Intimate Partner Violence Article Analysis

Summary: This Article evaluates the violence and abuse conducted by police officers towards their intimate partners (Goodmark 1188). Studies show that there is a brief connect toward police officers public and private lives. Interpersonal violence of off-duty officers has been an issue throughout the country for many years. Due to the amount of training police officers receive they are seen to be more dangerous and violent towards their significant others than the average individual and are more likely to be abusive. Research used the National Police Misconduct Project, in which lists the number of incidents of intimate partner abuse conducted by police officers in various jurisdictions ranging from Washington to Virginia. Other research relied on self-reports of the abused. The article shows many examples of police violence and abuse where police officers physically or verbally assault their partners. Regarding two cases in Baltimore of 2013 two police officers killed their partners and then subsequently killed themselves shortly after.

This is how I believe that collaboration could improve and enhances the outcome of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). Our lesson states that Action Coalitions (ACs) are the driving force of the Future of Nursing (CCN, 2015). This is the reason why the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must united with leaders, lawmakers, advocates, police department and the community health nurse to further minimize or eradicate IVP before it even started. Also, they can guarantee safety for victims and educate perpetrators. While caring for

To begin with, Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) has been around for a very long time and it is still a present issue in the United States. There are many forms intimate partner violence such as, sexual, physical, emotional, and psychological. IPV occurs among all religious, socioeconomic, and cultural groups in the United States and other countries. As many people know intimate partner violence tends to come with consequences after the damage is done to the victim. Intimate partner violence does not just happen out of nowhere where the perpetrator thinks they have the right to be violent towards their spouse. The issue of IPV is connected to the cycle of violence in ways that it gives you an idea as to why the perpetrator thinks they have the right to hit the victim. In many cases not only do they think they have the right to due such thing but also feel like they have control over their spouse and have a mindset that they own them and will do anything just to keep them. Often the perpetrators feel guilty for being violent towards their loved ones that they come to a point of being apologetic and doing anything in their power to keep them. This author believes that intimate partner violence is a big issue and for many victims it is hard for them to escape the relationship. The victims go through so much in staying in the relationship that once they decide to definitely leave the relationship they end up suffering consequences and seeking available resources to

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious social issue that affects millions of Americans. IPV describes physical sexual or psychological harm by a current or former partner spouse. Anyone can be a victim of IPV, this type of violence can occur among heterosexual or same-sex couples. However, this paper will focus on IPV faced by women. IPV is an important global public health concern related to physical trauma, mental illness, poor health, suicide and murder.(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). There are many risk factors that cause IPV; one of the predictors of IPV is a person’s socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status is commonly conceptualized as the social standing or class, an individual’s socioeconomic status is measured as a combination of education, income and occupation. (American Psychology Association).

Arroyo, K., Lundahl, B., Butters, Rob. Vanderloo, M., & Wood, D.S. (2017). Short-term interventions for survivors of intimate partner violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(2) 155-171.

Historically, lower-income black women have experienced intimate partner violence at a higher rate than any other racial or ethnic group in the United States. Very little of the research on intimate partner violence addresses the cultural and structural factors that influence black women’s experience of domestic violence (Taft et al. 2008). The most recent statistical survey of intimate partner violence in the United States was the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey conducted in 2011; previously, the most recent was the National Violence against Women Survey conducted during 1995-1996 (Breiding et al., 2014). The Center for Disease Control (CDC) offers four categories of intimate partner violence: sexual violence, physical violence, stalking, and psychological aggression (Breiding et al., 2014). Although domestic violence occurs among all races and ethnicities and socio-economic classes, it is particularly important to explore black women’s differential experience of intimate partner violence because black women are experiencing a disparity.

In order to understand the intricacies within relationships, a comprehensive definition of intimate partner violence must first be recognized since recent research has found to produce incongruent determinations of such. Intimate partner violence, also known as domestic violence, is the physical, emotional, sexual, and psychological abuse of a current or former intimate partner. An intimate partner is one with whom there has been a relationship, current or former, including spouses, cohabitating couples, dating relationships, family members, and same-sex couples. It was only recently that acts of violence against an intimate partner were criminalized and remedies sought by victims through court approved action (Carlson, B. E., & Worden, A.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is defined as sexual, physical or psychological abuse by a current or past spouse or partner and is one of the largest public issues the Unites States faces today. It is estimated that roughly 15.5 million children live in a household effected by IPV in the United States (Gustafsson, Coffman, Cox 2014). Children who are effected by IPV are more likely to have behavioral issues along with their development being negatively impacted (O'Campo, Caughy, Nettles 2010). It is important to research IPV to see how it can be minimized as much as possible along with seeing how people are effected by IPV.

