Police controlled antecedents which significantly elevate prosecution and conviction rates in domestic violence cases
| Date | 01 November 2013 |
| Published date | 01 November 2013 |
| Author | Eric L Nelson |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895812462594 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Criminology & Criminal Justice
13(5) 526 –551
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1748895812462594
crj.sagepub.com
Police controlled antecedents
which significantly elevate
prosecution and conviction
rates in domestic violence
cases
Eric L Nelson
University of California Davis, USA
Abstract
Logistic regression was used to assess five different police actions that an investigating police
officer can choose to employ when handling a domestic violence call. Each significantly increases
the likelihood the prosecutor will file charges: obtain photographs (60 percent); find and arrest
the defendant (94 percent); obtain an emergency protective order (87 percent); locate additional
witnesses (68 percent); and list more than one criminal charge in the police report (284 percent).
Three optional police actions increase the likelihood of criminal conviction: find and arrest the
defendant (78 percent); obtain an emergency protective order (102 percent); list more than one
charge (142 percent). Survival analysis shows a sixth action, completing the investigation the
same day, to significantly increase rates of criminal case filing and also rates of criminal conviction.
A strong case, best practices model for the investigation of domestic violence incidents was
validated and is presented. Police discretion is discussed. Lawmakers should consider making
these optional investigative actions mandatory.
Keywords
Conviction, domestic violence, police, prosecution
The goal of increasing prosecution and conviction of domestically violent persons is
shared by a wide variety of groups including criminal justice professionals, social work-
ers, medical professionals, religious leaders, politicians, advocates and academics. Doing
so responds to, and operationalizes values of justice, fairness and service to victims, and
it creates a special opportunity for the State to protect children living in violent homes.
Corresponding author:
Eric L Nelson, University of California, Davis, Criminology & Criminal Justice, Individual Program, Office of
Graduate Studies, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
Email: elnelson@ucdavis.edu
462594CRJ13510.1177/1748895812462594Criminology & Criminal JusticeNelson
2012
Article
Nelson 527
Sentencing can involve monitored mandates for convicted parent(s) to participate in
scheduled and unannounced drug and alcohol testing, and to attend classes such as anger
management, parenting skills, even to attend vocational training. Sentencing orders can
permanently remove weapons from the home, and mandate regular employment, pay-
ment of child support, and victim restitution. Always hanging over the head of the con-
victed person is the threat that a suspended jail sentence will be imposed for violations of
the terms of probation.
Before a domestically violent person can be subjected to post-sentencing mandates
they must first be charged with and convicted of at least one crime. Before that can be
done a sufficient police investigative report must be received by prosecutors, because
it is the information source that they rely upon when deciding whether to file criminal
charges, or not. It also provides the basis for prosecution. A report that results in the
filing of criminal charges must be preceded by an adequate police investigation.
Because dozens of unique circumstances attend any crime, a decision has to be made
by the investigating police officer regarding how much effort will be put into detect-
ing, recording, analyzing, and preserving evidence, and how much of it will be
allowed to slip away.
Crime scenes are junctions where dozens of phenomenon converge in a unique way
at a particular moment in time, in a manner that cannot be exactly duplicated ever again.
Variables include the number of people present; their age, sex, gender, culture, intelli-
gence, memory capability, their relationship with each of the principles involved in the
crime, position of observation, psychological influences, and the manner in which per-
sonal belief systems shape their understanding of what they witnessed; their direct, indi-
rect, or non-involvement in the event; lighting, temperature, time of day, visual, auditory,
and physical obstructions; mobility and containment factors such as fences and walls,
and so on. For the involved parties there are issues of history, learning, temperament and
anger, motive, intoxication, maturity, reciprocity, mental intelligence, and so on. Tangible
factors can include actual or improvised weapons, broken and damaged materials, the
presence or absence of telephones, as well as historical records such as email and text
messages, and so on. Other factors may be influential as well, including level of poverty,
unemployment, criminal history and criminal learning, and the shaping influence of hav-
ing witnessed parental violence, experiencing child abuse, and so on.
The challenge of what to do with so many phenomena led Fisher (2004: 33) to note
that individual crime scenes are unique, and thus the investigation of them must be
organized according to their particulars. It is impossible, in advance, to envisage the
range of investigative possibilities for a given criminal incident (Chatterton, 1979: 85);
that is why officer judgment becomes necessary in order to organize the investigation
and police response. Investigating officers must create a personalized approach to each
unique encounter (Bittner, 1967).
The manner of organization and the sufficiency of a police investigation is somewhat
dependent upon the routine work practices of the primary investigating officer, whether
minimal, average, or thorough. As Lipsky notes (1980: 13), ‘Police decide who to arrest
and whose behavior to overlook’, to which Levenson (2010: 4) adds ‘a police officer’s
discretionary decision to arrest or not arrest a person in many cases determines whether
a prosecution goes forward’.
To continue reading
Request your trial