No Drop Prosecution Policy, Research Paper Example

Introduction

Cases of crime occurring between families and intimate partners are compounded into becoming largely judged in relation to the aspect by which human relationships intend to create imbalances on the decision of the victims. The attachment that is established between family members as well as among intimate partners often creates a bond that is hard to break even at the verge of being victimized in a crime that is not supposed to occur between people who are likely bounded by ‘love’[1]. The victims, with the hope that the ones who committed the crimes against them would still change, often disregard violence. This is the reason why there are different repeat cases in relation to domestic violence and intimate crimes. In the literature review that follows, a definition of the no drop prosecution policy used in the courts today shall be discussed. Considering its relation to domestic and intimate violence, this policy shall be measured when it comes to its applicability and effectiveness in protecting the rights of the victims from being repeatedly affected by the accused individuals[2]. Through exploring the different conditions of the policy’s application in connection with the different reasons behind the dropping of criminal cases, this discussion aims to provide a solid foundation as to how the policy is strongly needed as part of the modern application of protection laws.

What is the No Drop Prosecution Policy?

In most cases, the plaintiff is given the liberty to pursue or drop charges against a defendant based on his or her own will. Notably, the reason behind this is the respect that the law has with regards the condition of thinking and decision-making that the plaintiff has especially in recognition of the clauses of persona right. However, there are instances when the law simply has to be stiffer and firmer especially in assuring the avoidance of crime recurrence. Several states in America have already embraced the condition of applying the No Drop Policy in recognition of this desire to establish the strength and primary role of the law[3].

Why does the law have to intervene? Intervention is seen as a notable decision on the part of the legal conditions of the situation due to the fact that there are instances when human error based on emotions and cloudy decisions affect the perception of the plaintiff with regards the crime that has been committed against them. The existence of such imbalance in decision-making process makes it harder for the law to impose sanctions that are necessary to protect the rights and the life of the victims. The No Drop Policy is under the recognizable application of the need to consider the thinking of the victims being duly clouded because of the close relationship they have with the defendants. This particular attachment shall be better defined in the section that follows.

Understanding the No Drop Policy rule constitutes the power that the law has over the decisions of the individuals who are afflicted by a particular crime. Relatively, such condition allows the legal advisers to seek deeper assumptions and further the investigations towards making an assurance that the clauses of the law are particularly respected especially in relation to the welfare of the victims. In 1999, there was a dramatic drop of domestic violence cases in California alone[4]. This drop of cases alarmed victim advocates hence pushing them to move forward and to seek for a more responsive way of defining the hearing process and the court’s role in distinguishing which particular cases should be dismissed and which ones should be pursued accordingly. Making a decision on the part of the victims have been found to be affected by two particular things, emotional attachment and pressure from the defendant. Since domestic crimes involve people who are supposedly the ones to ‘defend’ the victims from crimes and other oppressing situations, the victims view their situation as rather hopeful of the application of the actual aspect of familial value. When it comes to intimate crimes involving partners, the situation is the same. The connection that the victims have with the perpetrators of the crime often takes a larger value than the need to protect themselves. On the other end, pressure from the defendant is also seen as a viable cause for dropping cases of intimate crimes and domestic violence. Relatively, the pressure that comes from the defendants has a stronger impact on the victims due to the relational connection they have between each other.

The legal sanctions that the No Drop Policy recognizes dwells on the fact that when it comes to domestic violence and intimate crimes, the case should be considered an assault to the general public[5]. The reason behind this is the fact that if one could take an assault towards those that are close to him, then there would be no reason why he would care to take a step back in taking assault against others. This means that the motivation of the criminal or the defendant on pursuing the crime he has committed was not duly stopped by the condition of understanding the value of a family or a close relationship with others. Hence, in this case, it would not be impossible for him to take the same steps of criminal advances towards others that have no complete connection with him at all. In  a way, the policy further imposes that the motivation of one to commit a crime against ‘those who are his’[6] would specifically be escalated when the situation begins to involve the process by which he would attack other individuals that do not have relationship with him at all. Such a crime would then be easier to accomplish.

Considerably, dropping a case that involves such an individual is viewed by the law as somewhat giving the individual a chance to further escalate his desire to commit a crime, not only towards his family or his partner but towards others as well. The assumptions of criminal psychology basically define this process as the initiation of an escalating desire. This indicates that if a person is given the chance to be freed from a crime that was supposed to be stopped, he then feels that what he did was just fine and that he can still raise the bar of the assault that he has committed the first time. This then would increase recidivism on the part of the criminal and thus involving more innocent victims on the line. In a sense, the No Drop Policy application in the cords of legal clauses intend to balance out the human mistakes with the desires of the law to straighten the path of a criminal and save the life of the victim/s[7]. Why this particular intervention is need shall be further clarified in the following discussion.

