Victim, Police, and Prosecutorial Responses to Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence: A Comparative Approach

DOI10.1177/1043986219894429
AuthorBrendan Lantz
Published date01 May 2020
Date01 May 2020
Subject MatterArticles
/tmp/tmp-17YllC2uL4gWvm/input 894429CCJXXX10.1177/1043986219894429Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeLantz
research-article2019
Article
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice
2020, Vol. 36(2) 206 –227
Victim, Police, and
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Prosecutorial Responses
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219894429
DOI: 10.1177/1043986219894429
journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj
to Same-Sex Intimate
Partner Violence: A
Comparative Approach
Brendan Lantz1
Abstract
Research on intimate partner violence (IPV) and the criminal justice response to such
incidents is extensive, but the majority of this research has focused on IPV perpetrated
by men against women in heterosexual partnerships. Yet, recent research has indicated
that the prevalence of IPV among LGB (lesbian, gay, and bisexual) individuals may be
as high as or higher than that of the general population. At the same time, a significant
body of research has examined police and prosecutorial responses to IPV; again, the
overwhelming majority of this research has also focused on heterosexual partners.
Following this, the current research uses National Incident-Based Reporting System
(NIBRS) data to create dyads of both opposite-sex (i.e., male–female and female–
male) and same-sex partners (i.e., male–male and female–female) to investigate the
joint relationship between sex, sexual orientation, and three different criminal justice
outcomes: victim refusal to cooperate with police, police decision to arrest, and the
prosecutorial decision to deny a case.
Keywords
same-sex IPV, victimization, victim cooperation, arrest, NIBRS
Research on intimate partner violence (IPV) and the criminal justice response to such
incidents is extensive, but the majority of this research has focused on IPV perpetrated
by men against women in heterosexual partnerships (see Ahmed & Jindasurat, 2014;
1Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
Corresponding Author:
Brendan Lantz, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, Eppes Hall, 112 S.
Copeland Street, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.
Email: blantz@fsu.edu

Lantz
207
Archer, 2000; Dutton & White, 2013; Henning & Renauer, 2005; Pattavina et al.,
2007; and Storey & Strand, 2012, for exceptions). Yet, IPV is experienced by men and
women in both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships. In fact, past research has
indicated that the prevalence of IPV among LGB (lesbian, gay, and bisexual) individu-
als may be as high as or higher than that of the general population (Blosnich &
Bossarte, 2009; Carvalho et al., 2004; Edwards et al., 2015; Messinger, 2011; Owen &
Burke, 2004; Stotzer, 2009). At the same time, a growing body of research has exam-
ined police and prosecutorial responses to IPV, and the overwhelming majority of this
research has also focused almost exclusively on heterosexual partners. In other words,
virtually none of this research has considered nonheterosexual victims, a trend that
Cannon and Buttell (2015) attribute to a “heteronormative bias that runs throughout
most domestic violence scholarship” (p. 68).
This limited focus of prior research on heterosexual IPV perpetrated by men results
in a significant knowledge gap pertaining to IPV generally, and same-sex IPV specifi-
cally. Moreover, the limited research that has been conducted on same-sex IPV victims
has predominantly focused on small convenience samples composed entirely of such
victims. As such, most research that has been conducted has lacked effective compari-
son groups (Baker et al., 2013; Cannon & Buttell, 2015; Edwards et al., 2015; Felson
& Lantz, 2016; Wenger, 2015). This is a critical oversight because, when focusing
only on heterosexual male-on-female violence, or only on same-sex IPV, we cannot
fully understand the role of both sex and sexual orientation in the production of case
outcomes related to such violence (Parry & O’Neal, 2015; Pattavina et al., 2007). In
other words, without useful comparison groups it is impossible to understand the
extent to which IPV case outcomes differ (a) from general violence, (b) by the sex of
the offender and victim, and (c) by the sexual orientation of the offender and victim.
Following this, the current research uses data from the National Incident-Based
Reporting System (NIBRS) to conduct a comparative analysis in which differences in
three case outcomes—victim refusal to cooperate with police, the prosecutorial deci-
sion to deny a case, and the police decision to arrest—are examined. More specifically,
the current research creates a series of offender–victim sex dyads (i.e., male–female,
male–male, female–male, and female–female) in a sample of both general assault
cases and intimate partner assault cases to conduct a comparative analysis between (a)
general assaults and assaults that involve intimate partners, as well as within intimate
partner assault differences according to (b) the sex of the offender and victim and (c)
the sexual orientation of the offender and victim. In doing so, this analysis allows for
the separation of the joint influence of intimate partnerships, sex, and sexual orienta-
tion on case outcomes.
Literature Review
Prior research on IPV has consistently found that positive victim engagement with
formal help-seeking services, like the legal system, can provide positive outcomes for
the victim (e.g., Cerulli et al., 2014). This research has, however, also demonstrated
that such victims are often reluctant to engage with the criminal justice system. This

