Victim Experiences and Perspectives on Police Responses to Verbal Violence in Domestic Settings

Abstract

This interdisciplinary, qualitative study explores why individuals called the police in noncriminal, verbally aggressive situations and how they perceived police responses. In-depth interviews were conducted with 30 individuals, mostly women. While some reported positive perceptions of the police response, the participants’ accounts underscored the seriousness of verbal violence and revealed that when women seek help from police they often perceive the resulting response as inadequate and/or unfair. This study highlights the importance of recognizing that verbal violence is often part of a “fabric of abuse” that may include criminal behavior and considers implications for police practice.

Keywords

domestic violence intimate partner violence policing qualitative research victimology (general)

In Canada, there is no explicit mention of domestic violence as a criminal offense¹ in the Criminal Code (CC); thus criminal charges for domestic violence² must fall under existing Criminal Code provisions, including physical/sexual assault, criminal harassment, intimidation, or threat of physical harm or death. Nevertheless, police are frequently called on to intervene in domestic situations because of noncriminal complaints—primarily “verbal arguments” (Gover, Paul, & Dodge, 2011)—and increasingly so, according to at least one report (Toronto Police Services, 2011). One explanation for increased reporting of verbal arguments where no criminal offense is alleged may be the effect of public education/awareness campaigns about domestic violence and greater societal understanding that noncriminal verbal aggression can be the precursor to physical violence; this connection has been known for some time (e.g., Hydén, 1995; Infante, Sabourin, Rudd, & Shannon, 1990; Murphy & Hoover, 1989; Schumacher & Leonard, 2005).

Recognizing the need for early intervention that might prevent a noncriminal domestic situation from escalating to physical violence, a victim service organization serving a county in Ontario initiated a pilot project. Police were asked to refer people involved in noncriminal, verbally aggressive situations to project personnel who, in turn, referred individuals and families to appropriate community resources. This article draws on interviews with clients of the pilot project to examine the types of cases that were coming to the attention of the police as “verbal altercations,” why individuals called the police, and how they perceived police responses to their situations.

Background

Domestic violence (physical and sexual) has been the subject of research and increasingly recognized since the 1970s. Psychological and verbal aggression in domestic situations has received less attention (except parental abuse of children), but the literature in this area is growing. Generally, verbal aggression, financial abuse, control, and abuse of power are understood as subcategories of psychological or emotional abuse (Follingstad, 2009). Verbal aggression is referred to variously as verbal arguments, verbal attacks, verbal fights, and verbal abuse. For the purpose of this research, we have chosen the term “verbal violence” to reflect the gravity of the descriptions of behavior recounted by participants, and to present it as a subcategory of domestic violence. We define verbal violence as verbally aggressive behavior which may include loud yelling, verbal attacks, intimidation, threats, demeaning remarks, and verbal attempts to control and isolate the victim. It may (or may not) be accompanied by other forms of violence. We view it as part of a continuum of domestic violence.

Psychological and Verbal Violence

Based on a national self-reported victimization survey, the incidence of psychological abuse in intimate relationships in Canada is estimated at 17%, almost three times the level of physical and/or sexual violence (Brennan, 2011). While the harms of physical domestic violence are well documented, psychological abuse in intimate relationships is usually studied as a collateral aspect of physical/sexual violence, rather than as a separate phenomenon. Particularly in terms of its relative effects, psychological aggression has not been “disentangled” from physical aggression (Follingstad, 2009, p. 271).

Nevertheless, in her review of the literature, Follingstad (2009) cited a number of studies confirming a range of negative outcomes, including depression (deepened by isolation and control; Ali et al., 1999; Coker et al., 2002; Marshall, 1994), serious health symptoms (Coker, Smith, Bethea, King, & McKeown, 2000), low self-esteem (Baldry, 2003; Orava, McLeod, & Sharpe, 1996; Taft et al., 2006), and relationship/marital breakdown (Gortner, Jacobson, Berns, & Gottman, 1997; Raghavan, Swan, Snow, & Mazure, 2005). Some research suggests that the negative consequences of ongoing psychological and/or verbal abuse in intimate relationships may be of equal or greater severity and more lasting than the effects of physical violence (e.g., Hart, Binggeli, & Brassard, 1998; Loring, 1994; Seff, Beaulaurier, & Newman, 2008). Indeed, women who have experienced both physical and psychological abuse have reported the latter to be worse (Baldry, 2003; Follingstad, Rutledge, Berg, Hause, & Polek, 1990 as cited in Follingstad, 2009). In situations where physical aggression ceases following legal intervention, psychological and verbal abuse may continue (Hoyle & Sanders, 2000).

In short, the research points to the serious effects of psychological abuse, including verbal violence, in domestic situations, the need to understand its ramifications for victims, and the importance of developing effective responses. The gravity of verbal violence and its harms are not reflected in the Criminal Code, nor are they necessarily appreciated by individual police officers. Officers may resent its reporting, believing that “too many domestic violence cases consist of verbal family arguments,” and “in most cases, domestic violence is verbal and requires no police” (Gover et al., 2011, p. 632). In one study, officers complained that having to complete risk assessment forms for verbal arguments and minor assaults in domestic situations was a “waste of time” (Grant & Rowe, 2011, p. 56). These findings seem to reflect a lack of understanding that verbal violence signals a possibility of escalation, and are consistent with Trujillo and Ross’s (2008) findings that “police expect most incidents of domestic violence to be a one-off situation, as opposed to a pattern of abuse” (p. 465). Police responses to verbal violence in domestic situations may also reflect a crime-focused view of the police role (Grant & Rowe, 2011) which precludes responsibility for preventative interventions. Police may also have difficulty determining the degree of seriousness where a verbal altercation is the reported problem.

Victim Perceptions of Police Responses to Domestic Violence

While much of the literature on police response to domestic violence draws on surveys and interviews of police and police-related documents, since the mid-1990s an increasing number of studies give voice to victims, providing critical information which can be used to effect and evaluate institutional policy and practice (Barata & Senn, 2003; I. M. Johnson, 2007). Such research raises questions about the role of police intervention in protecting women (e.g., Hoyle & Sanders, 2000) and examines the efficacy of particular approaches from the victim’s point of view (e.g., Apsler, Cummins, & Carl, 2003; Rajah, Frye, & Haviland, 2006; Smith, 2000). Studies of women’s help-seeking have been used to challenge longstanding theoretical constructs such as Walker’s (1979) application of “learned helplessness” (e.g., Hutchison & Hirschel, 1998) and contextualize victims’ responses to the legal process (e.g., Anderson et al., 2003; Fleury, Sullivan, Bybee, & Davidson, 1998; I. M. Johnson, 2007; Stephens & Sinden, 2000). Furthermore, victim accounts assist in understanding how criminal justice responses affect women’s subsequent decision-making (Erez & Belknap, 1998). For example, unhelpful or negative experiences with police can pose a barrier to women extricating themselves from an abusive relationship or contribute to a subsequent reluctance to seek assistance (Anderson et al., 2003; Fleury et al., 1998; Grasely et al., 1999; I. M. Johnson, 2007; Wolf, Ly, Hobart, & Kernie, 2003), while a helpful and supportive response can encourage a victim to seek a restraining order, proceed with prosecution, call again (Fischer & Rose, 1995; Fleury et al., 1998), and/or end the relationship. Several studies have described the importance of victim-centered approaches (e.g., I. M. Johnson, 2007; Stephens & Sinden, 2000).

