Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of gender in intimate partner violence (IPV) and, based upon the author’s experience as an expert witness, 25 years of clinical experience working with IPV perpetrators and victims, and a review of the relevant scholarly literature, provide judges, attorneys, mental health professionals and expert court witness suggestions for the adjudication of cases involving IPV in homicide and other cases.

The author reviewed the extant general domestic violence research literature, depending largely on results from findings from the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project, a series of 17 literature review published in five issues of the peer-reviewed journal, Partner Ause. Other relevant research articles were found via a search of the PschInfo database, using the keywords “intimate partner homicides,” “domestic violence homicides,” “intimate partner homicides and gender” and “domestic violence homicides and gender.”

The judicial response to IPV perpetration has been limited by common misconceptions, among them the confusion between most forms of IPV, which are primarily bi-directional and less consequential and battering, which involves more serious assaults and is typically motivated out of a desire to dominate and control one’s partner. Another misconception is that women are much more likely than men to perpetrate IPV in self-defense or to express emotion. On the other hand, there is no question that female victims are much more likely to experience severe physical injuries, and that women account for approximately three-quarters of homicide victims.

These include the following: this concise review of IPV research provides a clearer understanding of IPV, useful for anyone working in the field. Mental health professionals working with IPV perpetrators, as well as victims, can draw from this research best practice suggestions in working with more problematic cases. The paper should be especially useful to anyone involved in the adjudication of IPV cases, including lethal cases. In particular, prosecutors and attorneys working for the defense are given suggestions on how to obtain more reliable research data, choose more fruitful questions for their clients, and better conceptualize a case overall.

This paper presents a more nuanced and evidence-based conceptualization of serious and lethal IPV, drawing on a broad research base not generally available to members of the legal profession.

The purpose of this study is to provide a review of research on the merits of public policy and law enforcement responses to intimate partner violence (IPV) in the USA using prevalence rates and dynamics of IPV.

A reading of recent comprehensive literature reviews was supplemented by a PsychInfo search of relevant articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

Laws against IPV in the USA have been enforced much more vigorously in comparison with most of the world, many of which have no such laws at all. While more perpetrators have been held accountable for their actions – increasing the safety of victims – many perpetrators are never brought to justice, and “mandatory arrest” laws sometimes result in arrests being made with a scant evidence of wrongdoing. This state of affairs can be traced two key factors. First, the persistence of the gender paradigm – an outdated and discredited set of assumptions about the role of gender in IPV – as formulated by battered women’s advocates, which has informed IPV public policy for several decades. Second, the complex nature of IPV, a phenomenon that mostly happens behind closed doors, varies widely in frequency, intensity, mutuality and impact on victims, and it cannot easily be framed in binary victim/perpetrator terms.

The arrest and prosecution of possibly innocent individuals is in violation of due process and mitigates against our common efforts to reduce IPV in our communities.

A compact summary of the relevant IPV policy literature is presented with a focus on an under-studied topic, i.e. the problems inherent in the categorization of individuals as either victims or perpetrators and the failure to recognize the inherently complex nature of IPV.

The purpose of this paper is to improve the understanding of how collaboration agreements function and their benefits for the environments where they are implemented. The goal of these initiatives is to bring together in partnerships the actors concerned by domestic violence and coordinate their actions to ensure the safety of persons at risk of intrafamilial homicides through an effective collaboration structure.

The synthesis data originates from four research projects research work with the partners of four studied agreements: A-GIR (Arrimage-Groupe d’Intervention Rapide [Rapid Intervention Unit]) in Laval, Alerte-Lanaudière [Lanaudière Alert] in the Lanaudière region, P.H.A.R.E. (Prévention des homicides intrafamiliaux par des Actions Rapides et Engagées [Domestic Homicide Prevention through Rapid and Committed Action]) in South Western Montérégie and the Rabaska Protocol in Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

Overall, the interveners agree on the positive impacts resulting from the relationships between the partners, the development of a common expertise and the collective responsibility acting to prevent intrafamilial homicides, while highlighting the challenges met and the essential conditions for the success of these collaboration initiatives.

Findings are drawn from participants in a particular locale – i.e. French–Canada, and may not entirely apply to other regions and cultures. Additional research should be conducted with similar methodology in other regions of Canada and elsewhere.

The findings should help in the further development of best practices for IPH prevention and therefore protect potential victims from lethal assaults of domestic violence.

Few studies have been conducted on how stakeholders involved in IPH prevention actually work together in collaborative efforts, and none, as far as we know, specifically on drawing up formal agreements.

In Western, industrial nations, there is a high level of gender symmetry in intimate partner abuse. Nevertheless, efforts to reduce domestic violence have been stymied by public policies that favour rigid, feminist models based on flawed theories of patriarchy, and that stereotype males as perpetrators and females as victims. The treatment model advanced in this paper, developed by the author and used in his family violence clinic near San Francisco, California, is based on an accumulated body of research evidence on the etiology and characteristics of intimate partner abuse. Partner abuse cannot be fully understood without considering that the family typically involves mutual dynamics, and requires interventions based on a systemic assessment and understanding of each case. In this model, all modalities may be utilised, and treatment proceeds in a three‐phase approach to maximise both treatment effectiveness and victim safety.

If child custody decisions are based on erroneous beliefs, family courts may not be acting in the best interests of children. This study examined family court professionals' beliefs about family violence. Respondents (N = 410) of diverse professions, including child custody mediators, evaluators, and therapists, family law attorneys and judges, victim advocates and university students, completed a 10‐item multiple‐choice quiz. Results revealed low rates of correct responding, with respondents correctly answering approximately three out of 10 items on average, based on current research in the field. Overall, response rates were highly consistent with the discredited patriarchal paradigm. Shelter workers and victim advocates had the lowest average score, and men were found to have slightly higher scores than women. More troubling, students' scores were not significantly lower than those of family court professionals. Implications are discussed with respect to decision‐making in the context of child custody disputes.

Holding domestic violence perpetrators accountable for their abusive behavior is the number one objective of batterer intervention programs (BIPs), typically consisting of same‐sex psychoeducational counseling groups. However, such programs have been found to be only marginally successful in reducing recidivism rates. To be more effective, programs need to take into account the complexities of intimate partner violence. The purpose of this article is to offer clinicians working in the field of partner violence suggestions to help them enlist client cooperation and teach responsibility while taking into account the prevalence of mutual abuse dynamics.

The article draws on findings from the research literature as well as the author's 20 years of clinical experience conducting domestic violence offender treatment groups for both men and women.

Among individuals court‐mandated to batterer intervention, many are involved in mutually‐abusive relationships. Emerging literature indicates that some are also primarily victims. This poses a dilemma for batterer intervention group facilitators, who must work within a legal framework in which individuals are deemed to be either perpetrators or victims.

Implications of this article for partner violence policy and practice include a need for more flexible, evidence‐based laws on partner violence.

There are few practice articles on working with the various forms of abuse dynamics within a clinical setting, and this is the first that is focused on group treatment. The article should be of value to clinicians working directly with domestic violence perpetrators and victims, as well as to the policy makers who conceptualize, create and fund these programs.