Senior Seminar

Courses Related to Institutions

  • Marriage and the Family
  • Issues in Policing
  • Deviance
  • Race and racism
  • Sociology of Education
  • Introduction to Policing
  • Issues in policing
  • Introduction to Corrections
  • Race, Crime, and Criminal Justice
  • Criminal Justice Senior Seminar

Key concepts of these courses

  • Family Structures
  • Police use of force
  • Community policing
  • Racial Profiling
  • Deviant Behavior
  • Social Control
  • Race as a Social Construct
  • Prejudice and Discrimination
  • Anti-racism
  • Institutional Racism
  • Educational Inequality

Papers Written Throughout Different Courses

How False Confessions Cause Wrongful Convictions

4/27/2021

Faith Kelly

CRIM 205 Final Paper

INTRODUCTION

            A large number of crimes that are committed violate individual rights, properties, and freedoms that are guaranteed to all American citizens every year. Justice is usually carried out fairly due to the founding principles of the United States, which are acquired from the Constitution. While these founding principles give the perpetrators of crimes certain rights, sometimes mistakes are made within the system that can cause someone to be wrongly imprisoned. Hundreds of people have been wrongly convicted due to miscarriages of justice. For example, research done by Perillo and Kassin (2010) supports that the Reid technique used by many police investigators can cause innocent suspects to confess to crimes they did not commit because they are confronted with false evidence. This false evidence is an unjustified way to a guilty plea, which can increase in probability if the offender has a mental illness. The result of these confessions is the ability to have evidence corrupted. This in return causes an innocent individual to be convicted of a crime they did not commit. Convicting the wrong person leads to the real perpetrator going free being able to commit more crimes. This paper is going to analyze current literature on how false confessions can be the result of a false evidence ploy used by investigators, and how it can corrupt other evidence in a case. It will also discuss why wrongful convictions matter and how it affects the innocent individual incarcerated. 

Literature Review

            About 25% of wrongful convictions are a result of a false admission to guilt (Redlich et al.,2009). A study of offenders with mental illness, done by Redlich et al. (2009) stated that 22% of their participants claimed to have falsely confessed to the police. There are many situations in which a false confession can become a possibility within a case. One of those situations is when investigators use what is known as the Reid technique, which is known as the most widely used approach in the United States (Wynbrant, 2016). It is an approach to interrogation that is designed to increase the anxiety accompanied with denial while also reduce the anxiety accompanied with confession (Perillo & Kassin, 2010). The most disputed tactic within this technique is the false evidence ploy (p. 327). This ploy involves an investigator strengthening an accusation by introducing conclusive evidence of the suspect’s guilt even if the evidence does not exist. One of the two reasons why an innocent person might confess when presented false evidence is social compliance because they feel trapped and see no other way out of the situation. The other reason is false evidence can create a great deal of confusion and lead people to perceive themselves as guilty by doubting their own beliefs and forming memories of crimes they did not commit (p. 327-328). Research done by Katie Wynbrant (2016) states that the use of the false evidence ploy worsens the problem of wrongful convictions in the Justice system where most convictions made are through plea agreements. The reason for this is because the police are given the ability to mislead suspects to believe that there is a high probability of them being convicted during a trial (p. 2016). 

            Confession evidence is so powerful that once a suspect admits to guilt, the investigation often stops, and the suspect has a very high chance of conviction (Kassin et al., 2011). Mock-jury experiments have shown that confessions can have a large influence on verdicts even if the confession has been seen, by the jury, as coerced (p.41). Kassin et al. (2011) conducted an examination of DNA exoneration cases from the innocence project case files. They compared evidence errors in wrongful conviction cases that involved a false confession with those in wrongful conviction cases that did not involve a confession. Coders used these cases to determine the order in which confessions and other evidence were collected during investigations (p.42). The timeline of when certain evidence was collected suggests multiple errors were more likely to take place in confession cases than in eyewitness cases (p.43). Confessions were more frequently connected to improper forensic evidence, misidentification by an eyewitness. Also, in cases where multiple errors in evidence were found, confessions were likely to have been obtained first rather than later on in the investigation. This research suggests that confessions can have a strong impact on the verdict and can create a bias that will often cause an innocent person to be incarcerated. 

