The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers 

Arraigned in a Massachusetts District Court 

1995 to 2004 

Author(s): Douglas Wilson, Ph.D. ; Andrew Klein, Ph.D. 

Document No.: 215346 

Date Received: August 2006 

Award Number: 2004-WB-GX-0011 

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to 

traditional paper copies.

 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of 

Batterers Arraigned in a 

Massachusetts District Court 

1995 to 2004 

May 2006 

Douglas Wilson, Ph.D. 

Andrew Klein, Ph.D. 

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded this study 

(Grant No. 2004WBGX0011). Neither the content nor the conclusions represent 

NIJ policy but are the responsibility of the authors 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

24 Crescent Street 

Waltham, MA 02453

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of 

Batterers Arraigned at a Massachusetts

District Court 1995 to 2004 

Executive Summary 

INTRODUCTION

A majority of 342 men arraigned for domestic crimes in a Massachusetts district court in 

a year spanning 1995-1996 committed a variety of crimes in addition to domestic abuse. Using 

criminal history records, the researchers examined the criminal activities of these men for the 

nine years after their index arrest. Twenty years was the median length of the criminal career of 

men who the police arrested for domestic violence and they had a prior arrest for substance abuse 

or violence or both. Men who committed domestic crimes, but did not have a prior arrest for 

substance abuse or violence or both had a median criminal career of 11 years. 

The domestic violence literature argues categorically that men continue their domestic 

crimes unless the police intervene, the victim pursues some other protective social action, or the 

abuser departs; men do not spontaneously desist from domestic violence. 

Court intervention is an important instrument in the process of initiating a man’s 

desistance from domestic crime. Auditors of domestic violence literature conclude, however, that 

there is only weak evidence that various court-directed domestic violence remedies are effective. 

Given that most men in the longitudinal study who committed domestic violence were 

persistently and generally criminal, this is not a surprising conclusion. Remedies designed to 

contain domestic violence are inadequate against substance abusing, violent men, who make up a 

majority of the abusers. While 80 percent of the men who committed only domestic violence

crimes desisted within one year of their index arrest, only 16 percent of the men who committed 

domestic violence and other crimes desisted within one year. 

Observers of local courts frequently argue that greater consistency in the adjudication of 

domestic crimes would strengthen the effect of court actions. Consistent adjudication, for many 

reasons discussed in the longitudinal study, is difficult to achieve even in a model court with a 

high rate of prosecution, such as the one studied here. Courts are multi-part organizations that 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court i

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

respond to a variety of objectives; domestic violence cases may have as many as 84 different 

paths through the court system. Despite the complexity of the court system, the longitudinal 

study did find consistent patterns of court behavior around domestic violence crimes. The 

identification of consistent patterns, however, still left room for considerable variation in the 

outcomes. 

The study distinguished at least two groups of domestic criminals. The 75 percent of the 

men in the cohort who had a previous arrest for violence or substance abuse or both and are 

persistently criminal, and the 25 percent of the cohort men who did not have a previous arrest for 

violence or substance abuse or both. The study outcome suggests that courts need to reframe 

their view of domestic abuse committed by men in the first group and sentence them to at least a 

year in a secure facility to receive intensive habilitation around their dynamic criminogenic 

attributes. Habilitation should continue when these offenders return to the community. The court 

should sentence men in the second group in the same manner if they fail to desist. This 

remediation hypothesis is untested. The next step is to test it by evaluating the domestic violence 

and other criminal activity of men who have received intensive habilitation in a secure facility. 

BACKGROUND

This research examines the complex problem of the longitudinal relationship between a 

proactive judicial domestic violence program and the desistance of the criminal activities of a 

cohort of men arrested for domestic violence. A district court that covers an eastern jurisdiction 

of Massachusetts administered the domestic violence program. The research followed the 

criminal behavior of 342 men that police originally arrested for domestic violence within the 

court’s jurisdiction between February 1995 and March 1996.1

 Through record reviews, this 

research followed their criminal behavior until December 2004. 

The court was a model court. Prosecutors vigorously pursued domestic violence 

criminals, dismissing the cases of only a small proportion of the arraigned men and pursuing 

cases even when the victim was reluctant to pursue it. The Probation Department had specially 

trained domestic violence probation officers who readily returned offenders to court for 

violations of probation conditions. The Department drug tested the probationers. The court 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court ii

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

readily incarcerated domestic violence offenders who either did not meet the conditions of their 

initial sentence or continued their abuse. The court regularly assigned convicted batterers to 

qualified batterer intervention programs. Civil restraining orders were readily obtainable. The 

maximum length of misdemeanor sentence in Massachusetts is 2.5 years, which provides the 

possibility of a stronger deterrent than exists in most states. The court represents an effectively 

administered model court as conceived in the 1990s. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 342 MEN ARRESTED FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

At the time of the initial study2

 the median age of the men was 33; the median age of the 

victims was 32. Eighty-five percent of the abusers and victims were white. Seventy-two percent 

of the victims were not married. Seventy-three percent of the index incidents took place in the 

victims’ households, although the majority of victims were not living with the abusers at the 

time. Twenty-three percent of the cases involved ex-partners ― ex-spouses, ex-dating partners, 

and ex-intimates. 

These men were not strangers to the courts. Only 16 percent of the study defendants had 

no prior criminal history before their index arrest.3

 Criminal and civil records indicate that the 

vast majority of these men had multiple prior criminal charges filed against them before their 

arrest on domestic violence charges. 

Ten percent of the men had severe records of violence including prior felony convictions 

and prison sentences for murder, armed robbery, rape, or related offenses. Domestic violence 

charges are just part of much more extensive and wide-ranging violent criminal histories. 

Twenty-nine percent had restraining orders filed against them prior to their index arrest. Fortyfive percent of these had orders taken out by multiple victims. Table 1 summarizes the prior 

crimes of these men. They include, among others, domestic violence, drug and alcohol crimes, 

and property crimes. 

 1 The 1995-1996 findings were published by Eve Buzawa, Gerald Hotaling, Andrew Klein and James Byrne in

Response to Domestic Violence In A Pro-Active Court Setting, Final Report (March 1999) published by the 

University of Massachusetts Lowell in Lowell, Massachusetts. The National Institute of Justice supported the study. 2

 The 1995-1996 findings were published by Eve Buzawa, Gerald Hotaling, Andrew Klein and James Byrne in

Response to Domestic Violence In A Pro-Active Court Setting, Final Report (March 1999) published by the 

University of Massachusetts Lowell in Lowell, Massachusetts. The National Institute of Justice supported the study. 3

 The “index arrest” is the 1995-1996 arrest in the jurisdiction of the District Court and is the point from which the 

study measures future and previous arrests.

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court iii

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Table 1: Crimes prior to entry into the study by percent of defendants 

Crime type: Domestic 

violence 

Alcohol 

or drug 

Property Public

order 

Sex crimes Major motor 

vehicle 

Percent of men 

in cohort: 

27 58 52 44 7 55

On numerous occasions prior to their index arrest, the court sentenced these men for their 

criminal activity. (See Table 2) The men, who committed domestic violence crimes prior to their 

Table 2: Court punishment prior to their index arrest by percent of defendants 

Punishment: Probation for at

least one prior 

sentence 

Multiple 

probationary

sentence 

Incarcerated at 

least once 

Multiple 

incarcerations

Percent of men in

cohort: 

55 37 30 19

index arrest, inflicted a high rate of injury. Ten percent of the victims experienced serious 

injuries, including broken bones, noses, internal bleeding, lacerations, and loss of consciousness. 

An additional 27 percent experienced moderate injuries involving bruises, swelling, and joint 

soreness. According to interviews with victims conducted in the initial study, 70 percent of the 

victims feared serious injury during the incident. 

THE LONGITUDINAL STUDY

This longitudinal study examines the interplay, during the next nine years, between the 

actions of a district court in eastern Massachusetts and the cohort of criminals arrested for 

domestic abuse in the initial study. The degree to which a criminal desists from their criminal 

activities is the result of a number of influences, which the literature review summarizes, and the 

subsequent analysis explores in terms of the affect of court procedures. 

A major pattern found in the study was the large amount of crime committed by these 

men including their index arrest and after. Forty-one percent of the men committed only 

domestic abuse crimes; 59 percent committed domestic abuse and other crimes. Among the men 

that the police rearrested following their index arrest, eighteen percent committed only domestic 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court iv

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

abuse crimes, twenty-two percent committed only non-domestic abuse crimes, and sixty percent 

committed domestic abuse and non-domestic abuse crimes. 

In less than six months, the police rearrested forty-seven percent of the men for their next 

crime. After each arrest, approximately 26 percent of the men desisted from further criminal 

activity, as measured by an arrest. 

Whether a man in the cohort had a prior arrest for violence or substance abuse, or both, 

affected the length of his criminal career; 20 years was the median length of the criminal careers 

of violent, substance abusing men. Eleven years was the median length of the criminal career of

men who did not have a prior arrest for violence or substance abuse or both. The court’s actions 

help contain the offending of men arrested only for domestic violence. Eighty percent of these 

men desisted within a year of their index arrest. For men who committed other crimes as well as

domestic violence crimes, only 16 percent desisted within a year of their index arrest. 

The procedures of a local court are complex. The steps in which a man is involved after 

he is arrested include his prosecution, his initial sentencing by the court, the final disposition of 

his case, if he over-steps his initial sentence, and whether he desists from his criminal activity. 

The time from the initial arraignment to the initial disposition averaged 259 days, the median 

time was 196 days. The pace at which the court carried out its processes was far different from

the pace of the men’s criminal activity. Rearrested men were as equally likely to commit a new 

crime before the court disposed of their previous one as after. This criminal behavior had no 

discernible effect on the court’s sentencing behavior and often worked to the advantage of the 

criminal insofar as the court disposed of the former case concurrently with the latter. The Court 

was indifferent to the violation of a restraining order, either in terms of determining guilt or in 

the court’s sanction. Restraining orders, which are civil orders in Massachusetts, played no 

discernible role in determining the outcome of a criminal abuse case, although a violation carries 

a maximum penalty of 2.5 years in a county correctional facility. One-third of domestic violence 

arrests involved violations of restraining orders. 

Arresting and prosecuting the men failed to deter those who committed domestic violence 

as well as other crimes from continuing their criminal activity, either before the court disposed of 

their case or after the court imposed its sanctions. Ordering men to batterer intervention 

programs or anger management was the usual court effort to habilitate domestic violence 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court v

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

criminals. Such programs are an inadequate response to men who are domestically violent, 

substance abusers, who commit additional crimes. The lengthy court procedures and the modest 

efforts to habilitate these criminals exposed victims and the community to excess levels of risk. 

The court procedures do exhibit some consistencies. A multivariate logit model found 

that the criminal’s age at first arrest, an interaction of age at first arrest and an alcohol or drug 

arrest, and conviction for a prior violent crime characterized men found guilty in contrast to 

those who had their cases dropped, dismissed, or diverted. For example, if the police first arrest a 

criminal at age 15, he abused substances, as measured by an alcohol or drug arrest, and had a 

prior violent crime conviction; the probability of a guilty disposition is 64 percent. If the man is 

46 at his first arrest, is not an arrested substance abuser, and has no violent criminal record the 

probability of a guilty disposition is 8 percent. 

The court sentenced the men found guilty to one of two major initial dispositions: 

probation with or without a suspended sentence; or incarceration, with or without a split 

sentence. The single variable that distinguishes whether a man guilty of domestic violence is 

initially sentenced to jail is whether he has previously committed a violent crime for which he 

has been jailed. If the court issued a guilty verdict, the man has a previous jail sentence and he 

committed a prior violent crime, his probability of returning to jail is 69 percent. If the court 

issued a guilty verdict, but the man had either no prior jail sentence or no prior violent crime, his 

probability of a jail sentence is 46 percent (p=0.009, odds ratio=2.6). This interaction variable is 

a reasonable description of the decision process given that violent men appropriately have an 

elevated probability of incarceration. 

The distinction between a court’s initial decision and its final disposition of the case is 

important. An initial decision, such as continuance without a finding, probation, a suspended 

sentence, or a split sentence is an initial conditional sentence. Violation of the court-imposed 

conditions can result in the court ordering the offender to jail. This is a final disposition of the 

case. There can be no more severe sentence of a misdemeanor crime than a term in a county 

correctional facility without probation. Given an initial conditional disposition, the final 

disposition is effectively a continuation of the case. 

 A logit model estimated that the probability of whether the court’s final disposition was 

a jail sentence. The analysis estimated that a jail sentence is the conditional probability of an 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court vi

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

initial guilty disposition, conditioned by whether court had previously sentenced the offender to 

jail. That is, offenders who have a final disposition of jail may have an initial probationary 

sentence, but demonstrate that they cannot yet stay within the limits of a sentence less than jail. 

The court decides to contain their behavior by revoking their conditional sentence and returning 

them to jail. 

Men who failed to desist from crime and the police rearrested had early criminal 

involvement, substance abuse, committed a prior violent crime, and had an inability to stay 

within the bounds of a conditional judicial penalty, such as probation or a suspended sentence. In 

contrast, men were less likely to recidivate if they were older at first arrest, married, and 

remained within the bounds of their conditional sentence. Table 3, based on the logistical 

multivariate analysis of the offender’s behavior, provides illustrative estimates of the probability 

of rearrest. 

Table 3: Probability of recidivism based on offender’s behavior 

Age at first 

arrest 

Alcohol/drug 

arrest and age

interaction Married

Prior Violent 

crime 

Final 

disposition is

jail 

Probability 

of

recidivism 

19 Yes No Yes Yes 0.99

25 Yes Yes No No 0.57

19 No Yes No No 0.38

46 No Yes No No 0.13

The statistical analysis provides a synoptic view of prosecution, initial and final judicial 

disposition of the crimes and recidivism of the 342 men. The analysis finds that there is 

consistency in how the court responded to domestic violence cases. The case outcomes, however, 

do not perfectly reflect the independent variables. The repeated pattern of court sentencing 

indicates that although the likelihood of an offender recidivating may be very high, the court, 

often initially disposed of a rearrested man’s case with a suspended sentence or other 

probationary sentence. 

