Editor’s Note: In PoliceOne “First Person” essays, our Members and Columnists candidly share their own unique view of the world. This is a platform from which individual officers can share their own personal insights on issues confronting cops today, as well as opinions, observations, and advice on living life behind the thin blue line. This week’s feature is from PoliceOne Contributor Richard Davis, who wants to respond to some of the comments made about his most recent column. Do you want to share your own perspective with other P1 Members? Send us an e-mail with your story.
 |
By Richard L. Davis
Brockton (Mass.) Police Department (Ret.)
“Just the facts ma’am!”
— Jack Webb [TV series “Dragnet”]
For the sake of clarity and credibility, I need to address some critical claims made by “pool” and “TJCS34,” that can be found at the member comments section of my last column, Police1 Analysis: The “arrest default position” for domestics.
Pool
“Pool” comments that the Berkeley study is only a single small sample and conclusions about law enforcement domestic violence intervention should not be drawn from such a small subset of the population. “Pool” is absolutely correct!
In 1984, the researchers of the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment (MDVE) also agreed with the “pool premise” when they wrote, “The findings, standing alone as the result of one experiment, do not necessarily imply that all [italics added] suspected assailants in domestic violence experiments should be arrested.” Despite this warning by the authors of the MDVE study, in less than two years 90 percent of police agencies either “encouraged” or “required” arrest for all domestic violence interventions.
I believe the following comment by “pool” may be the root of the problem for both “pool” and “TJCS34.” “Pool” writes, “From what I read, this report is not well done and should not be give much credibility.” I’m not sure what “pool” means by “not well done” however, concerning credibility I suggest the problem may be that “pool” didn’t read enough.
Although the column “pool” comments on is specifically about the Berkeley study, my conclusions are not based solely or exclusively on this single study. Perhaps “pool” failed to notice that at the end of the column I include:
For a more complete overview of domestic violence and its intersection with the criminal justice system please use the hyperlink here.
My conclusions are based on a consensus of the existing research that may be found on these seven (7) pages of references that include more than one hundred (100) studies. In fact, because many if not most of the studies are hyperlinked, the references may actually measure more than 500.
Because “pool” seems particularly concerned about the state of California I suggest “pool” might want to read the report, Analysis of Unexamined Issues in the Intimate Partner Homicide Decline: Race, Quality of Victim Services, Offender Accountability, and System Accountability, Final Report. The study period covers 1987-2000 for all 58 counties in the state of California.
On page 22 the authors write, “What is surprising is the degree to which women are being arrested, convicted, and incarcerated in response to policy that is essentially designed to provide for their safety.” It seems logical to assume that arresting all suspects has played a substantial negative role for both women and men.
I have reviewed all of my comments about the Berkeley study and I not only stand by them I invite “pool” to email me with any specific concerns. I believe that I have read more about the issue of law enforcement domestic interventions than any other law enforcement officer in America — and in fact more than most interveners and public policy makers. I do not claim to “know it all.” However, I do believe that we have not yet discovered any single answer or correct solution. I write these columns to continue searching for the truth. I invite others to that quest. I include hyperlinks to studies when possible and I include my e-mail so that readers may contact me personally with any questions or concerns about my conclusion.
TJCS34
First and foremost TJCS34 writes that, “His no-arrest agenda is clear.” Similar to “pool” it appears that TJCS34 also ignored or is not interested in the last sentence of my column. If TJCS34 had read my Domestic Violence: Unintended Social Implications, TJCS34 would have discovered that my first recommendation concerned arrest is:
The authority, without the mandate or preference, that officers make arrest should continue.
In fact, the second two of my first three recommendations provide support for some Pro-arrest policies. When, where, why or how is it that TJCS34 can conclude that I have a no-arrest agenda?
TJCS34 complains that my column is poorly-composed and misleading. Rather than mislead, it is my intent to lead readers to the primary studies. Interveners and public policy makers need to read the primary studies and not simply accept and adopt the opinions of others as their own.
TJCS34 claims that there were few “accurate references” in my column. When I submitted the article, the report Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner Violence was hyperlinked. I’m sure it was a simple oversight that the online copy did not provide an active hyperlink [Ed. Note: We couldn’t get that link to work so we removed it; this one seems to take you to that report].
I have re-read my column and none of my references are inaccurate. I cannot control what an individual reader will “perceive” or “read into” what I write, (i.e. “a no-arrest agenda”). I invite TJCS34 to document a single “inaccuracy” either by responding online or via e-mail.
My opinions are formed from primary, not secondary sources. TJCS34 makes the classic mistake of quoting from a secondary source that is someone’s opinion of the primary data. The quote TJCS34 presents in rebuttal is not from the primary source in question — the Berkeley study — it is from the below secondary source.
TJCS34’s quote is from the National Institute of Justice sponsored report Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research: For Law Enforcement, Prosecutors and Judges (PICDVR) by Andrew R. Klein where he claims “...all actions taken by responding officers — including arrest...were associated with reduced reabuse.”
