search | site index | faq | about us | what's new
Barbara J. Hart
Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse
Publication Date: All papers are Copyrighted by Barbara J. Hart unless otherwise noted.
Some batterers are life-endangering. While it is true that all batterers are dangerous, some are more likely to kill than others and some are more likely to kill at specific times. Regardless of whether there is a protection from abuse order in effect, officers should evaluate whether an assailant is likely to kill his* partner or other family members and/or police personnel and take appropriate action.
Assessment is tricky and never fool-proof. It is important to conduct an assessment at every call, no matter how many times an officer has responded to the same household. The dispatcher and responding officer can utilize the indicators described below in making an assessment of the batterer's potential to kill. Considering these factors may or may not reveal actual potential for homicidal assault. But, the likelihood of a homicide is greater when these factors are present. The greater the number of indicators that the batterer demonstrates or the greater the intensity of indicators, the greater the likelihood of a life-threatening attack.
Use all of the information you have about the batterer, current as well as past incident information. A thorough investigation at the scene will provide much of the information necessary to make this assessment. However, law enforcement will not obtain reliable information from an interview conducted with the victim and perpetrator together or from the batterer alone.
If an intervention worker concludes that a batterer is likely to kill or commit life-endangering violence, extraordinary measures should be taken to protect the victim and her children. This may include notifying the victim and law enforcement of risk, as well as seeking a mental health commitment, where appropriate. The victim should be advised that the presence of these indicators may mean that the batterer is contemplating homicide and that she should immediately take action to protect herself and should contact the local battered woman's program to further assess lethality and develop safety plans.
Hart, B."Assessing Whether Batters Will Kill" PCADV, 1990.
Domestic violence victims are both similar to and strikingly different from other victims of violent crime. Thus, they require all the information, assistance and input that facilitates the committed, informed participation of other victims and witnesses, but beyond these, they require enhanced protection and advocacy.
Battered women are often similar to other victims of violent crime in that they want perpetrators to stop their conduct, to pay dues for the crimes committed and to compensate victims for the losses sustained as a result of their criminal conduct. They are also similar to other crime victims in that they have interests in justice that may differ from the interests of the justice system. They may want privacy or anonymity in the prosecution process while the criminal justice system values public accountability. They may want speedy disposition while the justice system labors at a snail's pace. They may want input in decisions about plea negotiations and sentencing while the justice system concludes that this inclusiveness precludes the expeditious handling of criminal cases, unduly interferes with prosecutorial discretion or intrudes upon the rights of defendants. They may want sentences for perpetrators that are specifically crafted to protect victims while courts may focus on offender rehabilitation and ignore victim safety.
What is also true about battered women, as it is of other victims of violent crime, is that they are not all cut from the same cloth and do not all want the same outcomes. Battered women have varied interests in participation in prosecution process and in outcomes. There is no profile of a battered woman witness that fits all or most battered women.
While each battered woman's experience should be recognized as unique, there are many commonalties among battered women victim-witnesses. Perhaps the most critical commonality is that battered women confront significant barriers to safe and effective participation as victim-witnesses in the criminal justice process.
Recidivism and retaliation
Like other victims of violent crime, battered women fear retaliation. Fully 50% of all victims of violent crime report they are fearful that perpetrators will seek reprisal for their participation in prosecution. And like other victim-witnesses who are threatened by the perpetrator (or his agent) during the pendency of prosecution, they are twice as likely to resist participation in prosecution as those not threatened (Davis et al., 1990).
The National Crime Survey from 1978 to 1982 showed that an estimated 32% of battered women were re-victimized within six months after the assault giving rise to criminal justice intervention. They were victimized an average of three times each. In contrast, the 1982 NCS data on stranger violence showed that only 13% of the victims of stranger crimes were subsequently assaulted during a six month period. Unlike domestic violence victims, victims of stranger crime were assaulted only once during that period (Langan and Innes, 1986).
There are many reasons why battered women appear to be at elevated risk for retaliatory violence. Most other victims of violent crime are not in relationship with the defendant and are not living with (or did not formerly reside with) the defendant. Most have not previously suffered attacks or sustained injury at the hands of the defendant. Most have not been held hostage by the defendant or experienced his terroristic threats, targeted graphically at the victim or members of her family. Most other victim-witnesses are not economically dependent upon the defendant during the pendency of prosecution and, potentially, thereafter. Most will not be compelled into continuing contact with the defendant during the criminal process and after disposition because of shared parenthood. Most other victims of crime are not integrally interconnected with the criminal assailant. Most other victims of crime are not at elevated risk of violent assault after intervention by the criminal justice system. However, battered women are most often killed when attempting to seek legal redress or when leaving an abusive relationship (Browne, 1987; Sonkin et al., 1985).
Criminal justice system personnel too often believe that battered women will be safer and less exposed to life-jeopardizing violence once they are separated from the offender; once prosecution has commenced. Quite to the contrary, evidence of the gravity of violence inflicted after separation of the couple is substantial. Batterers may, in fact, escalate their violence to coerce a battered woman into "reconciliation," to retaliate for the battered woman's participation in the prosecution process, or to coerce her into seeking termination of the prosecution. If the batterer cannot "recapture" the battered woman as his ally, he may seek retribution for her desertion and for her disloyalty in exposing him to criminal consequences. Although not all batterers engage in escalated violence during the pendency of prosecution, as many as half threaten retaliatory violence (Davis et al., 1990) and at least 30% of batterers may inflict further assaults during the pre-disposition phase of prosecution (Goldsmith, 1991).
A battered woman whose prior attempts to seek prosecution or civil protection orders, only to have the perpetrator escalate his violence, may be unwilling to face the risk that prosecution will further endanger, rather than protect her (Family Violence, 1991). Men who batter have kidnapped victims or seriously injured and even killed battered women to prevent their participation as witnesses (Gwinn, 1991; Hart, 1985).
Battered women may, thus, be much more concerned about preventing future violence than about vindicating the state's interest in penalizing the defendant for the crimes previously committed. This orientation of the battered woman toward future safety may create a tension with those in the criminal justice system singularly focused on winning criminal convictions.
