A 262% I I I I I

I A STUDY OF DELAWARE’S RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE I I

I By I Amy Jewusiak ' I .

I I I A thesis submitted to the Behavioral Science faculty in partial fulﬁllment of the V I requirements for the degree ofWilmingtonMaster of College.Science in Criminal Justice Studies at

i April, 2001 I I I I I

Wilmington College

Division ofBehavioral Science

Master of Science Program in Criminal Justice Studies

A Study ofDelaware’s Response to Domestic Violence A thesis submitted by Amy Jewusiak

Approved:

I '\

/ / Anita Davenport Masters in Criminal Justice Evaluator Coordinator, Criminal Justice Programs

’

7 ‘W A ' J MAL Jame Wilson Chair, = vioralScience Division

I 3

N Table of Contents

Abstract / 6 I Chapter

U 1 Introduction / 7

I 2 An Overview ofDomestic Violence / 13 Prevalence / 14 U Types ofAbuse / 20 , Cycle ofViolence / 22 Risk Factors / 24 U Victim Characteristics / 25 Offender Characteristics / 27 Effects ofDomestic Violence on Children / 29 I Myths ofDomestic Violence / 31 Why Women Stay / 32 I Why Traditional Approaches Don’t Work / 33 Postscript I 34

I 3 Theories on Domestic Violence / 35 Postscript / 40

U 4 The History of Domestic Violence Law / 41 Historical Context ofDomestic Violence / 41 I Federal Law / 48 How Domestic Violence Cases are Now Being Handled / 49 I Arresting Domestic Violence Offenders / 50 Convicting Domestic Violence Offenders / 52 ' U Postscript / 54

5 Delaware’s Response to Domestic Violence / 56 I Law Enforcement’s Response / 57 The Legislature’s Response / 62 ' Presumptive Sentencing / 64 I Department of Correction’s Response / 66 Future Initiatives / 68 U Postscript / 70

6 Probation and Parole’s Response / 71 U Postscript / 91

__ - 4

7 Movement ofDomestic Violence Cases / 93 I Summary ofFindings/ 107 Postscript / I08

‘ 8 Recommended Areas for Improvement /109 Postscript / 114

9 Areas for Future Researchl 115

‘ 10 Conclusion / 1 l 17

U 11 Endnotesl 120

12 References / 123

I Appendix A: Domestic Incident Report / 127

. Appendix B: Probation/Parole Statistical Report / 130

I Appendix C: Conditions of Supervisionl 133

Appendix D: Probation/Parole Violation Report / 137

Appendix E: Survey for the Domestic Violence Unit / 144

r I

U List of Tables

I Table

I 1 Domestic Violence Unit: Demographics Statistics ofDomestic Violence Offenders Supervised During the Month ofAugust, 1999 / 76

I 2 Domestic Violence Unit: Court Infomiation / 77

U 3 Domestic Violence Unit: Special Conditions / 78

4 Domestic Violence Unit: Type of Oﬁenses / 79

5 Domestic Violence Unit: Length ofProbation Sentence / 80

U 6 Domestic Violence Unit: Criminal and Victim Information / 82 l 7 Demographic Statistics ofDomestic Violence Oifenders Supervised Outside the Domestic Violence Unit During the Month ofAugust, 1999/ 84

I 8 Probation Sentences ofDomestic Violence Oﬂenders Supervised Outside the Domestic Violence Unit During the Month ofAugust, 1999 / 86

I 9 Criminal and Victim Information ofDomestic Violence Offenders Supervised I Outside the Domestic Violence Unit During the Month ofAugust, 1999/ 87 10 The Movement ofDomestic Violence Cases ﬁom August, 1999 to January, 2000 I / 94 ll General Statistics on those who Violate their Probation / 100

12 History ofDomestic Violence Among Those that Violate Their Probation / 101

N 13 Type ofProbation Violations For Domestic Violence Offenders / 102 6

ABSTRACT

Domestic violence emerged from the protection ofthe family to protection under the criminal justice system. Since the 1980s, changes in every aspect ofthe criminaljustice system have emerged to keep domestic violence oflenders more accountable and provide domestic violence victims with assistance and protection fiom oflenders. An example of these changes is exhibited within Delaware’s criminal justice system. Specialized units were formed not only within police departments and the Attorney General’s oifice, but also within the Probation and Parole Department. The Probation and Parole Department has formed domestic violence units within each county ofDelaware. These units are compromised ofofiicers specially trained to supervise domestic violence oflenders and directing domestic violence victims to specialized services. The type ofoffenders the New

Castle County Unit supervises are typically white, males between the ages of 25 to 40, serving a Family Court sentence. There appears to be no overt characteristics that lead a sub-group ofthese offenders to violate his/her probation. Once an offender does violate his/her probation, there appears to be no set formula to determine the sentence he/she may receive, despite guidelines enacted by SENTAC. Despite ofthe innovation ofthis unit, there are many areas ofthis unit that can be improved and ﬁxture research is vital to determine ways to improve the effectiveness ofthis unit. 7

Chapter 1: Introduction

Domestic violence is the abusive behavior ofone party ofan intimate relationship against another with the goal ofmaintaining power and control over the victimized party.

It crosses all socio-economic levels, age groups, and ethnicities. It affects not only the victim, but also the offender, children and/or others who witness the violence. Domestic violence is a learned behavior transmitted through generations and reinforced by stereotypes and myths. Because law enforcement oflicers are ofien the first responders to domestic violence incidents they are in a unique position to influence the outcome of events. Recent research has proposed pro-arrest policies and arrests without a warrant for misdemeanor domestic violence ofienses (Schmidt and Sherman, 1993). This research extends beyond the role of law enforcement to roles ofother segments ofthe criminal justice system, such as courts and corrections, and other agencies that come in contact with domestic violence victims and ofi°enders. In order to prevent future violence the cycle must be broken. Recent research supports a coordinated approach to handling domestic violence cases based on the premise and evidence that domestic violence is one of few crimes where fiiture violence can be prevented (O’Dell, n.d.).

Current research on domestic violence focuses on law enforcement and is still in its infancy with regard to the court’s and probation/parole’s response. For this reason, this thesis will focus on the criminal justice system’s response as a whole and will end with an extensive analysis on probation and parole’s response to domestic violence, using

Delaware as a case study. Delaware, like most other states, initiated a pro-active approach to domestic violence incidents aﬂer a Connecticut court ruled in Thurman v. the City of

Torrington (1984) that law enforcement oﬁicers could be held liable for not holding a

8 domestic violence oifender accountable (McCue, 1995b). In Delaware, this approach started in police agencies and spread to the courts and probation/parole.

The writer was a probation/parole ofﬁcer for the State ofDelaware for four years.

For three years, she supervised primarily domestic violence offenders on Home

Conﬁnement; a program that utilizes electronic monitoring to aid in supervision. Her last year, she supervised domestic violence offenders on intensive supervision; a program requiring weekly reporting ofprobationers/parolees and a stringent curfew. This writer had a unique opportunity to start the ﬁrst domestic violence caseload within the Home

Conﬁnement unit and be a member ofone ofthe few domestic violence probation/parole units in the country. From this experience came an insight into the dynamics of domestic violence and an observation of some techniques that worked and others that do not. With

this experience as a starting point, this thesis focuses on the effectiveness ofdomestic

violence units within probation/parole departments by focusing on the results or outcome

of such a unit in Delaware. It will address the strengths and weaknesses ofhaving such a

unit, acknowledging problems that may limit its effectiveness, and making suggestions for

improvement and future research.

In order to analyze the Domestic Violence Unit within the New Castle County

Probation/Parole Department in Delaware, the writer gathered information on ﬁve areas of

this unit. First, the writer determined ifthe Domestic Violence Unit is supervising most of

the domestic violence cases in the probation/parole department. Ifnot, why? Second, was

the type of otfenders that the Domestic Violence Unit supervises. For example, are they

habitual oﬁfenders or was this their ﬁrst offense. Third, how many probationer/parolees

successfully complete their probationary period compared to how many violate their

9 probation. Fourth, the manner in which domestic violence probationers/parolees violate their sentence. Fiﬁh, the court’s sentences for probation/parolee violations. To answer these questions, qualitative and quantitative research was conducted on probation/parolee cases supervised bylthe Domestic Violence Unit, located at the New Castle

Probation/Parole Oﬂice in Delaware. Research was based on cases supervised during the months ofAugust 1999 through January 2000.

Before outlining the qualitative and quantitative data gathered from the probation and parole department, it is important to ﬁrst establish what constitutes domestic violence.

Therefore, the second chapter ofthis paper will begin with an overview ofdomestic violence. This section will include the deﬁnition of domestic violence, its prevalence, types of abuse, the cycle of abuse, risk factors of abuse and characteristics ofoffenders and victims.

During the ﬁrst half ofthe 20“ Century, theories on domestic violence focused on battered women. They were often viewed as masochistic and the cause ofthe violence.

Theories that focused on the perpetrator oﬁen linked the violence to alcoholism. By the end ofthe 20“ Century, theories focused on factors within society, such as male- domination over women and a culture of violence to explain domestic violence. The third chapter ofthis thesis reviews these theories.

The fourth chapter provides a historical view ofdomestic violence law. This section focuses on the emergence ofdomestic violence throughout history as a social problem. It also address the power interest groups have played in implementing changes within the law to protect domestic violence victims and hold oﬁenders accountable. The second section ofthe fourth chapter outlines the changes made within federal law. The last

l0 part ofthe chapter includes recent trends in handling domestic violence cases such as pro- arrest policies, warrant-less misdemeanor arrests, and specialized units formulated to investigate and prosecute domestic violence cases.

The ﬁﬁh chapter outlines Delaware’s response to domestic violence. It focuses on the changes made within each area ofDelaware’s criminal justice system. This section explores criminal statutes covering domestic violence incidents, including the Protection

ﬁom Abuse statute that gave victims the right to seek recourse against their victimizers, and the Victim Bill ofRights which outlines the responsibilities ofcriminal justice oﬂicials in dealing with domestic violence victims.

The sixth and seventh chapters focus on qualitative and quantitative research gathered from cases supervised by ofﬁcers ofthe Domestic Violence Unit within the

Probation/Parole Department in New Castle, Delaware. The sixth chapter begins with a qualitative study ofthis unit. It describes the composition ofthis unit and how this unit is diiferent from standard probation/parole units. Differences include Domestic Violence

Probation/Parole Oﬂicers being required to carry a pager during off-hours to respond to emergency calls, maintaining contact with victims, and working with agencies within and outside the criminal justice system.

The second section ofchapter six presents a quantitative study of the Domestic

Violence unit. Data collection involved gathering descriptive information about domestic offenders supervised by this unit. Statistics include the number offirst-time offenders, repeat offenders, the classification ofthe domestic violence ofienses sentenced to probation, courts ofjurisdiction, the length and level of supervision, and special sentencing provisions. Descriptive statistics were gathered such as gender, ethnicity, geographical 13

Chapter 2: An Overview of Domestic Violence Domestic violence is a relatively new social issue. It was only thirty years ago that

it emerged ﬁom concerns about child abuse as an issue that needed to be addressed. Prior to the 1980s, the police did nothing about domestic violence because it was viewed as a family problem best dealt with among the family. Ifit was not for the efforts of feminists, legal reforrnists, and mental health professionals this problem may have remained hidden.

Instead domestic violence is now illegal in all states (Culliton, 1994).

Domestic violence is deﬁned as the purposeful use ofemotional, physical and/or sexual abuse by one intimate partner against another intimate partner. It is not just a response to a single incident that results in emotional or physical injury, but a type of relationship between two intimate partners in which one partner tries to dominate and control the other (Domestic Violence, 1997). While it may appear to be an irrational response to conﬂict, acts of abuse actually tend to establish boundaries and rules for a given relationship (Marano, 1996).

Domestic violence affects not only the victim, but also society as a whole.

Domestic violence costs women their self-esteem, physical health, safety, and sometimes their lives (Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer, 1996). It is estimated that domestic violence leads to three to ﬁve million dollars in medical expenses every year. Over $100 million is lost every year in sick leave, absenteeism and non-productivity and over 25 percent of workplace problems are due to domestic violence. Violence is the reason for divorce in 22 percent ofmiddle class marriages (General Facts about Domestic Violence, 1995). 14

Prevalence

The true number ofdomestic violence incidents is hard to estimate. Problems in determining such prevalence range from the reluctance ofvictims to report incidents to differential police procedures and reporting requirements. Studies estimate that only 52 percent ofactual domestic violence incidents are reported to police (Crowe, Wack, &

Schaefer, 1996a). A study about violence against women found that 18 percent ofthose victimized by intimate partners did not call the police out offear or reprisal. This is compared to 3 percent ofthose women victimized by strangers. As a whole, women who were victimized by their loved ones were six times less likely to call the police when victimized by an intimate partner than those who were victimized by strangers (General

Facts about Domestic Violence, 1995).

The measurement ofprevalence is firrther complicated by oflicial reporting and record-keeping procedures. Dispatchers may screen out calls. Police officers may diffuse the situation without making an arrest or filing a report, or the incident may be declared unconfirmed due to over-reporting or under-investigating (Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer,

1996a). When conﬁrmed, non-serious cases may be lumped together with other non- serious disturbances. Serious felony cases may be lumped together with non-domestic assaults (Goolkasian, 1986). Incidents may also be charged at a lower level offense due to the intimate relationship between the victim and offender. Cuttilon (1994) argued that if domestic violence incidents were reported and prosecuted properly, one-third of all domestic violence incidents would be classiﬁed as felony rape, robbery, or aggravated assault and the remaining two-thirds would involve serious bodily injury equivalent to 90 percent ofaH robberies and aggravated assaults. 15

Estimating the true amount ofdomestic violence is also complicated by the fact that there is no consensus over what constitutes this type ofviolence. It was not until 1994 that the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) recognized domestic violence as a distinct crime and added categories to the Uniform Crime Report to report its occurrence as part ofthe National Incident Based Reporting System '(Morgan, Nackerlrud, & Yegidis,

1998). Prior to 1994, crime reports did not require police departments to report these incidents unless they were classiﬁed as one ofeight crimes — robbery, burglary, arson, murder, sexual assault, drug offenses, aggravated assault, and kidnapping. Even though a domestic violence incident may be documented under one ofthese above crimes, the

Federal Bureau ofInvestigation did not classify crimes as either domestic or non-domestic related. Furthermore, the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation does not collect data on incidents involving psychological damage or civil petitions including domestic violence

(Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer, 1996a). Additionally, not including protection order violations misses a large number ofdomestic violence offenses. A study of 355 women with restraining orders found that 60 percent reported violations ofthese orders within one year of issuance (Harrell & Smith, 1998). 1

Surveys attempting to identify abusers and victims may not only suffer from lack of consensus over temrinology, but also non-abusers may be more likely to submit to the survey interview than abusers. Surveys that target victims have problems unique to their method ofdata collection. During interviews, it may be difficult for victims to differentiate between current and past incidents ofabuse. Surveys may be diﬂicult to compare due to diﬁ°erent methods and sources ofdata collection (Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer, 1996).

Studies on domestic violence are also weakened by small sample sizes; follow-up periods 16

that oﬂen last only six months, budgetary limitations, and failure to account for variation

in the delivery ofinterventions (Fagan, 1996).

Despite these diﬂiculties, it has been estimated that during 1993, 7 percent, or 3.9

million women, who were married or living with someone as an intimate couple were

physically abused. It is also estimated that every 7.4 seconds a woman is beaten by her

husband. Thirty-seven percent, or 20.7 million women, were verbally or emotionally

abused. It is more prevalent than any other crime, in that 34 percent ofmen and women

interviewed have witness domestic violence compared to 19 percent that had witnessed muggings and robberies combined (The Health Care response to Domestic Violence Fact

Let, 1994.).

Victim surveys found that 1.5 out of every 100 couples reported being assaulted by a spouse during the past 12 months and in one out ofevery 200 couples a gun or knife was used against the victim. Lifetime estimates project that well over 2 million people experience intimate violence and 1.7 million are faced with a gun or knife-wielding spouse

(Goolkasian, 1986). One in ﬁve women victimized by their spouse or ex-spouse reported that they had been assaulted at least three times in a six-month period (The Health Care response to Domestic Violence Fact Sheet, 1994). A study of403 battered women in ten shelters found that 36 percent had been raped by their husbands or cohabiting partner

(Lystad, Rice, & Kaplan, 1996). An average of 1,500 women, or 28 percent ofall women, killed were killed at the hands oftheir spouse, ex-husbands, or boyﬁiends

(Marvin, 1997; Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer, 1996). Despite the fact that domestic violence appears to be highest among 20 to 34 year olds (Morgan, Nackerud, & Yegidis, 1998), a study ofteenagers found that 83.8 percent reported prior physical abuse by an intimate 17 partner, 89.7 percent reported verbal abuse, and 47.1 percent reported sexual abuse

(Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer, 1996a).

Battering is the single largest cause of injury to women, causing more injuries than rape, auto accidents, and muggings combined (McCormick, 1999). Domestic violence is responsible for 1.3 million women visiting the emergency room every year (Culliton,

1994). Of21 8 women who visited a metropolitan emergency room due to injuries sustained from a domestic violence incident, 28 percent required admission to the hospital due to their injuries, 13 percent required major medical treatment and 40 percent had previously received medical treatment for domestic-related injuries (The Health Care response to Domestic Violence Fact Sheet, 1994).

While studies consistently show that domestic violence is more common among women of lower social status, this may be due to the fact that lower class women lack the

financial resources to visit private physicians and/or psychologists and, therefore, are more likely to come into contact with law enforcement oflicials, social service agencies, shelters and hospital emergency rooms that gather such statistical information. Middle and upper class women are less likely to report abuse due to feelings of shame and an inaccurate stereotype that domestic violence only happens to the poor and ignorant. An afiluent victim may also be more likely to be pressured by friends and family to keep the secret of violence. Therefore, when she does seek help, she is more likely to do so in a private marmer, such as using a family doctor who will keep her problems confidential (McCue,

1995c).

Although these statistics focus on the female victim, men are also victims of domestic violence. Reports have found that 834,700 men are abused every year by an 18

intimate partner. When men are victimized they are less likely to report violence due to

shame and embarrassment (McCue, 1995c). Braen’s study (as cited in Crowe, Wack, &

Schaefer, 1996a) found that 18 percent ofmen and 14 percent ofwomen surveyed had

been abused by an intimate partner. Ofthe men who reported abuse, 30 percent reported

being pushed or shoved by their wives, 23 percent were punched, slapped or kicked, and 9

percent were hit with objects. Ten percent sought aid at a clinic, doctor’s oﬂice or

emergency room because ofthe violence and 9 percent had visible injuries. Only 5 percent

called the police.

