A COMPARISON OF TWO PROSECUTION POLICIES IN CASES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE: MANDATORY CASE FILING VERSUS FOLLOWING THE VICTIM'S LEAD* |
| |
| Authors: | ROBERT C. DAVIS CHRIS S. O'SULLIVAN DONALD J. FAROLE JR. MICHAEL REMPEL |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Senior research analyst for the RAND Corporation.;2. Ph.D., is a research consultant in New York City whose interests encompass justice system responses to intimate partner violence and sexual assault, recidivism, victim assistance, and human trafficking.;3. Ph.D., is a principal research associate at the Center for Court Innovation.;4. Research director at the Center for Court Innovation and is actively involved in projects concerning specialized drug courts, domestic violence, and applications of “problem‐solving” techniques in conventional court settings. |
| |
| Abstract: | Research Summary This study capitalized on differences in domestic violence prosecution policies between two boroughs of New York City. In Brooklyn, arrest cases generally are filed, but in the Bronx, cases typically are not filed when the victim does not want to proceed. We sampled 272 intimate partner cases declined by the Bronx prosecutor and 211 similar cases filed by the Brooklyn prosecutor. The Brooklyn policy is more costly, and most cases ultimately were dismissed. After 6 months, rearrest rates did not differ significantly between the two boroughs, although victims offered qualified support for the universal filing policy. Policy Implications Prosecutors face conflicting pressures when victims do not support prosecution. Victim empowerment and resource conservation favor declining such cases, but sending a message of zero tolerance favors filing. Our results support an intermediate policy of filing most cases but dropping them sooner to give victims a voice while avoiding heavy investments in cases headed for dismissal. |
| |
| Keywords: | domestic violence intimate partner violence prosecution |
|
|
