Mandatory arrest for domestic violence doesn’t work – even Harvard says so 8/10/07
Fostered, if not mandated by the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin all passed laws making arrest mandatory in domestic violence cases. In addition Arkansas, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, and Tennessee passed “preferred arrest” laws that amounted to the same thing.
In the year 2000 I began looking at what impact Colorado’s mandatory arrest law had in Colorado Springs, one of seven cities in the United States where the mandatory arrest policy had been tested prior to becoming law. Initially I plotted police data for the ten-year period from 1990 (before the law was passed) to 1999 (five years after mandatory arrest became law). That plot was later expanded to the fifteen-year period from 1990 to 2004 and is shown below.
Plot of fifteen-year compilation of 911 calls and arrests for simple assault in Colorado Springs, Colorado, versus increase in population
There is a spike in 911 calls for domestic disturbances in 1994. But by 1995 the word about the consequences of calling 911 in a “domestic” had spread like wildfire and 911 domestic disturbance calls dropped dramatically, and kept dropping as shown by the red line in the above plot. Clearly, the draconian police response mandated by the 1994 DV laws primarily acts to deter citizens from calling 911. Subsequent research by others found the same result in at least three other cities.
My initial query was to see how much arrests for simple assault (roughly 70-75% of DV arrests are for simple assault) increased after 1994. From the plot (gold line) it is apparent these arrests roughly doubled in 1995 but then began to drop and by 2004 were no more common than a linear increase due to population would predict. Thus, the major impact of the DV laws is clearly to deter citizens from calling police in a domestic disturbance.
I suppose if one repeats something often enough and long enough it reaches even ivory towers, as evident in the following story.
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.
by Radha Iyengar, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
© 2007 The New York Times
August 7, 2007 – Two decades ago, in an effort to curb domestic violence, states began passing “mandatory arrest” laws. Police officers responding to a call for help would no longer need to determine whether one person was truly violent or out of control; every time someone reported abuse, the police would simply be required to make an arrest.
It seemed like a good tactic – at least to people who work with victims of domestic violence. (Police officers tended to be less enthusiastic, because they prefer to make arrests at their own discretion.) Arrests would immediately stop the violence and might discourage abusers from further acts of abuse.
A small but influential study of police responses to domestic violence calls, conducted by criminologists in Minnesota in the early 1980s, found that arrests were the most effective strategy for reducing future violence. Now, 22 states and the District of Columbia have laws that mandate or at least strongly recommend that everyone accused of domestic abuse be arrested.
I recently conducted my own study of mandatory arrest laws by comparing the rates of murders by intimate partners before and after the laws went into effect. Intimate partner homicides have generally decreased in the past 20 years, perhaps because greater awareness of the problem of domestic violence has led to the creation of more resources for victims. But in states with mandatory arrest laws, the homicides are about 50 percent higher today than they are in states without the laws.
The mandatory arrest laws were intended to impose a cost on abusers. But because of psychological, emotional and financial ties that often keep victims loyal to their abusers, the cost of arrest is easily transferred from abusers to victims. Victims want protection, but they do not always want to see their partners put behind bars.
Radha Iyengar is a fellow in health policy research at Harvard.
NOTE: If you would like to be removed from our mailing list please respond to this message with REMOVE in the subject line. Comments or criticisms of our policies or Web sites should be addressed to mailto:email@example.com.
You are receiving this message because (1) you asked to be added to our mailing list; (2) you sent the EJF an e-mail or requested help from us; (3) you are known to work on issues related to human rights; (4) you are known to be interested in civil liberties and equal justice; (5) your name and address appeared as an addressee on email sent to us; or (6) you are a member of or contribute to the Equal Justice Foundation.
Issues of interest to the Equal Justice Foundation http://www.ejfi.org/ are:
Courts and Civil Liberties http://www.ejfi.org/Courts
Domestic Violence http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv.htm
Domestic Violence Against Men in Colorado http://www.dvmen.org/
Emerson case http://www.ejfi.org/emerson.htm
Families and Marriage http://www.ejfi.org/family
Prohibitions and the War On Drugs http://www.ejfi.org/Prohibition
Vote Fraud and Election Issues http://www.ejfi.org/Voting
Contributions are tax deductible and can be made on the Web at http://www.ejfi.org/join2.htm or by sending a check to the address below. Federal employees can contribute through the Combined Federal Campaign. The EJF is listed in Colorado , Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming #18855.
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.
Equal Justice Foundation http://www.ejfi.org/
Powered by Facebook Comments