Despite the occurrence ofdomestic violence against men, readers must keep in mind the comparative strength ofthe partners and the reasons for the assaults.‘ In cases where both partners were injured, women’s injuries tended to be nearly three times as serious as men’s. Women often inﬂict physical harm in self-defense, retaliation, ﬁ"ustration, anger, and/or desperation (Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer, 1996a). Women are also two to three times more likely than men to report physical assault and seven to fourteen times more likely to report serious assault (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998).

Domestic violence is not limited to heterosexual relationships, however research on homosexual relationships is still in its infancy. Nonetheless, a study of 1,099 lesbians found that more than 50 percent reported prior abuse by a female lover. The most common types ofabuse were physical and psychological abuse (Lystad, Rice, & Kaplan,

1 996).

A study ofdomestic violence incidents in Memphis, Tennessee, provides a description ofpeople involved in domestic violence incidents. In Memphis, police receive an average of 15 domestic violence incident or disturbance calls per seven-hour shiﬂ. Of 19

these calls, 78 percent ofthe assailants were males. Seventy-two percent ofthe victims

were females. Ofthe 20 male victims, nine were the sons ofthe female victims who had

tried to intervene in the assault oftheir mother. Ofthe female victims, 40 percent had been

assaulted by their cohabitating boyﬁ-iends, 29 percent by non-cohabitating boyfriends, 20 percent by cohabitating husbands, and ll percent by estranged or divorced husbands or

former boyfriends. Fifteen percent ofthe victims were younger than 18 years old. Eighty- nine percent ofthe victims had been victims ofprior abuse. Ninety-one percent had reported a prior incident to the police and 72 percent had done so in the past two weeks.

Thirty-ﬁve percent had reported daily abuse, 55 percent reported weekly abuse. Fifteen percent ofthe victims had suﬂered serious injuries that required immediate medical attention (Brookoff, 1997).

Ninety-two percent ofabusers used drugs or alcohol during the day ofthe assault.

Sixty-seven percent used a combination ofalcohol and cocaine. In 68 percent ofthe violent incidents, the offenders had displayed or used a weapon. This included 19 blunt objects, 17 knives, and 6 guns. Two-thirds were on probation or parole at the time ofthe offense. Seventy-five percent ofthe offenders that were at the scene ofthe crime when the police arrived were arrested. Ofthis group, 33 percent plead guilty, 8 percent had their charges dismissed, and 58 percent were released and awaiting case disposition. Ofthose arrested, 75 percent were out ofjail in less than 18 hours, halfofthose did not have to post bond. All ofthose who plead guilty were given suspended sentences of30 to 90 days with one year ofprobation, fifty percent were ordered to participate in an anger management program, and 25 percent were ordered to perform three days ofcommunity service (Brookofl, 1997). 20

Despite the prevalence ofdomestic violence, there are only 1,500 shelters across the country to house domestic violence victims, compared to 3,800 animal shelters

(General Facts about Domestic Violence, n.d.). For every two women sheltered, ﬁve are turned away. For every two children sheltered, eight are t1u:ned away (Marano, 1996).

During the 1980s, it has been estimated that almost halfofthe homeless population were females and ahnost 1 million women were turned away ﬁ'om shelters because the shelters were ﬁ1ll(Culliton, 1994).

Types of Abuse

The most common domestic violence incidents are legally deﬁned as assaults, batteries, homicide, weapon use, kidnapping, unlawﬁrl imprisonment, and trespassing

(Goolkasian, 1986). Domestic violence may be a single incident ofabuse, but is more likely to be a systematic pattem ofabuse that escalates over time in both frequency and severity. It is a process ofdeliberate intimidation intended to coerce the victim to do what the abuser wants and exercise control and power over the victim (Goolkasian, 1986;

Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer, 1996). It can occur over a period of days, weeks, or many years. The violence may even follow a perceived threat that may be unexpected and out of the blue (Goolkasian, 1986).

There are three categories ofabuse that are typically used to describe a domestic violence incident. These categories are physical, emotional and sexual abuse. Physical abuse includes slapping, hitting, pushing, grabbing, and shoving ofthe victim (Tjaden &

Thoennes, 1998).

There are at least eight types ofemotional abuse that a person may use to gain and maintain power and control over a victim and their relationship. These eight types may

extend beyond the scope of what typically deﬁnes abuse, but are forms ofbehavior that characterize domestic violence relationships. While not all types may occur in one relationship, the more factors exhibited in the relationship, the more of a detriment the emotional violence may be on the victim (Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer, 1996).

An offender may use coercion and threats to gain control over the victim. These

threats may include threatening to hurt her, to leave her or to commit suicide. Forms of

coercion include making her drop charges against him or making her do illegal things. A

batterer may use intimidation by smashing objects, destroying her property, displaying

weapons, and abusing pets (Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer, 1996). Emotional abuse, such as

repeat insults, humiliation, withholding approval, yelling, name calling or joking can affect

the victim’s sense of self and reality by making her feel guilty, and bad about herself

(Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer, 1996; Goolkasian, 1986). Offenders are able to keep their

behavior from the public eye by isolating the victim from family and friends. He can

accomplish this by controlling what she does, whom she sees, what she reads, and where

she goes. He may also limit her outside involvement and use jealousy to justify his actions.

An offender attempts to maintain his control over the victim by minimizing his behavior,

denying that what he does is wrong, and blaming her for his actions. Some ofthe typical

ways an offender might do this is by not taking her concerns seriously and making excuses

for his behavior. A batterer may use the children against her in several ways. First, by

threatening to take the children away if she does not comply with his demands or wants to

leave him. He may criticize the way she mothers the children invoking feelings of guilt. He

may harass her during visitation with the children and he may use the children to relay

messages. Another type ofabuse involves the batterer using his beliefofmale privilege to 27

Her focus is on survival and she learns to behave in ways she perceives as the most likely to ensure safety in a given situation. The result ofthese mental adjustments is a list of secondary effects such as cognitive distortions, memory problems, ﬂight and ﬁght symptoms, sleeping and eating disorders, and physiological reactivity (Crowe, Wack, &

Schaefer, 1996b).

Offender Characteristics

Domestic violence offenders are masters ofdeception. They often possess winning personalities and are well liked in the community. They fiequently exhibit vastly different public and personal behavior. When police respond following a domestic incident, the ofi°ender is quick to attempt to convince the officer that the victim is mentally ofl'balanced.

Such be behavior may be due to the fact that they often have a low self-esteem, extreme insecurity, an inability to trust others, the need to control others and a refusal to take responsibility for their actions (Marvin, 1997).

There are two common themes that offenders use to excuse their behavior. The

ﬁrst is that the woman provoked him and if she only quieted down or respected him more, he would not have done what he did. Second is that he lost control and snapped (Marano,

1996). '

There are three types ofbatterers that are diﬂferentiated by the severity ofdomestic violence. The family-only batterer engages in the least severe form ofviolence and, as stated within the title ofthe category, violence is only directed at family members. This type ofbatterer exhibits the lowest level ofirnpulsivity and may be the most amenable to legal sanctions. Low impulse control and low self-esteem characterize those who fall within the generally violent category ofbatterers. Unlike the family-only batterer, a 29

Effects of Domestic Violence on Children

Domestic Violence affects not only victims and offenders, but can also have

profound eﬁfects both directly and indirectly on the children in the home. In homes where

children witness domestic violence, there is a 50 percent chance that a child is also being

abused in the home. A child under the age offour who witnesses violence may exhibit poor sleeping habits, stuttering, crying and shaking. Children ofall ages may exhibit a general aggressiveness, a pattem ofover-compliance, fearfirlness, low self-esteem, fear and distrust ofclose relationships, conflict over parents, confiision over right and wrong behavior, psychosomatic complaints, regressive behaviors, bed wetting, problems relating to authority, and they may victirnize other siblings and/or peers (O’Dell, n.d.). i Children are also likely to suffer fiom physical and emotional problems such as headaches, stomachaches, diarrhea, ulcers, asthma, enuresis, and depression. (McCom1ick, 1999). A study ofwomen and children in a shelter found that children fiom violent homes scored

2.5 times higher on behavior and competency problems than did children from non-violent homes and more than a quarter ofthe children ﬁom violent families had problems severe enough to fall into the clinical range (Wolfe, Jaﬁ°e, Wilson, & Eak, 1998). A second study found of25 children witnessed abuse, 53 percent acted out against their parent, 60 percent against siblings, 30 percent with peers, and 33 percent with teachers. Sixteen percent had appeared injuvenile court, 20 percent were labeled truant and 58 percent were below average or failing school (Pfouts, Schopler and Herrly, 1982 quoted in Conroy, 1996).

Between 3.3 million and 10 million children witness abuse every year (McCormick,

1999). The eﬁfects ofwitnessing violence in the home may be short-term or may have profound effects that continue into the teenage and adult years. It has been estimated that 30

80 percent ofrunaways come ﬁom violent homes (O’Dell, n.d.). Teenagers who witness

violence may contemplate or commit suicide and/or abuse alcohol or drugs as a means to

escape the violence (Marano, 1996). Juvenile delinquents are four times more likely to

come ﬁom violent homes. Sixty-three percent ofall boys between the ages of 11 and 20

arrested for homicide had killed their mother’s abuser. Children ﬁom violent homes are

one hundred times more likely to be abusive as adults (O’Dell, n.d.). A son, in particular,

who witnesses his father beating his mother, has a 1,000 percent greater chance ofabusing

his own children. Girls who witness such violence have 6.5 times greater a chance ofbeing

sexually abused (McCormick, 1999). These children have a 74 percent greater chance of

committing crimes against other persons and are 24 times more likely to commit rape or

other sexual assaults (O’Dell, n.d.). Thirty percent ofthese children will eventually

become perpetrators ofviolence.

There are six lessons children can learn by growing up in violent homes. The ﬁrst

is that violence is an appropriate form ofconﬂict resolution and that it has a place within

family interactions. Ifthe criminal justice system does not actively pursue the case,

children will learn that there are few, ifany, consequences for such behavior. Violent

behavior in the home can reinforce sexist views ofmale domination over the decision-

making process and power in the family. Violence is seen as a means of stress

management. Lastly, children are taught that the victims ofviolence are merely tolerated

and that the victim’s behavior is what triggers the violence (Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer,

1996b).

Despite the profound effects outlined above, the eﬂects ofdomestic violence on

children can only be reduced to probabilities. Current research is unable to attest to any

’ 31

degree ofcertainty that a child will develop any physical, emotional, or behavioral

problems, due to methodological problems that stem from the inﬁequent use ofrandom

samples, small sample sizes and an over-reliance on self-reports (Conroy, 1996).

Myths of Domestic Violence

There are several myths about domestic violence that prohibit effective response

ﬁom the community. The following is a discussion ofthese myths and why these myths

are detrimental to society.

The ﬁrst is that domestic violence is a private matter and oﬁicials are acting in the

best interest ofthe family when they do not interfere. As stated above, domestic violence

affects not only the victim and offender but also the children that grow up in the violent

home. It places high demands on the medical community and has an impact on business

and industry through absenteeism and reduced productivity. By taking a hands-off

approach, oﬂicials are ignoring the profound effects that domestic violence places on the

community and rely on the couple to work out their problems in the atmosphere of

hostility and inequality (Goolkasian, 1986).

The second myth is that domestic violence is precipitated by the victirn’s

provoking statements or actions. Such approach relieves the offender ﬁom taking

responsibility for his actions. This myth also ignores the fact that domestic violence

offenders use various forms ofabuse to gain and maintain control over the victim and the offenders are the initiators ofviolence, not the victims (Goolkasian, 1986).

Third, is the beliefthat women are masochistic and that ifthey wanted the abuse to end they would seek outside help, leave the offender, or prosecute the offender. Women stay in these relationships for reasons other than the need to feel pain. This myth ignores 32

the fact that certain behavior inherent in domestic violence relationships are designed to

ensure that the woman will not and cannot leave. Women are often economically

dependent on the male, isolated ﬁ'om family and ﬁiends, pressured by traditional beliefs to

keep the family together at all costs, and fear ofretaliation ifthey attempt to leave

(Goolkasian, 1986).

Fourth is the myth that battering is a result ofbeing poor or an alcoholic. While

lower class families are more likely to come to the attention ofpolice, than other social

classes for domestic violence problems. This is due to the lack ofavenues outside the

criminal justice system, such as private counseling, to help families deal with domestic

violence issues nor due to the lack ofdomestic violence among upper classes. Furthermore

while substance abuse and mental illness have been associated with domestic violence,

there is no evidence that these factors cause such violence (Goolkasian, 1986).

Last is the myth that domestic violence is caused by the inability to express anger

or handle stress. Ifthis were the case, then violence would not be isolated to one speciﬁc

target as it is in domestic violence cases. Additionally, domestic violence is a process of

gaining control and power over another person. It is not simply a response to stressful

situation (Goolkasian, 1986).

Why Women Stay

The less severe the violence, the more likely the woman is to stay in the

relationship. Women holding more traditional beliefs, such as the beliefthat the woman

should stay home and raise her children while her husband works, are more likely to stay

in violent relationships. Women often stay out ofthe fear that the violence will escalate if

she leaves the abuser. As stated above, there is evidence that this fear is rational. Men

often use techniques to isolate women from friends, family and ﬁnancial resources, which

makes it more diﬂicult for women to leave. Some women feel that they are at fault for the

abuse and that ifthey were just better mothers and wives the abuse would end. Instead of

leaving, these women the abuse and convince themselves that things are not as

bad as they thought (McCormick, 1999).

Why Traditional Approaches Don’t Work

History has shown that traditional law enforcement approaches to domestic

violence do not work. There are several factors inherent in domestic violence that may

cause this ineffectiveness. The ﬁrst is the cyclical nature ofdomestic violence. Police often

respond after an acute battering incident, which is likely to be followed by the honeymoon

stage. During the honeymoon stage, the true horribleness ofthe violent incident is often a

distant memory to the victim and it is easier to forget the bad and welcome the

forgivenance-seeking behavior ofthe offender. Second, is the relationship between the

victim and offender which often clouds matters and may inhibit victims ﬁom ﬁling and

following through on charges. Third, is the cause and effects that the involvement ofthe

criminal justice system may have on the victim and offender. For example, ifthe victim

pursues charges against the man, she may lose her means of ﬁnancial support. Fourth is

the ambivalence ofthe victim and/or witness toward the involvement ofthe criminal

justice system because ofcoercion by or fear ofthe perpetrator. Last is the privacy

traditionally accorded the family (Travis, 1998).

Culliton (1994) argues that there are certain factors inherent in the criminal justice

system that makes it ineﬁfective in dealing with domestic violence. First is the fact that the

system focuses on the theory ofretribution rather than whether the crime caused a certain

_ 34

result. Second is the focus on the criminal mindset and intent rather than the effect the

criminal behavior has had on the victim and the objective evidence ofabuse. Rather than

viewing the crime as having a victim, other than the state, the criminal justice system

assumes the responsibility ofpenalizing the offender ifthe state can prove he intended to

do what he did.

Postscript

As shown, domestic violence is a complex relationship between two intimate

partners. It expresses itselfin various abusive means with the ultimate goal ofpower and

control. The effects on women, men, and children have a profound effect on society as a

whole. Unfortunately, traditional law enforcement efforts have been unsuccessful.

The next chapter explores different theories that attempt to explain domestic

violence. These theories focus on the victim, offender, and societal characteristics as the

root causes ofdomestic violence. This chapter will provide a foundation for exploring

how domestic violence emerged to the societal problem it is today.

I t 35

Chapter 3: Theories on Domestic Violence

Theories ofdomestic violence range from focusing on individual characteristics of

the victim and offender to focusing on characteristics ofthe structure of society. The

Psychological Perspective theory holds that violence is due to a mental disorder. During

the 1930s, Dr. Helene Deutsch theorized that women were masochistic and provoked the

violence ﬁom men out ofthe need to be hurt. Anthony Storr argued that intercourse is a form ofsexual aggression tied to a man’s sense ofself-esteem and feelings ofconquest.

The psychopathological roots ofviolence have been explained as a result oflow self- esteem, feelings ofhopelessness, powerlessness, inadequacy, fear ofbeing dependent, traditional ideas ofmale dominance, fear ofabandonment, need for control, inability to communicate feelings and lack ofassertiveness. Certain personalities have also been identiﬁed as being associated with violence — asocial or borderline, narcissistic or antisocial, and dependent or compulsive personalities (McCue, 1995b). While there may be some insight to be gained from studies of domestic violence in relation to mental illness and personality traits, such factors alone account for fewer than 10 percent of domestic violence cases. Theories that focus on individual traits ofthe victim and offender have also been criticized as blaming the victim for the violence, minimizing personal responsibility of the offender for the violence, and focusing less on the behavior and more on the underlying ilhress (Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer, 1996).

The sociological perspective views the root ofviolence within society. These theories include the systems theory, social learning, cognitive behavioral, exchange, social structure, violent culture, feminist, and self-help theories. Within this perspective, the systems theory views violence as a product ofthe family system in which established rules,

boundaries, and patterns ofinteractions that govem conﬂict resolution promote domestic

violence in relationships (McCue, 1995b). Response to conﬂict is govemed by how the

new behavior ﬁts within the goals ofthe particular system. A system may be closed or

open to change. In a relatively closed system, behavior is repetitive and there is a high

degree ofnegative feedback to new behavior. Ifone member ofthe system is more

powerful, that person’s goals will prevail over the goals ofthe total system (Giles-Sirns,

1983).

According to this theory, a domestic violence relationship is established over a

period of steps. The ﬁrst step is the establishment ofthe relationship. During this stage,

the couple learns each other’s role within the relationship. Research has foundthat when a

woman discovers a history ofviolence ﬁom the partner during this stage, she is likely to

be sympathetic to him or feel that such violence will not have any inﬂuence over their

current relationship. After the ﬁrst violent incident, social and family norms emphasize the

maintenance ofthe system at the cost ofpain and suffering. The patriarchal society

legitimizes the use ofphysical coercion by the man. Once the relationship returns to

normal, the offender views such as positive feedback. In time the relationship moves into

the third stage in which violence is stabilized. Once the violence is stabilized, a womar1’s

objections to the violence are unacceptable and means to correct the behavior do not

work. Escalation ofviolence leads to polarization ofoutside support, in which family and

ﬁ'iends take sides in the couples’ problems, which in ttu"n isolates the victim. In order for the violence to end, the relationship must reach a choice point. By choice, it is meant a period in which the woman comes to realize that the relationship is not working according to her wants and desires and she must choose between staying in the relationship or 37

leaving. There are three common themes that emerge in which a woman may base her

choice to take action —- fear that the children will be hurt, resentment at the husband for

letting the children see their mother beaten, and/or the exposure ofthe violent pattern to

people outside the family. The ﬁfth and ﬁnal stage ofleaving the relationship may be a

gradual process, in which feedback from outside sources is critical. The problem with the

systems theory is that it does not explain why a_ person may resort to violence in response

to conﬂict rather than utilizing other means ofconﬂict resolution (Giles-Sims, 1983).

The Social Learning theory argues that children learn violent social roles through

modeling adults in their environment. They leam how to cope with stress and frustration in

ways similar to their parents. In other words, ifa parent is violent, it is more likely that the

child will be. The cognitive behavioral theory holds that some individuals are lacking in

their ability to reason and understand the consequences oftheir behavior. These

individuals who are more likely to act out when confronted with stressful situations. These

two theories have been criticized as ignoring the issues ofpower and control inherent in domestic violence relationships (Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer, 1996).

The Exchange theory holds that ifa person providing a reward or service does not believe he has received an appropriate exchange fiom the other person, he may feel anger and resentment toward that person, leading to conflict and violence. The jilted person believes the rewards for abuse will outweigh the costs and that the abuse is justified due to an “inappropriate” response from the victim. The private nature ofthe family and the reluctance of social institutions to intervene make it possible for violent family members to maximize the rewards and the costs oftheir abusive behavior. The private nature offamilial violence also leads one to become increasingly dependent on the other. The 38

strength ofthis theory is the fact that it recognizes the inequalities inherent in domestic

violence relationships. Its weakness is it may inadvertently place blame inadvertently on

the victim (Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer, 1996).

The Social Structure perspective views unemployment, inadequate ﬁnancial

resources, low educational status, overcrowded housing conditions and illnesses as

pressures that contribute to violence. It furtherstates that the unequal distribution of

resources in society cause those oflow social status to struggle to make ends meet. This in

turn leads to ﬁustration that is released in the form ofviolent behavior. The problem with

this theory is that not all poor families are violent and that violence also is found in affluent

families (Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer, 1996).

The Violent Culture theory states that violence is widespread within society and

there is social approval and cultural norms that support its use in handling conﬂict. While this theory may explain why violence may be more prevalent in certain cultures, critics claim it blames those who are in powerful positions within society when the problem permeates society (Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer, 1996).

The Feminist Perspective states that society is structured according to gender, with men having power over women. Dominance, strength, and authoritarianism are part ofthe deﬁnition ofmale status (Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer, 1996). This status, in turn, leads men to feel entitled to power due to their position ofauthority. Such ideas are reinforced by religion, and legal and social systems. While this theory agrees with the Social Learning theory that violent behavior is leamed, it does not agree with the Social Learning theory contention that women learn to be victims. This theory also argues that violence is due the social structure, but is does not view violence as a means ofsurvival (McCue, 1995). 39

Critics ofthis theory argue that it falsely relies on a single cause and does not explain why

all men are not violent (Crowe, Wack, & Schaefer, 1996).

The Self-Help theory ofdomestic violence holds that low social status leads to

decreased access to formal social control which, in turn, leads some women to resort to

lethal violence as a means to end the conﬂict in her relationship, when she perceives a lack

ofavailable legal remedies. According to this theory, a person’s response to conﬂict is

based on the accessibility to law and the role of social status. There are four patterns that

explain accessibility to law; it may be unavailable to both parties; available to the oﬁfender,

but not the victim; available to the victim, but not offender; or available to both. There are

three types of social status within a given society — vertical status, which is based on the

distribution ofwealth or social stratiﬁcation, horizontal status, which is based on the

division of labor or social activities, and radial status, which is based on employment, or

marital status. Historically, women have had marginal legal and social status. This factor is

exasperated ifa woman is ofa minority race or ethnicity. Therefore, women of low social

status view formal social control as working against them, may have no legal right to

invoke the law or may be dissatisﬁed with the criminal justice system. Especially in cases ofdomestic violence, a woman may view the criminal justice system as the oppressor instead ofthe helper for two reasons. First, is due to the fact that law enforcement is predominantly a male system. Second, is that the criminal justice system has a long history ofdisparity in the way in which domestic violence cases have been handled (Peterson,

1 999).

Research based on this theory has found that when women rely on self-help as a means ofconﬂict resolution in relationships characterized as domestic violence, it was 40

more likely out offear or as a means ofsurvival. For men, it was more likely as a means of

control. For those women who do not seek self-help, it may be due to the fact that women

receive harsher punishment than men who kill intimates. Women who have children may

view that they have more to lose ifsentenced to jail. Women may deﬁne fewer situations

as warranting self-help or may be more forgiving (Peterson, 1999).

Postscript

As attention has grown toward the problem ofdomestic violence, theories to explain these types ofrelationships emerged. The ﬁrst theories on domestic violence focused on individual characteristics ofboth victims and offenders. These theories were challenged by theories that focused on the structure ofrelationships and society. The next section will outline the emergence ofdomestic violence within society and how the law has changed from a hands-offapproach to holding an offender accountable and keeping the victim safe. Note how the theories evolved with the changing views of society.

woman was not allowed to divorce an abusive husband unless she could show that she had

been a dutiﬁrl wife and he was adulterous and/or neglectfirl. She could not receive a

divorce for physical abuse alone. During the 1760s in England, the murder ofa wife by a

husband was viewed the same as the murder ofa stranger, where as the murder ofa

husband by a wife was the equivalent ofkilling the King and seen as treason (McCue,

1995b).

During the early 1800s, domestic violence gained attention when it was tied to the

Temperance Movement. Domestic Violence was viewed as a product ofalcohol abuse and

such violence gained public attention when the wife was viewed as a helpless victim

against the tyranny ofa drunken husband. Within the Temperance Movement, a group

formed in support for women’s rights against male tyrarmy. This group developed a

Declaration ofHmnan Sentiments that argued for divorce rights and the custody of children. However, attempts to better the life ofwomen during these times centered not around ending domestic violence in the home, but rather allowing women to leave such marriages. And although by 1850, nineteen states allowed women to cite cruelty as grounds for divorce, it was easier to get a divorce for drunkenness. Cruelty was only accepted ifthe wife could prove that she was submissive and protective ofher children

(McCue, 1995b).

Throughout the late 1800s, domestic violence reform continued to be tied to the

Temperance Movement. However, with the onset ofthe Civil War, interest in domestic violence ended. After the War, courts went back to allowing domestic violence. In 1864, a

North Carolina court upheld wife beating as long as the instrument was no bigger than the husband’s thumb, thereby instituting the Rule ofThumb. In 1874, a North Carolina court

expanded its ruling to prohibit state involvement unless the wife suffered permanent injury

(McCue, 1995b).

Efforts made to punish domestic violence offenders in the later point ofthe 1800s and early 1900s were largely unsuccessful. In 1882 Maryland passed a law to punish domestic violence offenders at public whipping posts. In 1901, Delaware passed a similar law and in 1905, Oregon followed suit. Despite these laws, very few offenders were every punished (McCue, 1995b).

During the Progressive Era of 1900-1920, family courts were established to deal speciﬁcally with issues of family violence. Unfortunately, these courts did little for domestic violence victims. Ifanything, these courts promoted the middle class view on lower class cultures that women should be subservient and compliant (McCue, 1995b).

During the 1960s, child abuse gained national attention. With focus on violence in the family, renewed interest in domestic violence followed. However, it was not until the

1970s that the battered women’s movement began ﬁrst in England and then spread to the

United States (Gagne, 1998). In 1971 a shelter for homeless women opened in London.

In 1973, the ﬁrst shelter for battered women in the United States opened in St. Paul,

Minnesota. That same year, a shelter opened irrPhoenix, Arizona, for abused family members or those displaced by alcoholic husbands. By 1976, there were 20 shelters in the

United States, 300 by 1982, and 1,200 by 1994 (McCue, 1995b). .

There were three different philosophical orientations to explain or solve the problem of domestic violence during the 1970s. Within the social service and mental health community, domestic violence was seen as the product ofindividual pathology such as low self-esteem, learned helplessness, the battered woman syndrome, substance abuse, 44

childhood experiences and the structure ofthe farrrily. Treatment was based on focusing

on these issues in individual and family counseling (Gagne, 1998).

The second theory was the feminist perspective, which focused on the social

structure and arrangement ofmarriage and relationships as the causes ofviolence in the

family. The feminist perspective viewed the structure ofrelationships as a form of social

control over women. The lack ofpublic attention to violence in the family and laws that

protect women were nothing more than a patriarchal society protecting its own interests.

Initial efforts by individuals who endorsed this perspective focused on the macro-level

restructuring of society. More realistic efforts focused on empowering women.

Empowerment began with raising the consciousness ofwomen to understand their gender-

based suffering. The second step was to establish a collective consciousness in which women could come together through shared experiences and diminish their own personal feelings of isolation. The ﬁnal step was bringing together collective and individual levels of consciousness to understand women’s place in society and what needed to be done to create social change. This movement focused on helping women gain independence from their abusive loved ones by making shelters more available and offering emotional and

ﬁnancial support (Gagne, 1998).

Despite the success offeminists at gaining national recognition ofdomestic violence and establishing a foundation for victim services and shelters, this perspective lost its popularity during the late 1970s and early 1980s to the mental health approach.

Although victim services were based on the mental health approach, the inﬂuence ofthe feminist theory on empowerment and social change continued to inﬂuence policy (Gagne, 1992). 45

The third orientation focused on legal reform. Legal refomrists focused on

feminist theory to challenge gender bias within law. It is through their work that domestic

violence was declared a crime, enforced by police, and prosecuted in the courts. Success

was met through class-action lawsuits focusing on the ineffectiveness ofthe criminal

justice system and activists campaigning for mandatory arrest polices and warrant-less

misdemeanor arrests ofdomestic violence offenders. Prior to this campaign, police ofﬁcers

could only arrest suspects for misdemeanor offenses ifthe oﬂicers observed the crime.

Through the work ofactivists, police can now arrest a suspect on the victirn’s and/or

witness’ statement that a misdemeanor crime occurred (Gagne, 1998).

In 1977, Oregon was the ﬁrst state to pass a mandatory arrest policy domestic

violence cases under the guise ofthe Family Abuse Prevention Act. This act also allowed

women to obtain restraining orders, without the intimate partner being prosecuted. In

1978, Florida passed legislation that taxed marriage licenses for the beneﬁt ofbattered

women’s shelters. That same year, Minnesota passed legislation that allowed police

officers to make warrant-less arrests ofdomestic violence oﬂenders based on probable cause, irrespective ofthe presence ofa protective order. In 1979, the ﬁrst Congressional hearings were held on domestic violence and President Carter established the Office of

Domestic Violence. By 1980, all but six states had laws that declared domestic violence a crime. This created more effective criminal and civil remedies for domestic violence victims and offenders, and increased ﬁrnding for homeless shelters. In 1984, President

Reagan signed the Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act, which provided ftmding to battered women shelters and the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, which provided federal funding for services for domestic violence victims. That same year -

Florida became the ﬁrst state to require courts to take spousal abuse into consideration

when dealing with custodial issues (McCue, 1995b).

In 1984, a Connecticut court handed down a landmark decision in Thurman vs. the __ City ofTorrington. In this case, Tracy Thmman sued the city ofTorrington, Connecticut,

and 24 police oﬂicers for violating her Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection

under the law. Thurman alleged that the failure ofpolice to respond and take action

against her husband after repeat calls over a two year period made them liable for her

permanent disﬁgurement and partial paralysis. According to court records, not only did

her husband, Buck, repeatedly beat and threaten her, he even did so in front ofpolice

officers. It was not until the police witnessed Buck Thurman stabbing Tracy Thurman that

an arrest was made. Once Buck Thurman was arrested, he was tried, convicted, and

sentenced to 20 years in prison. The Court found in favor of Tracy Thurman and awarded her $2.1 million (McCue, 1995b; Crowe, Wack, & Schafer, 1996). This court ruling represented the changing attitude about how domestic violence cases should be handled and it sent law enforcement agencies around the country scurrying to develop pro-arrest policies as a means ofhandling domestic violence complaints (G. Donovan, personal communication, July 16, 1998).

Despite changes in the law on how to deal with domestic violence incidents, public opinion was slow to change. In 1987, a New York Court found Hedda Nussbaum guilty ofmanslaughter in the death ofher daughter Lisa Steinberg despite her testimony that she had been sexually, physically, and emotionally abused repeatedly over a nine-year period.

By the end ofnine years, Nussbaum had suffered ﬁ'om numerous broken bones, various injuries, and was aﬁaid to disobey Joel Steinberg. According to post-trial interviews with 47

jmy members, they felt that Hedda Nussbaum was just as responsible as Joel Steinberg for

the death oftheir daughter, despite the fact that he was the one who ultimately delivered

the fatal blows to their daughter (McCue, 1995b).

In 1990, Julio Gonzales set ﬁre to a social club in the Bronx killing 87 people in

retaliation against Lidia Feliciano, a woman with whom he had lived with for eight years,

after she threw him out oftheir residence. Feliciano was one ofonly ﬁve to survive, but

instead ofbeing viewed as a victim she had to be placed in special protection, not ﬁom

Gonzales, but from the media and public outcry which blamed her for Gonzales’ actions

(McCue, 1995b).

By 1993, marital rape was deemed a crime in all ﬁfty states. However, 31 states

had exceptions ﬁom a criminal charge ifonly simple force was used or ifthe woman was

legally unable to consent. In 1994, a survey ofinsurance companies revealed that halfof

those surveyed denied health, disability, and life insurance coverage to women who

currently were or had a history of, being abused. In 1995, jurors from the OJ Simpson trial

commented after the trial that evidence presented in regard to the history ofdomestic

violence was a waste ofthe prosecution team’s time (McCue,'l995b).

Despite the outcome ofthe OJ Simpson trial and the views ofthe jurors, this trial

had almost as profound an effect on law enforcement as did the Torrington case.

Following the murder ofNicole Brown Simpson, New York passed legislation mandating arrest ofdomestic violence offenders. California passed laws that increased state firnding for domestic violence shelters and the prosecution ofdomestic violence offenders.

Colorado passed legislation that mandated arrest not only following a criminal incident but 48

also for ﬁrst-time violators ofprotective orders and mandatory sentences for repeat

offenders (McCue, 1995b).

In 1994, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, which provided

increased ﬁrnding for domestic violence training, victim services, interstate enforcement of

domestic violence laws, and educational programs. This statute also contained a civil

rights provision that stated a person should not be discriminated against because ofher

gender (McCue, 1995b).

Federal Law

Today there are several different federal laws protecting domestic violence victims

and punishing the offenders. A person can be convicted ofdomestic violence at the federal

level, ifthe person crosses state lines with the intent to commit a crime against an intimate

partner and that crime results in bodily injmy (18 U.S.C. 2261(a)(1)). An intimate partner

is deﬁned as a current or former spouse, parent ofa child in common, or a current or past

cohabitant (18 U.S.C. 92l(a)(32)). Ifthe person coerces or forces the person to cross

state lines and inﬂicts bodily harm on the victim, a person can charged with Interstate

Domestic Violence tmder 18 U.S.C. 2261(a)(2). In September 1996, the federal

govemment passed a law that prohibited interstate stalking (18 U.S.C.2261A). Federal

law prohibits the crossing ofstate lines in order to violate a protection order, ifthat order

prohibits threats ofviolence, harassment or bodily injury (18 U.S.C. 2262(a)(l)) and to

force or coerce a person to cross state lines in violation ofthe protective order (18 U.S.C.

2262(a)(2)). It is also a federal crime to possess a ﬁrearm while being the subject ofa

Protective Order, ifthe order is based on threats ofviolence (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8)) and to

sell a ﬁrearm to a person who has a protective order issued against them (18 U.S.C.

i 49

922(d)(8)). In September 1996, this law was expanded to make it a federal crime to

possess a ﬁrearm ifa person has been convicted ofa misdemeanor, domestic violence

offense. While the ﬁrearm prohibition applies to law enforcement for prior convictions, the

protection order prohibition ofﬁrearms does not (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9)).

With the passage ofthe Violence Against Women Act in 19942, the federal

govermnent now requires out-of-state protective orders to be recognized and enforced by

all states, Indian Territories, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC. Under the Full Faith and

Credit clause ofthis act, the person who the order was taken out against must be aware

that the order was issued, had an opportunity to speak on his behalf and the issuing court

must have had the jurisdiction to hand down such an order. In other words, this clause

does not include exparte orders that were issued at an emergency hearing without the

offender being present (18 U.S.C.2265). Currently there are efforts being made

nationwide to put protective orders on National Criminal Infomration Computer (NCIC),

making them available to all law enforcement agencies at any time ofday. (G. Donovan, personal communication, July 16, 1998).

How Domestic Violence Cases Are Now Being Handled

As described above, domestic violence has evolved from a hidden problem within the family to a crime. Laws now hold batterers accountable and provide mechanisms to protect victims. This section will outline the recent trends within the criminal justice system in how domestic violence cases are handled and review research on the effectiveness ofthese initiatives. I 50

Arresting Domestic Violence Offenders

There are ﬁve ways the criminal justice system has changed the way domestic

violence incidents are handled. The ﬁrst is the issuance ofprotective orders. Restraining or

protective orders are one ofthe most important safeguards a domestic violence victim may

have. However, state laws vary in the protections they may afford and how the police can

respond ifthe order is violated. Some states prohibit one party ﬁ"om contacting the other.

Others go as far as dictating temporary custodial orders and ﬁnancial support for the

victimized party. Some states require mandatory arrest ifthe order is violated, even ifno

new crime has been committed. Protective orders may be obtained from civil, family or

criminal courts and violations may be handled in a civil or criminal manner. A protective

order may last ﬁom 30 days to one year. An order may be issued ex-parte until the

respondent has an opportunity to answer to the allegations in the order. The type oforder

issued therefore depends on the jurisdiction in which it was ordered, which then, in turn,

affects the way law enforcement can enforce the order (Goolkasian, 1986).

