Learning What Works in Domestic Violence Prosecution

Why is domestic violence prosecution an important criminal justice topic?

Ever since I was a victim advocate, I have been interested in what makes domestic violence prosecutions work. It is really challenging. One of the hardest things for prosecutors is that many cases, at some point, will experience a ​“recanting victim” — that is, a victim who wanted police intervention at the crime scene, but as the case progressed, they changed their mind and did not want to prosecute. There are some estimates that 80% of domestic violence cases have an element of recantation in them. That, along with the fact that most domestic violence happens in private homes, without witnesses, makes prosecution an uphill battle. Our innovation day was designed to think about how to effectively deal with recantation — but it morphed into something much bigger, and much more impactful.

Why is it important to be able to prosecute these cases effectively? 

Domestic violence cases are woefully underreported and still comprise a large number of cases in our criminal justice system. If they are not properly prosecuted, we see a ​“revolving door” of people that come back to the system time after time. And the human cost is incredibly high. Domestic violence imposes high mental, medical, and employment costs on its victims, primarily women. Kids who grow up in homes with domestic violence do worse on educational and other outcomes. When cases continue, they increase in lethality. More than 20% of homicides in this country are domestic violence-related, and more than half of all murdered women are killed in a domestic violence-related incident. These cases also have large spillover effects. Domestic violence crime scenes are notoriously dangerous for police officers, and studies link domestic violence perpetrators to other forms of violence, including shootings. So, our criminal justice system needs to respond better and hopefully with an eye toward prevention.

What insights came out of this event? 

We opened with a conversation about the importance of causal research in understanding whether a program is working. And we gave examples of how causal research has answered questions about domestic violence in judicial settings. In particular, we talked about a program called Target Abuser Call, or TAC, which started in Cook County, Illinois, where Chicago is located. The prosecutor’s office identifies high-risk domestic violence cases and does a type of enhanced prosecution. In the end, victims who receive TAC are more cooperative, there are higher conviction rates, and the likelihood of homicide for victims goes way down. 

Then we heard project pitches from the researchers and prosecutors. It was really interesting to hear what each group wants to learn. And there was lots of engagement and dialogue.

After lunch, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys talked about national trends in domestic violence prosecution over the last 20 years and what prosecutors are struggling with around the country. Then, two participants presented an innovative approach to address the problem of ​“criminalized survivorship,” which is when a victim of domestic violence is criminally charged in some fashion — for example, when police respond and cannot determine who started the conflict and have to arrest both parties. There are prosecutors’ offices in King County, Washington, and Nashville, Tennessee, that are implementing a diversion program for survivors in that situation. 

At the end, we talked about what makes a successful proposal for funding. Everyone was very interested in pursuing research partnerships. 

What opportunities do you see for future research in this area?

A lot of people are already interested in replicating TAC. There is also some interest in what are called ​“no-drop” policies, where prosecutors do not drop cases, even if victims say they want to. Instead, prosecutors move forward based on the evidence they have. Sometimes, they still put the victim on the stand. Other times, they prosecute using everything except the victim’s testimony. People are really interested in understanding the effect of that approach, especially on later outcomes. Prosecutors are almost guaranteed to lose the case. But what does it mean when the victim comes back next time? What message does it send to the offender about accountability? There is also a lot of interest in data infrastructure and case management tools, especially the idea of standardizing some of the measures we use — for example, standardizing the definition of recidivism.

How could this research benefit individuals and communities? 

During the day, we tried to define what it means to effectively prosecute domestic violence. It is not just a conviction for conviction’s sake. What we really mean is conviction with safety in mind for the victim, their children, and the community. If we do that better, then it goes without saying that people will be safer. But it can also help us learn more about what we are doing. Is it possible that our practices are harmful to the victim? If we want victims to cooperate, we have to ensure that we make them better off. We at least have to do no harm. We also want to do this work efficiently, to use our dollars wisely. There is an opportunity cost. Whenever you do one domestic violence intervention, you are probably choosing not to do a different one. Research and evidence can help guide those choices.

Why is it important to conduct rigorous research when making public policy decisions? 

At its heart, rigorous research should be about outcomes. Does a program or policy change an outcome? Knowing that is helpful in itself. But it also helps side-step partisanship that can move us off track. Rigorous research is objective, and when it is done right, through a collaborative effort, we can better understand how to implement programs and policies well. Then, we are in a position to provide communities with real solutions to their problems. As a social scientist, that is the dream.