Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:09 am
Time: 3:09 am
Results for restraining orders
15 results foundAuthor: Brame, Robert Title: The Impact of Proactive Enforcement of No-Contact Orders on Victim Safety and Repeat Victimization Summary: This study examined the impact of proactive enforcement of court-imposed no-contact orders (NCOs) on offender behavior and victim safety in cases of misdemeanor domestic violence. The major research goals and objectives were to assess whether proactive enforcement: (1) increased victim knowledge about no-contact orders; (2) reduced contact between offenders and victims; and (3) increased victim safety and promoted well-being. Details: Unpublished report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2009. 131p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228003.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228003.pdf Shelf Number: 117133 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceIntimate Partner ViolenceProtection OrdersRepeat VictimizationRestraining OrdersViolence Against Women |
Author: Logan, T.K. Title: The Kentucky Civil Protective Order Study: A Rural and Urban Multiple Perspective Study of Protective Order Violation Consequences, Responses, and Cost Summary: Intimate partner violence affects thousands of women each year and results in substantial personal and societal costs. In response to the need for victim protection, states have established civil protective orders (PO). This study addresses several gaps in the research literature on civil protective orders by examining PO effectiveness, enforcement, and cost effectiveness. A selected rural area and a selected urban area were compared to better understand subtle jurisdictional differences. This study used multiple data sources including victim self-reports, key informant interviews, and court data on offenders in order to address three major questions: (1) Rural versus urban similarities and differences: Do community contextual factors matter? This question was answered by examining official data and the current literature on rural versus urban differences and by examining rural and urban key informant (n=188) perceptions of factors associated with responses to PO violations to better understand community contextual factors in addressing partner violence. (2) Civil protective orders: Justice or just a piece of paper? This question was answered by following 106 rural and 107 urban women at baseline, 3-months, and 6-months after receiving a PO to examine partner violence prior to obtaining a PO and after obtaining a PO as well as the PO process, PO violations, victim decisions regarding whether or not to report the violations, and justice system responses to reported violations (99% follow-up rate, n=210). Also, civil and criminal system histories and justice system responses to PO violations were examined using official court records on PO respondents in the cases involving the rural and urban women who participated in the study. (3) Costs of protective orders versus partner violence: Is it really worth it? This question was answered by examining personal and societal costs of ongoing partner violence, including costs to the justice system and to victim quality of life, six months before and six months after a protective order was obtained to better understand the full spectrum of costs associated with partner violence and the economic impact of protective orders on partner violence and abuse. Results showed that half (50%) of the study participants indicated that the protective order had been violated while half did not during the six months after receiving the protective order. Even for those who experienced protective order violations, the abuse was significantly reduced over time. However, results also suggest that community contextual factors do matter in the protective order process and in the enforcement of protective orders. For example, more urban than rural PO violators had protective order violation charges during the six month follow-up period. Further, stalking the six months prior to obtaining the protective order was significantly associated with protective order violations even after controlling for a number of relevant variables. Finally, a wide range of costs was examined for each participant including medical, mental health, criminal justice, legal, lost earnings, property losses, and time lost for family and civic responsibilities as well as an index of quality of life six months before the protective order and six months after the protective order was issued. Overall, including changes in quality of life, protective orders saved the state $85 million in a single year, a moderate estimate of cost savings. When the quality of life index is excluded from the cost analysis, study results show that victim safety is positively impacted by protective orders at very little cost except in cases with stalking. This study advances knowledge about PO effectiveness, enforcement, and costs, and provides information for policies and practice to increase both the effectiveness of protective orders and ultimately the safety of women threatened by partner violence in different jurisdictions. Details: Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, Department of Behavioral Science, 2009. 175p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 10, 2010 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228350.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228350.pdf Shelf Number: 116664 Keywords: Costs of CrimeIntimate Partner ViolenceRestraining OrdersStalkingVictims of Family ViolenceViolence Against Women |