Victim-blaming attitudes
Unlike other victims of violent crime, battered women are often viewed by the police, the prosecutor, judges, jurors and probation/parole staff as responsible for the crimes committed against them; responsible either because battered women are believed to "provoke" the perpetrator into violence or because they are believed to have the power to avoid the criminal assault through accommodating the perpetrator's demands. Other victims of violent crime are not seen as culpable for the crimes inflicted upon them, but battered women frequently report that criminal justice system personnel appear to consider them "unworthy victims" who are clogging up the courts with unimportant family matters. Some, therefore, impose barriers to a battered woman's use of the criminal justice system. Police fail to arrest or file incident reports. Prosecutors delay charging, require substantial corroboration, acquiesce in repeated continuances, or impose fees upon the victim (Ford, 1991). The reluctance of the criminal justice system to vigorously proceed with domestic violence cases quickly erodes victim confidence in the system's alliance with the victim.
Even though justice system actors may eschew victim-blaming attitudes, criminal process may be confounded by similar attitudes embraced by either the defendant or the battered woman, herself. Uniformly, the perpetrator of domestic violence blames the victim for his conduct, claiming that she provoked him so profoundly that his crimes are excusable, if not justifiable. Batterers often persuade battered women of the correctness of this perspective. Beyond this, the battered woman may also blame herself, feeling she should have been smarter and figured out a way to prevent the violence or she should have been more courageous and found a way to safely leave the relationship. This self-blame may go as far as believing that it is not fair to arrest and prosecute the perpetrator.
Systemic resistance to the prosecution of batterers
Unlike many victims of stranger assault, but like other victims known to defendants, victims of domestic violence may be reluctant witnesses or may be assumed to be so (Cannavale and Falcon, 1976). There are many reasons for this. Many battered women who earnestly seek prosecution find substantial resistance to the appropriate charging of defendants. National data reveal that law enforcement routinely classify domestic assault as misdemeanors even though the criminal conduct involved actually included bodily injury as serious or more serious than 90% of all rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults (Langan and Innes, 1986). When serious assaults are trivialized and charged as misdemeanors or cited as summary offenses, victims of domestic violence may conclude that the costs and risks of prosecution outweigh the potential consequences for assailants. Thus, battered women may lose interest in criminal prosecution.
Further, some battered women, initially committed to prosecution, become discouraged with the criminal process; discouraged because of delays (Ford and Burke, 1987), lack of witness protection (Family Violence, 1991), or because of prosecutor indifference or insensitivity (McGuire, 1991; Hart, 1991).
Victim reluctance
Similar to other victims of crime, when battered women are poor, have few personal or financial resources or find participation in prosecution costly, they may be reluctant to proceed. Rural battered women may not have transportation and may find it impossible to arrange for multiple trips to the court-house. Women with school age children may have to find expensive and inconvenient child care for all court appearances outside of school hours. Seriously injured battered women may find employers unwilling to accommodate court appearances after they have been considerate about many medical appointments.
Although it is commonly believed that battered women withdraw cooperation because of decisions to reconcile with defendants, research reveals that this is not typically the reason for the request to terminate prosecution. (Ford and Burke, 1987) Some battered women seek to terminate prosecution because the initiation of charges has affected the changes sought in defendant behavior such that victims no longer conclude that prosecution will be necessary to protect them from future abuse (Ford, 1991).
Other battered women who have found that the best protection against a perpetrator's violence has been the protection offered by the community with which the battered woman affiliates, rather than the criminal justice system, may resist prosecution if she concludes that the community will abandon her or withdraw critical support if she pursues prosecution. Women of religious, ethnic and communities of color sometimes identify community abandonment as an untenable, adverse consequence of cooperation with prosecution.
Battered women may be reluctant to expose the father of their children to public accountability because of the attitudes of their children toward the criminal justice system. Others are fearful that prosecution will wreak economic ruin on the family. Even smaller numbers of battered women oppose prosecution for political reasons; believing that the criminal justice system selectively penalizes men of color or other politically unpopular constituencies. Some believe that the exposure of batterers to the criminal justice system and its coercive controls will facilitate, rather than deter, future violence.
An understanding of victim reluctance is critical for informed decision-making about the role of the battered victim in the criminal justice system, strategies to enhance victim cooperation and, ultimately, disposition by the prosecutor or the court.
Despite all these potential barriers to a battered woman's committed participation in criminal process, many battered women and justice system personnel have found that these hurdles can be eliminated with careful attention to the particular requirements of each battered woman. A variety of strategies have been embraced to facilitate the informed, protected and committed participation of battered women in criminal prosecution.
Victim rights and services
With passage of the Domestic Violence Act in 1979, the legislature mandated that victims be notified of their rights by law enforcement, and that prosecutors expeditiously advise them of prosecutorial decisions. In addition, the Washington State Constitution articulates the rights of crime victims (WA. Const. art. 1, sec. 35, amend. 84 (1984)). This constitutional provision is bolstered by state statute where, among other rights, victims are entitled to the following:
To be informed by local law enforcement agencies or the prosecuting attorney of the final disposition of the case in which the victim, survivor, or witness is involved.
To submit a victim impact statement or repot to the court.
To present a statement at the sentencing hearing for felony convictions.
To receive an order of restitution in all felony cases, even where the defendant is sentenced to confinement. (RCW 7.69)
Another strategy to enhance victim participation is the provision of adequate and appropriate services for battered women and their children. As reiterated in the Final Report of the Washington State Domestic Violence Task Force, "It has been shown that victims are more likely to follow through with a legal process they understand and from which they can gain assistance."
In 1978 the City of Seattle established the Battered Women's Project (now the Family Violence Project) in the Seattle City Attorney's Office. Advocates with the Project assist in misdemeanor domestic violence cases by:
Acting as a liaison between the criminal justice system and the victim.
Providing victims with information concerning the court process and court dates.
Providing information to prosecutors and probation services.
Making referrals for additional advocacy and services to community based domestic violence programs.
These rights and services are helpful, but are often not sufficient to engage the cooperation of victims of domestic violence. The following examine additional efforts used to engage the participation of battered women in criminal prosecution.
Outreach and investigation
Police departments in a few jurisdictions in Washington have established follow-up systems whereby patrol officers or detectives make telephone or house calls to apparent victims of domestic violence in the days immediately following the request for emergency police assistance. When contacting the battered woman, the outreach officer undertakes further investigation into criminal domestic violence, identifies the risks of batterer retaliation that may suggest particular conditions on bail or release, and offers women clarification about legal options to protect them. In completing the outreach interview, the officer gives the victim specific contact information should she have further questions or information to share. Outreach is effective only when responding officers obtain confidential contact information from battered women at the crime scene; contact information should include a telephone number whereby a message can be left for a victim if she cannot be reached in her own home.