Prior to the 1970s, law enforcement officers tended to place a low priority on

domestic violence cases. During the 1970s, police were trained in crisis intervention as a

means for handling domestic violence cases. Police officers would only make arrests in

serious cases. In misdemeanor cases, the victims would be instructed to ﬁle charges on her

own. A second trend in handling domestic violence emerged during the 1980s. Laws

changed to enable police oﬂicers to make arrests in misdemeanor cases even ifthey did

not witness the crime. Such policies vary from state to state and may be restricted to

certain time ﬁames, types ofcrimes i.e. assault versus threatening behavior, and the

presence ofthe victim and offender (Goolkasian, 1986). 51

A third trend in law enforcement is mandatory or pro-arrest policies. Under such

policies, an oﬂicer is required to arrest an offender ifthere is probable cause to believe a

crime ofdomestic violence has been committed. An arrest is mandated irrespective ofthe

victirn’s wishes and any other mitigating circumstances. Proponents ofthis policy state

that this will ensure that domestic violence incidents are handled in a serious manner.

Opponents argue that it takes away the primary element ofpolice work — discretion. By

removing discretion fiom police oflicers, opponents argue that it may lead oflicers to

circumvent the law or may be used as a means to harass the poor and minority groups.

Either way, mandatory arrest policies have suffered from an unanticipated consequence -

double arrests. Officers, unsure ofwho the primary aggressor was, may be overcome by

the fear ofbeing held liable iffuture problems occur and end up arresting both parties. The

key to both pro-arrest and mandatory arrest policies is proper training. With this, ofﬁcer

discretion can be used to detemrine effectively who the primary aggressor is and which

party is in greater need ofprotection (Goolkasian, 1986).

The fourth trend in domestic violence law enforcement is the development of

domestic violence reports. Police departments, such as in San Diego, California,

Delaware, and Maryland have developed incident reports to be used speciﬁcally in

domestic violence cases. In its most simplistic form, a report may be modiﬁed by adding only a box that must be checked denoting whether or not the incident domestic-related.

Others are more speciﬁc and require a separate form to be ﬁlled out for every domestic violence call, regardless ofthe action taken when the call was answered (Goolkasian,

1986). 52

The ﬁfth trend in law enforcement is the development ofdomestic violence units within police departments staffed by detectives specially trained in domestic violence. In

Baltimore Maryland, the Spousal Abuse Unit is housed within the Criminal Investigation

Division. The primary objectives ofthis rmit are to review all domestic violence incident reports, maintain ﬁles on repeat offenders, conduct follow-up investigations on repeat and serious offenders, prepare cases for prosecution, and educate the public on the warning signs ofdomestic violence (Goolkasian, 1986). In 1990, San Diego created a domestic violence unit within its police department, which by 1993 employed 19 detectives and three sergeants. The main goal ofthis unit began with the education of fellow police officers in the dynamics ofdomestic violence and what was needed by them to prosecute domestic violence offenders. The unit’s goals have expanded to investigating all domestic violence cases and helping victims gain access to services and understand the court system

(Boyle, 1995b).

Convicting Domestic Violence Offenders

Several states now have implemented policies that focus on prosecuting a case without the aid ofthe victim. Such policies eliminate the key problem with prosecuting domestic cases — the victim. Historically, domestic violence victims have been resistant to pursue charges against offenders for numerous reasons ranging from fear to the desire to reconcile the relationship. By eliminating victim testimony, the woman is removed from taking responsibility for the prosecution, along with her fear ofretaliation for doing so.

The key to successful prosecution without victim testimony starts with effective law enforcement training on what is needed in terms ofevidence and developing uniform procedures for handling these cases. In Utah, police oﬂicers are trained to take Ass photographs ofvisible injuries, document medical treatment, and interview victims. In

Maryland, law enforcement agencies adopted San Diego’s domestic violence program. A checklist was developed denoting the types ofevidence that needs to be collected. Ofﬁcers are required to document the relationship between the victim and offender, along with the length ofthe relationship. They must collect the following evidence that documents:

1. Photographs of injuries and evidence ofviolence in the home

2. A copy ofthe 911 tape

3. Documentation of any medical treatment, including the name ofthe medical provider and agency that provided the treatment

4. Completion ofa diagram ofthe human body, pinpointing the areas of abuse or injury.

The officer is then directed to obtain any evidence that bolsters the admissibility of other evidence. A key example ofthis is a checklist ofemotions that describes the victirn’s state at the time the officer arrived. Next on this checklist is infomration that would help the prosecutor to decide whether to pursue the case, such as the history of domestic violence, the victim’s perception ofthe seriousness ofthis offense, and the presence or history ofany restraining orders. In the report, the officer must provide evidence of any other crimes committed at the time ofthe domestic violence incident, including the presence ofalcohol or drugs at the time ofthe offense. As with any serious crime, follow- up investigation must be conducted and documented. The results ofMaryland’s approach have been successful. From 1994 to 1995, conviction rates increased from 29 percent to

65 percent (McCormick, 1999).

A second trend among prosecuting offices is to institute no-drop policies in cases where there is enough evidence to prove the crime. Advocates ofthis approach argue that 54 it takes the burden away ﬁom victims and demonstrates the view that spousal abuse is a serious crime. Opponents ofthis policy feel that it takes away the right ofvictims to detemrine the appropriate outcome ofa case. Perhaps the best approach is weighing the victim’s wishes against the seriousness ofthe crime (Goolkasian, 1986).

Like the movement in law enforcement, attorney general ofﬁces have begun forming domestic violence units. In San Diego,_this unit contains eight attomeys, two investigators and ll staffmembers that handle all domestic violence cases. Victim advocates are assigned to interview victims and one attomey is assigned to a case to see it through the court process. Prosecutors decide whether to pursue cases, not the victim, and once charges are brought, the attorney is prohibited from reducing the charges (Boyle,

1995b). In Quincy, Massachusetts, the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Unit assigns two prosecutors, three courts advocates, and two counselors to help victims get through the court process (Boyle, 1995a). The main objectives of such units are to identify domestic violence cases, to determine whether cases should be pursued, and in what manner. The beneﬁts ofdomestic violence units in both law enforcement and prosecutor’s offices include: devoted resources for domestic violence cases, uniform policies for handling domestic violence cases, persomrel speciﬁcally trained in the dynamics of domestic violence, and personnel to train fellow employees on how to properly handle such cases (Goolkasian, 1986).

Postscript

Although domestic violence has been around for centuries, it has only recently gained national attention. Through the work offeminists, legal reformers, and the social service and mental health communities, domestic violence is now viewed as a crime. 55

Shelters have been opened to help women in need, and treatment services have been

developed. Today, most law enforcement agencies promote pro-arrest or mandatory arrest polices. Domestic Violence units have been formed in police departments and prosecuting

offices, staffed by specially trained personnel and prosecutors are more resistant to

dropping cases based on the victim’s wishes. Delaware has followed the national trends in

increasing offender accountability and victim safety. The following chapter will outline the changes made within Delaware’s criminaljustice system to improve the way domestic violence cases are handled. I 56

Chapter 5: Delaware’s Response to Domestic Violence

As described in previous chapters, domestic violence has gained recent attention

in the ﬁelds ofcriminology and law. Women and children are no longer seen as property

ofmen/spouses and the law has stepped away ﬁom its historical hands-offapproach.

States around the country have taken a proactive stance against domestic violence and

have coordinated efforts between law enforcement, the courts and corrections to ensure

that domestic violence offenders are identiﬁed and are held legally responsible for such

criminal behavior (Domestic Coordinating Council, 1997).

This chapter will address the State ofDelaware’s response to domestic violence.

Each area ofthe criminal justice system has developed a specialized response to this crime.

This response will be outlined within the ﬁamework ofcurrent research in domestic

violence and by leading oﬂicials within Delaware’s criminal justice system. The ﬁrst

section will address law enforcement’s response to domestic violence by analyzing how

Delaware followed national trends toward a proactive approach to domestic violence

incidents. Infomration was gathered from training tapes and manuals supplied to law

enforcement oﬂicers in the State ofDelaware and ﬁ'om an interview with Sergeant Gerry

Donovan, who heads the Domestic Violence Unit at the New Castle County Police

Department (NCCPD). This section will also address Delaware’s Victims’ Bill ofRights,

which gives victims ofdomestic violence added protection.

The second section addresses the Court’s response to domestic violence by

focusing on the passage ofthe Protection ﬁom Abuse Act, changes within sentencing

guidelines and presumptive sentencing, i.e. minimum and maximum sentences. This 57 information was gathered ﬁom recent laws and the Truth in Sentencing Benchbook, a manual used by judges to sentence offenders.

The third section will address the Department of Correction’s response to domestic violence. The changes within the Department of Corrections were in response to the development ofaccountability levels of supervision by the Sentencing Accountability

Cormnission (SENTAC). This Commission dictated different levels ofsupervision designed to meet the different needs of offenders. Second was the formation of specialized domestic violence units within the Probation/Parole Department. This analysis will be made from information gathered from three sources. The ﬁrst source of information came ﬁom the “policies and procedures” manual used by the Department of

Corrections. The second source was ﬁom an interview with Senior Probation/Parole

Officer Melissa Kearney, an active member ofthe Domestic Violence Unit within the

Probation/Parole Department. The last source was ﬁom raw data that had been collected by the Domestic Violence unit within the Probation/Parole Department.

Law Enforcement’s Response

Delaware, like most states took a pro-active approach to domestic violence following the ruling in Thurman vs. the City ofTorrington (1984), which ruled that police officers could be held liable for failure to act in domestic violence incidents. Following this ruling, ﬁve major trends emerged around the country on how to handle domestic violence incidents. The ﬁrst trend is to intervene at an early stage/misdemeanor level before serious violence occurs (Gwinn & O’Dell). In 1986, Delaware initiated a warrant-less arrest policy for domestic violence cases, requiring written reports following any domestic violence call, and a proactive response for domestic violence offenses. According to these policies, '

I ss

an officer must arrest in all cases where there is probable cause to believe that a domestic

incident has occurred and a law has been broken. This pro-arrest policy also states that an

arrest must be made irrespective ofthe victirn’s wishes. If such an arrest is not made, the

officer must state the reasons why he did not arrest the person. One such reason may be

that the offender ﬂed the scene before the officers arrived. In this type of situation, where

the charges are not serious, the oﬂticer is required to explain to the victim her rights and

the importance for her to swear out warrants against the offender. Ifthe charges are

serious, for example charges resulting in physical injury, the ofﬁcer is required to swear

out the warrant himself Traditionally police officers were not required to write a report if

no crime was found or a problem was resolved without charges being brought. Now

police oﬂicers must submit a report every time they respond to a domestic dispute, even if

no charges are brought (G. Donovan, personal communication, July 16, 1998).

The second trend is the removal ofpolicies that re-victirnizes the victim. Delaware

responded in 1989 by developing a Victim Advocate Unit within the New Castle County

Police Department that was designed to work directly with victims and ensure that they

were treated fairly during the criminal justice process. In 1993, domestic violence units

were created within the Attorney General’s Office and the New Castle County Police

Department, employed in these units were personnel specially trained to handle domestic

violence cases. That same year the Victim’s Bill ofRights was passed (G. Donovan,

personal communication, July 16, 1998).

The Victims’ Bill ofRights establishes protocol for every criminal justice agency

on how to treat victims. It establishes crime victim as special status individuals with

certain protections and/or rights. This bill also requires criminal justice agencies to submit 59

armual reports describing their compliance with this law and measures taken to protect

crime victims. This law grants victims special protections in several ways. First, this law

grants victims special protection by requiring victim information to remain conﬁdential

unless the victim waives such right. This right overrides disclosure required under the

Freedom ofInformation Act (11 Del. Code § 9403). Second, law enforcement oﬂicers

are required to give victims, in writing, their rights established within this law, the

availability ofsocial services, victim services, a copy ofthe initial police report, and who

they can contact to ﬁnd out the status ofany arrest. Third, it requires prosecutors to notify

the victim ofany court proceedings in order to allow the victim to be present and an

opporttmity to confer with prosecutors in regard to pending charges. It requires court

personnel to provide for the safety ofthe victim during court proceedings. It prohibits

employers from ﬁring victims who are absent due to requests to be present at court

proceedings. And lastly, it requires the Department of Corrections to notify the victim of

any change in conﬁnement status (1 1 Del. Code § 9401-9419).

The third trend is the establishment ofpolicies that focus on the perpetrator rather than the victim. This trend is especially important due to the fact that domestic violence victims are often uncooperative due to a host ofreasons, including fear ofretaliation.

Delaware has been following this movement since 1996, when policies were developed for victirn-less prosecutions for domestic-related offenses. This type ofprosecution was made possible in New Castle County when camera kits were provided to all NCCPD oﬂicers in

1996 and domestic violence training was funded statewide for law enforcement oﬂicers.

Civilian caseworkers were hired to aid in the investigation ofdomestic violence cases. In

1997, a domestic violence crime report was established statewide and tape recorders were

, . 60

provided to all NCCPD ofﬁcers. The combination oftraining, cameras, specialized crime

reports, and tape recorders allows officers to gather evidence at the scene that may

support domestic-related charges without victim involvement. In particular, ofﬁcers can

now tape record spontaneous utterances by the offender, victim, or children that are

admissible at trial. The officer can capture on ﬁlm signs ofviolence such as bruises, and

signs ofa struggle, such as broken picture frames. The end result is suﬁicient evidence for

prosecutors to go forward without the victirn’s cooperation (G. Donovan, personal

communication, July 16, 1998).

The fourth trend is a coordinated response between the police and prosecutors in handling these cases. (Gwirm & O’Dell, 1993). Delaware has followed these trends on a countywide level. The New Castle County Police Department (NCCPD) was the ﬁrst police department to develop a coordinated community response to domestic violence.

NCCPD works together with the Division ofFamily Services, local law enforcement agencies, victim advocates, Probation and Parole, the Society for the Prevention of

Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), the Attorney General’s Oﬂice, the United States Attomey’s

Oﬂice, and the news media to prevent, identify, and prosecute’ domestic violence offenders. By working with these agencies, NCCPD attempts to increase the reporting of domestic violence incidents and prepare stronger cases against the offender. In 1993, the

Domestic Violence Coordinating Council (DVCC) was created to coordinate services within the criminal justice system and with social services agencies throughout the State of

Delaware.

The DVCC’s coordinated response also follows with the ﬁfth trend ofestablishing uniform policies to deal with offenders, in an attempt to hold the offender accountable (G. 61

Donovan, personal communication, July 16, 1998; Gwinn & O’Dell, 1993). In 1996, the

DVCC created a protocol for handling domestic violence incidents. The Domestic

Violence crime report was instituted. It required police ofﬁcers to complete a report

unique to these incidents every time a complaint was answered. A sexual assault protocol was instituted for all sexual assault victims, including domestic-related offenses. By 1998,

law enforcement agencies statewide were using the Domestic Violence Crime Report (See

Appendix A for a blank Domestic Incident Report). Protocol was established for handling domestic violence victims in hospitals. Probation and Parole established county-based domestic violence units that target repeat domestic violence offenders and is staffed by ofﬁcers trained in how to deal with domestic violence offenders. In 1998, cell phones were made available to domestic violence victims and police and civilian training videos were made for police officer training and for public infonnation. In 1998, Delaware began using a statewide Protection from Abuse (PFA) weapon surrender tracking program, which tracks where an offender is required to relinquish weapons, to what police department he is to do so, and whether this requirement is met. (Gerry Donovan, personal communication, July 16, 1998). I

The changes within the State ofDelaware have had a positive impact on the response to domestic violence. In 1994, there were 13,500 domestic related incidents that were reported to the New Castle County Police Department. By 1996, this number increased to 21,000 reports. The same numbers ofincidents were reported the following year. This increase may be due to a nmnber ofreasons. First the munbers may be increased reporting among victims due to favorable treatment by police and the coordinated approach among agencies. Second is the fact that the domestic violence crime 62

report and risk assessment‘ ask about prior abuse and sexual assault. In cases ofpast abuse

that were not reported to police, New Castle County Police detectives will open a case

and investigate such abuse despite the fact that it is not part ofthe current incident. These

discoveries inevitably increase the number ofknown domestic incidents. Even though the

numbers ofincidents have increased, the number ofdomestic-related homicides has

decreased. In 1986, 80 percent ofthe murders in New Castle County were domestic

violence related. The number ofdomestic violence related murders decreased to 29

percent in 1996 and increased to 50 percent in 1997. In 1992, there were zero victimless,

domestic violence prosecutions in court. In 1996, the nmnber ofvictimless prosecutions

increased to 60 percent ofall domestic violence cases (G. Donovan, personal A comrmmication, July 16, 1998).

The Legis1ature’s Response

The Delaware State Legislature increased the powers of law enforcement oflicers to arrest domestic violence offenders for victimless crimes, in cases where a protection from abuse order was ordered and violated. This power is a direct result ofthe passage of the Protection fiom Abuse Act of 1994. Under this act, a person may file a petition in

Family Court requesting relieffrom domestic violence. The petitioner can be a family member, ex-spouse, or a co-habitating couple, or a couple with a child in common. This petition is civil in nature in which the petitioner is seeking protection from the respondent/defendant and relieffiom at least one ofeight types ofdomestic violence. The types ofviolence are as follows: (a) intentional or reckless behavior that is likely to cause physical injury or sexual assault, (b) such behavior that places a person in risk of serious physical injury or sexual assault, (c) intentional or reckless destruction ofproperty, (d) 63

harassing behavior that would lead a reasonable person to be alarmed or distressed, (e)

trespassing, (f) child abuse, (g) interfering with custody agreements, and (h) threatening or

harmful behavior (10 Del. Code § 945). A petitioner can request an exparte hearing or

emergency hearing in cases where there is an immediate threat ofdomestic violence. In

such cases, a protection order may be issued without the respondent or defendant present

as long as attempts have been made to notify the respondent. Such a hearing must be

scheduled the day following the ﬁling ofthe petition. A ﬁrll hearing then must be

scheduled within ten days allowing the respondent to be present. Exparte orders, or those

resulting ﬁom an emergency hearing, are only valid for 30 days. At the ex parte and ﬁrll

hearing, a protection ﬁom abuse order will be issued only when there is a preponderance

ofevidence that domestic violence has occurred or when the respondent consents to such

an order (10 Del. Code § 947). Ifa protection ﬁ'om abuse order is issued at a full hearing,

this order is valid for one year from the date ofthe hearing. This order grants reliefto the

petitioner ﬁom the above stated violence. Such reliefcan include, but is not limited to, one

or more ofthe following circumstances: (a) prohibition ﬁom committing ﬁrture acts of

violence, (b) prohibition ﬁ'om contacting the petitioner under any means, (c) exclusive

possession ofresidence, (d) temporary possession ofproperty, (e) temporary custody of

children and child visitation with the respondent through a third party, (f) temporary child

support, (g) payment ofany losses due to a domestic violence incident,such as medical

expenses, (h) relinquishment ofall ﬁrearms for the duration ofthe order, (i) prohibition

ﬁom transferring or concealing any joint property, (i) a requirement to attend anger

control or substance abuse treatment, and (k) any other reliefthat is necessary to prevent future violence (10 Del. Code § 949). Once this order is issued, it is the duty ofany law 64

| enforcement officer to arrest, without a warrant, a respondent when there is probable

I cause to believe that the offender violated any one ofthe above 11 stipulations, even if

such violation does not violate state law. Violations ofthese orders are a class A

misdemeanor and may result in a ﬁnding ofcontempt, criminal versus civil prosecution,

I irnprisomnent, a ﬁne, or both (10 Del. Code § 945-952).