Author: Albright, Danielle Title: Deterring Domestic Violence: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Arrest and Protective Orders Summary: Domestic violence is a significant problem in the State of New Mexico, with incidence rates almost twice the national average. In 2004, law enforcement agencies across the state responded to 26,940 incidents of domestic violence, an incidence rate of 15.3 per 1000 persons. Comparatively, the domestic violence incidence rate nationally was 8.9 per 1000 persons in 2004. Of those incidents documented in New Mexico in 2004, Caponera identified 4,011 (or about 6%) as domestic violence incidents for which at least one of the parties involved filed a petition for a protective order with the courts. To date there has been limited research evaluating the effectiveness of either law enforcement intervention or protective orders in New Mexico. As policymakers in the State continue to debate ways to enhance the responsiveness of law enforcement to domestic violence and to make protective orders both more widely available and the enforcement of these orders more uniform, research evaluating the factors that shape the use and effectiveness of the formal interventions is needed. The current research examines the effectiveness of formal social controls in response to a sample of domestic violence incidents that were reported to law enforcement authorities, brought before the District Court as a petition for a protective order, or both in Bernalillo County, New Mexico in 2002. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center, Institute for Social Research, University of New Mexico, 2008. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 21, 2010 at: http://nmsac.unm.edu/contact_information/nmsac_publications/ Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://nmsac.unm.edu/contact_information/nmsac_publications/ Shelf Number: 120049 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceIntimate Partner ViolenceProtective OrdersRestraining OrdersViolence Against Women |
Author: Connors, Edward Title: National Evaluation of the Legal Assistance for Victims Program Summary: In November 2000, the National Institute of Justice, with funding support from the Office on Violence Against Women, awarded a grant to the Institute for Law and Justice (ILJ), in partnership with the National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC), to conduct a national evaluation of the Legal Assistance for Victims (LAV) grant program. The LAV program provides funding to organizations throughout the country to provide comprehensive, free or low-cost civil legal and advocacy services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The evaluation focused on the provision of civil legal and other services to victims of domestic violence and examined LAV projects that were funded in 1998 through 2000. Overall, the LAV program has been a success. LAV has made it possible to provide desperately needed civil legal services to more victims of domestic violence who cannot afford a private attorney. It has also promoted the delivery of high quality, comprehensive services by encouraging collaboration and cross-training among legal services organizations and domestic violence victim services programs. Yet even with LAV funding, there is still a chronic unmet need for attorneys and other personnel to assist and represent domestic violence victims who cannot pay legal fees, either because of their poverty or because their access to financial resources is controlled by the batterer. The LAV grant program is authorized under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, as amended, and is administered by the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), which awarded the first LAV grants in 1998. The purpose of the LAV program is to increase the capacity of local organizations—primarily legal services agencies, domestic violence victim services programs, bar associations, and law schools—to provide free or low cost, comprehensive civil legal and advocacy services to victims of domestic violence. The LAV program was expanded in 2000 to include civil legal and advocacy services to victims of sexual assault and stalking.1 The LAV program advocates a holistic approach to delivering high quality services. It is concerned with the whole system of service providers and with all of a victim’s needs, both legal and non-legal. Local organizations receiving LAV funding provide (1) legal assistance and representation with protection orders and other family law matters; (2) advocacy services that address victims’ safety, health, and other needs; and (3) legal services to resolve housing, employment, public benefits, and other issues. Because very few organizations are able by themselves to fully address all three of these program elements, OVW requires that LAV projects represent collaborations among organizations, and that the projects conduct cross-training of attorneys and victim advocates. Individual LAV projects are given the flexibility to employ various approaches to meet the specific needs identified in their jurisdictions. In addition to hiring staff attorneys to provide legal assistance and representation, many LAV projects develop pro bono programs (in which private attorneys provide services free of charge); hold legal clinics and develop materials for victims who proceed with their cases pro se (on their own); and conduct outreach to traditionally underserved populations, including members of racial, ethnic, and cultural minority groups and victims living in rural areas. Details: Alexandria, VA: Institute for Law and Justice, 2005. 325p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 9, 2011 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208612.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208612.pdf Shelf Number: 123269 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceLegal AidRestraining OrdersVictim ServicesVictims of Family Violence |
