Director’s
Message
DNA
Analysis for “Minor” Crimes: A Major Benefit for Law
Enforcement
Tracking
Prisoners in Jail With Biometrics: An Experiment in a Navy Brig
Predicting
a Criminal’s Journey to Crime
Victim
Satisfaction With the Criminal Justice System
Police Responses to Officer-Involved Shootings
Automated Information Sharing: Does It Help Law Enforcement Officers
Work Better?
NIJ
and Harvard University Host Webcasts on Less Lethal Force and DNA
in “Minor” Crimes
Books in Brief
Publications of Interest From NIJ
|
NIJ
Journal No. 253 January 2006
Victim Satisfaction With the Criminal Justice System
This article is
based on three final grant reports submitted to NIJ:
Victim Satisfaction With
Criminal Justice Case Processing in a Model Court Setting,
by Gerald T. Hotaling and Eve S. Buzawa, grant number 00–WT–VX–0019,
available from NCJRS (NCJ 195668).
Forgoing
Criminal Justice Assistance: The Non-Reporting of New Incidents
of Abuse in a Court Sample of Domestic Violence Victims,
by Gerald T. Hotaling and Eve S. Buzawa, grant number 00–WT–VX–0019,
available from NCJRS (NCJ 195667).
Effects on
Victims of Victim Service Programs Funded by the STOP Formula
Grants Program, by Janine Zweig, Martha R. Burt, and
Ashley Van Ness, grant number 99–WT–VX–0010,
available from NCJRS (NCJ 202903).
New research suggests that victims of domestic violence
who initially turn to the criminal justice system for intervention
may be so dissatisfied with the outcome that they do not
call the police the next time they need help.
Researchers Eve Buzawa and the late Gerald Hotaling asked
women in 353 domestic violence cases in the Quincy District
Court (QDC) in Quincy, Massachusetts, to assess the role
of the police, prosecutors, victim advocates, and judges
and to rate their level of satisfaction.[1]
They found that in 55 percent of the cases, women were generally
satisfied with the outcome. In 17 percent, victims were
dissatisfied.
The researchers found several common variables in the satisfied
cases: the incidents were less serious, the offender was
less dangerous, the victim said she felt some control and
wanted the case to go forward, and the victim reported experiencing
less violence in her past.
Dissatisfied victims appeared to have been involved in
more serious incidents with highly dangerous offenders and
were more likely to have disagreed with the police about
the offender’s arrest. These victims were also 16
times more likely than satisfied victims to report that
they had experienced both sexual and severe physical abuse
before the age of 18. As a group, dissatisfied victims appeared
to be more willing to leave offenders or unwilling (or afraid)
to directly confront the abuser, even if they were separated.
For the researchers, the bottom line was that victim satisfaction
in domestic violence cases appeared to hinge on the extent
to which the victim felt control over ending the violence
in the incident, control over her offender’s future
conduct—and even over the criminal justice system.
When the victim had a low sense of control, satisfaction
with the system decreased significantly.
Consequences of Victim Dissatisfaction
Having identified the common variables in cases of satisfied
and dissatisfied victims, Buzawa and Hotaling then examined
what, if any, consequences flowed from dissatisfaction.
The second stage of the study focused on the connection
between victim dissatisfaction and willingness to report
future victimizations. The researchers tracked 118 women
for a year after the original study to see if they reported
any new incidents or sought civil restraining orders.
Of the 118 women, 49 percent admitted that they had been
revictimized. Of these, 22 percent reported the incidents
to the police. Contrary to the presumption that “more
serious” offenses get reported to the police, victims
who reported the new incident were more likely to report
less serious offenses, like violations of restraining orders,
than they were to reach out for assistance due to a physical
assault. Women who reported new abuse to the police also
generally reported that the abuse was becoming more serious.
Women who chose not to report new incidents of abuse were:
- The least likely to have resisted the arrest of the offender
during the first incident.
- The least likely to have been dissatisfied with how the
police initially handled the incident.
- The most likely, by the conclusion of the case, to feel
that the actions of the police negatively affected their
safety and to complain that they wanted the prosecutor to
make charges against the offender more severe.
Women who chose not to report new incidents of abuse also
were likely to have experienced sexual abuse as a child.
This finding coincides with other research that suggests
a link between a woman’s history of abuse and her
likelihood of reporting revictimization to police. The researchers
theorize that “for an individual who has experienced
abuse through the ‘life course,’ reporting this
latest incident to the police may be viewed as a useless
ritualism.”[2]
BALANCING DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES
In the past, victims of domestic violence often expressed
dissatisfaction with the lack of aggressive response to
domestic assault by police, prosecutors, and the courts.
Now, researchers have discovered, the pendulum may have
swung the other way.
Mandatory arrest policies in many jurisdictions and implementation
of “full enforcement” protocols have resulted
in more cases being prosecuted whether the victim wants
to proceed or not.
Women who are the victims of domestic abuse usually want
to enhance their own safety, maintain economic viability,
protect their children, and have an opportunity to force
an abuser to participate in batterers’ counseling
programs. They are less concerned about upholding the
law or deterring future abuse—the main objectives
of the police, prosecutor, and judge.
Victim Services Increase Positive Experiences
Women who take advantage of victim service programs tend
to have more positive outcomes and are more likely to report
satisfaction, according to one study.[3]
Researchers found that women benefit the most when the criminal
justice system and nonprofit and community-based agencies
collaborate and coordinate their efforts. Such cooperation
results in more positive outcomes and greater victim satisfaction.
Treating victims with respect, offering them positive encouragement,
refraining from engaging in negative interactions, and most
importantly, creating a sense of control increased the odds
of positive outcomes in the victim’s view.
Researchers concluded that the most positive outcomes occur
when the staff at service agencies listen to women, carefully
explain the options, and then take action. “Women
know best about their own safety and well-being, and when
they have a greater sense of control while working with
agencies, they find the services more helpful and effective.”[4]
Ensuring that victim service programs work in conjunction
with the legal system and community agencies and that staff
address victims’ needs in a positive manner will encourage
victims to turn to the criminal justice system for assistance
and may maximize the potential to break the cycle of violence.
NCJ 212265
Notes
- QDC was chosen as a data collection site because it is
an acknowledged leader in implementing strategies that favor
criminal justice intervention in domestic violence cases.
Over a 7-month period in 1999, researchers interviewed victims
to obtain their assessments of the role of police, prosecutors,
victim advocates, and judges. Researchers also studied victims’
satisfaction with various sectors of the criminal justice
system.
- Hotaling, Gerald T., and Eve S. Buzawa, Forgoing Criminal
Justice Assistance: The Non-Reporting of New Incidents of
Abuse in a Court Sample of Domestic Violence Victims,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute
of Justice, 2003: 25 (NCJ 195667).
- Zweig, Janine, Martha R. Burt, and Ashley Van Ness, Effects
on Victims of Victim Service Programs Funded by the STOP
Formula Grants Program, Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2003: 16 (NCJ
202903).
- Ibid., 19.
|
|