I Presumptive Sentencing

I In 1989, Delaware developed presmnptive sentencing guidelines that established

consistent sentences and aggravating and mitigating circumstances. That same year, the

Delaware State Legislature passed the Tmth in Sentencing Act, which abolished parole

' and restricted good time. While there are no domestic violence charges per se, the

l following are some ofthe typical offenses that an offender is charged with and their

I presumptive sentence:

1. Assault 1“ degree is a class C felony, the statutory range is 0-10 years, and the I presumptive initial level is incarceration up to 30 months3.

2. Assault 2"“ degree is a class D felony, the statutory range is 0-8 years, and the I presumptive initial level is incarceration, up to 24 months‘.

U 3. Reckless Endangering 1“ degree is a class E felony, the statutory range is 0-5 years, the presumptive initial level is incarceration up to 15 monthss.

I 4. Unlawﬁrl Imprisonment 1“ degree is a class G felony, the statutory range is 0-2 years, and the presumptive initial level is incarceration up to 6 months‘.

I 5. Reckless Endangering 2"“ degree7, Assault 3'“ degrees, and Terroristic Threateningg are class A misdemeanors, the statutory range is 0-1 year, the I presmnptive initial level is as follows:

I a) lst Offense: up to 12 months at standard probation

I b) 2nd Offense in 2 years: up to 6 months at intensive supervision, followed by 6 months at standard supervision

I I 65

I c) 3rd oﬂense in 5 years: up to 3 months incarceration followed by up to 9 months home conﬁnement, work release or residential treatment I (Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission, 1995).

U These sentences can be increased to the statutory limit ifone or more ofthe

I following aggravating factors have been met (a) excessive cruelty, (b) prior violent

criminal conduct, (c) repetitive criminal conduct, (d) need for correctional treatment, (e)

undue depreciation ofoffense, (f) major economic offense or series ofolfenses, (g) prior

I abuse ofvictim, (h) custody status at the time ofoﬂense, (i) lack ofremorse, (j) betrayal

I ofpublic trust, (k) supervision to monitor restitution, (l) lack ofamenability, (m)

vuhierability ofthe victim, (n) statutory aggravation, and (o) statutory habitual offender

(Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission, 1995). Ofthese aggravating

circumstances, the most applicable one cited in domestic violence cases is prior abuse of u the victim.

I The sentence may be lowered ifone or more ofthe following mitigating

circmnstances is met (a) victim involvement, (b) voluntary redress or treatment, (c) under

' duress or compulsion, (d) inducement by others, (e) physical/mental impairment, (f)

I concem for victim by non-principal, (g) no prior convictions, (h) treatment needs exceed

I need for punishment, (i) could lose employment, (j) statutory mitigation, and (k)

I assistance to prosecution (Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission, 1995).

While these are not all ofthe crimes that a person can be sentenced to for

I committing an act ofdomestic violence, these are the most common and provide a

I guideline for typical domestic violence sentences (Delaware Sentencing Accountability

I Commission, 1995).

I 66

Department of Correction’s Response

In 1995, Delaware established the Sentencing Accountability Commission

(SENTAC). This commission was responsible for developing a statewide system of sentencing guidelines for adult offenders, in order to provide for a continuum of punishment, hold oﬂenders accountable, and make ptmishment more certain. This

Commission developed what is commonly referred to as the SENTAC levels of supervision. The lowest level of supervision is level 1 or administrative probation. Like all levels of supervision, oifenders are sentenced directly by the courts. However, level 1 probationers are only required to report to the probation department once, for initial intake. Afier the initial intake, offenders placed on level 1 are not required to report to any one probation oflicer. Instead, a stafi of oflicers monitor compliance with treatment and perfonn routine criminal history checks. As long as the offender completes treatment as ordered by the court and remains arrest-free, the offender can complete probation with minimal supervision from the probation department (State ofDelaware, 1997).

Level 2 probation is standard probation. Like level 1, the Courts or Parole Board can place an offender on level 2. A person sentenced to level supervision must report once a month to an assigned probation oﬂicer. This oﬂicer is required to conduct home visits once every three months, make routine criminal history checks, and verify compliance with any special conditions dictated by the courts (State ofDelaware, 1997).

Level 3 probation is intensive supervision. An oflender is required to report once a week to his assigned probation oflicer, abide by a curfew of 10:00pm to 6:00am, and maintain employment or perfonn community service hours. The probation ofiicer is required to make two face-to-face contacts a week, which may include office visits, and 67

two collateral contacts a week. Collateral contacts include veriﬁcation that the person is

attending treatment and complying with other special conditions (State ofDelaware,

1 997).

Level 4 is partial conﬁnement at a work release center, in residential substance

abuse treatment, or on home conﬁnement. At a work release center, an offender is

required to live at the facility, participate in orientation, ﬁnd employment, pay his room

and board, and comply with any special condition ordered by the courts. Correctional

counselors monitor the oﬁ'ender’s compliance and he is rewarded with added freedom for

compliance, such as a less stringent curfew. Residential substance abuse treatment is

housed at a work release center. Along with compliance with work release conditions, an

oﬁender sentenced to this program must comply with treatment directives. Home

Conﬁnement involves the installation ofelectronic monitoring equipment in an oﬂ'ender’s

residence and on his ankle that monitors an offender’s compliance with established

curfews. The offender is required to report weekly to an assigned probation oﬁicer and

abide by restrictive curfews. Ifthe offender does not have a job, he is typically allowed out

from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon to look for employment. The offender is allowed out from

l2:00noon to 2:00 p.m. on the weekends, as ﬁee time. Ifhe is employed, he is allowed 30

minutes travel time to and from work and is allowed out from l2noon to 2:00 p.m. on the

days he does not work. The probation oﬂicer is required to monitor compliance with curfews and special conditions, through two face-to-face contacts a week, routine computer checks, and collateral contacts. All offenders on level 4 supervision are viewed as high-risk offenders and little tolerance is given for non-compliance (State ofDelaware, 1997). 1

Level 5 is incarceration. At this level, offenders may participate in educational and

vocational programs within the prison and some are ordered to attend substance abuse

treatment while inside. While, the use ofparole is no longer an option, offenders do

receive limited good time and may be released on a conditional basis depending on good

behavior and treatment completion (State ofDelaware, 1997).

The establishment of SENTAC levels allows for the movement up and down the

levels of supervision in accordance with compliance to the conditions of supervision. It

also establishes guidelines for such movement based on aggravating and mitigating factors

similar to those used in sentencing (State ofDelaware, 1997).

Future Initiatives

Although Delaware has established a proactive approach to domestic violence, it

still has areas that need to be improved. Gen'y Donovan, a Sergeant for New Castle

County Police outlined some ofthe needed changes during an interview on July l6, 1998.

One area that needs to be changed is the lack of female detectives in Delaware law

enforcement departments that are in charge ofinvestigating domestic violence cases. A

female detective is very important in gaining valuable information from a female victim.

Female victims ofdomestic violence are similar to sexual assault victims in that it is

diﬂicult for them to share intimidate details with someone ofthe opposite sex. Donovan’s

second concem is that domestic violence incidents involving fellow law enforcement

ofﬁcers are oﬁen mishandled. These cases are often covered up and rarely given the same

treatment as other domestic violence oﬂenders. Changes within departmental philosophy

need to be made so that ofﬁcers recognize that domestic violence is serious, no matter

whom the offender is. Donovan’s last concern is that the quality ofreport writing and

investigations need to be improved. Prosecutors are still reluctant to prosecute domestic

related charges despite increases in evidence gathering techniques, mainly because reports

are lacking solid evidence. Therefore, oﬁicers need to be routinely trained in report

writing and information gathering that meets prosecutorial standards and prosecutors need

to be more willing to take domestic violence cases to trial ifa plea is not negotiated (G.

Donovan, personal communication, July 16, 1998).

In Delaware, plans have begun for forming a Domestic Violence Court. Currently

a domestic violence case can take one of four routes aﬁer being arraigned in a Justice of

the Peace Court. Justice ofthe Peace Courts handle most arraignments following an initial

arrest, but do not have jurisdiction over felony cases or cases involving a family

relationship. If it is a misdemeanor and does not involve a spouse, the case can be heard in the Justice ofthe Peace Court or it can be transferred to Court of Common Pleas. The

Court of Common Pleas has jurisdiction over all misdemeanor cases and any appeals from

Justice ofthe Peace court rulings. If it is a misdemeanor but involves two spouses, a man and a woman living together, or a couple living apart that has a child in common, the case will be transferred to Family Court. All felony cases, irrespective ofthe relationship ofthe victim and oifender, will be transferred to Superior Court. The problem with this current system is that cases will be handled much differently depending on the court in which they heard. A Justice ofthe Peace Court judge may give an offender a ﬁne for an offense that would place him on probation in Family Court. A violation ofprobation in Family Court may result injail time but in Superior Court the person may get added probation time. For these reasons, domestic violence advocates have been lobbying for a uniform approach within the court system. The answer appears to be a Domestic Violence Court. This Court

I 74

I ofthe Department ofCorrections and elicit responses when incidents are serious. When an intake worker decides to refer a case to the domestic violence unit, the decision must

be based on the following criteria:

1. All domestic violence cases being sentenced in Superior Court, Court of Cormnon Please or Justice ofthe Peace Courts.

2. All stalking/harassment cases being sentenced in Superior Court, Court of Common Pleas. V

3. All defendants sentenced on charges ofstalking, harassment or domestic violence charges, which resulted in their serving a period ofincarceration. I 4. All Family Court domestic violence cases where there has COIIVICUOII for assault, harassment or stalking within three years.been a previous

I 5. All Family Comt domestic violence cases where injury has resulted to the V. t. d . . 1c 1m an which has resulted 1n a charge of3'“ degree assault or greater.

6. All Family Court domestic violence cases involving a conviction for criminal contempt ofa PFA, any domestic violence conviction with an active PFA.

7. All domestic violence cases involving a violation ofprobation for a new criminal offense (M. Letts, Memo, dated 1/17/96).

To understand the process ofhow a person is referred to the Domestic Violence

Unit, the following discussion outlines data gathered from the Domestic Violence Unit in

New Castle County to determine (l) types ofcases this unit is supervising, (2) whether the

lmit is missing cases that meet the criteria listed above, which may result limiting the unit’s

usefuhress, (3) ntunber ofdomestic violence offenders that successfully complete their

probation, (4) the number ofdomestic violence offenders who violate their probation, (5)

how many offenders are committing new crimes, (6) the number violating their treatment

requirements, and (7) what happens to a domestic violence oﬁfender once he violates his

75 probation. This next section will address the ﬁrst two questions. Chapter 7 will address the

last ﬁve questions.

In order to detemrine the effectiveness ofthe domestic violence unit, it was ﬁrst

important to determine what types ofcases this tmit was supervising. To do this,

information was gathered on all the offenders supervised by the eight domestic violence

ofﬁcers ofthe Domestic Violence Unit at the New Castle County, Delaware,\

Probation/Parole Department during the month ofAugust 1999. Ofthese eight oﬂicers,

four supervised level 2 caseloads and four supervised level 3 caseloads. The level 2

oﬁicers supervised an average of 89 cases, with a total of356 cases. Level 3 officers

averaged 39 cases with 155 cases assigned. The table seen below gives a detailed

description ofthe type ofcases this unit supervises followed by a briefsummary outlining

the trends within this data.

Table 1 shows that the vast majority ofthe domestic violence offenders are males.

On both level 2 and 3, there are higher percentages ofwhites (58 percent, 51 percent

respectively) than blacks (39 percent, 43 percent) or Hispanics (3 percent, 6 percent).

Sixty percent ofthe probationers on level 2 and 56 percent ofthose on level 3 are between

the ages of25 and 40, with the greatest percentage being between the ages of35 and 40

(24 percent on level 2 and 26 percent on level 3).

The data indicates that domestic violence oﬂicers supervise cases throughout New

Castle County with the highest percentage ofcases in Wilmington (35 percent ofthose on level 2 and 34 percent ofthose on level 3). This is unique to specialized units because standard supervision oﬂicers are assigned cases according to geographic locations.

Domestic violence oﬂicers are assigned cases based on the nature ofthe probation offense. I 76

Table 1 . Domestic Violence Unit: Demographic Statistics ofDomestic Violence Offenders Supervised During the Month ofAugust 1999. I Level of Supervision Level 2 Level 3 I Males Gender 303 13 1 Females 53 24 Race/Ethnicity White 79 208 I Black 138 67 Hispanic 9 9 I Indian l 0 19-20 Age 6 0 21-24 29 l6 I 25-30 72 27 3 l-34 56 20 I 35-40 87 40 41-44 37 25 45-50 38 18 I 51-54 l4 7 55-60 l2 l 6l-64 0 n 65-70 4 71-75 l C’-‘CD I Claymont Residence 14 3 North Wihnington 2 0 Wilmington 123 53 ‘ Newport 13 10 West Wilmington l2 15 Newark 88 20 | New Castle 74 32 Bear 16 4 Southem County 7 l0 I Outside DE 4 2 Unknown 3 6 Note. Data based on 356 level 2 and 155 level 3 eases. N=5l1.

In regard to their probation sentence, level 2 cases are most likely to be serving a

I Family Court sentence (66 percent), whereas level 3 probationers are just as likely to be

serving a Family Comt sentence (47 percent) as a Superior Court sentence (46 percent). I 17

As expected, by viewing the courts ofjurisdiction, level 3 probationers are more likely to

be serving sentences on felony charges (22 percent) than are level 2 probationers (1 1

percent).

Table 2 Domestic Violence Unit: Court Information Level of Supervision Courtlnformat'ion Level 2 Level 3 Court ofJurisdiction Family Court Superior Court 87 71 Court ofCommon Pleas 30 ll Justice ofPeace 3 0 Interstate l 0 Level of Offense Misdemeanor 318 121 Felony 38 34 V — Note. Data based on 356 level 2 and 155 level 3 cases. N—5l l.

As the data indicates in Table 3, the most common special condition dictated by

the Courts is anger control cotmseling (69 percent on level 2 and 71 percent on level 3).

The second most common condition is substance abuse treatment (40 percent on level 2

and 63 percent on level 3). Unique to level 3 cases is a Safe Streets condition. Safe Streets

is a special program instituted in June 1996, in which high-rislr cases are referred to three

probation oﬂicers who work in the city of Wilmington and who are responsible to conduct

curfew checks. This program is to supplement, not replace the supervision ofthe originally

assigned probation oﬁicer. This program was extended to the rest ofthe state in January

1998. At the time this data was compiled, eight level 3 cases were referred to Safe Streets.

There were also a higher percentage oflevel 3 cases (12 percent) than level 2 (1

percent) that had a Zero Tolerance Condition. When a case is declared Zero Tolerance, I 7s

U any violation ofprobation, however minor i.e. ten minutes late for curfew, will result in a

I revocation hearing“.

No Contact Orders were issued in 44 percent on the level 2 cases and 52 percent

on the level 3 cases. No Contact Orders prohibit any direct or indirect contact including

I phone calls and mail with the victim. No Unlawful Contact orders prohibit any behavior

I against the victim, which is against the law, including threats ofviolence. This type of

U order was issued in 47 percent ofthe level 2 cases and 37 percent ofthe level 3 cases.

' Table 3 Domestic Violence Unit: Special Conditions Level of Supervision I Level2 L l3 €V6

Anger Control Counseling 244 1 10 I Substance Abuse Treatment 144 98 Mental Health Evaluation 57 37 Parenting Classes 37 8 ‘ Zero Tolerance 3 18 Safe Streets 0 8 Contact Order l None 33 16 N0 Unlawful Contact 168 58 No Contact 155 81 ‘ Note. Data based on 356 level 2 and 155 level 3 cases. N=5l l. Note. Special Conditions may not be a part ofevery probation sentence and some offenders may be N required to complete multi0ple special conditions.

I The domestic violence Lmit supervises a wide variety ofcharges. Level 2 i probationers are most likely serving probation sentences for Assault 3rd (28 percent) and

Offensive Touching (28 percent), whereas level 3 probationers are most likely to be

I serving a probation sentence for a prior violation ofprobation (37 percent) and Assault

I 3rd (25 percent).

I I 79

I I I

I Table 4 Domestic Violence Unit: Type ofOffenses I Level of Supervision Level 2 Level 3 Aggravated Harassment 1 1 I Aggravated Menacing Arson 2"“ Assault 1*‘ ‘ Assault 2"‘

Assault 3"‘ i Breach ofRelease I Burglary 2"“ Carrying Concealed Deadly Instrument (CCDI) Child Abuse I Criminal Contempt ofPFA Criminal Mischief Criminal Trespass u Disorderly Conduct DUI Endangering Welfare ‘ Forgery Harassment Kidnapping I Manslaughter Menacing Murder 2"‘ ' Offensive Touching Possession of Marijuana Reckless Driving “ Reckless Endangering Resisting Arrest Terroristic Threatening I Theﬂ Unlawful Imprisomnent V

Violation of Probation N~oNoutw»-unosoo-oe--:c>o:>roooo----atM--o-----3"“°‘° “"0--|>oW-'»-K’\]$‘\""'UJ@--L;)@UJ»-l\)5.o)r-no\¢>—\©'w)\Q@$'-ix I Note. Data based on 356 level 2 and 155 level 3 cases. N=5l l.

I The most common level 2 sentences are 10 to 12 months (54 percent). This is also the

case for level 3 sentences, but the percentage is a little lower (52 percent). Only 20 -

percent ofthe level 3 sentences were 4-6 months. This was the case for 12 percent ofthe

level 2 sentences.