Author: Iowa. Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning Title: Public Safety Advisory Board: The Effectiveness of Domestic Abuse Protective Orders & Court Practices in Sentencing Violators Summary: Deterring abuse is important to ensuring safety among domestic violence and assault victims. Protective orders are tools aimed at restricting contact between the victim and the abuser to prevent subsequent violence. While empirical research has indicated that protective orders are effective, the extent of the effectiveness is uncertain because violation rates have varied widely from study to study. In addition, little research exists to explain how violations of protective orders are handled, which factors are considered when giving penalties, and whether certain situations lead to a given type of penalty. Punishing protective order violators is important because, if abusers have violated the order once, it is likely that they will so again; without enforcement, the order is essentially a piece of paper that does not protect the victim from danger. Another important consideration is the nature of the punishment. Iowa law allows defendants accused of domestic abuse contact order violations to be charged with civil contempt or a criminal misdemeanor. These two penalties differ in severity and impact on the offender’s criminal record. The current study attempts to fill these gaps in the research. The purpose of the study is to 1) Examine practices for handling protective order violations and compare Iowa’s eight judicial districts to identify whether there are differences in court practices. 2) Determine the effectiveness of protective orders in Iowa by calculating protective order violation rates and subsequent occurrences of domestic violence. The first research question was addressed through the use of a survey of county attorneys and judges. The purpose of the survey was to identify variations among the districts in procedures pertaining to protective/no contact orders and differences in how violations of orders are treated (as civil contempt or criminal simple misdemeanor) as allowed under Iowa Code 664A.7. The survey also asked participants about their opinions on the effectiveness of Code 664A.7, their perspectives on certain aspects of the law, and their ideas for how it could be improved. The questionnaire, which was developed in collaboration with county attorneys and a judge, was reviewed by several other legal professionals to ensure that questions were appropriate and relevant. An email providing a link to the online questionnaire was sent to all 99 county attorneys and all 8 judicial district chief judges and administrators. Details: Iowa: Iowa Department of Human Rights, 2011. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2012 at http://www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/images/pdf/Domestic_Violence_Report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/images/pdf/Domestic_Violence_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 125160 Keywords: Domestic Violence (Iowa) Intimate Partner ViolenceProtective OrdersRestraining OrdersViolence Against Women |
Author: Trimboli, Lily Title: Persons convicted of breaching Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders: their characteristics and penalties Summary: Aims: To describe the characteristics of those found guilty of breaching an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) in NSW in 2013 and the principal penalties they received. Method: BOCSAR's Criminal Courts database provided information regarding the demographic characteristics of, and penalties imposed on, a cohort of 3,154 offenders found guilty in NSW in 2013 of breaching an ADVO as their principal offence. BOCSAR's Re-offending Database provided data regarding the number of proven court appearances in the preceding five years for a cohort of 5,023 persons with a court appearance in 2013 involving at least one proven breach ADVO. Results: Of 3,154 persons who were found guilty of breaching an ADVO as their principal offence, most were male (87.7%) and entered a guilty plea (84.6%). About one in five (22.5%) received a bond without supervision (average length=14 months) as their principal penalty; 17.8 per cent were fined (average amount=$432); 15.7 per cent received a bond with supervision (average length=16 months) and 12.4 per cent were given a custodial sentence (average length=4 months). Of 5,023 persons with a court appearance in 2013 involving at least one proven breach ADVO offence, 22.2 per cent had no proven court appearances in the preceding five years; 53.3 per cent of offenders had at least one prior proven violent offence (the main categories were assault and stalking); and 28.7 per cent of offenders had at least one prior proven breach ADVO offence. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2015. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue paper no. 102: Accessed May 21, 2015 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/bb102.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/bb102.pdf Shelf Number: 135742 Keywords: Court OrdersDomestic ViolenceFamily ViolenceIntimate Partner ViolenceProtection OrdersRepeat OffendersRestraining Orders |
