This paper analyzes the implementation of a domestic violence law in Minnesota that, in 2006, made the violation of a Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order a felony-level offense. Since this legal change, the rate of conviction for Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order felonies skyrocketed with stark racial disparities among Black and Native American residents, relative to Whites. Analysis of case files reveals that Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order convictions result from a range of behaviors, from seemingly mutual contact between the defendant and protected party to serious physical violence. We argue that the Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order law facilitates pragmatic punitiveness for legal actors. It is easier for prosecutors to demonstrate contact occurred than to prove domestic assault. Yet, the penalty for a Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order is as severe as the penalties for other domestic abuse-related crimes in Minnesota. Thus, the Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order law enables prosecutors to respond forcefully to domestic violence while avoiding additional burdens on their time and resources.
AlbonettiCA (1987) Prosecutorial discretion: The effects of uncertainty. Law & Society Review21(2): 291–313.
3.
AlbonettiCAHepburnJR (1996) Prosecutorial discretion to defer criminalization: The effects of defendant's Ascribed and achieved status characteristics. Journal of Quantitative Criminology12(1): 63–81.
4.
BeichnerDSpohnC (2005) Prosecutorial charging decisions in sexual assault cases: Examining the impact of a specialized prosecution unit. Criminal Justice Policy Review16(4): 461–498.
5.
BergerPLuckmannT (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Penguin Books.
6.
BernsteinE (2010) Militarized humanitarianism meets carceral feminism: The politics of Sex, rights, and freedom in contemporary antitrafficking campaigns. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society36(1): 45–71.
7.
BernsteinE (2012) Carceral politics as gender justice? The “traffic in women” and neoliberal circuits of crime, sex, and rights. Theory and Society41(3): 233–259.
8.
BerryK (2015) How Judicial Elections Impact Criminal Cases. New York, NY: Brennan Center for Justice.
9.
BoivinRLeclercC (2016) Domestic violence reported to the police: Correlates of Victims’ reporting behavior and support to legal proceedings. Violence and Victims; New York31(3): 402–415. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00076.
10.
BowmanCG (2004) Legal treatment of cohabitation in the United States*. Law & Policy26(1): 119–151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0265-8240.2004.00165.x.
11.
BumillerK (2009) In an Abusive State: How Neoliberalism Appropriated the Feminist Movement Against Sexual Violence. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
12.
ClearTR (2009) Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
CokerD (2001) Crime control and feminist law reform in domestic violence law: A critical review. Buffalo Criminal Law Review4(2): 801–860.
14.
Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36.
15.
CrenshawKW (1991) Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review43(6), Stanford Law Review: 1241–1299. DOI: 10.2307/1229039.
16.
CrenshawKW (2011) From private violence to mass incarceration: Thinking intersectionally about women, race, and social control symposium: Overpoliced and underprotected: Women, race, and criminalization: I. Establishing the framework. UCLA Law Review59(6): 1418–1473.
17.
DavisAY (1981) Women, Race, and Class. New York, NY: Vintage.
18.
DavisRCO'SullivanCS, et al. (2008) A comparison of two prosecution policies in cases of intimate partner violence: Mandatory case filing versus following the victim's Lead. Criminology & Public Policy7(4): 633–662.
19.
DawsonMDinovitzerR (2001) Victim cooperation and the prosecution of domestic violence in a specialized court. Justice Quarterly18(3): 593–622.
20.
DixonJ (2008) Mandatory domestic violence arrest and prosecution policies: Recidivism and social governance. Criminology & Public Policy7(4): 663–670.
21.
FineAC (2006) Refining crawford: The confrontation clause after davis v. Washington and hammon v. Indiana. Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions105: 11.
22.
FrohmannL (1991) Discrediting Victims’ allegations of sexual assault: Prosecutorial accounts of case rejections explaining reactions to deviance. Social Problems38(2): 213–226.
23.
GarlandD (2001) The Culture of Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
GilboyJA (1984) Prosecutors’ discretionary Use of the grand jury to initiate or to reinitiate prosecution. Law & Social Inquiry9(1): 1–81.
25.
GoodmarkL (2009) Autonomy feminism: An anti-essentialist critique of mandatory interventions in domestic violence cases. Fla. St UL Rev37: 1.
26.
