Police Response To Domestic Violence

This article was downloaded by: [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB]
On: 25 January 2015, At: 17:37

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjor20
Police Response to Domestic

Violence
a
Heather C. Melton
a
Department of Sociology , University of Colorado ,
Boulder, CO, USA
Published online: 12 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Heather C. Melton (1999) Police Response to Domestic Violence,
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 29:1-2, 1-21
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J076v29n01_01
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 17:37 25 January 2015
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, Vol. 29 (1/2), 1999. Pp. 1-21.
E 1999 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Police Response to Domestic Violence
HEATHER C. MELTON
University of Colorado
ABSTRACT This article reviews published works covering police response

to domestic violence. Issues reviewed include historical data, impetus for
change, empirical studies on effectiveness, critiques of research paradigms,
rationales and objections in relation to mandatory arrest policies, victim and
offender characteristics that affect police response, and alternative response
for police intervention. The weight of the literature seems to suggest that
mandatory arrest policies may not universally achieve positive goals. More-
over, some studies show that police agencies do not work effectively with
other social welfare agencies. Future research should seek alternative police
interventions that yield more integrated methods for societal response to do-
mestic violence. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document
Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com
<Website: http://www.haworthpressinc.com>]
KEYWORDS Police, domestic violence
Domestic violence is a social problem that has increasingly been targeted

as a phenomenon in need of social control. At the forefront of this issue is the
debate surrounding the role police play in their response to domestic vio-
lence. Historically, police response has been severely limited and confined to
a policy under which officers ended up chronically distancing themselves
from a task they felt did not belong under their jurisdiction. In the 1970s,
amidst pressure from feminists and battered-women’s advocates for the crim-
inalization of the act of domestic violence, many sociologists, police chiefs,
2 JOURNAL OF OFFENDER REHABILITATION
and politicians began to review and debate the existing policies. In the early
1980s, a landmark study conducted by Lawrence Sherman and Richard Berk,

known as the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment, appeared to advo-
cate for a policy of arrest for police response to domestic violence. Since this
study, mandatory and presumptive arrest policies have been implemented by
police departments across the nation (Gelles, 1993). Feminists, advocacy
groups for battered women, and many police chiefs and administrators have
cheered and approved of these policy changes. And yet, this issue continues
to spark controversy and debate among experts over the use of arrest by the
police as a means and a solution for the social control of domestic violence.
The following is an extensive literature review covering the history of police
response to domestic violence, the impetus for change, empirical literature in
regards to effectiveness of police response, criticisms of previous research,
reasons against and for mandatory arrest policies, victim/offender character-
istics that affect police response, and an evaluation of alternative responses
for police that have been proposed. Emphasis is placed on proposing a new,
more integrated direction for future research in an attempt to better serve the
police in their response to the social problem of domestic violence.
HISTORICAL POLICE RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
The criminalization of domestic violence has been a recent phenomenon.

Historically, all over the world laws have been in place that condoned domes-
tic violence by a man against his wife. In 1140, the first systematization of
church law specified that ‘‘women were ‘subject to their men’ and needed to
be corrected through castigation or punishment’’ (Dutton, 1995). The Napo-
leonic Civil Code of the nineteenth century gave absolute power in the family
to the head male member and recognized violence as grounds for divorce to
the woman only if the violence was found by a court to constitute attempted
murder (Dutton, 1995). The term ‘‘rule of thumb’’ comes from British Com-
mon Law which allowed men legally to beat their wives with sticks no bigger
than their thumb, citing that anything bigger would be too uncivilized
(Brown, 1984). In the United States, although the Puritans implemented
policy in the seventeenth century against wife beating, in non-Puritan society
at the time, wife beating was only punished informally. Thus, historically,
domestic violence was not something that the police or the law enforcement
really had to deal with.
In the twentieth century, the traditional police response to cases of domes-
tic violence has been dominated by their ‘‘overriding goal to extricate (them-
selves) from the dangerous and unpleasant duty with as little cost as possible
and to reinvolve (themselves) with ‘real’ police work’’ (Buzawa, 1990).
Thus, the typical police response was to do nothing or to respond with
Heather C. Melton 3
minimal action. Berk (1980) states that ‘‘underlying the criminal justice
system’s response is the covert toleration of wife beating as indicated in the

policy and personal attitudes of police, prosecutors, and judges.’’ Further-
more, Berk (1980) states that police often provide inadequate documentation
of domestic violence incidents, which results in hindering any further action
by the criminal justice system. Since most domestic violence cases were
classified as misdemeanor assaults, police officers were gravely restricted as
to when they could employ arrest. Until recently, most states had restrictions
in place on the use of warrantless misdemeanor arrests. Hence, police officers
were unable to use arrest unless they had actually witnessed the domestic
violence incident. This restriction enhanced the use of the typical police
response of doing nothing.
Certain police attitudes enabled the typical response to be justified by both
the police officers themselves and police organizations. Many officers re-
garded domestic violence incidents as private disputes that should be settled
by the parties involved. Thus, police were more likely to resort to a policy
that did not criminalize the action. Departmental policy discouraged incur-
sions into the ‘‘right of men to exercise their authority’’ (Berk et al., 1980).
Individual officers approached domestic violence with normative assump-
tions about the right of man to dominate women (Berk et al., 1980). More-
over, conflict between citizens’ calls for help and the goals of police depart-
ments encouraged a do-nothing response of police to domestic violence.
Police officers and police departments historically have seen their role as one
of enforcing the law rather than as a helping resource (Berk et al., 1980).
Thus, they have little incentive to help victims of domestic violence since
many do not even see domestic violence as a crime. Domestic violence calls
have also been alleged to be the most dangerous of all police calls to respond
to. FBI statistics of 1963 show that 22% of police deaths resulted from
domestic disturbance calls (Berk et al., 1980). This also led to the typical do-
nothing response of police to domestic violence. The training officers re-
ceived also reinforced negative stereotypes about domestic violence. Domes-
tic violence calls were explained to officers as an unproductive waste of time
and that they should attempt to exit the situation as swiftly as possible (Buza-
wa and Buzawa, 1993). This also goes along with departmental policies of
promotion and incentive that have historically seriously hindered police re-
sponse to domestic violence. Promotion in police departments has historical-
ly been based on arrests and conviction rates. Since most officers were
restricted to a policy in which they could only arrest if they had actually
witnessed the violence in the case of misdemeanor assaults (most domestic
violence cases are classified as misdemeanor assaults), and domestic violence
cases take a long time, when police officers were responding to domestic
violence calls, they were taken away from other calls that may result in arrest
and therefore look better for promotional purposes. For the above reasons, it
is of little surprise that historically police have preferred the response of

