Emergency department (ED) visits are just such a measure: IPV victims, and those with POs specifically, use emergency departments substantially more often than the general population ( Cerulli, 2010 Dearwater, Coben, Campbell, Nah, & al, 1998 Kothari & Rhodes, 2006), and injury-related visits, particularly, have been shown to be strongly associated with IPV ( Biroscak, Smith, Roznowski, Tucker, & Carlson, 2006). Furthermore, utilizing assault and injury-related measures drawn from outside the criminal justice system would be important evidence regarding PO effectiveness. It is important, then, to take into account how POs may change victim help-seeking from police and police response to that help-seeking. Police calls for service, a traditional measure of safety, can be confounded by the intermittent nature of police reporting by victims and police discretion upon enforcement and arrest ( Buzawa, Hotaling, & Byrne, 2007 Felson & Ackerman, 2001 Holt et al., 2002 Kane, 2000). This is a critical point because petitioners have been shown to be different from other IPV victims, with longer and more severe victimization histories and greater help-seeking behaviors ( Duterte et al., 2008 Klein, 2009 Wolf, Holt, Kernic, & Rivara, 2000). ![]() Logan & Walker, 2009 McFarlane et al., 2004). One of the primary methodological difficulties for both survey follow-up and records review has been identifying valid non-PO comparison groups ( Burgess-Proctor, 2003 Carlson et al., 1999 Harrell & Smith, 1996 T. Without randomized control studies it is difficult to disentangle how much of POs’ impact is due to changes in victim behavior, changes in criminal justice response during POs, or the PO itself. Logan, Stevenson, Evans, & Leukefeld, 2004 Moe, 2000).Īlthough a notable number of IPV victims (12-22%) ( Sptizberg, 2002) use POs and the weight of current evidence points to reduced assaults with POs ( Carlson, Harris, & Holden, 1999 Gondolf & Jones, 2001 Gondolf & White, 2001 Holt, Kernic, & Lumley, 2002 Holt et al., 2003 Holt, 2004), the legal-ethical barriers to testing POs through experimental design has limited conclusions about their efficacy ( Klein, 2009 T. In practice, however, victims face significant barriers to accessing and enforcing POs, including complex and time-consuming procedural steps that place the evidentiary onus upon the victim, difficulty serving the order, and police and judiciary that can be unresponsive ( Harrell, Smith, & Newmark, 1993 Keilitz et al., 1997 T. Yet, enforced with the arm of the law, POs hold a very real threat over the abuser: Violating a PO is a contempt-of-court crime that may result in arrest and incarceration. As such, POs can be less intimidating than criminal court proceedings. Administered through civil court, POs require a lower burden of proof than criminal charges, and are often available ex parte (without the perpetrator). ![]() POs are designed to empower victims, who can initiate proceedings and request individualized restrictions within the order ( Keilitz, Hannaford, & Efkeman, 1997). POs are federally mandated through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and, while implemented locally, are regulated at the state level and operational across state lines ( American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence, 2009 DeJong & Burgess-Proctor, 2006). Logan, Shannon, Walker, & Faragher, 2006). ![]() ![]() Protection orders (POs) are one of the most potentially powerful and flexible legal remedies available to IPV victims designed to offer the accessibility of civil proceedings with the power of criminal justice enforcement ( T.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |