Research Paper on Domestic Violence

Introduction

Domestic violence presents a severe challenge in today's society affecting an overwhelming majority of women regardless of their socioeconomic, cultural and ethnic group. It arises from abuse within the intimate relationship including emotional, financial, physical and sexual. The multiplicity in the domestic violence cases requires a complicated process and careful consideration within the criminal justice system (Bowen, Qasim, & Tetenbaum, 2013). The complexity in resolving domestic violence cases within the typical criminal justice system prompted many jurisdictions to create special courts for judges. By specializing, many jurisdictions sought efficient processing, delivery of consistent rulings, rehabilitating offenders and deterring repeat offenses (MacDowell, 2011). Efforts to confront the domestic violence reflects in the dedication of specialized courts founded on the problem-solving approach. However, the existence of domestic violence cases compels the evaluation of the effectiveness of dedicated courts. This paper evaluates the effectiveness of the domestic violence courts in their intended purpose of crime control, expediting the prosecution process and application of punishment philosophies.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The motives to establish domestic violence courts arose from a variety of reasons among them the desire to increase victim safety, eliminate concerns arising within the adjudication process and extra-legal outcomes. The multiplicity of the goals manifests in the United States following the active role by the battered women and pro-feminist movements that advocated for accommodating domestic violence within the country's criminal justice system. Their advocacy would become viral in the early 1970s allowing the activists to demand the recognition of domestic violence as the crime and not private matter (Labriola, Bradley, O'Sullivan, Rempel, & Moore, 2009). The activism prompted the enactment of new laws both at the federal and state levels to enforce and embrace the safety of abused victims consistently. Besides the passage of pro-arrest policies, specialized policing and evidence-based prosecution, the activism accelerated the change process through the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act (1994) (Labriola et al., 2009). Its problem-solving provisions enabled the establishment of pro-arrest laws and mechanism to fund services extended to the violence victims.

The multiplicity and the unique challenges within the domestic violence cases, desire for consistent prosecution and ballooning case volume prompted setting specialized courtrooms to handle the cases. The period between the 1990s and early 2000s featured the creation of specialized courts among them handling domestic violence cases (Labriola et al., 2009). The domestic violence courts responsibility was rendering justice to the victim by addressing the defendant's criminal conduct. Its advocates cited the existence of laxity within the criminal justice system when handling assaults perpetrated by intimate partners (MacDowell, 2011). The US domestic violence courts adopted the problem-solving principle committed to offering support to the victims and safety during court appearances while boosting offender accountability.

Establishing specialized courts to handle domestic violence cases has grown rapidly with most jurisdictions associating them with increased judiciary's responsiveness. Although the specialization levels vary widely, their adoption conveys a zero-tolerance message to domestic violence. They have a three-fold purpose being justice and safety for the victim, deterring recidivism, offender rehabilitation, and accountability. By 2009, the US had over 200 criminal domestic courts geographically concentrated in California, New York, Alabama, Michigan, Washington and Florida (Labriola et al., 2009). Besides the creation of domestic violence courts, some jurisdictions alter the court processes to have specialized staff extending support to the victims engaged in the dedicated courts. Like the integrated court system, dedicated courts engage specialized judges and prosecution teams committed to domestic violence cases. By doing so, the dedicated staff gains expertise and exercise such capabilities to ensure consistent treatment.

Domestic violence courts desire increased sensitivity to address the needs of victims by committing additional community resources. Its achievement aligns with the quick processing of cases to reduce opportunities that a batterer could use to intimidate the partner into abandoning charges (MacDowell, 2011). The consistent dealing with domestic-related violence places the dedicated judges and prosecutors advantageously to obtaining detailed background on perpetrators. Correspondingly, the fewer individuals involved in the case improves accountability towards repeat offenders (Bowen, Qasim, & Tetenbaum, 2013). Such awareness deters offenders from further violence given the likelihood of imprisonment when they face the same judge and prosecutor.

The high number of domestic violence cases in today's society prompts the evaluation of the impact of running the specialized court model. The meta-analytic review conducted by Gutierrez, Blais, and Bourgon (2016) observed positive impact in domestic violence courts through decreased recidivism unlike when offenders were processed through the conventional court system. However, they noted that expertise and knowledge acquired by the dedicated judge and prosecution team might lead to declined impartiality on repeat offenders. Again, the presence of consistently unresponsive staff may jeopardize the processing, thereby compromise justice. The dedicated staff may experience burnout when dealing with the complexity of domestic violence cases. Running dedicated courts compel engaging additional security personnel to protect victims likely to encounter intimidation and coercion from their partners (Labriola, Bradley, O'Sullivan, Rempel, & Moore, 2009). Such possibilities make the case to evaluate whether domestic violence courts accomplish their intended purpose.