doing nothing in cases of domestic violence.
IMPETUS FOR CHANGE
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, political pressure began to intensify over
the inadequate response of the criminal justice system to concerns and issues
related to women (Buzawa, 1990). With the feminist and women’s rights
movements that began in the late 1960s, popular consciousness about societal
neglect toward problems of women, such as rape, was raised. Although
initially focused on crimes involving strangers, women’s rights activists soon
began to contemplate the question of violence in the home. As battered-
women’s shelters began to open around the country, more attorneys, victims’
advocates, and social workers became involved in cases of domestic vio-
lence. They viewed social inequality and lack of proper law enforcement as
the major contributors to the problem of domestic violence (Dutton, 1995).
The victims and the problem came more into the public domain and, thus,
became more visible to society. It was quickly recognized that the needs of
the victims were not being addressed by criminal justice agencies (Buzawa,
1990). Further, it became increasingly clear that police used arrest with all
assailants except assailants of domestic violence (Davis and Smith, 1995;
Buzawa, 1990). As a result, battered women’s advocates began to recom-
mend and push for a more aggressive policy of arrest in domestic violence
situations.
At the same time, a shift in societal attitudes toward crime and the re-
sponse to crime occurred. Society began to demand more ‘‘law enforcement’’
of crime in general. Acts that previously were not seen as ‘‘criminal’’ and in
need of social control became increasingly criminalized. Sentences became
more punitive. Thus, the prevailing societal attitudes made it possible for
people to begin to see domestic violence as criminal and demand action.
Legal liability of police departments also became an ‘‘impetus for
change’’ in the criminal justice system’s response to domestic violence cases.
Failure to respond satisfactorily to incidents of domestic violence began to
put both individual officers and whole departments at risk of injunctions,
liability awards, and heavy fines (Buzawa, 1990). Two law suits brought
against police in New York and Oakland charged that police had denied
women equal protection of the law by failing to arrest offenders of domestic
violence. These suits resulted in new departmental policies on police re-
sponse to domestic violence (Walker, 1992). In the case of Tracey Thurman
et al. v. the City of Torrington, Ms. Thurman’s lawyers argued that the police
were negligent and failed to provide her with equal protection of the law
Heather C. Melton 5
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The police had continually given

Ms. Thurman no assistance against her husband, had not arrested her husband
when required to do so, and, finally, delayed response to a call to her house
during which she was severely beaten by her husband. The courts agreed, and
she was given a liability award of $2.3 million (Davis and Smith, 1995).
Thus, fear of such cases prompted police departments and others to question
police response to domestic violence cases.
A final element involved in motivation for change in the criminal justice
system’s response to domestic violence was the increasing number of studies
and research projects devoted to addressing issues involved with domestic
violence. In 1967, Parnas published ‘‘The Police Response to Domestic Dis-
turbance’’ in the Wisconsin Law Review, and in 1971, the ‘‘Police Discretion
and Diversion of Incidents of Intra-Family Violence’’ in Law and Contempo-
rary Problems. Both these studies seemed to suggest that police response to
domestic violence was done superficially and mechanically (Buzawa, 1990).
In 1973, Morton Bard wrote Family Crisis Intervention: From Concept to
Implementation, which studied the effect of a Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration (L.E.A.A.) project on intervention in family crisis (Buzawa,
1990). This study thrusted to the forefront the idea that police response could
affect future domestic violence.
The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment, published in 1984 by
Lawrence Sherman and Richard Berk, has proven to be the most influential
study on policy change in regards to police response to domestic violence.
Funded by the National Institute of Justice due to interest in general deter-
rence research, it was the ‘‘first controlled, randomized test of effectiveness
of arrest for any offense’’ (Sherman and Schmidt, 1993). It attempted to
examine the deterrent effect of arrest for misdemeanor domestic assault.
Sherman (1992) describes the procedure as follows:
The key procedure for the Minneapolis experiment was the set of color-
coded report forms stapled together and issued to each officer. Ar-
ranged in separate random sequences for each officer, the three color
codes represented the three randomly assigned treatments: arrest, sepa-
ration (ordering the offender out of the house) and advising (in any way
each officer saw fit as long as it was not separation or arrest). As the
officers encountered eligible cases, they would follow the procedure
indicated by the color code of the next blank report in the numbered
sequence.
The efficiency of each treatment was measured by follow-up interviews with
the victims throughout the following six months, and police department
records of calls to the same address (Walker, 1992). The Minneapolis experi-
ment found that within the six-month follow-up period after police interven-
tion, the arrested offenders had the lowest recidivism rates (10%) against the
same victim (Gelles, 1993). This indicated that arrest appeared to prevent
repeated domestic violence more effectively than either separation or medi-

ation. This led the researchers to recommend that states change laws prohibit-
ing police from making warrantless arrests in misdemeanor domestic vio-
lence cases and that some form of arrest policy be implemented (Sherman
and Schmidt, 1993).
After the public release of the findings of the Minneapolis experiment,
police departments across the nation began to adopt mandatory or presump-
tive arrest policies for cases of domestic violence. The U.S. Attorney Gener-
al’s Task Force on Family Violence (U.S. Department of Justice, 1984),
which drew heavily upon the Minneapolis experiment, came to the conclu-
sion that family violence should be recognized and responded to as a criminal
activity by police departments and other criminal justice agencies (Gelles,
1993). By January 1987, some adaptation of an arrest policy had been imple-
mented by 176 cities across the United States. Within eight years of the
experiment, legislatures in fifteen states and the District of Columbia pushed
to enact laws requiring police to arrest in all incidents of domestic violence
with probable cause (Gelles, 1993). Today, forty-seven states and the District
of Columbia have done so (Bachman and Coker, 1995).
PROBLEMS WITH THE MINNEAPOLIS EXPERIMENT

