Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

SAGE Journal User Guide

Article 1: Rempel, M., Labriola, M., & Davis, R.C. (2008). Does judicial monitoring deter domestic violence recidivism?: Results of a quasi-experimental comparison in the Bronx. Violence Against Women, 14(2), 185-207.

Summary: This article examines the effectiveness of judicial monitoring in cases of domestic violence that resulted in conviction. Data gather from offenders sentenced to judicial monitoring were compared to offenders that did not receive the surveillance. Results show that when controlling for arrest charges, criminal history, victim-offender relationship, and other characteristics related to the incident, judicial monitoring was not effective at reducing the rate of re-arrest for any of several outcomes measured.

Questions to Consider:

1. What other forms of monitoring may be effective at reducing recidivism in cases of domestic violence that resulted in conviction?

2. Why might judicial monitoring be ineffective in reducing recidivism? Can the practice be altered to be efficacious? Why or why not?

3. In what ways are domestic violence courts structured differently than traditional criminal courts, in order to be more effective at reducing re-offending?

 

Article 2: Stubbs, J. (2007). Beyond apology?: Domestic violence and critical questions for restorative justice. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7(2), 169-187.

Summary: This article discuss the issues that are absent or underdeveloped in contemporary restorative justice literature. Utilizing a feminist perspective, the author specifically examines these issues by focusing on domestic violence. The author suggests that responses to domestic violence, including the acknowledgement of gendered harms, may require hybrid approaches in which traditional criminal justice and restorative justice ideals are considered in tandem.

Questions to Consider:

1. What elements from traditional criminal justice and restorative justice should be considered in the development of hybrid models?

2. In what way(s) is restorative justice in the best interest of the victim? In what way(s) is the conventional criminal justice response in the best interest of the victim? What about the offender?

3. What role should the victim play in the restorative justice process? Does this role differ in the traditional criminal justice process? Should it differ?

 

Article 3: Allen, N.E. (2006). An examination of the effectiveness of domestic violence coordinating councils. Violence Against Women, 12(1), 46-67.

Summary: This article examines 41 coordinating councils to assess the extent to which they effectively promote community change in the response to domestic violence. The author sought to better understand how the councils differ in the issues they address, the extent to which they accomplish their stated goals, and the influence of the councils’ membership in achieving their goals across a variety of domestic violence related sectors.

Questions to Consider:

1. Why might the accomplishment of goals be rated differently between the criminal justice system and community sectors? Why might some goals be accomplished in one area, but others not accomplished in the other area?

2. How can the need for training of stakeholders be addressed? Who is responsible, and in more need of, training- the criminal justice area or the community sector?

3. Are there any other arenas that domestic violence coordinating councils should apply their focus?

 

Article 4: Bowen, P., Qasim, A., & Tetenbaum, L. (2014). Better Courts: A Snapshot of Domestic Violence Courts 2013. Centre for Justice Innovation: London.

Summary: This report provides a review of current practices in specialist courts in England and Wales. Focusing on improvements and developments since 2005, the executive summary notes that when victims are involved in the specialist domestic violence courts they feel safer and there is an increased likelihood of their cases continuing to criminal prosecution. The authors note that despite the increase in convictions since 2005, short-term analysis shows decreases in conviction despite increase in the number of incidents reported to police.

Questions to Consider:

1. What post-sentence practices could be utilized to improve victim safety and reducing the incidence or reoffending?

2. What reason(s) might explain the number of convictions and percentage of successful prosecutions be declining?

3. How can the consistent delivery of the core principles of the specialist courts be ensured so that all victims and cases are treated and processed similarly?

 

Article 5: Cissner, A.B., Labriola, M., & Rempel, M. (2015). Domestic violence courts: A multisite test of whether and how they change offender outcomes. Violence Against Women, 21(9), 1102-1122.

Summary: This study examines 24 criminal domestic violence courts throughout New York to examine their efficacy in reducing recidivism and their effect on case processing and case resolutions. The authors find that there was generally a small positive impact on recidivism for offenders that were convicted of domestic violence. The authors also found that conviction and sentencing rates were higher for male defendants. Specific court policies such as the increase in victim safety, holding offender accountable, and efforts to reduce reoffending were related to whether or not a convicted offender recidivated.

Questions to Consider:

1. What might explain why male defendants in domestic violence courts have a higher likelihood of conviction and increased sentencing compared to female defendants?

2. How can the efficiency in case processing in domestic violence courts, e.g. shorter time, affect the outcomes for victims and offenders?

3. Why might the reduction of recidivism be related to deterrence, rehabilitation, and accountability rather than coordinated community responses?

 

Article 6: Pinchevsky, G.M. (2015). Exploring the effects of court dispositions on future domestic violence offending: An analysis of two specialized domestic violence courts. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication.

Summary: This article examines court dispositions to determine if a relationship exists between the outcome of a case, processed in a domestic violence court, and reoffending. The study examined the effect of prosecution, conviction, and sentencing on whether or not an offender did recidivate and the length of time before recidivism. The author finds a very limited relationship between court disposition and recidivism.

Questions to Consider:

1. What qualitative data could be collected to better understand the processing of domestic violence cases?

2. How might the characteristics of the two courts studied be influential in the extent to which the relationship between court disposition and recidivism was observed? In what way(s) might the study of courts in different jurisdictions affect this relationship?

3. Why is it suggested that leniency is not be to understood as an effective processing decision in reducing domestic violence recidivism?