Finally, while the court’s efforts appeared to be effective with men who committed only 

domestic violence crimes, the court’s vigorous response to domestic violence with high rates of 

prosecution, batterer intervention programs, drug testing, special probation officers, and 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court vii

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

deterrence through probation and jail did not stop the criminal activity of men who committed a 

variety of crimes including domestic violence. The study provides some evidence that the next 

generation of model program needs an intensive effort to habilitate these men and reduce their 

violence, their general criminogenic needs, and their abuse of alcohol and drugs, both while they 

are in a secure facility and in the community following their release. Given the lengthy criminal 

careers of these men and the likely costs they impose on the criminal justice system, the 

community, and individuals, such a “new model” approach may provide measurable net benefits. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court viii

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Research ...............................................1

BACKGROUND............................................................................................ 1

DATA SOURCES FOR THE STUDY..................................................................... 3

A REVIEW OF EARLIER LITERATURE......................................................... 5

Chapter 2: Offenders and Offenses.......................................................13

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... 13 

OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS................................................................... 13 

Exhibit 1: Prior Domestic Violence History........................................................... 17

Exhibit 2: Prior Felony Crimes Against Persons..................................................... 18

Exhibit 3: Repeated arrests................................................................................. 20

Chapter 3: Operation of the District Court with Regard to 

Index Domestic Violence Offenses and Dispositions ..........................21 

TIME PERIOD........................................................................................ 21

MAJOR CHARGES................................................................................... 21

Table 1: Major domestic violence charges.............................................................. 22

TIME TO INITIAL DISPOSITION................................................................... 23

Table 2: Initial dispositions by year....................................................................... 24

INITIAL COURT DISPOSITIONS................................................................... 24

Table 3: Initial dispositions ................................................................................. 26

FINAL COURT DISPOSITIONS...................................................................... 27

Table 4: Final dispositions .................................................................................. 28

OVERLAPPING PROSECUTIONS................................................................... 28

Exhibit 4: Overlapping Charges and Dispositions................................................... 29

A SUMMARY.......................................................................................... 30

Chapter 4: Analysis of Prosecution, Court Decision, and 

Court Sentencing of Index Arrest...........................................................31

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... 31 

CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND THE ROLE OF ALCOHOL AND DRUGS.................... 31

Table 5: Consequences of substance abuse ............................................................ 32

PROSECUTE OR DISMISS; GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY......................................... 32

Table 6: Prosecution by offender/offense characteristics of domestic violence cases..... 33

Table 6A: An examination of the proximately related variables in Table 6 ................ 34

Table 6B: Probability of guilty disposition in domestic violence case.......................... 35

THE INITIAL COURT SENTENCE.................................................................. 35

Table 7: Sentences and offender/offense characteristics........................................... 36

FINAL COURT SENTENCE.......................................................................... 37

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court ix

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Chapter 5: Recidivism............................................................................38

SOME ISSUES OF DEFINITION.................................................................... 38

Table 8: Number of domestic violence arrests per defendant.................................... 39

NEW OFFENSES AFTER THE INDEX OFFENSES................................................ 40

Table 9: Number of domestic violence and non-domestic violence arrests for each

subsequent arrest following the index arrest............................................ 40 

Table 10: Non-domestic violence re-arrests .......................................................... 40

Figure 1: Comparison of continuing arrests for men who commit only DV crimes 

and men who commit DV and other crimes..................................... 41

Table 11: Probability of recidivism based on logistic behavior ........................... 42

TIME TO RE-ARREST............................................................................... 43

Table 12: Distribution of Rearrest of the Offender Cohort by Time to Next Arres.......... 43

NEW RESTRAINING ORDERS...................................................................... 44

Exhibit 5: Multiple arrests................................................................................... 44

Exhibit 6: Rearrests came quickly........................................................................ 45

Table 13: Breakdown of new restraining order by number of defendants..................... 45

VIOLATIONS OF RESTRAINING ORDERS........................................................ 46

Table 14: All Arrests, Domestic Violence, and Restraining Order Violation Arrests...... 46

DESISTANCE FROM CRIME........................................................................ 46 

Figure 2: Proportion of Cohort Continuing to be Arrested after first arrest....... 47 

Figure 3: Proportion of Cohort Continuing to be Arrested 

1995-2004 with/without previous violence or substance abuse................. 49

Chapter 6: Conclusions .........................................................................51 

Table 15: Sentences of Repeat Domestic Violence Offenders who were initially jailed for 

the index arrest........................................................................... 52 

Exhibit 7: Sentencing of Chronic Abuser.............................................................. 53

Bibliography.............................................................................................56 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court x

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of 

Batterers Arraigned at a Massachusetts

District Court 1995 to 2004 

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Research 

BACKGROUND

This research examines the complex problem of the longitudinal relationship between a 

proactive judicial domestic violence program and the desistance of the criminal activities of a 

cohort of men arrested for domestic violence. An eastern Massachusetts District Court 

administered the domestic violence program. The research followed the criminal behavior of 342 

men that police originally arrested for domestic violence within the court’s jurisdiction between 

February 1995 and March 1996.4

 Through record reviews, this research followed their criminal 

behavior until December 2004. 

The court vigorously pursued domestic violence criminals, dismissing the cases of only a 

small proportion of the arraigned men and pursuing cases even when the victim was reluctant to 

pursue it. The Probation Department had specially trained domestic violence probation officers 

who readily returned offenders to court for violations of probation conditions. The Department 

drug tested the probationers. The court readily incarcerated domestic violence offenders who 

either did not meet the conditions of their initial sentence or continued their abuse. The court 

assigned convicted batterers to qualified batterer intervention programs or anger management 

programs. Civil restraining orders were readily obtainable. The maximum length of a 

misdemeanor sentence in Massachusetts is 2.5 years, which provides the possibility of a stronger 

deterrent than exists in most states. The court represents an effectively administered pro-active 

court as conceived in the 1990s. 5 

 

4 The 1995-1996 findings were published by Eve Buzawa, Gerald Hotaling, Andrew Klein and James Byrne in

Response to Domestic Violence In A Pro-Active Court Setting, Final Report (March 1999) published by the 

University of Massachusetts Lowell in Lowell, Massachusetts. The National Institute of Justice supported the study. 5

 The Court’s domestic violence program won the Ford Foundation’s Innovations in American Government

$100,000 Awards in 1992 and was selected by the Office for Violence Against Women as one of four national

training sites for all state Violence Against Women Act STOP administrators in 1995. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 1

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Most men the police arrested for domestic violence had earlier arrests and had committed 

other crimes. Childhood and adolescent experiences do not fully explain adult criminal 

behaviors; 40 to 50 percent of adult criminals do not have juvenile records Regardless of when a 

man begins his criminal acts, desistance from crime is an expected part of his life story. Thus, in 

a longitudinal study of men who commit domestic violence and other crimes, the primary 

contribution of a proactive court is its effects on the men’s desistance from crime and abuse. 

Specifically, a pro-active program has high levels of offender prosecution, even when 

victims are reluctant to pursue the case, consistent administration of deterrent sentencing, drug 

testing, behavioral intervention programs, specially trained probation officers, and readily 

obtainable restraining orders. 

The case outcomes for men in the cohort reflect the interplay of the behavior of the proactive court, and the men’s process of desisting from crime. The purpose of this study is to 

reflect on the effects of the operation of a model judicial domestic violence program, as 

exemplified by the program initiated at the court in the early 1990s, on the criminal desistance of 

the men in the cohort. 

 The study describes the offenders, their domestic violence and other criminal offenses 

and the response of the Court. It is fundamentally a statistical case study. The Bureau of Justice 

Assistance (BJA) defines a case study as “a method for learning about a complex instance, based 

on a comprehensive understanding of that instance, obtained by extensive description and 

analysis of the instance, taken as a whole and in its context.” 6

 The evidence in a case study can 

be qualitative, quantitative or both. This study follows the BJA case study definition.7

 This case 

study follows several complex steps in the criminal justice process: prosecution, determination of 

guilt, initial sentencing, final disposition of the case and criminal recidivism. 

Although this case study relies on statistical measures, there is no control group; the 

design is not quasi-experimental. Nevertheless, the study provides insight into the relationship 

 

6

 Bureau of Justice Assistance, Center for Program Evaluation,www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/evaluation/glossary 7

 Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research, Rand 

McNally, 1966, p.6-7 scathingly dismiss case studies for their lack of a control group. Robert K. Yin writes that case 

studies have a distinctive place in evaluation research. The most important is to explain the causal links in real-life

interventions that are too complex for the survey or experimental strategies. Case Study Research: Design and 

Methods, 2d Edition, Swage Publications, 1994, p.15. Robert Yin notes that Campbell later recognized that case 

studies were not a subset of quasi-experimental designs, but a separate research strategy. Yin ,op.cit p.19. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 2

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

across time between the behavior of the court and the behavior of the criminals. This becomes 

especially worthwhile given that John Laub and Robert Sampson write, “Conventional wisdom

holds that there is little cessation from domestic violence over time.”8

 

The study hypothesizes that within a criminal court process, which includes processing 

many domestic violence cases, the criminal behavior of the men resulted in consistent court 

responses. The study defines a consistent response as one that researchers can observe 

statistically. Similarly, the men in the cohort responded in a manner that was also statistically 

measurable. Examining the measured behavior of the court and the behavior of the offenders 

provides some insight into the interrelationship of the criminal justice process and the desistance 

of men from criminal acts. 

A case study outcome is a function of its context. Because of contextual differences, the 

same study undertaken in a different location with a different cohort of men is likely to have a 

somewhat different result. For example, the court in this study is proactive with regard to 

domestic abuse. The same study undertaken in a less active court with different laws is likely to 

have a different result. 

DATA SOURCES FOR THE STUDY

Researchers in this longitudinal study examined several databases. First, researchers 

accessed the state’s criminal history file, which contains a complete record of all Massachusetts 

court arraignments by charge. Consequently, researchers were able to track all defendant arrests 

that resulted in court arraignments through 2004. The criminal history file also records court 

action, including disposition of the case. If the defendant is committed to either a county 

correctional facility or a state prison, the actual period the defendant spent incarcerated is not 

included, only the correctional sentence imposed by the court. Periods spent under parole 

supervision are not included. As a result, research can only determine the number of months the 

court sentenced a defendant to incarceration, not the time actually served. Although former 

Massachusetts Governor William Weld ordered the state parole board to stop granting parole to 

 

8

 John H. Laub and Robert J. Sampson, Understanding Desistance from Crime, Crime and Justice: Annual Review

of Research, University of Chicago, Vol. 27, 2001, p. 31.. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 3

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

domestic violence perpetrators in the mid-1990s, these inmates still qualified for “good time” 

and related considerations that reduced their time actually served. 

The researchers also accessed individual court criminal and civil records manually 

maintained by court clerk-magistrates. The criminal complaints identify the victim(s) of each 

charge, the victim’s date of birth and the addresses of the defendant and victim, as well as where 

the offense occurred. The civil records contained copies of restraining orders issued, including 

the name and relationship of the petitioner (victim) to the respondent (abuser). 

Researchers restricted their search for court restraining orders in the longitudinal study to 

those filed in the district court. Although there is an automated civil restraining order file, only 

hard copies stored in individual courthouses are open to researchers. While most of the study 

defendants, based on new arrests, remained in the court’s jurisdiction, it is likely that some had 

new restraining orders taken out against them outside the court’s jurisdiction. Measured by 

subsequent restraining orders, the assessment of new abuse is somewhat low. In this longitudinal 

study, researchers did not interview crime victims, analyze police reports, or review offender 

behavior in batterer intervention programs. The actual amount of crime committed by the men in 

the cohort is likely to be larger than is reported in their criminal history data. 

The study analysis relies on cross tabulations, Fisher’s exact test, bivariate and 

multivariate logistical analysis, and survival analysis. In addition, the study illustrates particular 

points in the study with brief vignettes of unidentified criminals in the cohort. The analysis 

focuses on describing the criminal behavior of the men in the cohort that significantly relates to 

case outcomes. The behavioral descriptions of the criminals are incomplete insofar as the 

variables all derive from the men’s criminal court and civil court records. Variables, which are 

part of the criminal record, describe antisocial or prosocial behavioral actions that the criminals 

have taken and to which the court responded, rather than background descriptive variables such 

as education and income, which are not readily controlled by the criminal or the court. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 4

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

A REVIEW OF EARLIER LITERATURE

 Brookoff and his colleagues9 present the following summary of participant 

characteristics from a sample of data collected at the scene of police responses to domestic 

violence calls, (n=64 assailants, 72 victims). Sixty-eight percent of the assaults involved 

weapons; 15 percent resulted in serious injury; 89 percent of the victims reported previous 

assaults by the same assailant; 35 percent of these assaults were on a daily basis; 92 percent of 

the assailants reported using alcohol or drugs on the day of the assault; 44 percent had a history 

of charges related to violence; 72 percent had an arrest for substance abuse; and children 

witnessed 85 percent of the assaults. 

Since the 1970s, there have been numerous innovations designed to improve the 

effectiveness of police and court responses to the violence described by Brookoff and his 

colleagues. Among these innovations are warrantless misdemeanor arrests, primary aggressor 

identification to lessen the likelihood of dual arrest, no-drop or evidence-based prosecution, 

batterer intervention programs and intensive, specialized probation supervision as well as easier 

availability of civil and criminal protection orders, and victim advocacy programs. Edna Erez 

writes that underlying these legal reforms is an assumption that implementing these polices with 

regard to police, prosecutors, special courts and sanctions will enhance the system’s ability to 

combat women battering.10 Unfortunately, Daniel Mears concludes, “Few of the identified 

interventions enjoy consistent and strong support regarding their effectiveness.”11

 The researchers found that men arrested for domestic violence frequently have criminal 

records, and that arrest, intense supervision and batterer intervention programs do not deter these 

men from battering again; the men do not desist. Although the literature is extensive, it contains 

gaps. Few of these studies are longitudinal; 12 few of them deal with desistance from battering;13

 

9

 D. Brookoff, et al, Characteristics of participants in domestic violence: Assessment at the scene of domestic 

assault, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 277(17), 1997, 1369-1373. 10 Erez, Edna, Domestic Violence and the Criminal Justice System: An Overview, Online Journal of Issues in

Nursing, Vol. 7(1), 2002 www.nursingworld.org/ojin/topic17/tpe17_3.htm. 11 loc cit. p.128. 12 There are two longitudinal studies of court ordered batterer intervention treatment. M. Shepard, Predicting

Batterer Recidivism Five Years After Community Intervention, Journal of Family Violence, Vol.7(3), 1992, p. 167-

178, and D.G. Dutton, et al, Wife Assault Treatment and Criminal Recidivism: An 11-Year Follow-up. International 

Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Vol.41 (1), 1997, p. 9-23.The average length of followup in the study is 5.5 years. There is also a six-year study on serial batterers, Adams S. Serial Batterers, Probation 

Research Bulletin, Office of the Commissioner of Probation, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, December 1999. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 5

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

and still fewer studies examine the general criminality of abusers.14 One of the difficulties of 

cross-sectional criminal justice evaluations is that they often fail to take into account where the 

criminal is in his criminal life. For example, the positive effect of arrest on domestic assault 

derives, in part, from where the man is in his life-course. A man who is married and employed is 

likely to desist after the initial arrest, while an unmarried, unemployed man may become more 

violent; temporal context determines a significant amount of outcome variation. 

An unstated premise of short-term research is that the justice system interventions can

significantly reduce abuse, for at least a short time, with one dose. One interpretation of Daniel 

Mears’ conclusions is that a single dose of a judicial intervention will not relieve chronic 

domestic violence. A longitudinal study of the criminal abuse and the court’s response may 

provide some insight into this dosage problem. 

A longitudinal review of domestic abuse involves an examination of men’s desistance 

from crime and criminal assault. Criminal justice researchers describe the desistance process 

qualitatively and quantitatively, but they do not completely understand it. Quantitatively, they 

define criminal desistance as the rate of offending which declines to the point where it is a 

“stable rate empirically indistinguishable from zero.”15 John Laub and Robert Sampson in a 

comprehensive discussion view desistance as part of a “life-course.” A life-course perspective 

recognizes that lives are embedded and shaped by context; the recognition that the 

developmental effects of life events are contingent on when they occur in a person’s 

life...; the acknowledgement of intergenerational transmission of social patterns ―

the notion of linked lives and interdependency; and the view that human agency 

plays a key role in choice making and constructing one’s life course. In short, the 

major objective of the life-course perspective is to link social history and social 

structure to the unfolding of human lives. A life-course perspective thus looks to 

explain variations in crime within individuals over time, regardless of whether one is 

interested in understanding persistence or desistance. 16

In a life-course perspective, a person’s decisions are the outcome of their psychological makeup 

operating within a framework of their experiences and current context. 

 13 Jeffrey Fagan, Cessation of Family Violence: Deterrence and Dissuasion, Crime and Justice: Annual Research 

Review, University of Chicago, 1989, p.377-425. 14 Eighty-five percent had prior arrest records in an East Norfolk, Massachusetts study; 69.4 percent in a Charlotte, 

North Carolina study; 59 percent in a Minneapolis arrest study; and 74 percent in an Indianapolis prosecution study. 15 Shawn D. Bushway et al., An Empirical Framework for Studying Desistance as a Process, Criminology, Vol. 39, 

No.2, 200l, p.500. 16 Laub and Sampson, op.cit. p.47 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 6

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

 Laub and Sampson attribute desistance to a small number of correlates: a stable marriage, 

stable work, a transformation of identity, and aging.17 They note the association between 

substance abuse and domestic violence,18 although they do not understand the causal connection. 