Although some research notes a positive shift in police attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Stephens & Sinden, 2000), victims’ evaluations of police responses to domestic violence are mixed. Some victims report that police were “supportive, understanding, kind, and respectful” and went out of their way to assist them (Erez & Belknap, 1998, p. 33), while many report discouraging remarks or attitudes, including victim blaming, minimizing injuries, and “cold and uncaring” statements (p. 256). Some encounters were perceived so negatively that victims “lost confidence in the ability of the police to offer any kind of effective assistance” (Grasely et al., 1999, p. 34). Erez & Belknap (1998) suggest that inadequate systemic responses may precipitate “a deeper despair than the abuse itself” (p. 263).

Only a few studies of police responses make specific reference to psychological and/or verbal abuse, usually cursorily. Anderson et al.’s (2003) study of 485 victims in a domestic violence advocacy center noted the prevalence of verbal and other (nonphysical) controlling behaviors. Grasely et al. (1999) similarly found that a considerable number of women interviewed reported that their partners had subjected them to verbal, emotional, and/or psychological abuse, but the authors did not separate this from physical abuse in analyzing police responses. Wolf et al. (2003) noted victims’ perceptions that evidence of physical abuse is required to report to police, arguing that “[e]motional abuse . . . was viewed as a much grayer area and it was more difficult for women to both define when abuse had occurred and when to seek help” (p. 123). Coulter, Keuehnle, Byers, and Alfonso (1999) included victims of emotional abuse in their study of women in a domestic violence shelter, noting that police need more training in recognizing and responding to it. Beyond this, the literature on victim perceptions of police responses has little to say about psychological and/or verbal forms of aggression, and certainly none focuses on police intervention in situations where noncriminal verbal violence is the primary complaint. This study attempts to begin to address this significant gap in the literature.

Method

Participants

Research participants for this study were self-selected from a pool of individuals who had been referred by police to the pilot project on verbal violence mentioned above. Victim services staff attempted to contact previous project clients by phone as part of a follow-up process and asked those clients they were able to reach if they were willing to participate in the research which was described as an attempt to gain greater understanding of verbal situations that resulted in a call to the police. The pilot project staff reported that many of their clients had moved since their involvement with the project, and it often took many phone calls before they were able to make contact, if at all. Taking safety into consideration, victim services staff asked clients whether they wanted the researchers to contact them (and if so at what phone number) or preferred to contact the researchers themselves. All the participants chose the former. The researchers were then provided with contact information for those who agreed to participate and followed up directly.

The pilot project referred 56 people to the research team. The researchers were not able to reach all 56, despite many attempts. Some participants withdrew from the study prior to the initial interview. In one situation, the woman phoned to tell the researcher that she could not make the appointment because she had been up all night fielding death threats from a former partner and was in the process of fleeing. Two women withdrew because they did not “want to go over that all again,” while others simply could not be reached or did not return phone calls. The final sample consisted of 30 individuals, 27 women, and three men, ranging in age from 17 to 70 years. Participants’ education levels varied from Grade 10 to college diplomas and/or university degrees. Most participants had children and the majority had lived most of their lives in the county where the research took place. Nearly all the participants described situations characterized by what we would define as verbal violence.

Study Design

This was an exploratory, interdisciplinary study, conducted using a qualitative approach. Given the sensitive nature of the study, participants were engaged in a thorough consent process³; they were reminded prior and subsequent to the interview that they could reconnect with the referring agency should they need further assistance. The researchers were prepared to suspend the interview, and support the referral process, if the need arose.

In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted, ranging from 45 min to 3 hr in length. With participants’ permission, interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy. Terms such as verbal violence and emotional/verbal abuse were not used by the researchers initially in the interviews; nor did we assume that participants saw themselves as victims or aggressors. The language used to describe their experiences was provided by the interviewees; participants were simply asked, “What were the circumstances that led to your involvement with the police?” Probing questions were used to guide and clarify the account. Only after the participant was given ample opportunity to tell their story in their own words did the interviewers ask specifically whether they considered the experience “abuse” and whether they saw themselves as “victims.”

The interpretation of the data began during the interview with the participation of the interviewee (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997) and was then continued postinterviews through analysis of the transcripts and in-depth discussions among the researchers using what Glaser and Strauss (1967) called the “constant comparative method,” where data collection takes place simultaneously with data analysis. The identification of thematic codes was initially guided by the questions asked during the interviews. Then, as the data accumulated, we collaborated in systematic review and semantic coding of the interview transcriptions, aided by computer-assisted word searches. For this article, the parts of interviews that described interactions with the police were separated from the larger narratives. To crystallize themes specific to the police response, the authors compared participant narratives, looking for similarities as well as differences, and engaged in ongoing discussion and reflection. The fine-tuning of the emergent themes was done by the first author. Drawing on feminist sensitivities, the interdisciplinary literature on domestic violence, and a critical criminology perspective, we contextualized “thick” descriptions (Creswell, 1998) of the participants’ experiences of verbal violence and their perceptions of police responses to their situations. To further contextualize the findings, the first author spoke with five police officers from three Ontario police forces (three of whom specialized in domestic violence), and a well-known researcher/practitioner whose agency is a leader in domestic violence research and clinical response.

The interviews generated in-depth subjective accounts. It was not our intention to try to verify what was said to us, but to give voice to the victims so that others might learn from them. This is an exploratory study and therefore may or may not be generalizable to other victims or other jurisdictions; we believe, however, that it raises issues that may resonate with the experiences of other victims, and that it brings attention to systemic issues, which suggest the need for practical changes and further research.

Findings and Discussion

The Experience and Context of Verbal Violence

The interviews revealed very complex family situations. Disability, drug/alcohol abuse, unemployment, and serious physical and mental illnesses were common themes. It is significant that although the reported incidents generally involved verbal violence, participants often described a more extensive and long-lived pattern of abuse. This fabric of abuse included ongoing demeaning and hateful language, chronic hostility, putdowns, yelling/swearing, accusations of infidelity, threats (often involving the home or children), humiliation, financial abuse, and various forms of intimidating, controlling/terrorizing behaviors, frequently including extensive property damage and sometimes physical or sexual violence. A full examination of the current and historical contexts provided an understanding of the gravity of each situation. Frequently participants reported histories of physical and/or sexual violence with a former partner and/or the family of origin. Police were sometimes not made aware of current physical violence, death threats, and threats with a weapon. Participants also reported situations where the abuse that they suffered at the hands of their present or former partners had been taken up by their teenage sons.

Reasons for Calling the Police

Fear

Participants described a range of reasons for calling the police; however, most calls were precipitated by fear. Usually the person who was the target of the verbal violence called the police.

Frances⁴ was married for 25 years to a man who had changed dramatically after an acquired brain injury; she went to the police after he threatened to kill her:

I was just at my wits’ end at that point and all this had been going on for 6, 7 months. Me and my one son walked to the police station. I talked to a policeman . . . and my son told him exactly what had been going on. I was like, terrified at that point. I mean I couldn’t even move in the house.

Nancy went to the police when a friend sent her a copy of what an abusive ex-boyfriend had posted about her on Facebook. She understood the potential danger of the threatening tone (e.g., “I want to make her pay”). She told the police, “Should he end up at my door while he’s drinking . . . I have no idea what he’s capable of. Is he putting me in a position of being scared? Hell, yeah!”

