Victim Engagement in the Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases

• Date: 01 August 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12054
• Author: Richard R. Peterson
• Published date: 01 August 2013

POLICY ESSAY

VICTIM-CENTERED PROSECUTORIAL

POLICIES

Victim Engagement in the Prosecution of

Domestic Violence Cases

Richard R. Peterson

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

Policies and practices for prosecuting domestic violence (DV) cases vary widely.

Some District Attorney’s (DA’s) offices file charges in most DV cases (a policy

sometimes described as “mandatory filing” or “universalfiling”), whereas others file

charges only in cases that have strong evidence for conviction. Once they file charges, some

prosecute all cases (sometimes described as “mandatory prosecution” or a “no-drop”policy);

others drop charges if it becomes clear that conviction is unlikely. Some DA’s offices divert

cases from criminal prosecution while a defendant participates in a mandated intervention

program, whereas others do not use diversion. Among those whose policies allow discretion

in filing charges, dropping charges, or diverting cases, some allow victims to participate in

and influence these decisions (sometimes described as a “victim-centered” policy), whereas

others minimize victim participation.

Some DA’s offices subpoena reluctant victims to testify in DV cases, whereas others

do not. Regardless of their policy on subpoenas, some use “evidence-based” prosecution

to pursue cases when the victim does not testify. DA’s offices also vary in the extent to

which they use victim advocates to provide information about the status of the case, to

encourage victims to testify, or to link victims to support services. DA’s offices implement

these policies and practices in a variety of contexts. Some have specialized prosecution units,

some prosecute their cases in specialized DV courts, and some operate in jurisdictions with

a coordinated community response.

Because so many policies, practices, and contexts exist for prosecuting DV cases,

characterizing the approach taken by any particular jurisdiction is difficult. Comparing

jurisdictions also can be problematic because many features of each jurisdiction can differ.

Interpreting studies that compare prosecutorial policies requires a detailed understanding

Direct correspondence to Richard R. Peterson, New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 52 Duane Street, New

York, NY 10007 (e-mail: rpeterson@nycja.org).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12054 C2013 American Society of Criminology 473

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 12 rIssue 3