Table 5 Domestic Violence Unit: Length of Probation Sentence Level of Supervision Level 2 Level 3

Level 3 197 7 0 months 4 1 1-3 months 4-6 months 33 31 7-9 months 3 5 10-12 months 29 80 4 13 13-18 months 3 19-23 months 10 24 months 1 25-35 months 3 36 months 1 more than 36 months O'—'©O\O Level 2 0 months 16 86 1-3 months 2 0 4-6 months 43 27 7-9 months 6 1 1 0-12 months 242 23 1 3-1 8 months 9 2 19-23 months 1 24 months \I 25-35 months 36 months more than 36 months U\\Ol\)!\-J Unix)-l>-B»-* Level 1 0 months 343 151 1-3 months 1 1 4-6 months 7-9 months 10-12 months 13-18 months 19-23 months 24 months 25+ months G-—-O--ut--¢\ 0'-*OOOC>l\J Note. Data based on 356 level 2 and 155 level 3 cases. N=511/

In probation cases, a victim may be protected with a Contact Order and/or with a

Protection ﬁom Abuse order. As stated in the previous section, a Protection from Abuse _.

order is issued by Family Court and may be instituted irrespective of a probation sentence.

It may be surprising that only 22 percent ofthe level 2 cases and 13 percent ofthe level 3

cases involve active Protection from Abuse orders.

A vast majority ofboth level 2 and level 3 cases involve intimate partners such as

boyfriends or girlﬁiends (32 percent on level 2 and 46 percent on level 3) or spouses (43

percent on level 2 and 39 percent on level 3). There are a higher percentage of child victim

cases on level 2 (18 percent) than on level 3 (8 percent). This may be due to the fact that

one ofthe level 2 olﬁcers deals primarily with child abuse cases and supervises 45 percent

ofthe child victim cases on level 2. There is no such caseload for level 3 probationers.

With regard to prior domestic violence arrests, 60 percent ofthe level 2 cases are on

probation for their ﬁrst domestic violence oﬂense. This is the case in 36 percent ofthe

level 3 cases. Seventy-two percent ofthe level 2 probationers had a history of victimizing

only one victim. As for level 3 probationers, 66 percent had a history of only one victim.

Twenty-ﬁve percent ofthe level 3 probationers abused two victims. This was the case in

17 percent ofthe level 2 cases.

- I s2

Table 6 I Domestic Violence Unit: Criminal and Victim Information

Level of Sugsion I PFA Order Level 2 Level; None 269 Expired 9 10728 I Active 78 20 Victim Relationship Boyﬁ-iend/Girlfriend 1 15 72 . Spouse 153 61 Child 65 13 Brother/Sister 12 3 I Parent 1 1 5 In-Law 1 1 I-Iistorv ofDomestic Violence Arrests* I n-A 1 56 N) run U) 33

I -kbélx) 2817 I-lUJ\]£I|OOlJt ll 5 I TlO\U1 I11 Q 5 l\)Ut\l I-Iistorv of Domestic Violence Victims‘ I |-1 7 257 102 62 as . 39 -AUJIQ -as LII 6 3U1 I Note. Data based on 356 level 2 and 155 level 3 cases. N=51l. '-~l\) * Domestic Violence arrest(s) and victirn(s) include the incident that placed the person on his/her current probation.

I Due to staﬁ"shortages and an over-worked intake unit, not all domestic violence

cases are referred to the Domestic Violence Unit. One way ofjudging the eifectiveness of

a unit is to determine whether or not the unit is receiving the cases that are appropriate. If

the unit is not receiving all domestic violence cases, it is important to determine whether

I the appropriate cases supervised outside the Lmit are so ntunerous that the Domestic

I Violence Ur1it’s existence may be deemed not beneﬁcial, or ifa percentage ofcases are

being referred outside the unit because the Lmit does not have the staffto supervise all 83 appropriate cases. Such an analysis may also indicate areas that need improvement in regard to the assigning ofthese cases. To answer these questions and to gain a complete picture ofdomestic violence cases in New Castle County, data were compiled on domestic violence cases supervised by non-domestic violence oflicers in the New Castle office". To gather information on these cases, each level 2 and level 3 probation officer in the New

Castle Office was asked to provide information about their cases. They were asked to identify all cases on their database printout“ in the month ofAugust 1999, that were serving probation or parole sentences for a domestic violence charge or those that during the course oftheir probation sentence it had become apparent that there were domestic violence issues that need to be addressed. Domestic violence issues may have become apparent because the probationer received a second probation sentence and/or arrest while being supervised by the ofiicer that was domestic-related or through routine home or office visits, the nature of such a relationship was discovered.

In August 1999, there were 15 level 3 oﬁicers and l4 level 2 oiﬁcers in the New

Castle Office. Ofthese ofliicers, 12 level 3 oflicers and 7 level 2 officers participated in the survey and allowed the researcher to pull the probation files to gather information on the probationers’ general statistics, criminal history, sentencing lI1f0I‘l'I‘lflliOI1, and information about how the ofiicer received the case. Ofthose that did not participate in the research, the most common reason was lack oftime to review their cases or they were not in the office, due to vacation or training, at the time the information was gathered.

_ I s4

U Table 7 Demographical Statistics of Domestic Violence Offenders Supervised Outside the Domestic Violence Unit in August. l999 U Level of Sugrjsion Level 2 Level 3 Gender Men 50 23 I Women 2 1 6 I White Race/Ethnicity 45 IQ Black 25 Hispanic 1 I Asian 0 IQQUIIQ 21-24 Ass I 25-30 31-34 I iii‘? OOl\JO\ 45-50 5 l -54 I 71-75 n-nu)Q\xr—~>-in-n\] h-I\J>—~>—~\Ol\)\O-B Residence I Claymont Wilmington Newport . West Wilmington Newark New Castle I1! Bear . Southern County Outside DE ' >—~>—~O\O>----l>l\)O U Courts ofJurisdiction Municipal I Court ofCommon Pleas 3 Superior 8 Family 58 >-*O0l-03¢ I Method Received Case O0 Intake Flow-up 0 | Flow-down 1 New Probation -I>U)\l Transfer v—~l») "‘E I Note. This data IS based on a total of 71 level 2 and 29 level 3 cases. N—5l l. 85

To estimate the total number ofcases on level 2 and level 3 supervised by standard probation officers”, the researcher used domestic violence caseload averages and multiplied that number by the total number of level 2 and level 3 oflicers. Based on this estimate, standard level 2 oflicers supervise 1,246 cases and standard level 3 oflicers would supervise a total of 585 cases. Using these numbers, it is estimated that 6 percent of the cases that standard level 2 oflicers and 5 percent ofthe cases that standard level 3 oflicers supervise are for domestic violence ofl'enses. These percentages are small and may be the result ofmistakes made during intake. As will be shown below, it may also be due to the type ofcases the Domestic Violence Unit takes.

As shown with the cases supervised by the domestic violence unit, a majority ofthe cases on both level 2 and level 3 involve white, male oﬁenders, between the ages of 25 and 40. Ninety-three percent ofthe level 2 and 48 percent ofthe level 3 cases were received through intake. Most cases are sentenced by Family Court (82 percent ofthe level 2 cases and 62 percent ofthe level 3 cases), and oifenders are ordered to attend anger control counseling (62 percent ofthe level 2 cases and 41 percent ofthe level 3 cases). Sixty-eight percent ofthe level 2 offenders were sentenced to probation for

Offensive Touching. The highest percentages of level 3 cases (34 percent) were sewing a

Violation ofProbation sentence, with an underlying domestic violence charge. The most common sentence was 12 months (82 percent for level 2 and 59 percent for level 3 cases). 86

Table 8 Probation/Parole Sentences of Domestic Violence Offenders Not Supervised by the Domestic Violence Unit. Level of Supervision Level 2 Level 3 Special Conditions Anger Control 44 12 Substance Abuse Treatment 23 16 Mental Health Evaluation 6 3 Parenting Classes 10 0 Type of Offenses Assault 2nd Assault 3rd Breach of Release Endangering Welfare Harassment Menacing Offensive Touching O0 Disorderly Conduct Terroristic Threatening Violation of Probation

Driving while Suspended O-b~—‘O~—~U|>-001» Possession, Consume, Use O >—~v-~80>—-\l>--'—~U90-BO Length of Probation Sentence Level 3 0 months 6 months 12 months >-av-l\° \| 24 months 36 months more than 36 months $®$O\ [\)>-1|-nr—~Q'\[\) Level 2 - 0 months 22 6 months 3 9 months 0 12 months (l=15 months) 3 O0 18 months 24 months 36 months more than 36 months o—nr-n@|—-(}1r—n\]r—n ©¢©*-1 Level 1 . 0 months 67 29 6 months 4 0 Contact Order None 13 8 No Unlawful Contact 49 12 No Contact 9 9 Note. Tl'llS data 1s based on a total of 71 level 2 and 29 level 3 cases. N=511. I

I 87

I No Unlawful Contact orders were more likely to be order by the Court among cases

U supervised outside the unit (69 percent for level 2 and 41 percent for level 3) than those

supervised by the domestic violence unit (47 percent on level 2 and 37 percent on level 3).

The relationship between the victim and offender was no different than those in the

I domestic violence unit - 63 percent ofthe level 2 and 66 percent ofthe level 3 cases

I involved cases with spouses or girl/boyﬁiends as victims. Sixty-ﬁve percent ofthe level 2

and 24 percent ofthe level 3 cases involved ﬁrst offenders. Thirty-eight percent ofthe

level 3 cases involve second-time oifenders.

Table 9 Criminal and Victim Information on Domestic Violence Offenders Supervised Outside ofthe I Domestic Violence Unit. Level of Sugrlision Level 2 Level 3 l Victim Relationship

Boyﬁ'iend/Girlfriend 23 L» Brother/Sister 1 D Child 21 Parent 4 I Spouse 22 O\MO\l\)-—- Historv of Domestic Violence Arrests* 46

9 |—l 9

OO\IQ\KIl-l>UJl\)>-- |—n>-n[\)@U) ©©C>Ol\)OO\—*\| I \O 0 r—~ History of Domestic Violence Victims* 1- I’ l§ >-A % 7 3 0 O\U1-BUJIQ l 7 0 QC“-IIQOOO l Note. This data is based on a total of 71 level 2 and 29 level 3 cases. N=l00. * Domestic Violence Arrests and Domestic Violence Victims include offenses that the person is currently I serving a probation for. 89

likely that a large percentage ofthese cases are part ofthe ﬁrst offender diversion

program. Traditionally, the Domestic Violence Unit has had a policy ofnot taking ﬁrst

oﬁender diversion cases due to the fact that these sentences involved less serious cases. In

September 1998, the Domestic Violence Unit tested a ﬁrst-offender caseload within the

unit. The caseload took only first-ofiender Level 2 cases within the New Castle office.

This caseload was successful at removing cases ﬁom standard oﬂicers, but only took cases

during a one-month period. Thereaﬂer there were too many cases being referred to the

unit for offenses other than those that meet the criteria ofthe ﬁrst oﬂ"ender program. As a

result the caseload had to be expanded to include other more serious cases.

Is the domestic violence unit missing serious cases? According to the data in Table

9 and 10, the answer is yes. There are 16 level 2 and 11 level 3 cases involving persons

who have been arrested three or more times for domestic violence charges. There are ll

level 2 and 3 level 3 cases where there are three or more victims. Are these cases which

the Intake Unit should have known included a history ofdomestic violence? Based on the

way that the Intake Unit researches and assigns its cases, an intake worker is unlikely to

have known this infomiation. Intake workers do not research prior domestic violence

victims or prior criminal histories, other than to provide the supervising oflicer with a printout ofthe criminal history. Nor does intake have the time or stafl‘to do so. How can these cases be flagged? One suggestion may be to refer all domestic violence cases that would be referred to standard level ofiicers to a part-time staffmember recently assigned to the Domestic Violence Unit. This employee currently aids oflicers in filing paperwork, logging attendance records, and updating the domestic violence database. This seasonal employee could research prior domestic violence arrests and the number ofdomestic i

violence victims. Since the Domestic Violence Unit cannot handle every domestic violence

case, a policy could be developed which states that cases in which there are three or more

victims, but assigned outside the Domestic Violence Unit, would be taken by the Domestic

Violence Unit. The part-time staffmember could gather information on the oﬂender’s

history ofdomestic violence, refer the case and information to a supervisor who would

then only have to review the initial court infomiation and domestic violence history

gathered by this staﬁ‘member. As long as these cases are addressed on a regular basis, this

policy would not place an overwhelming burden on the supervisor.

It also appears that there are enough level 2 and level 3 cases in New Castle alone

to warrant an added oﬂicer for each level within the domestic violence unit to handle these

cases that are missed by intake. In August 1999, there were 71 level 2 and 29 level 3 cases

reviewed outside the unit. If all these cases were taken in by the unit, they would ﬁll a full

caseload on both level 2 and level 3. Is this feasible? The total number ofcases missed by

polling the Probation/Parole oﬂicers outside the Domestic Violence Unit is unknown,

along with the fact that three level 3 and seven level 2 ofﬁcers failed to provide

iI1fO1’l'IlﬂtiOI1 as whether or not they were supervising domesticlviolence cases.

Additionally, research was not conducted on the number of domestic violence oﬂenders

are being supervised by Probation/Parole oﬁicers in the Wilmington Probation Oﬂice.

Therefore, it is unknown how many cases are in the Wilmington oﬂice.

Ifadding oﬂicers is not a feasible option, a second way to increase the effectiveness

ofthe Domestic Violence Unit would be to develop geographical caseloads. According to

the zip code information, domestic violence oﬁenders are spread throughout the county. It

is recommended that caseload assignments be segmented into four categories (1) Northern

County (Claymont, North Wilmington, and 19801 & 19802 Wilmington cases), (2) City of

Wilmington, (3) West Wilmington (which should include Newport, and Newark cases), and (4) Southern County (which should include New Castle, Bear, Middletown,

Townsend, etc. . .). Such geographic assignments would make it easier to conduct field visits. However, there are two arguments against such a proposal. The first is that probationers are very mobile and rarely stay at one location for an extended period of time. Ifthat is the case, it is likely that a probation officer may receive a case in her district, only to have the person move within one month ofassigmnent to another part of the county. Should the case be transferred afier each time a person moves? Such a policy would impede supervision efforts. However, if such a case is not transferred, then geographic assignments would be less eflicient. The second argument is that probation officers usually conduct their field visits in pairs. Because the unit is small it is unlikely that two officers ofthe same level will have the same geographic location. Either way, officers will be traveling throughout the county. Despite these arguments, if such a policy was implemented, it should follow the assigmnent patterns of standard probation oflicers and the pros and cons should be reviewed carefiilly. I

Postscript

From the above data, it appears that the Domestic Violence Unit receives a large percentage ofthe Domestic Violence cases referred to the New Castle Ofﬁce. The average oﬁfenders are males between the ages of25 and 40, serving a Family or Superior Court sentence. Most are required to attend anger control counseling and to have no contact with the victim. The victim was typically a spouse or girlfriend and a large percentage of domestic violence olfenders have only one prior victim. It is also interesting to note that I only a small percentage ofthe cases involve active Protection From Abuse orders. The

. following chapter looks at what happens to domestic violence offenders once they are

I placed on probation.

I 1-

Chapter 7: Movement of Domestic Violence Cases

Aﬁer gathering statistics on domestic violence cases in New Castle County in

August, 1999, the researcher gathered data on the movement ofcases within the Domestic

Violence Unit to determine analyze what happens to probationers after they are put on

probation. The following table outlines the number ofcases received every month from

August 1999 to January 2000, broken down by level of supervision and the way cases are

closed. These data are taken ﬁom infomiation provided by domestic violence oﬂicers in a

monthly statistical report (Appendix B contains a copy ofthe Probation/Parole Statistical

Report). The data are summarized in Table 10.

During the six-month period ﬁo which data were gathered, there was an average of

358 probationers on level 2 and 174 on level 3 per month. These data must be viewed with caution. During this six-month period there was massive movement among oﬂicers within the unit. In September, two level 3 ofﬁcers and in October, one level 2 officer left the unit.

During this two-month period, three ofﬁcers were moved into the tmit to ﬁll the vacancies.

When these new oflicers entered the unit, they brought with them any problem cases from their previous caseload in non-domestic violence units. Efiforts were made to control for these non-domestic violence cases, excluding them from the data collection based on their classification in the monthly statistics gathered by each oflicer. However, it is not known if all non-domestic violence cases were ruled out. This problem was most apparent among violation ofprobation movement and discussed in fmther detail below. II‘l

_N8r__NaWtV:“W2gF:”U2

£mg_On:Owﬁ$28__o_2>§w__<8302EO__,__cogu8E0>O2_§____M_ g3022Egg8_Q©“>2___&m=~;OsobC_QC_o>o_@C__&m=ErH_V80¢Q©2mymuE__&m=e'__OE2“ERQS_o>o_ 8§__§QB>o_aEED_O__@O Sgag:gagN2__§§__2_ramQ_UWEEQOO_O“ow__%m5_OCQQ “Q@__°%_2>GMW__°§£2W5Egg_§__8QON__@Qgasp_o>o_N8_w_©QMWémgk_0>0_m8OOOS8gmmzMHams“;V_8:“O_

85028>m33_ E522$22I

2DZNH The number ofcases supervised each month remained relatively stable during the six-

month period. Level 2 received an average of 39 cases a month and removed an average

of 5 1 cases a month. However, these numbers are skewed by the fact that when a new

level 2 ofiicer came to the unit, other level 2 ofiicers supplemented the new oificer’s

caseload by transferring cases to the new officer. This is standard policy when oﬂicer

caseload numbers are high and there is not a vacant caseload. In this case, each oﬁicer will

transfer a given number ofcases to the new ofﬁcer to develop a new caseload. This new

ofﬁcer will also receive cases from intake on a rotating cycle. This practice is made

evident by the movement ofcases during October and November. As shown, there were a

high number ofcases received ﬁom level 2 oﬁicers and a large number ofcases removed

ﬁom level 3 oﬂicers statistics.

On level 3, there was an average of36 cases received and 30 cases removed. Like

level 2, level 3 nmnbers are skewed by new ofﬁcers coming to the unit and other oﬂicers

in the unit transferring cases to supplement these new caseloads. The inﬂuence ofthe new

ofﬁcers can be seen during the month of October when 79 cases were received and 64

removed.

As shown in Table 10, there are four methods ofreceiving a case and eight methods

ofremoving a case. An oﬂicer may receive a case through intake as explained in Chapter 6

or a case may be transferred from another probation ofﬁcer. As explained in the section outlining the SENTAC guidelines, a case may be transferred up and down the levels of supervision depending on a court order and/or the needs ofthe offender. The most common reason for an increase in supervision level is through a violation ofprobation.

