The Crawford v. Washington decision has prompted changes in the way that intimate partner violence (IPV) is prosecuted. This research uses logistic regression to examine the victim, offender, and offense characteristics associated with the decision to prosecute a sample (N = 904) of domestic violence arrestees under an evidence-based prosecution strategy post-Crawford. Documentation of injury and police taking the perpetrator into custody at the scene of the crime have the greatest effect on the decision to prosecute, although the victim’s willingness to assist with prosecution is also a significant factor. Future researchers should seek to replicate these findings, better understand current prosecution strategies, and determine the criminal justice and social service interventions best equipped to combat IPV in the post-Crawford era.
AlbonettiC. (1986). Criminality, prosecutorial screening, and uncertainty: Toward a theory of discretionary decision making in felony case processings. Criminology, 24, 623-644.
2.
AlbonettiC. (1987). Prosecutorial discretion: The effects of uncertainty. Law and Society Review, 21, 291-313.
3.
BelknapJ.GrahamD. L. R.HartmanJ.LippenV.AllenP. G.SutherlandJ. (2000). Factors related to domestic violence court dispositions in a large urban area: The role of victim/witness reluctance and other variables, final report. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/184232.pdf., DC: National Institute of Justice.
4.
BernatF. (2001). Gender and the law. In RenzettiC.GoodsteinL. (Eds.), Women, crime, and criminal justice: Original feminist readings (pp. 212-221). Los Angeles: Roxbury.
5.
BlackM. C.BreidingM. J. (2008). Adverse health conditions and health risk behaviors associated with intimate partner violence—United States, 2005. CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 57, 113-117.
6.
BrushL.D. (1990). Violent acts and injurious outcomes in married couples: Methodological issues in the national survey of families and households. Gender & Society, 4, 56-67.
7.
BuzawaE. S.BuzawaC. G. (2003). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
CampbellJ. C. (2001). Safety planning based on lethality assessment for partners of batterers in intervention programs. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 2, 129-143.
9.
CampbellJ. C.WebsterD.Koziol-McLainJ.BlockC.CampbellD.CurryM. A.. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1089-1098.
10.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005). Adverse health conditions and health risk behaviors associated with intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: CDC.
11.
CantosA.NeidigP. H.O’LearyK. D. (1994). Injuries of women and men in treatment programs for domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 113-124.
12.
Chesney-LindM. (1987). Female offenders: Paternalism reexamined. In CritesL. L.HeperleW. L. (Eds.), Women, the courts and inequality (pp. 114-139). Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
13.
CramerE. P. (1999). Variables that predict verdicts in domestic violence cases. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1137-1150.
14.
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
15.
DavisR. C.SmithB. E.NickelsL. (1997). Prosecuting domestic violence cases with reluctant victims: Assessing two novel approaches in Milwaukee. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
16.
DavisR. C.SmithB. E.TaylorB. (2003). Increasing the proportion of domestic violence arrests that are prosecuted: A natural experiment in Milwaukee. Criminology & Public Policy, 2, 263-282.
17.
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006).
18.
DawsonM.DinovitzerR. (2001). Victim cooperation and the prosecution of domestic violence in a specialized court. Justice Quarterly, 18, 593-622.
19.
DobashR. P.DobashR. E.WilsonM.DalyM. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71-91.
20.
DuganL.NaginD.RosenfeldR. (2001). Exposure reduction or backlash? The effect of domestic violence resources on intimate partner homicide, final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
21.
FordD. A. (2003). Coercing victim participation in domestic violence prosecutions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 669-684.
22.
FordD. A.RegoliM. J. (1993). The criminal prosecution of wife assaulters: Process, problems, and effects. In HiltonN. Z. (Ed.), Legal responses to wife assault: Current trends and evaluation (pp. 127-164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
GarnerJ. H.MaxwellC. D. (2009). Prosecution and conviction rates for intimate partner violence. Criminal Justice Review, 34, 44-79.
24.
GerwirtzA.WeidnerR. R.MillerH.ZehmK. (2006). Domestic violence cases involving children: Effects of an evidence-based prosecution approach. Violence & Victims, 21, 213-229.
25.
HenningK.FederL. (2005). Criminal prosecution of domestic violence offenses: An investigation of factors predictive of court outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 612-642.
26.
HiltonN. Z.HarrisG. T.RiceM. E.LangC.CormierC. A.LinesK. J. (2004). A brief actuarial assessment for the prediction of wife assault recidivism: The Ontario domestic assault risk assessment. Psychological Assessment, 16, 267-275.
27.
HirschelD.HutchinsonI. W. (2001). The relative effects of offense, offender, and victim variables on the decision to prosecute domestic violence cases. Violence Against Women, 7, 46-59.
28.
KingsnorthR.MacintoshR. (2007). Intimate partner violence: The role of suspect gender in decision making. Justice Quarterly, 24, 460-495.
29.
KingsnorthR.MacintoshR.BerdhalT.BladesC.RossiS. (2001). Domestic violence: The role of interracial/ethnic dyads in criminal court processing. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 17, 123-141.
30.
KingsnorthR.MacintoshR.SutherlandS. (2002). Criminal charge or probation violation? Prosecutorial discretion and the implications for research in criminal court processing. Criminology, 40, 553-578.
31.
KroppP. R.HartS. D. (2000). The spousal assault risk assessment guide (SARA): Reliability and validity in adult male offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 101-118.
32.
KurzD. (1989). Social science: perspectives on wife abuse. Gender & Society, 3, 489-505.
33.
MartinM. (1994). Mandatory arrest for domestic violence: The courts’ response. Criminal Justice Review, 19, 212-227.
34.
MeltonH. C.BelknapJ. (2003). He hits, she hits: Assessing the gender differences and similarities in officially reported intimate partner violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 328-348.
35.
MessingJ. T.HeerenJ. W. (2009). Gendered justice: Domestic homicide and the death penalty. Feminist Criminology, 4, 170-188.
36.
MillsL. G. (2003). Insult to injury: Rethinking our responses to intimate abuse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC). (2003). Costs of intimate partner violence against women in the United States. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
38.
PetersonR. P.DixonJ. (2005). Court oversight and conviction under mandatory and nonmandatory domestic violence case filing policies. Criminology and Public Policy, 4, 535-558.
39.
PleckE. (1987). Domestic tyranny: The making of social policy against family violence from colonial times to the present. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
RaumaD. (1984). Going for the gold: Prosecutorial decision making in cases of wife assault. Social Science Research, 13, 321-351.
41.
RebovichD. J. (1996). Prosecution responses to domestic violence: Results of a survey of large jurisdictions. In BuzawaE. S.BuzawaC. G. (Eds.), Do arrests and restraining orders work? (pp. 176-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
SchmidtJ.SteuryE. H. (1989). Prosecutorial discretion in filing charges in domestic violence cases. Criminology, 27, 487-510.
43.
SimonR. J.LandisJ. (1991). The crimes women commit, the punishments they receive. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
44.
SmithE.DuroseM. R.LanganP. A. (2008). Bureau of Justice Statistics special report: State court processing of domestic violence cases. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
45.
TjadenP.ThoennesN. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
46.
WorrallJ. L.RossJ. W.McCordE. S. (2006). Modeling prosecutors’ charging decisions in domestic violence cases. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 472-503.