A reduction in substance abuse may be a collateral outcome of the criminal desistance process. 

The authors readily admit that these correlates and other similar explanations have a “post 

hoc” feel. It is difficult to distinguish a “transformation of identity” from transformational 

outcomes such as a stable marriage, steady employment, and aging. Criminals have a low rate of 

marriage. Women avoid marrying men with criminal records, just as employers are reluctant to 

hire them. Marriage implies that a transformative process is ongoing. Marriage, however, is as 

much an outcome of the process of criminal desistance as it is an institution to reinforce it. 

Marriage implies a willingness to drop bad associates and invest in alternative uses of leisure 

time. Marriage is likely to be proximately associated or collinear with having a job, 

reinterpretation of a man’s identity and aging, rather than being an independent variable. 

The interpretation of aging as an independent variable in the desistance process is equally 

difficult. Aging is a proxy variable for many cumulative changes. It signals the inevitable decline 

in energy, as well as the accumulated investment in marriage, a steady job, new associates, and 

new social contexts that modify the life-course. The desisting criminal learns that earnings from

honest employment are greater than the earnings from crime; they become more risk averse, 

especially with regard to the expense and punishment that results from court involvement. A 

marriage may provide an important source of income for a man with a criminal record. 

Neal Shover cautions, however, against an overly sunny view of desistance. Many men 

who desist from crime after incarceration do so in only the narrowest, most bureaucratic meaning 

of non-recidivism. Most live menial or derelict lives and many die prematurely from alcoholism,

drug use, and suicide. Although the police no longer arrest them, many remain involved in a 

violent subculture. 19

The role of the courts in desistance from domestic violence is critical. Jeffrey Fagan, in a 

comprehensive article on the cessation of domestic violence, states categorically, “There are no 

studies that document “natural” or spontaneous desistance [from family violence] without 

 

17 Ibid, p.1 18 See Raul Caetano, John Schaffer, Carol Cunradi, Alcohol-related Intimate Partner Violence Among White, Black, 

and Hispanic Couples in the United States, Alcohol research and Health, Vol.25No.1, 2001, p.58-65. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 7

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

intervention by the victim or as a result of some form of sanction or treatment.” 20 He continues, 

the few studies that analyze desistance typically attribute desistance in domestic violence to 

[social or legal] interventions, the departure of the abuser, or desistance that result from victim

strategies. Professor Fagan writes, 

It appears that desistance often begins with provocation from an external source, 

often a victim initiated event, usually involving the threat of legal or social sanctions 

that raise the cost of battering. Only then do the socio-psychological processes of 

desistance begin for the batterer.21

Desistance from battering requires the same transformation of identity, flexibility, and 

development of new social networks that men (and women) require in the process of cessation 

from other types of crime. 

The intervention of the court is one of the many contexts that this cohort of men experience 

during the nine years covered by the study. Unfortunately, the study data are restricted to the 

criminal and civil records of the men and their victims. The study researchers did not interview 

the criminals or their victims. The data are sufficient to trace only the parts of a man’s life that 

intersect with the judicial system and a clerk’s records of his criminal acts. Nevertheless, the 

examination of these records and court’s adjudication process provide useful insight into the 

interplay across nine years of the men’s criminal behavior and the court’s response. 

 Jeffrey Fagan argues that aversive court actions can have a positive effect on desistance

and urges consistent responses to battering.22 Court experiences for batters, however, may not be 

particularly averse or consistent. Judges and prosecutors dismiss many cases. The police may 

arrest a man for domestic assault or other crimes several times before a prosecutor decides to 

prosecute and a judge decides to convict and punish the man for his criminal acts. Multiple 

arrests without sanctions may inure the criminal to court processes, affirm his feeling of 

impunity, and reinforce his criminal behavior. 

While inconsistency may reinforce criminal behavior, the consistent application of

aversive consequences may be difficult to achieve in misdemeanor cases. Prosecutors may 

dismiss many cases or not pursue cases in which the victim recants. Not all judges in a 

 19 Neal Shover, Great Pretenders: Pursuits: Pursuits and Careers of Pertsistent thieves, Boulder Colorado: Westview

Press, 1996, p.146. 20 Jeffrey Fagan, Cessation of Family Violence: Deterrence and Dissuasion, Crime and Justice: Annual Research 

Review, University of Chicago, 1989, p.380. 21 Fagan, op.cit. p. 392.

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 8

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

jurisdiction have the experience, training, or inclination to adjudicate effectively domestic 

violence cases. Prosecution and probation usually invest few investigative resources in these 

cases and prosecutors generally dispose of most cases with plea bargains. 

If desistance is a process, and the court invests few resources in a case, the court will not 

have sufficient evidence to determine whether the batterer possesses the self-control to stay 

within the boundaries of a community sentence that does not involve significant jail time. The 

court consequently may revisit many of its initial dispositions when the criminal strays beyond 

the boundaries of the court order. 

 Significant time in jail is a seriously aversive outcome. Western and Beckett found that 

the negative effects of youth incarceration on adult employment exceed the negative effects of 

dropping out of high school or living in an area of high unemployment.23 Incarceration, without 

effective habilitative treatment is a risky tactic for society, because it makes it more difficult for 

men to connect later with the institutions and social networks that support desistance. 

This realization by judges may provide an additional explanation for the probationary sentence 

for many men that the court would otherwise sentence to jail. Commentators on desistance argue 

that intensive habilitative programs of cognitive restructuring administered during incarceration 

that address the dynamic attributes of offenders and their circumstances can lead to positive 

change and are more successful than programs that focus on static background factors, or 

deterrence alone.24 

As previously noted, criminologists routinely view marriage and family formation as 

indicators of progress toward criminal desistance. Wife-beating manifestly indicates that the 

husband has not reached the maturation25 required for desistance. This lack of maturation signals 

the likelihood of continued assaults and involvement in other crimes. The implications of 

repetitious arrests for battering should be particularly concerning to the courts, given that 

battering is an adult crime that occurs in the years in which criminologists expect to observe 

desistance. Similarly, repetitious police arrests for the battering of unmarried, adult intimate 

partners signals a serious lack of maturation and should be concerning to the justice system. 

 22 loc.cit. p.416. 23 Bruce Western and Katherine Beckett, How Unregulated is the US Labor Market? The Penal System as a Labor 

Market Institution,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 104, p. 1049. 24 See for example, A Study on the Habilitation of Chronic Offenders in a Massachusetts House of Corrections: 

Barnstable County, BOTEC Analysis Corporation, supported by National Institute of Justice, December 2003. 25 The authors use the term maturation here in a generic sense and include other theories about desistance processes. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 9

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Shawn Bushway and his colleagues, use a criminal cohort developed by John Laub, 

Daniel Nagin, and Robert Sampson to reach conclusions that are relevant to the criminal 

desistance observed in this study.26 Professor Bushway and his colleagues use a semiparametric 

trajectory model to divide the cohort into four groups. In two groups, the men are persistent 

criminals. The third group desists at a steady but moderate rate. By age 32 their expect rate of 

arrest is once every five years. The fourth group reached a desistance level by age 32 where their 

expected rate of arrest is once every 50 years. The data for the cohort ends at age 32. John Laub 

and his colleagues found that members of both desistance groups have “higher quality marriages 

at age 32 than do the persistors.” 27 

The median age is 33 for the cohort of batterers arrested in the study district. Clearly, 

these men have poor marital or intimate partner relationships. Men in the study cohort are 

characteristically persistent insofar as half of the cohort is still criminal at an age when desisting 

criminals usually reach a very low rate of arrest. 

Nancy Shields and Christine Hanneke divided batters into those who were generally 

violent and those who only engage in domestic violence.28 They found that men who confined 

their violence to battering had higher social status; they were more likely to have drug and 

alcohol problems; as children, they had greater exposure to violence; and they participated less in 

violent subcultures. Despite these differences, none of the men within the two groups 

spontaneously halted their violence. 

A hypothesis derived from this discussion is that intimate partner battering is 

characteristic of persistent criminal behavior, and as Jeffrey Fagan suggests, batterers will initiate 

desistance only after significant court sanctions. Manifestly, desistance requires serious legal and 

social pressure. Because desistance is a process, the court is likely to prosecute slowly desisting 

abusers or persistent abusers multiple times for multiple crimes. 

 

26 Shawn Bushway, et al., op cit. p.504-506. Unfortunately, there appear to be several errors in the text description

of the study outcomes. The results reported here are based on the data in Figure 2, p.504 of the article.. 27Shawn Bushway, op cit, p. 506. 

13.Nancy Shields and Christine Hanneke, Patterns of Family and Non-Family Violence: An Approach to the study of

Violent Husbands,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, 1981. 14 Daniel P. Mears, Matthew J. Carlson, George W. Holden, Susan D. Harris, Reducing Domestic Violence 

Revictimization: The Effects of Individual and Contextual Factors and Types of Legal Intervention, Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 16, No.12 December 2001, p.1265 

 . 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 10

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

The argument for the importance of aversive court actions as an ingredient in fostering

desistance rests partially on the costs and stress that the court processes impose. Court processes 

and sanctions can significantly offset the apparent value to men of abuse and crime. These costs 

include lawyer fees, bail costs, fees for batterer intervention programs, or other treatment, court 

fees and any court judgments for damages. In addition, there are the costs and stress of time 

away from work, job loss, or time away from searching for work caused by court proceedings, 

probation meetings, hearings and possible jail time. These may not be the only costs. If the 

batterer is married or children are involved, the wife or intimate partner may try to impose 

additional costs by threatening to separate, take the children, and sue for child support in family 

court. These victim actions may trigger further violence and another cycle of costs. 

The imposition of these aversive costs by the court are likely to require repeated 

applications, especially for impulsive and persistent criminals, before the batterer initiates 

change by investing in desistance through a transformation of identity, re-interpretations of 

previous behavior, and the substitution of a prosocial network for a subculture of violence. 

Without this investment, it is likely that the man’s criminal behavior will reoccur after a period 

of remission either with the same victim or with another. 

Professor Fagan writes that there is a debate as to whether family violence is a special 

case. Family violence has been segregated from both criminology and violence research; 

researchers continue to view it as an idiosyncratic crime and concentrate on gender specific 

motivations.

 29 They strongly characterize their discussions of domestic violence and its cessation 

by focusing solely on domestic violence and ignoring batterer participation in other criminal 

activity. The result is research that focuses on the unique causes of domestic violence and from

these causes, researchers develop unique solutions, overlooking batterer participation in multiple 

criminal activities, and the desistance process, which involves stopping a variety of criminal 

behaviors. 

This review of the literature suggests several thoughts. 

y Researchers often consider intimate partner violence as an idiosyncratic and 

gender specific crime. 

y Research evaluations focused on short-term results have not yet 

consistently demonstrated the effectiveness of interventions designed to 

respond to intimate partner violence. 

 

29 Jeffrey Fagan, op. cit. p. 414. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 11

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

y An alternative hypothesis is that intimate partner violence is not 

idiosyncratic. Rather these men engage in a variety of criminal acts that 

include domestic violence. 

y A criminal often marks his desistance from crime with positive steps 

toward maturation, such as marriage, steady employment, and a 

reinterpretation of his identity. This is especially true of men who in their 

early thirties reach very low levels of criminal activity. Some men, 

however, fail to mature, desist slowly, or persist in their criminal acts. 

y To desist from intimate partner abuse men need to adopt the same prosocial 

habits as other men who leave criminal behavior behind. 

y The median age of men who abuse their intimate partners is approximately 

33; half of the abusive men are 33 or older. This suggests that they are 

persistent or slowly desisting criminals. 

y Abusive men, because they persist in their criminal behavior, will not desist 

without strong legal and social pressures. Consistent and repeated court 

sanctioning of intimate abuse may initiate desistance. 

y Consistent court sanctions combined with intensive habilitative programs 

that focus on the offender’s dynamic attributes that contribute to their 

criminality may lead to positive changes. 

The examination of this cohort of men arrested for domestic violence looks at their range 

of criminal behaviors. It tabulates the frequency, distribution, and continuance of their criminal 

activity. Finally, it reviews the responses of the court to these criminals. In doing so, the study 

examines the evidence for the hypothesis that intimate partner batterers share the characteristics 

of persistent criminals and the need for the courts to respond repeatedly with sanctions and 

effective habilitative programs that focus on the dynamic factors in the men’s general criminal 

behavior. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 12

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Chapter 2: Offenders and Offenses 

INTRODUCTION

It is important to understand the composition of the cohort. The cohort is composed of a 

cross section of criminals who the police arrested within the Court’s jurisdiction for domestic 

abuse in 1995-1996. If domestic abuse was a disorder distributed generally among men, the 

composition of the cohort of arrested abusers would be different from what it is. Far fewer 

arrested, abusive men would have prior criminal records; criminal arrest is not an expected part 

of a man’s life-course. Many of the arrested men, however, do have previous criminal arrests; 

they look like a male criminal population. 

OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS

The following is a profile of the offenders and their offenses: 

 Age 

At the time of the initial study the men in the cohort ranged in age from 17 to 66 with a 

median age of 33. The victims ranged were 16 to 73; the median age was 32. 

 Race/Ethnicity 

Reflecting the demographics of Massachusetts’ South Shore, eighty-five percent of the 

abusers and victims were white. However, given that non-whites comprised only six percent of 

the South Shore population in the early 1990s, non-whites represented a disproportionate number 

of abusers and victims. 

 Marital Status and Abuse 

Most of the victims were not married to their abusers at the time of their index arrest.30

Seventy-two percent of the victims were not married.31 Seventy-three percent of the incidents 

took place in the victims’ households, although the majority of victims were not living with the 

abusers at the time of the index study incident. Specifically, twenty-three percent of the cases 

involved ex-partners―ex-spouses, ex-dating partners, and ex-intimates. In addition, according to 

 

30 The “index arrest” is the 1995-1996 arrest in the jurisdiction of the District Court, which is the point from which

the study measures all future and previous arrests. 31 Based on the age of the victim, one of the female victims was probably the mother, not the wife of the abuser. 

Marital status was determined by last name of the victim. All of the other matching victims were too young to be the 

mother of their abuser. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 13

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

a sample of victims (n=118) in the baseline study, thirty-six percent were also victims of child 

abuse. All of the abusers in the initial study were male and their victims were female. 

 Prior criminal and abuse history of the sample32

The defendants’ criminal records and civil restraining order records reveal that the vast 

majority of the study abusers were not strangers to the court system. Most had records of 

multiple prior criminal charges filed against them before the police arrested them for their index 

domestic violence crime. A minority had prior civil restraining orders filed against them. 

 Prior Civil Restraining Orders 

Massachusetts created a central registry of civil restraining orders in September 1992. As 

a result, it can be determined that 29 percent of the study sample had at least one order taken out 

against them between that date and the initial study period through 1995/1996. Intimates or 

dating partners, family, or household members requested the orders. Approximately one-third of 

the defendants with prior orders had more than one taken out against them. Forty-five percent 

had orders taken out by victims other than the victims in the index incident. A dozen had two or 

three different victims secure orders against them prior to 1995/1996. 

 Prior Criminal Records: 

The state’s central probation file provided all criminal history cases that resulted in a 

court arraignment except if the court found the person not guilty or the case was sealed or 

expunged. 

The police may arrest a person on multiple charges. The court arraigns the person on each 

charge. Therefore, one incident may result in several criminal charges. At the time of the initial 

study, typically, each arrest resulted in slightly less than two charges. The coded charge is the 

most serious one when there are multiple charges lodged against the defendant. The only 

exception is credit card fraud. In these cases, there may be dozens and dozens of individual 

counts. In this study, one charge includes multiple fraud counts. 

Prior charges are classified as “crimes against persons,” “property,” or “public order,” 

“major motor vehicle offenses, excluding drunk driving,” “sex offenses,” and “alcohol and drug 

offenses,” including drunk driving. 

 

32 This excludes defendants whose records were not obtained for the extended research study. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 14

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

In addition, the database lists the number of charges that resulted in sentences that 

involved either “probation supervision” or “incarceration.” Because sentences may be served 

concurrently (i.e. simultaneously), the number of probation and jail sentences does not 

necessarily equal the number of separate sentences actually served or periods of probationary 

supervision. In summarizing prior criminal records, sentences of incarceration also include 

sentences imposed after the revocation of a probationary sentence, even though the initial 

sentence did not include jail. 

Finally, if the offense occurred before the study offense, but the court did not sentence 

the defendant until after the study offense, the sentence is not included in the tabulation under 

“prior” record. While the incident was prior to the study incident, the resulting sentence was not. 

Only sixteen percent of the study defendants had no prior criminal history before their 

index domestic violence arrest. The average study defendant had 11 prior criminal complaints on 

their record; the median was five. Fifty-five percent of the defendants had been under probation 

supervision twice for prior charges. The range of prior probationary, suspended, or split 

sentences ranged from one to 28. Twenty-nine percent had served an average of two sentences in 

a county correctional facility or prison. The range was from one to 42 sentences of incarceration. 

y Age at first offense 

The median age at first offense was nineteen. Specific juvenile records were only 

available for those who had juvenile records after the 1980s when the state’s juvenile records 

were centralized. If the juvenile accumulated a record before then, the defendant’s criminal 

history only noted that the defendant had a juvenile record, i.e. an arrest before age seventeen. A 

conservative estimate of the age of first arrest is sixteen where the offender’s age is not noted. As 

a result, the actual age of first arrest for the entire sample was probably lower than that reported 

here. Where the entire juvenile record was available, the age of first arrest was as low as age 7. 

Twenty-five percent of the study defendants had a juvenile arrest record. 

In short, a quarter of the men in the cohort began their criminal careers as juveniles; more 

than half had probation supervision and almost all had prior adult arrest records. A little less

than a third were incarcerated as adults. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 15

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

y Age of first domestic violence arrest 

Domestic violence is not generally a first crime. Among the 94 defendants with known 

prior domestic violence arrests, the median age of first arrest was 18; the median age for their 

first domestic violence arrest was 28. The age range of the first prior known domestic violence 

arrest was 17 to 57 years. At the median, the first known domestic violence arrest preceded the 

index arrest by 4.3 years. Among the study defendants with a known history of at least one prior 

domestic violence arrest, their abuse history stretched over a number of years. They, however, 

began their domestic violence criminal activity years after they began their general criminal 

history although the men may have been abusive as juveniles and young adults, the likelihood 

that young victims would report their victimization to police was less. Among index defendants 

who had no prior domestic violence arrests, their index domestic violence arrest followed their 

first criminal arrest by a median 9.3 years. 

y Prior Crimes against Persons and Domestic Violence: 

Fifty-six percent had at least one crime against persons, generally termed a violent crime. 

These crimes ranged from simple assault to murder. At least 90, or almost half of those with 

violent crimes, had prior records of domestic violence. Although Massachusetts records do not 

typically reveal the identity of victims nor does the state have a specific domestic violence 

statute, some courts in the 1980s and earlier indicated “wife” on an assault and battery record. In 

other instances, the offense was a violation of a restraining order, which by definition constitutes

a domestic violence charge. In a handful of other cases, before these offenses were 

decriminalized, the defendants’ records indicated charges for “illegitimacy and non-support,” 

which are included as domestic violence offenses. 

Exhibit 1 provides an example of a prior chronic abuser as determined by his prior 

criminal history. Despite a lack of a domestic violence statute, chronic histories of domestic 

abuse are readily apparent from the offenders’ criminal record. 

Other crimes against persons may have been domestic but that cannot be determined on 

the face of the record. However, based on prior civil records, almost 30 percent had prior 

restraining orders filed against them. Combining prior criminal and civil histories, 44 percent of 

the study sample had prior court recorded histories of domestic violence. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 16

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

It is also apparent that more than a few of the defendants had severe records of violence. 

Approximately 10 percent of the defendants had prior felony convictions for murder, armed 

robbery, rape or related offenses and received state prison sentences. Examples are included in 

Exhibit 2. As indicated by these examples, although the charges that brought most of the 

defendants into the study were misdemeanors, their prior records also included felonies. In 

addition to those cases highlighted in Exhibit 2, at least two others also had prior records for 

homicides. 

Exhibit 1: Prior Domestic Violence History 

● Offender 01 was first arrested at age 20 for major motor vehicle offenses, following

the next year by drug possession. In 1986, the court arraigned him for nonsupport of a 

child. While that case was pending, the court arraigned him in April 1987 for annoying 

telephone calls and threats. The victim is unnamed. However, two years later, in March 

1989, he was back in court for violating a restraining order. Police arrested him in April, 

and three times in May, for new violations of a restraining order. The court sentenced him 

to probation on the second violation while the first one was still pending. He defaulted on 

the third and fourth charges. The police arrested him on the warrant and the court 

sentenced him to six months in jail in June 1989. 

The court arraigned him for another restraining order violation in February 1993 and 

sentenced him in March to a split sentence of two years; six committed the balance 

suspended for 18 months. Subsequently, in October 1993, the court revoked the balance 

of the suspended part of the sentence and ordered him to jail for 18 months. 

His initial study domestic violence offense resulted from a July 1995 case of a 

violation of a restraining order taken out by his wife. 

● Offender 02 was first charged with violation of a restraining order in 1988 in 

Brockton, Massachusetts; the court dismissed it. The court ordered him to jail in 1989 for 

assaulting a police officer after an arrest for drunk driving. The police charged him with 

violating another protective order in 1991 in Plymouth; the court dismissed it. The police 

charged him twice more in Plymouth in 1992 for more order violations; the court 

dismissed them. The police charged him two more times that year with order violations in 

Quincy, including assault and battery charge of the victim and the second with a

compliant of intimidation and threats. On both sets of charges, the court sentenced him to 

a split sentence of nine months served in the house of correction and subsequently 21 

more months when he violated his probation the following year. The court revoked his 

probation because the police charged him with yet another order violation in 1993. On 

that violation, the court sentenced him to 30 months house of correction concurrent. 

Upon release, the police arrested him in November 1995 for the study domestic violence 

charge, another restraining order violation against his wife 

While the cases in Exhibits 1 and 2 do not typify the majority of the sample, they 

represent a significant minority of study defendants and illustrate how the domestic violence 

charges are just part of much more extensive and wide-ranging violent criminal histories. Very 

few of the defendants had prior records of crimes of domestic violence only. It is also clear why 

many victims feared for their lives, even though the abusers did not injure them.

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 17

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Exhibit 2: Prior Felony Crimes Against Persons

● Offender 03 The court sentenced this offender to 12 to 15 years in state prison in 

1981 for six counts of murder and arson. Upon release, in 1993, Quincy police arrested 

him for threats, assault and battery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and 

violation of a restraining order. The court dismissed these cases the next month. In April 

1995, police arrested him for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon against his 

girlfriend. 

● Offender 04 The court first incarcerated him in 1954 for assault and battery. The 

court sentenced him to state prison for 7 to 10 years for robbery in 1956. In 1969, the 

police charged him with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon against his wife. 

The court did not find probable cause on that charge, but did fine him for an 

accompanying disorderly offense. In 1983, the court returned him to state prison for 3 to 

5 years, for possession of a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and 

assault to kill. Upon his release, the police arrested him for violation of a restraining order 

in 1995 taken out by his wife. 

● Offender 05 The police charged him with murder in 1986, but the prosecutor

dropped the charges. The Superior Court imprisoned him for two years in 1987 for 

robbery and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. That same year the police 

charged him with several counts of kidnapping, assault to rape, armed assault in a 

dwelling, and one count of rape. In 1988, the court sentenced him 20 years 

imprisonment. The court returned him to prison for 8 to 12 years for in 1993 for two 

incidents of armed assault and robbery. Before his imprisonment, the police arrested him 

in Dorchester, a Boston neighborhood, for “assault and battery family abuse.” The court 

dismissed the charge in 1992. While incarcerated, in 1994, the Department of 

Corrections charged him and the court convicted him of several counts of assault and 

battery on a corrections officer. The court sentenced him to 2.5 years incarceration after 

his current sentence. The court imposed the sentence in July 1998, after the police 

charged him with a restraining order violation in July 1995 taken out by an intimate 

partner. The court sentenced him to five months in a county correctional facility for that 

offense in February 1996. 

● Offender 06 The prosecutor charged the offender with non-support of his family in 

1969.That same year the police charged him with murder and armed robbery. The 

prosecutor reduced the murder charge to manslaughter in 1970 and the court imprisoned 

him. The record does not indicate the period of imprisonment. In 1972, the federal court 

sentenced him for 12 years for bank robbery. The Superior Court imprisoned him in 1984 

for 12 to 25 years for assault to kill, carrying a shotgun and related charges. The police 

charged him with escape and the court convicted him in 1985. Upon his release, the 

police arrested him for major motor vehicle offenses, drunk driving, disorderly persons, 

possession of cocaine and in August 1995, the initial study domestic violence offenses, 

included assault and batteries with dangerous weapons, a telephone, a knife, and a 

table, and two counts of assault and battery, and threats. 

y Prior Drug and Alcohol Crimes 

Fifty-eight percent of the study sample had prior records of alcohol and drug crimes. 

Most of the drug crimes were possession of controlled substances. Drunk driving was the most 

common alcohol crime. The number of offenses ranged from one to eighteen. Previous research, 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 18

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

as well as this study, finds a relationship between alcohol and drug abuse and domestic violence, 

and reabuse33 

y Prior Crimes against Property 

Fifty-two percent of the sample had prior crimes against property, ranging from one to 

ten. The offenses varied from larceny by check to malicious destruction of property and burglary. 

y Prior Crimes against Public Order 

Forty-four percent had crimes against public order, mostly disorderly conduct. Many of 

these crimes are alcohol related. Massachusetts decriminalized public drunkenness; prior to that, 

the charge was “drunk and disorderly.” 

y Prior Sex Crimes 

Two dozen of the sample had prior histories of sex offenses, ranging from indecent 

assault and battery to rape. 

y Major Motor Vehicle Crimes 

Fifty-five percent had prior major motor vehicle offenses, ranging from attaching plates, 

operating to endanger, no compulsory insurance to driving after license suspension. 

y Prior Probationary Supervision and Sentences of Incarceration 

Because of at least one prior conviction, 55 percent of the men in the cohort had prior 

probation supervision. The court placed 68 percent of them under probationary supervision two 

or more times, with the most being 28 times. The defendants placed on probation with a 

suspended sentence, or a split sentence either were guilty on the evidence or admitted guilt. 

Thirty percent of the men previously received jail sentences. Sixty-two percent of these 

men received four or more such sentences; the most was 42. Although each sentence of 

incarceration is separate, the actual sentences served often overlapped or were concurrent. 

Exhibit 3 provides an illustration. The State incarcerated the defendant for twenty different 

charges, but only thirteen constituted separate periods of incarceration. A review of the dates 

imposed and length of each sentence indicates that many of them overlapped. 

 

33 See Klein (2004), op. cit. 37. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 19

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Exhibit 3: Repeated arrests 

Offender 07 The court sentenced him to jail 20 times. Below are the

dates of when he actually went to jail. He served overlapping sentences 

concurrently. 

1. 1979: 30 days, probation, then in 1980, he received another five months 

because of a probation revocation (same sentence, served two periods of 

incarceration). 

2. 1979: 30 days 

3. 1981: 12 months 

4. 1981: Also sentenced to probation, but in 1984, probation revoked,

received 24 months 

5. 1983: Probation, but revoked on 1983, received 30 days. 

6. 1983: 24 months 

7. 1984: 24 months 

8. 1984: 3 months 

9. 1984: 24 months 

10. 1986 10 days 

11. 1986 10 days 

12. 1991 180 days 

13. 1993 6 months

14. 1993 10 days, also 5 months, probation then revoked on 1996 received 

12 months

15. 1996: domestic violence, 14 months 

In summary, the criminal records accumulated by these men prior to their index arrest 

suggest persistent criminality. At the time of their index arrest, their median age was 32; an age 

when criminologists expect most men to have largely abandoned crime. Twenty-eight was the 

median age for their first domestic violence arrest. Only twenty-eight percent of the men were 

married; a low rate of marriage.34 Eighty-four percent of the men had a prior criminal record. 

The police arrested fifty-six percent for a prior violent crime. Fifty-eight percent of the men had 

arrests for alcohol abuse, drug abuse or both. Thirty percent of the men had prior incarcerations. 

 

34 Forty-seven percent is the rate of marriage for men living in the Northeast who are between the ages of 25-34. 

United States Census, 2000

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 20

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Chapter 3: Operation of the District Court with 

Regard to Index Domestic Violence 

Offenses and Dispositions 

TIME PERIOD

The initial study arraignments or default removals for untried domestic violence cases 

occurred from February 1, 1995 to March 1, 1996 in the court’s jurisdiction. The court handles 

all arraignments for both felonies and misdemeanors following an arrest by police or issuance of 

a criminal complaint by the clerk magistrate.35 The record search for this cohort of men ended in 

December 2004. 

MAJOR CHARGES

In the index arrest, the most common major domestic violence charge filed against the 

men was “assault and battery,” a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of up to 2.5 years in a 

county correctional facility. Because misdemeanor sentences in Massachusetts are more than 

twice as long as sentences typically provided for misdemeanants across the country, the State 

prosecutes domestic violence charges and almost all criminal charges as misdemeanors; only one 

percent of the charges were felonies.36

Table 1 provides a detailed breakdown of the most serious domestic violence charge 

lodged against each man. Acts of violence or attempted violence was the charge for 70 percent of 

the men. This is typical of domestic violence arrests around the country. The overwhelming 

majority of charges are for misdemeanor physical assaults.37

Police charged twenty-six percent of the defendants with violating previously issued civil 

restraining orders, including five violations that also involved physical assaults against the 

victim. Violations of civil restraining orders are misdemeanors also carrying possible sentences 

of 2.5 years in a county correctional facility. According to police reports, the offender was under 

 

35 However, if the defendant is arrested following an indictment brought by the Grand Jury, the initial felony

arraignment will be in the county’s Superior Court that handles felonies. 36 The percent of felony domestic violence charges ranges widely across the country from a low of 2.1 percent in

West Virginia in 1998 to a high of 21.1 percent in Florida in 2002, See Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice

Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 14. 37 See Klein, A. (2004). 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 21

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

the influence of alcohol or drugs in about 36 percent of the incidents. This is higher than that 

recorded in some states, but lower than that found in at least one.38 Another person witnessed 

forty-six percent of the incidents; a child was the witness in fifty-three percent of these cases.39

Table 1: Major domestic violence charges (n=342) 

Charge Number Percent

Assault & Battery (A & B) 181 53 

A & B Dangerous Weapon 41 12 

Assault Dangerous Weapon 7 2 

A & B and Violation of Protective Order 5 1.5 

Rape* 3 1

Assault (no battery) 3 1 

Attempted Murder** 1 <1 

Total Assaults 241 70.5 

Violation Protective Order 83 24 

Threats 13 4

Stalking** 2 <1

No complaint Issued/unknown 3 1 

Total Other Charges 101 29.5 

* Must be prosecuted as a felony; ** May be prosecuted as a felony

Ten percent of the victims experienced serious injuries, including broken bones, broken 

noses, internal bleeding, lacerations, and loss of consciousness. An additional 27 percent 

experienced moderate injuries involving bruises, swelling, and joint soreness. According to 

interviews with victims conducted during the initial study, 70 percent feared serious injury 

during in the incident, even if they were not. Although states track victim injury differently, 

many similarly report that most victims of domestic violence experienced “no injuries,” 

including 55 percent in Michigan in 2000 to 71 percent in Rhode Island in 2001. Other states, 

including Nevada and Iowa in 2001 report the majority of victims experienced “minor” 

injuries.40

 

38 North Dakota reported 49 percent of domestic violence arrests in 2001 involved perpetrator alcohol/drug use, but

other states that reported rates ranged from 20 percent in Nevada and Iowa in 2001 to 30 percent in New Jersey in

2001, see, Klein (2004), op. cit. 34. 39 This appears consistent with at least one other state that reports child witness rates. Rhode Island reported 27.5 

percent of children “saw” the domestic violence incident according to police reports in 2001. A larger percent, 30.7

percent “heard” the incident. Other states report a higher percentage of children were “present” in the households

where incidents occurred, ranging in 62 percent of the cases reported in Nevada in 2001 to 32 percent in Iowa that

year, see, Klein (2004), op. cit. 55. 40 See Klein (2004). Op. cit. 17. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 22

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

The abuser in 16 percent of the incidents used a weapon. The reported use of weapons in 

domestic violence incidents varies widely across the country ranging from 55 percent in Georgia 

in 2000 to a low of 5 percent in New Jersey in 2001.41

TIME TO INITIAL DISPOSITION

Between May 11, 1995 and June 3, 1999, almost all of the cases were initially resolved. 