Criticisms of the Minneapolis experiment, results from six ‘‘replica’’ stud-
ies of the Minneapolis experiment, and further analysis of the negative as-
pects of mandatory or presumptive arrest policies suggest that perhaps states
reacted too hastily in enacting these new arrest policies. In terms of problems
with the Minneapolis experiment, questions of both internal and external
validity of the experiment itself have been raised. For internal validity, con-
cerns over the extent ‘‘to which the treatment was truly based on random
assignment’’ have been put forth (Gelles, 1993). It is possible that officers
could have excluded certain nonarrest cases from the study. Also, the officers
involved may have violated the assumptions of random assignment by avoid-
ing a domestic violence call or reclassifying a call to a felony assault or a
form of nonmisdemeanor violence (Gelles, 1993). Another question was put
forth about the sample size. With the experiment design and the size of the
sample, it was not possible to test the different effects arrest had on different
groups (Sherman, 1992). In addition, most of the cases in the study were
completed by a few officers in just two precincts. The follow-up period also
raised concerns. If the follow-up period had been greater than six months,
perhaps different results would have been produced (Sherman, 1992). Final-
ly, since the experiment was limited to recidivism against the same victims, it
did not consider that perhaps the offender assaulted other victims and that the
act of arrest merely displaced the offender’s abuse (Sherman, 1992).
Heather C. Melton 7
Of even more importance, the external validity of the experiment has been
deeply criticized. In the Minneapolis experiment, the amount of time the

offender spent in jail was almost always at least one night (Sherman, 1992).
Thus, in other cities where offenders may be immediately released or held for
even longer, the recidivism rates may be different. The Minneapolis experi-
ment was also not an accurate test of the effects of the response of mediation
for the officers involved in the experiment had no special training in medi-
ation intervention (Sherman, 1992). The follow-up interviews may have had
an effect on the rates of repeat assault because the interviews themselves
could have acted as deterrents (Sherman, 1992). The city chosen to do the
study in, Minneapolis, cannot accurately represent a sample of American
cities. It has a varied proportion of ethnic groups, religious affiliations, crime
rates, education levels, etc. Lastly, the experiment did not compare arrest with
all of the possible responses available.
REPLICATION STUDIES
Because of the problems with internal and external validity with the Min-
neapolis experiment, six ‘‘replica’’ studies were funded by the National Insti-
tute of Justice. One such study was conducted in Omaha, Nebraska. It at-
tempted to correct for the threats of internal validity of the Minneapolis
experiment (Dunford et al., 1990). In its findings, it concluded that arrest by
itself did not deter recidivism any more than did responses of mediating or
separating (Dunford et al., 1990). It also showed that victims whose offenders
were arrested were not at any greater risk of subsequent violence than those
whose offenders were responded to with mediation.
Although the replication study in Charlotte, North Carolina contained two
differences (police-issued citations were used and the entire patrol division
was used twenty-four hours a day over the entire city), it arrived at similar
conclusions. The investigators stated,
The results of the Charlotte experiment are decisive and unambiguous,
clearly indicating that arrest of spouse abusers is neither substantially
nor stastically a more effective deterrent to repeat abuse than either of
the other two police responses examined in this study.
The Milwaukee replication study (conducted by Sherman) was the only
study done in a ‘‘northern industrial-urban black ghetto’’ (Gelles, 1993). It
involved three responses: standard arrest (an average of eleven hours in
custody), a short arrest (an average of three hours in custody), and no arrest,
but a police warning (Gelles, 1993). The findings showed that arrest was
different for people with varied employment status. For example, offenders
who were arrested and employed were less likely to repeat violence than
were unemployed offenders. This, perhaps, suggests that arrest, as instrument

of deterrence, works for offenders who have something to lose. There were
also differences between the use of short and standard arrest. While short
arrest appeared to lessen chances of repeat violence in the short-term period,
over the long run it increased the offender’s violence rates. On the other hand,
standard arrest suggested that there were not long-term consequences in
terms of recidivism rates (Gelles, 1993). With conflicting data coming in
from the other ‘‘replica’’ studies, it appears that the empirical data does not
support that arrest consistently deters offenders from committing future acts
of domestic violence.
CRITICISM OF THE RESEARCH
McCord (1992) presents three broad criticisms of the research on the

deterrent effects of arrest on domestic violence. These include: the narrow
perspective taken by research in regards to effects of interventions, the shal-
low consideration that has been given to process, and the paucity of deter-
rence alternatives used in evaluation (McCord, 1992). In regards to the nar-
row perspective on effects, in many of the studies (in Minneapolis, Omaha,
and Indianapolis) the evaluation of the impact of arrest on recidivism only
looked at offenders who revictimized the same victims. Thus, as stated be-
fore, displacement effects were never explored. In Milwaukee, although they
did look at overall recidivism rates on any victim, the incidents recorded and
evaluated had to occur within the same jurisdiction. McCord (1992) argues
that prior research has shown that multiple victimization is common and that
those who are violent in one relationship tend to be violent in others. Thus,
the above studies may miss this by being too narrow in their focus. Moreover,
the time period used to look at recidivism may be too narrow also. In the
Milwaukee study conducted by Sherman, the ‘‘long-term’’ period was six
months. Other studies looked at one year after the initial arrest. These do not
take into account the dynamic nature of relationships. In many cases, the
offender and victim may separate during those periods, only to get back
together later and continue the cycle of violence. The narrow window of
recidivism evaluated in previous studies may not account for this (McCord,
1992). Furthermore, many of the studies would evaluate a situation as suc-
cessful if no further violence occurs. But, this does not consider that chance
that perhaps the offender is no longer physically abusive, but continues to be
verbally abusive. They may turn to threats of violence in order to attempt to
control their victim’s. The very definition of abuse may not be broad enough
in previous studies. Lastly, many studies do not consider the effect of arrest as
an intervention on the victim’s welfare. Many victims may prefer to stay in an
abusive relationship rather than lose financial support or lose their children.
Heather C. Melton 9
A second criticism of the research put forth by McCord (1992) is the

shallow consideration given to process. A taxonomy of domestic violence

beyond whether the offenses are felonies or misdemeanors may be necessary.
For example, interventions by the police may affect people differently who
have different experiences within the criminal justice system. People who
have had previous contact with the police may be more skeptical when the
police arrive; police may actually react to this skepticism and influence the
results of the intervention (McCord, 1992). Studies have found that one of the
major reasons victims do not call the police is because they do see their
battering as a private or personal matter. Hence, it may be important to
classify a call by who initiates it because the effect of an intervention may be
influenced by the belief that it was an unnecessary or unwarranted one
(McCord, 1992). The impact of arrest may depend on the situation of the
victim. If the family is dependent on the offender for financial support, the
intervention of arrest may be detrimental to the family or the victim, but for a
victim where this is not the case, arrest may have a different effect. Thus, it
may be important to classify these cases differently, which none of the pre-
vious studies have done.
A final criticism of previous research is the paucity of alternatives selected
for evaluation. In many studies, only mediation and separation were looked at
as alternatives to arrest. Some treatment programs have been shown to in-
crease the use of violence. The absence of viable alternatives may have
affected the outcomes of previous research.
REASONS AGAINST AND FOR MANDATORY