Author: Klein, Andrew Title: An Exploratory Study of Juvenile Orders of Protection as a Remedy for Dating Violence Summary: An increasing number of states, like New York, are expanding order of protection (OP) laws to allow teens to secure orders for dating violence without parental involvement. New York did so effective July, 2008. While there has been extensive research in regard to civil OPs involving adults for intimate partner violence, this study of all OPs taken out by New York dating violence victims in 2009 and 2010 represents the first of its kind to examine OPs involving teens for dating violence. The goal of this research is to increase our understanding of OPs by teens as a remedy for dating violence by developing a comprehensive portrait of their use in New York State. The study is both quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative portion of the study features secondary data analysis of multiple data sets, including all appropriate OPs obtained from New York Family Courts and criminal histories and police incident files from the State's Division of Criminal Justice Services. The qualitative research is based on focus groups and individual interviews with two populations of youth: 1) a statewide sample (N=122), both boys and girls, likely to be dating and exposed to dating violence but who had not necessarily used OPs (At Risk Group) and 2) a small sample of New York City young women (N=13) who have sought and/or secured Civil Orders of Protection (User Group). We find the New York law to be very much a work in progress. Even the lowest estimates of teen dating violence (9.4% physical abuse, CDC, 2012), far exceed the number of OPs (1,200) requested for dating violence in the two years of study. As the At Risk teen focus groups reveals, teens are unfamiliar with the expanded law. In addition, the User group reports substantial barriers facing teens in obtaining orders, including being labeled as "snitches" by their peers, fears that OPs would not work, and ambivalence about giving up on the abusive relationship. The data reveals that more than 90% of the petitioners were female and respondents male. While all of the victims were teens, most of the abusers were not, averaging just short of 21 years old. The majority of respondents had prior criminal histories. Most victims alleged harassment, including cyberstalking, and assaults. The relatively few female respondents more closely resembled female petitioners, than male respondents, being younger and less likely to have prior arrest histories. Police were involved in only 10 percent of the incidents that prompted the study petitions. While the majority of the teen petitioners returned to court more than once, most received only one or two temporary orders, lasting a month or so. Likely as a result of this limited duration, few respondents were charged with violating the orders. However, analysis of arrest and police incident reports, as well as new petitions taken out by study petitioners, indicated that a little more than a quarter of the respondents re-abused their victims from one to three years after the initial petition. Risk for re-abuse was associated with gender (being male), respondents having a prior criminal history, respondents being year or more older than their victims, and couples with children in common. The research suggests OPs potentially constitute an important tool for teen victims. However, given lack of police involvement, without an alternative network of supportive adults, including parents and school personnel, the expanded use of OPs for teen dating violence will remain limited. New York courts also face a challenge in accommodating teen petitioners. Details: Report to the U.S. Department of Justice, 2013. 172p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 26, 2015 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/242131.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/242131.pdf Shelf Number: 129682 Keywords: CybercrimesCyberstalkingDating ViolenceOrders of ProtectionRestraining Orders |
Author: Western Australia. Office of the Auditor General Title: A Measure of Protection: Management and Effectiveness of Restraining Orders Summary: Public and personal safety are issues of major significance to the community. For some time the community has been expressing concern about a perceived deterioration in safety and doubts have been raised about the effectiveness of restraining orders as a method of ensuring individual safety. The Restraining Orders Act 1997 has now been in place for five years and it is timely to look at how effectively it has been implemented and whether it affords the community a measure of protection. Restraining orders are court orders designed to prevent acts of violence or misconduct by requiring a person to behave in certain ways, such as to maintain a prescribed distance from the applicant. A restraining order is worded to fit particular circumstances and breaching the terms of an order can result in a fine or imprisonment. Restraining orders were first introduced in Western Australia in 1982 as an amendment to the Justices Act 1902 to deter breaches of the peace. However, over time it became