Court Dispositions and Rearrest for Intimate Assault

Abstract

Researchers examining court dispositions and domestic violence recidivism have argued that disposition effectiveness varies by offender characteristics. We extended this research with analyses of 3,662persons arrested for misdemeanor assaults on intimates in Hamilton County, Ohio. The incidence, prevalence, and time to rearrest are examined for arrestees with no filed charges, subsequently dropped charges, court-mandated treatment, probation, jail, and split sentences. No filed charges and probation correspond with significant differences in all outcomes across the entire sample. Moreover, every disposition coincides with differences in rearrest for particular subgroups of arrestees (distinguished by violent histories, substance abuse, cohabitation, race, education, residential stability, and characteristics of neighborhood populations).

Convicting and incarcerating felony offenders of intimate assault and the odds of new assault charges

“…In other words, more severe sentences were not uniformly more effective for reducing subsequent violence. Results for jail sentences conflicted with the handful of previous studies that uncovered either similar or higher odds of subsequent violence for individuals who were incarcerated in jail versus other types of sentences (e.g., Davis et al, 1998;Gross et al, 2000;Wooldredge & Thistlethwaite, 2005).…”

“…Gross et al (2000) found no differences in rearrest likelihoods for defendants with jail sentences (suspended or nonsuspended) versus other outcomes including advisement only, private counseling, fines, and probation (see also Davis et al, 1998;Wooldredge & Thistlethwaite, 2005). Finally, as stated previously, published findings related to imprisonment effects on subsequent violence are nonexistent.…”

“…They found significantly lower rearrest likelihoods among those who were prosecuted. Wooldredge and Thistlethwaite (2005) also found lower rearrest likelihoods among prosecuted defendants of misdemeanor assaults on intimates compared to individuals who did not have formal charges filed against them in Hamilton County (Cincinnati), Ohio.…”

“…Researchers interested in possible links between case outcomes and domestic violence recidivism have examined the relative effects of diversions, nolles, dismissals, acquittals, convictions, batterer intervention programs, fines, probation, and jail sentences (e.g., Chen, Bersani, Myers, & Denton, 1989;Davis, Smith, & Nickles, 1998;Davis, Taylor, & Maxwell, 2000;DeMaris & Jackson, 1987;Dutton, 1986;Edelson & Grusznski, 1989;Fagan, 1989Fagan, , 1996Fagan, Friedman, Wexler, & Lewis, 1984;Feder & Dugan, 2002;Ford & Regoli, 1993;Gondolf, 1999;Gondolf & Williams, 2001;Gross et al, 2000;Hamberger & Hastings, 1988;Harrell, 1991;Healey, Smith, & O'Sullivan, 1998;Hirschel, Hutchinson, & Dean, 1992;Keilitz, Hannaford, & Efkeman, 1997;Mears, Carlson, Holden, & Harris, 2001;Murphy, Musser, & Maton, 1998;Palmer, Brown, & Barrera, 1992;Shepard, 1992;Steinman, 1990;Syers & Edleson, 1992;Tolman & Weiscz, 1995;Wallace & Seymour, 1999;Wolfe & Jaffe, 1999;Wooldredge & Thistlethwaite, 2005). This relatively large body of research focused primarily on batterer intervention programs and convictions, with little attention paid to incarceration.…”

“…Greater academic attention to domestic violence issues over the last two decades has generated a relatively large body of research on the effectiveness of various court sanctions for reducing subsequent violence, with particular attention paid to batterer intervention programs (summarized, in part, by Feder & Dugan, 2002;Wooldredge & Thistlethwaite, 2005). There is no published research, however, on the effects of prison sentences on subsequent domestic violence.…”