Sometimes it was a sudden change in the level of aggression that caused fear: “I didn’t think he would cross any paths in that regards but he went right in my face and started screaming. Like two inches, like his nose to my nose . . . and then I just ran into my bedroom and . . . called the cops.” (Darlene)

The study’s identification of fear as the main factor precipitating a call to the police is consistent with the finding of Barrett and St. Pierre (2011) that fear is “the largest independent predictor of women’s use of supports” in physically violent situations. Furthermore, research indicates “an association between women feeling ‘very frightened’ . . . and experience of repeat victimization” (Robinson, 2007, cited in Dichter & Gelles, 2012, p. 45); hence, fear is identified as a risk correlate. The fear was intensified when accompanied by attempts to control, property damage, threats, and clear indications of escalation, consistent with M. P. Johnson’s (2008) typology of “intimate terrorism.” The emergence of fear in situations described in the study, suggests that even where no criminal event has apparently taken place, it nonetheless needs to be taken seriously. Indeed, one of the police officers interviewed, who specialized in domestic violence, emphasized that “the police are the best game in town,” when fear is predominant, whether the basis of a complaint is criminal or not.

Reaching a “Turning Point”

Participants, particularly those who had suffered verbal violence for a long time, called the police when they had had “enough” (Fischer & Rose, 1995), or reached a “turning point” (Eisikovits, Buchbinder, & Mor, 1998). Hannah, whose partner had been verbally violent and physically coercive toward her for 25 years, stated: “It wasn’t the first time that he really completely went out of control but I thought that time I’d show him that I meant business.” Linda reported experiencing 20 years of psychological and verbal abuse from her husband, and she described her turning point as being “when my nephew died and the day before we buried him, I found out I had cancer. And I thought, ‘I cannot deal with my husband anymore. Something has to go.’ And I chose him to go.”

Desired Outcomes

While acknowledging their fear, most of the participants at least initially expressed a reluctance to criminalize the aggressor, even if a criminal charge was possible. In several cases, the main concern was getting help for their partner, or having him temporarily removed:

The officer asked what I wanted done and I just told him I wanted help for him . . . I wanted him removed from the situation . . . so he can cool down because if he were to stay, I knew something would happen. I didn’t want it escalating any more than it had. (Grace)

Isabel wanted her partner taken from the home as well: “Like I told the police that I didn’t want to charge him. I just wanted him to be gone, because he calls me down, whatever, smashes things, just like terrorizes you.”

Most participants just wanted the offending behavior to end: “And I’m like, I don’t want to have to charge him . . . but this is getting concerning. I just want him to stop.” (Mary).

The apparent reluctance on the part of the study participants to see their partner charged by the police is consistent with the domestic violence literature which has found that most victims decline to make a statement or recant if they do (Buzawa & Buzawa, 1996; Cretney & Davis, 1995; Hoyel, 1998; Hoyle & Sanders, 2000: as cited in White, Goldkamp, & Campbell, 2005). Victims perceive that committing to a criminal process requires the abandonment of any sense of control; court involvement is seen as being very difficult and intimidating, with unpredictable and perhaps negative outcomes.

Perceptions of Police Responses

Mixed Perceptions

Not surprisingly, and in keeping with the literature on victims’ perceptions in domestic violence situations, reactions to police interventions were mixed. Some participants were positive about the police response, particularly when the intervention was seen as effective:

They were pretty nice; like they actually told him to leave the house and not to come back for a couple of days. So they did a good job with that. Like he actually left . . . like if I would have said it he would have come back home. (Carrie)

Sometimes a warning from the police was sufficient to bring an end to unwanted behaviors. For example, Susan reported that after she complained to the police about her ex-husband’s girlfriend “texting nasty messages,” the police officer told the girlfriend that “if you text her again or anything, you’re in serious trouble.” The messaging stopped.

As noted by Stephens & Sinden (2000), the demeanor of the police officer was important: “They were fast to respond. Like they weren’t overbearing like some officers can be. But . . . this one wasn’t. They were nice. They talked to me.” (Grace) By contrast, another participant perceived the police more negatively: “I don’t think that they were very nice . . . they were cold . . . just cold. I guess maybe [they should] listen more instead of accusing . . . or instead of making you feel like you were the criminal . . . for the victim, I guess [they need] to be more sensitive . . . and maybe more willing to understand.” (Isabel)

Some participants reported relatively positive experiences in previous encounters with the police, but were disappointed by more recent responses. For example, when Mary was physically assaulted by her son’s father, the police were “always very supportive and helpful and proactive.” However, when she was being harassed by a neighbor whom she had dated briefly, she described the officer as having “an attitude.” From her point of view, he did not do a proper investigation; he did not look at the threatening texts and phone messages. Furthermore, he promised to give a warning to the neighbor, but she watched as he drove away without doing so: “I was really upset and flustered, right? Because I didn’t feel helped.” Her mother made a complaint to the police and the officer returned, this time reviewing the text and phone messages and taking a closer look at the situation. Although he said he would warn the neighbor “again,” he indicated that there was nothing else he could do. Mary reported that the situation deteriorated to the point where the neighbor was shooting her house with BB gun pellets, but that the police insisted there was little they could do because they could not prove that the pellets found outside her house belonged to him.

Nancy was also pleased with her first contact with the police but unhappy with the second response. When she reported the threatening messages her ex-boyfriend was posting on his Facebook, the responding officer took her complaint seriously and told her he could be charged with criminal harassment; he also told her that he would warn the ex-boyfriend that if he violated the no-trespass order (put in place by her landlord), he would be charged. When there were further threats on Facebook, Nancy called the police again. The second time the response was very different and Nancy believed that the officer had not read the previous report; she felt blamed:

A woman cop showed up here. She seemed very abrasive with me, like I’m the initiator in all this. And I’m like, you know what? I’m living my life everyday . . . I’ve got my own stresses. I don’t need this . . . Just make it stop. (Nancy).

The gender of the police officer

The incident above seemed to be an example of the intra-female gender hostility thesis (Batchelder, Koski, & Bysbe, 2004), which argues that women police officers are less sympathetic to female victims in an attempt to distance themselves from victims and accommodate to a male-dominated police culture (Chesler, 2001, as cited in Wentz & Archbold, 2012). However, one participant told the researcher that she agreed to be interviewed because she wanted to tell us that it was the response of a sympathetic and reassuring female officer who was “really, really good” with her that gave her the confidence to disclose her abuse. She perceived that the gender of the officer made the difference, and she was not alone in this belief. For example, Grace also told the interviewer, “I think when police are called for a domestic, there should be at least one female officer [dispatched], if possible.”

In the study, the police force responding to participants had a particularly low representation of women officers (less than 11%) and female police officers were mentioned infrequently. Given the limited data, we concluded that the issue of gender and its relationship to victim perceptions of police response deserves further study. If gender affects the degree to which police are inclined to take domestic violence situations seriously (Gracia, Garcia, & Lila, 2011), then it seems this might also be the case with reported situations of verbal violence. We further emphasize that, in the context of our study, what is most important is the victim’s anticipation of a more sympathetic response from a woman police officer which may give rise to anger when it does not materialize (as suggested in the example above) and/or to a concurrent reluctance to disclose to male officers. This should be taken into account and addressed through hiring practices and training that reinforces the importance of sympathetic responses to victims for all police officers, but ensures the right of gender choice for victims when it is their preference.

Perceptions of Unfairness

Many participants reported police responses that they perceived as unfair. The reasons behind perceptions of injustice were interwoven, and mainly arose from being asked to leave the home, and being held equally responsible, or mutually culpable.

Being asked to leave the home

Perceptions of unfairness arose when the police asked participants, who perceived themselves as victims, to leave their homes. When the alleged abuser initiated police contact, it was particularly problematic for the person who saw herself as the victim to assert her claim to victim status. For example, Olivia reported that her husband had pursued her from room to room, screaming in her face and when she tried to protect herself by locking herself in the washroom he kept yelling at her until she was crying and very upset, at which point, he called the police. Reportedly, the officers believed her husband’s claim that she was the problem and asked her to leave for the night, “without the kids: my niece, my three children from a previous relationship and his two . . . They believed everything he said . . . . But I still couldn’t believe it. My kids are all in the house and stuff, and I got asked to leave.”