apparent that there were a number of inadequacies in the use of restraining orders, including overuse of orders, inappropriate use of orders where alternative options may be more effective, difficulties with the serving of orders, and inconsistency in addressing breaches. A review of restraining orders was undertaken in 1995 and resulted in the Restraining Orders Act 1997. The new Act introduced two forms of order: violence restraining orders to deal specifically with incidents of personal violence, and misconduct restraining orders to address other non-violent forms of public nuisance such as damage to property. This dichotomy was intended to give greater priority to violence restraining orders. This examination focuses on the management and effectiveness of restraining orders. In particular, the examination uses the information gathered during the then Ministry of Justice evaluation of the 1997 Act, carried out in December 1998, as baseline data to make a comparative study of applications for restraining orders before and after the introduction of the Act. None of the evaluation's 33 recommendations for changes to legislation and regulation have been fully implemented across the State. Although restraining orders are not a stand-alone solution, they can and do work effectively within existing resources in some districts and regions of the State, but only if there is appropriate support and coordination. This is demonstrated by the coordinated approach used in the Geraldton and Armadale regions. On the whole, however, the flaws and variations in the system render the orders relatively ineffective for the protection of victims of violence. The Act has been in place for five years and yet restraining orders are not demonstrably more effective in the protection of victims of violence. Details: Perth: Western Australia Auditor General, 2002. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 5: Accessed August 26, 2015 at: https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/report2002_05.pdf Year: 2002 Country: Australia URL: https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/report2002_05.pdf Shelf Number: 136592 Keywords: Court OrdersDomestic ViolenceRestraining OrdersVictims of Family Violence |
Author: Napier, Sarah Title: Who goes to prison for breaching an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order? An analysis of police narratives Summary: Aim: To identify the situational and offender characteristics associated with prison sentences for Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) breaches. Method: Case narratives from police incident reports of ADVO breach incidents in NSW were analysed. Two samples were examined: (1) breach incidents where the offender involved was imprisoned (n=250) and (2) breach incidents where the offender involved received a non-custodial sentence (n=250). The nature of the breach and the characteristics of persons involved in these two breach samples were compared using descriptive data and logistic regression models. Results: The majority of ADVO breaches in both samples involved male to female offending in spousal/ex-spousal relationships, occurred in the victim's house and involved face-to-face contact. Compared with offenders in the non-prison group, a higher proportion of offenders who received a custodial penalty for the breach ADVO matter were male, Indigenous, had 5 or more prior court appearances (including prior offences for domestic violence (DV), assault and breach ADVO), had 3 or more prior prison penalties and had breached two or more conditions of their order. Breaches resulting in prison also had a higher proportion of matters involving physical assault, property damage, psychological aggression and parties who had a history of violence. After controlling for other factors, the following factors were independently associated with imprisonment for ADVO; the offender's gender, prior imprisonment, prior proven DV offence, history of violence, involvement of physical assault in the breach, victim/offender relationship and residing with the victim. Conclusion: The profile of offenders who receive imprisonment for a breach ADVO offence is significantly different from those who receive a non-custodial penalty for these offences. The nature of the breach and the circumstances surrounding the event also vary for matters where prison is imposed for an ADVO breach. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2015. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Bureau Brief, Issue Paper no. 107: Accessed September 14, 2015 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/BB/Report_Apprehended_Domestic_Violence_Order_bb107.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/BB/Report_Apprehended_Domestic_Violence_Order_bb107.pdf Shelf Number: 136748 Keywords: Court OrdersDomestic ViolenceFamily ViolenceRestraining OrdersViolence Against Women |
Author: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Bra) Title: Restraining Orders Summary: The purpose of the 2011 amendment to the Restraining Order Ac was to "strengthen the order’s crime prevention effect and improve the protection the order is intended to provide." On the basis of this study, the National Council has found that the application of the Act has remained largely unchanged subsequent to 2011. The aims of the reform do not appear to have been achieved. Details: Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Bra): 2015. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: English summary of Bra report 2015:3: Accessed March 12, 2016 at: https://www.bra.se/download/18.3e68a7df14d334859aa203/1431499747181/2015_3_Restraining_orders.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Sweden URL: https://www.bra.se/download/18.3e68a7df14d334859aa203/1431499747181/2015_3_Restraining_orders.pdf Shelf Number: 138182 Keywords: Domestic Violence intimate Partner Violence Restraining OrdersViolence Against Women |
