Situational, Community, and State Policy-Level Factors Associated with Arrest in Incidents of Intimate Partner Violence

• Published date: 01 September 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/07340168221115407
• Author: Marisa L. Beeble,Adrienne E. Adams,KyungSook Lee
• Date: 01 September 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

Situational, Community, and

State Policy-Level Factors

Associated with Arrest in

Incidents of Intimate

Partner Violence

Marisa L. Beeble

1

, Adrienne E. Adams

2

,

and KyungSook Lee

3

Abstract

This study explored situational-, community-, and state policy-level factors associated with arrest in

incidents involving violence among heterosexual couples. We employed 3-level regression models

with Bayesian estimation to determine factors that inf‌luence female-only arrest, male-only arrest,

and dual arrest, compared to incidents resulting in no arrest. At the situational level, differences

by offense type were seen. The odds of a male’s arrest were signif‌icantly higher across all offense

types, except for sexual assault, larceny, and fraud. The odds of a female partner’s arrest were sig-

nif‌icantly higher across all offenses except larceny, robbery, and fraud. The odds of dual arrest were

signif‌icantly higher in incidents involving simple assault, aggravated assault, intimidation, but not sex-

ual assault, kidnapping, property crime, larceny, and robbery. The odds of arrest were higher across

the board among incidents involving a victim injury, a weapon, mutual violence, and perpetrator sub-

stance use. At the community level, few factors were related to arrest. At the state policy level,

mandatory arrest statutes increased the odds of a single arrest in comparison to jurisdictions

with off‌icer discretion, regardless of perpetrator sex, but had no impact on dual arrest. Primary

aggressor policies were unrelated to arrest outcomes. Implications for research and practice are

discussed.

Keywords

domestic violence, intimate partner violence, arrest decisions

1

Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Russell Sage College, Albany, NY, USA

2

Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

3

Center for Alaska Native Health Research, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA

Corresponding Author:

Marisa L. Beeble, Russell Sage College, 140 New Scotland Avenue, Albany, NY 12208, USA.

Email: beeblm@sage.edu

Article

Criminal Justice Review

2023, Vol. 48(3) 377-402

© 2022 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/07340168221115407

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrated by men against women is a widespread social problem

and signif‌icant public health concern. Approximately 43.6 million women in the U.S. have experi-

enced physical assault, sexual violence, and/or stalking by intimate partners at some point during

their lifetime, and 43.5 million have experienced psychological aggression (Smith et al., 2018).

IPV has devastating and long-lasting physical, psychological, economic, and legal consequences

for women’s lives (D’Inverno et al., 2019). Further, over half of female homicide victims are

killed by a current or former male partner (CDC, 2021a).

Historically domestic violence was perceived to be a family matter by much of society, leaving

victims without requisite supports and legal avenues to respond to the violence they endured

(Durfee, 2021; Johnson, 2002). With and following the women’s liberation movement came a call

for action from feminists, advocates, and scholars alike to develop laws and policies that responded

to violence among intimate partners much in the same way as society would respond to violence per-

petrated by strangers, emphasizing perpetrator accountability (Goodmark, 2009). Widespread man-

datory and pro-arrest statutes followed this call for action over several decades. Unlike discretionary

arrest policies in which off‌icers can use their own judgement about whether arrest is the best course of

action, mandatory arrest policies require that an arrest be made in situations in which the off‌icer has

probable cause to believe domestic violence has occurred (Durfee, 2021). Pro-arrest, also known as

preferred arrest, falls in the middle of these two extremes and encourages an off‌icer to make an arrest.

While widespread efforts to criminalize domestic violence were initially welcomed and viewed as a

success, they were not without their limitations and unintended consequences for victims

(Chesney-Lind, 2002; Goodmark, 2009; Hovmand et al., 2009).

Since the widespread implementation of mandatory and pro-arrest statutes, arrests have increased

overall (Durfee & Fetzer, 2016; Hirschel et al., 2007) and arrest rates of women have grown dispro-

portionately to that of men’s (DeLeon-Granados et al., 2006; Durfee, 2012; Hamilton & Worthen,

2011). Experts agree that this is likely due to the arrest policies rather than an increase in female-

perpetrated violence within intimate relationships (Chesney-Lind, 2002; DeLeon-Granados et al.,

2006). Even in incidents characterized as having “situational ambiguity,”whereby mutual violence

occurred among the intimate partners, Durfee (2012) found that after accounting for individual and

incident characteristics in mandatory arrest jurisdictions, the odds the female partner was arrested

were higher than the odds that the male partner was arrested. In situations of mutual violence, off‌icers

may be reluctant to determine or have diff‌iculty deciphering which partner was the primary aggres-

sor, leading to higher incidents of dual arrest (Finn & Bettis, 2006). Further, a lack of understanding

of the context in which the violence occurred on the part of police may result in female victims being

arrested for using defensive violence, as a result of the perpetrators’ability to manipulate the off‌icer

and depict the victim as the primary aggressor (Dichter, 2013), or as a result of the perpetrator retal-

iating against the victim (Rajah et al., 2006). In a qualitative study investigating the impact of man-

datory arrest policies on survivors of IPV, women often report being unsuccessful in their attempts to

portray themselves as victims to law enforcement (Leisenring, 2011). Regardless of the cause of the

arrest, women report devastating consequences ranging from f‌inancial hardships; diff‌iculty obtain-

ing/maintaining employment; child protective services involvement and in some cases, loss of

custody (Dichter, 2013); and a reluctance to contact police for help in the future (Crager et al., 2003).

In addition, mandatory arrest policies and the like are disempowering and strip survivors of their

autonomy to choose whether or not pursue legal action against their partner and to determine what

may be in their best interest (Goodmark, 2009). The initial intent of these policies, that is, to prioritize

victim safety and facilitate perpetrator accountability, overlooks the reality of IPV, views all survi-

vors’circumstances as comparable, and assumes that these policies protect victims and their choices

(Goodmark, 2009). However, in some circumstances, perpetrator arrest seems to have little effect on

378 Criminal Justice Review 48(3)