When the police came to Karen’s house following a protracted spate of verbal violence by her drunken husband, her two daughters expressed the desire to go to their maternal grandmother’s home. Crying at the memory, Karen recounted how the police informed her that she could not go with them. She was very upset that she was put in the same category as her husband—as if she was an equal threat to her children’s well-being. When the police were called to another incident, Karen was again asked to leave, this time with her daughters. Within a few days, her husband moved a new girlfriend into the house with her children, resulting in Karen and her young children losing their home. Adding insult to injury, she continued to pay the mortgage and utilities in order to protect her credit rating.

Some participants resisted when the police asked them to leave. For example, Mary was incensed when the officer responding to her complaint of a neighbor’s ongoing harassment, suggested that she, “a single mother with a young child, living in supportive housing, move”; she told him so and the officer backed down. Several women said that they left their homes more than once at the direction of the police before finally asserting themselves and insisting that the abuser be the one to leave:

I was sick of having to drag out 3 kids in the middle of the night and try to find somewhere to go because [the women’s shelter] doesn’t take the boys because they’re too old . . . And I just thought . . . like why are the police making me leave? When they see he is really drunk. It’s wrong . . . . But I finally said to the police officers that night, “I am not leaving. If anybody’s going in this house, it’s him.” (Linda)

Frances asked the police on several occasions to remove her husband, but she was told that because his name was on the mortgage, they could not: “They just kept saying that he had all the rights to be in the home . . . and they were saying, well, go to [the women’s shelter] . . . and I’m going, why should I go to [the shelter]? If I leave, the kids don’t want to be alone with him. Where are they going to go?”

When women were asked to leave the home, the rationale seemed to be that the parties needed to be separated for a “cooling off” period to ensure the safety of all involved. The temporary separation of the abuser and victim in domestic violence situations used to be a common practice until it was found to be ineffective (Sherman & Berk, 1984). When no criminal act has been identified, police lack authority to remove anyone, and therefore are limited in what actions they can take. In that case, they may be falling back on old practices in the absence of a legal alternative. They may also have asked the women to leave because of anticipated cooperation and concern for their safety. As reported above, however, these departures not only involved substantial disruption and inconvenience, but had serious consequences in some cases (loss of housing⁵), and left the participants feeling doubly victimized and unjustly punished. This practice also reflects a long history of framing the problem of domestic violence in terms of the victim’s failure to exit the situation. (i.e., “Why doesn’t she leave?”). In criticizing this approach, feminist researchers and activists have long pointed out that the focus should be on the societal and practical barriers to women leaving (Anderson et al., 2003; DeKeseredy, 2011). However, this critique still frames the solution in terms of the woman and her children needing assistance to leave the home (e.g., a woman’s shelter) and obscures the role of the male perpetrator (Wiegers, 1994). It predicates the right to security on the willingness to waive another hard-won right for women—the right to property. The expectation that women and children should leave has been argued in the feminist legal literature to exacerbate gender inequity, make women more vulnerable, and privilege male power in the home. (As Frances bitterly complained, “It was all about his rights.”) In one situation, the male aggressor was not even the homeowner, yet it was the woman who was asked to leave her home.

The practice of asking women to leave their homes, together with the destruction of jointly owned property and the law enforcement response to it (see below), reflect the ways in which unequal gender relations under patriarchy are not only ideological, but carry important material consequences as well (Comack, 1999)—consequences that further traumatize abused women.

Mutual culpability

A theme that emerged from women’s accounts was that the police often did not believe their version of events, and blamed or held them equally responsible for the situation, thereby failing to acknowledge their victimization and the power inequity between them and their partners. Karen was upset when the police told her she could not take her children with her, as if she were an equal threat to them. When the police told Frances and her husband that if they had to come back, “Somebody was going to jail,” it was not entirely clear to her who the “somebody” was. Other women also reported being blamed and/or held mutually responsible. For example, Regina recounted:

[My husband] was down the street, yelling at me that he was taking the kids and I was a bitch and all that kind of stuff . . . . He was standing in the middle of the road, yelling and screaming at me. [A neighbor] called the police . . . . I said [to the woman police officer], “You need to help me. I can’t get my kids home.” And I was panicked and scared. And she says, “Well, what would you like me to do?” I said, “Well, number one, he’s standing out in the middle of the street, yelling and causing a disturbance. Can’t you do something about that?” “No. We can’t.” And I said, “What do you mean, ‘No, we can’t?’” She says, “Well, he’s really not causing a disturbance to anybody else, but you . . . What do you think we are? Babysitters for your drunken husband?” And I said, “No, but I just want to go home. Can you take me home? At least get me and my kids into—” [and the police officer said] “No, we can’t do that. We can’t transport you in a public vehicle.” I looked at her and I went, “Really.” And she says, “You get what you ask for.” (Regina)

The officer went on to remind Regina “how many times” they had previously come to her house. Regina reported feeling very angry at what she perceived to be a blaming approach. This response may have been the officer’s attempt to take a different approach, as past interventions had apparently failed; it may also have reflected the frustration that many officers experience in responding to domestic violence situations that persist and are seemingly intractable (R. R. Johnson, 2004; Toon & Hart, 2005). Police are generally trained to try to resolve a situation so that they do not have to return—a “one off” intervention (Trujillo & Ross, 2008). This may also explain why a number of participants reported that the police seemed annoyed at repeat calls for assistance. However, in domestic violence situations, the expectation that the matter can be resolved quickly is, in many situations, unrealistic and may even be harmful.

It is also a concern that participants frequently reported that the police did not believe their version of events, instead, apparently privileging the male account. One police officer in the study described a typical scenario in domestic violence situations as one where the man harasses/abuses the woman until she is very upset, and then when the police come, he presents himself as “calm, cool, and collected” and therefore credible while she is perceived as “hysterical” and therefore less reliable. This apparent tendency to take the man’s word over the woman’s prompted outrage and discouragement.

Escalation From Verbal Violence to Physical Violence

The pilot project was initiated by the local victims’ services with the intent of intervening in noncriminal domestic altercations in order to prevent escalation to physical violence. While there were certainly cases among the participants we interviewed that were in keeping with this mandate, there were others where, although the reported complaint was noncriminal, the situation had already escalated to physical acts of violence. Grace told the interviewer of an incident prior to the verbal one where the police were called, where her husband made a threat with a knife. Hannah spoke of being physically forced into a corner and kept there for hours. Neither of these incidents was reported to the police, in Grace’s case because she “didn’t think it was relevant.”

In Vicky’s situation, a neighbor had reported the sound of verbal fighting to the police. Although the situation was reported as a verbal altercation, she indicated that she had been badly beaten (“covered with contusions”) by her partner, but when the police arrived, her boyfriend told them she had hit him as well (which she denied). The police told her that “if they were going to take him they were taking me too.” The implications of being arrested frightened her so much that she retreated: “As soon as they said that you’d be charged too, I felt that that door was just totally closed.” The beatings continued and neighbors kept calling the police to complain about the disturbance, but each time they came, Vicky insisted, “Everything was fine.” She estimated that the police came 18-23 times before an officer took her aside and told her that he could not help her unless she told him what was really going on. Still frightened by the threat of being charged, she remained silent. Finally, when a woman officer came; Vicky told her what was happening, and he was charged.