            There are many reasons why wrongful imprisonment should be a matter in which people care. Every individual can hope that through incarceration, rehabilitation, and deterrence that there is a decrease in the likelihood of crimes. But a prosecutor’s win does not undo the crime, they take on the tragedy of the crime and its consequences, which can pile up on the prosecutor’s conscience (Bishop & Osler, 2016). Along with the tragedies they observe every day, they have the cost of the chance of arguing for the conviction of an innocent person. Even the smallest mistake can lead to an innocent individual being given the death penalty or lengthy incarceration. They commit to all of the individuals involved in the criminal justice process. This commitment could cause concealing evidence that goes against their case, the refusal to accept that an individual is innocent (p.1036). Prosecutors have a hard time admitting they were wrong, but they have taken an oath to protect the public, not to protect others who have done misjustice. These wrongdoings allow the real preparator to go free and have the opportunity to harm another victim (p.1044). The wrongfully accused becomes the new innocent victim in the case. Wrongful convictions also drain resources that could have been used to aid the victim of the crime (p.1045). As a whole, the criminal justice system needs to focus on a search for truth and recognizing mistakes made, instead of hiding facts that have the ability to change the verdict. This is important because studies researched by Grounds (2005) shows that innocent persons after being released from wrongful imprisonment can be observed to have a change in personality, PTSD, and/or other psychiatric disorders (p.25).

CONCLUSION

            It is incredibly important to understand how wrongful convictions can take place and how they can affect the innocent individual convicted. The literature and research mentioned above suggest that the criminal justice system needs to focus on searching for the truth and not letting a confession corrupt the vitality of other evidence collected during the investigation. It shows that when a confession is collected, evidence collected after can be affected. The suspect is then not able to be given a fair trial due to the lack of conclusive evidence. This causes investigators to not truly investigate the truth. The lack of conclusive evidence also causes investigators to form false evidence to force the suspect to admit guilt even if they are truly innocent. Not searching for the truth defies the oath of the system to protect the people. Society puts its trust in every individual in the criminal justice process, but when a conviction is wrong, justice as a whole has not been truly served. If a confession is made there needs to be evidence collected to agree with it, instead of creating a bias that affects the jury’s ruling. Future research on wrongful convictions should focus on what types of investigation techniques are fair and impartial, so innocent suspects aren’t pressured or coerced to a false confession. 

References

BISHOP, J., & OSLER, M. (2015). PROSECUTORS AND VICTIMS: WHY WRONGFUL        CONVICTIONS MATTER. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-          ), 105(4), 1031-1047. Retrieved April 25, 2021, from           http://www.jstor.org/stable/26402743

Grounds, A. (2005). Understanding the Effects of Wrongful Imprisonment. Crime and     Justice, 32, 1-58. Retrieved April 25, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3488358

Kassin, S., Bogart, D., & Kerner, J. (2012). Confessions That Corrupt: Evidence From the DNA Exoneration Case Files. Psychological Science, 23(1), 41-45. Retrieved April 25, 2021,       from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41416990

Perillo, J., & Kassin, S. (2011). Inside Interrogation: The Lie, The Bluff, and False            Confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 35(4), 327-337. Retrieved April 25, 2021, from          http://www.jstor.org/stable/41489002

Redlich, A., Summers, A., & Hoover, S. (2010). Self-Reported False Confessions and False         Guilty Pleas among Offenders with Mental Illness. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 79-           90. Retrieved April 25, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40608061

WYNBRANDT, K. (2016). From False Evidence Ploy to False Guilty Plea: An Unjustified Path to Securing Convictions. The Yale Law Journal, 126(2), 545-563. Retrieved April 25,           2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24898808

Second Paper

Effects of Mass Incarceration 

Faith Kelly 

Criminal Justice 350: Race, Crime, and Criminal Justice

Dr. Virginia Beard 

November 20, 2023

Introduction

In terms of both absolute number and per capita, the United States detains a larger portion of its population than any other nation globally. Although the United States accounts for less than 5% of the world’s total population detains approximately 20% of the worlds prison inmates (Leipold, 2019). These statistics highlights the issue of mass incarceration in the United States. Mass incarceration is characterized by exceptionally high rates of imprisonment, primarily affecting the most marginalized communities (Tucker, 2014). Approximately 1 million out of the total population of 2.3 million in the United States consists of African Americans. The incarceration rate for African Americans is nearly seven times higher than that for white Americans (Tucker, 2014). These ongoing patterns have significant repercussions for Americans, as statistics indicate that one out of every three African American men born can anticipate spending time in prison at some point in their lives (Roberts, 2003). When examining the incarcerated population in the United States, it’s notable that there are 435,500 White men imprisoned compared to 516,000 African American men. Following closely are Hispanics/Latinos, with 308,700 men imprisoned. Despite not being the majority in the overall population, African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos make up the majority within the prison system. 