The most common reason for a decrease in supervision level is the completion ofa period

I 96

speciﬁed on the court order. Such changes in supervision levels are handled by officers

themselves or indirectly tlnough intake ifthe case is being referred outside ofthe ofﬁcer’s

unit. Controlling for transfers within the unit to new ofﬁcers, the most common way that

both level 2 and level 3 officers received cases was ﬁom intake (new probation).

There are eight methods ofremoving a case. The most common method through

which cases are removed from a caseload is by _a case reaching the maximum expiration

date. The maximum expiration date means that the offender completed the special

conditions ordered by the court and complied with the standard probation conditions

during the period ofsupervision, and was discharged ﬁom probation after serving the full

probationary period. An oﬁfender may receive an early discharge with the Court’s

pC1‘l'l‘liSS10I‘l, ifhe completes all special conditions prior to the maximum expiration date and

has not violated any ofthe standard probation conditions.

A case may be discharged or discharged as unimproved prior to the serving ofthe

full sentence under unique circmnstances. The most common circumstance involves an

offender serving a second probation sentence ﬁom another court, which he violates. This

violation may include conditions that are unique to the second court’s sentence and in turn

does not violate the other probation. For example, one probation sentence may require

substance abuse treatment, while the other does not. Ifan offender violates the substance

abuse condition, the violation ofprobation sentence may require, for example, in-patient

treatment. This new violation sentence may extend beyond the time ﬂame ofthe one

probation and may be more intensive. Therefore, a probation oﬂicer may request a

discharge ﬁom the ﬁrst probation. To better explain, the following is a common example

ofsuch a situation: A probationer is serving a level 3 sentence for Assault 3rd out of

Family Court (Sentence A) in which he is ordered to have no unlawful contact with the

victim. He is also serving a second probation out of Superior Court for Assault 2nd

(Sentence B) in which he is ordered to have no contact with the victim. With less than 3

months to serve on the Family Court probation, he violates the no contact order ofthe

Superior Court probation. For violating sentence B, he is sentenced to 90 days injail

followed by 9 months at level 3 probation. Since he will spend the remainder ofthe Family

Court sentence injail, the probation oﬂicer requests a discharge ofthe Family Court

sentence. Note in the sense ofrehabilitation, the oﬁfender did not complete the family

court sentence successﬁilly, but at the same time he did not violate the probation sentence.

He is discharged as unimproved. l

Violation ofprobation removals will be explained in greater detail in the next

section. Cases may be ﬂowed-down to lower levels ofsupervision in cases where the

oﬁ°ender is complying with the conditions of supervision and may be better served with

less supervision, but should not be discharged from probation until the maximum

expiration. The most cormnon example ofthis is when the offender completes anger

control within the ﬁrst six months ofsupervision. The last method through which a case

can be removed is to Master File Delinquent. This category includes all cases in which the

probationer absconded ﬁom supervision and all efforts by the probation oﬂicer to locate

the offender have been l.lI1SLlCCCSSﬁ1l.

Dining the six-month period studied, there were 303 cases removed from caseloads

ofdomestic violence oflicers. Twenty-two percent ofthose cases involved the transfer of cases to other officers in the unit. Ifthese cases are removed from the statistics to account for the influence ofthe new officer, then 236 cases were removed. Ofthese cases, 44 I 9s

percent were removed due to the probationer reaching the maximum expiration date. The

second most common method ofremoval was a transfer to level 1; a lower level of

supervision. Only 16 percent ofthese cases involved a violation ofprobation. Thus, more

than 3/4 ofthe level 2 population complete their level 2 sentence without problems.

Unlike level 2, the most common method ofremoval of level 3 cases was through

violation ofprobation. There were 182 cases removed during the six-month period.

Controlling for the inﬂuence oftwo new level 3 oﬂicers, this number is reduced to 123

cases. Forty-eight percent ofthese cases involved violations ofprobation. The next most

common method involved transfers to level 2. Only 10 percent were discharged at their

maximum expiration date. A

There are several reasons for the differences found between level 2 and level 3

incase removal. First, level 3 offenders have to report once a week as opposed to once a

month for level 2. These offenders also have a curfew from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Therefore,

there are more conditions that level 3 probationers can violate. Second, it can be reasoned

that offenders on level 3 should be at higher risk ofre-oﬁending than level 2 probationers,

thereby requiring a higher level of supervision. Third, the typical level 3 probation

sentence includes a step down in supervision. For example, six months at level 3 followed

by six months at level 2. Therefore it is more likely that a probationer is moved down to

level 2 than he is to reach his maximum expiration date.

As stated above, there were 38 level 2 and 60 level 3 cases removed due to

violations ofprobation from August 1999 to January 2000. These cases involve 13

percent ofthe level 2 cases and 48 percent ofthe level 3 cases closed during this period. In

an attempt to determine the effectiveness ofthe Domestic Violence Unit, case information 99

was gathered on each violation to determine what type ofoifenses and olfenders were on

probation, how these offenders violated their probation, and what type ofpunishment they

received. Table 13 presents a listing ofthe conditions ofprobation and the number of

cases that involved violations ofeach condition. (Appendix C contains a detailed listing of

the probation conditions).

Ofthe 98 violation cases, 84 involved domestic violence offenders; 31 level 2 and

53 level 3 cases. (Note that new oﬂicers in the unit brought with them non-domestic

violence cases that were added to their statistics.) The researcher attempted to locate each

one ofthe 84 case ﬁles. Unfortunately despite the help ofthe Master Files employees, only

25 (81 percent) ofthe level 2 ﬁles were located. Thirty-one (58 percent) ofthe level 3

ﬁles were located. Table 11 displays the type ofoffenders that violated probation.

From the data in Table 11, it appears that the average probation violator is a male between the ages of25 and 40, on probation for a misdemeanor and adjudicated in Family

Court. The most common offense for level 2 probationers was Offensive Touching and the most common offense for level 3 probationers was Assault 3"‘ degree.

I 100 I

U Table ll General Statistics on those who violate their Probation U Level of Sugvision Level 2 Level 3 iMales MFemales iMal 23$F al Race/Ethnicigg I White 2 12 2 1 8 Black 9 1 l3 2 U Hispanic 0 0 2 0 21-24 Age I 25-30 31-34 35-40 I 41-44 45-50 5 l -older v--v-~U)\OCO\l\J OCDOI-->—'>-‘O I Court ofJurisdiction t\Il\J-k\lU|U|l\) ' C©>-~b~)¢$¢ Superior 4 8 Court ofCommon Pleas 2 2 Oh.) I Family 15 12 @|—c Justice ofthe Peace 1 0 @>-A $1» Tym ofOffense I Misdemeanor 20 1 20 3 Felony 2 2 2 l I Offense Offensive Touching Terroristic Threatening I Criminal Contempt ofPFA Harassment Criminal Trespass I Breach of Release Endangering Welfare Assault 3rd I Aggravated Menacing Reckless Endangering Murder 2nd I Violation ofProbation l&v—~'-\Ol\.)\-OOOIQ-J=~O0 LAOOOQOOOOOOO \O<>O~—-00--—-—-'-U)t\>O NO’-O0»-~OOOOOO Neither level 2 nor level 3 probationers were likely to have a Protection ﬁom

Abuse Order entered against them. There was roughly the same number ofNo Contact

Orders as No Unlawful Contact Orders. As demonstrated by the caseload statistics, the

I level 3 violators have a more extensive domestic violence history. There also appears to be

I no overt characteristic(s) that would predict probation violators.

l l 101

Table 12 I History of domestic violence among those that violate their probation

' Level 2 Level of Supervision Level 3 Males Females Males Females

Yes 5 EK 0 8 0 I No 17 3 18 4 Expired 0 0 1 0

H No Unlawﬁil Contact 9 Contact ofOrder 1 9 3 No Contact 8 0 ll 0 U None 5 2 2 1 Victim Relationship Spouse 8 12 Girl/Boyfriend 13 14 I Child 1 0 Parent 0 1»nr—\@ 1 I I-Iistorv of Domestic Violence Arrests* OI\)l\)© 10 0 5 2 I U-)l\)I-1 l 1-4 -[>- L»)UJO\ ©©'—' U0 0 5 or more 2 0 I History of Domestic Violence Victims* ~—-IiIi I-U) 16 2 E I 01 -L>~l.»Jl\)v—-I u-n>—nU-I 0 5 1 0 I * Domestic Violence Arrests and Domestic Violence Victims include offenses that thel\)l\)UJO\ person is currentlyG'—*QI-—l\) serving a probation for.

I Table 13 contains a breakdown ofthe conditions violated. (Appendix C and D

| contain a complete list ofconditions ofsupervision and a violation report). It should be

I noted that a probationer can violate more than one condition ofprobation at the same

time. The numbers below, therefore, for each condition include the number ofpeople who

I violated that condition.

,, I 102 I

I Table 13 Iype ofViolations for Domestic Violence Offenders I Level of Supervision

Level 2 Level 3 Total Cases 31 53

I Condition #1 Conditions of Sugision 17 12 DV Arrest 6 10 . No Contact Order in Place 3 5 Condition #2 6 Condition #3 18 I Condition #4 l Condition #5 I-lw|—l 3 Condition #6 1 I Condition #7 10 Condition #9 - Treatment O\v—-U1 10 Condition #9 - Contact Order p-A 9 I Condition #9 — Money 0 Condition #1 l u-noxu-A Condition #13 I PO Recommendation n-""' - mp" In Agreement 24 In Opposition 8 7

N The most common level 2 violation involved a Condition #1 violation (48 percent).

Condition #1 states that a person camiot commit a new criminal offense or moving motor

vehicle oifense during the supervision period. Ofthe twelve violations involving new

I arrests, seven ofthese cases involved arrests for new domestic violence offenses. Three of

I these cases also involved violations ofthe no contact order. Seventeen level 3

probationers violated this condition (32 percent). Fiﬁy-nine percent ofthese cases

involved new domestic violence arrests. Twenty-nine percent also involved violations ofa

no contact order. While a higher percentage of level 2 offenders violated their probation

I with a new criminal offense (48 percent oflevel 2 cases versus 32 percent oflevel 3

I cases), percentages were roughly the same for criminal offenses involving new domestic

violence oﬂenses (58 percent for level 2 and 59 percent for level 3). .

103

The most common level 3 violations involved Condition #3 violations. Conditions

#3 states that a probationer must report as directed. For level 3 cases, this is once a week.

For level 2, it is once a month. Fifty-eight percent ofthe level 3 cases involved Condition

#3 violations. Thirty-two percent oflevel 2 cases involved these violations. Due to greater

reporting requirements, it is not surprising that a higher percentage oflevel 3 offenders

violated this condition than level 2 offenders.

Twenty-four percent oflevel 2 cases and 32 percent oflevel 3 cases involved

Condition #7 violations. This condition states that a probationer carmot possess or

consmne any illicit substances. These percentages may be fewer than expected especially

in light ofresearch which ﬁnds that 53 percent ofprobationers in 32 urban counties were

identiﬁed as drug abusers (Drugs, Crime, and the Justice System, 1992).

Condition #9 states that a probationer must comply with all special conditions

ordered by the Probation Ofﬁcer, Court, or Board ofParole. Forty-four percent ofthe

level 2 cases and 32 percent ofthe level 3 probationers violated Condition #9 by not

complying with treatment recommendations. Twenty-four percent ofthe level 2 and 29

percent ofthe level 3 cases violated Condition #9 by violatingia contact order, whether it

was a no contact or no unlawliil contact order. Ofthe contact order violations, one level 2

violation and three level 3 violations were uncovered by the probation oflicer. One level 2 probationer violated this condition by not paying ofi°his fines. Both level 2 and level 3 probationers were more likely to violate this condition by not complying with treatment than by violating a contact order.

When the probationers were taken back to court, judges followed the recommendation ofthe probation oﬁicer in 68 percent ofthe level 2 and 77 percent ofthe I 104

level 3 cases. In level 2 cases where the judge did not follow the recommendation ofthe

probation ofﬁcer, the oﬂicer recommended a stricter sentence in 71 percent ofthe cases,

in one case the oﬂicer recommended a lower or less strict sentence, and in one case the

oﬂicer recommended treatment. In regards to level 3 cases where the judge did not follow

the recommendation ofthe probation oﬁicer, the oﬂicer recommended a stricter sentence

in 71 percent ofthe cases and a more lenient sentence in 29 percent ofthe cases. In other

words, two out ofthree cases, the judge followed the recommendation ofthe probation

oﬁicer. When the judge did not follow the recommendation, the probationer was more

likely to be sentenced to a more lenient sentence that the probation oﬁicer requested.

There are four types ofprobation/parole violations. A conviction is based on an

arrest and conviction on new criminal charges. A minor conviction involves a minor tralﬁc

or criminal offense, which does not create a serious risk to the community. A minor

technical violation involves a violation ofa standard or special condition, which does not

constitute a serious risk to the community. A major technical violation involves a violation

ofa standard or special condition of supervision, which constitutes a serious risk to the

community and/or is an aggravating circmnstance (State ofDelaware Department of

Corrections, 1997).

The SENTAC Guidelines recommend that an offender’s level of supervision be

increased by one level unless one or more aggravating circumstances are met.

Aggravating circumstances are as follows:

1. Conviction ofa new criminal offense which was a felony, violent misdemeanor, or an offense requiring a mandatory sentence

2. Violation ofa special treatment condition

105

I 3. The oifender has demonstrated willﬁil failure to make court ordered payments, and no other alternatives are possible, or those altematives would depreciate the seriousness ofthe offense

4. The offender is found to be in possession ofa weapon, leading to the violation, and the offender has a past history ofviolence, drug traﬂicking or weapons violation.

I ,. The behavior ofthe offender represents an immediate threat to the community or an identiﬁed victim.

6. The behavior ofthe oflender is repetitive and flagrantly defies the authority of the court. (State ofDelaware Department of Corrections, 1997, 2.02: 3).

If one or more ofthe above circumstances are met, such circumstances must be noted on

the violation report.

In light ofthese procedures it is interesting to note that there appears to be no

rhyme or reason to the sentences that probation violators received. In 72 percent ofthe

level 2 cases, the violation resulted in an increase of supervision status to level 3. Sixteen

percent ofthe cases resulted in a level 4 sentence and 12 percent resulted in jail time.

There were thirteen cases in which the probationer violated their probation by being

arrested on new criminal charges; three ofthese probationers received a jail sentence. Two

probationer were sentenced to level 4 and 62 percent ofthe cases resulted in an increase

ofsupervision from level 2 to level 3. According to SENTAC Manual, probationers who

violate their probation with a new criminal offense should be moved more than one level

ofsupervision. However, this was only the case in 38 percent ofthe cases.

Ofthe level 2 cases involving new domestic violence offenses, only one

probationer was sentenced to jail time, two were given a level 4 sentence, and 57 percent

received level 3 sentences. Ofthe new arrest cases that also included a violation ofa

contact order, only one probationer received jail time and this sentence was for only 15 106

days. One received a level 4 sentence and three got a level 3 sentence. Again such arrests

warrant an increase ofmore than one level of supervision and these probationers represent

an immediate threat to the community and there is an identiﬁed victim However, among

those violated for new domestic violence charges, only 43 percent received a sentence to

level 4 or level 5. When three aggravated circumstances were met - (1) a new criminal

arrest, (2) a threat to the comrnunity/identiﬁed victim, and (3) violation ofa special

condition, 60 percent ofthe probationers were moved up only one level of supervision.

In the cases where there was a contact order violation, but no domestic violence

arrest, one probationer received a level 4 sentence and the other a level 3 sentence. Of

those who violated the treatment condition, two received a level 4 sentence and 78 percent received a level 3 sentence. An increase ofmore than one level of supervision was warranted in these cases, however, less than ﬁﬁy percent ofthe cases received such a sentence.

Seventy-ﬁve percent ofthe level 3 violations resulted in level 4 sentences. Twenty- one percent received jail time. One case received no change supervision sentence. Of the violations that resulted from new criminal charges, 24 percent received a jail sentence.

Ofthese cases that involved new domestic violence arrests, only 16 percent received jail sentences. In the cases that involved a new arrest and contact order violations, 25 percent received jail sentences. In the case that involved a contact order violation but no new domestic violence arrest, all received a level 4 sentence. Ofthe cases involving a treatment violation, one probationer received a jail sentence. The other 84 percent received a level 4 sentence. Ofthe cases in which there was a treatment violation and a new criminal arrest,

109

Chapter 8: Recommended Areas for Improvement

The data presented in the previous chapter have shown that the Domestic Violence

Unit in New Castle County handles a large percentage ofthe cases that are referred to the

New Castle Ofﬁce. Ofthese cases, most successﬁilly complete their probation sentence.

Unfortimately, 16 percent ofthe level 2 cases and 48 percent ofthe level 3 cases violated

their probation with new criminal charges. This study was not designed to determine the

reasons for these violations. However, the last section ofthis study involves areas for

improvement within the unit, which if implemented may improve the effectiveness of

supervision.

In January 2000, this researcher distributed a survey to all members ofthe

Domestic Violence Unit in the New Castle Oﬂice. (The survey is included as Appendix E)

O The survey included questions about an ofﬁcer’s length ofemployment as a

probation/parole oﬂicer, and as an oﬂicer within the unit. Included were questions about

amount oftraining and aspects ofthe Domestic Violence Unit that needs improvement. As

a member ofthis unit for one year and having the experience ofdealing with domestic

violence oﬁ°enders for three years in other Lmits, this researcher based some ofthe

questions around areas that she believed needed improvement and allowed oﬁicers the

opportunity to add to these areas.