Some domestic violence programs have adopted outreach efforts whereby they attempt to contact battered women by phone the day following police response to an emergency domestic violence call. Communication by the domestic violence program after the immediate crisis of the criminal incident enables battered women to learn about legal options and community services in a context which is supportive, that fosters an exchange of information, and which engages a battered woman in critical thinking about safety strategies. Outreach, thus, often facilitates victim participation in and commitment to the criminal justice process.
Prosecuting attorneys prioritizing the prosecution of domestic violence cases have undertaken outreach to domestic violence victims immediately after arrest of the perpetrator or arraignment in order to provide victims with notice about charges filed, information about bail and any special conditions thereon, as well as any victim no contact order under R.C.W. 10.99.040. Outreach initiates a dialogue and relationship early in the prosecution process. It enables the victim to consider civil legal remedies and community-based services options for protecting herself and her children during the pendency of prosecution. Outreach often gives prosecutors substantial supplementary information about the crime committed.
In other jurisdictions, prosecutors have instituted victim-witness clinics wherein victims learn about the criminal justice system, their role in it and the likely dispositions upon conviction or a guilty plea. They learn how to craft victim impact statements and how to articulate the specific dangers they believe are posed by their assailants. They learn how to become more effective witnesses. Most significantly, they begin to network and bond with other victims, thereby gaining support and eliminating the isolation that domestic violence perpetrators use to dissuade battered women from participation. Clinics often provide child care and are available at times convenient to victim-witnesses.
Victim protection
Since battered women are at elevated risk of violence during the pendency of prosecution, police, prosecutors, advocates and courts should attend specifically to the safety requirements of victims. Systems should be developed to assess the potential lethality of defendants. Municipal and district court judges should carefully evaluate the continuing threat that the defendant poses to the victim and set bail and conditions thereon that will best safeguard the victim and her family during the pendency of criminal process. The prosecutor and advocate might undertake periodic reviews of victim safety with the battered woman and seek additional protections should they be required. When a victim seeks to maintain the confidentiality of an undisclosed address, the police and the prosecutor should very carefully safeguard any contact information and delete any reference to an address on materials that are disclosed to the public and defense counsel. Beyond this, all criminal justice system personnel should refer battered women to domestic violence programs so that they can carefully construct safety plans to minimize exposure to perpetrators and to engage the community in vigilance for the safety of battered women.
Victim advocacy
Victim advocacy is a key component in the prosecution of domestic violence. Battered women who find themselves abruptly thrust into the legal system because of the violence of their partners are swamped with new information, sometimes are dislocated, and invariably are confronted with increased demands for family management in this acute crisis situation. It is critical that victims have an identified contact person within the prosecuting attorney's office who can provide information about criminal process and referral to supportive services. For other critical assistance, such as emergency shelter, counseling, safety planning, crisis management and civil legal advocacy, battered victims should be referred to local domestic violence programs.
When battered women engage in legal proceedings, it is critical that they have support from family, friends and employers so that their participation can be diligent and unclouded by anxieties that significant others do not approve of the prosecution. Therefore, domestic violence programs may seek to educate and engage those people most important to the victim so that her investment in the process of prosecution is not confounded by their concerns and so they can help her strategize for safe participation in the criminal justice system.
Specialized Prosecution
Specialization has improved the success of prosecution in domestic violence cases (Fagan, 1988). Specialized prosecution units have enhanced the relationship of the prosecutors with the victims, by improved investigation and preparation of cases against perpetrators, and have institutionalized the practice of seeking specific safeguards to protect victims from further abuse. Specialized prosecution enhances the expertise of those handling domestic violence cases and facilitates outcomes satisfactory both to the prosecution and victim witnesses.
Timely prosecution
Research suggests that timeliness is essential to victim cooperation (Ford & Burke, 1987). RCW 10.99.060 requires that the prosecuting attorney make a decision whether or not to prosecute and notify the victim within five days of receiving the incident report. Prosecutors should investigate domestic violence cases expeditiously and not seek or acquiesce in procedural delay where there is no compelling reason. Domestic violence victims grow weary of prosecution if many lengthy appearances are required; thus the prosecutor should only require victims to attend those proceedings where their testimony is critical to the case. Where feasible, the prosecutor should minimize the time victim-witnesses expend at any court appearance. In scheduling court proceedings where victim attendance is required, the prosecutor might inquire about significant demands on the time and resources of victims which may compete with court attendance; these should be accommodated whenever possible (ABA, 1986).
Victim participation and empowerment
Prosecutors seeking to upgrade efforts at domestic violence prosecution often employ other victim-engaging strategies. Victim input in plea negotiations and dispositional alternatives is a strategy believed to enhance victim cooperation (Family Violence, 1991; McGuire, 1991). Some prosecutors have developed court schools in which they enable the victim to learn how to be an effective witness. Many battered women report that prosecutors fail to adequately prepare for trial; sometimes it appears that the prosecutors are not even conversant with the documents in the prosecution file as trials are about to begin. Careful and periodic preparation in which the victim is engaged will facilitate successful prosecution and victim investment in the process. As victims understand that they have a vital and respected role in the prosecution, reluctance may subside. Data suggest that the more domestic violence victims are invested in the prosecution process, the more powerful its deterrent effect, the stronger the message to perpetrators that their violence will not be tolerated and that the cost of persistence will far outstrip the benefits of continued violence (Goldsmith, 1991).
Victims should not be penalized for their reluctance to participate in prosecution. Policies should be developed in each prosecutor's office and within the court that limit the use of compulsion in achieving victim participation. Victims of domestic violence should not be incarcerated for refusal to serve as victim-witnesses. Battered women should not be prosecuted for filing false police reports because they seek to terminate prosecution, except in those unusual circumstances where there is independent evidence of false swearing or perjury and the interests of justice will be served thereby. While it is appropriate to issue subpoenas to compel victim appearance at trial, bench warrants should not be issued routinely when victims fail to appear. Rather, continuances should be sought and investigation should be undertaken to ascertain the whereabouts of the battered woman and the reasons for her failure to appear. If reluctance is based on fear or intimidation, strategies should be employed to protect her from the dangers anticipated. Battered women should not be threatened with refusal to prosecute perpetrators for future violence if they fail or refuse to participate in the current prosecution.
Beyond this, prosecutors and courts should be cognizant of the potential adverse ramifications of coercive process with victims of domestic violence. The repercussions of coercive process may be as far-ranging as the loss of custody, the loss of employment, the loss of reputation, eviction from leaseholds, abandonment by significant support persons, and physical assault of the victim and her family members. All efforts should be made to gain the cooperation of domestic violence victims rather than to compel participation.
