000			03472nam a22003257a 4500
999			_c3671 _d3671
001			3670
003			FVC
005			20250625151308.0
008			111214t2010 -nz||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aFVC
082			_a364.601
100			_aHayden, Anne _92737
245			_aWhy rock the boat? _bnon-reporting of intimate partner violence _cAnne Hayden
246			_aA thesis submitted to Auckland University of Technology in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD).
260			_aAuckland, N.Z. : _bAuckland University of Technology, _c2010
300			_a309 p.
520			_aThis study critically examines the reasons for non-reporting of intimate partner violence (IPV). It explores the thesis that the use of restorative justice processes could impact on the rate of reporting and victims seeking early interventions for this form of offending (Morris, 2002; Morris & Gelsthorpe, 2000), or giving victims more choice, and therefore power (Curtis-Fawley & Daly, 2005). Empirical data from a range of participants including interviews with key informants such as judges, restorative justice practitioners, victim advocates, and men’s group facilitators, as well as victims and perpetrators of IPV identified a number of key factors responsible for non-reporting. Findings from this study support previous studies in New Zealand and internationally that a relatively small percentage of victims (36.1%) reported informally, to family and friends, and formally, to police, and as low as 5.6% reported intimate partner violence to police only (Fanslow & Robinson, 2010). However, reporting rises to as high as 77% in form of disclosure to “someone”. The factors for non-reporting include fear of the consequences, such as offender retaliation (Jordan, 2004; Ruiz-Perez, Mata-Pariente, & Plazaola-Castano, 2006), loss of children (Robertson et al, 2007), the role of law enforcement agencies such as the police (Tjaden & Thoennes 2000, cited in Jordan, 2004, p. 1415) and the judicial system (Jordan, 2004, p. 1413; Ruiz-Perez et al., 2006; Seuffert, 1996). This study also identified the complex nature of power dynamics in partner relationships as a critical factor in non-reporting of IPV. There are strong reservations in the literature about the use of restorative justice in IPV. For example, some of these concerns include: that it may tend to label IPV crime as conflict thus minimising its seriousness (Hooper and Busch, (1996, p. 10), concerns for the safety of victims, and the potential to reduce offender accountability (Busch and Robertson, (1993, p. 15). This study found significant support (79%) for the use of restorative justice enhancing the reporting of IPV, and no one opposed its use for IPV altogether. One of the key contributions of this study, therefore, is the re-conceptualisation of ‘reporting’ and the development of a reporting framework and how restorative justice could be applied at each of these forms to increase the rate of reporting of IPV. Author's abstract.
650	2	7	_aWOMEN _9645
650	2	7	_aABUSED WOMEN _925
650	2	7	_aDOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9203
650	2	7	_aJUSTICE _9333
650	2	7	_aRESTORATIVE JUSTICE _9502
650	2	7	_aATTITUDES _970
650	2	7	_9431 _aINTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE
650	2	7	_aTHESES _9606
650	2	4	_aVICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9624
651		4	_aNEW ZEALAND _92588
856			_uhttp://hdl.handle.net/10292/1301
942			_2ddc _cTHESIS