Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:43 pm
Time: 10:43 pm
Results for prosecution, victim participation
1 results foundAuthor: Rhodes, Karin V. Title: Victim Participation in Intimate Partner Violence Prosecution: Implications for Safety Summary: Internationally, intimate partner violence (IPV) is recognized as a major public health problem affecting millions of families and resulting in long-lasting health complications (World Health Organization [WHO], 2009). The intergenerational transmission of violence calls for urgent responses. By the late 20th century, the United States responded to IPV by criminalizing behavior and redefining the prosecutorial role. Currently, all 50 states have enacted laws that address IPV through prosecutorial responses that complement aggressive policing responses, such as mandatory and permissive arrest policies. Prosecutors are encouraged to employ evidence-based prosecutions and discourage victims from dropping charges. This longitudinal mixed-methods study examines to what extent female IPV victim participation in prosecution is associated with their future safety. In essence, we asked, are victims who participate in prosecution safer than those who do not? Given findings that protection orders can reduce future harm to victims, it is essential to understand how a victim’s participation along the continuum of calling 911, talking to the prosecutor, and engaging in criminal prosecution, impacts safety. We hypothesized that participation would improve IPV victims’ safety. Subsequent IPV was defined as a future documented IPV-related police incident or an ED visit for IPV or injury. Within a Midwestern county utilizing coordinated community response, we conducted focus groups with survivors and criminal justice agencies and medical providers. These focus groups along with in-depth qualitative analysis of a stratified random sample of individual IPV cases, informed our data abstraction and analysis of the administrative data. In our study victim communication with a prosecutor appears to be protective against future IPV documented events regardless of defendant incarceration. This finding holds across both the pre- and post-disposition periods. Direct contact or communication with the prosecutor’s office may provide victims the sort of legal leverage necessary to “rebalance” power in relationships through the criminal justice system, as postulated by earlier work. This also suggests that victims have the agency to use the criminal justice system to their advantage, given the continuum of options as to “when” to engage: calling the police, talking to the prosecutor, engaging with the case processing, or seeking redress in the face of future abuse. Findings call into question the issue of prosecutorial frustration with victims who initially press charges and then later want to drop the charges or fail to follow-through with participation in the prosecution process. A victim’s decision to drop charges or to let charges drop through non-participation does not necessarily indicate that the criminal justice system has failed to assist her. Rather, it is likely that the system has served the victim’s needs without prosecution, or that the costs of moving forward with charges outweigh the benefits. Alternatively, it might be that she does want prosecution, and might even consider that prosecution would be more beneficial than dropping charges but other forces inhibit her ability to participate. Our qualitative findings suggest that victims make these decisions after great deliberation and over time may change their mind about the best course of action. Our key finding is that victim participation in prosecution does not increase her help seeking via police calls for service that generate an incident report, nor the likelihood of future ED visits for IPV and injury. These results are important in light of the current pro-prosecution strategies, which support evidence-based trials that proceed regardless of the victim’s presence or testimony. Based on study findings, special prosecution units, vertical prosecution, continuances sensitive to victims needs, combined with court-based victim advocacy and victim input into prosecution outcomes, should continue to be considered best practices. Policy recommendations include increasing communication between the prosecutor’s office and victims, improving referral to advocacy organizations, and reducing logistical barriers for victims to participate in prosecution. Details: Report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2011. 153p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 26, 2011 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/235284.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/235284.pdf Shelf Number: 122159 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceFamily ViolenceIntimate Partner ViolenceProsecution, Victim ParticipationVictims of Family Violence |