ARREST POLICIES
If arrest is practiced for the purpose of deterring recidivism among domes-

tic violence offenders, research has shown that it is not universally and
consistently achieving its goal. The strength of deterrence may vary in accor-
dance with the nature of the offense (Gelles, 1993). Crimes that are economi-
cally motivated or require intense planning seem to be more receptive to
deterrence than ‘‘noneconomic crimes in general and crimes involving the
impulsive, explosive use of violence typical in domestic violence assaults’’
(Buzawa, 1990). Arrest also appears to work in some communities and not in
others. Williams and Hawkins’ (1989) analysis concluded that arrest works
as a deterrent, but only for those who have something to lose. Finally, Sher-
man (1993) puts forth the following summary of conclusions from the do-
mestic violence research on police use of arrest: (1) arrest reduces violence in
some cities, but increases it in others, (2) arrest reduces domestic vio-
lence among employed people, but increases it among unemployed
people, (3) arrest reduces domestic violence in the short run, but can
increase it in the long run, and (4) police can predict which couples are most likely
to suffer future violence, but our society values privacy too highly to encourage
preventive action. Arrest as a deterrent appears to work differentially, and thus a
mandatory or presumptive arrest policy cannot be advocated in all cases.
Several other compelling arguments against mandatory or presumptive
arrest policies have been presented. One dormant effect of arrest is concern-
ing the empowerment of the victim. Many victims do not actually want the
offender arrested, but rather want to control the immediate situation--stop the
violence at that time (Gelles, 1993). Mandatory arrest, therefore, may actual-
ly work against empowering the victims because it removes the power from
the victim. Moreover, this could have negative long-term consequences. The
victims may experience more serious abuse, but now feel as if they have no
one to help them because they do not want to go to the police for fear that the
offender will be arrested despite their wishes. In many cases, if no one
contacts the police, it could lead to more serious injury or death.
A rather interesting argument put forth raises the question of the constitu-
tionality of the use and purpose of mandatory arrest policies in domestic
violence cases. The United States’ Justice system is based upon the funda-
mental concept that one is not punished without due process of law. The
justification for incarceration before trial is supposed to be based upon how
dangerous the defendant is and the prevention of the defendant fleeing the
area. And yet, the purpose of arrest in domestic violence cases is to deter
recidivism through punishment (Binder and Meeker, 1988). Binder and
Meeker (1988) state,
The principal purpose in arresting a given suspect is to reduce the
probability of recidivism among people treated in that fashion. The
basis is specific deterrence and the means is punishment by the police.
There is no consideration of due process and while there may be hope
of due process, there is no hint of that as a goal of the arrest process. In
fact, there is no justification for the policy of deterrence that is presum-
ably created by punishment through arrest and incarceration by the
police, not the courts. Nor is there justification for incarceration based
upon accepted principles.
Hence, the purpose of arrest in domestic violence cases may undermine
concepts fundamental to our justice system and our Constitution.
Manning (1993) argues that the use of arrest in domestic violence cases
‘‘elevates the social control function of the law (hence the state) in private
relations. Thus, private relations are converted into public spectacles (Man-
ning, 1993). Some may view this as an infringement on privacy. Furthermore,
Manning (1993) argues that arresting batterers will target minorities and
people from low socioeconomic backgrounds since arrests in domestic vio-
lence cases are disproportionately of lower class, minority residents of large
Heather C. Melton 11
cities. This will, in turn, exacerbate present inequalities by allowing the state
to shape the private lives of citizens (Manning, 1993).

In contrast, much literature is devoted to reasons for having a mandatory
arrest policy. Stark (1993) summarizes some of these arguments. First, vio-
lence against women is a political reality. Everything about it, including the
response to it, reflects the power of men over women. Battering is rooted in
sexual inequality. Therefore, the cause and the consequence of battering is
the denial of women’s civil rights. It violates women’s civil rights because
battering is a method of using control and violence to ‘‘exploit sexual in-
equality and obstruct a women’s self-determination’’ (Starks, 1993). Thus, a
proarrest policy shows the growing power of women to command greater due
process and helps women in their fight for greater equality (Starks, 1993).
Second, mandatory arrest laws are a method of controlling and directing
police behavior. It dictates what police are required to do if certain criteria
exist in a situation. They are held accountable if they failed to take the
required action. The absence of a standard for police response increases
women’s sense of powerlessness for when police take a do-nothing stance the
situation may not be controlled (Starks, 1993). Starks (1993) also argues that
although there has been much resistance among police officers to mandatory
arrest law in domestic violence cases, arrests for domestic assault did in-
crease by 70% between 1984 and 1989 largely due to mandatory arrest laws.
Third, mandatory arrest of offenders of domestic violence does provide
immediate protection for the victim from the current violence. Mandatory
arrest allows for the victim to take some time to consider her options. And, it
gives women who are ready to leave their abusive partner the time to find
somewhere else to go or to get a protective order (Starks, 1993).
Fourth, Starks (1993) states, ‘‘making battering the only crime in which
police discretion is removed acknowledges a special social interest in redressing
the legacy of discriminatory treatment of women by law enforcement.’’ It forces
law enforcement to redress its traditional accommodation to the interests of
propertied males in our society (Starks, 1993). Furthermore, it sends the mes-
sage that we as a society take battering seriously. This in itself may deter future
violence of potential abusers independent of actual arrest. Fifth, in the same vein
as above, a mandatory arrest policy of domestic violence assures that police
service is available to women on a more egalitarian level (Starks, 1993).
VARIABLES SIGNIFICANT
TO AN OFFICER’S DECISION TO ARREST-
VICTIM/OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS
AND OFFICER CHARACTERISTICS
Since the publication of the Minneapolis experiment, most states have
implemented some form of a proarrest policy. Due to the above, much of the
recent literature is devoted to exploring the variables that affect when an

officer chooses to use arrest. In terms of victim and offender characteristics,

Mignon and Holmes (1995) found that the decision to arrest was affected by
injury to the victim, use of a weapon, and presence of a witness. In their
study, a stratified random sample of 24 police departments in Massachusetts,
they found that the more severe the injury to the victim the more likely the
offender was to be arrested, in more than half of the cases in which the
offenders used weapons the offenders were arrested, and when a witness was
present, arrest occurred in half of the cases (Mignon and Holmes, 1995).
Bachman and Coker (1995) also found that police were more likely to
arrest in cases in which the victim sustained serious injuries. Furthermore,
they found that police were more likely to arrest when the offender did not
have a history of violence and in cases which involved black offenders
victimizing black victims (Bachman and Coker, 1995). They concluded that
this was due, in part, to the fact that victims who sustained serious injuries
were more likely to report the incident to police (60% to 51%), victims who
had not previously been victimized were more likely to report the incident to
police (62% to 54%), and that black victims were more likely than white to
report the incident to police (71% to 55%) (Bachman and Coker, 1995).
Although this study did find significant results, it is limited due to the use of
victims’ perceptions as the data source.
Buzawa and Austin (1993) explore the role victim’s preference for arrest
plays in an officer’s decision to arrest. They found that out of 101 cases, 34%
of the victims did want some form of prosecution. Out of those, arrests were
made in 44% of the cases. On the other hand, when the victim did not want
the offender arrested, the police made arrests in only 21% of the cases.
Buzawa and Austin (1993) conclude that three primary determinants affect
officers’ decisions to arrest: presence of others at the scene of the crime,
whether the victim lived with the offender, and victim preference. In cases
where witnesses were present, arrests were made 50% of the time. However,
when no witnesses were present, arrests were made less than one-quarter of
the time (Buzawa and Austin, 1993). Arrests were more than twice as likely
to occur when the offender and the victim shared the same residence (Buzawa
and Austin, 1993). Similar to the other studies, they also found that serious-
ness of victim’s injury and presence of a weapon greatly increased the proba-
bility of an arrest occurring.
Gondolf and McFerron (1989) looked at a range of factors that contributed
to police actions in domestic violence cases: doing nothing, mediation, pro-
viding transportation to the victim, forcing the batterer to leave, and arresting
the offender. They concluded that cases in which nothing was done were less
likely to involve offenders that abused alcohol (65% versus 84%), to have a
history of violence against others (36% versus 53%), and to have other arrests
(55% versus 89%) (Gondolf and McFerron, 1989). The authors do point out,
though, that they did not look at cases in which multiple police action was
taken. They only looked at what was considered the most severe police action
taken.
In an earlier study Berk and Loeske (1980) found that the probability of
arrest increased when the following conditions were present: the female
victim signed a citizen’s arrest warrant (.30), when both parties were present
at the time of police intervention, when the female alleged the violence (.32),
and when the male offender had been drinking (.20). The probability of arrest
decreased when the female victim made the initial call to the police (.21)
(Berk and Loeske, 1980). The authors concluded that this was due to the
police perception that if they can make the initial call, then the violence has
not escalated to a serious enough point to warrant an arrest. However, a
number of problems are present in this study. First, the data was collected
from official police reports and therefore may contain after-the-fact recon-
structions of incidents with the intention of justifying actions taken previous-
ly (Worden and Pollitz, 1984). Second, the sample was limited to only those
cases for which there was sufficient documentation. Thus, the only cases
considered were cases deemed serious enough by the police. There may be
something systematically different about the other cases that is not being
taken into consideration in the authors’ analysis. Third, this study was done
in a department that did not yet have a mandatory arrest policy. Thus, it may
be fundamentally different than departments that do have a mandatory arrest
policy.
Other studies have focused on officer characteristics that affect the proba-
bility of arrest occurring in response to cases of domestic violence. Buzawa,
Buzawa, and Austin (1995) argue that most officers believe that arrest prior-
ity should be given to cases where challenges to public order and authority of
the law have been made and cases that are more likely to lead to a conviction
(cases where the victim is willing to help). Stalans and Finn (1995) look at
‘‘how novice and experienced officers’ prior knowledge and the appropriate-
ness of wives’ actions interact to shape interpretations and response in wife
assaults.’’ They argue that officers are less likely to arrest when they perceive
the victim’s actions to deviate from what they consider normal. Officers
develop normative (decide who is at blame; look at the appropriateness of
each’s actions based on their perceptions of societal norms) and efficiency
(consider the immediate present and near future situation; think about their
job security, rewards, and recognition they may receive from their actions)
frames (Stalans and Finn, 1995). Novice officers tend to rely more on norma-
tive frames, while experienced officers rely on efficiency frames.
Finally, Saunders (1995) analyzed the effect of officer characteristics on
the tendency to arrest victims in domestic violence cases. He argues that
officers with a propensity to arrest victims have the following: more tradi-
tional attitudes about sex-roles, more negative views about abused women,
greater justification for domestic violence, and more stereotypes about vic-
tims’ behavior (why they stay). He found that traditional sex-role attitudes
and negative views about battered women were not related to propensity to
arrest victims, but a greater justification of domestic violence was and stereo-
types about victims’ behavior partially was, although none of the above was
statistically significant, but rather only approached it (Saunders, 1995).
RESPONSES AVAILABLE TO POLICE TODAY
Although most of the research on police response to domestic violence has