Why Victims tend to Drop Cases

As primarily introduced in the previous section, there are many different reasons as to why victims decide to drop cases that they have specifically forwarded for legal assistance. Understandably, the process by which a person feels affects the way he thinks and the way he thinks specifically affect the way he decides. This is a common knowledge that displays the chain reaction between emotional and mental capacities of a human being. This is the reason why most often than not, it is the emotion that wins when a person decides[8]. The capacity of the emotional being of a person to control the way he thinks is a common understanding in human psychology that explains the existence of clouded decisions. It is most often than not considered as the personal debate between what must be done and what is desired by a person to happen.

In consideration to crimes involving family members and intimate partners, such an occurrence is common. Utilizing the emotional conditioning of a person for decision making is often considered to be the source of the problem especially when it comes to assessing their way of thinking towards being convinced of what must be done to the defendant[9]. Some of the most common issues that involve the contradiction between heart-and-mind decisions are explained through the attachment theory, the fear of authority and power and the common errors of human relationships.

The Attachment Theory

In families, forgiving is often a culture that is often established from birth. When it comes to assessing the type of families that get involve in dealing with issues of domestic violence come in different forms and different types as well as backgrounds. It is actually surprising to find out that at least 34% of the families being reported to have undergone conditions of domestic violence come from a solid and morally defined background. Such condition often raises a question of whether or not the perpetrator of the crime was motivated to commit the assault due to a short-time condition that specifically challenged his capacity to control himself[10]. On the other hand, does it involve a long-time kept attitude that could have been cultivated through time of familial pressure? These questions often affect the thinking of family members who have been subjected to a violent reaction from a parent or a child who used to be good in applying self-control.

This condition is however different from the implications suggested through the principles of attachment theory. In relation to the overall umbrella that defines psychoanalytic theory, it is rather important for individuals to ‘belong[11]’. In a family or an intimate relationship, a person is given the guarantee that he would always ‘belong’ to someone or to a group that fully accepts him. Being blinded by the idea of belongingness, some victims tend to see their perpetrators to simply have gotten loose of their temper thus deciding to commit specific acts that are out of bounds. Believing that the individuals who have committed the crime are as attached to the relationship as they are gives them the hope that the situations would change as time passes. Whether this condition may be true or not, the aspect of believing that a person could repeatedly commit a crime is not being excused from the picture.

Partners of criminal offenders often believe that their mate would change; especially if they keep holding on to the ‘good times’ that they once had back then. Believing that somewhere in that person is the old individual they ‘once knew’, they decide to stick to the relationship and believe that things are going to get better. From this particular point of view, the victims then decide to drop the charges, go home and hope to realize the supposed fulfillment of their ‘desire’ to live in better days. However, only a few actually realize such fulfillment. Most often than not, such hope is lost especially when a particular stressor to the defendant becomes evident again. This is when the cycle of abuse begins. The attachment of a person to the offender often becomes a hindrance for the victim to see the truth behind the situation and thus be convinced that some legal action is required to be assured of the protection that they deserve to receive.

Fear of Authority and Power

Often, the offender takes a more superior position than that of the oppressed or the victim. In a family setup, the perpetrators are often males committing assault against their mate, or women committing violence against their children. The pattern could go on and would still rely on one specific form, it is the powerful over the powerless. This is the primary reason why it is often understood that only a few cases of domestic violence are reported especially because of the fact that the perpetrators control their victims fully. The fear of being discarded by their superior in whatever type of relationship they are engaged in often puts the victims in a position that makes them decide against themselves which for them is really a beneficial perception that puts them in a safer place. The condition of authority imposes control and control is a rather powerful concept to be realized by the ones who are being oppressed[12]. In a violent relationship between partners of families, it could be that the attachment theory still works on the end of the victim while the perpetrator, to incite control on the victim is using the aspect of authority. Notably, this particular pattern of ‘cause and effect’ relationship between the individuals engaged in a violent relationship continues to feed the ego of the perpetrator while specifically diminishing the capacity of the victim to define themselves and their right to be protected as well.

With the power that the perpetrator have over the victim, the condition of the ones being oppressed become exceedingly expansive especially in relation to how they see themselves, how they value their lives and how they perceive the relationship they have with the one supposedly ‘ruling’ over them. In a way, this situation distinctively conditions the process of creating a relative assumption of modern slavery; whereas the perpetrator controls the situation including the decision of the victims to whether or not present the matter for legal counseling and/or judgment. This is the reason why sometimes, there are cases that have already been submitted for assessment and court rulings and still are getting dropped somehow even at the point of nearly closing its final readings.

True, with power belonging to the one assuming the authority in the relationship, the false idealism that such condition could be regarded as source of valid ‘control[13]’, the rate of victims of violence inside the home and among intimate relationships would continue to rise. Understanding the course of one’s path to knowing his or her personal rights to protection and rights to life, such a misrepresentation of power and control could be dealt with effectively. It is expected that with such change, dropping of cases would reduce and the number of violent crimes against the ‘powerless’ in homes and intimate relationships would be better processed.

Human Relationships and Errors

To forgive is to forget; this overused phrase has long been used repeatedly by crime offenders on violence against family members and intimate partners to get their way out from what they have done. Undeniably, their condition of thinking is still dependent on the idea that with their partner consistently believing that forgiving is a vital part of any human relationship, then ‘accidentally’ committing violent reactions towards others would hardly need reprimand. With this concept in mind, the perpetrators intend to manifest a sense of control over their victims every now and then and gain full freedom from any consequence of their action later on because of imposing the capacity of their victims to forgive and forget.

Although this aspect of human relationship is considered vital to preserving loyal connections, the situation becomes diverted when points of violent reactions already exist. The regularity of such situation calls for more than just a sense of ‘understanding’. The application of legal grounds on instances where the victim/s already suffer from too much violent impact on the part of the perpetrator of the act is a vital part of both saving the relationship and the people in it. True, acts of patience and mercy on the part of the victims towards their oppressors often create a barrier for the law to make any move in defining the course that the case should take. Most likely,

The birth of the No Drop Prosecution policy gives the court the power to control the situation especially involving individuals who have been clouded upon by the three concepts of human errors in relationships. This further creates a more solid ground that could penetrate even the most exclusive form of connection between an oppressor and a victim who has been kept in the dark. Legal assumptions of the situation could further impose on which better ground of protection a victim could actually benefit from especially if it is the one she is defending himself or herself from is someone close to the heart.

Applications of the Policy

In relation to the study of criminal psychology, occurrences at present are often related to occurrences of the past. This means that however a person reacts to the current situations that he or she is experiencing, it is most often than not related to the past situations that a person has encountered in earlier life. Understandably, the condition of thinking that a crime offender utilizes in relation to how he treats his victims could be traced to how he was first treated by family members or close partners that he had been involved with in the past. This, being recognized by the law, does not free the individual accused of domestic violence, free of charge. Instead, the law gives the prosecutors and the police officers as well the power to control the situation[14]. Whether or not there is a viable background for the validity of the assault, violence against the more vulnerable members of a family or a relationship is automatically viewed as a crime and should be prosecuted accordingly.

The validity and applicability of the policy in terms of controlling cases of domestic violence has been consistently subjected to debate. Understandably, the lack of power on the part of the victims on whether or not they are to sue their oppressors questions the capacity of the policy to recognize the victims’ rights. Relatively, in the context of the No Drop Prosecution Policy, the prosecutors are given the liberty to not close a case even when the victims aim to just put the situation to a cessation. Unless the prosecutor decides that the case has been resolved, he has the capacity to control the situation and continue with the hearing and processing of the case as desired.

At some point, when victims tend not to cooperate anymore, there are instances when they are forced to stand against the defendant to prove the guilt that is being imposed on the person. At this point, whether or not the victim chooses to forgive and forget, the court becomes more interested in assuming control over the situation on their own hence implicating their power over the matter especially in relation to the desire of defining the protection that they want to give to the victims of the supposed oppression[15]. Question is, would not the forceful condition of putting the victims into the witness stand create a commotion on how the law recognizes the right to liberty of each individual? The decision to whether or not prosecute a criminal based on what he did should be regarded as part of the condition of decision that a person ought to make personally. However, in this case, the situation becomes a general concern for the community. This means that the people involved are not the only ones assumed to be affected by the matter, but instead, it is the value of the people of the community that becomes highly affected in this matter and is thus understood by the court to be at a strong source of control on the situation.

Aiming to protect not only the current victims of the oppressors but the possible future victims as well, the court rules according to the desire of the law to make specific rules that could give assumptive control on the safety of the general public. Domestic violence is viewed as a primary step towards the consistent action of a person against others. The legal boundaries that define the sanctions that must be implicated on someone who has committed a crime against his own family or his own partner [not necessarily referring to men perpetrators alone] specifically draws the line between what should be accepted as local against what is considered to possibly affect the entire community as a whole.