The interests of justice must seriously consider the interests of victims. Their interests in safety and their reputations as law-abiding citizens should not be compromised in pursuit of prosecution unless there are overriding reasons for subordinating victim interests.
On the other hand, it may be helpful for victims that the public posture of a prosecutor's office is that the City Attorney or County Prosecuting Attorney controls the prosecution. Many in the criminal justice system believe that at least the appearance of no victim discretion on the question of whether the prosecution will proceed reduces batterer intimidation directed at getting charges dropped. This public posture may even enhance victim safety because the perpetrator understands that further violence will not affect a dismissal of the charges but will both result in incarceration during the pendency of the initial prosecution and in additional prosecution for the retaliatory violence. It is important to recognize that prosecution solely controlled by the prosecuting attorney will not universally buttress victim investment or protect victims from retaliatory violence. In those instances where termination of the prosecution is critical to protect victims, the public posture should not preclude such prosecutorial discretion.
Sentencing.
Battered women are entitled to submit a victim impact statement to advise the pre-sentence investigator and the court of the ramifications of the crime(s) for which the offender was convicted on the battered woman and her family. While investigators are usually receptive to hearing about the emotional, physical and financial losses sustained by victims, they are too often resistant to hearing of the dangers that the perpetrator continues to pose to the battered women and children and reluctant to suggest that these risks of violent recidivism should be considered aggravating circumstances supporting longer sentences or factors to be addressed in crafting protective conditions on probation. Thus, sentencing recommendations typically do not fully inform the court of information relevant to sentencing deliberations in many jurisdictions.
Further, prosecutors frequently rely on the pre-sentence report and the statement of the victim at sentencing rather than producing testimony or evidence at a sentencing hearing to buttress arguments in favor of incarceration and victim safeguards. While this prosecutorial advocacy may not be necessary in jurisdictions where the pre-sentence investigator attends carefully to the risks of recidivism, in counties where the court is not otherwise given information about recidivism prediction and the dangers posed by many batterers long after divorce or incarceration, prosecutors should undertake to inform the court of these risks.
Unless battered women believe that sentences comport with justice and effect specific victim safeguards, they will be most reluctant to participate cooperatively in criminal process should their assailants recidivate. When courts craft sentences that clearly call batterers to account and safeguard victims, battered women, the general public and other components in the justice system become confident that criminal justice efforts are meaningful interventions in domestic violence and warrant serious attention.
Restitution and victim compensation
Advocates for battered women in Washington have reported that neither restitution nor victim compensation has been predictably awarded or achieved in a timely fashion despite the substantial losses sustained as a consequence of domestic violence. Courts should institute policies whereby victim restitution precedes the collection of other court costs and fines. Moreover, courts can impose time tables that are tight and require significant payment at the front end rather than balloon payments at the end of the payment schedule.
As to crime victims' compensation awards, battered women are eligible to receive enhanced benefits as a result of legislative amendments in 1991. However, many prosecuting attorneys offices do not afford victims clerical assistance in the preparation of compensation claims, nor do they proceed to follow up to advocate for the issuance of awards. If advocacy for compensation occurs during the pendency of prosecution, victims may invest more fully in the prosecution.
The Domestic Violence Prevention Act permits the court to order relief not compensable either through restitution or crime victims' compensation. Therefore, the prosecutor's office may alleviate some of the stress and burden imposed by victim losses if it directs domestic violence victims to the civil courts for enhanced remedies such as child custody and possession of the shared residence, as well as protection.
Particular attention to these economic matters and other remedial options renders a great service to victims and simultaneously enhances their investment in prosecution. Both crime victim compensation and protection order relief can be initiated, and sometimes awarded, early in the prosecution process, and thereby have the potential to cement victim cooperation with criminal process.
Domestic violence victims are increasingly turning to the criminal justice system for assistance in ending the violence that jeopardizes their lives and well-being. They often are uninformed about the criminal justice process and naive about its power to end the violence in their lives. For battered women to be effective, committed participants in the criminal justice system, care must be taken to minimize the barriers to access and investment that have historically impeded empowered participation by battered women. The adoption of protocols attentive to victim issues by every component of the criminal justice system will greatly enhance justice-seeking efforts in domestic violence cases. The strategies outlined in this chapter can be utilized to engage and protect battered women as victim-witnesses and can also greatly advance the success of prosecution and perpetrator accountability.
ABA (1986). "ABA Suggested Guidelines for Reducing Adverse Effects of Case Continuances and Delays on Crime Victims and Witnesses." Chicago, IL: American Bar Association, February.
Browne, A. (1987). When Battered Women Kill. New York: The Free Press.
Cannavale, F.J., J.R. and Falcon, W.D. (1976). Witness Cooperation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Davis, R., Smith, B., Henley, S. (1990). Victim-Witness Intimidation in the Bronx Courts. New York, NY: Victims Services Agency.
Fagan, J. (1988). "Contributions of Family Violence Research to Criminal Justice Policies on Wife Assault: Paradigms of Science and Social Control." Violence and Victims, Vol. 3, No. 3.
Family Violence Prevention Fund. (1991). Domestic Violence: The Crucial Role of the Judge in Criminal Court Cases. San Francisco, CA: The Family Violence Prevention Fund.
Ford, D.A. (1991). "Prosecution as a Victim Power Resource: A Note on Empowering Women in Violent Conjugal Relationships." Law & Society Review, Vol. 1, No. 2.
Ford, D. A. & Burke, M. J. (1987). "Victim-Initiated Criminal Complaints for Wife Battery: An Assessment of Motives." Paper presented at the Third National Conference for Family Violence Researchers, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, July, 1987.
Goldsmith, S. (1991). "Taking Spouse Abuse Beyond a 'Family Affair." Law Enforcement News, Vol. XVII, No. 334.
Gwinn, C. (1991). Lecture for the National College of District Attorneys, Las Vegas, NV, October, 1991.
Hart, B. (1991). "Domestic Violence Intervention System: A Model For Response to Women Abuse." Confronting Domestic Violence: Effective Police Response. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Hart, B. (1985). "Testify or Prison?" AEGIS: The Magazine on Ending Violence Against Women. Washington, DC: AEGIS.
