000			03230nab a2200313Ia 4500
001			116372
005			20250625151138.0
008			110331s2010 eng
040			_aWSS _dAFV
100			_aCross, Jenny _91000
245			_aPresumptive arrest in partner assault : _buse of discretion and problems of compliance in the New Zealand police _cJenny Cross and Greg Newbold
260			_c2010
365			_a00 _b0
490	0		_aAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology
500			_aAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 2010, 43(1): 51-75
520			_aThis article explores the dynamics behind police officer discretion in cases of domestic violence despite pro-arrest strategies having being followed in New Zealand since 1987. The authors describe the history of pro-arrest strategies in the United States and in New Zealand and the continued exercise of discretion in the field. The study took place between mid 2004 and mid 2006 in Christchurch, New Zealand. Nine police managers and 13 frontline officers were interviewed. Participant observation of officers in their daily duties was matched to reports submitted by the officers; 313 family violence incident reports (POL 400 forms) were analysed, and a comparison of these was made with data from the Computer Assisted Resource Deployment system. The authors found that a number of factors affect police decision making in domestic violence cases in addition to the necessary discretion applied by police officers. These factors were: resource considerations and the effect on the officers own workload; the chances of further violence; evidentiary concerns; and in cases of mutual assault, considerations of dual arrest as opposed to primary aggressor arrest. Further, formal incident recording was at times poor, and there was significant inconsistency between the information from the Computer Assisted Resource Deployment system compared with the POL 400 incident forms. The authors consider that frontline police sometimes file incomplete or inaccurate reports in order to protect themselves from deviating from policy. This makes it difficult to assess how well the pro-arrest policy is being implemented and whether or not it achieves its objectives. The authors note changes to the reporting requirement s subsequent to their research, and developments in the police working with other agencies in relation to domestic violence. It is concluded that a pro-arrest policy that limits police discretion is impractical. However, presumptive arrest within clearly defined boundaries is a good policy provided it is accompanied by training, monitoring and oversight, and that reliable recording is fundamental to this process.
650	2	7	_2FVC _aDOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9203
650	2	7	_2FVC _aINTERVENTION _9326
650	2	7	_2FVC _aJUSTICE _9333
650	2	7	_2FVC _aPOLICE PROCEDURES _9445
650	2	7	_2FVC _aPOLICY _9447
650	2	7	_2FVC _aSOCIAL WORK PRACTICE _9562
650	2	7	_9458 _aPREVENTION _2FVC
651	2	4	_aNEW ZEALAND _92588
700	1		_aNewbold, Greg _91803
773	0		_tAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 2010, 43(1): 51-75
856			_uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1375/acri.43.1.51
942			_cARTICLE _2ddc
999			_c1823 _d1823