208
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 36(2)
reluctance occurs for a number of reasons, including lack of resources, shame, stigma,
and fear of retaliation and secondary victimization (e.g., Felson & Lantz, 2016).
Despite this reluctance, however, research has demonstrated that victim engagement
with the criminal justice system can improve future victim safety, such that risk of
future IPV victimization is reduced (e.g., Cerulli et al., 2014). Likewise, research on
arrest has also indicated that the arrest of IPV offenders is associated with a reduced
risk of recidivism (e.g., Sherman & Berk, 1984).1 Despite these important outcome
differences, however, the overwhelming majority of research on criminal justice
responses to IPV have focused exclusively on opposite-sex couples. But, when one
examines opposite-sex couples in isolation, or even same-sex couples in isolation, one
cannot determine whether the criminal justice system responds differently to each case
(Felson & Lantz, 2016; Pattavina et al., 2007).
Prior Research on Same-Sex IPV
Importantly, the limited research that has been conducted on same-sex IPV victims has
indicated that the lifetime prevalence of IPV among this population is actually equal
to or greater than that of the general population (Brown & Herman, 2015). Research
on bisexual women, for example, found that such women were actually 1.8 times more
likely to report having experienced IPV than heterosexual women (Walters et al.,
2013). Another study conducted by Goldberg and Meyer (2013) estimated that nearly
27% of gay men had experienced IPV in their lifetime and roughly 12% had experi-
enced IPV in the past year (see Messinger, 2011, for similar estimates). Yet, despite
this prevalence, and the need for the criminal justice system to appropriately respond
to these incidents, very little research has examined the criminal justice response to
same-sex IPV.
While it is important to note that the majority of this prior research has examined
perceptions of criminal justice actor effectiveness, rather than actual behavior, this
research has predominantly suggested that, like opposite-sex victims, same-sex vic-
tims are often reluctant to seek formal help following victimization, or at least prefer
to seek informal help (Donovan & Hester, 2008; Freedner et al., 2002; Sylaska &
Edwards, 2014). Kuehnle and Sullivan (2003), for example, found that roughly 60%
of female victims reported same-sex IPV to the police, while male victims of same-sex
IPV reported to the police less frequently. Moreover, while at least two studies have
indicated that such victims may disclose victimization more frequently than hetero-
sexual victims (Dank et al., 2014; Freedner et al., 2002), when same-sex IPV victims
do seek formal help, they generally rate other informal support sources, like friends, to
be more helpful (Edwards et al., 2015; Irwin, 2008). That is, many of these victims
reported that such formal help services were not equipped for dealing with sexual
minority populations and that services were unhelpful (e.g., Alhusen et al., 2010;
Bornstein et al., 2006; Edwards et al., 2015; St. Pierre & Senn, 2010).
After victimization, and like opposite-sex IPV victims, same-sex victims of IPV
may experience shame, embarrassment, fear, and other negative reactions (Scherzer,
1998; Turrell, 2000). There are, however, also a number of reasons to expect that

Lantz
209
nonheterosexual IPV victims may interact differently with the criminal justice system
than other victims. First, police officers and prosecutors both employ the use of schema
and stereotypes to make decisions, and IPV among the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender) population may not fit such schema (Hassouneh & Glass, 2008;
Turrell, 2000). Prior research has indicated, for example, that whether an incident fits
stereotypical conceptions of a crime impacts the decision to arrest and prosecute cases
(e.g., Lantz et al.,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT