Critics of mandatory interventions for intimate partner violence (IPV) propose that the justice system disempowers victims by denying them voice and choice in legal proceedings. This exploratory study examines this claim through observations of three criminal courts. Findings show that victims are offered voice and a degree of choice in only one of the three courts. Court procedures that enhance victim voice and choice include a specialized IPV court, victim advocates trained in victims’ rights issues, and a lead judge who models respectful treatment of victims. The author proposes that voice and choice are distinct aspects of victim empowerment and that the provision of voice may have benefits to IPV victims that are distinct from the benefits of choice.
AdlerP. A.AdlerP. (2002). Do university lawyers and police define research values? In Van Den HoonardW. C. (Ed.), Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 34-42). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
2.
AllenN. E.JavdaniS.LehrnerA. L.WaldenA. L. (2012). “Changing the text”: Modeling council capacity to produce institutionalized change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49, 317-331.
3.
BarkerV. (2007). The politics of pain: A political institutionalist analysis of crime victims’ moral protests. Law & Society Review, 41, 619-664.
4.
BellM. E.PerezS.GoodmanL. A.DuttonM. A. (2011). Battered women’s perceptions of civil and criminal court helpfulness: The role of court outcome and processes. Violence Against Women, 17, 71-88.
5.
Bellingham-Whatcom County Commission Against Domestic Violence. (2007). Domestic violence safety and accountability audit: Findings and recommendations for prosecution and probation responses. Bellingham, WA: Author.
6.
BeloofD. E. (2005). The third wave of crime victims’ rights: Standing, remedy, and review. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2, 255-365.
7.
Bennett CattaneoL.GoodmanL. A. (2010). Through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence: The relationship between empowerment in the court system and well-being for intimate partner violence victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 481-502.
8.
BerkR. A.CampbellA.KlapR.WesternB. (1992). The deterrent effect of arrest in incidents of domestic violence: A Bayesian analysis of four field experiments. American Sociological Review, 57, 698-708.
9.
DawsonM.DinovitzerR. (2001). Victim cooperation and the prosecution of domestic violence in a specialized court. Justice Quarterly, 18, 593-621.
10.
ErezE.RogersL. (1999). Victim impact statements and sentencing outcomes and processes: The perspectives of legal professionals. British Journal of Criminology, 39, 216-239.
11.
FondacaroM. R.JacksonS. L.LuescherJ. (2002). Toward the assessment of procedural and distributive justice in resolving family disputes. Social Justice Research, 15, 341-371.
12.
GoodmanL. A.EpsteinD. (2008). Listening to battered women: A survivor-centered approach to advocacy, mental health, and justice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
13.
GoverA. R.BrankE. M.MacDonaldJ. M. (2007). A specialized domestic violence court in South Carolina: An example of procedural justice for victims and defendants. Violence Against Women, 13, 603-626.
14.
GreenhalghT.GlennR.MacFarlaneF.BateP.KyriakidouO. (2007). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly, 82, 581-629.
15.
GuzikK. (2009). Arresting abuse: Mandatory legal interventions, power, and intimate abusers. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.
16.
HannaC. (1996). No right to choose: Mandated victim participation in domestic violence prosecutions. Harvard Law Review, 109, 1849-1910.
17.
HermanJ. L. (2005). Justice from the victim’s perspective. Violence Against Women, 11, 571-602.
18.
KernD. C. (2004). Sparing the abusers. National Review, 56, 53-54.
19.
LoflandJ.SnowD.AndersonL.LoflandL. H. (2006). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadworth.
20.
MillsL. J. (2003). Insult to injury: Rethinking our responses to intimate abuse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
MillsL. J. (2005). The justice of recovery: How the State can heal the violence of crime. Hastings Law Journal, 57, 457-508.
22.
MurphyE.DingwallR. (2007). Informed consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 2223-2234.
23.
O’ConnerC. (1999). Domestic violence NCOs and the autonomy rights of victims. Boston College Law Review, 40, 937-968.
24.
PaternosterR.BrameR.BachmanR.ShermanL. (1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law & Society Review, 31, 163-204.
25.
PtacekJ. (1999). Battered women in the courtroom: The power of judicial responses. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
26.
SchneiderE. M. (2000). Battered women and feminist lawmaking. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
27.
StarkE. (1996). Mandatory arrest of batterers: A reply to its critics. In BuzawaE. S.BuzawaC. G. (Eds.), Do arrests and restraining orders work? (pp. 115-149). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
StarkE. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
TylerT. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
