Factors Related to Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and Other Variables

Belknap, Joanne; Graham, Dee L. R.

doi:10.1037/e513852006-001

Cited by 22 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, that very few couples (6% of the cases examined) were in the process of separation or divorce at the time the petition for an order was filed. A similar finding is described in various studies on protection orders [1,14,35]. These studies, too, found that the majority of women who petition for protection orders do so against a spouse with whom they are still cohabiting or from whom they divorced or separated some time prior to filing the petition, rather than women who are in the process of separation or divorce.…”

Section: The Relationship Between the Petitioner And The Man Accused supporting

confidence: 52%

“…However, our data revealed that 44% of the women who petitioned did not file a prior complaint with the police. What makes this tool problematic, despite the common use judges make of it, is the fact that in many cases the abused woman's petition for a protection order is the first time she has ever approached any formal institution in general [9,27,32,42], and the apprehension many women feel about contacting the police for fear of retaliation in particular [1,12,43]. This might also explain the large number of women who did not file a complaint with the police.…”

Section: Judges' Stancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This applies to existing research on the subject throughout the world in general [1][2][3], and even more so to Israel due to the paucity of existing research on the subject [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Protection Orders for Battered Women in Israel

Yassour-Borochowitz

2016

Laws

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The aim of the present study is to describe and re-consider the findings obtained from analysis of 260 protection orders that were granted in cases of violence by men against their partners. The Prevention of Domestic Violence Law was enacted in Israel in 1991. The data collection for the study took place 10 years later, after the 1996 amendment was enacted. In this article I revisit the data, the only empirical data on protection orders in Israel, and examine both the process of obtaining protection orders and several attendant issues that are relevant to the procedure, such as the remedies the law offers and the use (or lack of it) judges make of them. The study compares the first ex parte hearings and the second hearings, and the discussion and summary sections provide an insight into the problems emerging from the description of the situation in Israel in light of the current knowledge existing in the world today.

show abstract

Section: The Relationship Between the Petitioner And The Man Accused supporting

confidence: 52%

Section: Judges' Stancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Protection Orders for Battered Women in Israel

Yassour-Borochowitz

2016

Laws

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, studies in Ohio, North Carolina, and Rhode Island examined the degree to which police officers had gathered relevant evidence. The results were not encouraging, as officers routinely failed, for example, to include photos, which were available in only about 15% of cases (Belknap et al, 2000;Friday et al, 2006;Klein & Tobin, 2008). Arguably, this is one of the least time-consuming and least costly types of evidence to collect.…”

Section: Domestic Violence Is the Same As Other Crimesmentioning

confidence: 61%

Confronting the Complexities of Domestic Violence: A Social Prescription for Rethinking Police Training

Eigenberg

Kappeler

McGuffee

2012

Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews current research on domestic violence with an eye toward its use in developing state-of-the-art police training. The authors argue that four general presuppositions about domestic violence need to be reexamined to develop adequate police training that enhances detection, investigation, and prosecution of these crimes. Chief among these presuppositions are: (a) there is only one kind of domestic violence; (b) most domestic violence is relatively minor; (c) domestic violence is the same as other crimes; and (d) domestic violence calls are extraordinarily dangerous for police officers. We conclude that training on domestic violence is essential, given the changing nature of domestic violence legislation, the unique attention given to police responses, and the unique nature of the crime.

show abstract

“…The following excerpt provides a glimpse into the contexts in which such threats are made and why returning to continue with the criminal justice process is, in some instances, more dangerous than protective: Other studies, such as that by Belknap and Graham, have found a positive relationship between lethal threats to victims of domestic violence and their (dis)continuance with the criminal justice process. 20 Belknap et al found that lethal threats by defendants featured in one fifth of cases they examined, 21 while Anderson et al found that two thirds of domestic violence victims feared for their lives. 22 In 15% of these cases victims reported that their abusive partners actually tried to kill them at some point in their relationship.…”

Section: Deadly Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fear or failure: Why victims of domestic violence retract from the criminal justice process

Artz

2016

SA crime q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2008/9 MOSAIC, 1 with the assistance of the Gender, Health & Justice Research Unit (UCT), embarked on research that sought to identify the factors that contribute to domestic violence victims withdrawing from the legal process before they finalise protection orders (POs) applied for under the Domestic Violence Act (DVA).2 This study was based on the 2008 work of this author who, in partnership with MOSAIC, interviewed 365 domestic violence victims in the Western Cape about their engagement with and retraction from the criminal justice process. 3 The second tier of this project -reported on hereemerged with more focused interview schedules and the addition of eight jurisdictions from which the sample was drawn. The findings from this study were extensive and pointed to a range of personal, systemic and structural reasons why Domestic Violence Act [DVA] applicants disengage from the criminal justice process. This article will limit its focus on three areas that are relevant to the decision by survivors to withdraw their applications for protection orders: the history and severity of violence, deadly threats, and key findings relating specifically to experiences of DVA applicants with the courts.The Domestic Violence Act (DVA) (No. 116 of 1998) was promulgated in 1999 with the aim of creating a civil remedy that was accessible, affordable and ensured that 'victims of domestic violence received the maximum protection from domestic abuse that the law could provide' . 4 Under the DVA, victims of domestic violence may apply for a Protection Order (PO), which aims at preventing future acts of violence.5 It involves a two step process. The victim of domestic violence applies for an interim protection order (IPO) 6 which is granted if the court is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence that the 'respondent' (the alleged abuser) has committed an act of domestic violence and that the applicant (the victim) would suffer undue hardship if a protection order was not issued immediately. Where urgency can be shown, an IPO is issued. 7 The second part of the process involves finalising the order. Once the IPO is served on the respondent, the applicant and the respondent are required to return to court on a certain date -referred to as the 'return date' -for a hearing during which the respondent is afforded the opportunity to present to the court reasons why the protection order should not be finalised. If the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent has committed or is committing an act of domestic violence, the protection order can be finalised (or varied in some way).8 It is in the period between the application for an IPO and the finalisation of the protection order that cases fall out of the system. Why victims of domestic violence retract from the criminal justice process DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ATTRITION RESEARCHThe sampling was purposive, specifically targeting complainants who did not return to court to finalise their protection orders. The research took place over a six-month period. T...

show abstract

Factors Related to Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and Other Variables

Cited by 22 publications

References 0 publications

Protection Orders for Battered Women in Israel

Protection Orders for Battered Women in Israel

Confronting the Complexities of Domestic Violence: A Social Prescription for Rethinking Police Training

Fear or failure: Why victims of domestic violence retract from the criminal justice process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About