Efforts by the domestic violence courts to guarantee victim services and assured safety demonstrates a major accomplishment unlike in the traditional court system. The onset of specialized and integrated domestic violence courts prioritized the engagement of victim advocates to prioritize access to services for victims. Labriola et al., (2009) acknowledged the presence of victim advocates increased the number of people accessing the integrated and specialized court system. They observed the increased usage of advocacy services including safety planning, housing referrals, counseling, accompanying victims during court sessions and facilitating the prosecution. Private agencies equally emphasized assisting the victim in accomplishing their goals including safety and prosecuting the abuser. Their findings correlate with Catherine Cerulli, Nichols, Hall, Conn, and Caine (2011) observation on improved access to domestic violence court services for victims in the US.

Domestic violence courts have a primary task to guarantee courthouse safety of victims. Their involvement in the intimate relationship violence is critical towards eliminating coercion, intimidation and physical harm from their batterers. However, the dedicated domestic violence courts have mixed gains in guaranteeing courthouse safety. Labriola et al., (2009) found courthouse safety an existence challenge with some courtrooms barely providing separate seating areas, waiting for bays and courthouse escorts from inadequate resources. The insufficiency of resources to the domestic violence courts hampers its efforts to enhance victim safety. Labriola et al., (2009) attributed such occurrence to lack of supporting practices and resources to link the desired services. The assurance of victim safety relies upon establishing a coordinated community response would link the court activities to advocacy organizations and prevention programs. Its accomplishment overwhelms the courts equally tasked to facilitate interagency cooperation on the offender accountability.

The achievement of domestic violence court goals compels running a coordinated response that extends beyond victim safety to foster offender accountability. Doing so involves running offender assessments with assistance from prosecution and probation staff (Bowen, Qasim, & Tetenbaum, 2013). The process includes evaluating the offender's drug dependence, mental issues, background, and victimization. Its achievement may constrain the court already faced with a need to boost efficiency and effectiveness, a goal that may hamper offender assessments. Nevertheless, Labriola et al., (2009) reported domestic violence courts continually ordering rehabilitation through batterer programs especially in rehabilitation sentences. Such is evident in California domestic violence courts where the governing statutes consider rehabilitation a fundamental process to eliminate recidivism.

Compliance monitoring constitutes an integral process extending the victims safety from mere prosecution of the perpetrators. Since their introduction, the domestic violence courts have proved essential in executing probation monitoring by placing the offenders under supervision. Labriola et al., (2009) established that courts were perceiving offender accountability extremely critical likely utilize probation particularly guided by the statutes of the state. Similarly, domestic violence courts in New York and California probably use judicial monitoring during the status hearing, praising compliance, restating responsibilities and sanctioning noncompliance. Although rare for courts to conduct post-disposition monitoring, noncompliance prompt the courts emphasizing accountability to impose jail. Catherine et al., (2011) found courts using varying protection and shelter orders relative to the case facts. They established that New York domestic violence courts issued permanent orders to avoid intimidation, harm, and continued verbal and emotional abuse.

The rapid increase in the specialized domestic violence courts illustrates commitment by jurisdictions to combat their massive number flowing to the state courts. Labriola et al., (2009) acknowledged their increase and argued that diversity in their structure made it difficult to ascertain if they produced better outcomes than the traditional court system. Consequently, Cissner, Labriola, and Rempel (2013) hypothesized that the result attained by the domestic violence courts vary with their specific procedures and policies. They adopted the domestic violence courts in New York for their comparability with national court structures. They noted that the actual policies adopted by the courts varied widely in their use including offender assessment tools, victim safety and services, accountability measures and orders to batterer programs (Cissner, Labriola, & Rempel, 2013). Their evaluation affirmed Gutierrez, Blais, and Bourgon (2016) findings that domestic violence courts hardly reduced the overall re-arrests rates.

The introduction of domestic violence courts aimed at improving the victims' safety and access to services while optimizing case processing. Cissner et al., (2013) attributed the reduced number of re-arrests on both ground of domestic violence and any charges to specialized courts in New York. The evaluation of court policy effects revealed that domestic courts that prioritized deterrence of re-offenses adopted policy measures directed towards sanctioning noncompliance. The availability of specialized prosecution and trained judge on domestic violence bore increased efficiency to process cases. Domestic courts successfully navigated the persistent process failures in criminal courts...