Intimate Partner Violence Myths in Police Reports: A Directed Content Analysis

Abstract

Although much has changed in social and criminal justice system responses to intimate partner violence (IPV) since public awareness campaigns began in the 1970s, stigmatization around IPV offense and victimization remains a barrier to victims obtaining available assistance, including those offered by police forces. Unfortunately, stigma is often perpetuated by mythology about the crime, its offenders, its victims, and overarching gender norms. Since IPV cases are managed under the auspices of the criminal justice system, the manner in which the system itself perpetuates IPV myths is worthy of attention. Prior literature suggests that police officers may be vulnerable to this mythology in their decision-making and reporting of IPV calls. This is troubling for IPV victims and offenders alike, since police reports follow them through the criminal justice system and associated IPV intervention programs. A report heavily influenced by IPV mythology is unlikely to serve IPV offenders or victims particularly well. Guided by four popular IPV myths identified in Eigenberg et al.'s (2012) study, the purpose of the present qualitative study of IPV in police reports (N = 58) is to explore the influence of IPV mythology on police officers' decision-making and intervention. One overarching theme emerged after the analysis: undetected coercive control evident in the cases. Implications on improvement in police training are suggested.

Providing Support to Victims: Police Officers’ Service Referral Provision and Advocate Involvement in Domestic Violence Incidents

“…Results demonstrated that when the DV incident involved a physical altercation between the victim and suspect, the odds of service referral increased by three times as compared to DV cases involving only emotional and/or psychological abuse, reiterating prior research (Kernic & Bonomi, 2007). This finding likely reflects police perceptions of urgency and severity, where physical DV is often perceived as more legitimate, credible, and serious when compared to abuse that does not produce demonstrable physical injury (Dichter et al, 2011;Eigenberg et al, 2012;El Sayed et al, 2020;Twis et al, 2018). El Sayed et al (2020), for instance, recently found that nearly 500 officers from nine Southern police agencies indicated that evidence of physical trauma was one of the most important factors influencing perceptions of victim credibility.…”

“…Physical altercation captured incidents of DV that involved a physical attack as opposed to electronic or verbal threats/abuse and was coded as a binary variable (No = 0, Yes = 1). Suspect weapon use, victim injury, suspects use of threats to kill, and stalking are often used to reflect the severity of partner abuse (Dichter et al, 2011;Garza et al, 2020;Twis et al, 2018). Weapon use, which excluded bodily force, was captured through explicit, affirmative mention that the suspect threatened or used a weapon in the incident and was coded as a binary variable (No = 0, Yes = 1).…”

Police interventions in victims’ encounters of intimate partner violence in a rural setting

“…Therefore, the police members were not able to make a clear distinction among these. These incidents were thus overlooked as the police members relied on their own discretion to make decisions (Saxton et al, 2021; Twis et al, 2018). As such, no arrests were made for emotional and sexual violence, only referrals to the magistrates’ offices.…”

“…Myths and stereotypes among the police relating to gender roles also contribute. The location and types of IPV incidents, victims belonging to a minority racial/ethnic group, and having a history of IPV have also been reported (Fedina et al, 2018; Saxton et al, 2021; Serrano-Montilla et al, 2021; Twis et al, 2018).…”

Problems With Police Reports as Data Sources: A Researchers' Perspective

“…Research has also shown some biases of police officers, for example in reports related to intimate partner violence (Twis et al, 2018). A study conducted in Hong Kong compared the injury grading in police reports with the trauma records of a regional hospital (Tsui et al, 2009).…”