From a theoretical perspective the explanation of violence against women has been underreported for years. The idea of violence against women had become a major societal issue. Intimate partner violence (IPV) during pregnancy has also became a major issue in the United States, estimates that 3 percent to 17 percent of women experience violence during prenatal stage. Social justice and advocacy practice is important in efforts to combat the discrepancy in services with our clients. Legislative advocacy is imperative and time-consuming endeavors that have incredible potential for aiding clients. Two articles I will discuss scrutinize the scope of social services provided for women who are victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) and provide

Cindy L. Seaman, Linda J. Rubin, and Sally D. Stabb, all affiliated with Texas Woman’s University, composed the article: Women Domestic Violence Offenders: Lessons of Violence and Survival 2007. In result of the growing problem of women that are more frequently being arrested for assaulting their partners, the need for exploration and research to investigate this phenomenon, along with women’s motivations for current violence, was necessary. The author’s purpose and intent of the article was to highlight current intervention methods of domestic abuse and causation of why women choose to assault. By exploring this epidemic, perhaps treatment intervention methods could be discovered and implemented. In the introduction Seaman, Rubin, and Stabb brought necessary insight to the controversy over family conflict studies opposed to crime studies. The inconsistency with both reports is crucial when looking at women in relation to domestic abuse. This is because data conflicts. Family studies show an increase in both men and women abusers; claiming women abuse just as frequent as men. However, in crime studies and police statistics, reports indicate a much lower assault rate for women. Therefore, the authors chose a qualitative study, in hopes to discover why such data conflicts and to shed light on, perhaps, two different concepts altogether. The idea that couple-conflict is different from the idea of patriarchal terrorism, committed by

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) or Domestic Violence (DV) 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. (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), n.d.).” Many victims fail to report IPV because they only consider physical assault as a form abuse, however verbal abuse falls under IPV, as well as emotional and psychological abuse. In the state of California, 32.9% women and 27.3% have experienced some form of IPV, intimate partner sexual violence, or stalking (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), n.d.). In order to reduce the rates of IPV, batter intervention programs were created. The goal of these programs was to psychoeducate the batter on IPV and its effects in an effort to prevent recidivism. However, research has shown that these programs have not been very effective and that some improvements must be made.

Intimate partner violence is a dangerous and frightening issue threatening women worldwide. Intimate partner violence, also known as domestic violence, describes a cycle of abuse that involves either actual or threatened physical, sexual, psychological or emotional violence performed on someone by a spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend, or significant other (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Although it is not often discussed, intimate partner abuse is an incredibly common public health problem. In fact, it is one of the most common forms of violence facing women of all ages, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds, in which more than four million women in the United States experience abuse from a partner each year (Office on Women’s

The purpose of this paper is to document the phenomenon of intimate partner violence (IPV) through empirical research. It includes sources of data and statistics from the official government agencies of the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey of 2011, and the National Incident Based Reporting System. In addition, it addresses the social distribution of the phenomena across time and space by the national, state, and rural/urban locations as well as its distribution across social groups including sex, race and age.

For most women, pregnancy is a time of joy and happiness for the life she is about to bring into this world. Unfortunately, this is not the case for women who experience intimate partner violence during such a precious milestone in their life. Intimate partner violence during pregnancy refers to violent acts including physical, sexual, or psychological/emotional violence or threats of sexual violence committed by an intimate male partner such as a husband, boyfriend, or common law partner that are inflicted on a pregnant woman. Intimate partner violence can affect women during pregnancy and during the postnatal period with devastating effects on both the women and the unborn child. Domestic violence against women is more

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a type of abuse that occurs between people who are involved in a close relationship. “Intimate partner” is a term that is used to include both current and former spouses as well as dating partners. IPV exists along a continuum that ranges from a single episode of violence through ongoing battering.