It is concerning that a number of cases reportedly involving serious violence were not identified by police; some of the situations could have ended tragically. One of the police officers interviewed said that, when called out on a “verbal,” she always assumes that physical violence has taken place. She stressed the importance of police officers doing a proper investigation and “asking the right questions” in order to uncover the range of incidents that may have happened and continuing to ask them in situations where there are repeated calls for assistance, even in the face of an initial denial by the probable victim.

Frances’ situation seemed to provide opportunity for early intervention, but instead was allowed to escalate. When Frances first called the police because of her husband’s threatening behavior, they took him to a local hospital for a mental health assessment, but then brought him home. As the situation deteriorated, and her husband became increasingly threatening and violent, pilot project staff urged Frances to continue to call the police, “in order to create a history.” The police ultimately arrested her husband but only after weeks of terror and major disruptions, leaving her asking, “Why did it have to escalate to this point where a family is torn apart? . . . I just feel that something else should have been done way before.”

Dual Charging

Another issue that emerged in the study, particularly in situations that had escalated to physical violence, was dual charging and the use of dual charging as a threat, which emerged in participants’ accounts of both physically and verbally violent situations. Several women were very bitter that their attempts to defend themselves resulted in dual charges. In Vicky’s case, an officer’s threat of dual charging frightened her such that she endured many additional beatings rather than disclose what was really going on, effectively silencing her and creating an impediment to her getting the help she needed. Instead, she remained in a dangerous situation—perhaps made more dangerous by the implicit message to her abuser⁶ that he could assault her with impunity.

Dual charging stems from a mandatory charging environment, originally introduced because it had been demonstrated to be a deterrent in cases of domestic violence (Sherman & Berk, 1984). Mandatory charging continues to be debated (e.g., Leisenring, 2008); its correlate of dual charging has been strongly criticized for being counterproductive and a deterrent to women victims reporting subsequent incidents, therefore putting them at greater risk (Henning, Renauer, & Holdford, 2006). Furthermore, it has been characterized as a “backlash” response on the part of police to mandatory charging policies (Barata & Senn, 2003) and associated with a dramatic increase in the arrest of women and girls both in Canada and the United States (Buzawa & Hotaling, 2006; Chesney-Lind, 2002; Comack, Chopyk, & Wood, 2000.) In the study, women were found to deeply resent dual charging (both actual and as a threat). Even if the charge is eventually thrown out, the short-term consequences can involve major disruption including the loss of jobs and custody of children. The threat of dual charging was a deterrent to reporting dangerous situations and added to the participants’ perceptions of unfairness.

In Canada, there is no policy of dual charging, but some provinces have introduced mandatory charging policies in domestic violence cases. The Ontario Policing Standards Manual directs police officers “to lay charges in all cases of domestic violence where there are probable grounds to do so” (Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, 2000, p. 7). As one police officer pointed out, the role of police is not to be an adjudicator; if it is not readily apparent to the police who the primary aggressor is, or if one person claims that they were trying to protect themselves, the police may leave it to the courts to determine whether an assault was committed in self-defense or not committed at all. However, another key informant noted that in her jurisdiction the city police force had come to an agreement with local agencies to stop the practice of dual charging because of its detrimental impact on women.

Property Damage

Extensive property damage often accompanied the verbal violence reported by participants. Frances’ husband had been removed from the house by the police, but returned when the family was absent to damage and steal household property and cut off utilities (gas for heat, the phone, and cable):

He would break things, um . . . if I bought food he would take the food out of the house. Um . . . he had taken some of my personal affects; he’d taken all my jewelry, anything that had sentimental value. (Frances)

Lana also described her boyfriend’s destruction of her property:

[He] went down to my house to see if I was there, and I wasn’t there, and he destroyed my house. Kicked in my refrigerator door, my cupboards, and smashed up my mirrors in the home . . . . The front hall and the front window was all smashed in and there was glass all through the whole house—upstairs, downstairs . . . . the house was just totaled.

When he returned later and started destroying her car, she called the police.

There was a marked difference in the police response between these two cases: in Lana’s case, the boyfriend was arrested while the married participant (Frances) was told by one officer that she could change the locks, but if her husband kicked the door in or destroyed the television set they would not be able to do anything, because they could not stop him from destroying “his” property. The fact that it was also her property was not, from her perspective, taken into consideration. It is possible that the police mistakenly believed that in a situation involving a married couple their actions were limited by Ontario family property law⁷; however, it seems to us that the husband could have been charged with “mischief to property” under the Criminal Code (s. 430). Specifically, Section 429 clarifies that “partial interest in what is destroyed or damaged” does not prevent a person from being guilty of the offense, suggesting that marital property could be protected under this legislation.

The data demonstrated that the destruction of property was a significant form of terrorizing and intimidation. The women believed that it was a small leap from destroying their property to destroying them. As Frances recounted saying to the police, when they said they could do nothing about the destruction of property or access to the marital property, “When you find me dead on the kitchen floor, are you still going to say, ‘but his name was on the mortgage’?”

Fear of destruction of personal property was also an element in decision-making with regard to leaving the situation. For example, one participant, although she feared for her life, was reluctant to go to a place of safety because she was afraid that her partner would destroy her furniture, the only inheritance remaining from her parents’ estate, hence of great sentimental value. Women were also concerned about what would happen to pets in their absence.

Criminal Charges/Peace Bonds

Where criminal acts (e.g., uttering threats, criminal harassment) were disclosed as part of the verbal violence, the police response seemed to be inconsistent in terms of following through with criminal charges or peace bonds. For example, in Nancy’s case, where there were threatening Facebook postings, the first police officer was willing to proceed with a charge of criminal harassment, but the second officer was not and, instead, was reported to have taken a victim-blaming approach.

Amanda reported that following a conflict with her ex-partner that she perceived as “not a big deal,” the police immediately took her to the station and had her “sign a peace bond” (i.e., a promise to “keep the peace” under Criminal Code s. 810(3). By contrast, although Frances was afraid for her life, it took many calls to the police before an officer proceeded with legal action under the Criminal Code. She was told, instead, to apply for a restraining order (under the Family Property Act) which required her hiring a lawyer; however, she did not have the financial resources to do that because her husband had emptied their joint account. She called the police again when he threatened (again) to kill her, asking them to send someone right away, which they did:

Again [the officer] kept saying “you should get a peace bond”; I kept saying, “I can’t afford it. I have no money. What I have, I need for me and my kids.” So then he was really good and he took it in his own control and . . . we wrote up statements . . . And they went and picked him up and charged him. And the police put restrictions that he can’t come to the house, can’t have any contact with me . . . . [I think] the only reason it happened that day was because . . . of how scared I was. I was crying. I just kept saying, “Look at your police records for the last month,” . . . So they finally acted. (Frances)

Frances referred to restraining orders and peace bonds interchangeably. In fact, the former is governed by provincial family law legislation and requires a lawyer to apply for it (hence the cost), while the latter falls under the Criminal Code (s. 810) and can be obtained by appearing before a Justice of the Peace at no charge. It is unclear whether Frances’ confusion arose from her own failure to understand the difference or whether the professionals she talked with did not properly clarify her options (or were themselves confused). Police have been able to apply for a peace bond on behalf of a victim since 1995; it is unclear whether the officer who finally did arrest her husband made use of this or another provision. Notably, one of the police officers interviewed said that in her jurisdiction victims were never expected to obtain a protection order on their own.