One area that was initially believed to be a weakness ofthe Domestic Violence Unit

was the level ofexperience ofthe unit staﬂl The unit consisted ofoﬂicers with less than

one year ofexperience as Probation/Parole Oflicers. While probation and parole is not a highly technicaljob, it does take time for an officer to learn the paperwork, how to manage their time, and how to deal with offenders. Assigning a new oflicer to a 110

specialized unit places higher demands on that ofﬁcer. Assigning a new ofﬁcer to a

domestic violence caseload places even higher demands on that ofﬁcer. Many oﬂicers feel

that when one is assigned domestic violence cases, they are actually assigned two cases -

the offender and the victim. Not only does the oﬂicer have to monitor the oﬁ°ender’s

progress through treatment and compliance with conditions; the oﬂicer also has to

maintain on-going contact with the victim. By the nature ofthe domestic violence, the

relationship between the victim and offender may be explosive, requiring an oﬁticer to deal

with a complex number ofissues, including child safety. Placing these demands on a new

ofﬁcer who is still trying to learn how to do his/her job seems inappropriate. The other

side ofthe coin is that most oﬁicers do not want to deal with domestic violence offenders

for the exact reasons stated above. The unit studied was made up ofeight oﬂicers, ﬁve of

whom had less than 2.5 years ofexperience as oﬂicers. Three ofthe oﬂicers had less than

7 months ofexperience in dealing with domestic violence offenders, two had less than 1.5

years, and three had over three years ofexperience. One ofthe oﬂicers in the unit came to

the unit directly after completing the training academy and had no prior domestic violence

training. Four oflicers had under a year ofexperience before joining the unit. This study does not conclude that these oflicers are not doing a good job. Intuitively, it would seem to be more effective to recruit more experienced ofiicers to this unit — officers who are familiar with the courts, the paperwork, and dealing with offenders.

After establishing his/her level ofexperience as a probation oflicer and prior domestic violence training, each oflicer was asked their reason for coming to the domestic violence unit. Ofthose officers who came to the unit by choice, only three reported joining the unit because they liked working with victims. Reasons given by others included having

lll

a friend in the unit (n=3), wanting to get out oftheir old unit (n=2), others liked the appeal

ofa specialized unit and one person felt that he/she could have an impact on these

offenders.

Despite the inexperience ofmembers ofthis unit, each oﬂicer had at least 2-3

training sessions on domestic violence and ﬁve ofﬁcers had been to four or more training

sessions. With this training, all officers felt that they were better trained to deal with

domestic violence offenders than standard probation oﬂicers. However, seven oﬁicers felt

that they could never have enough training and one ofﬁcer did not feel adequately trained.

In addition to the need for more experienced oﬁicers, the second area of

improvement needed for the Domestic Violence Unit is the availability oftraining. The

ofﬁcers should be given ample opportunity and be encouraged to participate in training.

As a domestic violence officer, the writer felt that this unit should be taking all domestic violence cases, including first-time offenders. The reason for this beliefis that the domestic violence officers are specially trained to deal with these cases. Domestic violence is not one incident, but a type ofrelationship between two people. Oflicers unaware ofthe nature of domestic violence are more likely to overlook the risk factors that domestic violence oflicers are trained to notice. By recognizing these risk factors, it is more likely that an officer can intervene before an acute battering incident occurs. Secondly, the domestic violence unit works closely with anger control counselors. They have developed a rapport, which makes it easier for these ofiicers to gather information. This is not to say that other oflicers cannot gain this rapport but rather that it becomes another potential obstacle that these officers have to overcome. Therefore each officer was asked whether the Domestic Violence Unit should handle all domestic violence cases. Six ofthe domestic

Y‘

113 socialization. All oﬂicers felt that these cases should be handled differently than non-

domestic assaults. Since victim safety is a high priority, it seems that a victim services

person would provide a wealth ofinformation for this unit. Officers now depend on victim

advocates within local police departments to help oﬂicers locate treatment, counseling,

and other services for victims. Ifa victim services person was hired to work exclusively

for the Domestic Violence Unit, some ofthe burden ofworking with victims would be

lifted. This person could also aid oﬂicers by explaining the court system and probation

violations to victims, handling victim emergencies when the ofﬁcer is unavailable, and

ensuring that the Probation/Parole Department is complying with the Victim Bill of

Rights.

The last question on the survey was an open-ended question asking what areas the

olﬁcers felt needed improvement. The answers were varied and some were addressed in

the above paragraphs. The following is a list ofsome ofthe answers provided:

l. Most ofﬁcers felt that they needed a more pro-active approach from their supervisor and management.

2. Oﬂicers wanted better equipment, such as computers and cars, to increase their efﬁciency.

3. A Domestic Violence Unit in the Wilmington Oﬁce.

4. Improved relations with Family Court.

5. A caseload that handled pre-trial domestic violence cases.

6. Stiﬂ’er penalties for probation violators.

As stated above, it is unknown whether the issues discussed above would have an impact on the number ofprobationers that violate their probation. However, it is likely that with more oficers, support stafifl a victims advocate, and better relations with the

114 courts, ofﬁcers could increase their efficiency and spend more time dealing directly with

victims and oﬁenders.

Postscript This research has been based solely on the Domestic Violence Unit in the New

Castle Probation/Parole Oﬁce. These ﬁndings are limited and do not allowed

generalization to the whole population ofdomestic violence oﬂenders on probation in the

State ofDelaware. While it has been shown that the Domestic Violence Unit

wide variety ofcriminal charges involving predominately males between the agessupervisesof25 a

and 40, it is unknown whether this holds true for the State as a whole. It has also been

shown that probationers who violate their probation receive an increase ofonly one level

ofsupervision for a majority ofviolations. This may not be true for the rest ofthe State.

Lastly, it appears that increasing its oflicer stafin g, support stafi, and supervisor support can improve the New Castle ofice. The next section discusses the need to expand this research statewide and other areas for fixture research.

115 Chapter 9: Areas for Future Research This paper provides only a preliminary look into the type ofcases supervised by

Probation and Parole, what happens to these cases once they are placed on probation, and

the areas that oﬁicers’ feel need to be improved. There are still many questions left

unanswered. First, this study needs to be expanded statewide to determine ifdifferences

exist among counties in the way domestic violence cases are handled.

Second, future research should track oﬁ“enders to determine the recidivism rates of

offenders aﬁzer the ﬁrst violation ofprobation. Are the sentences offenders’ receive too

lenient as one might assume, or are they effective in preventing ﬁiture violations.

Third, as an area for improvement suggested by one probation ofﬁcer response to

the survey addressed in the previous chapter, the practicality ofa pre-trial supervision

caseload ofdomestic violence offenders should be explored. A caseload such as this seems

extremely important in light ofthe fact that women are placed in a high risk for abuse

when they try to leave the offender. A woman who tries to leave following the arrest of

the offender for a domestic violence incident may be in the greatest danger ofharm.

Therefore, it is important to have a person with specialized training in domestic violence

handle those cases on pre-trial supervision. It appears that a study Similar to this one

should be conducted to detemiine the number ofcases on pre-trial supervision, the

characteristics ofthese offenders, and their success on pre-trial supervision.

Fourth, research should explore whether domestic violence cases are handled differently by standard probation officers than by domestic violence oflicers. One question that should be addressed is how effectively standard oflicers are in handling treatment 116 needs. This research could add support to expanding the unit or help identify the reasons

why oﬂicers handle these cases differently.

Fifth, future research should determine the level ofvictim satisfaction with the

Domestic Violence Unit. The national trend among the criminal justice system is to gain victim insight without placing the ultimate decision ofpressing charges on the victim. The

Probation/Parole Department recognizes this trend by requiring domestic violence officers

to maintain on-going contact with victims. It is important to detemiine whether victims

feel satisﬁed with this attention and/or what needs they feel are not yet being addressed.

Delaware, like other states, has taken on a coordinated approach to handling

domestic violence cases. Law enforcement agencies work more diligently with the courts

and probation and parole to enhance victim safety and offender accotmtability. It is

therefore important to continue to improve these relations , to detemiine how well probation/parole is working with these agencies and determine what areas can be

improved, not just with law enforcement, but also with treatment agencies and the courts.

It is only through continued research that the handling ofdomestic violence cases

can be improved. The State ofDelaware needs to take an active role in continually assessing its ability to handle such cases and identify areas that need to be improved. I17 Chapter 10: Conclusion Domestic Violence is a social issue that has only recently gained national attention

Prior to the 1970s, domestic violence was an acce t d p e means ofdisciplining one’s wife dating back to the 753 BC. Research and sociological theories now deﬁne domestic

violence as a type ofrelationship in which one party uses emotional, physical, and sexual

abuse to gain and maintain control and power over the other party. This type of

relationship has a tremendous effect not only on the victim and offender, but also on those

who witness the violence. It has an impact on society by placing an increased strain on the

medical profession and business and industry through absenteeism.

As domestic violence gained attention with the reforms aimed at ending child abuse,

law enforcement efforts changed from a hands-offto a hands-on approach. Law

enforcement oﬂicers can now be held liable for failure to act and mandatory arrest polices

have been instituted in most police departments. In more jurisdictions nation-wide, police

ofﬁcers can arrest offenders for misdemeanor domestic violence charges without

witnessing the offense and are required to complete special domestic violence reports

following every call, regardless ofwhether charges were brought against the offender.

Specialized units have been formed in many departments with oﬂicers trained in the

dynamics ofdomestic violence to investigate incidents, track offenders, and educate other

oﬂicers. Victim advocates have been hired to help victims gain counseling and other services. Attomey General oﬂices have developed “no-drop” policies for domestic violence cases and victirn-less prosecutions ofthose cases. Additionally, the courts have increased the availability ofprotection orders to victims. 118

In Delaware, the criminal justice system has followed the national trends. Police officers have been equipped with cameras and tape recorders to aid in evidence gathering.

Domestic violence reports have been developed to ensure that a thorough investigation is

conducted. Specialized units have been developed within each branch ofthe criminal justice system to handle these cases. The courts have developed means to protect victims

and ensure their rights are protected. A

The Probation and Parole Department developed specialized units to supervise

domestic violence cases. These units are located in the New Castle, Dover, and

Georgetown offices. Oflicers in these units are required to supervise offenders according to the requirements of SENTAC, maintain continuous contact with the victim, and participate in the 24-hour pager system. The unit in the New Castle Ofiice supervises primarily males between the ages of25 and 40, serving Family Court sentences for a period of 12 months, and attending anger control counseling for their first or second

domestic violence offense. These cases appear to be less serious than those referred

outside the Domestic Violence Unit.

Once placed on probation, a majority ofthe probationers complete their sentence as

per their maximmn expiration date. Ofthose who violate, almost 50 percent ofthe level 2

cases do so by being arrested for new charges. For level 3, almost 60 percent violate their

probation by missing oﬂice visits. Two-thirds ofthe level 2 and level 3 violations result in

an increase in one SENTAC level of supervision, irrespective ofthe type ofviolation.

Although no variables were controlled to determine the reason for these violations,

it appears that there may be some areas for improvement within the rmit that may

indirectly inﬂuence probation violations. Some areas ofimprovement include creating 119 incentives for officers who are more experienced in dealing with offenders, the courts and other law enforcement agencies to come to the unit, increasing the accessibility to training, hiring support staff, and establishing victim advocate. By making these improvements, ofﬁcers in the Domestic Violence Unit would be able to use their time more efficiently.

Despite this research, there are many questions that still need to be answered.

Future research needs to look at the cases supervised in the other two Domestic Violence rmits in Delaware. It should examine the type ofcases handled by the pre-trial unit to detemiine ifa specialized caseload would be practical. A third area ofresearch should include how oflicers who are not in the specialized unit supervise domestic violence cases and whether there are diflerences between how standard and domestic violence ofiicers supervise these cases. A fourth area includes victim satisfaction with the Domestic

Violence unit. And lastly, how well these units are working with other law enforcement and treatment agencies.

The criminal justice system’s response to domestic violence has come a long way. It has identiﬁed domestic violence as a crime that needs to be addressed and identiﬁed procedures for improving the handling ofdomestic violence cases. Continued research is a key to further improvements in holding offenders accountable and victims safe. 120

End Notes

1 The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation are based on the voluntary reporting of criminal incidents by 1,600 city, county, and state law enforcement agencies. Each crime is recorded as a separate incident within the National Incident Abased Reporting System (Sense, 1997). 2 The Violence Against Women Act (1984) was passed as a result ofsix yws ofresearch by Delaware’s Senator Joe Biden, which included interaction with Delaware Law Enforcement agencies (Domestic Violence Coordinating Council: 1996 Annual Report, 1997). 3 According to ll Del. C. 1953, § 613, A person is guilty of assault in the first degree when: (1) The person intentionally causes serious physical injury to another person by means ofa deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or (2) The person intentionally disfigures another person seriously and permanently, or intentionally destroys, amputates or disables permanently a member or organ of another person’s body; or (3) The person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death to another person, and thereby causes serious physical injury to another person; or (4) In the course ofor in furtherance ofthe commission or attempted commission of a felony or immediate flight there from, the person intentionally or recklessly causes serious injury to another person; or (5) The person intentionally causes serious physical injury to a law enforcement officer or a volunteer or full-time firefighter who is acting in the lawful performance of duty; or (6) The person intentionally causes serious physical injmy to the operator ofan ambulance, a rescue squad member, licensed practical nurse, registered nurse, paramedic, licensed medical doctor or any other person while such person is rendering emergency care; or (7) The person intentionally causes serious physical injury to another person who is 65 years of age or older. 4 According to 11 Del. C. 1953, § 612, a person is guilty of assault in the second degree when: (1) The person recklessly or intentionally causes serious physical injury to another person; or (2) The person recklessly or intentionally causes physical injury to another person by means ofa deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or (3) The person intentionally causes physical injury to a law enforcement officer or a volunteer or full-time firefighter or correctional officer or sheriffpr deputy sheriffwho is acting in the lawful performance of duty; or (4) The person intentionally causes physical injury to the operator of an ambulance, a rescue squad member, licensed practical nurse, registered nurse, paramedic, licensed medical doctor or any other person while such person is rendering emergency care; or (5) The person intentionally causes physical injury to another person who is 65 years of age or older; or (6) The person intentionally assaults a law-enforcement officer while in the performance ofthe officer’s duties, with any disabling chemical spray, or with any aerosol or hand sprayed liquid or gas with the intent to incapacitate such office and prevent the officer from performing such duties; or (7) The person intentionally, while engaged in commission ofany crime enumerated in this chapter assaults any other person with any disabling spray, or with any aerosol or hand sprayed liquid or gas with the intent to incapacitate the victim; or (8) The person intentionally causes physical injury to any state employee or officer when that employee or officer is discharging or attempting to discharge a duty ofemployment or office; or (9) The person recklessly or intentionally causes physical injury to a pregnant female. It is no defense to a prosecution under this subsection that the person was unaware that the victim was pregnant; or (l0)A person who is 18 years of age or older and who recklessly or intentionally causes physical injury to another person who has not yet reached the age of 6 yeas. In any prosecution of a parent, guardian, foster parent, legal custodian or other person similarly responsible for the 121

general care and supervision of a child victim pursuant to this paragraph, the State shall be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of anyjustification offered by § 468(1 1 ofthis title. In any other prosecution ofa teacher or school administrator pursuant to this paragraph, the State shall be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of any justification offered by § 468(2) ofthis title. 5 According to ll Del. C. 1953, § 604, a person is guilty ofreckless endangering in the first degree when the person recklessly engages in conduct, which creates a substantial risk of death to another person. 6 According to 11 Del. C. 1953, § 782, a person is guilty ofunlawful imprisonment in the fn'st degree when the person knowingly and unlawfully restrains another person under circumstances which expose that person to the risk of serious physical injury. 7 According to 11 Del. C. 1953, § 603, a person is guilty ofreckless endangering in the second degree when: (1) The person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk to physical injury to another person; or A (2) Being a parent, guardian, or other legally charged with the care or custody of a child less than 18 years old, the person knowingly, intentionally or with criminal negligence acts in a mamier, which contributes to or fails to act to prevent the unlawful possession and/or purchase of a firearm by a juvenile. It shall be an absolute defense to this paragraph ifthe person charged had a lock on the trigger and did not tell or show the juvenile where the key to the trigger lock was kept. It shall also be an absolute defense to this paragraph ifthe person had locked the firearm n a key or combination locked container and did not tell or show the juvenile where the key was kept or where the combination was. ' 8 According to ll Del. C. 1953, § 611, a person is guilty ofassault in the third degree when: (1) The person intentionally or recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or (2) With criminal negligence the person causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument. 9 According to ll Del. C. 1953, § 621, a person is guilty of Terroristic threatening when: (1) The person threatens to commit any crime likely to result in death or in serious injury to person or property; or (2) The person makes a false statement or statements: a. Knowing that the statement or statements are likely to cause evacuation of a building, place ofassembly or facility ofpublic transportation; or b. Knowing tat the statement or statements are likely to cause serious inconvenience; or c. In reckless disregard ofthe risk ofcausing terror or serious inconvenience. (b) Any violation of subsection (a) (1) ofthis section shall be a class A misdemeanor. Any violation of subsection (a) (2) ofthis section shall be a class G felony, unless the place at which thee risk of evacuation, serious inconvenience or terror is created is a place which has the purpose, in whole or in part, of acting as a daycare facility, nursery or preschool, kindergarten, elementary secondary, or vocational-technical school, in which case it shall be a class F felony. 1° Conditional release is the release ofa person serving a jail/prison term ofone year or more, prior to the maximum expiration date, but afler the good time release date, to community supervision under the jurisdiction ofthe Board ofParole. H Deferred probation is a probationary sentence that begins on a date some point after the sentencing date, i.e. alter a period of incarceration. ' '2 Crest is a substance abuse treatment program housed on the grounds ofthe Plummer Work Release Center and run by the Department ofCorrections. It offers in-patient treatment in a minimum-security setting and extensive aftercare once a person has completed in-patient treatment. ‘3 Boot Camp is an alternate jail sentence for offenders between the ages of 18 and 30 who have not been convicted of a violent felony. This program is housed at the Sussex Work Release Center and is modeled after the military’s boot camp, in its focus on discipline and physical labor. 1‘ An absconder is someone who stops reporting to the probation/parole office, stops attending treatment if required, and cannot be located by the Probation/Parole Department. 122

1’ The Violation Center is an alternative tojail for those who violate their probation. It is still in infancy stages and the exact policies and procedures are evolving on a daily basis. 16 A revocation hearing is a hearing following the notification ofthe court by the probation/parole officer that the offender allegedly violated his probation. At this hearirlg, the judge will determine whether a violation was committed and what the penalty should be for such violation. '7 The Wilmington Probation/Parole Oflice was not included in this data collection. Therefore the number ofdomestic violence cases supervised by officers in this office is unknown. ‘S Each month a probation/parole officer receives a list ofpeople that have been assigned to their caseload. This includes all ofl'enders under current supervision over a period ofmonths and the new offenders assigned to the caseload that month. A person working in the Master Files Unit provides this database printout to each officer. The printout includes the offender’s name, State Bureau ofIdentification number, date of birth, Court of Jurisdiction, and the maximum expiration date ofthe probation sentence. '9 Actual numbers were unavailable at the time ofthis study.