Group #5: Intimate Partner Violence and Protection Orders
Criminal Justice Pathways to Civil Protection Orders
Lisa Martin, University of South Carolina School of Law
A statewide study of civil protection order case files reveals that in some counties, only individuals whose experiences of intimate partner violence come to the attention of law enforcement seek legal protections from the civil courts. To the extent that civil protection orders were created, in part, as an alternative to the criminal justice system, this finding turns the remedy on its head. This article explores these findings and examines the policy choices that contribute to these outcomes, particularly relating to government funding and rural disinvestment. It evaluates the practical implications of this reality—in which law enforcement provides the sole pathway to civil legal protections–for efforts to expand access to justice and the viability of civil protection orders as a desirable source of support. It concludes that equitable, expanded investment in community-based services and education is required to return the civil protection order remedy to its roots and disentangle it from the criminal justice system.
Depths of Disgust & Domestic Violence
Jessica Miles, Seton Hall University School of Law
Domestic violence rates remain high in the United States despite a myriad of legal reform efforts over decades. Media reports offer proof that judges continue to ask questions and make comments which seem to attribute fault to victims for domestic violence. Meanwhile, scholars have consistently acknowledged the problem victim blaming creates for domestic violence survivors but have generally not sought to explore its potential source(s) in depth. Past studies have demonstrated that implicit bias that plays a role in domestic violence matters. However, the universality and continued prevalence of victim blaming of survivors in countries across the globe, including those with greater degrees of gender equality, suggests that other factors are implicated.
Emotions influence decision making by all human beings including judges. Some emotions including compassion for a person found to be a domestic violence survivor or a person whom the Court determines has perpetrated abuse may promote fair adjudications and procedural justice. However, the emotion of disgust may also impact judges’ opinions in Civil Protection Order (CPO) cases in ways that undermine safety for survivors of domestic violence and due process protections for people accused of abused.
Scientific research on disgust and victim blaming offers insights into how disgust may be implicated in responses to domestic violence. In addition, such research suggests ways in which the legal system, law schools, and other institutions seeking to reduce domestic violence may wish to modify their rules, procedures, and strategies related to domestic violence to more effectively prevent and otherwise address the problem.
Depths of Disgust
& Domestic Violence
Jessica Miles,
Seton Hall University School of Law
Intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors in the
United States often continue to face blame when they seek help despite decades
of legal reform and educational efforts to address the problem of IPV. Victim
blaming of survivors remains prevalent across the globe, including in countries
with relatively greater degrees of gender equality, suggesting that factors
beyond gender bias and lack of awareness have played a role in the persistence
of this phenomenon.
Recent
studies offer support for the proposition that disgust contributes to, and may
even cause, moral judgments which blame a victim for their own victimization in
a range of contexts including sexual assault and IPV. Other research has demonstrated that some gender-based
violence survivors internalize disgust, then felt as shame, as a result of the
harm they have suffered. Disgust further seems to be involved in some individuals’
reluctance to disclose IPV as well as societal reticence on the issue. Consideration
of scientific work on disgust can thus offer insights into how disgust may impact
legal and non-legal responses to IPV survivors, including in Civil Protection
Order cases, in ways that undermine safety for survivors. As research on disgust continues, the legal
system, law schools, and other institutions should consider changes in their laws,
policies, and practices tailored to mitigating the negative impacts of disgust in
the context of IPV.