focused on the use of arrest, in many cases it is still not possible to employ
arrest and many officers continue not to use it. Thus, it is important to
understand all of the responses available to police. First, there are arrests.
Studies have concluded that arrest rates range form 12% to 40% of all cases
seen by police (Walker, 1992). Second, mediation is a common response of
police in cases of domestic violence. Mediation includes a variety of different
verbal responses. Officers may talk to the offender and the victim in sympa-
thetic or unsympathetic manner (Walker, 1992). They may discuss what the
victim would like done, may order the participants to be quiet, or they may
even threaten arrest. Much of how an officer goes about mediating depends
on the officer’s attitude toward domestic violence itself and the officer’s
perception of the situation. Third, along with mediation, police officers may
use referrals. They may recommend that victim or offender seek professional
help, or offer referrals to social agencies or legal aid. Most studies suggest
that referrals are used sparingly (one study suggested that any referral was
only used in 4% of cases) (Walker, 1992). Police have no legal power to
compel someone to seek professional help or use the referral that they give
them; thus, many police do not see this as a viable response. Fourth, separa-
tion may be used. This would involve asking either the offender or the victim
to leave. But, if the person is a legal resident of the residence, the police have
no legal right to force them to leave (Walker, 1992). However, to a great
extent people do comply when the police ask them to. One study suggested
that separation was used in 40% of all cases (Walker, 1992). Finally, police
continue to use the response of no action at all. Some officers may leave the
scene almost immediately.
Although separation and mediation have been evaluated in terms of deter-
rence, it is not yet clear whether they represent a better or worse alternative to
arrest. One major problem with the studies, in terms of both separation and
mediation, is that in studies the officers did not receive any specific training
in regards how to separate or mediate in domestic violence situations. In a
study conducted by Pearce and Snortum (1983), they found that trained
officers tend to handle cases more positively than untrained officers. Officers
indicated that they felt training was interesting and practical. Disputants
revealed higher satisfaction with trained officers. And, trained officers used
referrals more than untrained officers. In this study, the training consisted of a
56-hour-long course in crisis intervention. The training covered: safety fac-
tors, methods for diffusing violent situations, techniques in information gath-
ering, mediation skills, and referral sources (Pearce and Snortum, 1983). In
conclusion, the authors stated that trained officers appeared better prepared to
deal with crisis situations in manners that build better police-community
relations (Pearce and Snortum, 1983).
Police use of referrals in domestic violence situations is also an area of
research that needs to be further developed and evaluated. Belknap and
McCall (1994) explored this, looking at the number of referrals police give,
the types of police referrals, and how police officers’ personal characteristics
are related to the referrals that they give. Police response to domestic vio-
lence needs to be refocused to go beyond whether they arrest or not, but to
include whether they give referrals to social services agencies that may be
useful to victims, offenders, and children living within an abusive environ-
ment (Belknap and McCall, 1994). Data for this study were collected from
questionnaires completed by 324 police officers in a large Midwestern metro-
politan area in the late 1980s. They found officers reported making referrals
to the following places: women victims’ hot lines (44.3% of the time), private
complaint programs (14.2%), battered-women’s shelters (10.5%), clergy
(9%), court (7.1%), and miscellaneous other places all less than 6.5% of the
time (Belknap and McCall, 1994). Although one-third of all officers reported
that they ‘‘rarely’’ referred victims to battered-women’s shelters, officers
with less experience were more likely to report that they ‘‘usually’’ did this.
Officers on first and second shifts were more likely to report that they ‘‘usual-
ly’’ referred victims to shelters than officers on the third shift. Educated
officers were more likely than uneducated ones to refer women to court and
to women victims’ hotlines. Younger officers were more likely than older
ones to refer women to private complaint programs. Finally, the variable
most significantly related to the type of referral police officers give was
departmental affiliation. Different types of departments (sheriffs versus po-
lice departments, etc.) were more or less likely to use different referrals
(Belknap and McCall, 1994). These findings were based on answers that
police officers themselves gave on questionnaires. Thus, caution should be
used because officers may have exaggerated how frequently they use refer-
rals.
Dolon, Hendricks, and Meagher (1986) found that police officers most
often refer victims and offenders to other criminal justice agencies. In their
study, police referrals included (from most to least): prosecuting attorney,

court, mental health care facility, shelters, legal-aid attorney, drug and alcohol
services, AA, hospitals, family services, church or minister, welfare depart-
ment, Salvation Army, and the YWCA. Furthermore, police officers main-
tained that referrals to the prosecuting attorney and the court were the most
effective ones they could make. Much more research needs to be conducted
and evaluated on the use and effectiveness of police referrals made to victims
and offenders in the case of domestic violence.
PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
Most states have some form of presumptive or mandatory arrest policies in

place for the preferred response of police to domestic violence. It does not
appear, nor is it necessarily recommended, that these will be repealed any-
time soon. The present debate over policies regarding police response to
domestic violence does warrant questions over what changes should be made
in present policy. Schmidt and Sherman (1993) put forth the following policy
recommendations. First, mandatory arrest laws should be repealed, especially
in areas of high poverty populations and high unemployment rates. Although
it is unlikely that this will occur, it appears that arrest in certain situations
does not deter future violence and may even backfire. Thus, each situation
needs to be looked at differentially. Second, structured police discretion
should be substituted. State legislatures should require every police agency to
develop its own list of options and guidelines to those options that could be
exercised at each officer’s discretion. Third, warrantless arrests should be
allowed. This issue is still being debated in some states. Many officers con-
tinue to be restricted in using arrest in misdemeanor domestic disputes in
cases that they do not actually witness. Although in many cases, arrest is
clearly not warranted, in others it may be detrimental not to arrest. Third,
police agencies should encourage issuance of arrest warrants for absent of-
fenders. The types of people who flee the scene may be more deterrable than
those who stay. Finally, special units and policies should focus on chronically
violent couples. A limited number of couples produce the most domestic
violence. The development of an effective policy to deal with chronically
violent couples may have more impact than anything else (Schmidt and
Sherman, 1993). Part of this solution may lie in the development of specific,
intensively trained units that only deal with domestic violence. If this were
done, these officers would get to know these chronic couples, and with
philosophies of community policing, may be able to focus more on proactive
problem-solving than reactive crime-fighting. In addition, victim preference
should be taken into consideration. This could work both ways to empower-
ing the victim.
Re-evaluation of other responses and exploration of other viable solutions