Six of the subsequent study cases defaulted and the cases were not resolved during the 

subsequent study period through December 2004. The time from the initial arraignment to the 

initial disposition averaged 259 days, the median time was 196 days. The range was zero for four 

cases disposed of at arraignment to 1,383 days. 

The median time excludes cases where the defendant: 

1. requested a “First Instance Jury Trial;” 

2. the case was bound over to the Grand Jury for imposition of felony charges; or 

3. the defendant defaulted on scheduled hearings. 

Vestiges of the Massachusetts de novo misdemeanor trial system continue to exist in 

Massachusetts, allowing misdemeanants to request jury trials any time before the case is 

disposed by a judge. Most defendants who opt for first instance jury trials generally engage in 

plea-bargaining to resolve the case. However, the request generally engenders long delays in 

case resolution because jury sessions generally have long backlogs. 

Four defendants had felony charges. This requires a probable cause hearing in the District 

Court, unless within forty-five days the case goes to a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury must 

ultimately meet and hand down an indictment before the case goes to trial in the Superior Court. 

Notwithstanding this process, these cases may subsequently be plea-bargained back to a 

misdemeanor charge. One of the four felony defendants did so and the case stayed in District 

Court. Of the defendants who delayed dispositions because of defaults, at least one defaulted 

four times before his case was resolved. In general, it took the court half a year to hear the cases 

of study defendants and impose an initial disposition. 

 

41 Klein (2004). Op. cit. 18. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 23

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Table 2: Initial dispositions by year (342) 

Year of Initial 

Disposition 

Number of 

Cases Percent 

1995 97 28

1996 196 57

1997 30 9

1998 8 2

1999 5 1

No Disposition 6 2 

 

INITIAL COURT DISPOSITIONS

In Massachusetts, almost all arrests result in criminal charges filed in court unlike other 

jurisdictions where the review is more formal and prosecutors screen the case before the court 

files charges.

42 One of the main reasons for this is that in Massachusetts police prosecutors, 

employed by the police departments within the District Court’s jurisdiction file charges and 

initially prosecutes for arraignment. After arraignment, a civilian prosecutor employed by the 

County District Attorney takes up the case. A specially assigned domestic violence Assistant 

District Attorney generally prosecuted the case after arraignment. Most of the prosecuted index 

defendants admitted their guilt before a judge. A handful did this at arraignment, but most did so 

at a subsequent scheduled hearing. After a finding or an admission of guilt, judges usually 

immediately end the case and sentence the defendant. For the sentencing of misdemeanants in 

Massachusetts, judges neither mandated nor request, probation pre-sentence investigation 

reports. 

The initial disposition may not be the “final” disposition. Many dispositions are 

conditional upon the defendant’s good behavior for a number of months, usually up to a year. 

The disposition is subject to change if the defendant’s behavior is not in conformity with the 

court’s directive. In other cases, the initial disposition constitutes the final disposition. The 

following all constitute final dispositions: 

y the defendant is found “not guilty;” 

y the case is dismissed in court at the request of the Commonwealth and 

with the consent of the defendant (DRCCD); 

 

42 For example, in San Diego which boasts “no drop” prosecution of domestic violence, City prosecutors file on only

70 percent of arrests made, see, Klein (2004), op. cit. 133. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 24

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

y the case is dropped by the prosecutor, 

y the court finds the defendant guilty and commits him to a county 

correctional facility (for misdemeanants) or state prison (for felonies). 

Thirty-two percent of the index arrest dispositions imposed also constituted final 

dispositions. The remaining dispositions were conditional. Table 3 lists both. Prosecutors 

dropped or asked for dismissal in 28 percent of the cases. Prosecutors filed charges against all of 

the defendants except one; this constitutes a very high prosecution rate compared to most 

jurisdictions around the country. It is equal to the prosecution rate in four “model” jurisdictions 

that adopted “no-drop” prosecution policies.43 This means that prosecuted study cases were 

representative of the arrested population with little screening by local prosecutors. Many 

jurisdictions routinely fail to prosecute a majority of domestic violence arrests.44

The Court initially jailed more than 12 percent of the defendants, split equally between 

those sentenced to straight jail terms and those sentenced to split sentences (jail along with 

subsequent suspended sentences). The median length of initial straight jail sentences imposed 

was one year. The median length for a split sentence was six months. 

Conditional initial sentences included cases that were: 

y continued without a finding; 

y placed on pre-trial probation; 

y probationary, suspended, or split sentences; 

y filed or fined. 

The sentences “continued without a finding” and “pre-trial probation” cases are both 

forms of “in-court diversion.” In the former, the defendant is required to admit to sufficient facts 

of guilt but the court agrees not to impose a guilty finding, thus saving the defendant’s record if 

the defendant remains arrest-free for a designated period, generally one year. Pre-trial probation 

is similar except the defendant is not required to admit to sufficient facts of guilt. The court’s 

probation department monitors defendants who are “continued without a finding” or placed on 

“pre-trial probation,” to determine if they remain out of trouble and meet any other courtimposed conditions. These conditions may include completion of a batterer intervention 

program. Probation officers return defendants to court for further sentencing in cases continued 

without a finding or for trial in cases on pre-trial probation if the defendant fails to remain out of 

 

43 Smith, B. et. al. (2001). 44 Klein, A. ( 2004). 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 25

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

trouble. The court’s Probation Department rigorously monitored theses cases and routinely 

brought them forward for alleged violations. 

Table 3: Initial dispositions (342) 

Dispositions Number Percent

(Final)

Not prosecuted 62 19 

County correctional facility or Prison 21 6

Dropped at the request of the

Commonwealth

34 10

Not Guilty 9 3

(Conditional)*

Continued Without a Finding 85 25 

Suspended Sentence 60 17 

Probationary Sentence 24 7 

Split Sentence 26 6

Pre-trial Probation 10 3 

Filed or Fined 4 1 

*Additionally, four study defendants’ cases were not disposed of because they were 

on arrest warrants for failing to show in court and three others were bound over to

the grand jury for possible felony prosecutions. The later seven cases represent less 

than two percent of the total study cases. 

Probationary, suspended, or split sentences are also conditional upon the defendants’ 

good behavior and compliance with specific conditions that the court may impose. The court’s 

probation officers with specialized domestic violence training supervised the men with 

conditional domestic violence sentences. The specific type of disposition mattered only if the 

defendant subsequently failed to abide by conditions and had his initial sentence revoked by the 

court. Upon revocation, those with straight probationary sentences could be sentenced up to 2.5 

years in a county correctional facility; those with suspended sentenced could be incarcerated up 

to the length of the suspended sentence, and those with split sentenced could be incarcerated for 

the suspended part of their initial split sentence. 

The majority of the defendants placed under probation supervision were ordered to 

complete a 50 week batterer intervention program, meet weekly with his probation officer, at 

least for the first three months of supervision (it could then be reduced to biweekly or monthly), 

and maintain abstinence from alcohol and illicit drugs, monitored through random biweekly 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 26

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

urine testing conducted by probation. No contact with victims was a probation condition if the 

victim had a civil restraining order against the defendant. 

Filed or fined cases could also legally be brought back to court for non-payment or upon 

the court’s motion, however, typically, these cases are not monitored and none was brought back 

to court. The same defendant could have multiple dispositions. For example, a defendant may 

start with a continuance without a finding or pretrial probation. He then is re-arrested and the 

court may impose a guilty finding. The defendant then receives a post-adjudicatory probationary 

sentence. If he violates that too, the court may then impose a suspended sentence. If he continues 

to violate, the court can then impose a split sentence. Upon release from incarceration, the court 

terminates the case, if he complies with his supervision. If not, the court may jail the defendant 

and revoke the suspended part of the sentence again, constituting the final disposition of the case. 

FINAL COURT DISPOSITIONS

Final dispositions vary depending upon the initial dispositions. If defendants are in 

compliance for the length of their continuance, the court dismisses cases that were initially 

“continued without a finding.” This result allows a defendant to avoid a conviction. The court 

dismissed 65 of the 85 cases continued without a finding, with no guilty findings entered on the 

defendants’ records. The court incarcerated nine, including one who received a split sentence. 

Eight received probation, which they subsequently successfully completed. Two had warrants 

issued against them and were not arrested during the initial or subsequent research period. The 

court reviewed one case with a guilty finding and filed the case. 

The court dismisses the case if a defendant abides by the terms of his pretrial probation. 

Of the ten study defendants initially released on pretrial probation, seven eventually had their 

charges dismissed. This means they do not have records of conviction. There was a lack of 

evidence that they committed the initial charges. The court brought forward one defendant and 

placed him on probation. The court terminated that case, prosecutors dropped another, and one 

defaulted without subsequent rearrest. 

The court terminates the case if the defendant complies with his probationary 

supervision. Of the hundred and ten cases released under probation supervision (with a 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 27

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

probationary, suspended or split sentence), the court terminated 57 cases and discharged the 

offenders from probation supervision. 

The court revoked probation for fifty-three men and incarcerated them, including sixteen 

who had already served jail time as part of their initial split sentence. The median sentence for 

those incarcerated because of a probation revocation was ten months. The four filed or fined 

cases were unchanged. 

The grand jury reviewed the cases of three men. It dismissed one, in another, the court 

sentenced the defendant to eight years in prison on a felony conviction, and the court sentenced 

the third man to a split sentenced that the court terminated after he served his time and 

successfully completed his probationary period. 

Table 4: Final dispositions (342): 

Disposition Number Percent

Not guilty 9 3 

Dropped at the request of the 

Commonwealth 

17 5

Not prosecuted 63 19 

Filed/Fined 5 1

Dismissed 90 26

Incarcerated 84 25

Probationary Period Terminated 66 19 

Warrant 8* 2

*This includes two additional study defendants who committed new offenses after

the initial disposition but before final disposition of the index study charges. 

OVERLAPPING PROSECUTIONS

When describing the index domestic violence offenses, prior charges or subsequent 

offenses are not always straightforward. There is often a considerable delay between the initial 

court arraignment, the initial disposition, and the final disposition. In the interim, the same

defendant is likely to commit additional offenses in different jurisdictions, some of which may 

be resolved before the prior accumulated charges. In court, prosecutors may drop some charges 

because the defendant admits to and accepts sentences on unrelated charges or because the 

defendant is already sentenced for other charges that may have originated previously or 

subsequently. The examples contained in Exhibit 4 illustrate the point. Forty-four of the study 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 28

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Exhibit 4: Overlapping Charges and Dispositions

● Offender 08 The District Court arraigned him for Assault to Kill in 1994, a year before 

the index study arrest. While that was still pending, the Court arraigned him almost a year 

later in 1995 for threats and assault and battery against a female intimate partner. Later in 

1995, the court bound over both the 1994 case and the two1995 cases to the grand jury for 

indictment. While all three sets of charges were still pending, the court arraigned the offender 

for violating a restraining order in 1996. Eleven days later the Norfolk Superior Court 

arraigned him for Assault and Battery, Assault with Attempt to Murder. Five months later in 

1996, the court prosecutor dropped the Violation of Restraining Order charge. The prosecutor

filed the same charges in Norfolk Superior in 1996. Finally, in 1997 in Norfolk Superior Court, 

all of the cases arising from the incidents of 1994, 1995 and 1996 were resolved. The 

prosecutor did not pursue the Assault and Battery, the Assault with Attempted Murder 

charges and the Violation of Restraining Order. 

● Offender 09 His first arrests for domestic violence were also his initial study arrests In

1995. The district Court arraigned him for two counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, a 

Motor Vehicle, and one count of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, unspecified, 

and Stalking involving a female intimate. The court continued the cases for hearing until 

1996. At that time, the defendant opted for a first instance jury trial and the court put the case 

over until 1997. In 1996, the same victim took out a restraining order against the offender. 

While these cases were pending, Stoughton District Court arraigned him, with 

threatening, stalking and assault with a dangerous weapon a different victim in 1996. The 

Stoughton prosecutor dropped these cases a month later. The District Court arraigned the 

defendant again in 1996 for violating a restraining order, intimidation of a witness and 

threatening bodily harm to his original victim. The court continued these cases until 1997. At 

that time, he again requested a first instance jury trial. The court continued the cases until 

later in 1997. Four months later in 1997, the District Court prosecutor dropped the original 

charges. In1997, five months later, the District Court resolved the second set on the same 

day the court arraigned him for another violation of the restraining order. The court continued 

without a finding the violation of the restraining order and threats. The court dismissed the 

intimidation complaint and filed the second violation of the restraining order. 

● Offender 10 The police arrested this offender on the study charge in 1995 for violation 

of a restraining order, trespassing, and assault with a dangerous weapon, a knife. By the time

this case the court initially disposed of the case in 1995, the police returned him to court for 

six more sets of charges: 

 1995 – threats, assault with a dangerous weapon and violation of a restraining order; 

 1995 – trespassing and violation of a restraining order;

 1995 – threats; 

 1995 – assault and battery; 

 1995 – operating after license suspension; 

 1995 – violation of a restraining order. 

The court initially disposed of all six sets of cases in 1995 when the court sentenced him 

to a split sentence, including six months in jail followed by a year and a half suspended. The 

court finally disposed the case by sentencing him to the remaining year and half incarceration 

because of a probation revocation in 1996. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 29

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

defendants had multiple charges pending in court for offenses committed prior to the time of

their index domestic violence charge. In other words, in addition to the study domestic violence 

charge(s) they already had open domestic violence charge(s) pending or the police arrested them 

for another domestic violence charge(s) before the study charge(s) were resolved. 

A SUMMARY

The lesson of this chapter is clear. Court processes are complex and varied. A simplified 

model suggests that in a domestic violence case there may be as many as 84 possible paths 

through the process. For example, assume two possible charges, assault, or other domestic 

violence charge. The court can dismiss or not dismiss the case. The court has approximately five 

sanctions for initially adjudicated cases, varying from a fine to jail. Approximately, three more 

outcomes are possible. The offender completes his sentence or if he violates his sentence, the 

court may jail the offender or gives him a probationary sentence. The offender then completes 

either his sentence or the court sentences to jail the men with probationary sentences.45

 Not all the paths are equally likely. The court will dismiss a number of cases; many men 

will successfully complete their initial sentence. The court will sentence many violent offenders 

directly to jail without a split sentence. Persistent criminals, however, can be expected to violate 

their community sentences and return to court repeatedly. 