Overrepresentation of Minorities in Mass Incarceration 

Minorities are notably overrepresented in mass incarceration, with African American men experiencing a disproportionately high rate of imprisonment, reflecting a broader trend in the criminal justice system. This underscores the issue of race being deeply ingrained in the fundamental principles of United States criminal law. The War on Drugs initiated in the 1980’s and 1990s led to harsher drug-related sentencing laws and mandatory minimum sentences. The War on Drugs has predominantly been fought within communities of color, resulting in a disproportionate number of people of color facing more arrests and severe charges (Tucker, 2014). It is important to note that individuals of color are not any more likely to engage in the use or sale of illegal drugs compared to white individuals, yet they experience a higher rate of arrests (Tucker,2014). Black men are disproportionately sentenced on drug charges at a rate that exceeds 13 times the rate for white men. Consequently, over 50% of those incarcerated for drug sales or possession are individuals of color (Crutchfield, 2015). 

 The racial disparities within mass incarceration are exacerbated by the disparity in sentence lengths following convictions. Specifically, African American individuals, when convicted, typically receive sentences that are 10% longer than those given to white offenders for similar crimes. Additionally, they are 21% more likely to face mandatory-minimum sentences compared to their white counterparts and are 20% more likely to be sentenced to imprisonment (Tucker, 2014). Another factor contributing to the heightened incarceration among people of color which is the enforcement of “Three Strikes” laws (Tucker, 2014). These laws implemented in certain states have resulted in individuals receiving longer prison sentences for relatively minor repeat offenses. “Three-Strikes” laws can importunately affect minority communities, as they are more likely to have prior convictions due to systemic issues like racial bias in policing and socioeconomic disparities. 

Impact of Mass Incarceration on African American Families

Mass incarceration has a profound impact on African American families in the United States. These effects are far-reaching and can be devastating, encompassing various aspects of family life. The incarceration of a parent can disrupt family dynamics and result in the separation of parent from their children. This separation often triggers emotional and psychological challenges for both parents and their children and can contribute to behavioral issues among children. These challenges can lead to children having problems in school, particularly an increased risk for dropping out of school, and instability in their home lives (Hattery, 2014). A loss of a family member to incarceration can also result in a significant reduction in household income and children have an increased risk for poverty (Hattery, 2014). The financial strain arising from parental incarceration can create significant difficulties for single income families to fulfill essential needs like housing, food, and healthcare. As a consequence, approximately 2% of children with incarcerated parents end up in foster care. Many foster care homes face challenges like overcrowding and insufficient funding, and a significant number of these homes consist of single-family units struggling to meet their own financial obligations (Hattery, 2014). The difficulties stemming from having a parent incarcerated generates stress and hardships for children, increasing their vulnerability to becoming involved in the criminal justice system. When a child’s parent is incarcerated, their likelihood of entering the juvenile or adult justice themselves becomes six times higher, contributing to a cycle of incarceration within families (Hattery, 2014). 

Impact of Mass Incarceration on African American Communities

Communities tend focus on punitive measures that divert resources away from efforts to address the root causes of crime (Martensen, 2012). Therefore, the high concentration of African Americans in low-come communities focusing on punitive measures contributes to racial and socioeconomic disparities (Crutchfield, 2015). These disparities are characterized by limited access to quality education, healthcare, and job opportunities, as well as systematic poverty which can lead to an increase in crime and arrests. Incarceration also separates individuals who committed crimes from those they are connected to like partners, children, extended family, and any positive networks they had which results in the disruption of family dynamic and created emotional, economic, and social challenges in African American communities. The emotional disruption resulting from imprisonment adversely affects individuals’ mental health, contributing to a rise in mental health disparities within African American communities (Wildeman, 2017). A history of incarceration creates economic challenges in African American communities, primarily due to deeply ingrained institutionalized racism. The persistent impact of institutionalized racism on African Americans is such that, irrespective of their educational attainment or prior felony convictions, they face reduced opportunities for achieving professional status (Cooke, 2005). Moreover, felony convictions further exacerbate this disadvantage. As a consequence, African American communities often find themselves trapped in a cycle of low socioeconomic status, which can lead some individuals to resort to criminal activities in pursuit of the financial means necessary for survival which results in their incarceration. 

Impact of African American inmates returning to a Small Number of Communities

Upon their release from prison, many inmates return to the same communities where they previously resided and where they were engaged in criminal activities. Time spent in prison exacerbates the marginalization of these individuals, often leading them to return to familiar communities already burdened by disrupted families and high levels of unemployment (Crutchfield, 2015).  As a result, a significant number of released inmates struggle to reintegrate into society, mainly due to the destruction of social networks and social citizenship (Roberts, 2003). Mass incarceration significantly limits the participation of African American communities in the broader political and economic landscape. These limitations dimmish civic engagement within the communities to which former inmates return. This situation is exacerbated by the practices of felon disenfranchisement, exclusion from the labor market, and isolation from civic participation. Felon disenfranchisement, for instance, involves denying the right to vote to individuals with felony convictions, either temporarily or permanently. The concentration of mass incarceration in specific geographic areas results in the disenfranchisement of entire communities, depriving them of political influence and the ability to advocate for systemic changes (Roberts, 2003). The exclusion of these communities from the political process diminishes residents’ sense of social citizenship and their capacity to maintain social order. Additionally, mass incarceration hinders the employment prospects of black communities, as the stigma associated with felony convictions discourages potential employers from hiring former inmates. Many returning individuals also lack the education and skills necessary to compete in the labor market (Roberts, 2003). These challenges contribute to a cycle of homelessness, unemployment, and elevated criminal activity within entire communities. 

Conclusion

Inconclusion, mass incarceration has cast a long shadow over African American communities in the United States, profoundly impacting various facets of their lives. The statistics reveal the staggering scale of this issue, with the U.S. imprisoning a disproportionate percentage of its population, particularly affecting marginalized groups. The overrepresentation of African Americans is deeply rooted in systemic racial bias and is exacerbated by policies enacted in the War on Drugs and the “Three Strikes” Laws. Despite no greater likelihood of engaging in drug-related offenses, African Americans face harsher sentences, contributing to the racial disparities within the criminal justice system. The consequences of mass of mass incarceration extend beyond individual experiences, permeating the fabric of African American communities. Families are torn apart, and children are left to grapple with emotional and economic hardships, often leading to a higher risk of involvement in the criminal justice system themselves. The economic challenges stemming from incarceration, coupled with institutionalized racism, hinder professional advancement, and perpetuate cycles of poverty. The destruction of social networks caused by incarceration and the practice of felon disenfranchisement hinder civic engagement, further diminishing social citizenship within African American communities. The labor market exclusion and isolation from civic participation exacerbate economic and social disparities, fostering a cycle of homelessness, joblessness, and criminal activity.

Resources

Cooke, C. L. (2005). Going home: Formerly incarcerated African American men return to 

families and communities. Journal of Family Nursing, 11(4), 388-404.

Crutchfield, R. D., & Weeks, G. A. (2015). The Effects of Mass Incarceration on Communities of 

Color. Issues in Science and Technology, 32(1), 109-119.

Hattery, A. J., & Smith, E. (2014). Families of incarcerated African American men: The impact 

on mothers and children. Journal of Pan African Studies, 7(6), 128-153.

Leipold, A. D. (2019). Is mass incarceration inevitable. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 56, 1579.

Martensen, K. (2012). The price that US minority communities pay: Mass incarceration and the ideologies that fuel them. Contemporary Justice Review, 15(2), 211-222.

Roberts, D. E. (2003). The social and moral cost of mass incarceration in African American 

communities. Stan. L. Rev., 56, 1271.

Tucker Sr, R. B. (2014). The color of mass incarceration. Ethnic Studies Review, 37(1), 135-

149.

Wildeman, C., & Wang, E. A. (2017). Mass incarceration, public health, and widening inequality in the USA. The Lancet, 389(10077), 1464-1474.

Third Paper

 Domestic Violence Courts

Faith Kelly

Criminal Justice 461: Senior Seminar in Criminal Justice

Dr. Virginia Beard

December 4, 2023

Abstract  

This research paper critically examines the effectiveness of domestic violence courts in addressing the issue of domestic violence in the United States. This is examined by analyzing their impact on victim safety, offender accountability, and overall justice outcomes. It evaluates the extent to which these specialized courts address the complex issues associated with domestic violence and mitigate the challenges that victims face within the legal system. Through a comprehensive examination of policies, historical developments, and court models, this research contributes to a better understanding of the role and effectiveness of domestic violence courts in combating this pervasive issue. The research also explores the step-by-step process within domestic violence courts, from reporting incidents to law enforcement to potential outcomes, including convictions, plea bargains, and dismissals.

Keywords: Domestic Violence, Domestic Violence Courts, Victim Safety, Offender Accountability, Policies 

Introduction

In 1994, congress passed the Violence Against Women Act which allowed for increased public awareness of domestic violence (Shelton, 2008). Despite this by 2001 domestic violence still comprised 20% of all violent crimes against women in the United States (Stover, 2005). In these cases, rates of recidivism among perpetrators are high with an estimate of 40-80% (Stover, 2005). These statistics reflect problems of the domestic violence courts, victim blaming, and the hindrances of the process which can cause the victim to withdraw from the court process. Domestic violence courts were created to address the unique and complex issues surrounding domestic violence cases. They aim to make the legal process for domestic violence cases faster by reducing delays and providing victims quicker access to protection and justice. Judges, prosecutors, and other court personnel that work in this court are specially trained to have a deep understanding of this complex issue. The application of the problem-solving approach of these specialized courts was created to provide safety for the victim and focus on the rehabilitation of the offender while focusing on the underlying causes of the misconduct. This approach seeks to minimize the revictimization of victims through the legal process and by offering support services (Labriola, et al, 2009). These courts also often engage in community education and awareness programs to help prevent domestic violence. They also work in collaboration with other organizations to provide a more comprehensive knowledge and response to domestic violence cases. (holding place for research findings). The objective of this research is to critically examine the effectiveness of domestic violence courts. 

Statement of the Problem

In 2001 domestic violence still comprised 20% of all violent crimes against women in the United States (Stover, 2005). In these cases, rates of recidivism among perpetrators are high with an estimate of 40-80% (Stover, 2005). These statistics show that the criminal justice system’s response to domestic violence can be problematic for many reasons. In domestic violence cases there is a problem of victim blaming. Instead of placing the blame on the perpetrator, victim blaming shifts the responsibility on the individual who has been victimized. The legal system and society attack the victim’s character or lifestyle choices as a way of suggesting that they brought the victimization upon themselves. Due to this victims’ account of the domestic violence can be discredited by casting doubt on their truthfulness and their reliability as a witness when they report the issue to law enforcement and the court (Epstein, 1999). The problems of safety, victim blaming, and other cultural issues lead to a significant number of victims withdrawing from the process due to the lack of knowledge about navigating the legal system and the fear of their abusive partner. Victims can also become overwhelmed by the justice process. Victims have access to three types of legal avenues that they have access to and interface with. First there are criminal courts which the victim interacts with if their domestic violence case involves criminal acts such as assault, battery, or harassment. Secondly there are family courts which often handle civil matters related to domestic violence, such as obtaining protective orders against their abuser, and handling cases that have child custody issues. Lastly there are civil courts in which victims can file lawsuits seeking damages or their injuries or emotional distress caused by the abuse. Due to every case being unique there are specific courts that the victim must interact with to achieve a solution to their problem this can be a hindrance on the victim due to the long process that they each entail. When victims are required to engage with multiple courts and navigate various legal processes to achieve their goals, it often results in increased stress, inconvenience, and a heightened sense of fear associated with the court proceedings. These challenges can lead victims to become reluctant to testify or participate fully in the legal process (Dawson, 2001). 

Policy Overview 

            Historically, both society and the legal system often regarded domestic violence as a private family issue, where a husband could employ force as a means of disciplining household members (Tsai, 1999). However, over time these views changed, in 1871 the Supreme Court of Alabama in Fulgham v. State determined for the first time that a husband did not have the right to beat his wife (Tsai,1999). This case led several states to adopt laws against domestic violence and made beating one’s wife a punishable offense. However, in the early 1900’s attention to domestic violence issues decreased when women began fighting over suffrage which led to the departure from prioritizing domestic violence as a criminal matter and placing more emphasis on promoting reconciliation and family compromise. Therefore, victims of domestic violence would be directed to family, criminal, and civil courts to deal with different aspects of their individual cases. In the 1960’s the United States started using the problem-solving approach of court for domestic violence which was a direct outgrowth of the Feminist movement. With more women assuming prominent positions in the judiciary, court systems became more open to the idea of having specialized courts for domestic violence. There was reluctance due to the majority of men instead of women in the judiciary. Judges argued that criminal assaults and domestic violence should be treated blindly and equally by the justice system. Courts due to this had been known to not give domestic violence cases individualized attention (Tsai, 1999). To address the weaknesses of the traditional approach to domestic violence by courts they began to draw upon disciplines used in drug courts like rewards and sanctions that are believed to promote offender rehabilitation (King, 2010). The fusion of therapeutic jurisprudence, used in drug courts, and feminist perspectives in domestic violence courts results in a framework that acknowledges the social and political context of domestic violence. This approach places a strong emphasis on addressing the psychological well-being of both victims and offenders as they navigate the legal process (King 2010). The approach was developed in an attempt to create a more coordinated response to domestic violence and led to the creation of specialized domestic violence courts. 

One of the first specialized domestic violence courts began development in Quincy, Massachusetts in 1976, it served as a model for other programs (Tsai, 1999). The Quincy program places a strong emphasis on addressing domestic violence as its primary concern through a comprehensive approach aimed at both managing the abuser and empowering the victim. The abuser of the victim in this model is subjected to a number of increased sanctions, including more assertive prosecutorial tactics, intensified supervision of their conduct, and an overall focus on strengthening enforcement measures. The abusers are frequently placed on probation and are monitored, during this time they are required to attend intervention programs while their probation officer ensures their compliance. The victims are afforded the opportunity to access a range of victim advocates and increased availability of support service, aiming to streamline and simplify the process for them. The program offers the victim a supportive and rapid procedural approach in addressing their complaints (Tsai,1999). The victim’s initial point of contact is with the domestic violence clerk located in a separate office. The clerks assist victims by offering information about domestic violence resources, helping them secure restraining orders, and assisting in the completion of necessary paperwork for their case. Following the completion of paperwork, victims are invited to attend a briefing where a dedicated victim advocate provides them with insights into the court process, explains their legal rights concerning both criminal and civil actions, and outlines available additional resources. These advocates will also provide advice, information, and emotional support to the victims. Subsequently, victims are reconnected with the domestic abuse clerk, who offers moral support by accompanying them to court hearings. 

Duluth Minnesota was the first community to implement mandatory arrest policies in response to domestic violence in 1981 (Tsai,1999). Following mandatory arrest policies being implemented they began to develop no drop prosecution policies. These policies encouraged prosecutors to pursue domestic violence cases regardless of the victim’s wishes (Ferguson, 2009). The Duluth model was also the first to focus on the use of batterers programs within the coordinated community approach to addressing domestic violence. They implemented this through their Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, which developed an innovative batterer intervention program curriculum and established an agency that monitors court mandated attendance in these programs. This approach represents a shift from primarily focusing on assisting victims to placing greater emphasis on intervening with offenders and delving into the psychological aspects of their behavior. 

In general, the steps involved in the process of domestic violence courts start with the victim reporting the domestic incident to law enforcement. Law enforcement conducts an investigation and may arrest the offender if there is evidence of a crime. If the victim feels threatened and fears that the harmful actions may be repeated, they have the option of obtaining a protective order from these courts through expedited hearings which gives the victim the opportunity without having to wait hours to appear before busy judges. If criminal charges are filed against the offender, the cases will proceed in court. During the proceeding, the victim may be required to testify as a witness. The prosecution will present evidence while the defense will have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Many jurisdictions offer support services for victims, including victim advocates who can provide emotional support, information about the legal process, and assistance in accessing resources such as counseling and shelters. The courts in some cases may order mediation or counseling to address underlying issues contributing to the abuse which can be a condition of probation. The cases in domestic violence court can result in various outcomes including convictions, plea bargains, or even dismissals of the charges. Depending on the severity of the offense the court may require the offender to be subjected to probation, mandatory intervention programs based on their needs, or incarceration. After the court proceedings the victims may continue to receive support and follow up services, including assistance in enforcing protective orders or accessing domestic abuse counseling and support groups. Overall, the intended outcomes of these courts are to have case retention for the victim and batterers reduction. They hope to make the victims process easier by providing various victim advocates and greater availability of support resources.

Policy Analysis

Studies Indicating the Ineffectiveness of Domestic Violence Courts for Victims

Research indicates that domestic violence courts have the potential to offer effective interventions and prosecution in theory, but they still exhibit significant shortcomings in practice.

Gover (2003) conducted a time series analysis that revealed significantly reduced recidivism rates among offenders who went through domestic violence courts. These findings suggest that interventions targeting domestic violence defendants can be successful in enhancing victim safety, providing victim interventions, and improving domestic violence laws. However, the effectiveness of these interventions hinges on the willingness of victims to cooperate. In a study conducted by Camacho in 2008, the analysis demonstrated that victim cooperation following an arrest, in tandem with the support services provided by shelter court advocates, played a crucial role in predicting how cooperative victims would be during the disposition process and how it would impact the outcomes of their cases. The research findings highlighted that the actions taken by the victim assistance program and victim advocates were the most significant predictors of whether a victim would attend the disposition hearing (Camacho, 2008). It was also observed that a vast majority of cases that resulted in a guilty plea or a guilty verdict were those in which the victim had provided a statement, in stark contrast to cases with only a fraction of guilty pleas when the victim did not make an impact statement. According to Dawson (2001), when prosecutors perceive the victim as being corporative the case is 7 times more likely to be prosecuted than if the victim is seen as non-cooperative. Consequently, there is a high likelihood that cases may be dismissed when victim cooperation is absent due to the lack of “prosecutability” (Dawson, 2001). Therefore, these studies collectively underscore a potential weakness of domestic violence courts, which is their dependence on victim cooperation for successful prosecution and intervention. 

Studies Indicating the Ineffectiveness of Domestic Violence Courts on Offenders 

The current research data on the current prevention of domestic violence recidivism and the effectiveness of treatment is not promising (Stover, 2005). According to Stover, an analysis of studies found that recidivism rates in domestic violence cases are high with them estimating 40% to 80% of offenders recidivate. Furthermore, it was found that mandatory arrest programs and batterer intervention programs do not significantly reduce recidivism or alter the perpetrators’ attitudes toward violence (Stover, 2005). Even when treatment programs are extended in duration, there seems to be no notable improvement in outcomes compared to shorter programs. In a meta-analysis conducted by Babcock in 2004, it was concluded that current interventions have only a minimal impact on reducing recidivism. The interventions designed for batterers lack standardization and have been evolving since the 1990s. The absence of a standardized mediation framework for intervention programs contributes to the challenges in achieving effective outcomes when dealing with domestic violence cases (Imbrogno, A. R., & Imbrogno, S., 2000). Furthermore, a study by Labriola (2009) revealed that, in addition to offender programs, domestic violence courts offer offender assessments. However, Labriola findings indicated that most courts do not consistently conduct these assessments. Only 45% of the court survey respondents reported frequent or consistent assessments, while 11% reported occasional assessments. This deficiency in conducting offender assessments further compounds the challenges in providing appropriate treatment and reducing recidivism (Labriola, 2009). The overall consequences of these issues extend to the children of domestic violence victims, who are at a heightened risk of experiencing child abuse and neglect. These traumatic experiences during childhood can have profound effects on a child’s development and psychological well-being (Stover, 2005).

Studies Indicating the Effectiveness of Domestic Violence Courts on Offenders          

While the majority of studies have reported limited success in reducing recidivism through batterer treatment and intervention programs, there is one study that suggests a positive impact on recidivism rates. According to the Meta analysis conducted by Babcock (2004), They found that among individuals who did not receive treatment and subsequently reoffended, 21% were identified as such based on police reports, while 35% were identified based on reports from their partners. In contrast, individuals who received treatment for their violent behavior, as reported by their partners, have a 40% chance of successfully abstaining from violence, while those without treatment have a 35% chance of remaining nonviolent. These statistics indicate that a woman is 5% less likely to experience re-assault by a man who underwent treatment compared to one who was solely arrested and sanctioned.

Critical Analysis 

Despite numerous reforms within the criminal justice system over the years, there remain enduring fundamental shortcomings. One prevalent practice is law enforcement officers sometimes choosing not to make arrests in cases of domestic violence. This decision may stem from a desire to address the situation through civil means rather than becoming entangled in the criminal justice system, particularly when children are involved in domestic violence incidents (Epstein, 1999). Children are at a heightened risk of experiencing child abuse and neglect. These traumatic experiences during childhood can have profound effects on a child’s development and psychological well-being (Stover, 2005). 

Specialized courts for domestic violence often face resource challenges, including insufficient funding, staffing, and facilities to effectively handle cases. These courts struggle to provide the necessary safety measures for victims, with approximately 60% lacking separate seating for victims and offenders, 50% not offering escorts to the courthouse, and 76% failing to provide childcare when both parents of a child are involved in the case (Labriola, et al., 2009). These exacerbating factors further inhibit victims’ cooperation which domestic violence courts rely on to prosecute a case. These courts were also modeled after drug courts; they follow a problem-solving approach that focuses on the safety of the victim and the rehabilitation of the offenders to prevent future acts of violence (Shelton, 2008). However, there are issues with this approach of domestic violence courts because they can struggle to provide effective rehabilitation and intervention programs for offenders (Stover, 2005). These problems stem from the fact that there is no standard for mediation to guide outcomes when dealing with domestic violence (Imbrogno, A. R., & Imbrogno, S., 2000). Additionally, many courts do not consistently perform offender assessments to determine the most suitable treatment for each individual offender (Labriola, 2009). This deficiency in conducting offender assessments further compounds the challenges in providing appropriate treatment and reducing recidivism (Labriola, 2009). 

Conclusion

            In conclusion, domestic violence is a pervasive and deeply troubling issue that continues to affect countless individuals and families in the United States. While significant progress has been made in acknowledging and addressing this problem over the years, there are still critical challenges that must be confronted to ensure the safety and well-being of victims. Domestic violence courts were established as a response to the unique complexities of domestic violence cases, aiming to provide expedited legal processes, support services for victims, and rehabilitation programs for offenders. These specialized courts have shown promise in theory, with some studies indicating a potential reduction in recidivism rates among offenders who have gone through these programs. However, there are substantial limitations and concerns that need to be addressed.

One major issue is the heavy reliance on victim cooperation for successful prosecution and intervention. Victims often face significant barriers, including fear, stigma, and a lack of knowledge about navigating the legal system, which can lead to their withdrawal from the court process. Victim blaming remains a pervasive problem that can undermine their credibility and discourage them from seeking justice. Furthermore, the effectiveness of intervention and rehabilitation programs for offenders within domestic violence courts is a matter of ongoing debate. High recidivism rates persist, suggesting that current approaches may not be as impactful as hoped. The lack of standardization in intervention programs and inconsistent offender assessments contribute to these challenges. Resource constraints and inadequate funding also plague domestic violence courts, hindering their ability to provide essential support services and safety measures for victims. This includes the absence of separate seating for victims and offenders, limited childcare options, and a lack of escorts to the courthouse.

Despite these issues, domestic violence courts represent an important step in addressing domestic violence within the criminal justice system. They have the potential to provide a more coordinated and victim-centered response to these cases. However, to improve their effectiveness, it is essential to prioritize victim safety, reduce victim blaming, standardize intervention programs, and secure adequate resources. In the pursuit of a more just and equitable society, it is imperative that domestic violence courts continue to evolve and adapt to better serve the needs of victims and their communities. This requires a comprehensive and collaborative effort from policymakers, law enforcement, legal professionals, and support organizations to ensure that victims are heard, and offenders are held accountable. 

Resources

Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A 

meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical psychology review, 23(8), 

1023-1053.

Camacho, C. M., & Alarid, L. F. (2008). The significance of the victim advocate for domestic 

violence victims in municipal court. Violence and Victims, 23(3), 288-300.

Dawson, M., & Dinovitzer, R. (2001). Victim cooperation and the prosecution of domestic 

violence in a specialized court. Justice Quarterly, 18(3), 593-622.

Epstein, D. (1999). Effective intervention in domestic violence cases: Rethinking the roles of 

prosecutors, judges, and the court system. Yale JL & Feminism, 11, 3.

Ferguson, J. (2009). Professional discretion and the use of restorative justice programs in 

appropriate domestic violence cases: An effective innovation. Crim. L. Brief, 4, 3.

Gover, A. R., MacDonald, J. M., & Alpert, G. P. (2003). Combating domestic violence: Findings 

from an evaluation of a local domestic violence court. Criminology & public policy, 3(1), 109-132.

Imbrogno, A. R., & Imbrogno, S. (2000). Mediation in court cases of domestic violence. 

Families in Society, 81(4), 392-401.

King, M., & Batagol, B. (2010). Enforcer, manager or leader? The judicial role in family 

violence courts. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(5-6), 406-416.

Labriola, M., Bradley, S., O’Sullivan, C., Rempel, M., & Moore, S. (2016). A National Portrait 

of Domestic Violence Courts (2009).

Shelton, D. E. (2008). The current state of domestic violence courts in the United States, 2007. 

National Center for State Courts White Paper Series.

Stover, C. S. (2005). Domestic violence research: What have we learned and where do we go 

from here?. Journal of interpersonal violence, 20(4), 448-454.

Tsai, B. (1999). The trend toward specialized domestic violence courts: Improvements on an 

effective innovation. Fordham L. Rev., 68, 1285.

Writing Reflection

In reflecting upon my three papers on institutions, I can discern changes in my writing style and approach, which has become more sociological over time. In my first paper about corrections and mass incarceration my analysis is rather shallow in comparison to the rest of my papers. The focused on how corrections as an institution can cause wrongful convictions. In comparison to my others this one lacks a more in-depth analysis of the corrections system. My third paper focused on the effects of mass incarceration where I do a more in-depth analysis of the system. The writing structure of this paper is more evolved. I presented information in a descriptive format in a straightforward manner. During that I incorporated more of a critical analysis of various sources and empirical evidence to support my arguments. This structure enhanced the depth and complexity of my writing, providing me a way to provide a more sociological and criminological informed perspective on institutions. My writing overall has progressed through my years at Longwood, this can be seen by the evaluation of my Criminal justice senior seminar paper about the Domestic Violence Court system. In this paper I was able to I was able to provide a in depth policy analysis and overall analysis of the institution. This was done using my evolved structure of writing. This paper shows my overall improvements of research and writing skills. I have overall developed stronger research skills, the ability to critically evaluate sources, and more structured writing style.