Mandatory Arrest in DV Cases Doesn't Work, but Still Promoted by DOJ
November 11th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.For many years now, DOJ sponsored reports have encouraged pro-arrest, preferred arrest, mandatory arrest and now default arrest policies. Regardless of the label there is no question that the majority of studies sponsored by the DOJ are recommending arrest policies “as the default position” for law enforcement...[L]aw enforcement administrators are acutely aware that if they do not adopt policies that “encourage arrest” they will not receive any funding from the multi-billion dollar Violence Against Women Act, they will face the wrath of domestic violence interveners in their community and become the targets of domestic violence litigators.
Those quotations are from this excellent article by Richard L. Davis who has a lengthy career in law enforcement (Police One, 9/7/09). He's also read and written widely about domestic violence, and the public policies and intellectual constructs this country relies on to address it. One of the best things about his work is that he provides a number of links to backup research, policy papers, laws ,etc. I encourage readers to follow some of his links, particularly the one at the end of the article that provides a link "for a more complete overview of domestic violence..." It's highly informative.
Davis goes on to point out that the arrest policies promoted by the Department of Justice pose a serious threat to poor communities and particularly their black and hispanic male members. He cites a study done in Berkeley, California whose racial/ethnic makeup is White - 59.2%, Asian - 16.4%, African-American - 13.6% and Hispanic - 9.7%. The study reflects the results of the Berkeley Police Department's police of default-arrest in DV cases. Some 68% of those arrested were African-American and 11% were white.
(Interestingly, Davis also cites a report done by the Ms. Foundation. Predictably, it makes no mention of even the possibility of men being DV victims. But true to its liberal heart, it is highly concerned with the arrest and incarceration of the poor and people of color, which is precisely what the Berkeley study shows that default arrest policies do. Therefore, as a talking point, disdain for the wellbeing of men can be trumped by concern for the poor and people of color.)
Moving on,
In Berkeley approximately one in five (21 percent) arrests are being made where there is no observable criminal behavior, no injury and there are implications that the arrest exacerbated the conflict and did little to resolve the underlying problems (p. 26).
Davis goes on to say that the Berkeley study shows that default arrest policies do little to deter repeat abusers.
His bottom line is this: the Department of Justice promotes arrest as the default response to all DV incidents regardless of how minor. It ignores the many studies that show that this doesn't work to combat serious domestic violence while jailing a population that is disproportionately poor, and black or hispanic. And, needless to say, male.
Davis has written a lot on DV, and I'll write more on him in due course.
"));
19 queries. 0.313 seconds.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:29 am
The liberal jibe has angered me to the point I've forgotten what it was the article was about.
I thought the issues discussed here were not about conservatives vs. liberals but fact vs. fiction. I thought the enemy was the idea that 'men don't count' and that males are disposable.
Disappointing.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:02 am
This isn't liberal or conservative. This is government money corrupting the system. Is Alec Baldwin a conservative? This advice is for any man, if she calls 911, or you know 911 was called; leave and never return. Check out "Million Dollar Legal Advice." for what to do about Police. http://bennettandbennett.com/million-dollar_legal_advice
If you're very liberal check out this ACLU guide for dealing with Police.
http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights_prisoners-rights_racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-youre-
And either liberal or conservative; download the pocket copy(s) of ACLU to keep in your wallet to hand to Police, if questioned away from the scene.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Link to ACLU pocket guide
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/racialjustice/rp_bustcard_eng_20090929.pdf
November 11th, 2009 at 11:19 am
For many years now, DOJ sponsored reports have encouraged pro-arrest, preferred arrest, mandatory arrest and now default arrest policies. Regardless of the label there is no question that the majority of studies sponsored by the DOJ are recommending arrest policies “as the default position” for law enforcement..
Robert I am not a lawyer but isn't it true that they also might be doing this to protect themselves from a law suit... example: police show up don't arrest anyone then boyfriend attacks girlfriend after they leave or something... whamo lawsuit... so to be "safe" they just arrest????????
November 11th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Robert I am not a lawyer but isn't it true that they also might be doing this to protect themselves from a law suit... example: police show up don't arrest anyone then boyfriend attacks girlfriend after they leave or something... whamo lawsuit... so to be "safe" they just arrest????????
NE...you are probably right about it being the police protecting themselves. Like the article also says......[L]aw enforcement administrators are acutely aware that if they do not adopt policies that “encourage arrest” they will not receive any funding from the multi-billion dollar Violence Against Women Act, they will face the wrath of domestic violence interveners in their community and become the targets of domestic violence litigators. It is the same thing with the judges issuing a restraining order. It is about the judge protecting himself.
LE....there are also provisions in my states family code that says "other factors to consider when setting child support". My Ex makes more money than I do to begin with and has a company car that even pays for gas for her personal use. I am not naive......no judge wants to go against THE GUIDELINES. That would not be politically correct and these judges are what ????.......................elected. It is not about right and wrong in America. It is about MONEY AND VOTES.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
@scott
i may be wrong, but most judicial and enforcement people have very high levels of immunity. for example, its almost impossible to sue a district attorney or a judge.
You have men that have been found guilty for all sorts of crimes and when their cases have been reviewed by various organizations, they show how often prosecutors lie and purposely withhold evidence just to get the conviction
The problems you have with those officials is they are either elected positions, or appointed.
if they are elected, they MUST BE PC, or they will lose their jobs. Look at how NOW is calling for the firing/resignations of men for just sleeping around.
Those that are appointed, are appointed by an elected official (mayor, governor, etc) and they too MUST BE PC, or they will be thrown to the wolves by whomever appointed them if they screw up. They also must consider their future political career, so in that respect, they MUST BE PC as well.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
sorry, that last comment should have been directed to NE, not Scott
November 11th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I believe it is unconstitutional for law enforcement communities to "manufacture statistics", in the areas of domestic violence, and then "cash in" these manufactured numbers for state and federal dollars.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Alan, unfortionately political correctness is more important than the TRUTH. The law may be written as we do not discriminate against age, sex, race, or religion, but since it is NOT APPLIED that way...well it is basically useless. The term the BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD is a red herring to be able to justify anything they want to justify. ATTORNEY'S....America's biggest problem.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I liked the information presented and the overall message of the article, but I found the writing itself to be somewhat lacking. Maybe I'm being nit-picky, as I'm sure the author isn't an English professor, but the more well written a piece is, the more likely impact it tends to have.
That said, any open minded person can see the validity of the point Davis is making. Unfortunately, those controlling DV policy aren't very open minded.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Here are some studies that indicate that mandatory arrest policies exacerbate conflict rather than diffusing it:
"Exposure Reduction or Backlash? The Effects of Domestic Violence Resources on Intimate Partner Homicide"
Authors: Laura Dugan ; Daniel Nagin ; Richard Rosenfeld
Study sponsored by the US Dept of Justice, National Institute of Justice
http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/Publications/Abstract.aspx?ID=186194
"Does the Certainty of Arrest Reduce Domestic Violence? Evidence from Mandatory and Recommended Arrest laws"
Author: Radha Iyengar
National Bureau of Economic Research
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13186
Temporary ROs increase the likelihood of violence; permanent ROs reduce it:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/288/5/589
November 12th, 2009 at 3:44 am
These mandatory arrest policies turn the police into a removal service for the women who just want the man gone for the night...for what ever reason...