Relatively little research explaining prosecutors'charging decisions in criminal cases is available. Even less has focused on charging decisions in domestic violence cases. Past studies have also relied on restrictive definitions of domestic violence, notablycases with male offenders and female victims, and they have not considered prosecutors'decisions to pursue misdemeanor instead of felony charges—or vice versa. In response to these limitations, the authors collected data on prosecutors'charging decisions in 245 domestic violence cases filed by police officers in a Southern California city. They then examined the effects of victim, offender, and case characteristics on prosecutors' charging decisions. The authors found that (a) arrest and serious victim injuries were associated with prosecutors'charging decisions, (b) criminal charges were more likely in cases with male suspects, and (c) victim preference for prosecution was likely to result in felony rather than misdemeanor charges.
Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B. Petrov & F. Csaki (Eds.), Second international symposium on information theory (pp. 267-281). Budapest, Hungary: Akademiai Kiado.
2.
Albonetti, C. (1986). Criminality, prosecutorial screening, and uncertainty: Toward a theory of discretionary decision making in felony case processings. Criminology24, 623-644.
3.
Albonetti, C. (1987). Prosecutorial discretion: The effects of uncertainty. Law and Society Review21, 291-313.
4.
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin126, 651-680.
5.
Battelle Memorial Institute Law and Justice Study Center. (1977). Forcible rape: A national survey of the response by prosecutors. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
6.
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 57, 289-300.
7.
Bienin, L., Weiner, N., Denno, D., Allison, P., & Mills, D. (1988). The reimposition of capital punishment in New Jersey: The role of prosecutorial discretion. Rutgers Law Review48, 386-398.
8.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J., & Visher, C. (1983). Research on sentencing: The search for reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9.
Bohmer, C. (1974). Judicial attitudes toward rape victims. Judicature57, 303-307.
10.
Boland, B., Brady, E., Tyson, H., & Bassler, J. (1983). The prosecution of felony arrests 1979. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
11.
Brosi, K. (1979). A cross-city comparisonof felonycase processing. Washington, DC: INSLAW.
12.
Buzawa, E. S., & Buzawa, C. G. (1996). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Cahn, N., & Lerman, L. (1991).Prosecuting woman abuse. In M. Steinman (Ed.), Woman battering: Policy responses (pp. 95-112). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
14.
Cole, G. F. (1984).The decision to prosecute. In G. F. Cole (Ed.), Criminal justice: Law and politics (5th ed.). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
15.
Davis, K. (1969). Discretionary justice. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
16.
Davis, R. C., Smith, B. E., & Nickles, L. (1997). Prosecuting domestic violence cases with reluctantvictims: Assessing two novel approaches in Milwaukee. Washington, DC: NationalInstitute of Justice.
17.
Dugan, L. (2003). Domestic violence legislation: Exploring its impact on the likelihood of domestic violence, police involvement, and arrest. Criminology and Public Policy2, 283-312.
18.
Ellis, J. E. (1984). Prosecutorial discretion to charge in cases of spousal assault: A dialogue. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology75, 56-102.
19.
Estrich, S. (1987). Real rape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
Feeney, F., Dill, F., & Weir, A. (1983). Arrests without conviction: How often they occur and why. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
21.
Feldman-Summers, S., & Lindner, K. (1976). Perceptions of victims and defendants in criminal assault cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior3, 135-150.
22.
Field, H., & Bienen, L. (1980). Jurors and rape: A study in psychology and law. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
23.
Finn, P., & Colson, S. (1998). Civil protection orders: Legislation, current court practice, and enforcement. In American Bar Association (Ed.), Legal interventions in family violence: Research findingsandpolicyimplications (pp.43-47).Washington, DC: NationalInstituteof Justice.
24.
Flynn, C.P. (1990). Relationship violence by women: Issues and complications. Family Relations39, 194-199.
25.
Ford, B. (2001). Violent relationships: Battering and abuse among adults. Detroit, MI: Gale Research.
26.
Ford, D. A., & Burke, M. J. (1987). Victim-initiated criminal complaints for wife-battery: An assessment of motives. Paper presented at the 3rd annual Conference for Family Violence, Durham, NC.
