Perpetrator or victim? A review of the complexities of domestic violence cases
| Published date | 28 February 2020 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-12-2019-0464 |
| Date | 28 February 2020 |
| Pages | 55-62 |
| Author | John Marc Hamel |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Aggression,conflict & peace,Sociology,Gender studies,Gender violence,Political sociology,policy & social change,Social conflicts,War/peace |
Perpetrator or victim? A review of the
complexities of domestic violence cases
John Marc Hamel
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of thisstudy is to provide a review of research on the merits of public policyand
law enforcement responses to intimate partner violence (IPV) in the USA using prevalence rates and
dynamicsof IPV.
Design/methodology/approach –A reading of recent comprehensive literature reviews was
supplementedby a PsychInfo search of relevantarticles published in peer-reviewedjournals.
Findings –Laws against IPV in the USA have beenenforced much more vigorously in comparison with
most of the world, many of which have no such laws at all. While more perpetrators have been held
accountable for their actions–increasing the safety of victims –many perpetrators are never broughtto
justice, and ‘‘mandatory arrest’’ laws sometimes result in arrests being made with a scant evidence of
wrongdoing. This state of affairs can be traced two key factors. First, the persistence of the gender
paradigm –an outdated and discredited set of assumptions about the role of gender in IPV –as
formulated by batteredwomen’s advocates, which has informed IPV public policyfor several decades.
Second, the complex nature of IPV, a phenomenon that mostly happens behind closed doors, varies
widely in frequency, intensity,mutuality and impact on victims, and it cannot easily be framed in binary
victim/perpetratorterms.
Practical implications –The arrestand prosecution of possibly innocent individualsis in violation of due
processand mitigates against our common effortsto reduce IPV in our communities.
Originality/value –A compact summaryof the relevant IPV policy literature is presentedwith a focus on
an under-studied topic,i.e. the problems inherent in the categorization of individualsas either victims or
perpetratorsand the failure to recognize theinherently complex nature of IPV.
Keywords Intimate partner violence, Domestic violence perpetrators, Domestic violence complexities,
Gender paradigm, IPV victims, Mandatory arrest
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Physical and sexual assaults and credible threats of assault on a spouse or dating partner,
known as domestic violence or intimate partner violence (IPV), are considered criminal
offenses in 87 per cent of countries surveyed by the World Health Organization (WHO,
2014). While they are weakly enforced, or not enforced at all, in over a third of the 133
reporting countries a vigorous law-enforcement response exists inthe USA and a few other
English-speaking countries where perpetrators can be given jail time, court-ordered to
complete a treatment program, commonly knownas “batterer intervention,” or both. In parts
of the USA, however, where “mandatoryarrest” laws limit the discretion of the police (Hamel
and Russell, 2013), the vigorousness of this response has had some unanticipated
consequences, both in terms of legal rightsfor criminal defendants and the effectiveness of
this response in lowering rates of IPV. In most states, pro-arrest and “no-drop prosecution”
policies have led to a substantial increasein the number of arrests but not necessarily in the
rates of successful conviction (Buzawa et al., 2015). Overall, the percentage of defendants
arrested for domestic violence whoare subsequently convicted is only about 30 per cent of
John Marc Hamel is
Independent Research and
Clinical and Forensic Social
Worker, San Francisco,
California, USA.
Received 15 December 2019
Revised 24 January 2020
Accepted 25 January 2020
DOI 10.1108/JACPR-12-2019-0464 VOL. 12 NO. 2 2020, pp. 55-62, ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1759-6599 jJOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH jPAGE 55
To continue reading
Request your trial