How To Criminalize Domestic Violence

States around the country have given police the right to make warrantless arrests on in partner violence and has even limited their ability to use discretion by implementing mandatory arrests. This has made the job of the police much more difficult because they must go about handling situations like domestic violence delicately. It does not make it any easier now that the term “domestic violence” has now grown into an umbrella term including disputes between adults and children, blood relatives, and couples who sometimes are and are not married. Because the job of the police involves so many different factors and the changing social climate, it’s become quite difficult to discern whether or not having mandatory arrest laws are helpful. They

The political issue of domestic violence and children has been a struggle for a long time. As mentioned in the history section, domestic violence was always considered a private family problem. It wasn’t until 1883 that Maryland became the very first state to make a law against wife beating. In the mid 20th century, domestic violence finally became a subject of public debate which helped the issue begin to get some type of recognition. Then in 1970, women who began to fight for women’s right began to challenge the political system as well as the social system (Gerdes, 16). In 1977, Oregon passed the first mandatory arrest law in which one party of a domestic abuse report must be arrested. Then by 1980, all by six states had some type of domestic violence laws (Gerdes, 17). This is when the government recognized domestic violence as a social problem. But just because there were laws to make domestic violence a crime, it didn’t mean that people looked at it that way after so many years. In fact, according to the book Domestic Violence, “In many communities, the criminal justice system remained reluctant to approach cases of domestic violence the same way as they did other crimes.” A big macro issue with the laws is that no matter what the strict laws are, many still do no abide by the. Many politicians who could potentially help make the laws who been exposed and fired for domestic violence as well. President Ronald Regan fired one of his top security employees

The definition of intimate partner violence, which is commonly referred to as domestic violence, can be psychological aggression, physical violence, forced acts, sexual violence and economic or financial abuse by an intimate partner from the present or the past (Wilson, Graham, & Taft, 2014). During the 1960s, law enforcement officers and judges viewed intimate partner violence as an insignificant crime and cases would never make it to the court rooms (Clark, 2011). This type of aggression was seemingly a common practice among many households across the nation and was viewed as a tool that men utilized often in an attempt to correct their partners. On many occasions, officials would just tell men to calm down and tell the women

For centuries domestic violence has been perceived as a private matter private of which the government has not been concerned about nor was it considered the government’s business to intervene on behalf of a battered spouse. The unlawful nature of this failure for state or federal government intervention against this crime contributed to the systematic abuse of women in the family. The traditions, customs, and common law found in both British and American societies continued right up until the last decade of the 20th century and left the battered wives and very frequently, her children, at the mercy of the husband. It wasn’t until the 1990’s when the government began to do something to protect mothers, wives, and lovers from intimate

Domestic violence, or intimate partner violence, is a common problem. As a result, the criminal justice adapted to demands, especially from feminists, who bemoaned the poor response of police, and in turn, the justice system by instituting mandatory arrests. However, mandatory arrests have proven that just like protection or restraining orders, they are not effective in deterring domestic violence (Davis, 2008). Similarly, the arrests do not have a substantial effect on recidivism and create undue procedural complications for the criminal system (Zelcer, 2014). On the contrary, proponents of the approach, argue that it has a deterrent effect on the perpetrators and that it can even protect offer immediate protection for the victims (Clark, 2010). Nonetheless, using statistical evidence and arguments from scholarly sources, this position paper will expose the inefficiencies and constitutional inconsistencies that make mandatory arrests harmful for the batterer, victim, and the criminal justice system.

Domestic violence is a crime that occurs regularly within the United States. It claims millions of victims each year. There is not a specific cause to establish why domestic violence occurs. However, it has been documented that domestic violence is a product of physical, emotional, sexual, psychological, and any other forms of torture or torment that the particular abuser wishes to employ to gain control or power over their victims (Gosselin, 2005). Due to the complexity of this crime, many criminologists and socialologists have studied its causes and the effects in order to determine social policies and additional theories to better understand the causation of domestic violence. The social policies and theories that are developed from

Dual arrest occurs when both parties involved in a domestic violence altercation are arrested. With the enactment of mandatory or preferred arrest laws, a disproportionate increase in the arrests of females, either individually or as part of a dual arrest, occurred (Hirschel, Buzawa, Pattavina, and Faggiani 2008). In the years prior to the enactment of mandatory arrest laws, arrest data collected revealed a 7% to 15% arrest rate while current research studies revealed a 30% or greater arrest rate (Hirschel et. al. 2008). Among the statistics released, the percentage of the dually arrested vary across states and jurisdictions revealing a low of 4.9% to a high of 33% or greater (Hirschel et. al. 2008). To fully comprehend the wide variances,

In order to combat domestic violence, many states passed laws and legislation requiring police to make warrantless arrests in response to all domestic violence calls. Harvard scholar, Radha Iyengar, who has studied domestic violence related homicide and the effects of mandatory arrest policies for domestic violence, suggests that although these policies were created to help victims, the solution of mandatory arrests in domestic violence incidents, led to many negative consequences; putting many women in danger, rather than helping them (Iyengar). Though designed to deter violence by offenders, mandatory arrest laws make women more vulnerable to being arrested themselves, lead abuse in domestic violence disputes to become more severe, and deter women from reporting violence to police (Strout).

“Domestic violence is abuse or threats of abuse when the person being abused and the abuser are or have been in an intimate relationship” (California Courts, 2014).

Academically, Domestic violence is “the willful intimidation, physical assault, battery, sexual assault, and/or other abusive behavior as part of a systematic pattern of power and control perpetrated by one intimate partner against another. It includes physical violence, sexual violence, threats, and emotional or psychological abuse. The frequency and severity of domestic violence varies dramatically.” However, in Washington State Domestic Violence includes a more limited definition. In Washington State Domestic Violence is defined as (a) Physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault, between family or household members; (b) sexual assault of one family or household member by another; or (c) stalking as defined in RCW 9A.46.110 of one family or household member by another family or household member. This statutory definition is similar to that of many states in that it omits the “systematic pattern of power and control perpetrated by one intimate partner against the other” otherwise known as “coercive control.” The omission of this provision in the statutory language creates difficulty in obtaining domestic violence protection orders, when the victim cannot describe instances of physical violence, stalking, or sexual assault, yet lives in very real fear of their partner. In this literature review, I will analyze the phenomenon that is now known as

The first issue is domestic violence. The largest category of calls police receives each year is due to domestic violence, and one-fifth of all hospital emergency room cases are the result of domestic violence. Nevertheless, the most pressing charges a domestic violence offender receives are a mere five days in county prison. If we want to make men, women, and children feel safer in their own homes, we have to enforce a more severe punishment for domestic violence offenders. Therefore, I propose a minimum

Approximately 20 people suffer from physical abuse every minute in the United States which eventually tallies to more than 10 million people each year. So what steps can be taken to end these remorseless crimes? Well, the best course of action means to have more secure and stable laws which combat domestic violence. Moreover, people who are abused must speak out about their personal experiences. This will aid in helping the society and more people gain the confidence to escape their own abusive relationships. In order to reduce domestic violence, society must have stricter laws and must be more open to communication with domestic violence victims.

Therefore, a new foundation should empower, educate, and create new easily accessible resources for every woman, as well as assist her with essential needs and protect her human rights. In the hypothesis of “Women’s health and the effects of coercive and physical abuse of domestic violence” (Milana, 2016), Milana postulates that the outcome effects of domestic violence should address the need for increasing funding for resources that are not readily available. Therefore, it is necessary to create new programs and establish a necessary broader assistance for domestic violence victims/survivors. Moreover, the current services that are in place are not readily available to all women who have/are experiencing forms of abuse including coercive control abuse. Therefore, new foundations of legal framework are essential to assist and protect a woman’s freedom from all aspects and types of abuse, as well as an inclusion of coercive abuse to prevent harmful effects of domestic violence. In fact, to safeguard a woman’s right is to broaden her “space for action” (Westmarland & Kelly 1101) within her personal environments, in turn, may positively affect her physically, mentally, and

deny them the right to enjoy their freedom due to the psychological effect is borne by the

T.B. James has written a hard-hitting and incisive book focusing on current myths about domestic violence in the United States that turns the conventional approach on its ear (Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren’t Supposed to Know, 2003). A practicing attorney in Minnesota and founder/director of Better Resolutions Mediation Service, James’s short, quotable book focuses on empirical studies and an extensive review of the literature to make a powerful argument that women are as violent as men, while our legal system is biased against men and refuses to hold females accountable when they are