Krohn

M. D.

(2000). The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. Criminal Justice, 4, 33–83.

69.

Visher

C. A.

(1983). Gender, police arrest decisions, and notions of chivalry. Criminology, 21, 5–28.

70.

Waaland

Keeley

(1985). Police decision making in wife abuse: The impact of legal and extralegal factors. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 355–366.

71.

Walker

Katz

C. M.

(2008). The police in America. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

72.

Weller

Hope

Sheridan

(2013). Police and public perceptions of stalking: The role of prior victim-offender relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 320–339.

73.

Wolf

K. C.

(2014). Arrest decision making by school resource officers. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 12, 137–151.

74.

Worden

R. E.

(1989). Situational and attitudinal explanations of police behavior: A theoretical reappraisal and empirical assessment. Law and Society Review, 23, 667–711.

75.

Younglove

J. A.

Kerr

M. G.

Vitello

C. J.

(2002). Law enforcement officers’ perceptions of same sex domestic violence: Reason for cautious optimism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 760–772.