The study reveals, as TJCS34 notes, “By contrast, the highest reabuse rates were found where the responding officers left it to the victim to make a “citizen’s arrest.” Apparently TJCS34 thinks this “citizen’s arrest” is not “an action taken by a responding officer and one that is solely initiated by a citizen.” In fact, in California these citizen’s arrests are not initiated solely by the victim, the officers are mandated to take action concerning a citizen arrest.
The fact is “citizen arrests” are actions by law enforcement officers at the direction of California law. It appears that these “citizen arrests” only take place when an officer has no traditional “probable cause” to legally make an arrest. And because it is the policy of the Berkeley police to make an arrest if they observe any marks, regardless of how slight or minor, these citizen arrests apparently take place only when there is no evidence of any physical contact.
TJCS34 should be aware that it is “the action taken by responding officers” that actually place the suspect under arrest. While these arrests are “categorized” as a citizen arrest it is the officer who inform the citizen of this California law and it is not a citizen who handcuffs, transports, books, and place’s the suspect in a cell.
I agree with the author of the Berkeley study when she notes that the issue of “citizen arrest” needs further exploration. The citizen arrest process may play a role in the fact that of the total sample in the Berkeley study only 14 percent resulted in convictions. The Berkeley study was reported nine years ago and to the best of my knowledge there has been no further exploration of the problem that citizen arrests may increase not decrease repeat abuse. I do agree with the author of the Berkeley study that there should be a risk assessment report made for every domestic violence intervention regardless if an arrest is made or not. These risk assessments should be made available to local domestic violence social service agencies.
I did not introduce the “race card.” My column clearly notes that many African Americans live in “disadvantaged neighborhoods and face economic distress.” In fact studies note that the chance of a white person living in an extreme poverty area is only 1 in 100 while it is 1 in 6 for blacks. TJCS34 should recognize that these circumstances do create different “stressor percentages” for blacks than whites. That’s not a race card, that’s a reality.
Anyone remotely aware of batterer intervention programs — I am a former President of a Massachusetts batterer intervention organization — understands that it is vital that interveners need to be aware of “racial, cultural, and class” disparities and design their interventions accordingly. There can be no question that the Berkeley study documents dramatic arrest disparities between the races. I only ask that we should explore the reasons for those disparities? It is either explore them or ignore them and I choose exploration.
And TJCS34 accuses me of “cherry-picking” data. I provide hyperlinks to my references when possible. I do that because I am deeply troubled by the number of researchers and interveners who are “cherry-pickers.”
If I were a “cherry-picker,” I would not include the hyperlinks to the studies. My intention is not to mislead, but rather to lead the reader to the primary research so the readers may form their own opinions.
Is Arrest Always the Best Response
The PICDVR report is a summary of three more extensive and complete reports. The more extensive reports may be found here. In fact, there are 265 studies available on this National Institute of Justice (NIJ) website. I have read all three of Klein’s more extensive reports and his NIJ special report. In fact I have read every NIJ study that directly effects law enforcement domestic violence intervention.
I have known the author of these studies, Andy R. Klein, for more than a decade and we correspond on a fairly regular basis. I not only know Klein, I like and respect him. Simply because we occasionally disagree does not mean that we need to dismiss or demean each others opinions, beliefs or credibility. Our disagreement about his PICDVR report is primarily about all. On page 12 Klein writes:
Arrest should be the default position for law enforcement in all [emphasis added] domestic violence incidents.
The use of all is always problematic. I believe that arrest should be the default position for law enforcement for volatile or chronic incidents, incidents where there are indications of injury regardless of how slight, where either person has been involved in prior criminal behavior regardless if that behavior is violent or not, where there have been previous law enforcement interventions regardless if an arrest was made or not.
Some, or perhaps all, of the above can be observed by officers on scene or should be available to them by computer. When I retired more than a decade ago, my department had access the above information and most of this information could be retrieved by computer almost instantly.
Even under the above circumstances arrest may not always be best, however, sometimes arrest is the best law enforcement can do. And again, TJCS34 may contact me and explain how my very clearly stated beliefs about arrest, beliefs that I have written about for more than a decade in two books and countless other forms, demonstrate that I have a “no-arrest agenda.”
What seems to be ignored or misunderstood by many if not most researchers is the fact that often law enforcement domestic interventions do not involve violent “battering behavior.” Many if not the majority of domestic calls to law enforcement involve minor “family conflict.” I have explained these differences at length in previous columns.
In Phoenix, Arizona a recent report suggests that 80 percent of domestic incidents that law enforcement respond to are minor incidents and may involve little to no actual violence. A recent extensive study documents that many people arrested for domestic violence have no criminal histories and one in four are not at risk for repeat offending. A number of studies from the Morrison Institute demonstrate that most domestic violence arrests involve minor incidents.
My column Exploring law enforcements response to intimate partner violence presents a study that suggests that approximately two of every three domestic interventions are for “verbal arguments.” While the Berkeley study is a small study, on page 9, it documents that about half of the 1,000 law enforcement domestic responses a year report no physical contact.