Discussion

When the people in this study called the police, for the most part, they did so because ongoing situations of verbal violence, often part of a pattern of abuse (Trujillo & Ross, 2008), had reached a point of crisis, where they felt “terrified” and unable to manage the situation without assistance. Participants were afraid either because of what they had already experienced or because of what they anticipated might happen. This research suggests that when the primary complaint is verbal violence, and no physical violence or explicit death threats are reported or evidenced, this cannot be interpreted as an indication of the absence of physical violence or threats, nor that the situation is without grave risk.

The participant accounts seemed to support the claim that there is a tendency for some police to minimize verbal violence (Gover et al., 2011; Grant & Rowe, 2011), and lack an appreciation for how verbal violence is often part of a pattern of abuse (Gover et al., 2011; Trujillo & Ross, 2008). This study underlines the importance of police interventions in verbal violence in domestic situations and certainly from the victims’ points of view, shows little to support the claim by some police officers that “most incidents do not require police” (Gover et al., 2011). Indeed, as one of the police officers interviewed in the study stated:

The criminal code cases, physical violence that is escalating—they are a no-brainers. But the ones that don’t present with violence, those are the ones we really need to focus on. Those are the ones where victims may end up dead.

The study confirmed that police need greater assistance in understanding and responding to verbal violence (Coulter et al., 1999).

Police work tends to be episodically focused, and shaped by institutionally endorsed demarcations between criminal and noncriminal events. Situations of verbal violence do not fit easily within these dichotomous categories and likely pose challenges for police who are faced with making such distinctions. A more complex conceptualization of abuse might help police to understand verbal violence. Kelly’s (1988) “continuum” of abuse is one example of a construct that captures the multifaceted nature of abuse. Police training is needed to foster the transcending of bifurcated viewpoints and the establishment of best practices in these situations. We suggest that police need to be more flexible in their response, moving beyond a strictly law-focused approach to a consideration of the role that they can play in early intervention and prevention, as they are doing in other areas of police work.

Situational Ambiguity

According to the women, the police responses varied considerably, and this is in keeping with a wide range of police responses identified in domestic violence situations (Buzawa & Hotaling, 2006). This variance might be even more pronounced, however, in situations of verbal violence where there are no institutional directives as to how to proceed. As one officer noted, until a chargeable offense is identified, police regard “verbal violence” as a verbal dispute with neither offender nor victim. Even in situations involving physical violence, it may be difficult to determine a primary aggressor and primary victim, particularly where both parties have engaged in violent acts—instances that Durfee (2012) refers to as “situationally ambiguous.” If situations involving physical violence “often blur the boundaries of victimization and offending (Ferraro, 2006)” (Durfee, 2012, p. 65), then it stands to reason that verbal violence is likely to be even more ambiguous. Situational ambiguity may also explain why the women’s definitions of their situations often fluctuate, or are unclear. Certainly some of the accounts revealed ambiguity about what is deemed relevant by victims (and police) in situations of domestic violence and such ambiguity is understandable in the context of lengthy and complex histories of abuse. We sympathize with the difficulties police face in dealing with these complicated and emotional situations, as well as the victims who live them.

Irrespective of the factors at play in these situations, the experience common to all the women in this study was fear. Participants’ perceptions of police responses as both unfair and inadequate increased their fear. Indeed, the women’s main gauge in measuring the dangerousness of their situations appeared to be the level of fear arising from the totality of actions against them, whether criminal or not. Victims may, in some situations, arguably be more attuned to the danger they face than are the police, and for this reason it is important that their fear is taken seriously. However, the data also suggested that some victims may minimize or deny the potential risk of verbal violence. For example, there were cases where the police officer wanted to lay a charge but the victim did not, suggesting, perhaps, that the police perceived the women to be in graver situations than they did. In these cases, police need to be prepared to change their approach as the situation, and the woman’s perception of it, changes, rather than resenting further calls for assistance.

Mutual Culpability/Dual Charging

Participants reported feeling blamed and/or treated as cooffenders. In several situations where verbal violence had escalated to physical violence the participants reported that the police threatened or carried through with dual charging. The apparent tendency to hold men and women mutually culpable in verbally violent situations may well be a carryover from the practice of dual charging in situations of physical violence, made all the more likely in the apparent absence of criminalizable acts and material evidence.

Similarly, it is not surprising that participants sometimes reported not only a dismissive attitude toward verbal violence by police but what appeared to be a gender-based pattern of disbelief in which greater credence was given to their male partner’s account than to their own. Such responses to women victims have a long and persistent social and legal history both in domestic violence and sexual assault. Police, operating in a male-dominated institution, may be unaware of a subconscious tendency to attach greater weight to what the man says and approach the woman’s account with greater skepticism, thereby reinforcing male authority in the home (Dobash & Dobash, 1979). The possibility of gender bias must be addressed. Not being believed and/or blamed was very disheartening to participants. It added to their sense of powerlessness and sense of injustice.

Recommendations

Check the History

Given the importance of context to evaluating the gravity of the situations reported by study participants, it was worrisome that participants perceived that the police were acting with limited information about their situations and what had transpired previously. This suggests a gap between policy and practice; for example, even though most policies require police to record histories and consult previous records when dealing with a call, the women’s accounts suggested that this does not always happen in practice. It was frequently mentioned by participants that police officers did not appear to have reviewed past reports nor take a full history. As a result, victims had to explain their situations repeatedly, much to their dismay and frustration, and opportunities for constructive intervention were lost, arguably putting victims at greater risk. Given the ready availability of electronic data through police record management systems (see Sanders & Hannem, 2012), the apparent failure of individual officers to make use of them is somewhat puzzling.⁸ It is also troubling, given the importance that was attached to “gathering, recording, sharing and reviewing information” in domestic situations by an Ontario Coroner’s Inquest with regard to the murder of Arlene May (Government of Ontario,1998). The police may have been disinclined to obtain an extensive history when the presenting problem was verbal violence with no apparent criminal act, but as we discovered, this did not mean that a criminal act had not taken place.

Deconstruct Categorical Thinking

For police to understand the complexities of verbal violence requires stepping away from the categorical thinking that tends to dominate legal discourse. The data underscore the importance of more fluid understandings of verbal aggressors and situations of verbal violence. Police need to appreciate the complex forms and cumulative effects of ongoing verbal violence, and to acknowledge the challenges that these complexities engender for victims. An awareness of context is critical to assessing the potential destructiveness of verbal violence and its inherent danger. However, improved understanding will be limited in its utility if it is not accompanied by reexamination of police expectations that interventions should be “one-off.” We believe that this approach is often neither appropriate nor realistic in domestic violence situations and paves the way for mutual frustration. It is common for women not to want their partner charged, initially. Their view can change, however, and this is a normal progression for someone in an abusive situation—the decision to ask for help is wrought with anxieties about the possible outcomes. It is a process that requires patience and understanding. Police need to be prepared for the view of criminal charging to change when other attempts to deal with the situation fail.

Undertake a Thorough Investigation

The police may have been disinclined to obtain an extensive history or complete a risk assessment when the presenting problem was verbal violence with no apparent criminal act. However, this is problematic because the data indicated that a report of verbal violence did not necessarily mean that a criminal act had not taken place. Indeed, taking an initial report at face value and not proceeding with an investigation put some women in greater jeopardy. It is important for police to be aware that, typically, victims disclose their situations incrementally and may disclose verbal violence first as a way of testing the waters. A victim may need to be questioned more pointedly in a sympathetic manner (and on more than one occasion) before she feels safe enough to be forthcoming about other events. Punitive responses, including threats of dual charging undermine any nascent trust that might otherwise develop between police and victims.

