Civil Protective Orders in Integrated Domestic Violence Court: An Empirical Study

AbstractFirearms increase the risk of lethality in violent intimate relationships. Policies that restrict access to firearms by respondents to civil domestic violence protective orders (DVROs) are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide, yet there is scant literature about how such prohibitions are implemented. We document how four localities are implementing gun possession prohibitions that result from civil and criminal restraining orders and domestic violence misdemeanor convictions; and assess the findings in the context of Kingdon’s agenda setting framework. We identified four jurisdictions where gun dispossession of prohibited domestic violence offenders was underway and collected data through in-depth interviews, site visits, and documents. We coded the data, identified explanatory themes, and compared the findings to Kingdon’s framework. The four jurisdictions have policies ranging from no state laws restricting domestic violence offenders’ access to guns to comprehensive state laws. We describe implementation initiatives to dispossess prohibited people of their guns in the four jurisdictions, two distinct implementation models through which gun dispossession occurs, and an expanded application of Kingdon’s model. In each jurisdiction, we identified one or more individuals who championed implementation. Policies that prohibit domestic violence offenders from possessing guns are promising, and possible in diverse settings and jurisdictions. Here we provide insight into implementation efforts in four jurisdictions, emphasize the role of individuals in prioritizing implementation, and highlight the potential to realize these restrictions across states with different laws. Focusing on implementation is a much-needed paradigm shift that complements the traditional focus on passing domestic violence prevention laws.

Download Full-text

Neurotransmitter and Neurochemical Factors in Domestic Violence Perpetration: Implications for Theory Development

Partner Abuse ◽

10.1891/1946-6560.6.3.351 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 6 (3) ◽

pp. 351-364 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Kenneth Corvo ◽

Donald Dutton

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Domestic Violence ◽

Empirical Study ◽

Theory Development ◽

Theoretical Framework ◽

Current Effort ◽

Biopsychosocial Theory ◽

Violence Perpetration ◽

And Behavior ◽

Field Of Inquiry

Research on neurotransmitters and behavior is a vital and expanding area of study. As in other areas of empirical study of domestic violence, this remains an underdeveloped field of inquiry. Although a rigorous literature exists indicating a much broader range of neuropsychological risk factors for violence in general, policies regarding the study and treatment of domestic violence perpetration often disregard or forbid considerations of those factors. This current effort at theory development is a continuation of several prior works where the conceptual and empirical rationale for a broader explanatory theoretical framework for domestic violence perpetration is put forth. In this review, links between neurochemical anomalies, dysfunctional coping, and domestic violence perpetration are reviewed in light of their contribution to a biopsychosocial theory of domestic violence perpetration.

Download Full-text

Book Review: Lazarus-Black, M. (2007). Everyday Harm: Domestic Violence, Court Rites, and Cultures of Reconciliation. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, xii, 244pp

International Criminal Justice Review ◽

10.1177/1057567709332529 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 19 (2) ◽

pp. 239-241

Author(s):

Susan Jacobs

Keyword(s):

Domestic Violence ◽

University Of Illinois ◽

Domestic Violence Court

Download Full-text

Domestic Violence Protective Orders: A Qualitative Examination of Judges’ Decision-Making Processes

Journal of Interpersonal Violence ◽

10.1177/0886260515590126 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 32 (13) ◽

pp. 1921-1942 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Christine Agnew-Brune ◽

Kathryn E. (Beth) Moracco ◽

Cara J. Person ◽

J. Michael Bowling

Keyword(s):

Domestic Violence ◽

Partner Violence ◽

Negative Impact ◽

The United States ◽

District Court ◽

Legal Intervention ◽

Protective Orders ◽

Decision Making Processes ◽

States Experience

Approximately one in three women in the United States experience intimate partner violence (IPV). IPV is associated with long-term negative health consequences; therefore, there is a need to examine potential prevention strategies. Evidence suggests that domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs), a legal intervention that prevents contact between two parties for up to 12 months, are an effective secondary prevention tool. However, because judges have relative autonomy in granting or denying DVPOs, research is needed to examine the processes they use to guide their decisions. The aim of the study was to investigate how District Court judges decide whether to issue a DVPO. Using in-depth interviews with 20 North Carolina District Court judges, the present study addressed three research questions: (a) what factors influence judges’ decisions to grant or deny a DVPO, (b) what heuristics or cognitive shortcuts potentially guide their decisions, and (c) what judges worry about when making decisions. Three themes emerged from the data analyses: (a) violent incidents must reach a certain threshold, (b) the presence of children creates competing concerns, and (c) judges worry about the negative impact their decisions may have on the lives of those involved. Recommendations for improving the DVPO issuance process are also discussed.

Download Full-text