Making the grade
| Author | Jeffrey Rosky,Karol Lucken |
| Published date | 01 September 2016 |
| Date | 01 September 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0269758016630890 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Making the grade: Judicial
behavior in civil protection
order hearings for intimate
partner violence
Karol Lucken
University of Central Florida, USA
Jeffrey Rosky
University of Central Florida, USA
Abstract
In the USA, civil protection orders, commonly known as restraining orders, have been under-
utilized as a means of protecting victims of intimate partner violence. It has been proposed that
part of the reason for this underutilization is victim apprehension over treatment by the courts. To
improve the experience of accessing legal relief, Court Watch programs have been implemented in
various jurisdictions across the country. Court Watch programs monitor judicial behavior on
several dimensions, including whether interactions with victims are informational, explanatory,
participatory, and respectful. Using secondary data obtained from a Florida Court Watch program,
this study examines judicial behavior in 500 civil protection order hearings for intimate partner
violence. Applying quantitative and qualitative analytic strategies, we examine Court Watch per-
ceptions of judicial behavior, the association between Court Watch perceptions of judicial
behavior and civil protection order outcomes, and factors that might account for judicial behavior.
Keywords
Victims, violence, protection orders, judges, interactional justice
Introduction
A civil protection order (CPO), commonly known as a restraining order, affords victims of intimate
partner violence (IPV) one means of accessing legal relief. A major benefit of CPOs is that they can
Corresponding author:
Karol Lucken, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Central Florida, PO Box 161600, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.
Email: Karol.Lucken@ucf.edu
International Review of Victimology
2016, Vol. 22(3) 269–287
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0269758016630890
irv.sagepub.com
be obtained through the civil courts, where the burden of proof required for obtaining one is lower
than what is required for obtaining a criminal conviction (American Bar Association, 2009; Logan
et al., 2006). Seeking a CPO can also entail fewer financial and time costs for the victim, especially
when compared with the costs of pursuing a criminal case (Buzawa et al., 2012). An additional
benefit is that victims can self-initiate this civil action and communicate directly to the court the
kinds of relief they are seeking (Buzawa et al., 2012; Eigenberg et al., 2003).
Despite the seeming benefits associated with CPOs, IPV victims have underutilized this option.
Holt et al. (2002) found that only 12%of female victims who reported domestic violence to the
police sought a CPO afterward. Other research suggests that between 12%and 22%of domestic
violence victims seek a CPO (Klein, 2008). National Crime Victimization Survey data obtained
during 1995–1996 indicate that only 17%of physical assault and 37%of stalking victims sought a
CPO (Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000).
Some of the reasonscited for this underutilizationinclude fear of retaliationby the perpetrator and
perceptions of CPO ineffectiveness (Harrell, 1993; Keilitz et al.,1996; Logan et al., 2006). A reason
that motivates this study is apprehension about the court system itself. Research suggests the system
can be an inhibiting factor in the decision to seek a CPO if victims anticipate or have experienced
disbelief by the court or hostile or unfriendly court practices (Fischer and Rose, 1995; Goolkasian,
1986; Ptacek, 1999;Zoellner et al., 2000). These kinds of experiences can have a chillingeffect on a
victim’s willingness to use thejustice system in the futureand leave both victims and advocatesalike
perplexed and even angered (Solender, 1998) by the actions of the court.
To improve the experience of accessing relief through the courts, several jurisdictions in the US
have developed what are known as Court Watch programs. Court Watch programs seek to increase
survivor safety, offender accountability, and judicial transparency by monitoring legal outcomes in
IPV-related cases (Court Watch of North Carolina Inc.,2005; Survivors and Advocates forEmpow-
erment,Inc., 2006).
1
In additionto monitoring hearing outcomes,Court Watch programsalso monitor
interactions between the judge, victim/petitioner, and offender/respondent. Specifically, programs
look to see if judicia lb ehavior comports with principles t hat are generally associated with p rocedural
justice, interactional justice (Greenberg, 1993), or therapeutic jurisprudence (Erez et al., 2011; Lax-
minarayan,2013; Wemmers and Cyr, 2006; Wexlerand Winick, 1996; Winick,2011). This includes,
but is not limited to, behavior that promotes interactions that are informational, explanatory, partici-
patory (permits voice and control), and respectful toward victims. Research suggests that if a legal
process is alignedwith these principles, positiveeffects can accrue. This includesvictims being more
willing to use the system in the future and/or being less harmed by the system, irrespective of the
outcome (Davis and Taylor, 1997; Epstein, 2002; Gover et al., 2007; Hickman and Simpson, 2003;
Lind et al.,1990;Stephens and Sinden, 2000; Wemmersand Cyr, 2006; Winick, 2011).
The potential for these positive effects to be realized in CPO hearings is largely unknown
because research on judicial behavior in IPV-related cases is rarely conducted. This study begins
to fill this gap by examining Court Watch perceptions of judicial behavior in CPO hearings for
IPV. While these perceptions of judicial behavior are not the victim’s, the purpose of Court Watch
is to render assessments on the victim’s behalf. With that objective in mind, the primary question
guiding this study is whether judges in the county of interest exhibit behavior that reflects the
above-named principles. Relatedly, the study also considers the association between Court Watch
perceptions of judicial behavior and hearing outcomes (i.e. CPO granted/denied). In other words,
does the hearing outcome (e.g. CPO denied) so shape pe rceptions of judicial behavior that a
negative outcome translates to a (false) negative judicial grade? Finally, using the grade issued
by Court Watch monitors, the study explores factors that might affect judicial behavior in CPO
270 International Review of Victimology 22(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial