Richard Davis
I have experienced domestic violence professionally as a police officer and personally as a parent. I was a board member and president of a batter’s program. I have researched, read, and written about domestic violence for 30 years. I believe I am as knowledgeable as anyone concerning the intersection of domestic violence and the Criminal Justice System (CJS). I remain passionately concerned about victims, abusers, and their families.
Science vs. Ideology
The National Research Council (NRC) advises the federal government about the most recent research. In its 1996 report, “Understanding Violence Against Women,” the NRC reported that most contemporary domestic violence programs and services are still driven by 20th century “ideology and stakeholder interests rather than by plausible theories and scientific evidence.”
Many scholarly texts, studies and papers document that domestic violence is a complex and multifaceted conundrum. Domestic violence has proven to be a difficult, demanding and problematic issue to resolve.
It is irrational and/or myopic for anyone to believe that domestic violence suddenly, mysteriously and magically appears out of nowhere when males and females are old enough to engage in intimate partner relationships. It is an accepted fact that domestic violence victims and abusers span all ages, genders, sexual orientations, and familial relationships.
Its many distinct and diverse forms of victimization coupled with many disparate forms of abuse should convince everyone – but surprisingly has not – that domestic violence is far more complex and multifaceted than only or primarily a “gender-based” crime.”
Contemporary Interventions
A 20th century mantra of domestic violence advocates was that the criminal justice system must respond to domestic violence the same way it responds to crimes against strangers. However, these advocates soon understood just how wrong they were. They then demanded the exact opposite, insisting that CJS policies and procedures treat domestic violence dramatically different from stranger crimes.
Later, advocates demanded that law enforcement officers make mandatory arrests and for prosecutions to proceed, regardless of the victim’s desires and/or needs. The advocates claimed the reason for this is that many victims were under so much coercion, duress and stress that they were unable to make logical or safe decisions. Now a growing number of studies document that mandatory policies can be more harmful than helpful for some victims (See report, Arrest Policies for Domestic Violence:http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Justice-Denied-DV-Arrest-Policies ).
Now many domestic violence advocates and public policy makers, without any empirical evidence to support their beliefs, again demand systematic change. Many advocates now suggest that, what they label “victim centered” interventions, are best for victims. These advocates claim that complainants, not law enforcement, should control the investigations. What has led these advocates to believe that the same victims they once claimed were unable to make logical or safe decisions, are now able to make them?
Once again, advocates have “zero” evidence-based facts to support their demand for change. For the safety of victims and other family members, public policy makers must not place ideology over victim safety, plausible theory and scientific fact.
Solution
Reams of studies document that all unilateral, mandatory or “one-size-fits-all” interventions can actually hinder or prevents the CJS from providing individual victim expectations, needs, and desires. It is true that some victims are able to make the “right” decisions. However, some victims still need to have safe decisions made for them. Each intervention must be specifically tailored to fit each incident’s unique circumstances.