 Absent from this simple model are complexities such as court imposed treatment 

conditions, concurrent charges and technical violations of probation. Regardless of the path the 

case follows, it involves negotiating a variety of concerns expressed by the involved parties, their 

allegations, and the evidence. In addition, this simple model does not account for the variety of 

motivations that drive the participating parties. 

 

45The number of paths can be calculated as 2x2 + 2x1x5 + 2x1x5x3 + 2x1x5x2x2 = 84

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 30

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Chapter 4: Analysis of Prosecution, Court Decision, 

and Court Sentencing of Index Arrest 

INTRODUCTION

The earlier literature review on desistance emphasized the effects of a steady job, 

marriage, aging, and a man’s reinterpretation of his identity. The discussion in this chapter looks 

at the correlates of marriage, aging, and a man’s age at first arrest on the adjudication of repeat 

domestic violence and other crimes. 

The criminal history records do not have employment information or other direct 

evidence of a transformation of identity. The data does contain, however, evidence on the men’s 

substance abuse as documented by their arrests for alcohol and drug crimes. Although 

researchers do not understand the causal relationship between criminal abuse, other crimes, and 

substance abuse, it likely that cessation of drug and alcohol abuse is a collateral outcome of 

criminal desistance. 

CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND THE ROLE OF ALCOHOL AND DRUGS

Substance abuse is an important underlying problem correlated with criminal behavior. 

The probability is high that a criminal initially arrested at an early age will have a drug or alcohol 

arrest on his criminal record. As the age of first arrest increases, the probability of a drug or 

alcohol arrest declines. If the age of first arrest is between age 14 and 17 the probability of an 

alcohol or drug arrest for a man later arrested for domestic violence is 0.70; for a first arrest 

between age 25 and 30 the probability is 0.55; between the ages of 30 and 35 the probability is 

0.40. The probability that a man arrested for domestic violence will have an alcohol or drug 

arrest declines as the age at first arrest increases. (p=0.00, odds ratio 0.925) 

An arrest for drug or alcohol abuse is an indicator of continuing substance abuse, and this 

abuse is associated with an increased likelihood of a women requesting a restraining order 

(p=0.008, odds ratio 2.13), the commission of a prior violent crime (p=0.00, odds ratio 2.61), and 

being later sentenced to jail (p=0.00, odds ratio 3.55). Using substance abuse arrests as a measure 

undoubtedly understates the amount of abuse by active criminals 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 31

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Table 5: Consequences of substance abuse (n=342) 

Relationship between 

alcohol/drug arrest and 

selected outcomes 

Probability of the 

outcome with no 

alcohol/drug arrest 

Probability of the 

outcome with 

alcohol/drug arrest 

Issuance of restraining 

order 0.14 0.25 

Arrest for a violent crime 0.42 0.65 

Sentenced to jail 0.12 0.33 

Although substance abuse is not the sole cause of criminally abusive acts, it is an 

important contributor. Caetano, Schafer and Cunradi found that 30 to 40 percent of the men who 

perpetuated violence against their partners were drinking at the time of the event.46 These 

authors also found that male-to-female partner violence were two to four times higher for men 

with alcohol problems than for men without. The authors caution that other characteristics of 

individuals besides their drinking and presence of alcohol-related problems, also contribute to 

the occurrence of IVP. Income level, cohabitation of unmarried partners, unemployment, an 

impulsive personality, relationship length, violent victimization as a child, attitudinal factors 

toward violence can increase the risk of IVP. That is, alcohol may be a marker that is useful for 

identifying a population that has an increased risk for violence47

PROSECUTE OR DISMISS; GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY

The court’s domestic violence prosecutors based their assessment of a defendant’s risk of 

repeat domestic violence on their age and prior record. Those defendants who were older and had 

fewer prior criminal incidents were more likely to have their cases dropped by prosecutors, 

dismissed in court on a prosecutor’s motion or have their cases diverted. This included cases 

continued without a finding, filed, and placed under pretrial probation in contemplation of a 

dismissal. As noted earlier, only 28 percent of the defendants had their charges dropped by 

prosecutors or dismissed in court. 

Unlike other studies of domestic violence prosecution, the court’s prosecutors actively 

prosecuted men charged with domestic violence.48 They pursued defendants who began their 

 

46 Raul Caetano, John Schafer, Carol Cunradi, Alcohol-Related Intimate Partner Violence Among White, Black, and

Hispanic Couples in the United States, Alcohol Research and Health, Vol.25, No.1, 2001, p.58. 47 Caetano, et al, op cit. p.64. 48 Studies in Milwaukee, Toledo, Ohio all found the majority of domestic violence cases were dropped or dismissed 

by prosecutors and judges, see Klein, A. (2004). 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 32

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

careers as juveniles and had more criminal and domestic violence incidents. The court was 

significantly more likely to judge these men guilty. Table 6 examines bivariate relationships 

between several variables for the cohort of 342 arrested men who the court dismissed, diverted, 

or found guilty. Cases excluded from the Table are those not initially decided because the man 

defaulted and the court issued a warrant or the court sent the case to a Grand Jury. 

As is evident from Table 6, none of the variables distinguished between dropped or 

diverted cases. Guilty dispositions are significantly more likely when the man has a criminal 

history marked by a prior crime or a prior judicial sanction, other than a restraining order. The 

court was less likely to judge married men guilty of abuse. 

As reasonably expected, several variables in Table 6 are proximately related or collinear. 

These include prior crimes, prior jail, prior DV crimes, and prior restraining order. (See Table 

6A) A multivariate logit model clarifies the differences between men who the court judged guilty 

and those cases the court disposed without probation, a suspended sentence, a split sentence, or 

jail. Specifically, age at first arrest, an interaction between age at first arrest and alcohol or drug 

abuse as measured by an arrest, and previous conviction of a violent crime distinguish 

importantly between a guilty verdict (1) and a case that was dismissed or is diverted (0). 

Table 6: Prosecution by offender/offense characteristics of domestic 

violence cases (n=333) 

Percent 

dismissed/

dropped 

n=101 

Percent court 

diversion 

n=99 

Percent 

guilty 

disposition 

=133 

P-values for 

Fisher’s exact test 

P=0.05 

Column A B C A vs. B A vs. C 

Married 34.7 37.4 19.5 n.s 0.01

Prior crime (domestic 

or other) 

69.3 76.8 98.5 n.s. 0.00

Prior violent crime 48.5 38.4 72.9 n.s 0.00 

Prior jail 17.8 12.1 49.6 n.s 0.00 

Prior probation 45.5 36.4 77.4 n.s 0.00 

Prior restraining order 26.7 19.2 36.8 n.s n.s 

Prior DV crimes 20.8 20.0 38.3 n.s 0.00 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 33

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Table 6A: An examination of the proximately related variables in Table 6 

(N=333)

Variable P-value Odds Ratio

Coefficient 

sign 

Violent crimes and prior 

crime 

0.00 1.15 +

Violent crimes and jail 0.00 7.55 + 

Prior DV and probation 0.00 3.98 + 

Prior DV and violent crime 0.00 26.5 + 

Prior restraining order and 

prior jail 

0.00. 3.11 +

Coefficients and Standard Errors for Multivariate Logit Model Estimating a Guilty Disposition 

Variable Coeff StdErr p Variable name 

1 0.0399 0.0116 0.0006 Interaction of alcohol or drugs and age at first arrest 

2 -0.0577 0.0160 0.0003 age at first arrest 

3 0.7758 0.2582 0.0027 prior violent crime 

Odds Ratios and 95 percent Confidence Intervals for Multivariate Logit Model of a Guilty 

Disposition 

Variable Odds Ratio Low High Variable name 

1 1.0407 1.0174 1.0646 Interaction alcohol/drugs and age of first arrest 

2 0.9440 0.9148 0.9740 age of first arrest 

3 2.1723 1.3096 3.6034 prior violent crime 

The interpretation of the model is straightforward. The negative sign of the coefficient for 

“age at first arrest” indicates that men initially arrested at an older age are likely to have a 

minimal criminal record. These defendants receive lesser sanctions. However, age at first arrest 

and an alcohol or drug arrest contribute positively to the likelihood of a guilty verdict. The odds 

ratio swung from 0.94 for age at first arrest without a substance abuse arrest to 1.04 when age of 

first arrest co-occurred with a substance abuse arrest. Marriage, although it is significant in the 

bivariate relationship, loses its importance in the multivariate one, although the direction of the 

effect is to reduce the likelihood of a guilty verdict. This result might not hold in other 

jurisdictions in which prosecutors do not pursue evidence-based prosecutions. The district court 

prosecutors vigorously pursued cases in which women were reluctant to pursue the case or 

recanted. In addition, marital status was not known at the time of each arrest incident. 

Table 6B provides some illustrative probabilities of a guilty verdict based on the 

multivariate model. The court was likely to find guilty men who the police first arrested when 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 34

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

they were young, who previously committed violent crimes, and who had an arrest for drugs or 

alcohol. In contrast, an older man with a minimal record has only a small risk of a guilty 

disposition. 

Table 6B: Probability of guilty disposition in domestic violence case 

(n=333) 

Age at first 

arrest 

Interaction 

of age at first 

arrest and 

drugs/alcohol

Prior violent 

crime 

conviction 

Probability 

of guilty 

disposition 

15 yes yes 0.64

24 no no 0.24

46 no no 0.08

THE INITIAL COURT SENTENCE

If a man admitted his guilt in court or the court determined his guilt on the evidence, the 

court imposed either probation with or without a suspended sentence; or incarceration with or 

without a split sentence. 

Table 7 indicates that offender or offense characteristics have limited effects on 

distinguishing between these two categories of initial sentence. Prior incidents of probation, 

violent crime, and domestic violence were not important in deciding between a suspended 

sentence and incarceration. 

Proximately related or collinear variables are “prior restraining order” and “prior jail.” 

Victims of men who commit violent crimes are likely to request a civil restraining order from a 

court, and violent men are very likely to violate them subsequently. The odds ratio of a “prior 

restraining order” and “prior jail” is 3.16, (p-value = 0.00.) That is, the bivariate relationship 

between prior restraining order and incarceration reflects the underlying violence that caused the 

request for and the granting of the order. If there is no prior sentence of jail, the probability of a 

prior restraining order is 22 percent; if there was prior jail the probability is 47 percent. 

The single variable in Table 7 that distinguishes whether a man guilty of domestic 

violence will go to jail is whether the court previously sentenced him to jail. More specifically, if 

the court issued a guilty sentence, and he has a previous jail sentence and he committed a prior 

violent crime, his probability of returning to jail is 69 percent. If the court issued a guilty 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 35

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

sentence, but he has either no prior jail sentence or no prior violent crime, his probability of a jail 

sentence is 46 percent (p=0.009, odds ratio=2.6). The interaction variable is not significantly 

different from the effect of the variable “prior jail,” but it is a better description of the process 

given that violent men appropriately have an elevated probability of incarceration. 

Table 7: Sentences and offender/offense characteristics 

Offender or Offense 

Characteristic 

Percent 

probation/ 

suspended 

N=84 

Percent 

incarcerated/

Split 

N=49 

P-values for 

Fisher’s 

exact test 

P=0.05 

Column A Column B A vs. B 

Married 21.4 16.3 n.s

Prior Crime (domestic and 

other) 

98.9 98.0 n.s.

Prior Violence 69.1 79.6 n.s. 

Prior Jail 39.3 67.3 0.00 

Prior Probation 73.8 83.7 n.s. 

Prior restraining order 22.6 40.8 0.03 

Prior DV Crimes 32.1 46.9 n.s. 

The sentencing outcomes provide some insight as to why restraining orders appear to 

have little effect.49 Specifically, victims, based on their knowledge of the perpetrator’s prior 

criminal history or their threatening experiences with these men request restraining orders from

the court. The restraining order, a civil order in Massachusetts, is no more effective against a 

man’s continued violence than other previous actions of the court. In fact, 35 percent of the 

domestic violence rearrests were because of restraining order violations. Violation of a 

restraining order carries a maximum sentence of 2.5 years in a county correctional facility, as do 

other domestic abuse crimes. The court in adjudicating the recidivist case is aware of the man’s 

record of violence and the court’s previous responses to it. Within this process, the court is, at the 

margin, indifferent to a restraining order violation in light of the man’s previous behavioral 

response to criminal sanctions imposed by the court. That is, a restraining order violation, a 

criminal act, is not a significant variable in determining whether the court finds a man guilty, 

diverts the case, or dismisses it. Neither is a restraining order significant in determining the 

sanction the court imposes. 

 

49 Daniel Mears, Matthew Carlson, George Holden and Susan Harris, Reducing Domestic Violence Revictimization: 

The Effects of Individual and Contextual Factors and Types of Legal Intervention , Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, Vol. 16(no. 12) December 2001, 1260-1283 find that in their study protective orders did not prevent reabuse.. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 36

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

The sentences imposed on men whose cases had a guilty disposition were generally 

unrelated to the variables associated with the case disposition. This is not surprising. A man’s 

violent behavior and an earlier decision by the court that jail was required to contain this 

behavior importantly determined whether the offender returns to jail. 

FINAL COURT SENTENCE

Cases that initially concluded with a court disposition of continuation without a finding, 

probation, probation with a suspended sentence, or a split sentence may result in a jail term if the 

Court determines that the initial sentence has not controlled the violent behavior. Fifty-five 

percent of the men eligible for a more serious final disposition received one. 

Given that the initial guilty disposition may be conditional, the final disposition may be 

essentially a continuation of the case. A multivariate logit examination of whether the final 

disposition is jail finds that it is a function of the probability of an initial guilty disposition. A 

low probability of a guilty disposition, although the court concluded the man was guilty, 

importantly determined whether the court sentenced the man to jail. An additional variable is 

whether the man had a previous jail sentence. Clearly, the more likely an initial guilty 

disposition, the more likely that jail is the final or initial disposition. 

As noted earlier, a prior jail sentence in the multivariate logit analysis is not a significant 

variable in the determination of the initial guilty disposition, although a prior violent crime, such 

as domestic violence, is important. This is reasonable. The court should not determine current 

guilt on the basis of a prior sentence. When a man’s violence continues and the court revokes his 

initial conditional sentence, and he has a previous jail sentence, the court is likely to return the 

man to jail as the only judicial means of containing his behavior. 

Coefficients and Standard Errors of a Logit Model of the Final Court Sentence 

Variable Coeff. StdErr p Variable name 

1 4.6476 1.0874 0.0000 probability of initial disposition of guilt 

2 0.8699 0.3130 0.0055 prior sentence to jail. 

Odds Ratios and 95 percent Confidence Intervals of the Logit model of the Final Court Sentence 

Variable Odds Ratio Low High Variable name 

1 104.3291 12.3828 879.0053 probability of initial guilty disposition 

2 2.3866 1.2922 4.4079 prior jail sentence 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 37

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Chapter 5: Recidivism 

NEW OFFENSES AFTER THE INDEX OFFENSES—SOME ISSUES OF DEFINITION 

The majority of men committed new offenses after their index domestic violence offense. 

New offenses included all arrests that resulted in court arraignments after the index domestic 

violence arraignment. It was not always clear whether the new offenses were domestic violence 

crimes. The classifications for these new offenses are: 

“Known Domestic Violence;” 

“Probable Domestic Violence;” 

“Non-Domestic Violence.” 

Researchers confirmed the “known” domestic violence crimes by reviewing the paper 

criminal complaints in various court vaults. While Massachusetts does not have a separate crime

of “domestic violence” or “domestic assault” or designate the relationship of the victim in the 

charge, the criminal complaint lists the complaining witness and the addresses of suspects and 

victims and place of the offense. Researchers matched the name of the complaining witness with 

that of the study victim. If they matched, the complaint was determined to be domestic violence. 