Arresting All Suspects
On page 11 of the PICDVR it notes, “A major re-examination of a series of fairly rigorous experiments in multiple jurisdictions finds that arrest deters repeat reabuse...” Many researchers, public policy makers and interveners believe that arrest deters repeat abuse. Paradoxically, the studies cited in the PICDVR provide little to no support for this contention. And studies that do provide some deterrence data most often only review minor incidents, Many, if not domestic violence deterrence studies actually screen out the more serious incidents.
The first study cited by the PICDVR is the The Effects of Arrest on Intimate Partner Violence. Rather than supporting the arrest in all incidents, the authors write on page 13 that:
Third, our research showed that a majority of suspects discontinued their aggressive behaviors even without an arrest. This suggests that policies requiring arrest for all [emphasis added] suspects may unnecessarily take a community’s resources away from identifying and responding to the worst offenders and victims most at risk.
And on page 14 that:
Future research in this area needs to assess the benefits and costs of arresting all [emphasis added] suspects before there can be a systematic conclusion of preferred or mandatory arrest policies.
I wrote in my first book, Domestic Violence: Facts and Fallacies that we should be most concerned with victims who are at high risk and suffer from chronic or physical assaults. Most often these people are at the lower end of the socioeconomic strata of society, regardless of race, color, creed or national origin, and they need our support and resources the most.
The next study cited is Police Intervention and the Repeat of Domestic Assault. Again, this report does not agree with the position that the police should arrest all suspects. The authors conclude in the abstract that:
The analysis suggests that police involvement [italics added] has a strong deterrent effect while the effect of arrest is small and statistically insignificant. This study concludes that a deterrent effect of arrest has not been demonstrated convincingly. If arrest does have an effect, that effect is likely to be too small to have policy implications.
The third study intended to support the always arrest position is the Berkeley study. We have already concluded that the Berkeley is too small to be statistically significant or if we value its results it documents that arrest with no “probable cause” might actually increase abuse.
Next, the PICDVR notes that, “Research has also shown that police response also significantly increases the likelihood that victims will secure protective orders.” The irony here is that (1) the author of the PICDVR notes that it is “police response not arrest” that causes this increase and (2) the PICDVR includes studies that question both the positive and negative effects of restraining orders. The other studies cited in support of arrest is always the best position simply report what people think or feel about arrest, they provide no empirical support.
I suggest that both “pool” and “TJCS34” read the primary studies provided by the PICDVR to discover for themselves if the studies cited in the PICDVR provide empirical support for the position that the police should make arrests for all domestic violence incidents.
If the PICDVR report had suggested that arrest is always the best intervention for battered victims I would support that position. However, in an honest attempt to provide support and assistance for battered victims we have lost our way. I believe that first and foremost reason we have lost our way, I note on page xv of my second book: Domestic Violence: Interventions, Prevention, Policies, and Solutions.
Rigorous inquiry into violence against women is precluded when scholars fail to distinguish among what constitutes an act of violence, abuse or battering. (Kruttschnitt, McLaughlin & Petrie, 2004)
Errors of fact follow from the failure to make distinctions among types of violence. (Michael P. Johnson, 2000)
To understand the nature of intimate partner violence, it is important to make a distinction between common couple violence and chronic battering. (Hendricks, McKean, Hendricks, 2003)
The lack of agreement in defining family violence has led to confusion and disarray in
attempts to determine factors that cause or contribute to family violence. (Harvey Wallace, 2002)In sum, the labeling of all acts of physical aggression as violent can have unintended social implications. (K. Daniel O’Leary, 2000)
There is no question that serious incidents require a serious response and that response should be arrest. For chronic or violent offenders, data suggests that, in the day-to-day real world not the theoretical one, the only way to ensure a victim’s safety is arrest and incarceration. For less serious incidents, particularly where there is an absence of physical assault, data suggests that in some incidents under some circumstances families are looking for a helping hand rather than always a mailed fist in an iron hand.
Richard Davis is a member of the International Honor Society of Historians and an instructor for Quincy College at Plymouth. He is the vice president of the board of directors for the Community Center for Non-Violence and the vice president of Family Nonviolence Inc.
His collaborative domestic violence support Web site, The Cop and the Survivor, with law summaries, editorials and other information, can be found at www.rhiannon3.net/cs/index.html
He is the author of “Domestic Violence: Intervention, Prevention, Policies and Solutions” from CRC Press and “Domestic Violence: Facts and Fallacies” from Praeger publishers. He has written numerous articles for newspapers, journals and magazines concerning the issue of domestic violence. He writes a monthly column for www.nycop.com and an occasional column for www.PoliceOne.com. He also has a Web site at www.policewriter.com. A recent work is an article that defines domestic violence in the multivolume Encyclopedia of Psychology by the Oxford University Press and Yale University.
He lives in Plymouth, Mass., with his wife and the two youngest of five children.