Too much intervention on the part of the law however creates a possible loophole that is assumed by some family psychologists to be a little bit over the top. The role that the law takes in the aim of inciting protection for the victims need not create a sense of division when the family members are all ready to create definite ways of fixing the situation[16]. Families and intimately connected partners are expected to engage in a mutual form of understanding that only they could be able define. The uniqueness of such structure differs from one family to another. It is because of this fact that the law is expected to not assume that one family is the same as all the others and thus the members are to take the same steps especially in cases of violent reactions that could be prominent on others.

With this being said, it could be understood why not all victims of domestic violence want the same kind of attention, protection or help from legal advisers. There are some instances when the victims do believe, and they do have the concrete basis to do so, that they would be able to solve family differences together without the need of any legal assistance from the court or from the police officers. It is assumed that somehow, the capacity of the law to impose power over family systems and how they exist, tend to swerve when it comes to handling cases against domestic violence. The debate between the necessity and the over implication of the policy regarding the non-dropping of cases against offenders of domestic violence often create a sense of definitive control that assumes too much intervention on the part of the legal.

Stepping up on the curve of the family issues that result to the occurrence of domestic violence often create a condition that is making a great impact on how members of the family relate to each other. Legal assumptions and conditions of development often create a specific distinction on how modern families tend to comprehend with the issues of differences that they have to deal with. Most likely, the creation of the no drop prosecution policy hopes to manifest a sense of distinction on how the law tries to help families and the victims that need to undergo supportive therapies reestablish the lost connections among themselves as supported by the sanctions of the legal policies implicated along with the said rule[17].

It is deemed that with the creation and application of this policy, the families and their members would be more protected and be given specific assistance as they take on the condition of assessing better sources of confidence on the law. The policy also aims to define the law’s capacity to improve the legal ways by which the rights of family members as part of a unit in the community could be a competent source of protection. Relatively connecting such conditions towards the role of policy makers and law enforcers aims to create a more responsive source of protection that people could always count on. True, when it comes to establishing relationships and maintaining them, the law is believed to have less impact. However, when instances of violence and oppression occur, it is rather vital that the legal matters be properly outlined to create a more balanced condition by which the people are protected, their relationships are valued and they, as members of the society are properly given the attention they need as persons with respective rights.

In this case, it could be assumed that the application of the no drop prosecution policy’s success could only be determined if families begin to recognize the need of the law to intervene in their relationship as a vital unit of the community. Realizing that the law has power over their reactions as humans towards other members of the community especially in relation to those who are close to them could help family members cooperate with the sanctions and provisions given attention to by the said policy. Understanding the role that the law has over the situation the families are undergoing [especially involving accounts of violence] would give the victims the initiative to trust what the law imposes. This would motive them to give conditional allowance for the legal experts to provide the help that they could give to resolve possible sources of danger in the family and among intimate relationships as well.

To effectively impose the implicative recognition of individual rights of the victims in cases when a particular criminal charge could not be dropped nor withdrawn, it is suggested that the recognition of what the victims have to say about the matter be imposed properly. It has to be disseminated to them however that the process they are undergoing is necessary for their protection. Through such discussion, the victims should be given the assurance that it is not only their safety that is being carried into consideration in relation to the application of the policy. Instead, it is the welfare of the family member or partner [that has incurred oppression against them] that is also carried into consideration in relation to the matter. Continuing the process of prosecution could either clear or implicate the involvement of the oppressor on the crime, nevertheless, however the prosecution would turn out to be, it would protect the oppressor from committing any more crimes that might press him harder in terms of having the need to respond accordingly to the law.

Summary and Application to Research

As it could be observed from the literature review presented herein, the no drop prosecution policy is not only directed towards protecting the welfare of the victim. It primarily aims to stop recidivism that would not only endanger the lives of primary victims of the oppressors but also that of the possible future victims in case the situation has not been controlled at an earlier course. Utilizing the references that were considered in this discussion would help in establishing the research’s condition in pointing out both the pros and cons of the policy as it is being applied in cases where domestic violence and intimate partnership crimes are involved. Seeing how the law views its legal role to the society creates a more convincing picture as to how and why the no drop prosecution policy should be pursued accordingly.

