Beyond Arrest: The Official Responses to IPV: Prosecution, Mediation, and Treatment
Michelle L. Meloy, Ph.D.
Mandatory Prosecution: “No Drop”
Born out of the Duluth, Minnesota model of community intervention-collaboration
mandatory arrest, coordination between police-courtsprobation and treatment providers. Specialized batterer intervention programs
Concept of forging ahead with dv cases even w/out victim cooperation Prosecutors can pursue criminal prosecution using only the evidence collected by the police Victim-support units located in prosecutor’s offices assist in the prosecution of these cases
Mandatory Prosecution: Competing Interests Prosecutor’s primary concern is
well being of the state Conflicts can arise between individual victim’s security & the state’s desire for deterrence Specific deterrence: abusers must be officially sanctioned, punished & treated General deterrence: potential abusers must learn this is a serious crime with serious repercussions
Mandatory Prosecution
“Hard” no-drop policies prohibit victims from dismissing a case Require victim cooperation/testimony with the possibility of legal sanctions against victims
Mandatory Prosecution
“Soft” no-drop policies request but do not require victim involvement in the prosecution process All types of mandatory policies decrease case dismissals & attrition
Mandatory Prosecution
Effectiveness issues unanswered Some support for “soft” nodrop policies: Indianapolis found women who were allowed to drop their charges experienced less violence than those victims not allowed to drop charges Victim empowerment potential
Victim advocacy
Located within and independent of prosecutor’s offices Demonstrate concern for victim’s experience with prosecution Provide information & support about prosecution process Research suggests that victim advocates
1) reduce case attrition 2) increase victim satisfaction w/the prosecution process 3) feelings of victim empowerment
Victim advocates within prosecutor’s offices can have competing interests
Battered Women’s Shelters
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (1978) Over 2,000 shelters 24 hour hotlines Support groups-therapy Legal assistance Emergency housing Transition housing Child care Residential-employment support
Effectiveness of shelters
Many women return to abusive relationships after their stay at a shelter Women who use only shelters and do not augment with other social and institutional measures may be at increased risk of retaliation from batterers Women who combine all these measures tend to experience less violence in the future
Mediation
Informal case processing w/ mediator skilled in conflict resolution Agreements can avoid case filings, court delays, and secondary role for victims As court congestion increases so has mediation practices Underlying assumption: equal power, safe & secure process where both parties can express concerns and desires
Family Violence Mediation: pros/cons
Victim empowerment because they are a central party Provides alternative for victim’s who do not desire prosecution Educates both parties about legal rights & responsibilities Individualized justice: tailored agreements Participant satisfaction
No clear offender Allows abuser to avoid responsibility & criminal prosecution May reinforce idea’s that victims at “fault” May be impossible to equalize power Mutual agreement highest priority Violence may continue or escalate as contact increases
Batterer Treatment
Began as specialty in the 1970s Most programs are short-term and utilize a group-setting Nearly all who attend are court mandated Child protective services, courts, & probation make referrals Goals include 1) victim safety, 2) changing batterers ideas about violence, getting him to accept responsibility, and 3) teaching nonviolent conflict resolution tactics
Batterer Treatment
Duluth Model is the most common w state mandates:
men’s power & control issues are believed to be the cause of most IPV changing attitudes about men & women (resocialization), changing the concepts of masculinity unlearning violence as a resolution strategy
Psychological/Psychiatric Batterer Treatment
Cognitive-behavior modification therapy
Deconstruct “faulty” thinking and cognitive distortions : Reinterpret the event (stimuli) and find non-violent alternatives to resolve “conflict” Anger & stress management Impulse control problem-solving skills Substance abuse Depression
Other therapeutic goals:
Psychological/Psychiatric Batterer Treatment
Couples-Family Systems Approach:
Preservation of marriage is the focus Least popular with clinicians and practitioners
73% of states with stated standards note this treatment as unacceptable
The marital dynamic (and whole family) is viewed as part of the problem and thus part of the solution
No clear cut “offender” or “victim”
May be a practical intervention at the earliest stages of abuse, with low-level violence and if the victim is not fearful
Batterer Treatment Research
IPV offenders especially difficult to treat Outcome studies are plagued with methodological problems
poor outcome &/or inconsistent measures random assignment has been difficult to obtain high attrition rates in treatment (drop outs) short follow-up periods lack of reporting for recidivistic behavior
Batterer Treatment Outcomes
“Drop outs” have higher recidivism rates than treatment completers Predictions of “drop-out” = undereducated, unemployment, no court mandate, substance abuse problems 2001-2002 experimental design research on the Duluth type models suggests a reduction in recidivism where earlier studies did not
Changing Court Practices
No-drop prosecution Specialized units Victim advocates Criminal charges against victims Court sponsored mediation Batterer treatment Restraining orders