Author: Goggins, Becki Title: State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Checks: Protection Order Submissions Summary: A protection order - also known as a restraining order, order of protection, protective order, or an injunction - is an order issued by a civil or criminal court for the purpose of preventing violence or threatening acts or harassment against, sexual violence, or contact or communication with or physical proximity to another person.1 This order may also contain other provisions such as requiring the abuser to relinquish firearms and/or refrain from all contact with the victim of abuse. When the subject of the protection order violates the terms established by the court, the victim can ask law enforcement (or the court) to enforce the order. In 1994, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which requires all U.S. states and territories to give "full faith and credit" to all valid orders of protection issued by other jurisdictions including tribal lands, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. The intent of this provision is to ensure that victims of abuse can call upon law enforcement for protection no matter where they are in the country. While persons who have been granted protection orders are encouraged to keep a copy of the order with them at all times, sometimes this is simply not practical or even possible. Since many jurisdictions require validation of a protection order if it cannot be visually inspected, it is important that protection orders be entered into the Protection Order File of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) as this is the best way to ensure that a record of its existence can be confirmed by law enforcement across the nation. For firearm- and explosive-related background checks the federal law contains provisions that narrow the circumstances when a protection order serves as a bar to receiving a firearm. The protection order must restrain the person who is the subject of the protection order from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or prevent the subject of the order from engaging in other conduct that would place the partner or child in reasonable fear of bodily injury. An intimate partner is defined as the spouse of the person, a former spouse of the person, an individual who is a parent of a child of the person, and an individual who cohabits or has cohabited with the person. In addition, the protection order must arise from a hearing in which the subject of the order had both notice and opportunity to participate. Some states have enacted laws expanding the nature of the relationship or types of conduct underlying the issuance of a protection order; these expanded-parameter protection orders serve as state disqualifiers for receiving a firearm. Details: Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts; Sacramento: SEARCH - National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 2016. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 20, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249864.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249864.pdf Shelf Number: 140374 Keywords: Background ChecksDomestic ViolenceGun ControlProtection OrdersRestraining Orders |
Author: Fields, Shawn E. Title: Debunking the Stranger in the Bushes Myth: The Case for Sexual Assault Protection Orders Summary: Rape mythologies about the "stranger lurking in the bushes" continue to inform attitudes and decisions by law enforcement personnel, judges, and juries. These archaic stereotypes prejudice sexual assault victims by conditioning factfinders to distrust rape allegations lacking corroborative evidence of a physical struggle with a stranger. In reality, over three-quarters of all sexual assaults in the United States are committed by someone known to the victim; more often than not the victim and perpetrator live, work, or attend school together. Given the perpetuation of rape myths, the incarceration rate for these "acquaintance rape" offenders currently stands at less than 1%. The failure of the criminal justice system to protect sexual assault victims from perpetrators with ongoing access to their victims puts victims at genuine risk of future harm. Moreover, existing civil restraining order statutes remain largely unavailable to sexual assault victims, because these statutes either require the presence of a romantic relationship or impose an unattainably high burden of proof for victims with little extrinsic evidence of physical assault. This Article advocates for a new Sexual Assault Protection Order that imposes no relationship requirement, operates under a lower burden of proof, and provides carefully-tailored prospective relief specifically designed for sexual assault victims. This Article also considers the constitutional concerns of critics who argue that restraining order hearings impermissibly adjudicate criminal guilt under more permissive civil procedures. The Article concludes by balancing these competing concerns, and recommending a model Sexual Assault Protection Order that can both provide tangible, attainable protection remedies to victims and adequately protect the rights of the accused. Details: Unpublished paper, 2016. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 19, 2016 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2849871 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2849871 Shelf Number: 140792 Keywords: Acquaintance RapeProtection OrdersRapeRestraining OrdersSexual Assault |