27.
Ford, D. A., & Regoli, M. J. (1993). Indianapolis domestic violence prosecution experiment. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
28.
Frohmann, L. (1991). Discrediting victims'allegations of sexual assault: Prosecutorial accounts of case rejections. Social Problems38, 213-226.
29.
Garner, J., Fagan, J., & Maxwell, C. (1995).Publishedfindingsfromthe spouse abuse replication program: A critical review. Journal of Quantitative Criminology11, 3-28.
30.
Gelles, R. J. (2000). Estimating the incidence and prevalence of violence against women: National data systems and sources. Violence Against Women6, 784-804.
31.
Goodman, L., Bennett, L., & Dutton, M. A. (1999). Obstacles to victims' cooperation with the criminal prosecution of their abusers: The role of social support. Violence and Victims14, 427-444.
32.
Gover, A. R., MacDonald, J. M., & Alpert, G. P. (2003). Combating domestic violence: Findings from an evaluation of a local domestic violence court. Criminology and Public Policy3, 109-132.
33.
Harrell, A., & Smith, B. (1998). Effects of restraining orders on domestic violence victims. In American Bar Association (Ed.), Legal interventions in family violence: Research findings and policy implications (pp. 49-51). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
34.
Hepperle, W. (1985). Women victims in the criminal justice system. In I. Moyer (Ed.), The changing role of women in the criminal justice system (pp. 165-179). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
35.
Hirschel, D., & Hutchison, I. W. (2001). The relative effects of offense, offender, and victim variables onthe decisiontoprosecute domestic violence cases. Violence Against Women7,46-59.
36.
Hochberg, Y., & Tamhane, A. C. (1987). Multiple comparison procedures. New York: John Wiley.
37.
Jacoby, J. (1980). The American prosecutor: A search for identity. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
38.
Jacoby, J., Mellon, L., Ratledge, E., & Turner, S. (1982). Prosecutorial decision making: A national study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
39.
Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
40.
Keil, T., & Vito, G. (1989).Race, homicide, severity, and application of the death penalty: A consideration of the Barnett scale. Criminology27, 511-533.
41.
Keilitz, S., Hannaford, P., & Efkeman, H. S. (1998). The effectiveness of civil protection orders. In American Bar Association (Ed.), Legal interventions in family violence: Research findings and policy implications (pp. 47-49). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
42.
Kelly, L. (2003). Disabusing the definition of domestic violence abuse: How women batter men and the role of the feminist state. Florida State University Law Review30, 791-855.
43.
Kerstetter, W. (1990). Gateway to justice: Police and prosecutorial response to sexual assaults against women. Criminology81, 267-313.
44.
Klein, A. R. (1998).Re-abuse in a populationof court-restrainedmale batterers: Why restraining orders don't work. In American Bar Association (Ed.), Legal interventions in family violence: Research findings and policy implications (pp. 52-53). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
45.
LaFree, G. (1980). The effect of sexual stratification by race on official reactions to rape. American Sociological Review45, 842-854.
46.
Lehman, M., & Santilli, N. R. (1996).Sex differences in perceptions of spousal abuse. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality11, 229-239.
47.
Lerman, L. (1981). Prosecution of spouse abuse innovations in criminal justice response. Washington, DC: Center for Women Policy Studies.
48.
Loh, W. (1980). The impact of common law and reform rape statutes on prosecution: An empirical study. Washington Law Review55, 543-625.
49.
Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.
Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2003). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using STATA. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
51.
Martin, M. E. (1994). Mandatory arrest for domestic violence: The courts' response. Criminal Justice Review19, 212-227.
52.
Mather, L. (1979). Plea bargaining or trial?Lexington, MA: Heath.
53.
Maxwell, C. D., Garner, J. H., & Fagan, J. A. (2002). The preventive effects of arrest on intimate partner violence: Research, policy, and theory. Criminology and Public Policy2, 51-80.
54.
McCahill, T., Meyer, L., & Fischman, A. (1979). The aftermath of rape. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
55.
McNeeley, R. L., & Robinson-Simpson, G. (1987). The truth about domestic violence: A falsely framed issue. Social Work32, 485-490.
