000			03704nam a2200349Ia 4500
999			_c2709 _d2709
001			113027
005			20250625151222.0
008			110331s2006 eng
020			_a0478290268
040			_aWSS _dAFV
100			_aCarswell, Sue _92172
245			_aFamily violence and the pro-arrest policy : _ba literature review _cPrepared for the Ministry of Justice by Sue Carswell
260			_aWellington _bMinistry of Justice _c2006
300			_a90 p. ; computer file : PDF format (226Kb)
365			_a00 _b0
520			_aThis literature review, commissioned by the Ministry of Justice, outlines the historical development of the pro-arrest policy in New Zealand and the current New Zealand Police Family Violence Policy. It also examines two of the main debates surrounding the police pro-arrest policy with regard to domestic violence incidents. The first concern is that a pro-arrest policy possibly increases violence in some groups in society. Two US-based studies (the Minneapolis study and the Spousal Abuse Replication Project) are examined in the review, along with critiques of the research. Analysis of the studies indicates that arrests for family violence misdemeanours (less serious crimes) were associated with a modest reduction in repeat offending. However, when the results were analysed with respect to perpetrator's characteristics, including age, ethnicity, employment status and marital status, it was found that some groups of offenders reoffended more than others. Some researchers believe that this is because perpetrators who have less to lose, a lower 'stake in conformity', are not so deterred by arrest. There are many critiques of the two US studies. In particular, criticisms centre on the fact that the studies only investigate a single intervention as a response to family violence and that they do not take into consideration the wider context of criminal justice responses. The second concern surrounding the pro-arrest policy is that it takes away the victim's choice to arrest their offender, further disempowering them. There is much debate over whether victims are capable to make the decision of whether or not to arrest the perpetrator. A number of local and international studies have found a range of victims' opinions about arrest. While around half to three-quarters of the female victims interviewed across the various studies supported arrest, there were many victims who wanted arrest but not prosecution, or who wanted police intervention to control the perpetrator but to not arrest them, often due to the fear of retaliation. The author highlights that while there are concerns that the pro-arrest policy removes victim's choices, victims' views are often still considered, as police can, and continue to, exercise discretion when they attend a family violence situation. How police determine what is appropriate discretion, and what this means for a consistent approach, however, is not discussed in detail, although the report points to the role of domestic violence advocates assisting police by working with victims.
522			_anz
650	2	7	_2FVC _aCULTURAL ISSUES _9177
650	2	7	_2FVC _aDOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9203
650	2	7	_2FVC _aINTERVENTION _9326
650	2	7	_aINTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE _9431
650		5	_aLITERATURE REVIEWS _9350
650	2	7	_2FVC _aJUSTICE _9333
650	2	7	_2FVC _aOFFENDERS _9413
650	2	7	_2FVC _aPOLICY _9447
650	2	7	_2FVC _aSOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS _9568
650	2	7	_2FVC _aSURVIVORS _9593
650	2	7	_2FVC _aVICTIMS _9622
651		4	_aNEW ZEALAND _92588
856	4		_uhttps://thehub.sia.govt.nz/assets/documents/42793_family-violence_0.pdf _zDownload report, PDF
942			_2ddc _cREPORT