Author: Poynton, Suzanne Title: Breach rate of Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders in NSW Summary: Aim: To estimate the proportion of ADVOs breached and identify factors associated with a breach of a final order. Method: Details of all ADVOs granted between 1 July 2013 and 30 June 2014 (inclusive) were extracted from the NSW COPS database and linked to breach ADVO incidents occurring after 1 July 2013 and before 30 June 2015 using defendant and victim identifying information. Breaches were assigned to a particular order if they occurred after the order issue date and before the order expiry date or before a higher ADVO order was issued. Multivariate analysis was undertaken to examine factors independently associated with the time to first breach of a final ADVO. Results: Overall 23,240 provisional orders, 18,045 interim orders and 24,458 final orders were issued during the observation period. The breach rate was much higher for final orders (20%), which are longer in duration, than for provisional (5%) or interim (9%) orders. When breaches occurred, most often only one incident per order was recorded (88% of provisional order breaches, 73% of interim order breaches and 64% of final order breaches). Of all ADVOs which did record a breach, 34% were breached within one month of being granted, 23% within 1-3 months and 18% within 3-6 months. Male, Indigenous and younger POIs breached their final order sooner than other defendants. Final orders protecting just one victim, non-Indigenous victims or victims aged less than 20 took longer to be breached. Conclusion: Only a minority proportion of ADVOs record a breach whilst the order is in effect. Where a breach does occur it most often happens soon after the order is issued and involves a single incident. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2016. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue paper no. 119: Accessed November 16, 2016 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/BB/Report-2016-Breach-rate-of-Apprehended-Domestic-Violence-Orders-in-NSW-BB119.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/BB/Report-2016-Breach-rate-of-Apprehended-Domestic-Violence-Orders-in-NSW-BB119.pdf Shelf Number: 147315 Keywords: Court OrdersDomestic ViolenceFamily ViolenceIntimate Partner ViolenceProtection OrdersRestraining Orders |
Author: Fransson, Annika Pallvik Title: Reinforcing restraining orders using electronic monitoring Summary: Electronic monitoring has been used for over two decades in connection with coercive criminal procedural measures or the sanctioning of criminal activity. In Sweden, electronic monitoring has been in use since 1994, firstly as an alternative to a short prison term (front door), and now also as a means of helping inmates to make the transition back to life in the community at the end of a term in prison (back door). Monitoring is based on voluntary participation in the programme, but is backed with the threat of incarceration if the regulations associated with the electronic monitoring programme are breached. Over the years, the technology has been further developed. From only providing the opportunity to check whether an individual is present at or absent from specific places, satellite technology is now available that allows for continuous monitoring of the movements made by any given individual. The emergence of these new technological advances created an interest in using electronic monitoring for other objectives within the penal justice system. One such objective involves reinforcing restraining orders. However, caution is needed when it comes to the use of electronic monitoring for new purposes. At the request of the Swedish Government, the National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsforebyggande radet – Bra) has examined the possibility of using electronic monitoring to reinforce restraining orders. This document presents the technical and legal factors that should be taken into consideration when contemplating the use of electronic monitoring for crime prevention purposes. Details: Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, 2005. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2017 at: https://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f7130f475a2f1800025791/1371914734425/2005_reinforcing_restraining_orders_using_electronic_monitoring.pdf Year: 2005 Country: Sweden URL: https://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f7130f475a2f1800025791/1371914734425/2005_reinforcing_restraining_orders_using_electronic_monitoring.pdf Shelf Number: 148155 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Electronic Monitoring Offender Supervision Restraining Orders |
Author: Ofer, Nogah Title: Super-complaint : Police failure to use protective measures in cases involving violence against women and girls Summary: Centre for Women's Justice (CWJ) is a charity established in 2016 with the purpose of holding the state to account on its response to violence against women and girls (VAWG). Our Director, Harriet Wistrich, and our two solicitors, are specialists in civil claims against public authorities and public law. In addition to conducting our own strategic litigation we provide training to frontline organisations in the women's sector on failures around VAWG in the criminal justice system and the legal remedies available to address them. We also provide legal advice to frontline organisations and members of the public in individual cases involving policing and prosecution of VAWG. This super-complaint draws together failures by the police to utilise four separate legal protections that exist for the benefit of vulnerable people experiencing domestic abuse, sexual violence, harassment and stalking, the overwhelming majority of whom are women and girls. Whilst we analyse the circumstances surrounding each of these legal powers, it is important to appreciate the cumulative effect of these widespread failings, which together amount to a systemic failure on the part of the state to provide protection for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Use of these powers can prevent serious harm and a lack of response by police creates impunity, with perpetrators perceiving that there are no repercussions for their actions, and survivors perceiving that nothing happens when policing action is sought and that it is not worth reporting to police. This systemic failure persists despite the Government's avowed determination to address VAWG, since, as Home Secretary, Theresa May launched a Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls in 2010. It also persists some five years after HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMICFRS) published its first thematic report on the policing of domestic abuse in 2014, with subsequent regular progress reports, the latest published only last month. The police service as a whole adopted a "positive action" approach to VAWG in 2008 , yet that has not been reflected in practice on the ground, as identified by HMICFRS in its reports. One in five women killed by a current or former partner in 2017-2018 had been in contact with the police . It appears from the evidence reported by frontline women's services, that lack of protection for women is on the increase, partly resulting from a lack of understanding of abuse by police officers so that available powers are not properly utilised, and partly due to under-resourcing of police forces. We shall consider these factors in more detail below. Not only is there a political and policy failure by the state to effectively tackle a social ill acknowledged to be of epidemic proportions (see statistics at page 9 below) but also a failure to meet the state's legal duties under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Our legal analysis below sets out the law around the state's positive obligations to protect the right to life (Article 2), prevent inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3) and enforce respect for private and family life (Article 8). When the policing of VAWG is compared to that of other crime types, these breaches are clearly discriminatory, impacting disproportionately on women and girls (Article 14). We are concerned that the real hurdles to effective action to protect women from violence, abuse and coercion are not being tackled, and that despite the efforts devoted to it, the Domestic Abuse Bill will not produce the desired protection. The problems we see are not a lack of legal powers or a need for broad legislative change (though some changes in the law are identified in this super-complaint) but a failure to utilise existing legal powers. This seems to be due to the low priority accorded to VAWG, lack of training and effective supervision, a failure to apply deterrent sanctions on officers who disregard these duties, and chronic under-funding of frontline policing of VAWG. There seems little purpose in adding a Domestic Violence Protection Order to the statute books to lie unused, when similar existing orders are not being utilised. Outline of this report -- The four protective measures addressed in this super-complaint are: 1. Failure to impose bail conditions: a. Where suspects are interviewed following voluntary attendance and bail cannot be used; b. Where suspects are interviewed under arrest, release under investigation without bail, or release on bail without bail conditions; c. Where bail is not extended beyond 28 days 2. Failure to arrest for breach of non-molestation orders; 3. Failure to utilise Domestic Violence Protection Notices and Domestic Violence Protection Orders; 4. Failure to apply for restraining orders at conclusion of criminal proceedings; We shall briefly outline the wider picture on policing of VAWG, and then examine each of the four protective measures separately, and for each consider: - The view from the frontline - Information from other sources (where available) - The response of oversight bodies - CWJ's analysis and recommendations for action. Details: London: Centre for Women's Justice, 2019. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2019 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5aa98420f2e6b1ba0c874e42/t/5c91f55c9b747a252efe260c/1553069406371/Super-complaint+report.FINAL.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5aa98420f2e6b1ba0c874e42/t/5c91f55c9b747a252efe260c/1553069406371/Super-complaint+report.FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 155615 Keywords: Domestic ViolencePolice ResponsePolicing Domestic AbuseProtection OrdersRestraining OrdersViolence Against Women, Girls |