Mills, L. G. (1998). The heart of intimate abuse: New interventionsin child welfare, criminal justice, and health settings. New York: Springer.
58.
Nagel, H., & Hagan, J. (1983). Gender and crime: Offense patterns and criminal court sanctions. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 4, pp. 91-144). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
59.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1994). Family violence: A model state code. Reno, NV: State Justice Institute.
60.
National Research Council. (1996). Understanding violence against women. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
61.
Neubauer, D. (1974). After the arrest: The charging decision in Prairie City. Law and Society Review8, 475-517.
62.
Ostrom, B. J. (2003). Domestic violence courts: Editorial introduction. Criminology and Public Policy3, 105-108.
63.
Paternoster, R. (1984).Prosecutorial discretion in requesting the death penalty: A case of victimbased racial discrimination. Law and Society Review18, 437-478.
64.
Pleck, E. (1989). Criminal approaches to family violence, 1640-1980. In L. Ohlin & M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 11, pp. 19-58). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
65.
Radelet, M., & Pierce, G. (1985). Race and prosecutorial discretion in homicide cases. Law and Society Review19, 587-621.
66.
Rauma, D. (1984). Going for the gold: Prosecutorial decisions making in cases of wife assault. Social Science Research13, 321-351.
67.
Rebovich, D. (1996). Prosecution response to domestic violence: Results of a survey of large jurisdictions. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.), Do arrests and restraining orders work?(pp. 176-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
68.
Reskin, B., & Visher, C. (1986). The impacts of evidence and extralegal factors in jurors' decisions. Law and Society Review20, 423-438.
69.
Sarantakos, S. (1999). Husband abuse: Fact or fiction?Australian Journal of Social Issues34, 231-253.
70.
Schmidt, J., & Steury, E. (1989). Prosecutorial discretion in filing charges in domestic violence cases. Criminology27, 487-510.
71.
Schneider, E. M. (2000). Battered women and feminist lawmaking. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
72.
Sherman, L., & Berk, R. S. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review49, 261-272.
73.
Sidak, Z. (1967). Rectangular confidence regions for the means of multivariate normal distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association62, 626-633.
74.
Silberman, C. (1978). Criminal violence criminal justice. New York: Vintage.
75.
Spears, J. W., & Spohn, C. C. (1997). The effect of evidence factors and victim characteristics on prosecutors' charging decisions in sexual assault cases. Justice Quarterly14, 501-524.
76.
Spohn, C., Gruhl, J., & Welch, S. (1987).The impact of the ethnicity and gender of defendants on the decision to reject or dismiss felony charges. Criminology25, 175-191.
77.
Spohn, C., & Holleran, D. (2001). Prosecuting sexual assault: A comparison of charging decisions in sexual assault cases involving strangers, acquaintances, and intimate partners. Justice Quarterly18, 651-688.
78.
Spohn, C., & Spears, J. (1996).The effect of offender and victim characteristics on sexual assault case processing decisions. Justice Quarterly13, 649-679.
79.
Stanko, E. (1988). The impact of victim assessment on prosecutors' screening decisions: The case of the New York City County District Attorney's Office. In G. Cole (Ed.), Criminal justice: Law and politics (pp. 169-180). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
80.
Steinmetz, S. K. (1977). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology2, 499-509.
81.
Straus, M. A. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In X. B. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 17-44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
82.
Straus, M. A., & Kantor, G. K. (1994). Changes in spouse assault rates from 1975 to 1992: A comparison of three national surveys in the U.S. Paper presented at the 13th World Congress of Sociology, Bielefeld, Germany.
83.
Tjaden, P. (2000). Extent nature and consequences of intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
84.
Vivian, D., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1994). Are bi-directionally violent couples mutually victimized? A gender-sensitive comparison. Violence and Victims9, 107-124.
85.
Waits, K. (1985). The criminal justice system's response to battering: Understanding the problem, forging the solutions. Washington Law Review60, 267-239.
86.
Williams, K. (1978). The role of the victim in the prosecution of violent offenses. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
87.
Yllo, K. A. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power, and violence. In R. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 47-62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
