Victims Should Be Allowed to Drop Restraining Orders, Essay Example

It certainly seems to me that case attrition is problematic, at least to some degree. I do not believe that it is prudent to generalize too freely in these matters, inasmuch as so many different variables may obtain in these situations. However, from Buzawa, Buzawa and Stark (2012) it is clear that a major, leading cause of case attrition is the unwillingness of the victims to go along with prosecution of their abusers (p. 241). To be sure, in some cases it may be that the victim is legitimately better served by not prosecuting: for example, it could be that the abuse is actually two-way, and both parties would prefer to resolve their problems without having one party prosecuted.

However, in other cases, case attrition is almost certainly a very real and legitimate problem: given the high percentages, it must be that in many cases, victims of intimate partner violence are missing out on an opportunity for justice, one that would serve them better. This is why it concerns me: precisely because the rates of attrition are so high, and in light of the tremendously damaging nature of intimate partner violence. No one approach is right for all victims, but the criminal justice approach is probably one of the better options for many, many victims.

I believe that victims should be allowed to drop restraining orders, but only in certain circumstances. Although the actual efficacy of restraining or protection orders is disputed and debatable, it does seem quite apparent that protection orders are correlated with greater safety, especially for female victims of domestic violence (Kothari et al., 2012, p. 2847). Specifically, although protection orders are often violated, when they are violated it is usually in the form of a non-violent offense on the part of the abuser: “’disorderly conduct/trouble with subject’” rather than something rather more violent (p. 2856). Thus, protection orders are efficacious, and an important strategy for dealing with intimate partner violence.

For all of these reasons, victims of intimate partner abuse should only be allowed to drop protection orders when it is clear that there is a reasonable expectation that the threat has passed. This is no light thing to quantify, and it will often be difficult to do so. Nonetheless, there are some reasonable standards and expectations that might be followed. For one thing, the abuser’s track record: if the abuser has a track record of other crimes, of substance abuse, or of violent and/or threatening incidents in other situations, then the protection order should be continued. On the other hand, if the abuser shows signs of genuinely changed behavior, and has none of these other warning signs, then perhaps the order can be dropped if the victim feels that it is acceptable to do so.

I do believe that victims should be allowed to have cases dropped. Although I find case attrition unfortunate in many cases, again, not all cases are the same, and in some cases it may actually be in the best interests of the victim to drop the case. We recently learned of an “IPV” case involving a couple flinging Cheetos at each other; in some cases, the victim may have a very good reason for wanting to pursue other options. Moreover, as the readings pointed out, there is a real problem with no-drop policies in principle: it essentially denies victims of IPV their autonomy. Simply put, adults have the right to a certain amount of autonomy, and even if a victim of IPV would be better served by not dropping a case against their partner, I am inclined to think that they should be allowed to make that decision for themselves, even if it is a mistake. Obviously if there are children involved that changes the equation significantly, and in those cases I am inclined to think that the case should not be dropped. Moreover, no-drop policies can put victims in very uncomfortable positions, if they genuinely want to resolve the situation in some other way. In sum, the problem with no-drop policies is that they are unduly coercive in a way that does not necessarily serve victims better, and may even undercut their interests.

References

Buzawa, E. Buzawa, C. and Stark, E. (2012). Responding to Domestic Violence: The Integration of Criminal Justice & Human Services (4th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kothari, C. L., et al. (2012). Protection orders protect against assault and injury: A longitudinal study of police-involved women victims of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(14), pp. 2845-2868. DOI: 10.1177/0886260512438284