Appropriate risk assessment tools that account for the continuum and diversity of situations (i.e., we do not recommend a one size fits all approach) need to be developed. Where an investigation of verbal violence does not reveal a chargeable offense, the police may have difficulty assessing the degree of risk. Our participants described some instances where there was some degree of mutuality in the conflict; however, the majority of verbally violent situations reported in the study had more in common with M. P. Johnson’s (2008) typology of “intimate terrorism” because of the elements of terror and coercive control. For some participants, the threat to their lives was felt as implicit, and aggressors need not always use physical assault or explicit threats to cause fear. Women wanted police to understand and be responsive to this sense of danger.

Use the Criminal Code When Appropriate

In some situations the complainant did not want her partner criminalized, and the police seemed to act in accordance with this; in other cases the behavior was not criminalizable. However, there were participant accounts which described wanting the police to take legal action and where sections of the Criminal Code possibly could have been applied (e.g., application for a peace bond) but were not. In the absence of specific mention of domestic violence in the Criminal Code, some charges that are applicable to other situations (e.g., intimidation, criminal harassment) are apparently now being used more broadly in domestic situations and police may need to be made more aware of these possibilities. It seemed that there might also be some confusion with regard to property law.⁹ Some training in this area would be useful so that inaccurate information is not provided to victims (e.g., that there is nothing they can do about a husband destroying marital property).

Consider Unintended Consequences

This study underscored the fact that police interventions, however well intended, may result in unintended harms, thus further disempowering and disenfranchising those they are trying to help. The women in this study showed remarkable persistence and agency in their determination to seek help. However, when the police response was perceived as unfair, frustrating, and ineffective, they inadvertently put the woman’s sense of agency at risk, potentially engendering feelings of hopelessness. This supports Erez & Belknap’s (1998) observation that inadequate system responses may precipitate “a deeper despair than the abuse itself” (p. 263) or reinforce a sense of helplessness (Walker, 1979).

The study identified dual charging as having negative consequences for the women in the study, and arguably putting them at greater risk. As noted above, the disproportionate and negative impact on women and girls has been well documented (Buzawa & Hotaling, 2006; Chesney-Lind, 2002). We suggest strongly that this practice be revisited and alternative approaches be considered (e.g., White et al., 2005), as they have been in adjacent jurisdictions. Interventions could serve to empower victims rather than enforce victim powerlessness (Hoyle and Sanders, 2000), be more comprehensive, and involve an interagency team approach (White et al., 2005).

Another practice that gives rise to undesirable consequences is police asking women (and children), who regarded themselves as victims, to leave their homes, with apparent lack of regard for the resulting disruption to their lives, and the additional possibility of further serious outcomes. Asking women to leave their homes may jeopardize their safety and exacerbates the material disadvantages that they frequently face. These findings may be an aberration from prescribed practices; nonetheless, it is an important issue that needs to be further investigated in terms of prevalence and impact. A key informant stated that the women’s shelter where she works is full of women fleeing verbal violence.

Conclusion

Situations that present as verbal disputes are often complex and present challenges to victims and police alike. Our research suggests a conflict between traditional policing approaches and what is needed in situations where the demarcation between criminal and noncriminal events is not always readily apparent and the problem is ongoing and not easily resolved. We found that the main force underlying calls to the police was fear. The evaluation by participants of the police response was mixed, with some reports of supportive and effective responses and others that were perceived as unhelpful, frustrating and/or unjust. Key complaints included being asked to leave the home, being held mutually responsible for the abuse, being blamed, not being believed, and an apparent tendency on the part of investigating officers not to review previous reports. Unintended consequences of the police response included women (and children) losing their homes. Some responses, particularly those that failed to uncover ongoing physical abuse, arguably put the participants at additional risk.

Based on our research, we conclude that police need to examine what changes to practice and training are needed to improve their responses to verbal violence. At the same time, given its complex nature and intersections with other forms of violence, it is important that we understand the limitations of the criminal justice system as a solitary solution. There is an urgent need for a concerted and collaborative interagency effort to support police work on this issue and vice versa. If we are to emphasize early intervention and prevention, responses that are early, comprehensive, multifaceted, and cross-sectorial are required.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the participants for taking the time and being willing to share with us their experiences and perceptions with such candour and a desire to help others. We also thank the police officers and researcher who spoke with the first author for their assistance in helping to contextualize our findings and adding a key dimension to the research.

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: The authors received internal funding from Wilfrid Laurier University and support in kind from Victim Services.

Notes

Author Biographies

Catherine Carolyn Stewart (principal investigator) is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology at Wilfrid Laurier University, Brantford, Ontario, Canada. Previously, she was active as a practitioner in violence against women and children: she has written technical reports, developed prevention programs, and provided multiple training sessions to criminal justice professionals. She now teaches and does research in the areas of women, law and crime, victimology, violence against women and children, sexual abuse/assault, and disability. She has published in the International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences and The Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. A book is forthcoming from the Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Debra Langan is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology at Wilfrid Laurier University, Brantford, Ontario, Canada. She has researched and published in the areas of violence against women, families and intimate relations, and critical pedagogy, and has recent publications in Women’s Studies International Forum, and Action Research. Her forthcoming publications focus on community policing and cyber bullying.

Stacey Hannem is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology at Wilfrid Laurier University Brantford, Ontario, Canada. Her research interests focus on the effects of crime and incarceration on families and systemic inequalities in the justice system. She is coeditor with Chris Bruckert of Stigma Revisited, a collection of empirical research on Stigma (University of Ottawa Press, 2012), and has recently published in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, and Canadian Sociological Review.

References

Ali

Toner

B. B.

Stuckless

Gallop

Diamant

N. E.

Gould

M. I.

(1999). Emotional abuse as a precipitating factor for depression in women. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1(4), 1-13.

Anderson

M. A.

Gillig

P. M.

Sitaker

McCloskey

Malloy

Grigsby

(2003). “Why doesn’t she just leave?”: A descriptive study of victim reported impediments to her safety. Journal of Family Violence, 18(3), 151-155.

Apsler

Cummins

M. R.

Carl

(2003). Perceptions of the police by female victims of domestic partner violence. Violence Against Women, 9, 1318-1335.

Baldry

A. C.

(2003). “Sticks and stones hurt my bones but his glance and words hurt more:” The impact of psychological violence by former and current partners on battered women in Italy. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 2(1), 47-57.

Barata

Senn

C. Y.

(2003). When two fields collide: An examination of the assumptions of social science research and law within the domain of domestic violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 4(3), 3-21.

Barrett

B. J.

St. Pierre

(2011). Variations in women’s help seeking in response to intimate partner violence: Findings from a Canadian population-based study. Violence Against Women, 17(1), 47-70.

Batchelder

J. S.

Koski

D. D.

Bysbe

F. R.

(2004). Women’s hostility toward women in rape trials: Testing the intra-femal gender hostility thesis. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 28(2), 181-200.

Brennan

(2011). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Statistics Canada, Government of Canada.

Buzawa

E. S.

Hotaling

G. T.

(2006). The impact of relationship status, gender, and minor status in the police response to domestic assaults. Victims and Offenders, 1, 323-360.

10.

Chesney-Lind

(2002). Criminalizing victimization: The unintended consequences of pro-arrest policies for girls and women. Criminology & Public Policy, 2(1), 81-90.

11.

Coker

A. L.

Davis

K. E.

Arias

Desai

Sanderson

Brandt

H. M.

(2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 260-268.

12.

Coker

A. L.

Smith

P. H.

Bethea

King

M. J.

McKeown

R. E.

(2000). Physical health consequences of physical and psychological intimate partner violence. Archives of Family Medicine, 9, 451-457.

13.