Langen, P.A. and Innes, C.A. (1986). "Preventing Domestic Violence Against Women: Discussion Paper." Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Reports. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
McGuire, L. A. (1991). Prosecution of Domestic Violence in Iowa. Iowa Prosecuting Attorneys Training Coordinator Council.
Sonkin, D., Martin, D., & Walker, L. E. A. (1985). The Male Batterer: A Treatment Approach. New York: Springer.
Barbara J. Hart, Esq., 1992.
This paper will examine two issues - the risk to children posed by domestic violence and strategies for intervention to protect children from violent homes and their battered parents. It is imperative that the legal, medical and child abuse prevention communities join together to identify children at risk and to employ strategies that will both protect and heal the innocent victims of domestic violence, especially those most powerless, the children from violent homes.
Having identified the jeopardy to which children may be exposed in the context of domestic violence, it is imperative that professionals identify strategies to safeguard against these risks.
Any safety plan must be realistic. The plan should be simple. It must be age-appropriate. The child must be competent to undertake the strategies designed. Perhaps only children above 8 years of age can be active participants in safety strategies.*
Too often professionals do not identify domestic violence in the lives of female clients and are uncertain about remedial strategies even if abuse is identified (Hansen & Harway, 1992). Other professionals seek to penalize and blame battered women for failing to protect their children (Erickson, 1991). The inadequacy of these professional endeavors endangers and isolates mothers and often interrupts the potential for strong alliance between mothers and children in the pursuit of safety. Professional initiatives to empower women so that they can seek lives free of violence and achieve the legal authority to protect their children and themselves from recurrent violence are preferred. Early intervention by professionals can avert the risks posed to children and their mothers in the context of domestic violence and can assist women in establishing stable and secure households independent of battering men. Prevention efforts may offer children the best hope for violence-free and loving families.
Bergman, A., Larsen, R.M., and Mueller, B. (1986). "Changing spectrum of Serious Child Abuse." Pediatrics, 77 (1).
Bernard, G. W., Vera, H., Vera, M. I. and Newman, G. (1982). "Till Death Do Us Part: A Study of Spouse Murder." Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 10, 271-280.
Bowker, L.H., Arbitell, M., & McFerron, J. R. (1988). "On the Relationship Between Wife Beating and Child Abuse." In K. Yllo and M. Bograd (Eds.), Perspectives on Wife Abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dobash, R. E. & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence Against Wives. New York: Free Press.
Erickson, N.S. (1991). "Battered Mothers of Battered Children: Using Our Knowledge of Battered Women to Defend Them Against Charges of Failure to Act." Current Perspectives in Psychological, Legal and Ethical Issues, Vol. 1-A. Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd.
Gayford, J. (1975). "Wife Battering: A Preliminary Survey of 100 Cases."Britt. Med. J. 1.
Giles-Sims, Jean (1985). "A Longitudinal Study of Battered Children of Battered Wives." Family Relations 34.
Greif, G. & Hegar, R. (1992). When Parents Kidnap. New York: The Free Press.
Hansen, M. & Harway, M. (1992). Recovering From Battering: Family Therapy and Feminism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hilberman, E. and Munson, K. (1977-78). "Sixty Battered Women." Victimology: An International Journal, 2 (3-4).
Hughes, H., Parkinson, D. and Vargo, M. (1989). "Witnessing Spouse Abuse and Experiencing Physical Violence: A 'Double-Whammy?" Journal of Family Violence 4(2).
Hughes, H.M., Rau, T.J., Hampton, K.L., and Sablatura, B. (1985). "Effects of Family Violence on Child Victims and Witnesses." Paper presented at the 93d annual convention of the American Psychological Association in Los Angeles, August.
Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D.W., & Wilson, S. (1990). Children of Battered Women: Issues in Child Development and Intervention Planning. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Langen P.A. and Innes, C.A. (1986). Preventing Domestic Violence Against Women. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Reports. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
Pagelow, M. (1990). "Effects of Domestic Violence on Children and Their Consequences for Custody and Visitation Agreements." Mediation Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 4.
Pagelow, M. (1989). "The Forgotten Victims: Children of Domestic Violence." Paper prepared for presentation at the Domestic Violence Seminar of the Los Angeles County Domestic Violence Council.
Rosenbaum, A. and O'Leary, K.D. (1981). "Children: The Unintended Victims of Marital Violence." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 5 (14).
Roy, M. (1977). Battered Women: A Psychosociological Study of Domestic Violence. New York: Dan Nostrand Reinhold.
Stark, E. & Flitcraft, A. (1988). "Women and Children at Risk: A Feminist Perspective on Child Abuse." International Journal of Health Services, 18, (1), 97-118.
Walker, L. E. (1984). The Battered Woman Syndrome. Springer.
Wallerstein, J.S. and Kelly, J.B. (1980). Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce. New York: Basic Books.
Yupcavage, J. (1991). "Clippings Report on Domestic Homicide." Harrisburg: PCADV.
Barbara J. Hart, Esq., Staff Counsel, PCADV, 524 McKnight Street, Reading, PA 19601
Child Protective Services Quarterly, Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh Bar Association, Winter, 1992.
Presented at the Strategic Planning Workshop on Violence Against Women, National Institute of Justice, Washington, D. C., March 31, 1995.
Over the course of the last twenty years, communities across the country have identified domestic violence as a social problem of significant proportions and, in myriad ways, have initiated strategies to stop the violence and protect battered women and children. This social reform movement, birthed in women's centers and led by battered women and advocates, has generated profound change in public discourse, law and institutional practice. Initially, a primary emphasis of this reform effort was the development and institutionalization of community-based shelters and counseling programs for battered women and children. Thereafter, advocates expanded the work to target systemic reform. The system receiving first attention was the justice system, both civil and criminal. Efforts preliminarily sought to effect change in practice of the individual components of the justice system. Job responsibilities were modified. Policies and practice guides were developed with each component. Practitioners received training on domestic violence and on revisions in practice embodied in the new protocols. Systems to monitor or track perpetrators were established.
However, the limitations of parallel reform within discrete components soon became apparent to advocates and colleagues within the justice system. Parallel reform did not foster meaningful intervention. In fact, upgrading the response of individual components may have placed battered women in more jeopardy, encouraging them to take action in the justice system to achieve safety when systemic response was uneven or addressed to perpetrator sanctions while indifferent to victim safety. Parallel reform also appeared to exacerbate fragmentation between the components. There was often no shared vision and no mechanism for problem identification and solution development. There was no vehicle to move recalcitrant components. Neither was there communication, coordination or interface between sectors. Public accountability by justice system sectors was also lacking. No method or authority to monitor adherence to standards or practices was adopted; nor were systems implemented to evaluate the efficacy of practice or to incorporate community input. Therefore, advocates concluded that a process must be devised to create a unified vision about the goals of reform, the fundamental principles of intervention, the roles of each component, the merit of collaboration, and the necessity for public accountability. A number of models for organizing and institutionalizing coordinated justice system response were designed. (See below,Approaches to coordinated community response.)