If the victim’s name did not match but was a female living at the same address as the alleged 

suspect and her age was within fifteen years50 of the suspects, the crime was determined to be 

domestic violence. Finally, if the victim was female with a different address than the suspect but 

the crime occurred in either the suspect’s or the victim’s residence and the ages were proximate 

(within fifteen years), the crime was determined to be domestic violence. 

It is possible that some of some of the above cases will have included non-intimate 

partners of the defendant, including female relatives or family members. It is also possible that 

cases were excluded involving male partners although the police arrested all of the men initially 

for crimes against female partners. Additionally, some of the excluded cases may have involved 

male relatives. 

 

50 Age limits were included in order to insure that assaults against a defendant’s mother was not confused with an

intimate partner assault. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 38

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

A crime was listed as “probable domestic violence” if the subsequent arrest was for a 

crime against persons and the person was not specified as a “police officer or public servant” or 

other person who was obviously not an intimate partner of the suspect, including male victims. 

In addition, crimes against persons were excluded if accompanying charges indicated the crime 

took place in the context of a robbery or some other offense usually unrelated to typical domestic 

violence crimes and/or involved multiple victims and/or codefendants not typically associated 

with domestic violence. Although researchers were not able to confirm the relationships in these 

offenses due to their inability to access the specific complaints,

51 there are several reasons to 

believe these cases constitute domestic violence.

First, the majority of defendants with “probable domestic violence offenses” also had 

“known” subsequent domestic violence offenses. Sixty-three defendants with subsequent known 

domestic violence offenses also had “probable domestic violence offenses.” Second, only thirtyeight had subsequent “probable” domestic violence offense(s) only. However, nineteen of these 

defendants also had at least one subsequent restraining order taken out against them. In short, all 

but 19 of the defendants determined to have had subsequent “probable” domestic violence arrests 

had other court records confirming continued intimate partner or family abuse activity. 

Table 8: Number of domestic violence arrests per 

defendant 

Subsequent Domestic 

Violence Arrests per 

Defendant 

Number

Defendants 

0 98 

1 72

2 32

3 27

4 17

5 14

6 6

7 2

8 2

422 270

 

51 Some complaints were missing from courts or failed to include necessary information, or more often were

unavailable to researchers because they were located too far away across the state to view reach or were placed in

storage, as the specific court vault was too small to maintain complaints from the year of the new arrest. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 39

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

NEW OFFENSES AFTER THE INDEX OFFENSES

Subsequent to their index arraignment, the police rearrested seventy-one percent of the 

men at least once over the next nine years. Thirty-eight percent of the new arrests were for 

domestic violence; sixty-two percent of the arrests were for other crimes. (See Table 9) 

Table 9: Number of domestic violence and non-domestic violence arrests for 

each subsequent arrest following the index arrest 

Subsequent 

Arrest 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th

t

Total 

Total DV 

Arrests 109 81 68 51 28 22 25 16 10 3 4 2 3

4

422 

Non-DV

arrests 135 111 85 73 63 56 33 33 28 27 18 17 11 90

Total New 

Arrests 244 192 153 124 91 78 58 49 38 30 22 19 14 1,112

Including their index arrest in 1995/1996, the police arrested forty-one percent of the men 

for domestic violence crimes only. During the subsequent nine years, the police rearrested 18 

percent of the men solely for domestic violence crimes; the police arrested 82 percent for other 

crimes as well as domestic violence crimes. Table 10 indicates the distribution of the other 

crimes. 

Table 10: Non-domestic violence re-arrests 

Offense Percent of Arrests 

Major Motor Vehicle 21 

Property 28

Drugs/Alcohol 35

Person (Not DV) 7 

Public Order 7 

Sex 1

The survival curve (Figure 1, p.41) indicates the sharp drop-off in arrests for men who 

committed only DV crimes. Within one year of their index arrest, the police continued to arrest 

approximately 20 percent of the men. In contrast, the police continued to arrest approximately 84 

percent of the men who continued to commit other crimes as well as domestic violence crimes. 

The hazard ratio of men who committed only domestic violence crimes to those generally 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 40

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

criminal is 0.351. The men who committed only domestic violence crimes, but did not commit 

other crimes desisted more quickly than men who were generally criminal. 

Comparison of continuing arrests for men who

commit only DV crimes and men who commit

DV and other crimes

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

0

25

50

75

100

DV crimes only

Figure 1

DV + other crimes

elapsed time in years

Percent s

urviv

al

 A logistic analysis indicates some of the differences between men who the police 

rearrested and those who desisted from crime. Multiple characteristics mark the men who the 

police rearrested. Early criminal involvement, substance abuse, commission of a prior violent 

crime, and an inability to stay within the bounds of an initial court penalty, such as probation or a 

suspended sentence, marked the recidivists. On the other hand, the police were less likely to 

rearrest married men and men who were older at the time of their first arrest. 

 Table 11 provides illustrative probabilities based on the multivariate logit model of the 

probability of recidivism based on the offender’s behavior. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 41

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Table 11: Probability of recidivism based on logistic model 

Age at first 

arrest 

Alcohol/drug 

and age 

interaction Married

Prior 

Violent 

crime 

Final case 

disposition more 

severe 

Probability of 

recidivism

19 Yes No Yes Yes 0.99

25 Yes Yes No No 0.57

19 No Yes No No 0.38

46 No Yes No No 0.13

Coefficients and Standard Errors. of Logit Model of the Probability of Recidivism. 

Variable Coeff. StdErr p Variable name

1 2.9563 1.0239 0.0039 Court imposes a more severe final case disposition 

2 -0.8609 0.2958 0.0036 Marital status 

 3 0.0478 0.0118 0.0001 Age at first arrest and an alcohol/drug arrest 

 4 -0.0507 0.0147 0.0006 Age at first arrest 

 5 0.6757 0.2853 0.0179 Violent crime 

Odds Ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals of the Logit Model of the Probability of Recidivism. 

Variable O.R. Low -- High Variable name

 1 19.2269 2.5842 143.0485 Court imposes a more severe final case disposition 

 2 0.4228 0.2368 0.7550 Marital status 

 3 1.0490 1.0250 1.0736 Age at first arrest and an alcohol/drug arrest 

 4 0.9505 0.9234 0.9784 Age at first arrest 

 5 1.9655 1.1236 3.4383 Violent crime 

Men who the police rearrest only for domestic violence crimes are different from men 

who the police arrest for a variety of crimes including domestic violence. A logit analysis finds 

that men who commit a variety of crimes are more likely to have a more severe final disposition 

of their case and have an arrest at an early age and a drug and alcohol arrest. Marriage, previous 

violent crime conviction, and the man’s age at first arrest unrelated to substance abuse do not 

help to distinguish these two groups of criminals. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 42

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Coefficients and Standard Errors for logit analysis of DV recidivists and recidivists who commit 

DV + other crimes 

 Variable Coeff. StdErr p Variable name

 1 -1.6760 0.6247 0.0073 Court imposes a more severe final case disposition 

 2 -0.0312 0.0152 0.0398 Age at first arrest and an alcohol/drug arrest 

Odds Ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals for logit analysis of DV recidivists and recidivists 

who commit DV + other crimes 

 Variable O.R. Low -- High Variable name

 1 0.1871 0.0550 0.6367 Court imposes a more severe final case disposition 

 2 0.9693 0.9409 0.9986 Age at first arrest and an alcohol/drug arrest 

TIME TO RE-ARREST 

Table 12 illustrates part of the pattern of criminal behavior of this cohort of domestic 

violence offenders over time. Several features are prominent. The most striking is that this cohort 

of men engaged in a lot of criminal activity in the nine years following the offender’s index 

arrest in 1995-1996. Even after twelve arrests, police continued to arrest 23 members of the 

cohort. Police consistently rearrested more than 40 percent of the offenders for their next crime 

in less than six months. 

Table 12: Distribution of Rearrest of the Offender Cohort by Time to Next Arrest 

A distinct pattern is that the courts operate at a quite different pace than the criminals. 

Approximately 50 percent of the men recidivated before their previous crime was disposed. As 

noted earlier, the time from the initial arraignment to the initial disposition averaged 259 days, 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 43

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

the median time was 196 days. This difference in pace presents the courts with a difficult 

problem of public safety management. 

NEW RESTRAINING ORDERS

One hundred thirty-five of the men had at least one restraining order taken out against 

them by an intimate partner or family member after their index arraignment.52 As indicated by 

Table 14, a little more than a third of the men against whom the court issued a restraining order 

had more than one taken out against them subsequent to their index arrest. 

Exhibit 5: Multiple arrests 

● Offender 11, The court arraigned Offender 11 in 1995 for assault and battery on 

his intimate partner. On that day, he pled guilty and the court sentenced him to a one 

year suspended sentenced. Three months later, the police arrested him for another 

assault and battery. The court gave him a concurrent one-year suspended sentence, 

which the court revoked in 1996 and ordered him to a county correctional facility for a 

year. The police arrested him nine years later in 2004 for possession. The case is

pending. 

● Offender 12, The court arraigned this offender in 1995 for violating a restraining 

order against his intimate partner. He admitted that day. The court ordered him to five 

months in a county correctional facility, concurrent with a year sentence that another 

court imposed in 1995 for a prior assault and battery. The police arrested him nine years 

later in 2004 for assault and battery of a police officer. However, the defendant had not 

remained in the community during the interim. Prior to his incarceration for the study 

offense and the offense immediately preceding it, the court convicted him for armed 

assault in 1993 and sentenced him to 8-12 years in state prison concurrent with a twentyyear prison sentence imposed against him in 1988 for armed assault in a dwelling house 

and rape. During that incarceration, the court in 1994 charged him with assault and 

battery on a correctional officer. The court sentenced him in 1998 – after the study 

offense—to 2.5 years in prison. Consequently, although the defendant remained arrest 

free until 2004, he spent most of that time in state prison for prior offenses, including 

offense committed while in prison!53

● Offender 13, The court arraigned this offender in 1995 for threats and assault and 

batter with a dangerous weapon, a lit cigarette, against his intimate partner. The court 

dismissed the case, as he had no prior criminal history. The police arrested him once 

more in 1995, twice in 1996, four times in 1997, once in 1998, twice in 1999, and then not 

again until September 2003, more than three years later. Before that, the police arrested

him in intervals between 7 and 331 days. 

 

52 After 1997, only restraining orders recorded in the District Court Clerk’s Office were included. 53 State criminal histories do not include data from parole so it is not known how much, if any, of the sentence was 

served under parole release. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 44

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Exhibit: 6 Rearrests came quickly 

Offender 14, The police arrested Offender 14 for violating a restraining order; the

court arraigned him in 1995 on that charge, trespassing, and assault with a knife against 

a girlfriend. With that case pending, the court arraigned him again ion 1995 for 

threatening the same victim, violating the restraining order and assault with an 

unspecified dangerous weapon. Five days later with that case pending, the court 

arraigned him for trespassing and violating the order again. While all three charges were 

pending, the court arraigned him twice more the next month for threatening and assault 

and battery respectively. With all five charges pending, another court arraigned him the 

next month for operating a motor vehicle without a license. That same month, the District 

Court arraigned him for another restraining order violation. The next month the District 

Court disposed of the cases. The Court sentenced him to 24 months in a county 

correctional facility, six months committed, the balance suspended. 

The following April the Court revoked the suspended sentence for a technical 

violation of probation and sentenced him to the remaining 18 months in the county 

correctional facility 

The Court arraigned him again in 2002, for indecent assault on a child under 14 but 

the prosecutor did not pursue it. However, in 2002, the court arraigned him for another 

violation of a restraining order in Stoughton and he was eventually jailed again for 60 

days in 2003. With that case pending before the court, the court arraigned him for 

violating a restraining order in Dedham the next month. The court disposed of that case 

the day before the Stoughton case and the Court sentenced him to six month suspended 

sentence. There have been no new court arraignments since his release from jail in 

2003. 

The same victim took out fifty-four percent of the restraining orders. Different female 

intimate partners requested forty-one percent of the orders; non-intimate family members took 

out four percent of the restraining orders. By the second subsequent order, the majority of filers 

were different victims from the initial study victims. 

Table 13: Breakdown of new restraining order by number of 

defendants 

Restraining 

Orders 

Number of 

Defendants 

One 87

Two 29

Three 15

Four 2

Five 1

Seven 1

Total 135

Victims filed twenty-eight percent of the subsequent restraining orders before the initial 

disposition of the index arrest and fifty-two percent of the victims took out orders before the final 

disposition of the index case. Clearly, the arrest did not make the victims feel safe from violence. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 45

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

VIOLATIONS OF RESTRAINING ORDERS

Table 14 indicates that a little more than one third of the new domestic violence arrests 

were for violations of restraining orders. Domestic violence arrests made up of a little more than 

a third of all new arrests. 

Table 14: All, Domestic Violence, and Restraining Order Violation Arrests 

At least (n) 

additional 

Arrests 

Total 

additional 

arrests 

Additional 

DV Arrests 

Additional 

DV arrests 

that were 

RO arrests 

Add’l DV 

arrests as 

percent of 

total add’l 

arrests 

RO arrests 

as percent of

add’l DV 

arrests 

0 0 0 0 -na- 0

1 244 109 52 44.7 47.7

2 191 82 29 42.9 35.4

3 154 68 23 44.1 33.8

4 124 51 11 41.1 21.6

5 191 29 10 15.2 34.5

6 78 22 4 28.2 18.2

7 67 25 6 37.3 24.0

8 48 16 4 33.3 25.0

9 38 10 5 26.3 50.0

10 31 6 3 19.3 50.0

Total 1,166 418 147* 35.8 35.2

*Police arrested twelve defendants for more than one restraining order violation. 

DESISTANCE FROM CRIME

The study examined the length of the criminal careers of the men using Cox Proportional 

Hazard analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. In these analyses, the question is for how 

many years did the police continue to arrest these men. Some desisted before the study ended in 

2004, others the police continued to arrest in 2004, the last year of the study. They gave no 

evidence of stopping their criminal activity. 

The Cox proportional hazard model finds that men in the cohort, who the court convicted 

of an alcohol or drug crime or a violent crime, were less likely to desist by the end of the study. 

The hazard ratios of these two variables were 0.98 (p=.000) and 0.68 (p=.002) respectively. The 

older a man was at his first arrest the more likely he was to desist before the end of the study; the 

hazard ratio is 1.05 (p=0.00). Marital status was an insignificant variable, but marital status was 

not measured at each arrest. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 46

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Manifestly, if the court convicted a man for a violent crime or a substance abuse crime or 

both before the police arrest him for his index domestic assault, he is an unlikely candidate for 

rapid desistance. Specifically, in a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the analysis defined one 

group of criminals as those the court convicted of a violent crime, a substance abuse crime, or 

both. The second group of criminals the court did not convict of a violent crime, a substance 

abuse crime, or both. The hazard ratio of the two groups of criminals was 0.523; non-violent and 

non-substance abusing men arrested for domestic assault had a much greater likelihood of 

stopping their criminal activity and hence having shorter criminal careers than men arrested for 

violent, substance abusing crimes. Figure 2 maps the survival curve. The men who were not 

arrested for substance abuse or a violent crime had a median criminal career of 11 years; men 

arrested for substance abuse, a violent crime or both had a median criminal career length of 20 

years. Only 6 percent of the men in this latter group were criminal for one year or less, while 25 

percent of the men without prior arrests for violent crimes or substance abuse desisted within one 

year. These are large differences. Furthermore, the police arrested 75 percent of the men for prior 

violence or substance abuse crimes or both. It is notable that although the men not arrested for 

substance abuse or violent crimes had a shorter length of criminal career, their criminal activity 

continued for several years. 