Comack

(1999). Theoretical excursions. In Comack

Arat--Koc

Busby

Chunn

D. E.

Fudge

Gavigan

S. A. M.

Jakubowski

L. M.

Johnson

Monture-Angus

Snider

(Eds.), Locating law: Race/class/gender connections (pp. 19-68). Halifax, UK: Fernwood Publishing.

14.

Comack

Chopyk

Wood

(2000). Mean streets? The social locations, gender dynamics, and patterns of violent crime in Winnipeg. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

15.

Coulter

M. L.

Keuehnle

Byers

Alfonso

(1999). Police-reporting behavior and victim-police interactions as described by women in a domestic violence shelter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1290-1298.

16.

Creswell

J., W.

(1998). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Criminal Code (Canada), R S.C., 1985, c. C-46. As amended. Retrieved from http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html

18.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

(2011). Violence against women: Myths, facts, controversies. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

19.

Dichter

M. E.

Gelles

R. J.

(2012). Women’s perceptions of safety and risk following police intervention for intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 18(1), 44-63.

20.

Dobash

R. E.

Dobash

(1979). Violence against wives: A case against patriarchy. New York, NY: New Press.

21.

Durfee

(2012). Situational ambiguity and gendered patterns of arrest for intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 18(1), 64-84.

22.

Eisikovits

Buchbinder

Mor

(1998). “What it was won’t be anymore”: Reaching the turning point in coping with intimate violence. Affilia, 13, 411-434.

23.

Erez

Belknap

(1998). In their own words: Battered women’s assessment of the criminal processing system’s responses. Violence and Victims, 13, 251-268.

24.

Fischer

Rose

(1995). When “enough is enough”: Battered women’s decision making around court orders of protection. Crime & Delinquency, 41, 414-429.

25.

Fleury

R. E.

Sullivan

C. M.

Bybee

Davidson

W. S.

II (1998). “Why don’t they just call the cops?”: Reasons for differential police contact among women with abusive partners. Violence and Victims, 13, 333-346.

26.

Follingstad

(2009). The impact of psychological aggression on women’s mental health and behavior. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 271-289.

27.

Follingstad

Rutledge

L. L.

Berg

B. J.

Hause

E. S.

Polek

D. S.

(1990). The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 107-120.

28.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

29.

Gover

A. R.

Paul

D. P.

Dodge

(2011). Law enforcement officers’ attitudes about domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 17, 619-636.

30.

Government of Ontario. (1998). Arlene May— Coroner’s inquest: Jury verdict and recommendations. Retrieved from http://www.owjn.org/archive/arlene3.htm

31.

Gracia

Garcia

Lila

(2011). Police attitudes toward policing partner violence against women: Do they correspond to different psychosocial profiles? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(1), 190-207.

32.

Grant

Rowe

(2011). Running the risk: Police officer discretion and family violence in New Zealand. Policing and Society, 21(1), 49-66.

33.

Grasely

Stickney

Harris

Hutchinson

Greaves

Boyd

(1999). Assessing the integrated model of services for abused women: The consumers’ perspective. London, UK: Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children.

34.

Hart

S. N.

Binggeli

N. J.

Brassard

M. R.

(1998). Evidence for the effects of psychological maltreatment. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1(1), 27-58.

35.

Henning

Renauer

Holdford

(2006). Victim or offender? Heterogeneity among women arrested for intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 351-368.

36.

Hoyle

Sanders

(2000). Police response to domestic violence: From victim choice to victim empowerment? British Journal of Criminology, 40(1), 14-36.

37.

Hutchison

I. W.

Hirschel

J. D.

(1998). Abused women: Help-seeking strategies and police utilization. Violence Against Women, 4, 436-456.

38.

Hydén

(1995). Verbal aggression as prehistory of woman battering. Journal of Family Violence, 10(1), 55-71.

39.

Infante

D. A.

Sabourin

T. C.

Rudd

J. E.

Shannon

E. A.

(1990). Verbal aggression in violent and nonviolent marital disputes. Communication Quarterly, 38, 361-371.

40.

Johnson

I. M.

(2007). Victims’ perceptions of police response to domestic violence incidents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 498-510.

41.

Johnson

M. P.

(2008). A typology of domestic violcence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

42.

Johnson

R. R.

(2004). Police officer frustrations about handling domestic violence calls. The Police Journal, 77, 207-219.

43.

Kelly

(1988). Surviving sexual violence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

44.

Lawrence-Lightfoot

Davis

J. H.

(1997). The art and science of portraiture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

45.

Leisenring

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

46.

Loring

M. T.

(1994). Emotional abuse. New York, NY: Lexington Books.

47.

Marshall

L. L.

(1994). Physical and psychological abuse. In Cupach

W. R.

Spitzberg

B. H.

(Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 281-311). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

48.

Ministry of the Attorney General (2000). Ontario policing standards manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Government of Ontario.

49.

Murphy

C. M.

Hoover

S. A.

(1989). Psychological aggression predicts physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 579-582.

50.

Ontario Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990.

51.

Orava

T. A.

McLeod

P. J.

Sharpe

(1996). Perception of control, depressive symptomatology, and self-esteem in women in transition from abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 11(2), 167-186.

52.

Rajah

Frye

Haviland

(2006). Aren’t I a victim? Notes on identity challenges relating to police action in a mandatory arrest jurisdiction. Violence Against Women, 12, 897-916.

53.

Sanders

Hannem

(2012). Policing the “risky”: Technology and surveillance in everyday patrol work. Canadian Review of Sociology, 49, 389-410.

54.

Schumacher

J. A.

Leonard

K. E.

(2005). Husbands’ and wives’ marital adjustment, verbal aggression, and physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(1), 28-37.

55.

Seff

L. R.

Beaulaurier

R. L.

Newman

F. L.

(2008). Non-physical abuse: Findings in domestic violence against older women study. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 8, 355-374.

56.

Sherman

L. W.

Berk

R. A.

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

57.

Smith

(2000). It’s my decision, isn’t it? A research note on battered women’s perceptions of mandatory intervention laws. Violence Against Women, 6, 1384-1402.

58.

Stephens

B. J.

Sinden

P. G.

(2000). Victims’ voices: Domestic assault victims’ perceptions of police demeanor. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 534-547.

59.

Taft

C. T.

O’Farrell

T. J.

Torres

S. E.

Panuzio

Monson

C. M.

Murphy

(2006). Examining the correlates of psychological aggression among a community sample of couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 581-588.

60.

Toon

Hart

(2005). Layers of meaning: Domestic violence and law enforcement attitudes in Arizona. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.

61.

Toronto Police Services. (2011). Semi-annual domestic violence statistics: July - December, 2010. (As referenced in the minutes of public meeting, May, 11). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto Police Services Board. Retrieved from http://www.tpsb.ca/FS/Docs/Minutes/2011/

62.

Trujillo

M. P.

Ross

(2008). Police response to domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 454-473.

63.

Walker

(1979). The battered women’s syndrome. New York, NY: Springer.

64.

Wentz

Archbold

C.A.

(2012). Police perceptions of sexual assault victims: Exploring the intra-female gender hostility thesis. Police Quarterly, 15(1), 25-44.

65.

White

M. D.

Goldkamp

J. S.

Campbell

S. P.

(2005). Beyond mandatory arrest: Developing a comprehensive response to domestic violence. Police Practice and Research, 6, 261-278.

66.

Wiegers

W. A.

(1994). Compensation for wife abuse: Empowering victims? University of British Columbia Law Review, 28, 247-307.

67.

Wolf

M. E.

Hobart

M. A.

Kernie

M. A.

(2003). Barriers to seeking police help for intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 18(2), 121-129.