One unanticipated outcome of increased intervention by the justice system was a sharp increase in demand for individual advocacy and supportive services of domestic violence programs. Programs instituted civil and criminal advocacy components to assure that battered women are informed about participation in the justice system and able to safely and effectively participate therein. Victims may become reluctant or unable to participate in the justice system if their basic safety and survival needs are not met during the pendency of civil and criminal proceedings. Other essential supportive services include temporary housing, food, clothing, counseling, transportation, child care, safety planning, relocation resources, and employment development. Domestic violence programs are significantly underfunded in most communities, such that as many as one in five battered women are not able to access essential services.
In recent years, those engaged in reform efforts identified other essential activities for coordinated community response. It became apparent that the interventions developed were often not culturally sensitive. Issues of race, language, religion, culture, class, kinship networks, and perspectives on the efficacy of participation in legal process, all must be factored into crafting culturally sensitive practice. This work has begun. With the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, P. L. 101-336, domestic violence programs began to make structural change in offices and shelters to accommodate victims with physical disabilities, to develop communications systems for advocacy with deaf or hard of hearing impaired battered women, and to create effective programs for battered women with mental disabilities. Advocates are working with colleagues in the justice system to identify the ways that the justice system can eliminate barriers to victims with disabilities. Systemic reform has just begun. In many regions of this country rural battered women confront critical barriers to safety and justice; transportation, communication and housing. Collaborative efforts continue to craft solutions to these impediments.
Few justice system personnel have been willing to grapple with the fact that some battered women are charged with crimes but are, nonetheless, victims of crime requiring the protections that the civil and criminal justice systems afford. Battered women sometimes are coerced into criminal conduct by their abusers; forced to write bad checks, purchase controlled substances, engage in prostitution, convert food stamps into cash, complete fraudulent loan applications, steal to clothe their children, etc. Other battered women who have fought back to escape from a batterer or to stop his violence have been arrested and charged with assault or homicide. In a number of communities, advocacy, counseling and legal services for battered women defendants are included in the plan for coordinated community response.
Undertakings in the health care system, in educational institutions, in religious organizations, among providers of service for the homeless, in batterer education and treatment services programs, in the business sector, in civic groups, and in neighborhoods have also burgeoned over the last 10 years. Many of these endeavors involve partnering with domestic violence programs. However, reform again has been largely parallel within the disciplines or organizations; certainly it has been informed by the work of advocates and justice system professionals, but it often remains separate from the collaborative infrastructure. The problems arising from parallel reform are compounded by the amount of activity emanating from so many diverse organizations throughout the community. These particularly impose a heavy burden on underfunded, community-based domestic violence programs and state coalitions.
Even more recently, a number of practitioners have started dialogue about primary prevention; transforming community beliefs and norms about violence against women. Prevention strategies are being forged and implemented with a vision, not merely for managing the violence and protecting its victims, but one that anticipates an end to men's coercive and violent conduct toward their partners.
Achieving coordinated community response with this magnitude of activity can be daunting, but in many communities throughout the country coordination efforts are in process.
Approaches to coordinated community response to domestic violence are multiple. Often several may be employed at one time in a local community or within a state. The following are examples of the most commonly utilized strategies:
Community Partnering. In many communities, the domestic violence program has elected to use the community partnering approach to build coordinated community response. In this model, the domestic violence program identifies a strategic plan for community action. Tasks are prioritized. The program partners with individuals and organizations in the community to work on the various initiatives in the plan. Work groups are established that are task specific and draw upon the expertise of members in the community. Work plans are developed and implemented. From planning through execution, the work is collaborative with selected actors in the community. The domestic violence program orchestrates and oversees the work undertaken.
As contrasted with other approaches, this one is decentralized by design. It readily works in many areas of the community contemporaneously. It is an approach that is accessible to professionals and other community actors who are interested in work but who are not necessarily the power brokers in the community. It also enables the diverse leadership within the domestic violence program to be fully employed rather than limiting participation to executive staff. Those engaged are likely to volunteer rather than being drafted. Thereby, team building among the work groups is facilitated. As the work groups are not public forums, problem-solving may be enhanced; public posturing and turf issues may be minimized. Community partnering does not require a formal infrastructure, and thus may be less costly and more manageable by grassroots organizations than other approaches.
Many domestic violence coalitions, as well as local domestic violence programs, utilize this model.
Community Intervention. Intervention projects are private sector programs designed to enhance justice system accountability to battered women. Their work includes orchestration and oversight of coordinated community initiatives related to domestic violence. The intervention program works with all sectors of the justice system (i.e., police, jail personnel, pre-trial services, prosecutors, judges, pre-sentence investigators, probation and parole, corrections) and the mental health system to create an effective deterrent to domestic violence, to safeguard battered women and children and to align the community in efforts to end violence against women. Elements of the work include the development, implementation and monitoring of protocols and practice guides with each component; training of all staff in every component on domestic violence, the goals of the intervention approach and the changes in job responsibilities and methods entailed in the reform; outreach to batterers in the civil and criminal justice systems, as well as education or treatment groups based in the Duluth curriculum or others; training and monitoring of the educators or therapists working with perpetrators; tracking of batterers and automation of data retrieval on batterer status in both civil and criminal justice systems; outreach, information and referral to battered women to enhance safety and autonomy; and community education and media initiatives to transform public understanding and response to domestic violence.
Like the community partnering model undertaken by domestic violence programs, the intervention approach establishes the hub of coordinating activity in a grassroots organization. The intervention staff are charged with primary responsibility for interface between the components. They negotiate changes that are essential, as identified through feedback from the several components or their own monitoring efforts. They convene meetings of the whole as necessary. They undertake independent evaluation of systemic function and coordination and seek modifications. In many ways they serve as cheerleader to the system. The overarching principle of their work is accountability to battered women.
Intervention programs differ from partnering initiatives in that they provide direct services to batterers from entry through exit from the justice system. The foci of intervention work are cessation, surveillance and batterer education. Direct services and advocacy for battered women are sometimes provided by domestic violence programs, rather than the intervention program.
Task Forces or Coordinating Councils. Task forces seek to coordinate all the components of the criminal justice system to improve justice system practice and to better communicate and collaborate in work to end violence against women.
The initial work of a task force almost invariably is an assessment of the state of criminal justice (and/or human services) practice and resources in the community, followed by a report on effective practice and systemic deficits, along with a description of recommended remedies and potential resources therefor. A task force may then develop a work plan for incremental change and elevated coordination. The promulgation of compatible and definitive protocols or guidelines for practice in each component of the justice system is often the first step in a work plan. While each agency retains the exclusive authority to develop the protocol for that component, sharing of work product with a request for feedback from the other components, particularly in terms of interface of the various components, is routinely invited. Other collaboration in training and problem-solving follows. Evaluation may be undertaken and systemic reform considered in light of the results thereof. Informal systems of communication, conflict resolution and coordination among task force participants are an important outgrowth of the formal work of the task force.
Training and technical assistance projects. Training and technical assistance projects are targeted at informed, improved justice and human service system practice have produced a plethora of training curricula and an almost equivalent amount of audiovisual materials. Legal advocacy training is offered in a number of states; some certify advocates and require continuing education to maintain certification. Police training manuals, court clerk handbooks, prosecution guides, bench books, pre-trial services seminars, probation workshops, correctional curricula on victims of domestic violence, electronic monitoring pamphlets, safety planning and survival skills workshops, guides to maximizing compensation and restitution, court audit tools, and innumerable other educational materials have been crafted and implemented. Training curricula for clergy, educators, health care providers, child protective service workers, public housing staff, private security firms, employers, civic groups, etc. have been developed. Media campaigns have been initiated. Clearinghouses have been established. Technical assistance projects to aid policy-makers and practitioners in the design of effective justice and human services systems have been instituted.
Community organizing. Community organizing initiatives are those which invite members of the general public to actively engage in work to end violence against women. Domestic violence programs and community activists have utilized organizing strategies with the goals of enhancing safety and achieving social justice for battered women and children; objectives of community organizing are expansion of the constituency of active participants in the work, articulation of a clear, universal message that each citizen can take responsibility to end this violence, and transformation of the public discourse and consciousness about the causes of violence against women and the power of the community to end it.
Many community organizing efforts originated in domestic violence programs. Sometimes organizing addresses a discrete problem and at others it attempts to transform the consciousness and practice of the entire community. However, once organized the community team often develops a mission and tasks of its own; at which time the organizing effort is passed on to the community. Among all the coordinated community approaches, organizing projects have, perhaps, best engaged communities of color and other marginalized constituencies in full partnership in the visioning and implementation of work to end violence against women and children.
The evaluation literature on coordinated community approaches is largely exploratory and preliminary. It lends support to the premise that multiple and coordinated approaches to ending domestic violence are warranted.
Data on the question of when battered women will seek outside intervention suggest that the more resources and apparent options a woman has for ending the violence, the more likely she is to act to seek intervention, to achieve protection or to leave the abuser. Thus, where a community offers multiple, viable options, it appears that the safety requirements of battered women will be better met than when a singular intervention is employed. If one defines coordinated community response in terms of comprehensive, or at least multiple, options in the justice and human services systems, this appears to advance the goal of social justice for battered women.
It is critical to note, however, that there has been relatively little research on outcomes of individual justice system or human service system endeavors. The singular intervention of arrest has been investigated. A smaller amount of inquiry has been directed at prosecution, lawyers or the courts. A comparative treasure trove of research on batterer intervention services is now available, the results of which offer some direction for policy formulation. There is a dearth of evaluation study on advocacy and domestic violence program services and the needs of battered women seeking shelter. There is an emerging body of research on the efficacy of civil protection orders and court processes. However, it is clear that the evaluation of discrete intervention strategies has barely begun. Significant additional investigation on intervention initiatives in the justice system and community is essential, and it will inform research on coordinated community response.
The issues of how and what to measure in evaluating the efficacy of coordinated community approaches pose interesting questions.
How to effectively measure coordinated community response. While quantitative empiricists may shudder at descriptive assessment pieces, in the field of domestic violence these practitioner inquiries have been instrumental in building theory and shaping the design of empirical work. An early, notable piece is the investigation of Finn & Colsen. The work relied on expert practitioner informants to render a broad brush picture of protection order practice. This reasoned appraisal of the intent of protection order law and the practice thereunder set the stage for significant research and policy development.
The Merryman inquiry on court, advocate and attorney practice in dedicated protection order courts may similarly inform future investigation on the design of dedicated domestic violence courts and the comparative worth of specialized, as contrasted with unified and traditional court structure and practice. There are many questions on justice system interventions in domestic violence that would also benefit from the informed reflections of expert practitioners and battered women; questions, both qualitative and quantitative, for inquiry will be clarified and expanded by this deliberative process.
Beyond this, analysis of aggregate justice system data and other data sets that may be rich, but untapped, sources of information would greatly enhance the knowledge base on domestic violence and interventions to end it. All methods of statistical data collection, federal and state, should capture gender and relationship. Technology within the justice and advocacy system must be upgraded with dispatch.
Empirical investigation is also essential. It will be enhanced both by informed reflection by practitioners and by improved statistical aggregation. Research should be retrospective, developmental and experimental. Practitioners caution that the imposition of experimental design on communities should be undertaken most judiciously. The design should foster coordinated community response rather than erect significant barriers between components and constituencies. Furthermore, since experimental design may have significant impact on the communities in which it is undertaken, examination of the environmental context of the experimental intervention both before and after its imposition should be employed.
What to measure in evaluating coordinated community response. First and foremost, every investigation should evaluate the impact of an intervention on battered women. The impact should be measured in terms of the safety, autonomy and quality of life of battered women.
Secondarily, in measuring the impact of coordinated community response on batterers, issues of recidivism should be addressed. Research should also evaluate whether a batterer has made financial restoration to the battered woman for the losses occasioned by his violence, whether he acts as a parent in ways that eschew violence and are respectful of the battered mother, whether there has been a change in perpetrator belief systems about domestic violence, and whether the abuser acts to end violence against women in his social and work life.
Issues of race, class and culture must be carefully incorporated in research on coordinated community approaches to ending domestic violence. Reporting of the results should be crafted in such a manner that informs social change rather than reinforcing cultural and institutional bias.