are also crucial. First and foremost, police need more in-depth training on the
issues surrounding domestic violence. If we are going to ask police to take on
the role of ‘‘social work,’’ we must give them the skills and ability to be
sensitized to the issues involved and different methods available for them to
do so. Police must be aware of the many programs in place for both victims
and offenders, so that they can give informed referrals. Then it should be
ensured that they are issuing these referrals. One solution may be to deploy
teams of police officers and social workers to each domestic violence scene
to help with crisis intervention. Another may be to train special units to only
deal with domestic violence cases--they will be the specialists. Although both
of these approaches are being implemented in some cities, evaluations of
these programs are not in yet. Second, if arrest and prosecution are going to
be used, rehabilitation strategies for the offenders must be employed. Al-
though there is no concrete evidence available on the recidivism rates of
offenders in such programs, domestic violence is a social problem that must
address the issues surrounding all parties involved--offenders as well as vic-
tims. Furthermore, research has shown that many offenders of domestic
violence will be violent in all of their future relationships. Thus, even though
the domestic violence incident may result in the termination of the relation-
ship between offender and the victim, the offender still needs to receive help.
In conclusion, police are not the solution to the problem of domestic
violence. Instead, they play a role in the controlling of domestic violence.
Because for many the encounter with police is their first encounter with either
a criminal justice agency or a social welfare agency, it is crucial that the
police employ the correct and necessary response for that situation to assure
that the participants will continue to utilize such agencies. The most impor-
tant thing a police officer can hope to accomplish, besides stopping the
immediate danger, is to issue referrals and to create an awareness among both
victims and offenders that there are people and agencies that can help. This
introduction to agencies may be the first step in many people’s lives in
breaking the cycle of domestic abuse. The fact that police have the option of
arrest in misdemeanor domestic violence cases is a fundamental step forward
in the criminal justice response to domestic violence. There is no question
that in certain cases of domestic violence, arrest is the only viable option, but
mandating arrest may have some grave consequences. Thus, it should not be
the recommended policy. Police must have the training and knowledge neces-
sary to regard each domestic violence case differentially. Furthermore, since
in some domestic violence cases arrest cannot be used due to lack of probable
cause, police must have the training and knowledge to carry out other re-
sponses, such as mediation, effectively. Finally, although police are not the
solution for domestic violence, they could play a much larger role in its
prevention. They have the ability to predict where domestic violence will
occur due to the high incidence of repeat calls. Hence, if there were programs
in place that allowed police to have continued involvement and to involve
social agencies, they may be able to prevent future acts of domestic violence.
With whatever response police opt to use, they play a large and important part
in society’s fight against domestic violence.
REFERENCES
Armentrout, R. (1991). Car 54 where are you? Police response to domestic
violence calls. Drake Law Review, 40, 361-384.
Bachman, R., & Coker, A. (1995). Police involvement in domestic violence: The
interactive effects of victim injury, offender’s history of violence, and race.
Violence and Victims, 10(2), 91-106.
Balos, B., & Trotsky, I. (1988). Enforcement of the domestic violence abuse act
in Minnesota: A preliminary study. Law and Inequality, 6, 83-125.
Belknap, J., & McCall, K. D. (1994). Woman battering and police referrals.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(3), 223-236.
Bell, D. (1985). Domestic violence victimization, police intervention, and dis-
position. Journal of Criminal Justice, 13(6), 525-534.
Bell, D. (1985). The police response to domestic violence: A multiyear study.
Police Studies, 8(1), 58-64.
Bell, D. (1984). The police response to domestic violence: An exploratory study.
Police Studies, 7(1), 23-30.
Bell, D., & Bell, S. (1991). The victim-offender relationship as a determinant
factor in police dispositions of family violence incidents. Policing and Society,
1(3), 225-234.
Berk, R. (1980). Bringing the cops back in: A study of efforts to make the
criminal justice system more responsive to incidents of family violence. Social
Science Research, 9, 195-215.
Berk, R., Campbell, A., Klap, R., & Western, B. (1992). The deterrent effect of
arrest in incidents of domestic violence: A bayesian analysis of four field
experiments. American Sociological Review, 57(5), 698-708.
Berk, R., Fenstermaker, S., & Newton, P. (1984). Cops on call: Summoning the
police to the scene of spousal violence. Law and Society Review, 18(3),
479-498.
Berk, S. F., & Loseke, D. (1981). Handling family violence: Situational determi-
nants of police arrest in domestic disturbances. Law and Society Review,
15(2), 317-346.
Binder, A., & Meeker, J. (1993). Implications of the failure to replicate the Minne-
apolis Experimental findings. American Sociological Review, 58, 886-888.
Bourg, S., & Harley Stock. (1994). A review of domestic violence arrest statistics
in a police department using a pro-arrest policy. Journal of Family Violence,
9(2), 177-189.
Brown, S. (1984). Police response to wife beating: Neglect of a crime of vio-

lence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 277-288.

Buzawa, E., & Austin, T. (1993). Determining police response to domestic vio-
lence victims: The role of victim preference. American Behavioral Scientist,
36(5), 610-623.
Buzawa, E., & Buzawa, C. (1996). Do arrests and restraining orders work?
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Buzawa, E., & Buzawa, C. (1992). Domestic violence: The changing criminal
justice response. Westport: Auburn House.
Buzawa, E., & Buzawa, C. (1990). Domestic violence: The criminal justice
response. London: Sage Publications.
Buzawa, E., & Buzawa, C. (1993). The impact of arrest on domestic violence.
American Behavioral Scientist, 36(5), 558-573.
Davis, R., & Smith, B. (1995). Domestic violence reforms. Crime and Delin-
quency, 41(4), 541-552.
Dolon, R., Hendricks, J., & Meagher, M. S. (1986). Police practices and attitudes
toward domestic violence. Journal of Police Science and Administration,
14(3), 187-192.
Dunford, F., Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. (1990). The role of arrest in domestic
assault: The Omaha police experiment. Criminology, 28(2), 183-205.
Dutton, D. (1995). The domestic assault of women: Psychological and criminal
justice perspectives. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Ferraro, K. (1989). Policing woman battering. Social Problems, 36(1), 61-74.
Finesmith, B. (1983). Police response to battered women: A critique and propos-
als for reform. Seton Law Review, 14(1), 74-108.
Friday, P., Metzgan, S., & Walters, D. (1991). Policing domestic violence: Per-
ceptions, experience, reality. Criminal Justice Review, 16(2), 198-213.
Gelles, R. J. (1993). Constraints against family violence: How well do they work.
American Behavioral Scientist, 36(5), 575-585.
Gondolf, E., & McFerron, R. (1989). Handling battering men: Police action in
wife abuse cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 16(4), 429-439.
Hirschel, J. D., & Hutchinson, I. W. (1992). Female spouse abuse and the police
response: The Charlotte, North Carolina experiment. Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology, 84, 73.
Holmes, W. (1993). Police arrests for domestic violence. American Journal of
Police, 12, 101-125.
Home, A. (1991-1992). Responding to domestic violence: A comparison of so-
cial workers and police officer interventions. Social Work and Social Sciences
Review, 3(2), 150-162.
Hotaling, G. (1988). Coping with family violence: Research and policy perspec-
tives. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
Johnson, I. (1990). A loglinear analysis of abused wives decisions to call the
police in domestic violence disputes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 18(2),
147-159.
Lawrenz, F., Lembo, J., & Schade, T. (1988). Time series analysis of the effect of
a domestic violence directive on the number of arrests per day. Journal of