GottschalkM (2006) The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
GruberA (2020) The Feminist War on Crime: The Unexpected Role of Women's Liberation in Mass Incarceration. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
28.
GundersonD (2012) Law protecting domestic abuse victims challenged in state Supreme Court. MPR, 8 November. Available at: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/11/09/law/state-supreme-court-constitutionality-domestic-abuse-no-contact-order (accessed 22 January 2018).
29.
GustafsonKS (2011) Cheating Welfare: Public Assistance and the Criminalization of Poverty. New York, NY: NYU Press.
30.
HenningKrisFederLynette (2005) Criminal Prosecution of Domestic Violence Offenses: An Investigation of Factors Predictive of Court Outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior32(6): 612–642.
31.
KimME (2020) The carceral creep: Gender-based violence, race, and the expansion of the punitive state, 1973–1983. Social Problems67(2): 251–269.
32.
MetcalfeC (2016) The role of courtroom workgroups in felony case dispositions: An analysis of workgroup familiarity and similarity. Law & Society Review50(3): 637–673.
33.
Minnesota Statutes (2017) Domestic Abuse Act. Available at: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id = 518B.01#stat.518B.01.2 (accessed 30 January 2018).
34.
NicholsAJ (2014) No-drop prosecution in domestic violence cases: Survivor-defined and social change approaches to victim advocacy. Journal of Interpersonal Violence29(11): 2114–2142.
35.
PageJ (2011) The Toughest Beat: Politics, Punishment, and the Prison Officers Union in California. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
36.
PagerD (2003) The mark of a criminal record. American journal of sociology108(5): 937–975.
37.
PfaffJ (2017) Locked in: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration-and How to Achieve Real Reform. New York, NY: Basic Books.
38.
PhoenixJOertonS (2005) Illicit and Illegal. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
39.
PiehowskiV (2020) Under the punitive aegis: Dependency and the family justice center model. Punishment & Society. SAGE Publications: 1462474520972264. DOI: 10.1177/1462474520972264.
40.
RichieB (2012) Arrested Justice: Black Women, Violence, and America's Prison Nation. New York, NY: NYU Press.
41.
SampsonRJBartuschDJ (1998) Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: The neighborhood context of racial differences. Law and society review32(4): 777–804.
42.
SchechterS (1982) Women and Male Violence: The Visions and Struggles of the Battered Women's Movement. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
43.
SchmidtJSteuryEH (1989) Prosecutorial discretion in filing charges in domestic violence cases. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal27(3): 487–510.
44.
SeghettiLMBjeloperaJP (2012) The violence against women Act: Overview, legislation, and federal funding. Congressional Research Service10: 1–35.
45.
ShannonJ (2020) Transforming Public Safety. St. Paul, MN: Violence Free Minnesota.
46.
ShermanJennifer (2006) Coping with Rural Poverty: Economic Survival and Moral Capital in Rural America. Social Forces: 85(2): 891–913.
47.
ShermanLWSmithDASchmidtJD, et al. (1992) Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence. American Sociological Review57: 680–690.
48.
SimonJ (2007) Governing Through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created A Culture of Fear. Studies in crime and public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49.
SossJFordingRCSchramS (2011) Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
50.
StewartRUggenC (2020) Criminal records and college admissions: A modified experimental audit. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal58(1), Wiley Online Library: 156–188.
51.
SukJ (2009) At Home in the Law : How the Domestic Violence Revolution Is Transforming Privacy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
52.
ThumaEL (2019) All Our Trials: Prisons, Policing, and the Feminist Fight to End Violence. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
53.
TolbertPSZuckerLG (1996) The Institutionalization of Institutional Theory.
54.
TonryM (2004) Thinking About Crime: Sense and Sensibility in American Penal Culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
55.
UlmerJTKurlychekMCKramerJH (2007) Prosecutorial discretion and the imposition of mandatory Minimum sentences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency44(4): 427–458.
56.
WeissBR (2020) Carceral lock-in: How organizational conditions stymie the development of justice alternatives in a rape crisis center. Theoretical Criminology. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England: 1362480620971784.
57.
ZimringFE (2020) The Insidious Momentum of American Mass Incarceration. New York: Oxford University Press. Available at: http://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780197513170.001.0001/oso-9780197513170 (accessed 12 December 2020).
