Intimate-Partner Assailants

Abstract

Although a number of studies have examined arrest, prosecution, and treatment of intimate-partner assailants, a few studies have focused on those sentenced to probation. This study aims at comparing and analyzing the characteristics and interventions of intimate-partner assailants at a probation department. This research analyzed a random sample of 108 records from cases of assault and battery referred to a district court in Michigan, from January to December 1992. Major findings revealed that 76% of the cases of assault and battery occurred between male and female intimate partners. The variables of gender and deferred prosecution demonstrated to have significant relationships (p < 0.004) with the variable of intimate relationship. The results suggested that in a significant percent of cases nonintimate partner assailants received the same punishment as intimate-partner assailants.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abandinski, H. (1991). Probation and parole: Theory and practice (Rev. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brygger, M. T. , & Edleson, J. L. (1987). The domestic abuse project. Journal of International Violence, 2, 324-336.

Buzawa, E. W. , & Buzawa, C. G. (1990). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Caldwell, M. G. (1957). Review of a new type of probation study made in Alabama. Federal Probation, 15, 3-11.

Davis, L. V. (1984). Beliefs of service providers about abused women and abusing men. Social Work, 29, 243-250.

Dutton, D. G. (1986). The outcome of court-mandated treatment for wife assault: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Violence and Victims, 1(3), 163-175.

Healey, K. , Smith, C. , & O'Sullivan, C. (1998). Batterer intervention: Program approaches and criminal justice strategies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Hofford, M. (1991). Family violence: Challenging cases for probation officers. Federal Probation, 55, 12-17.

Kaci, J. H. , & Tarrant, S. (1988). Attitudes of prosecutors and probation departments toward diversion in domestic violence cases in California. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 4, 187-200.

10.

Mello, M. A. (1997). Dead wrong: A death row lawyer speaks out against capital punishment. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

11.

Michigan Public Acts, 471, Ch. IX. (1980).

12.

Monachesi, E. D. (1932). Prediction factors in probation. Minneapolis: Sociological Press.

13.

Rosenfeld, B. D. (1992). Court-ordered treatment of spouse abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 205-226.

14.

Sherman, L. W. , & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrests for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49, 261-272.

15.

Sherman, L. W. , Schmidt, J. D. , & Rogan, D. P. (1992). Policing domestic violence: Experiments and dilemmas. New York: Free Press.

16.

Swain, K. (1986). Probation attitudes to battered women: Apathy, error and avoidance? Probation Journal, 33, 132-134.

17.

Welch, M. (1996). Corrections: A critical approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

18.

Wexler, D. B. (1990). Therapeutic jurisprudence: The law as a therapeutic agent. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.