Criminal Justice, 16, 493-498.
McCord, J. (1992). Deterrence of domestic violence: A critical view of research.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29(2), 229-239.
McLeod, M. (1983). Victim noncooperation in the prosecution of domestic as-
sault. Criminology, 21(3), 395-416.
Meeker, J., & Binder, A. (1990). Experiments as reform: The impact of the
Minneapolis experiment on police policy. Journal of Police Science and Ad-
ministration, 17, 147.
Mignon, S., & Holmes, W. (1995). Police response to mandatory arrest laws.
Crime and Delinquency, 41(4), 430-442.
Oppenlander, N. (1982). Coping or copping out: Police service delivery in do-
mestic disputes. Criminology, 20, 449-465.
Pahl, J. (1985). Private violence and public policy. Boston: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Pate, A., & Hamilton, E. (1992). Formal and informal deterrents to domestic
violence: The Dade county spouse assault experiment. American Sociological
Review, 57(5), 691-697.
Pearce, J., & Snortum, J. (1983). Police effectiveness in handling disturbance
calls: An evaluation of crisis intervention training. Criminal Justice and Be-
havior, 10(1), 71-92.
Saunders, D. G. (1995). The tendency to arrest victims of domestic violence.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(2), 147-158.
Sherman, L. (1992). Policing domestic violence: Experiments and dilemmas.
New York: The Free Press.
Sherman, L., & Berk, R. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for
domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 261-272.
Sherman, L., & Cohn, E. (1989). The impact of research on legal policy: The
Minneapolis domestic violence experiment. Law and Society Review, 23(1),
117-144.
Sherman, L., & Schmidt, J. (1993). Does arrest deter domestic violence. Ameri-
can Behavioral Scientist, 36(5), 601-609.
Sherman, L., Schmidt, J., & Rogan, D. (1991). From initial deterrence to long-
term escalation: Short custody arrest for poverty ghetto domestic violence.
Criminology, 29(4), 821-850.
Sherman, L., Smith, D., Schmidt, J., & Rogan, D. P. (1992). Crime, punishment,
and stake in conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence.
American Sociological Review, 57(5), 680-690.
Smith, D. (1987). Police response to interpersonal violence: Defining the param-
eters of legal control. Social Forces, 65(3), 767.
Smith, D., & Klein, J. (1984). Police control of interpersonal disputes. Social
Problems, 31(4), 468-481.
Stalans, L., & Finn, M. (1995). How novice and experienced officers interpret
wife assaults: Normative and efficiency frames. Law and Society Review,
29(2), 287-321.
Stark, E. (1993). Mandatory arrest of batterers: A reply to critics. American
Behavioral Scientist, 36(5), 651-679.
Tolman, R., & Weisz, A. (1995). Coordinated community intervention for do-
mestic violence: The effects of arrests and prosecution on recidivism. Crime
and Delinquency, 41(4), 481-495.
Walker, S. (1992). The police in America. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Williams, K. R., and Hawkins, R. (1989). The Meaning of Arrest for Wife
Assault. Criminology, 27(1), 163-181.
Worden, R., & Pollitz. (1984). Police arrests in domestic disturbances: A further
look. Law and Society Review, 18(1), 105-119.
Wright, C. (1985). Immediate arrest in domestic violence situations: Mandate or
alternatives. Capital University Law Review, 14(2), 243-268.
AUTHOR’S NOTES
Heather C. Melton is a doctoral candidate in sociology at the University of

Colorado, Boulder. Her research interests include violence against women and the
criminal justice system’s response to issues concerning women.
The author expresses gratitude to Del Elliott for his assistance in the preparation
of this paper.
Address correspondence to Heather C. Melton, Department of Sociology, Campus
Box 327, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0327.

Police Response To Domestic Violence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Police Response To Domestic Violence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB]

On: 25 January 2015, At: 17:37

Police Response to Domestic

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J076v29n01_01

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

E 1999 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Police Response to Domestic Violence

ABSTRACT This article reviews published works covering police response

KEYWORDS Police, domestic violence

Domestic violence is a social problem that has increasingly been targeted

1980s, a landmark study conducted by Lawrence Sherman and Richard Berk,

HISTORICAL POLICE RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

The criminalization of domestic violence has been a recent phenomenon.

system’s response is the covert toleration of wife beating as indicated in the

is of little surprise that historically police have preferred the response of

IMPETUS FOR CHANGE

guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The police had continually given

repeated domestic violence more effectively than either separation or medi-

PROBLEMS WITH THE MINNEAPOLIS EXPERIMENT

deeply criticized. In the Minneapolis experiment, the amount of time the

were unemployed offenders. This, perhaps, suggests that arrest, as instrument

CRITICISM OF THE RESEARCH

McCord (1992) presents three broad criticisms of the research on the

A second criticism of the research put forth by McCord (1992) is the

shallow consideration given to process. A taxonomy of domestic violence

REASONS AGAINST AND FOR MANDATORY

If arrest is practiced for the purpose of deterring recidivism among domes-

to shape the private lives of citizens (Manning, 1993).

recent literature is devoted to exploring the variables that affect when an

officer chooses to use arrest. In terms of victim and offender characteristics,

RESPONSES AVAILABLE TO POLICE TODAY

Although most of the research on police response to domestic violence has

study, police referrals included (from most to least): prosecuting attorney,

PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE

Most states have some form of presumptive or mandatory arrest policies in

Re-evaluation of other responses and exploration of other viable solutions

Brown, S. (1984). Police response to wife beating: Neglect of a crime of vio-

lence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 277-288.

a domestic violence directive on the number of arrests per day. Journal of

Heather C. Melton is a doctoral candidate in sociology at the University of

You might also like