Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/13634 Record ID: fff0204a-62ec-4650-b1e9-f0e15f39eb49
Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Hartman, Jennifer L | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Belknap, Joanne | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-06-30T23:07:48Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2022-06-30T23:07:48Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2003 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | 30 (3), June 2003 | en |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0093-8548 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/13634 | - |
| dc.language | en | en |
| dc.publisher | Sage Publications | en |
| dc.subject | Legal issues | en |
| dc.subject | Criminal justice responses | en |
| dc.title | Beyond the gatekeepers: court professionals' self reported attitudes about and experiences with misdemeanor domestic violence cases | en |
| dc.title.alternative | Criminal Justice and Behavior | en |
| dc.type | Journal Article | en |
| dc.identifier.catalogid | 887 | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Journal article/research paper | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | new_record | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | International | en |
| dc.description.notes | General Overview: This study examines the attitudes and behavior of judges, prosecutors and public defenders to the prosecution of misdemeanor domestic violence cases.<br/ ><br/ >Objective:The increased popularity of pro-arrest policies in the US has shifted much of the discretion in domestic violence matters from the arresting police officer to the prosecutorial process. This study is designed to investigate court professionals' self reported experience with, attitudes about, and practices used regarding domestic violence cases.<br/ ><br/ >Method: The study involved conducting 2 hour interviews with 14 judges, 18 prosecutors and 31 public defenders from one jurisdiction in a large urban area of the mid West. The respondents were also asked to complete a survey. The response rate was 98.4% (one public defender declined to participate). The respondents were asked about the factors that should be considered in determining whether a batterer should be prosecuted or convicted, the use of certain evidence, their estimates about the frequency of cooperative/uncooperative behaviour by the victim, their estimates of factors that affect outcomes, and their estimates of how effective court outcomes were in preventing future violence. The interviews were open-ended, inviting as much comment as possible.<br/ ><br/ >Results:All court professionals thought that the seriousness of the offence, followed by the severity of injury and the past record of the batter were the most important factors in determining whether the batterer should be prosecuted or convicted. The batterer's attitude, the victim's wishes, the report of the batterer's treatment program and the victim advocate's opinion all rated lower. Some prosecutors and judges found victim's advocate's helpful, while some public defenders refer to them with hostility. Public defenders also displayed a negative attitude to domestic violence laws, seeing them as pandering to petty feminist concerns. Some prosecutors and defendants said they arranged the case depending on which judge they were appointed. Interviews revealed paradoxical attitudes to victims: if they do not cooperate, they are considered pathetic or stupid, while if they actively pursue their cases, their may be viewed as vindictive or making false charges. When asked what affects outcomes, all professionals rated the legal sufficiency of the evidence, the severity of the injury, whether a weapon was involved, and the presence of an eyewitness highly. None of the professionals thought that court outcomes had much effective on reducing recidivism.<br/ ><br/ >Discussion: Court professionals believed that legal variables should be, and are, most influential in the outcome of domestic violence cases. However, there is some variation in their views and some suggestion of independent screening of cases by individual participants. This study was limited by the fact that it relied on self-reported beliefs, perceptions and experiences.<br/ ><br/ >Conclusion: Cases could be developed without victim participation. There could also be more formalised structures for victim advocates to encourage victim participation in more non-coercive ways. More research is required on how to encourage victim participation and to find out what contributes to their reluctance to work with prosecutors. | en |
| dc.identifier.source | Criminal Justice and Behavior | en |
| dc.date.entered | 2007-07-19 | en |
| Appears in Collections: | Journal Articles | |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.