Figure 2: Proportion of cohort continuing to be arrested

after fi rst arrest

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

25

50

75

100

violence/SA arrest

no viol./

SA arrest

l ength of crime career

percent

survival

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 47

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Men arrested for violent crimes, substance abuse or both had a median age of 18 at their 

first arrest;

54 28 was the median age at first arrest for men charged with nonviolent crimes prior 

to their index domestic violence crime. Police stopped arresting less violent criminals at the 

median age of 34; they stopped arresting violent criminals at the median age of 39. This modest 

difference hides the large difference in the number of years of criminality of the two groups. 

A second Kaplan-Meier survival analysis that started with the index arrests found 

analogous results. (See Figure 3, page 49.) Criminal activity, for men who did not have prior 

involvement with violence or substance abuse or both, largely stopped after their index arrest. 

The median length of time to desistance for this less violent group was 0.5 years; criminal 

activity for men involved in prior violence and substance abuse crimes or both stopped after a 

median time of 5 years. This is a large difference. One should be mindful, however, that the men 

who did not desist quickly after their index arrest continued to desist slowly over the next 9 

years. The hazard ratio was 0.602 (p=0.000) 

These analyses suggest that batterers divide into at least two groups: those with criminal 

careers fueled by substance abuse in a culture of violence and those men who were less involved 

in substance abuse and generally less violent. The men in the second group had significantly 

shorter criminal careers. Insofar as arrest records indicate, violence is not a continuing 

characteristic of their behavior. Neither is substance abuse. Fifty-nine percent of the men in the 

less violent group desisted after their index arrest and only 25 percent of the men in the violentsubstance abusing group stopped their criminal activity after their index arrest. 

Jeffrey Fagan, in his discussion of cessation from domestic violence, categorically states that 

batterers will not desist without court intervention.55 Nancy Shields and Christine Hanneke in 

their study of batterers did not find anyone who desisted spontaneously. If these authors are 

correct, and this study provides evidence that they are, then a major proportion of batterers are 

persistent criminals. This study suggests that it may be reasonable to state an even stronger 

hypothesis than do Fagan, or Shields and Hanneke. Specifically, batterers will persist in their 

criminal activity especially if they are involved in violence and substance abuse, even though the 

police arrest them repeatedly. Those who are not so involved may respond positively. Although 

 

54This median criminal career starting age is probably too high given that many of these men started as juveniles 

whose records are not accessible. 55 Fagan, op. cit

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 48

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

this is not a study of desistance,56 and it examines a single cohort of men arrested for domestic 

violence, the study provides evidence that a major proportion of arrested batterers are 

persistently violent, substance abusing criminals. 

Figure 3: Proportion of cohort continuing to be arrested

1995-2004 with and without previous viol ence or substance abuse

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

0

25

50

75

100

prev.violence/SA

no prev.

violence/SA

Time

Percent s

urvival

There are several operational implications of these outcomes. First, police, prosecutors, 

and judges must reframe the crime of domestic assault. The judicial system should recognize 

domestic assault as a crime often perpetrated by persistently criminal men. The court can readily 

identify these men. Courts should pursue evidence-based prosecutions and aim for a high rate of 

prosecution. State legislatures should enact domestic violence felony enhancement legislation so 

that courts can better deal with the persistently violent. Local courts need to develop efficient 

mechanisms to enhance misdemeanor domestic assault cases to felony status. When men are 

persistent criminals, batterer intervention programs cannot expect to be successful. Probation, 

also, cannot expect to be successful. Substantial jail or prisons terms will increase public safety 

and provide an opportunity for these men to participate in intensive programs of habilitation. 

 

56 A criminal desistance study needs to include a richer data source than was available for this study. In addition, it 

needs to include persons who had criminal potential, but never exercised it. Specifically, the researcher needs to

address the implicit selection problem. Not all persons who manifest criminal attributes become criminals. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 49

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

 Federal, state, and county governments now support RSAT (Residential Substance 

Abuse Programs) programs. Corrections officials should include batterers in these programs, 

especially given that many are substance abusers. Opportunities for intensive habilitation are a 

necessary part of any incarceration; deterrence alone will not reduce recidivism. These 

habilitative efforts cannot operate successfully as community programs. Good RSAT-type 

programs are intensive efforts that engage the volunteering inmates 40 hours a week for six to 

nine months. Such programs are much more intensive than once a week, evening batterer 

programs. This means that jail sentences must be sufficiently long to allow the men to complete 

the program. Corrections officials should require program completion for participants prior to 

granting eligibility for parole. Finally, after release the corrections agencies should continue 

maintenance habilitative programs in the community. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 50

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Chapter 6: Conclusions 

The adjudication of domestic violence is a complex process involving court processes 

with many paths. The court is also part of a disjointed criminal justice system composed of 

multiple agencies each with their own budget and individual agency objectives. This chapter 

examines some of the complexities of the court process that the statistical analysis presented in 

the earlier chapters does not adequately capture. The men arrested for domestic violence in the 

study cohort were generally antisocial and persistently criminal. The police arrested seventy-five 

percent of these assaulting men for substance abuse crimes and violent crimes or both, including 

domestic violence. Their domestic abuse was part of their general criminal activity. A priori it is 

unlikely that that deterrence alone or deterrence combined with batterer treatment will remediate 

these men. 

The men in the cohort commonly engaged in a new crime before the courts disposed of 

an earlier one. It was a coin toss as to whether these men would commit a new crime before the 

disposition of their previous case. The commission of a new crime before the disposition of the 

previous one had no discernible effect on the court’s behavior and often worked to the advantage 

of the criminal insofar as the court disposed of the previous case or cases concurrently and the 

court’s sentence remained unaffected; the criminal got one sentence for two (or more) crimes. 

The statistical analysis provides a synoptic view of prosecution, initial and final judicial 

disposition of the crimes, and recidivism of the 342 men. The statistical analysis in the previous 

chapters finds that there is consistency in how the court responded to domestic violence criminal 

cases. The identifiable consistency of the court and its application of deterrence responses such 

as probation, suspended sentences, split sentences and jail, contrasts with the lengthy criminal 

records accumulated by many members of the cohort. Deterrence, while helping to contain 

criminal behavior is, by itself, an insufficient response 

Although the analysis demonstrates considerable consistency, the case outcomes do not 

perfectly reflect the independent variables. The following discussion of the repeat patterns of 

crime and sentencing indicates that although the likelihood of an offender recidivating may be 

very high, the court, when the criminal does recidivate, often disposes of the case initially with a 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 51

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

suspended sentence or other probationary sentence, even though the estimated likelihood is 

greater than 50 percent that the court, in its final disposition, will order the offender to jail. 

The analysis in the study indicates that there are distinct differences between criminals 

who are likely to recidivate and those who probably will not. The court, as discussed in the 

chapter on court processes, identifies these men and prosecutes domestic violence criminals who 

are likely to recidivate. If the Court has not ordered men to jail, the Court’s habilitative efforts to 

control domestic violence recidivism are generally limited to ordering men to batterer 

intervention programs. As a result, given the high likelihood of recidivism, the court exposes 

victims to excess levels of risk and it manages public safety less forcefully than it might. 

Table 15 provides an illustration of this result. The Table examines the sentencing record 

of nine recidivists. The estimated probabilities, based on earlier logit estimates, are very high that 

these men would recidivate. The likelihood that jail is the final disposition is also generally over 

fifty percent, but the initial dispositions do not always reflect these expectations. 

Table 15: Sentences of Repeat Domestic Violence Offenders who were

initially jailed for the index arrest 

Initial recidivist sentences

Defendant 

Estimated 

Rearrest 

Probability 

Probability 

final 

disposition 

is jail 

1st new 

domestic 

violence 

2nd 3rd 4th 5th

1 0.99 0.55 Dismissed

2 0.89 0.57 Suspended Suspended Suspended

3 0.89 0.57 Suspended Split Dismissed Default

4 0.70 0.25 Dismissed Not Guilty

5 0.77 0.56 Jail

6 0.89 0.58 Jail Suspended Jail Jail Jail

7 0.83 0.45 Jail

8 0.89 0.38 Suspended Jail Jail Jail Dismissed 

9 0.90 0.62 Suspended Pending

Importantly, the court, in time, sentenced most men in Table 15 who had initial 

suspended sentences to jail as the final disposition of their case. Table 15 does not include the 

non-domestic violence crimes for which the court sentenced the men to jail. For example, the 

court jailed defendant Number 5 several more times for non-domestic crimes. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 52

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Table 15 does not tell the entire story. Exhibit 7 provides additional context. Exhibit 7 

illustrates that those consistently re-sentenced to jail did not necessarily receive lengthier 

sentences, the court often chose to allow the offender to serve concurrent sentences for multiple 

crimes, or was constrained in the administration of its deterrence of chronic criminal behavior by 

the 2.5-year limitation on misdemeanor sentences. 

Exhibit 7: Sentencing of Chronic Abuser 

Offender 15, The police first arrested this offender on drug and alcohol charges when he 

was 15 years old. The court incarcerated him for six months in 1985 for assault and 

battery with a dangerous weapon. The victim is unnamed. The court jailed him for two 

years in 1989 for receiving stolen property and breaking and entering. The court 

subsequently reduced the sentence to 22 months. The court sentenced him to a sixmonth incarceration in 1990 for assaulting a corrections officer. The court sentenced him 

for 2.5 years for his first domestic violence charges, violations of a restraining order, 

among other charges in 1990. The court jailed him for two months for another violation of 

a restraining order in 1991. The court again ordered him to jail in 1994 for one year for 

threats and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. The victim is unnamed. 

In 1995, the District Court issued a split sentence for three violations of a restraining 

order, 18 months, three months committed, and the remainder suspended. Police 

arrested him for another violation of the order in the district after his release. However, 

because he requested a jury trial, the court did not sentence him to 18 months 

incarceration until 1996. In the interim, police arrested him for an assault and battery and 

restraining order violation in Brockton. The court issued a suspended sentence of one 

year in 1996. 

Police arrested him for a non-domestic offense four months later in Brockton for 

operating a car negligently, malicious destruction of property, a motor vehicle that he 

knew was stolen and resisting arrest. The court ordered him to jail for two years in 1997. 

Two years later the court issued a suspended sentence for operating with a 

suspended license, but the court committed him to another year in jail the following year 

for assault with a dangerous weapon, a motor vehicle. Police then charged him in 2002 

for a subsequent domestic violence offense, multiple counts of violating a restraining 

order, breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony, threats, 

intimidation of a witness, and assault and battery. The Brockton Court sentenced him to 

2.5 years. With that case pending, police arrested him in Hingham two months later for 

two more restraining order violations. The court issued a six-month sentence; however, it 

was concurrent with the sentence imposed in Brockton for the immediate prior domestic

violence offense. 

On the day the court sentenced him on the Brockton domestic violence case to 2.5 

years, the Brockton Court arraigned him for threats to murder and three more restraining 

order violations. The court incarcerated him for these, his fifth new domestic violence 

charge following the index study domestic violence charge. These he served concurrently 

with the prior charges. 

As in Exhibit 7, although the court sentenced the defendant to incarceration for four of 

his five new domestic violence offenses committed following his first incarceration for the index 

domestic violence charge, three of the sentences were concurrent, implicitly giving him two 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 53

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

sanction-free crimes of domestic violence. Specifically, the defendant received a year sentence 

for his index domestic violence, assault and battery with a beer bottle, assault and battery, and 

two restraining order violations. The offender served these sentences concurrently with those 

imposed on another domestic violence case of threats, and two counts of assault and battery that 

arose two months earlier. Prosecutors and judges seem reluctant to “pile” one sentence on top of 

another even though the sentences are for different offenses. 

Although in Exhibit 7 the defendant’s last sentence imposed was 2.5 years, the maximum

misdemeanor sentence allowed in Massachusetts, that sentence represented only six more 

months incarcerated than first sentence imposed against him thirteen years earlier for a nondomestic offense. In addition, he received the same sentence for his first known domestic 

violence offense in 1990. 

Jail sentences are unlikely to deter persistently assaulting criminals. State legislatures can 

respond to this problem by passing a domestic violence felony enhancement law, in which 

repeated convictions for domestic violence elevates subsequent domestic violence offenses to a 

felony and enables the State to extend the period of incarceration. 

On the other hand, the court was not likely to decide on increased punishment when the 

time between arrests increased. It appears that the prosecutors and judges assume that the length 

between arrests indicates good behavior as opposed to unacknowledged crime.57 It is common to 

find gaps of one or more years between domestic violence offenses. This, of course, does not 

mean the abuser in the interim desisted from abuse. It may be a testament to the reluctance of 

women to use and reuse police services, or dissatisfaction with the ability of the courts to provide 

victim safety or other needed services engendered by abuse. On the other hand, it may also mean 

that even months of desistance does not guarantee future cessation of abuse. 

The research makes clear the general criminal behavior of most arrested abusers. In order 

to understand the nature and extent of criminal justice and other interventions for domestic 

violence, it is necessary to study these activities within the broader context of an abuser’s general 

criminal behavior. Ignoring the context of a man’s general criminality, the jailing of a specific 

abuser for several months may appear to represent a severe sentence. That sentence may be 

 

57 Research suggests, however, victims do not report many abuse incidents to the police and only a minority of them

result in court prosecutions National Crime Victim Survey 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 54

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

lenient, however, given that the court previously sentenced the same man to many years in prison 

for a prior, non-intimate assault. The research found the court’s guarded response to repeat 

domestic violence offenses was a likely source of increased variance in the case outcomes, and 

added to the problem of victim safety. 

This longitudinal study illustrates the limits of a model court on domestic violence. The 

Ford Foundation awarded the Court’s domestic violence program a $100,000 Innovations in 

American Government Award in 1992. The study outcomes reflect importantly the vigor of the 

model court. Unlike the prosecution behavior in many courts, the prosecutors strongly pursued 

domestic violence cases including pursuit of cases in which the victim did not wish to testify or 

recanted. Courts in other jurisdictions may not be as positively consistent in terms of the Court’s 

pattern of prosecution, conviction, and sentencing. 

In addition, there are other contextual differences. Restraining orders in Massachusetts 

are separate civil actions rather than criminal orders issued at arraignment. Massachusetts law 

allows the courts to sentence a defendant to 2.5 years in a county correctional facility, which is 

longer than in most other states. The State has neither a domestic violence felony enhancement 

statute, nor a specific domestic violence statute. 

At the end of the previous chapter, the study discussed the need for courts to increase the 

number of men incarcerated for sufficient periods that they have an opportunity for extended 

habilitation within the jail or prison system. In turn, correctional systems need to expand 

intensive habilitative programs available to inmates. Courts and correctional systems should 

support the inclusion of these men in strong post-release reentry programs. Because effective 

habilitative programs are intensive, community programs are not likely to be effective without a 

period of habilitation in a secure facility. Given the lengthy criminal careers of these men and the 

costs they impose on the criminal justice system, the community, and individuals such a “new 

model” approach may provide measurable net benefits. 

. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 55

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Bibliography 

Belknap, J., Grahm, D., Allen, P., Hartman, J., Lippen, V. & Sutherland, J. 

(October/November 1999). Predicting court outcomes in intimate partner violence cases; 

Preliminary findings. Domestic Violence Report 5 (1). 

Davis, R., Smith, B. & Nickles, L. (July 1998). The deterrent effect of prosecuting domestic 

violence misdemeanors, Crime & Delinquency 44 (3), 434-442. 

Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA:

Thomson/Wadsworth. 

National Criminal Victimization Survey (1994). Washington DC: Government Printing Office. 

Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (March 2001).An evaluation of efforts to 

implement no-drop policies: Two central values in conflict, final report. American Bar 

Association Criminal Justice Section, State Justice Institute. 

Ventura, L. & Davis, G. (October 2004). Domestic Violence: Court Case Conviction and 

Recidivism in Toledo. Toledo, OH: Urban Affairs Center, University of Toledo. 

A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned at Quincy Court 56

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.