Evaluation of No-Drop Policies for Domestic Violence Cases in San Diego, California, Omaha, Nebraska, Klamath Falls, Oregon, and Everett, Washington, 1996-2000

This study sought to examine the effects of no-drop
policies on court outcomes, victim satisfaction with the
justice system, and feelings of safety. Moreover, researchers wanted
to determine whether (1) prosecution without the victim's cooperation
was feasible with appropriate increases in resources, (2) implementing
a no-drop policy resulted in increased convictions and fewer
dismissals, (3) the number of trials would increase in jurisdictions
where no-drop was adopted as a result of the prosecutor's demand for a
plea in cases in which victims were uncooperative or unavailable, and
(4) prosecutors would have to downgrade sentence demands to persuade
defense attorneys to negotiate pleas in the new context of a no-drop
policy. Statutes implemented in San Diego, California, were designed
to make it easier to admit certain types of evidence and thereby to
increase the prosecutor's chances of succeeding in trials without
victim cooperation. To assess the impact of these statutes,
researchers collected official records data on a sample of domestic
violence cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 2000 and
resulted in no trial (Part 1), and cases in which disposition occurred
between 1996 and 1999, and resulted in a trial (Part 2). In Everett,
Washington (Part 3), Klamath Falls, Oregon (Part 4), and Omaha,
Nebraska (Part 5), researchers collected data on all domestic violence
cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 1999 and resulted
in a trial. Researchers also conducted telephone interviews in the
four sites with domestic violence victims whose cases resolved under
the no-drop policy (Part 6) in the four sites. Variables for Part 1
include defendant's gender, court outcome, whether the defendant was
sentenced to probation, jail, or counseling, and whether the
counseling was for batterer, drug, or anger management. Criminal
history, other domestic violence charges, and the relationship between
the victim and defendant are also included. Variables for Part 2
include length of trial and outcome, witnesses for the prosecution,
defendant's statements to the police, whether there were photos of the
victim's injury, the scene, or the weapon, and whether medical experts
testified. Criminal history and whether the defendant underwent
psychological evaluation or counseling are also included. Variables
for Parts 3-5 include the gender of the victim and defendant,
relationship between victim and defendant, top charges and outcomes,
whether the victim had to be subpoenaed, types of witnesses, if there
was medical evidence, type of weapon used, if any, whether the
defendant confessed, any indications that the prosecutor talked to the
victim, if the victim was in court on the disposition date, the
defendant's sentence, and whether the sentence included electronic
surveillance, public service, substance abuse counseling, or other
general counseling. Variables for Part 6 include relationship between
victim and defendant, whether the victim wanted the defendant to be
arrested, whether the defendant received treatment for alcohol, drugs,
or domestic violence, if the court ordered the defendant to stay away
from the victim, and if the victim spoke to anyone in the court
system, such as the prosecutor, detective, victim advocate, defense
attorney, judge, or a probation officer. The victim's satisfaction with
the police, judge, prosecutor, and the justice system, and whether the
defendant had continued to threaten, damage property, or abuse the
victim verbally or physically are also included. Demographic variables
on the victim include race, income, and level of education.

Tags: court-cases, criminal-histories, defendants, disposition-legal, domestic-violence, judicial-process, prosecution, sentencing, trials, victim-safety, victim-services, victims
Organization: Department of Justice