Furthermore, through the utilization of the references considered herein, a more specifically founded reason for creating a distinctive recognition on the value of the no drop prosecution policy is expected to emerge. Understanding why debates occur in relation to its efficiency in imposing policies of protection for the victims is strongly presented within the context of the references that were reviewed herein. The timely presentation of the cases that are included within the discussions tackled in each reference are expected to help in further establishing reliance and accuracy in presenting the facts that could support the proper application of the no drop prosecution rule in court case today.  Knowing the full context of the policy and refining the manner by which it is recognized by the community is expected to help draw the worth of the policy not only to the functions of the law but most especially to the growing need of protection that the society calls for at present. Added into the discussion is the presentation of the different reasons as to why cases of criminal charges relating to families and intimate partnerships tend to be dropped intends to help make a well-defined reason behind the establishment the policy regarding the need to protect victims through not dropping the charges that have already been filed in the court.

References:

Davis, R.C., Maxwell, C. & Taylor, B. (2006). Preventing repeat incidents of family violence: analysis of data from three field experiments. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 183-210.

Davis, R.C., Taylor, B., & Maxwell, C. (1998). The effects of a group batterer treatment program: A randomized experiment in Brooklyn. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.

Dawson, M. & Dinovitzer, R. (2001). Victim cooperation and the prosecution of domestic violence in a specialized court. Justice Quarterly, 18, 593-622.

Dill, F. (1976). Four months of victim/witness assistance in Brooklyn: Outside evaluation interim report. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

Downs, W.R., Rindels, B., Atkinson, C. (2007). Women’s Use of Physical and Nonphysical Self-Defense Strategies during Incidents of Partner Violence.Violence Against Women, 13(1), 28-45.

Dutton, M.A., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Jouriles, E., McDonald, R., Krishnan, S.,McFarlane, J., & Sullivan, C. (2003). Recruitment and retention in intimate partner violence research. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.

Fagan, J. A. (1996), The criminalization of domestic violence: Promises and Limits.NIJ Research Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Robins, K. (1999). No-drop prosecution of domestic violence: Just good policy or equal protection mandate? Stanford Law Review, 52, 205-233.

Roehl, J., O’Sullivan, C., Webster, D., & Campbell, J. (2005). Intimate partner violence Risk Assessment Validation Study. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Document 209732.

Rosenbaum, P. R. 2002. Observational Studies (2nd edition). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. 1983. The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika 70 (1) 41-55.

Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. 1984. Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the Propensity Score. Journal of the American Statistical Association 79, 516-524.

[1] Downs, W.R., Rindels, B., Atkinson, C. (2007). Women’s Use of Physical and Nonphysical Self-Defense Strategies during Incidents of Partner Violence.Violence Against Women, 13(1), 28-45.

[2] Dill, F. (1976). Four months of victim/witness assistance in Brooklyn: Outside evaluation interim report. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

[3] Dill, F. (1976). Four months of victim/witness assistance in Brooklyn: Outside evaluation interim report. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

[4] Davis, R.C., Maxwell, C. & Taylor, B. (2006). Preventing repeat incidents of family violence: analysis of data from three field experiments. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 183-210.

[5] Robins, K. (1999). No-drop prosecution of domestic violence: Just good policy or equal protection mandate? Stanford Law Review, 52, 205-233.

[6] Robins, K. (1999). No-drop prosecution of domestic violence: Just good policy or equal protection mandate? Stanford Law Review, 52, 205-233.

[7] Fagan, J. A. (1996), The criminalization of domestic violence: Promises and Limits.NIJ Research Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

[8] Fagan, J. A. (1996), The criminalization of domestic violence: Promises and Limits.NIJ Research Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

[9] Rosenbaum, P. R. 2002. Observational Studies (2nd edition). New York: Springer-Verlag.

[10] Rosenbaum, P. R. 2002. Observational Studies (2nd edition). New York: Springer-Verlag.

[11] Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. 1983. The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika 70 (1) 41-55.

[12] Fagan, J. A. (1996), The criminalization of domestic violence: Promises and Limits.NIJ Research Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

[13] Dutton, M.A., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Jouriles, E., McDonald, R., Krishnan, S.,McFarlane, J., & Sullivan, C. (2003). Recruitment and retention in intimate partner violence research. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.

[14] Dutton, M.A., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Jouriles, E., McDonald, R., Krishnan, S.,McFarlane, J., & Sullivan, C. (2003). Recruitment and retention in intimate partner violence research. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.

[15] Robins, K. (1999). No-drop prosecution of domestic violence: Just good policy or equal protection mandate? Stanford Law Review, 52, 205-233.

[16] Robins, K. (1999). No-drop prosecution of domestic violence: Just good policy or equal protection mandate? Stanford Law Review, 52, 205-233.

[17] Robins, K. (1999). No-drop prosecution of domestic violence: Just good policy or equal protection mandate? Stanford Law Review, 52, 205-233.