Evaluation of individual components of coordinated community response to domestic violence should be undertaken, as well as investigation of the effectiveness of the entire community approach. Issues of systemic readiness for the interventions proposed, change in practice and procedures, fit between the changes adopted by various components, interface or communication between the systems and with the community, availability of advocacy and support services, leadership of advocates and battered women in the design and implementation, change in public discourse, and impact on battered women, batterers and the community should be examined. Essential components of a coordinated community response in various communities, e.g. metropolitan, urban, suburban, rural and tribal communities, as well as in specific communities of color and diverse culture, class and religion, should be identified. Comparative efficacy of the various approaches might also be evaluated.
A number of additional questions should be answered. It is critical that careful study be undertaken on whether "separation assault" occurs, how it is different from domestic violence before separation and after the batterer relinquishes perceived ownership of the battered woman, the dangers it poses and the specialized interventions that may be critical to avert severe or lethal violence during the time that the battered woman is separating from the batterer.
Investigation of risk-markers for severe or lethal assault by batterers is essential. Research on the effectiveness of specialized interventions by the justice system once life-imperiling risk-markers appear should be undertaken.
Practitioners throughout justice and human services agencies have begun to engage in "safety planning" with battered women to assist them in strategically assessing danger and identifying action steps possible to avoid life-imperiling assault. Studies on the utility of "safety planning" should be initiated.
Over the course of the last 10 years significant dialogue has been forged between practitioners and researchers about interventions to end domestic violence, research questions and both short and long-term research agendas, methods of investigation, measurement issues, ethics of research and intervention, analyzing data, developing reports on the research, crafting practice modifications in light of the results, dissemination and community education strategies, and building bridges between practitioners and academe. In many of these discussions the principle of evaluating our work in light of its impact, beneficial or adverse, on safety, autonomy and social justice for battered women has been articulated. Through this process of collaborative research many of the questions raised by advocates, practitioners and policy-makers are now being answered.
Collaborative initiatives within the justice and human services systems and between practitioners and researchers will well serve the critical social imperative to end violence against women. As we seek to institutionalize coordinated community approaches to end domestic violence, we should also endeavor to institutionalize collaboration between the practice and research communities.
People offering input and assistance, whose views may differ from the writer and whose assistance does not imply endorsement:
Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
Legal Director, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence; Associate Director, Battered Women's Justice Project; Legal Consultant to the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.
PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S FAMILY VIOLENCE TASK FORCE
January, 1989
The Task Force urges the Pennsylvania State Police and each police department in Pennsylvania to adopt a written protocol establishing guidelines and procedures to be followed by police officers and other personnel involved in the police response to domestic calls. In aid of that purpose, the Task Force offers the following model protocol, which can be readily adapted to the particular needs of the state police and police departments throughout the Commonwealth.
The core feature of the model protocol is the provision that police should arrest the assailant in domestic violence cases whenever arrest is authorized. To underscore the presumption that arrest is the proper response in the overwhelming majority of domestic violence cases, the protocol requires the responding officer, if he decides not to arrest, to include in his report of the incident a detailed explanation of the reasons why an arrest was not made. The protocol further provides a list of factors that the officer should not consider in making the arrest decision.
Many other jurisdictions, either by legislation or through police department protocols,have adopted policies that mandate arrest of the assailant in domestic violence cases. The Task Force considered but rejected this absolute approach because it found problematic the concept of removing all discretion from the responding officer. However exceptional they may be, cases are certain to arise in which arrest, though authorized, is inappropriate because it does not serve the interests of justice and is not necessary to ensure the victim's safety.
Another important feature of the model protocol is the provision that police should identify the victim to a domestic violence program whenever the accused has been arrested or is the subject of an arrest warrant. The intent and expectation of this provision is that the domestic violence program will contact the victim, in the manner that the program finds most appropriate, to offer the victim support and referral to services. This aggressive outreach is designed to help overcome the fear and isolation that so often deter victims of domestic violence from pursuing needed assistance on their own initiative.
Some members expressed concern that, while the law does not require police to keep the victim's identity confidential, the identification of victims to domestic violence programs nevertheless might unduly compromise the preference of some victims for strict privacy. The majority believed, however, that the benefit to the many victims who otherwise would receive no help when they needed it most justifies the approach of affirmative referral and outreach, particularly in view of the minimal intrusion upon privacy that such referral and outreach entails. Domestic violence programs routinely observe the strictest confidentiality; no victim is required to accept assistance, and the risk of further disclosure of the victim's identity is remote.
The following protocol, in the judgment of the Task Force, combines law enforcement and victim assistance into an effective program of police response to domestic violence.
Whether or not an arrest is made, the responding officer is required by 18 Pa. C.S. § 2711 to notify the victim orally or in writing of the availability of a shelter, including its telephone number, or other services in the community. The notice must include the following statement:
If you are a victim of domestic violence, you have the right to go to court and file a petition requesting an order for protection from abuse pursuant to the Act of October 7, 1976 (P.L. 1090, No. 218) , known as the Protection From Abuse Act, which could include the following:
By B.J. Hart, Esq.
In the last fifteen years the citizens of Pennsylvania have begun to recognize the terrible toll that domestic violence has taken upon women and children in our communities and families. We have heard the voices of battered women, describing the indifference of our justice system to their plight. And we are now responding -- "No more!" To achieve an end to violence against women in intimate relationships, those of us who serve in the justice system and those of us who have survived domestic violence have joined together to make social change -- transforming our institutions to put an end to cultural supports for woman abuse and creating communities which are intolerant of domestic violence and which safeguard victims.
While many communities in Pennsylvania have made exemplary, preliminary changes in a number of the relevant components of the justice system, the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence has not identified a jurisdiction which has totally coordinated its institutions to safeguard victims and to stop domestic violence. Research and common sense persuade us that a justice system which is fully operational -- where each component has a specific protocol on domestic violence intervention and a process for consistent implementation of that protocol -- best safeguards victims and calls perpetrators to account. We are hopeful that many communities will expand their efforts in the coming year to implement comprehensive policies for intervention in domestic violence. To facilitate these efforts, we offer the following description of a model Domestic Violence Intervention System, which includes information on effective law enforcement, victim/witness services, prosecution, legal advocacy, judicial practice, and probation and parole activities.
Perhaps it seems impolitic to suggest that this first component of a comprehensive domestic violence intervention system may be more critical than others, but since law enforcement is the sector which serves as the gatekeeper for the rest of the system and